Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1117835381267808263

 

[B-Man]

 

 

.

[row_33]

On 3/27/2019 at 4:24 PM, Dante said:

Pretty much have a monopoly on education (that we are forced to pay for like it or not) and now they want a monopoly on the food they can eat there? Nice scam.

 

you can't be trusted to not violate food restrictions in a public school

 

it's not that bad a restriction....  the overall idea isn't good though

 

[IDBillzFan]

This just in: Man dead in 12 years, but other mammals have decades.

 

 

[Gary M]

"There will in no more snow by 2016" -Al Gore

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/09/over-inches-snow-just-plastered-duluth-minnesota-shattering-may-records/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6534302380d8

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

 

Every time I see this topic come back up in PPP I am just stunned that there is anyone with a brain still arguing to do nothing about global warming.  Is there some doubt in the models and forecasts?  Sure there is some doubt, but imo certainly not nearly enough to sit still.

 

Ever been at a baseball game when a foul ball is hit hard and sent spinning into the crowd?  About 500 people put their hands up to their face and they start to lean.  Do you really think 499 of those people are stupid because it won't end up hitting them? 

 

Those 500 react like that for two reasons.  First, a baseball could smash your face or even end your life.  The consequences of misjudging it are very great.  The second reason is that casually waiting until you are certain that it is going to hit you, may mean you waited too long and cannot now react in time to avert the tragedy. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

 

Every time I see this topic come back up in PPP I am just stunned that there is anyone with a brain still arguing to do nothing about global warming.  Is there some doubt in the models and forecasts?  Sure there is some doubt, but imo certainly not nearly enough to sit still.

 

Ever been at a baseball game when a foul ball is hit hard and sent spinning into the crowd?  About 500 people put their hands up to their face and they start to lean.  Do you really think 499 of those people are stupid because it won't end up hitting them? 

 

Those 500 react like that for two reasons.  First, a baseball could smash your face or even end your life.  The consequences of misjudging it are very great.  The second reason is that casually waiting until you are certain that it is going to hit you, may mean you waited too long and cannot now react in time to avert the tragedy. 

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/

 

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

 

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

 

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

 

(snip)

 

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

 

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

 

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

[Bill from NYC]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Every time I see this topic come back up in PPP I am just stunned that there is anyone with a brain still arguing to do nothing about global warming.  Is there some doubt in the models and forecasts?  Sure there is some doubt, but imo certainly not nearly enough to sit still.

 

Ever been at a baseball game when a foul ball is hit hard and sent spinning into the crowd?  About 500 people put their hands up to their face and they start to lean.  Do you really think 499 of those people are stupid because it won't end up hitting them? 

 

Those 500 react like that for two reasons.  First, a baseball could smash your face or even end your life.  The consequences of misjudging it are very great.  The second reason is that casually waiting until you are certain that it is going to hit you, may mean you waited too long and cannot now react in time to avert the tragedy. 

You make a great deal of sense. Obama had it right. Give the worst offenders (India and China) 20 or 30 years to voluntarily make changes, and punish US companies and consumers a few billion so thieves like Gore and the Clintons can get rich. This, as the world is cooling off.

 

I am stunned that there is 1 person who doesn't parrot your sensible, patriotic position on this issue. Thanks for enlightening us.

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, Bill from NYC said:

You make a great deal of sense. Obama had it right. Give the worst offenders (India and China) 20 or 30 years to voluntarily make changes, and punish US companies and consumers a few billion so thieves like Gore and the Clintons can get rich. This, as the world is cooling off.

 

I am stunned that there is 1 person who doesn't parrot your sensible, patriotic position on this issue. Thanks for enlightening us.

Any time Bill   Glad to help you out

[Bill from NYC]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Any time Bill   Glad to help you out

No prob. And thanks oh so much to the great state of Michigan for giving their electoral votes to President Donald J. Trump in 2016, despite the democrat votes of dead people, etc.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Bill from NYC

[DC Tom]

42 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

 

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

 

Not even true.  Consensus isn't invoked in science, period.  Consensus is a political principle.  Not scientific.

