Results 1,101 to 1,125 of 3644
-
09-05-2019, 09:54 AM #1101
I don't go to any of the websites he shares as they are known denier sites whose points have all been debunked, so I haven't read any of the comments there. I don't read any of his posts arguing about the science either. But I do know this is the denier playbook, and he posts too much and his replies are too long to just be some random dude on here, especially when he clearly isn't here for the skiing or snowboarding chatter.
-
09-05-2019, 11:49 AM #1102Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
I know its not a graph reconstructing temperature. What is so confusing about it is why it is set up like a temperature reconstruction. You would expect a graph of warming and cooling 51 year rates to be in bar graph form. It looks like they are showing the warming and cooling rates for every single year of the past 2000 years. I'd love to know how they think they have enough data to attempt something like that.
Enough with the sea level rate thing. I didn't look closely enough at the graph you had linked because of the confirmation bias I saw from the 3.1mm/year acceleration listed in the top right, which is what I was expecting to find.
-
09-05-2019, 12:18 PM #1103Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
I don't think we are going to get anywhere further with this discussion. I believe this is far too strong of a statement to make on the research as a whole:
1. Average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years
2. A warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time
3. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.
Your main source justifying these statements has only been out for about a month. I remain very hesitant to accept these overarching statements when the studies are comparing current instrumental records with imprecise past proxies. 20th century proxy records do not show the same level of warming as the instrumental record.
-
09-05-2019, 12:29 PM #1104Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
One of main main points I've made in this discussion has been that there isn't anything that can actually be done with our current tech. If 100% non carbon renewables were able to replace our current energy system at a reasonable cost then by all means, go for it. The problem is they can't. Trying to force a 100% non carbon renewable energy system on the US would be economic suicide and do virtually nothing to combat rising CO2 levels. The only way to make this happen is to get the tech to a point where it makes economic sense for the entire world to adopt.
In the meantime, we're better off saving the money for adaptation.
-
09-05-2019, 12:34 PM #1105
"Will Tuvalu Disappear Beneath the Sea? --
Global warming threatens to swamp a small island nation"
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...neath-the-sea-
My uneasiness is stoked by dire pronouncements that Tuvalu’s leaders have been making for more than a decade. The planet’s fourth-smallest nation, they say, faces extinction because of climate change. Rising seas and deadly storms have reportedly started to swamp the islands, and fears are growing that Tuvalu will be uninhabitable or may vanish entirely within a few decades. Prime Minister Saufatu Sapo’aga told the United Nations last year that the global-warming threat is no different from “a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.” Independent scientists also offer a grim forecast. “Because of its location and physical nature, Tuvalu is particularly susceptible to the adverse impacts of climate change and in particular rising sea level,” concludes a 1996 scientific study coauthored by the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme and the government of Japan.
Unlike other current or predicted environmental catastrophes, Tuvalu’s problem is one that people worldwide are believed to create by burning fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. In that sense, my habit of leaving lights on around my house, in Washington, D.C., a neighbor’s of constantly driving his large SUV to go just a few city blocks and another neighbor’s preference for a toasty house in winter would play a role in Tuvalu’s fate. In fact, Tuvalu threatened in 2002 to sue the United States and Australia for excessive carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, some Tuvaluans are getting ready to abandon their homeland. “Islanders Consider Exodus as Sea Level Rises,” the British newspaper The Guardian reported last year.
-
09-05-2019, 12:45 PM #1106Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
Wow, I knew you were close minded but didn't know it was that bad. You admit you refuse to listen to anything from someone that disagrees with you on something, thats pretty special.
I guess the IPCC is now a denier site seeing as you are back to posting hysterical hurricane articles.
-
09-05-2019, 12:55 PM #1107
Comrade gettin paid
-
09-05-2019, 12:58 PM #1108
If the earth were getting cooler, would it be better or worse than getting warmer?
Other than for skiing and other winter sports."timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang
-
09-05-2019, 01:04 PM #1109
-
09-05-2019, 01:42 PM #1110
The greatest strength of science is also its weakness when things start getting political. Science works by continuing testing and revising theories, continually searching for, analyzing, and incorporating new data. Climate scientists don't just publish once and then retire and play golf. The keep working, keep collecting data, keep reassessing. Which means that antiscientists like climate deniers can easily find something a scientist published that has had to be changed or is refuted by new evidence. This is then used to discredit the scientist and the science. It's much much easier if you just write some shit down, claim god said it, and then stick with it for a few thousand years. It may be total BS but there are no inconsistencies to attack.
RJ may not be spouting religious nonsense but he's certainly using the strategy--argue minor points and then claim that if such and such a minor point turns out to have been wrong on further study the whole scientific edifice of global warming must be wrong. And if there isn't anything wrong with the data, cherry pick some data that does agree with the overall trend and claim it refutes the entire edifice of global warming theory.
One of the most effective tactics of the deniers is stratification after the fact. Good science defines subsets based on analysis of previous work and then testing the subsets. Bad science takes a lot of data that doesn't show anything or which shows the opposite of what you want to prove and creates artificial subsets that seem to make their point. Now it's valid to search the data for subsets that seem to behave differently, but then you have to collect new data that shows the same behavior in that subset. Just by chance there will always be outliers; the question is whether or not those outliers are consistent over time.
-
09-05-2019, 01:47 PM #1111
^^^It's called poison the well.
Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
09-05-2019, 01:56 PM #1112
Different tactic--claim that any source that disagrees with you is biased. Find one mistake the source has made and claim it invalidates the source. A weakness of good journalism, when things turn political, is that reliable media acknowledge and correct their mistakes which makes them vulnerable to attack. Unreliable sources just double down on their mistakes.
RJ has a point though about WMD not reading RJ's sites. Now I think I'll go check out Daily Stormer to see what they have to say about race relations.
-
09-05-2019, 02:16 PM #1113
No Trick Zone, wow, just wow.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/40...rming-is-myth/
The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.
Claim
Hundreds of papers published in 2017 prove that global warming is a myth.
Rating
False
-
09-05-2019, 03:33 PM #1114
Clarification: I did review his points and sites for a while, but they are all well known denier sites with false and debunked information, aka bullshit or lies. I no longer look because I refuse to waste my time on that crap. So I did look, found that it was full of false information that has been proven to be incorrect, bad science, and / or cherry picked, and now no longer waste time on it.
If we all view his points and his sites we are helping to further his credibility, and he should have none. He knows he is wrong but can win by creating doubt. He does not deserve our attention.
-
09-05-2019, 04:13 PM #1115
-
09-05-2019, 04:16 PM #1116Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
-
09-05-2019, 04:30 PM #1117
-
09-05-2019, 06:05 PM #1118
RJ's source, NTZ, just gave him less than zero credit. Below is how "his source" handles the "data". Fucking retard needs to go away
The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.
-
09-05-2019, 06:17 PM #1119
-
09-05-2019, 07:05 PM #1120Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,009
-
09-05-2019, 07:08 PM #1121
-
09-05-2019, 07:10 PM #1122
-
09-05-2019, 08:00 PM #1123
-
09-05-2019, 08:16 PM #1124
-
09-05-2019, 09:24 PM #1125
Bookmarks