Climate Denier Hard To Refute

[SuburbanFarmer]

(1) The people peddling the climate change narrative have just as much bias and incentive to do so, man. The government over the past eight years wasn't in the business of handing out grant money to scientists critical of it, and any non-tenured environmental science professor who questioned it was unlikely to receive tenure.

Even if that were globally true (it's not), you would not achieve a world-wide consensus of corraborating evidence on this. We have.

(2) Nobody actually proved any of this at all. In fact, there hasn't even been any global warming in recent years. They have to keep revising their models and predictions because they continue to be wrong. In science, when your model makes predictions, we test those predictions using the scientific method in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis. The global warming hypothesis keeps getting falsified year-after-year, and they keep playing this game like they have to finally get it right this time.. That's not science. Something is very wrong with their model and assumptions.

They predicted that the earth is warming. 10 of the last 12 years are the hottest-on-record. Prediction confirmed.

(3) The climate fluctuates like crazy over time without any input at all by us. The fluctuations our ancestors experienced at the end of the previous ice age were freaking exponentially crazier than the most dire predictions of the global warming alarmists.

Not on the same timescales. Humanity would be just fine if this were a 1,000 year process, but it isn't. The fact that we now have 80%ish of the world population in fixed cities on the coasts will not be the same problem as moving a tribe a mile inland to forage. Add to that our ridiculous fiat currencies, and global trade dependencies, and you have the potential for unprecedented mass starvation.

(4) A more reasonable approach is to take the position that we ought not blindly alter the chemical composition of our planet's atmosphere unless we have a very, very high confidence in the outcome. Instead of demanding everybody revert to the middle ages, let's look towards what achievable reductions in artificial effluents pumped into the atmosphere can reasonably be tackled each year. You don't need to make shit up to make this case like the global warming folks do.

We already did that. We created absolutely stunning new inputs into the global atmosphere without even realizing it, and still do so.
There is no solution. There is nothing that any government or group of activists can do to stop the train now, short of a global shutdown of industry. It's not gonna happen. So just ride the train off the cliff, and enjoy it because our kids are fucked hard.

[Montegriffo]

Just heard on the BBC about a massive iceberg about to break off the Antarctic ice shelf,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38522954

A long-running rift in the Larson C ice shelf grew suddenly in December and now just 20km of ice is keeping the 5,000 sq km piece from floating away.

Larsen C is the most northern major ice shelf in Antarctica.

Researchers based in Swansea say the loss of a piece a quarter of the size of Wales will leave the whole shelf vulnerable to future break-up.

Larsen C is about 350m thick and floats on the seas at the edge of West Antarctica, holding back the flow of glaciers that feed into it.

Researchers have been tracking the rift in Larsen C for many years, watching it with some trepidation after the collapse of Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden break-up of the Larsen B shelf in 2002.

Last year, researchers from the UK's Project Midas reported that the Larsen C rift was growing fast.

But in December the speed of the rift went into overdrive, growing by a further 18km in just a couple of weeks. What will become a massive iceberg now hangs on to the shelf by a thread just 20km long.

And a bit more science to refute
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38513740

Many researchers had accepted that the rate of global warming had slowed in the first 15 years of this century.

But new analysis in the journal Science Advances replicates findings that scientists have underestimated ocean temperatures over the past two decades.

With the revised data the apparent pause in temperature rises between 1998 and 2014 disappears.

The idea of a pause had gained support in recent years with even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reporting in 2013 that the global surface temperature "has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years".

But that consensus was brought into question by a number of studies, of which a report by the the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) published in Science last year was the most significant.

Researchers from Noaa suggested that the temperatures of the oceans were being consistently underestimated by the main global climate models.

The authors showed that the ocean buoys used to measure sea temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than the older ship-based systems.

The study did not go down well with climate sceptics. Members of the US House of Representatives subpoenaed the author's emails which Noaa refused to hand over.

