Originally posted by oxmixmudd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?
Collapse
X
-
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostYou are a bad person. And now you know it.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYep - I'm horrible. Nevertheless, if you can come up with something on topic - about the OP (arguments for or against) or that responds to the facts in my posts (arguing for or against) I'll be glad to discuss them with you courteously and objectively.
Jim
Now, go back and address the concerns I ALREADY laid out in my original answer to you - you know, the one that WASN'T nasty and DIDN'T call you stupid.
Come to think of it, I haven't actually called you stupid, have I?"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostYou are - glad you've come to the realization.
Now, go back and address the concerns I ALREADY laid out in my original answer to you - you know, the one that WASN'T nasty and DIDN'T call you stupid.
Come to think of it, I haven't actually called you stupid, have I?
Originally posted by tealExcept that the supertanker has supposedly reached the point of no return <scrolls up to count> nine times. So, if we believe what we've been told, there's no longer a point to trying to avoid global climate whatsis - we're already doomed.
In other cases, the OP has characterized calls to action as predictions of immediate doom, which is part of it's own immature and irresponsible rant. There are consequences of a certain amount of temperature increase. Rising sea levels due to melting ice being one of them. We do need to act, and we are running out of time to respond. But it's like if you smoke your whole life. Lung cancer, heart disease etc is likely but not guaranteed. And it will usually take a long time to see the writing on the wall. But by the time you do, it's likely too late. But with smoking big companies eventually lost and Medical Science won. But not before a lot of people suffered a great deal. The parallels actually are uncanny between big business, ignorant people that don't want to change anything, and what the science tells us is the likely outcome.
That's the problem - so much of this is based on modelling, which is very like survey research in how danged finicky it can be. Trying your best can still result in totally nonsensical results, even when you're good at it. My understanding is that the Russian modelling has been the closest thus far to actual events - and it's the one that doesn't think the world is ending.
A good model, in my methodological studies, is the one that is accurate (not precise, just accurate) but the predictions we're given are all over the place. Then someone tells me I'm stupid for questioning why the emperor's wearing his birthday suit - if the folks that believe this is real want policy change, they're gonna have to give us something better to work with.
sea level rise:
slr_prediction_med.jpg
temperature:
ipcc_ar4_model_vs_obs.gif
See for more information: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 07-30-2019, 05:48 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
I'll go over it tomorrow because I'm not feeling well right now."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI already did, but you didn't appear to recognize that I had. To perhaps help you understand:
This isn't a response. It's a rant. The actual scientific predictions have been fairly accurate (Al Gore and the other politicians quoted are NOT a scientists), with the warming we are experiencing well within error bounds in most cases.
So, back on point - what's in the public square are a lot of predictions that supposedly came from the science - and were completely wrong. Coming back after the fact to say 'well, that's not what we really said' is an extremely bad idea. (Calling people ignorant and stupid makes it infinitely worse, FYI.) This is where policing comes in - at least if you (general) want to be correctly represented in the public square. After the fact makes it look like a hoax - and most people will quickly conclude exactly that (here is where the trust in science is coming off the rails). There's no way to win when you don't police at the time of the statement.
The public sees these outlandish predictions failing repeatedly - and when the new one comes out from Politician X, there's nothing but crickets from the science academia and industry. In the age of the Internet, this is really idiotic - it's not that hard to get in front of a camera and say, "Er, no, Politician X is wrong, we actually said Y."
But that doesn't happen either much or particularly loudly - and the reason is political. Science in both academia and industry is dependent on political forces - and angering the gods of funding is usually a bad thing. Scientist Bob might protest - but Administrator Joe ain't gonna let a little thing like details upset the universities entire gravy train. The net result is grumbling in the ranks but few in the public hear it - and another outlandish prediction fails to come true.
It's the system we have - but the ugly truth is, scientists don't get to tell Joe Schmoe he's an idiot for believing Politician X when Scientist Bob wasn't brave enough to get in front of a camera to say Politician X had it wrong. NOW your (general) stuck with the reality that the 'scientific' prediction failed - again.
