Is climate change risk an invention of self interested and stupid?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ARDY, Dec 24, 2019.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it isn't. It stopped declining in 2012. Your claims are just flat, outright false as a matter of objective physical fact:

    [​IMG]
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, the earth did warm strongly in the 20th century because solar activity was at a sustained, multi-millennium high and the earth was returning to more normal Holocene temperatures after the coldest 600 years in the last 10,000. But the steep increase after 2012 shown on your graph (source?) is fake data, as proved by the increase in arctic sea ice since then.
     
  3. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  4. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Someone who can't understand something as basic as noise on a trend has no business lecturing normal people on "empiracal science". You constantly fail hard at the basics.
     
  5. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In order to pull off the condescending act, you can't constantly fail at all the science. That's why you look ridiculous when you try.

    But since the data contradicts your theory, that doesn't matter. Your "It's the sun!" theory is just plain wrong.

    Actually, I asked what your theory of climate was, and what hard data would disprove it. You never responded with a theory of what's driving climate. You gave a half-hearted "it's the sun!", then abandoned that when it was so easily debunked. So, you're still firmly in the pseudoscience realm, since you haven't even provided a coherent theory. Again, invoking unnamed magic natural factors and waving your hands around wildly is not a theory.

    I accept your mastery of data faking. Clearly, practice makes perfect.

    However, I didn't ask how you faked data, I asked how you recognize that the temperature data is faked. You wouldn't answer. That demonstrates my point is correct. You simply auto-declare how any data you don't like is fraudulent.

    You imply it by your constant stupid claims that non-correlation in the past means AGW theory is wrong.

    So why do you keep saying that the non-correlation of temp and CO2 in the past proves AGW theory is wrong, if you're not claiming that AGW theory says CO2 is the only significant driver? Because if you're not saying that, your claims are totally baseless and look even dumber.

    No, _you_ need to address it, because _you're_ claiming it's the cause.

    But you won't. That would indicate you can't. There's zero data to back up your nutty claims, and you know it. If there was data, you'd present it, but there isn't, so you don't.

    Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ... there you go, denying basic reality again.

    These things called "thermometers" flatly contradict your kook theory, so your kook theory is wrong. Yes, it really is that simple.

    ... is your fable, something you use to run from rational discussion.

    The references were too hard for you, eh? Oh wait, you're forbidden to look at actual data.

    As my point is that you auto-discard any data that contradicts your cult scripture, I thank you for so convincingly proving that point. You're only interesting as a display of blind cult fanaticism.

    So, over the entire planet, you found 4. And no consensus opinion saying that. Thanks for conclusively demonstrating my other point, that you're making up a story about a consensus that Arctic sea ice would be gone by now.

    When I need any more of my points proven so conclusively, I'll let you know.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2020
  6. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WOW! A fake Graph, really convincing. NOT!
    REAL DATA:
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2020
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not fake. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    So, basically the same data, showing the same absence of any decline since 2015, just presented in a different format.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Someone who can't tell the difference between a trend and a mere phase of a longer cycle has no business lecturing someone who self-evidently knows far more empirical science than they do.
    You constantly make that claim as a way to reassure yourself, but you have no evidence for it.
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. The actual non-faked data do not contradict my theory.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. My theory is more consistent with the actual Holocene climate variation data than your "It's CO2!" theory.
    Right: I was talking about the "It's not CO2" part of my theory, which temperature consistently following CO2 would disprove -- but doesn't because temperature does not consistently follow CO2.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I stated that all the same factors are driving climate now that have ever driven it, with the addition of some modest contribution from human emissions of CO2, CH4, etc. The decisive influence of the sun on century-to-millennium-scale Holocene temperature variations such as the recovery to more normal Holocene temperatures since the LIA has of course not been debunked, let alone easily. That was just another fabrication on your part.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. See above.
    Again, natural factors are by definition not magical, and I have named several of them. So you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    My stated view that global temperature variations are driven by various natural and artificial factors that vary on time scales similar to those of the variations they cause is not waving my hands around wildly, and is most definitely a theory. You just consistently make baldly false claims about what I have plainly written, such as:
    See?
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I stated that identifying fake data requires analysis of its logical and methodological qualities.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again, and cannot provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to support your claims about what you claim I "constantly" say. I stated that non-correlation in the past means non-CO2 theories of climate change have not been proved wrong.
    Now you have disingenuously shifted the ground again, from "principal driver" to "only significant driver." Are you denying that CO2-AGW theory claims CO2 has been the principal driver of temperature change since pre-industrial times?
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I do not, because I don't claim to know all the causes of temperature variation. AGW theory has to address them because it claims (falsely, of course) to have ruled out all causes except CO2.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I have. You dismissed it on absurd and disingenuous pretexts.
    I did. You dismissed it on absurd and disingenuous pretexts.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. All Holocene temperature variation data from pre-industrial times backs up my claim, because the contemporaneous changes in CO2 were derisory.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I have. You dismissed it on absurd and disingenuous pretexts.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I'm not the one claiming there is a (self-evidently non-existent) climate "crisis" or "emergency." AGW cuckoos are.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I found four who were so non-random so quickly and easily that no further evidence was needed to falsify your claim, so I stopped looking. How many would have been enough for you? How much time do you demand I waste disproving your claim that you already know is false?
    But the clowns who did say it based their claims on AGW theory.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I didn't claim a consensus, just that the predictions -- from leading AGW figures -- were based on AGW theory, which they indisputably were.

