Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Since he has no desire or intention to find 'it', he won't ...

    The "agenda" of Agenda 21 fits his Marxist Worldview ...
    So I'm branded a "Marxist" because I have a mainstream opinion? This is like when ultra-liberals get cornered on an issue then shout "Racist!" at their opponents.

    Gentlemen, please

    If the disciples of Glenn Beck (the guy who was 'too crazy' for Fox News and television in general) want to tell me that this 'Agenda 21' is a plot to enslave the American people, they'd better provide some solid evidence in the affirmative.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
    Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
      Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

      • Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
      • It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
      • Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
      • These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

      By Ellie Zolfagharifard For Dailymail.com
      Published: 15:56 EST, 23 April 2015 | Updated: 18:31 EST, 23 April 2015
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ays-study.html
      This article has a sensationalist title to attract viewers, but the actual content is not in conflict with anything that has been posted so far in the thread.

      From the link you posted:

      If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.
      'By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,' Brown said.
      Under the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.

      'That matches up well with what we're seeing.'
      That warming slowed over the last decade and that the climate is subject to the powers of nature (duh) doesn't mean that AGW isn't happening at all.
      Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

      Comment


      • Bob some people tend to get excited online.

        I tend toward a more dispassionate view. Does agenda 21 exist? Yep. Does it directly cause me problems? Yep.

        Try logging your own property on the west coast and see...

        Credo quia absurdum.


        Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
          This article has a sensationalist title to attract viewers, but the actual content is not in conflict with anything that has been posted so far in the thread.

          From the link you posted:







          That warming slowed over the last decade and that the climate is subject to the powers of nature (duh) doesn't mean that AGW isn't happening at all.
          The hiatus is now 12 to 18 years long.

          Climate models are conclusively unreliable over all time periods for which they have been tested. The absurd claim that they "largely get the 'big picture' right" is absolutely idiotic. No climate model has been tested for predictive skill over a "big picture" time scale.

          A scientific hypothesis which lacks predictive skill is known as a failed hypothesis in every field of science outside of gubmint-funded Enviromarxist junk science.

          The mind boggingly stupid thing about gubmint-funded AGW junk science is the fact that a 30-yr hiatus would have been easily predictable, had there not been such a tunnel-visioned "consensus."
          Last edited by The Doctor; 25 Apr 15, 13:01.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
            So I'm branded a "Marxist" because I have a mainstream opinion? This is like when ultra-liberals get cornered on an issue then shout "Racist!" at their opponents.

            Gentlemen, please

            If the disciples of Glenn Beck (the guy who was 'too crazy' for Fox News and television in general) want to tell me that this 'Agenda 21' is a plot to enslave the American people, they'd better provide some solid evidence in the affirmative.

            "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
            In the sense that "Capitalist/Capitalism" and "Free Enterprise" are generic terms for a certain ideology and viewpoint, I use "Marxist/Marxism" as the generic term for those with views/positions that are opposite of Free Enterprise/Capitalism.

            If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it likely is a duck, even if it thinks it is a swan.

            Many of your views/statements are standard from the Liberal~Leftist~Socialist/Marxist~Statist playbook.

            Any policies that reduce free will and choice of citizens and their property and increases "The States" control over same is a method of enslavement. "Death via a thousand paper cuts (bureaucracy and regs)".
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
            Present Current Events are the Future's History

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              Climate models are conclusively unreliable over all time periods for which they have been tested. The absurd claim that they "largely get the 'big picture' right" is absolutely idiotic. No climate model has been tested for predictive skill over a "big picture" time scale.
              I have never seen a climate model explain the PAST (e.g. end of the last iceage and all previous climate cycles of glaciation.). However, they claim to be able to predict the future.

              This is not how science is supposed to work. It works like this: first you explain what you have observed, and then you predict something.

              Time has proven that the models are nearly all wrong.
              Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
                I have never seen a climate model explain the PAST (e.g. end of the last iceage and all previous climate cycles of glaciation.). However, they claim to be able to predict the future.

                This is not how science is supposed to work. It works like this: first you explain what you have observed, and then you predict something.

                Time has proven that the models are nearly all wrong.
                Even when the models are parameterized to accurately retrocast the instrumental record they fail...

                [/URL]

                Within eight years, the observed temperature is on the verge of dropping out of the lower error band.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • Commie ducks....

                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                  In the sense that "Capitalist/Capitalism" and "Free Enterprise" are generic terms for a certain ideology and viewpoint, I use "Marxist/Marxism" as the generic term for those with views/positions that are opposite of Free Enterprise/Capitalism.

                  If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it likely is a duck, even if it thinks it is a swan.

                  Many of your views/statements are standard from the Liberal~Leftist~Socialist/Marxist~Statist playbook.