So, nine such predictions, all framed in the public square, all proved false - where's the evidence that scientists DID push back when it mattered? Because after the fact explanations are not compelling - tell me why I should trust anything supposedly said by scientists when their work, represented in the public square, keeps being refuted?
Yes, I DO understand how high the bar is - but I didn't put it up there. Look, if you (still general) truly believe that global whatsis is happening and humans can and should do something about it, you're the one that has to convince the public - Joe Schmoe and his 'stupid' friends - to make or allow the policy changes necessary. Alienating people WILL NOT accomplish that - neither will failing to own up to previous mistakes, scientific or political.
In other cases, the OP has characterized calls to action as predictions of immediate doom, which is part of it's own immature and irresponsible rant. There are consequences of a certain amount of temperature increase. Rising sea levels due to melting ice being one of them. We do need to act, and we are running out of time to respond. But it's like if you smoke your whole life. Lung cancer, heart disease etc is likely but not guaranteed. And it will usually take a long time to see the writing on the wall. But by the time you do, it's likely too late. But with smoking big companies eventually lost and Medical Science won. But not before a lot of people suffered a great deal. The parallels actually are uncanny between big business, ignorant people that don't want to change anything, and what the science tells us is the likely outcome.
Also, keep calling the people YOU NEED to convince 'ignorant' - it guarantees we WON'T be destroying our economy - whether or not you're correct about global whatsis. Seriously, is it really so hard to understand that attacking people is self defeating? I'm on the fence (when you aren't pushing me to the skeptic side) - but every time I see 'denier' or 'ignorant' I log it as 'doesn't have a real case' because politically that's EXACTLY what that tactic means.
Again, no-one is predicting the end of the world. That is a straw-man. That was my point in my original response. The world has seen much worse. But then again, the world has experienced several mass extinctions and survived. Somehow that is not comforting just because we are the ones engineering the extinctions.
That is the reality - and part of why I say science as an industry has done a very big disservice to the public and itself in not addressing this much, much earlier.
Accurate. OK - Consider:
sea level rise:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]38723[/ATTACH]
temperature:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]38724[/ATTACH]
See for more information: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Jim"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWill The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?
Prince Charles’ recent pronouncement that we have only 18 months to save the planet from man-made global warming was followed up by a BBC report telling an identical tale. (Is there something in the Thames?) Nothing new here, though. The same wild, irresponsible guesses have been made for decades, and so far none has been right.
“Now it seems, there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges,” BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath wrote last week with great certitude.
“Observers recognize that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.”
The year 2020, McGrath continued, “is a firm deadline” because “one of the world’s top climate scientists … eloquently addressed” the danger in 2017.
We’ve had “firm” deadlines before. Nothing happened. But we’re supposed to believe this one is really “firm.” That it can’t be ignored. Forget all those previous predictions of doom, they tell us, because this time they have it right. And maybe the window is not even 18 months. Those grand ruminators at Think Progress are sure we have only 14 months.
While the alarmists are busy today foretelling the coming climate disaster, they’ve conveniently forgotten the encyclopedic catalog of failed predictions. They just delete them from memory much the way that Moscow erased historical figures whose existence reflected poorly on the Soviet way, or displeased the thugs in power.
But some remember those frenzied forecasts. Following is but a small taste of a smorgasbord of baloney:
- Al Gore once declared that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases” were taken within the next decade, “the world will reach a point of no return,” eventually suffering “a true planetary emergency.” That was 13 years ago.
- Gore is of course the same fellow who in the mid- to late-2000s kept telling us the Arctic Ocean would soon be ice-free. The ice, which is still there, had grown thicker and had wider coverage in 2014 than when Gore made his prediction. Earlier this year, before the growing season had ended, Wattsupwiththat reported the “2019 Arctic sea-ice extent is already higher than the previous four years and six out of the last 14 years.”
- In January 2009, former NASA scientist and corporate witch hunter James Hansen swore that the incoming president had a mere four years to save the world.
- Later in the year, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (the Thames, again) said there remained “fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more.”
- Also in 2009, 124 months ago, the prince of Wales worried out loud the world had “less than 100 months” to save itself.
- 2009 was a particularly looney year. Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote “we have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it. … We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours.”