However, this new analysis supports the findings of the Noaa report. The scientists involved believe the problems in the original temperature estimates for the oceans came from attempting to mesh together data from ships and buoys.

"Only a small fraction of the ocean measurement data is being used by climate monitoring groups, and they are trying to smush together data from different instruments, which leads to a lot of judgement calls about how you weight one versus the other, and how you adjust for the transition from one to another," said Zeke Hausfather, the new paper's lead author.

Hausfather and colleagues decided to put together three independent data sets from satellites, buoys and robotic floats to find the true scale of ocean warming, so there was no mixing or matching of data.

"Our approach was to create three separate ocean temperature records from the three different instruments, and it turns out that all three agree really well with the new Noaa record," he said.

"The conclusion is that Noaa got it right, the scientists at Noaa were not cooking the books or manipulating the data in any way and that three independent sets of data back up their results."

[Speaker to Animals]

(1) The people peddling the climate change narrative have just as much bias and incentive to do so, man. The government over the past eight years wasn't in the business of handing out grant money to scientists critical of it, and any non-tenured environmental science professor who questioned it was unlikely to receive tenure.

Even if that were globally true (it's not), you would not achieve a world-wide consensus of corraborating evidence on this. We have.

Science is not about a consensus. It's about forming models which make predictions, and your peers attempting to falsify those predictions using the scientific method. If everybody agrees on something and doesn't bother to falsify anything, then it's not science. Further, when the predictions are to the effect that we will see a certain change in global temperature, and the opposite happens, then your predictions were tested by mother nature and found wanting. To ignore that, again, is not science.

(2) Nobody actually proved any of this at all. In fact, there hasn't even been any global warming in recent years. They have to keep revising their models and predictions because they continue to be wrong. In science, when your model makes predictions, we test those predictions using the scientific method in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis. The global warming hypothesis keeps getting falsified year-after-year, and they keep playing this game like they have to finally get it right this time.. That's not science. Something is very wrong with their model and assumptions.

They predicted that the earth is warming. 10 of the last 12 years are the hottest-on-record. Prediction confirmed.

In fact, the 1930s were the hottest years on record, but don't let details get in the way of your "consensus".

(3) The climate fluctuates like crazy over time without any input at all by us. The fluctuations our ancestors experienced at the end of the previous ice age were freaking exponentially crazier than the most dire predictions of the global warming alarmists.

Not on the same timescales. Humanity would be just fine if this were a 1,000 year process, but it isn't. The fact that we now have 80%ish of the world population in fixed cities on the coasts will not be the same problem as moving a tribe a mile inland to forage. Add to that our ridiculous fiat currencies, and global trade dependencies, and you have the potential for unprecedented mass starvation.

It was WORSE! Some of the most severe climate changes in the Younger Dryas happened in less than 10 years. In ten years, huge regions of Europe suddenly became uninhabitable again, forcing mass migrations of humans southward. This wasn't a few degrees change, or a little more snow. This was ice age temperatures, and the subsequent glaciation, descending back upon Europe over the course of a few years. What you guys are crying about now is a total joke compared to that.

(4) A more reasonable approach is to take the position that we ought not blindly alter the chemical composition of our planet's atmosphere unless we have a very, very high confidence in the outcome. Instead of demanding everybody revert to the middle ages, let's look towards what achievable reductions in artificial effluents pumped into the atmosphere can reasonably be tackled each year. You don't need to make shit up to make this case like the global warming folks do.

We already did that. We created absolutely stunning new inputs into the global atmosphere without even realizing it, and still do so.
There is no solution. There is nothing that any government or group of activists can do to stop the train now, short of a global shutdown of industry. It's not gonna happen. So just ride the train off the cliff, and enjoy it because our kids are fucked hard.
If you believe that, then why are you even bothering with defending this crap? Why not move to where you can survive Waterworld?

[SuburbanFarmer]

(1) The people peddling the climate change narrative have just as much bias and incentive to do so, man. The government over the past eight years wasn't in the business of handing out grant money to scientists critical of it, and any non-tenured environmental science professor who questioned it was unlikely to receive tenure.