 

No one refers to a "consensus" about relativity, because relativity is constantly tested and validated.  And it's constantly tested because it's constantly questioned.  Not so global warming - exactly the opposite, in fact.  Global warming acolytes use "consensus" as an argument to ensure it's not questioned, tested, or validated.

[row_33]

they cannot predict the temperature accurately 5 days in advance, always having to recast it by the hour, thanks iPhone for showing me this....

 

 

and 95% of the time they have to revise DOWN the temperature....

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

they cannot predict the temperature accurately 5 days in advance, always having to recast it by the hour, thanks iPhone for showing me this....

 

 

and 95% of the time they have to revise DOWN the temperature....

 

 

 

Weather is not climate.

 

I saw this today:

 

See anything wrong with that graph?  

[row_33]

13 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Weather is not climate.

 

I saw this today:

 

See anything wrong with that graph?  

 

 

it's all guesswork, with very slim predictable usefullness

 

and it's all politically based in addition

 

we've been down this road 1,000 times though

 

 

 

 

the top 3 weather watchers are off 3.5F on the average temperature in the US for January 2019, that builds confidence

 

 

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

 

it's all guesswork, with very slim predictable usefullness

 

 

Nope.

 

What's wrong is: there's almost no variance between data sets.  Less than 1%, between seven processed sets and the raw data.

 

I can't think of a single scientific discipline where that wouldn't strongly suggest a methodological issue.  And no, it's not "bias" or "faked," because they would have been smart enough to fake more variance.  

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Nope.

 

What's wrong is: there's almost no variance between data sets.  Less than 1%, between seven processed sets and the raw data.

 

I can't think of a single scientific discipline where that wouldn't strongly suggest a methodological issue.  And no, it's not "bias" or "faked," because they would have been smart enough to fake more variance.  

 

Yeah it was interesting that the lines are all right on top of each other, but also it just shows temperature rising. How does that show greenhouse gasses are causing this (which is what he is implying)?

[Koko78]

8 hours ago, Gary M said:

"There will in no more snow by 2016" -Al Gore

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/09/over-inches-snow-just-plastered-duluth-minnesota-shattering-may-records/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6534302380d8

 

 

 

You're talking about weather, while Al Gore was talking about climate. 97% agree! CONSENSUS! YOU'RE A POOPY HEAD DENIER!!!!11111

[GG]

6 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Nope.

 

What's wrong is: there's almost no variance between data sets.  Less than 1%, between seven processed sets and the raw data.

 

I can't think of a single scientific discipline where that wouldn't strongly suggest a methodological issue.  And no, it's not "bias" or "faked," because they would have been smart enough to fake more variance.  

 

To play devils advocate, wouldn't this be the expected behavior since they all strive to measure the same thing using the same temperature gauges?

[DC Tom]

51 minutes ago, GG said:

 

To play devils advocate, wouldn't this be the expected behavior since they all strive to measure the same thing using the same temperature gauges?

 

No, because they don't.  That graph is deviation from an established norm (how the norm is established isn't pertinent to this particular discussion) of the temperature of the entire planet.  There's no standard temperature "gauge" or "gauges" that measures that.  There's a basic methodology of taking sample temperatures at different, set points across the globe, then applying some sort of processing to them to establish an integrated global temperature.  

 

But there's quite a few different ways to calculate that integrated temperature - most of them probably use some sort of a "mesh grid" model, fixed or variable size (NASA and UK Met both use variable mesh grids.)  But for all of them to be that similar, and all that similar to the "raw data," they'd all have to be using the same algorithms, and the same methodologies, identical  boundary conditions, identical polynomial coefficients...and even "the consensus" isn't that strong a consensus.  There's not enough divergence in those different graphs to account for what they call the "structural uncertainty" of the different methodologies.

 

Of course, when I point that out - that results that exact are almost always bad science - I get called a "denier."

 

[bbb]

23 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Weather is not climate.

 

I saw this today:

 

See anything wrong with that graph?  

 

it's actually the Dow