U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2019, 07:35 AM
 
31,624 posts, read 16,187,680 times
Reputation: 20874

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
Well the whole point of this thread is what Greg Fishel said:

If you have evidence that temperature measurements are so inaccurate, and models so unreliable, that they would discredit AGW theory, then publish that in a peer-reviewed journal.

If you believe that CAGW is pseudoscience, please tell us what your credentials are for determining what is science and what is "pseudoscience", specifically as it relates to climate.

As Fishel said, put up or shut up.
When you apply the actual data to the models, they don't match what actually occurs which is why they "adjust" the data.

Fake science is fake science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2019, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Lee County, NC
2,506 posts, read 846,578 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea View Post
I'd take Fishel more seriously if he wasn't swinging from a tire swing and throwing feces at those who question his theories.
I'd take him more seriously if he didn't get let go under some shady circumstances. He was a local meteorologist here in the Raleigh-Durham market until earlier this year. This is not the first time he's gone on a left-wing rant before either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 07:48 AM
 
2,847 posts, read 947,878 times
Reputation: 2035
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Other than the fact only AGW fanatics don't believe in climate change.

Let's think about this: one group believes earth's climate changes, because ut has for billions of years, while the other group believes the climate is messed up because it's changing.

Now, who are the deniers? That's right, the deniers are those who believe the climate should stagnate now that rich people live right on the beach.
No. One group believes that climate is always changing, and therefore any recent changes must be part of that natural variability. No need to collect or analyze any data.

The other group says that, although climate has changed continually over the earth's 3 billion year history, we have seen unusually rapid changes in climate recently. We noticed that these changes coincide with unusually rapid increases in CO2. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have modeled the effects of CO2 and shown that it is possible for this level to cause the observed climate changes, and also modeled how further increases might affect climate. We have taken into account other possible causes, like sun spots and volcanic activity, and none of these would account for the rapid increase in temperature. We acknowledge that we could be wrong, but have used statistical analysis to determine that there is a high degree of probability that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming. We continue to study this so we can better understand the phenomenon and make more accurate predictions.

Now, who are the deniers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 07:52 AM
 
12,204 posts, read 8,754,512 times
Reputation: 7418
I, too, would refuse to admit CO2 is causing warming if it meant cutting back 10% on fossil fuel use.

The planet will right itself or G-d will take care of the plant is a useful belief.

How much time and how much money have fossil fuel merchants used to convince that AGW is fake? They have a helluva lot more to gain than scientist. An entry level engineer at Exxon Mobile makes more his first year than many scientist in their 10th.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 07:54 AM
 
2,847 posts, read 947,878 times
Reputation: 2035
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
When you apply the actual data to the models, they don't match what actually occurs which is why they "adjust" the data.

Fake science is fake science.
How do YOU know the data doesn't fit the models? I doubt you even know what a model is. If you have evidence that the data doesn't fit the models, then please publish that in a reputable scientific journal. If not, quit wasting our time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 07:56 AM
 
20,072 posts, read 12,625,598 times
Reputation: 11249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
No. One group believes that climate is always changing, and therefore any recent changes must be part of that natural variability. No need to collect or analyze any data.

The other group says that, although climate has changed continually over the earth's 3 billion year history, we have seen unusually rapid changes in climate recently. We noticed that these changes coincide with unusually rapid increases in CO2. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have modeled the effects of CO2 and shown that it is possible for this level to cause the observed climate changes, and also modeled how further increases might affect climate. We have taken into account other possible causes, like sun spots and volcanic activity, and none of these would account for the rapid increase in temperature. We acknowledge that we could be wrong, but have used statistical analysis to determine that there is a high degree of probability that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming. We continue to study this so we can better understand the phenomenon and make more accurate predictions.

Now, who are the deniers?
1. CO2 does correlate with temps, however, CO2 rises AFTER temps increase. Why? More CO2 released from the oceans with increased temps.


2. Models- models do not connote evidence


3. Taken into account other possibilities? BS- earth's orbit, sun spots, volcanic activity, and the reduction in the earth's magnetic field have all been ignored.


4. Statistical analysis? You mean like the fake statistics that Mann used in his "hockey stick" article?


5. What other valid hypothesis requires its proponants to fake data? Remember climate gate?


6. Why has average barometric pressure not increased if temps have increased?


7. Why have the oceans not risen 6ft- the expected rise if the temps were accurate?


8. Why didn't reduced CO2 output in the Depression result in lower temps?


9. Why does snow still melt at high altitudes, where CO2 levels are under 300 ppm?


10. Why have four different temp measurements used for comparison in the AGW "studies"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 07:58 AM
 
3,627 posts, read 1,072,612 times
Reputation: 2233
no....one group believes that everything from droughts to hang nails is caused by a 0.8 degree change in temperature in 140 years

...that's 57....10,000th....of a degree per year.......0.0057 degrees a year

gets hysterical and blames everything that happens....