Even if that were globally true (it's not), you would not achieve a world-wide consensus of corraborating evidence on this. We have.

Science is not about a consensus. It's about forming models which make predictions, and your peers attempting to falsify those predictions using the scientific method. If everybody agrees on something and doesn't bother to falsify anything, then it's not science. Further, when the predictions are to the effect that we will see a certain change in global temperature, and the opposite happens, then your predictions were tested by mother nature and found wanting. To ignore that, again, is not science.

That's how statistics work, actually. Gravity is a theory, as well, and has never been 'proven'.

(2) Nobody actually proved any of this at all. In fact, there hasn't even been any global warming in recent years. They have to keep revising their models and predictions because they continue to be wrong. In science, when your model makes predictions, we test those predictions using the scientific method in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis. The global warming hypothesis keeps getting falsified year-after-year, and they keep playing this game like they have to finally get it right this time.. That's not science. Something is very wrong with their model and assumptions.

They predicted that the earth is warming. 10 of the last 12 years are the hottest-on-record. Prediction confirmed.

In fact, the 1930s were the hottest years on record, but don't let details get in the way of your "consensus".

You just posted a blog article from 2007 about "The Y2K Bug" to counter my point about the last 12 years. Not sure why I'm even discussing this anymore.

(3) The climate fluctuates like crazy over time without any input at all by us. The fluctuations our ancestors experienced at the end of the previous ice age were freaking exponentially crazier than the most dire predictions of the global warming alarmists.

Not on the same timescales. Humanity would be just fine if this were a 1,000 year process, but it isn't. The fact that we now have 80%ish of the world population in fixed cities on the coasts will not be the same problem as moving a tribe a mile inland to forage. Add to that our ridiculous fiat currencies, and global trade dependencies, and you have the potential for unprecedented mass starvation.

It was WORSE! Some of the most severe climate changes in the Younger Dryas happened in less than 10 years. In ten years, huge regions of Europe suddenly became uninhabitable again, forcing mass migrations of humans southward. This wasn't a few degrees change, or a little more snow. This was ice age temperatures, and the subsequent glaciation, descending back upon Europe over the course of a few years. What you guys are crying about now is a total joke compared to that.

Again, that's not really a problem in a pre-industrial world. The problem is very, very different now.

(4) A more reasonable approach is to take the position that we ought not blindly alter the chemical composition of our planet's atmosphere unless we have a very, very high confidence in the outcome. Instead of demanding everybody revert to the middle ages, let's look towards what achievable reductions in artificial effluents pumped into the atmosphere can reasonably be tackled each year. You don't need to make shit up to make this case like the global warming folks do.

We already did that. We created absolutely stunning new inputs into the global atmosphere without even realizing it, and still do so.
There is no solution. There is nothing that any government or group of activists can do to stop the train now, short of a global shutdown of industry. It's not gonna happen. So just ride the train off the cliff, and enjoy it because our kids are fucked hard.
If you believe that, then why are you even bothering with defending this crap? Why not move to where you can survive Waterworld?

[/quote]

I did move, actually, from Florida to Ohio. I wasn't really interested in fighting with you about it, just offering some points for thought.
You claimed not to have a side, just a few posts ago, but I think you should just own what you think about it. It's pretty clear that, as with every topic, you have a dogmatic view that will be defended at all cost.

[Speaker to Animals]

Nothing dogmatic about it at all.

I don't have much of a position on climate change because I have seen no proof of it. Just conjecture, bogus modeling, and a lot of appeals that I succumb to the "consensus". It seems plausible to me that this could happen (or is happening), but without proof, it's an interesting idea. Not even a theory. I happen to think there exists quite a lot of very bad science going on right now. I have argued before that I think the decline of academia in general, and the corruption of science in particular, signals the beginning of some new form of dark age (this sort of thing happened before).