                  Any policies that reduce free will and choice of citizens and their property and increases "The States" control over same is a method of enslavement. "Death via a thousand paper cuts (bureaucracy and regs)".
                  https://www.google.ca/search?q=commu...2F%3B303%3B500

                  I couldn't find the Marxist playbook on line, but here's a selection of Communist Ducks...
                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    In the sense that "Capitalist/Capitalism" and "Free Enterprise" are generic terms for a certain ideology and viewpoint, I use "Marxist/Marxism" as the generic term for those with views/positions that are opposite of Free Enterprise/Capitalism.
                    When did I say I was anti-capitalism? Every system has limitations, ours included. That doesn't make me a 'Marxist,' as you seem to imply.

                    Having said that, 'Marxism' in the most basic sense of the word is much broader than the connotative meaning:

                    http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com...a-marxist.html

                    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    Many of your views/statements are standard from the Liberal~Leftist~Socialist/Marxist~Statist playbook.
                    Marxism: The political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.

                    Communism: A socioeconomic philosophy structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.
                    Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                    Comment


                    • "Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources."

                      http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

                      I'm still more worried about short term cooling from natural causes. :-)

                      There are huge problems with the models but anthropogenic warming seems logical enough so the real question is when and how much and I don't think anyone knows the answer.
                      Last edited by wolfhnd; 29 Apr 15, 02:48.
                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                        "Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources."

                        http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

                        I'm still more worried about short term cooling from natural causes. :-)

                        There are huge problems with the models but anthropomorphic warming seems logical enough so the real question is when and how much and I don't think anyone knows the answer.
                        Anthropogenic is the correct word... and the answers are now and very little.

                        We can hope that anthropogenic warming will offset some of the natural cooling that will ensue over the next 500 years or so.

                        And... Societal position statements are not surveys of the members; nor are they scientific publications. They are written by a handful of people actively involved in societal politics.
                        Last edited by The Doctor; 28 Apr 15, 20:48.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • At the bottom of this article is a link to a report that covers hazards other than global warming. I think that it is striking that these hazards get so little attention.


                          Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience

                          "Extreme hazards – rare, high-impact events – pose a serious and underestimated threat to humanity. The extremes of the broad ensemble of natural and anthropogenic hazards can lead to global disasters and catastrophes. Because they are rare and modern society lacks experience with them, they tend to be ignored in disaster risk management. While the probabilities of most natural hazards do not change much over time, the sensitivity of the built environment and the vulnerability of the embedded socio-economic fabric have increased rapidly. Exposure to geohazards has increased dramatically in recent decades and continues to do so. In particular, growing urban environments – including megacities – are in harm’s way. Because of the increasing complexity of modern society even moderate hazards can cause regional and global disasters."

                          http://www.esf.org/media-centre/ext-...ence-1082.html
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            At the bottom of this article is a link to a report that covers hazards other than global warming. I think that it is striking that these hazards get so little attention.


                            Extreme Geohazards: Reducing the Disaster Risk and Increasing Resilience

                            "Extreme hazards – rare, high-impact events – pose a serious and underestimated threat to humanity. The extremes of the broad ensemble of natural and anthropogenic hazards can lead to global disasters and catastrophes. Because they are rare and modern society lacks experience with them, they tend to be ignored in disaster risk management. While the probabilities of most natural hazards do not change much over time, the sensitivity of the built environment and the vulnerability of the embedded socio-economic fabric have increased rapidly. Exposure to geohazards has increased dramatically in recent decades and continues to do so. In particular, growing urban environments – including megacities – are in harm’s way. Because of the increasing complexity of modern society even moderate hazards can cause regional and global disasters."

                            http://www.esf.org/media-centre/ext-...ence-1082.html
                            They don't get much attention because governments haven't figured out how to leverage them into more power over the private sector yet...
                            The paper highlights the urgency of establishing an effective dialogue with a large community of stakeholders in order to develop robust risk management, disaster risk reduction, resilience, and sustainability plans in the coming years and decades.

                            Although I have little doubt that the moment they can find a way to leverage supervolcanoes, bolides, flood basalts, gamma ray bursts, coronal mass ejections or the Milankovitch cycles into higher taxes and more intrusive regulations... they will ratchet up the State of Fear.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                              At the bottom of this article is a link to a report that covers hazards other than global warming. I think that it is striking that these hazards get so little attention.
                              "Real" hazards such as volcanic eruption, earthquakes, forest fires, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. with historic events as examples to verify their danger to humanity.

                              Show me ONE (better yet, show me 100!) historic events where Global Warming killed thousands of people or generated other such strife.


                              Good luck with that...
                              Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
                                "Real" hazards such as volcanic eruption, earthquakes, forest fires, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. with historic events as examples to verify their danger to humanity.

                                Show me ONE (better yet, show me 100!) historic events where Global Warming killed thousands of people or generated other such strife.


                                Good luck with that...


                                Not necessarily Katrina in particular, or even hurricanes in the present day, BUT:
                                • Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.

                                • There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical storms.
                                Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X