- While speaking to then-Secretary of State John Kerry in May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Nearly 1,900 days have passed since. The chaos is in the foreign minister’s head.
- In 2015, mayors from around the world signed a statement that said the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees” Celsius had arrived.
- Almost 20 years ago, in Y2K, the British Independent quoted a climate researcher who said in coming years the children of England “just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Thirteen years later, that same newspaper told readers to “stand by for icy blasts and heavy snow.”
Despite the weight of mistaken forecasts, the alarmists plod on. Even in the most recent editorial on this site regarding global warming hysteria, a few reader comments, which proved the point of that particular piece, indicate that the madness might be untreatable.
(One reader accused us of being “funded by the oil companies, and conservative movements.” Our response: If only. We’re funded by no one. What little revenue we have comes from a few generous readers hitting our tip jar and some minimal advertising. But of course the comment was not intended to illuminate — it was uttered to discredit our work through a made-up link to “evil” corporations and institutions. The aim is to poison and end the discussion, and is typically employed as a last-ditch effort to save a failed argument.)
The alarmists never consider that there could be other factors in the observed changes, that it’s possible the temperature record is hopelessly flawed, the predictive models faulty, the research “proving” their point itself corrupt. There were references in the comments made to the “facts” — for instance, half of the ocean reefs are dead, whales have starved, rising sea levels are threatening civilization — but no effort was made to show a direct link from these observations to man’s carbon dioxide emissions. We’re simply supposed to believe. Just because.
Which should be expected, because it’s not possible to make that connection. Correlation is not the same as causation. And any gap between the two grows wider with each additional component that affects climate. A non-exhaustive list of climate inputs includes the sun, the moon, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, volcanic activity, and clouds, all of which are beyond man’s control.
Not outside of human control, though, is the burning of fossil fuels, which the alarmists say is overheating Earth due to the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide released in combustion. But also released into the atmosphere are particulates, which have a cooling effect because they reflect solar energy back toward the sun. What of this, we ask the fearmongers?
Though there exists reasonable doubt, the alarmists desperately want to believe. Have to believe. Worse, they feel compelled to make everyone else believe. Express doubt in their narrative and expect to be talked down to, ridiculed, written off as a rube, or worse, labeled a puppet of malign interests.
But just as they have been wrong through decades of missed predictions, they’re also wrong in their accusations against the “deniers.” They, of course, don’t see it that way. True believers will never admit they’re wrong, even when their own eyes show them they’ve been mistaken.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe amazing thing is that you can remain in denial for so long with so much scientific evidence in contradition to your beliefs.
What is it, do you guys just not believe in science. Do you have personal agendas that take precedence over the lives of your children and grandchildren. It is because of people like the authors of this article and you that may be responsible for it being to late now to turn this thing around. Good job!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View Post.... What is it, do you guys just not believe in science. Do you have personal agendas that take precedence over the lives of your children and grandchildren. It is because of people like the authors of this article and you that may be responsible for it being to late now to turn this thing around. Good job!
So no, no faith in science - just conviction that the methodology does work when used correctly. And an equal conviction that humans don't stop being human when they don lab coats."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWill The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?
Prince Charles’ recent pronouncement that we have only 18 months to save the planet from man-made global warming was followed up by a BBC report telling an identical tale. (Is there something in the Thames?) Nothing new here, though. The same wild, irresponsible guesses have been made for decades, and so far none has been right.
“Now it seems, there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges,” BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath wrote last week with great certitude.
“Observers recognize that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.”
The year 2020, McGrath continued, “is a firm deadline” because “one of the world’s top climate scientists … eloquently addressed” the danger in 2017.
We’ve had “firm” deadlines before. Nothing happened. But we’re supposed to believe this one is really “firm.” That it can’t be ignored. Forget all those previous predictions of doom, they tell us, because this time they have it right. And maybe the window is not even 18 months. Those grand ruminators at Think Progress are sure we have only 14 months.
While the alarmists are busy today foretelling the coming climate disaster, they’ve conveniently forgotten the encyclopedic catalog of failed predictions. They just delete them from memory much the way that Moscow erased historical figures whose existence reflected poorly on the Soviet way, or displeased the thugs in power.