Maybe it's true; maybe not. But even if it's true, it's hardly the worst kind of climate change our species ever faced, and it won't be the last unless we off ourselves.

There exists no default climate. The climate is all over the place over time, sometimes dramatically as was the case in the Younger Dryas. The entire supposition of the climate change cult is fundamentally ideological, not scientific. It presupposes that there exists some default climate of the Earth, and it would be stuck there forever if not for us pesky humans. That's just nonsense. Whether or not we actually significantly impact the global climate, the underlying ideological-based suppositions of this cult-like thinking are total nonsense.

[clubgop]

If you believe that, then why are you even bothering with defending this crap? Why not move to where you can survive Waterworld?

I did move, actually, from Florida to Ohio. I wasn't really interested in fighting with you about it, just offering some points for thought.
You claimed not to have a side, just a few posts ago, but I think you should just own what you think about it. It's pretty clear that, as with every topic, you have a dogmatic view that will be defended at all cost.

Originally from Florida. Explains a lot.

[SuburbanFarmer]

If you believe that, then why are you even bothering with defending this crap? Why not move to where you can survive Waterworld?

I did move, actually, from Florida to Ohio. I wasn't really interested in fighting with you about it, just offering some points for thought.
You claimed not to have a side, just a few posts ago, but I think you should just own what you think about it. It's pretty clear that, as with every topic, you have a dogmatic view that will be defended at all cost.

Originally from Florida. Explains a lot.

Originally Chicago. Then Texas for 8 years, Florida for 16, now Ohio. I told you before, I don't fit in a box.

[clubgop]

I did move, actually, from Florida to Ohio. I wasn't really interested in fighting with you about it, just offering some points for thought.
You claimed not to have a side, just a few posts ago, but I think you should just own what you think about it. It's pretty clear that, as with every topic, you have a dogmatic view that will be defended at all cost.

Originally from Florida. Explains a lot.

Originally Chicago. Then Texas for 8 years, Florida for 16, now Ohio. I told you before, I don't fit in a box.

Yes you do. About 6'2" well built crate.

[jbird4049]

(4) A more reasonable approach is to take the position that we ought not blindly alter the chemical composition of our planet's atmosphere unless we have a very, very high confidence in the outcome. Instead of demanding everybody revert to the middle ages, let's look towards what achievable reductions in artificial effluents pumped into the atmosphere can reasonably be tackled each year. You don't need to make shit up to make this case like the global warming folks do.

We already did that. We created absolutely stunning new inputs into the global atmosphere without even realizing it, and still do so.
There is no solution. There is nothing that any government or group of activists can do to stop the train now, short of a global shutdown of industry. It's not gonna happen. So just ride the train off the cliff, and enjoy it because our kids are fucked hard.

The old "We're all gonna die, just die in fire, so why worry, just gimme a beer. Oh, and I'm gonna be dead beforehand, so enjoy!" defense?



Well, unless you're about 95 and on your deathbed, there's fair chance that you are going to see some excellent previews to the main event.

[clubgop]

(4) A more reasonable approach is to take the position that we ought not blindly alter the chemical composition of our planet's atmosphere unless we have a very, very high confidence in the outcome. Instead of demanding everybody revert to the middle ages, let's look towards what achievable reductions in artificial effluents pumped into the atmosphere can reasonably be tackled each year. You don't need to make shit up to make this case like the global warming folks do.

We already did that. We created absolutely stunning new inputs into the global atmosphere without even realizing it, and still do so.
There is no solution. There is nothing that any government or group of activists can do to stop the train now, short of a global shutdown of industry. It's not gonna happen. So just ride the train off the cliff, and enjoy it because our kids are fucked hard.

The old "We're all gonna die, just die in fire, so why worry, just gimme a beer. Oh, and I'm gonna be dead beforehand, so enjoy!" defense?



Well, unless you're about 95 and on your deathbed, there's fair chance that you are going to see some excellent previews to the main event.

And yet you own a computer with electricity.