    When I need any more of my points proven so conclusively, I'll let you know.
     
  10. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Notice how the Right, when caught mindlessly parroting a falsehood, change their original falsehood to a new falsehood!
    You started at 2012 and now you are at 2015, which is still false!
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2020
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <sigh> I am not on the right. If you check out my posts in political and economic threads, that should be obvious even to you.
    <sigh> No. I changed it to 2015 because your graph didn't go back any farther. If your graph had shown all the data back to 2012, I would have stayed with 2012.
    No. It is not false. Arctic sea ice extent bottomed in Sept 2012, and has trended higher since then. That flatly falsifies the AGW narrative that arctic sea ice has been on an accelerating downtrend rather than merely the down phase of a trendless cycle. It also contradicts the claim that ocean and atmospheric temperatures have risen steeply since 2012, showing that it is very likely those temperatures have been falsified to show a spurious uptrend in the adjusted which has not actually occurred in the raw data.
     
  12. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Why did you cherry pick a graph that only shows Dec-April? Looks like you're not analyzing objectively but merely hoping to find some sort of "gotcha" moment.
     
  13. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again when caught in a falsehood the Right simply give more falsehoods.
    The red dotted line is 2012, and clearly labeled as such.
    [​IMG]
     
  14. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because this month IS April! There is no data for this cycle beyond April to compare to past years. DUH!
     
  15. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Is that why you did it, or because your graph didn't show that 2012 hit the lowest point of the years highlighted on the graph? Were you trying to pretend that because 2012 was higher in earlier months of the year that that is somehow also the case for the rest of that year? I hope it was merely an honest error. Here, the same source with the same years highlighted, but this time not stopping in April:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
  16. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    bringiton doesn't actually need any help. I just don't like it when people refuse to analyze objectively and/or behave dishonestly.

    Why do you insist on posting a graph that only goes from Dec-April? Is that what's in question, here?

    Perhaps his mistake was in giving you too much of a benefit of the doubt by assuming you posted a graph relevant to what's in question. As he knows that arctic sea ice bottomed out in 2012, he probably just made an honest mistake because he looked for a low point on the graph that wasn't there. So, essentially, you just tricked him into making a minor and actually completely irrelevant (with regards to what's in question) slip up to have a "gotcha" moment.

    About the information on the bottom right, my own attention seems to be more naturally drawn by the non-dotted lines rather than the dotted line.
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. That is false. The red dotted line is 2011-12, and does not go past April 2012. That is a deliberate edit to make sure it does not show that September 2012 was the lowest point in all the data.

    But then, you knew that, didn't you?
     
  18. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The chart comes directly from the NSIDC, UNEDITED!
    And there is only 1 month from 2011, Dec, so there was 2012 data on the chart.
    Again it is the CURRENT chart on the NSIDC site.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :lol: THEY EDITED IT. Hello?
    But the rest of 2012, showing the record low in September, was carefully snipped out. Why show winter 2011-12, then nothing for three years, then 2015-2020? It's C H E R R Y P I C K I N G.
    Well, they have limited wiggle room, given that satellite photos of the arctic ocean are hard to fake; but they do what they can to support the anti-CO2 hysteria campaign.
     
  20. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is only argued by the uneducated and greedy shills of the fossil fuel industry.....it’s a small number that congregates anywhere you give them free air time and protect their right to make stuff up.
    Every other country in the world, every military expert engaged in long range planning, every major corporation, every university. Only factions of the Trump lead Gop in the entire world of governance and their small band of followers are this delusional.
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One could almost have believed the anti-fossil-fuel hate campaign -- until a soulless, amoral greed robot like Hank Paulson endorsed it.
     
  22. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Discussing the opinions of individuals on either side of this lopsided “ debate” is counter productive. At this point, it’s irrelevant what Paulson, Gore or Tito Francona have to say about it. The overwhelming acceptance of the evidence in a community that literally, contains the best minds in every faction of our lives, is all that matters. The faction against consensus is a minority that’s far removed from, “ the best minds.”
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean like the dozens of veteran NASA scientists, engineers, etc. -- i.e., the ones who actually achieved the great milestones of the 60s -- who signed an open letter protesting NASA's support for anti-CO2 hysteria?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
  24. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, not like that. Administrators, astronauts and engineers are not scientists at all, much less climate scientists.
     
  25. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, as my point is that all you're capable of is insta-screaming about how any data you don't like is faked, I thank you for demonstrating that yet another time.

    But you don't have a theory beyond "it's some sort of natural magic!".

    But you won't name which one is specifically causing the warming, or provide any sort of evidence to back up your wild claims. Hence, you're just invoking magic.

    I know it upsets you to have that pointed out. That's your problem, not mine.

    Obviously yes. Are you really that ignorant of the science? Wait, what am I asking. Of course you are. You're laughably helpless when faced with the actual science. That's why you always make up strawmen and scream that all the data is fake.

    Look at that. Total meltdown mode. Damn, I'm good.

    It's for the best that you've stopped even pretending you can debate this issue. It's not like you were fooling anyone. On the bright side, by showing your willingness to be humiliated like this on behalf of your cult, you've earned a lot of brownie points with your cult.

    So, after this cult dies, do you have another religion lined up? It always pays to plan ahead.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
    edthecynic likes this.

Share This Page