...and pushes reparations on the countries that are not causing it...and tries to make the countries that are not causing it pay the countries that are causing it

then make total fools of themselves....and do everything in their power to make it look like a scam
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 08:00 AM
 
31,624 posts, read 16,187,680 times
Reputation: 20874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
No. One group believes that climate is always changing, and therefore any recent changes must be part of that natural variability. No need to collect or analyze any data.

The other group says that, although climate has changed continually over the earth's 3 billion year history, we have seen unusually rapid changes in climate recently. We noticed that these changes coincide with unusually rapid increases in CO2. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have modeled the effects of CO2 and shown that it is possible for this level to cause the observed climate changes, and also modeled how further increases might affect climate. We have taken into account other possible causes, like sun spots and volcanic activity, and none of these would account for the rapid increase in temperature. We acknowledge that we could be wrong, but have used statistical analysis to determine that there is a high degree of probability that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming. We continue to study this so we can better understand the phenomenon and make more accurate predictions.

Now, who are the deniers?
The system is way too complex to know.

Please show me where scientists have calculated exactly how much CO2 is being added to the atmosphere via respiration of all living things that have a respiration system expelling carbon dioxide. Obviously, this would require an exact census of all living creatures.

Without knowing this number, and many other such numbrrs, there is no way to calculate what is natural.

To know what is natural and what isn't, you need to know things like how many underwater volcanic vents are both active and have gone inactive along with the volumes of the vents.

I could go on and on and on about the things we would need to know, and we don't, of things involved in our climate that would have to be calculated to know what is natural and what isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 08:01 AM
 
10,600 posts, read 4,901,780 times
Reputation: 5797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Greg Fishel, respected meteorologist, wrote a rant of Facebook criticizing people who question the science behind climate change, telling them to “put up or shut up.” He says climate deniers are self-appointed "experts" who just post junk on the internet and none of their stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. He challenges them to do just that.

Read Fishel's post here: PUT UP OR SHUT UP

I agree. If climate deniers have a mechanism that explains how increased CO2 and methane don't heat the Earth, and supply a rigorous proof that Arrhenius was wrong, then let's see it. Get it published.
This from someone who can't predict tomorrow's weather right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 08:13 AM
 
Location: New York
1,702 posts, read 343,618 times
Reputation: 1275
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
When you apply the actual data to the models, they don't match what actually occurs which is why they "adjust" the data.

Fake science is fake science.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
How do YOU know the data doesn't fit the models? I doubt you even know what a model is. If you have evidence that the data doesn't fit the models, then please publish that in a reputable scientific journal. If not, quit wasting our time.
The waste of time is constantly having to listen to people telling us how the world is coming to a tipping point and if we don't do something we'll all die. Being told the "science is settled" when science by definition can never be settled. When we ask what the solutions are there's never an answer. Dead silence or a complete deflection to some canned talking point.

Look on the first page 3rd post.

Is the climate changing? YES!

Does man have something to do with it? Probably

The so-called Peer-Reviewed science can't tell us exactly how much we are to be blamed yet can tell us that we are? It's a Ponzi scheme.

Is man the primary cause, most certainly not. What is? The damn Sun is the 900lb gorilla when it comes to fire and ice. Please read the Columbia University study which took 3 years, went back 50 million years with soil cores 1500' deep.

Back to the $1M question: What, exactly, can we do to change global temperatures? Nothing! But that's using logic and common sense. In the meantime you want 3B people to send their wealth to the despots who rule the other 5B people living in abject poverty because of those tyrants!!

While you pat yourselves on the backs and tout your moral superiority in the name of a corrupted meme, the rest of us only see a bunch of fools that haven't a clue and couldn't care less about being played by corrupted scientists who only care about the billions they will make off their BS! THAT will fix everything and if it doesn't at least you blowhards will feel all warm and fuzzy even as the world spirals into the same abject poverty as the 3rd world. YAY for equality!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
The thread you refer to is completely bogus. All it amounts to is a pack of outright lies made on a climate denial site without a single shred of evidence to back their claims up.
OH, here you go again. It's a bogus site!!!

All they did was republish the study by The Earth Institute at Columbia University - zero bogus and plenty for you to drool over.

https://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/1963








If we REALLY wanted to start solving the warming problem the first thing we would do is stop pouring black asphalt over everything. The streets and dark roofs are causing urban areas to be 7-12 degrees warmer than they should be.


There ya go, that was hard, I'm beat. Time for a nap.

Last edited by Originalist; 08-27-2019 at 08:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top