But some remember those frenzied forecasts. Following is but a small taste of a smorgasbord of baloney:
- Al Gore once declared that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases” were taken within the next decade, “the world will reach a point of no return,” eventually suffering “a true planetary emergency.” That was 13 years ago.
- Gore is of course the same fellow who in the mid- to late-2000s kept telling us the Arctic Ocean would soon be ice-free. The ice, which is still there, had grown thicker and had wider coverage in 2014 than when Gore made his prediction. Earlier this year, before the growing season had ended, Wattsupwiththat reported the “2019 Arctic sea-ice extent is already higher than the previous four years and six out of the last 14 years.”
- In January 2009, former NASA scientist and corporate witch hunter James Hansen swore that the incoming president had a mere four years to save the world.
- Later in the year, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (the Thames, again) said there remained “fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more.”
- Also in 2009, 124 months ago, the prince of Wales worried out loud the world had “less than 100 months” to save itself.
- 2009 was a particularly looney year. Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote “we have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it. … We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours.”
- While speaking to then-Secretary of State John Kerry in May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Nearly 1,900 days have passed since. The chaos is in the foreign minister’s head.
- In 2015, mayors from around the world signed a statement that said the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees” Celsius had arrived.
- Almost 20 years ago, in Y2K, the British Independent quoted a climate researcher who said in coming years the children of England “just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Thirteen years later, that same newspaper told readers to “stand by for icy blasts and heavy snow.”
Despite the weight of mistaken forecasts, the alarmists plod on. Even in the most recent editorial on this site regarding global warming hysteria, a few reader comments, which proved the point of that particular piece, indicate that the madness might be untreatable.
(One reader accused us of being “funded by the oil companies, and conservative movements.” Our response: If only. We’re funded by no one. What little revenue we have comes from a few generous readers hitting our tip jar and some minimal advertising. But of course the comment was not intended to illuminate — it was uttered to discredit our work through a made-up link to “evil” corporations and institutions. The aim is to poison and end the discussion, and is typically employed as a last-ditch effort to save a failed argument.)
The alarmists never consider that there could be other factors in the observed changes, that it’s possible the temperature record is hopelessly flawed, the predictive models faulty, the research “proving” their point itself corrupt. There were references in the comments made to the “facts” — for instance, half of the ocean reefs are dead, whales have starved, rising sea levels are threatening civilization — but no effort was made to show a direct link from these observations to man’s carbon dioxide emissions. We’re simply supposed to believe. Just because.
Which should be expected, because it’s not possible to make that connection. Correlation is not the same as causation. And any gap between the two grows wider with each additional component that affects climate. A non-exhaustive list of climate inputs includes the sun, the moon, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, volcanic activity, and clouds, all of which are beyond man’s control.
Not outside of human control, though, is the burning of fossil fuels, which the alarmists say is overheating Earth due to the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide released in combustion. But also released into the atmosphere are particulates, which have a cooling effect because they reflect solar energy back toward the sun. What of this, we ask the fearmongers?
Though there exists reasonable doubt, the alarmists desperately want to believe. Have to believe. Worse, they feel compelled to make everyone else believe. Express doubt in their narrative and expect to be talked down to, ridiculed, written off as a rube, or worse, labeled a puppet of malign interests.
But just as they have been wrong through decades of missed predictions, they’re also wrong in their accusations against the “deniers.” They, of course, don’t see it that way. True believers will never admit they’re wrong, even when their own eyes show them they’ve been mistaken.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNothing remotely in this yellow rag of an article that is science, and question of the scientific evidence for global warming is not addressed.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
I just love how the faithful are so taken with the science of climate change, even when it contradicts itself over and over again, but refuse to listen to those scientists who will tell you that there are only 2 genders and that an unborn baby is actually a human being before it's born.
Talk about cherry-picking.........
Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostTwo words: "adjusted data".
But yeah, if the question were different, I'd want more than just a good looking graph."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by mossrose View PostI just love how the faithful are so taken with the science of climate change, even when it contradicts itself over and over again,
https://climate.nasa.gov/“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
382 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment