• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Excellent Send-Up of Confirmation Bias Among the AGW Advocates


Makes sense, you have a bigger family, drive a bigger car... Fine with me... tho I see fewer Hummers these days.
 
Nickyjo said:
You leave aside the question, should we not increase mileage standards, push for cleaner coal (if that is possible), etc.? What do you suggest we do?
Click to expand...

I actually don't think there's much more we need to do. Cleaner coal is probably a plus, but i see no need for higher mileage standards.
 
Nickyjo said:
Makes sense, you have a bigger family, drive a bigger car... Fine with me... tho I see fewer Hummers these days.
Click to expand...

You don't see Hummers any more because GM went broke and downsized. Also Hummer was doomed to become obsolete because it could not realistically achieve the fuel efficiency standards passed by the Obama Administration and with high gas prices and a stagnant economy, Hummer was a natural victim. Auto makers were all for those standards though because as they downsized their cars and trucks, they would be able to cut their costs for each vehicle while charging more for them to meet the new fuel economy standards.

It was sold to the general public that the average car owner would save $8,000 in fuel costs over the life of an automobile. Of course they sort of left out the part that the vehicle would additionally cost much more than that $8,000 to achieve those fuel standards.

I have fond memories of drive in theaters that charged by the car. So we kids would manage to pack eight or ten of us in the car along with lawn chairs or blankets--sometimes put one or two in the trunk--to go see a good movie under the starts. I wonder if the downsized cars was the reason drive in theaters went out of business. Hard to say.
 

Your presumption is not exactly good science.

Your idea that scientists agree comes from propaganda.

If you can manage to read any science papers which detail any actual trouble from a slightly wamrer world, and are credible, please tell me what it is.
 

Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide

"Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change."

Not that I expect you to take a blind bit of notice. On past form you'll simply ignore any answers to your question, and just keep asking it :roll:
 

Two for you:

ON CLIMATE SENSITIVITY AND WHY IT IS PROBABLY SMALL

Impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity

Posted on April 24, 2018 by niclewis | 281 comments
by Nic Lewis
We have now updated the LC15 paper with a new paper that has been published in the Journal of Climate “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity“. The paper also addresses critiques of LC15.
Continue reading →
 

Shaviv is not a climatologist, and his work in this area has been widely criticized. Even putting a charitable spin on it means that his work needs work. At the moment, it's in the lowest category.

The paper is part of ongoing work trying to get to a narrower range of estimates. It's at moments like this that I wish we had those gw satellites NASA wanted. In any case, this graph is from that paper:

 

So how much of the planet will be rendered uninhabitable if Lewis and Curry's estimate is correct? Is there any reason to believe that their estimate of ECS from climate models is likely to be more accurate than Hansen's estimate from palaeoclimate data?
 

To answer your first question: none.

Neither LC15 nor LC18 is derived from climate models.

". . . At the heart of the difficulty surrounding the values of ECS and TCR is the substantial difference between values derived from climate models versus values derived from changes over the historical instrumental data record using energy budget models. The median ECS given in AR5 for current generation (CMIP5) atmosphere-ocean global climate models (AOGCMs) was 3.2 K, versus 2.0 K for the median values from historical-period energy budget based studies cited by AR5.

Subsequently Lewis and Curry (2015; hereafter LC15) derived, using observationally-based energy budget methodology, a median ECS estimate of 1.6 K from AR5’s global forcing and heat content estimate time series, which made the discrepancy with ECS values derived from AOGCMs even larger. LC15 also derived a median TCR value of 1.3 K, well below the 1.8 K median TCR for CMIP5 models in AR5. . . .

We have now updated the LC15 paper with a new paper that has been published in the Journal of Climate “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity“.[iv] The paper (hereafter, LC18) addresses a range of concerns that have been raised about climate sensitivity estimates derived using energy balance models. We provide estimates of ECS and TCR based on a globally-complete infilled version of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature dataset as well as estimates based on HadCRUT4 itself.[v] Table 1 gives the ECS and TCR estimates for the four base period – final period combinations used. . . . "
 
Last edited:
late said:
Shaviv is not a climatologist, and his work in this area has been widely criticized. Even putting a charitable spin on it means that his work needs work. At the moment, it's in the lowest category.
Click to expand...

So . . . it is your contention that the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) made a mistake when they named Shaviv an IBM Einstein Fellow?
 
Humor / Satire
[h=1]Friday Funny: The neurobiology of “climate change denial”[/h]Guest essay by John Ridway Much work has already been undertaken to establish the cognitive foundation for the irrationality of climate change denial. Of particular note are the studies undertaken by Lewandowsky, Kahneman, Shapiro and O’Conner, identifying the many cognitive biases that invalidate arguments put forward by those who profess scepticism in the face of…
 

Yes, you already posted that.

The only person who seems to have been taken in by it is some fool who, ironically, calls himself a skeptic!
 

Literally one country on the planet was below a 50 year life expectancy in 2015. Chad. Population 15 million. This throws off your math. Worse, back when you did the math you did it wrong. Compounding the hilarity, your calculations presume literally 100% of mortality below that income level is attributable to biofuel related price increase. You know some people don’t even eat corn at all, right?
 
Last edited:

Do you think there is a remote posibility that we could burn all the fossil fuels in the world ever???

If so how the hell would we manage that?

If not then you have posted a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. Are you proud of that?
 

That the average life expectancy for any nation is above 50 has little to do with the poor of that nation living less than 50 years on average.

There are 3 billion people on less than $2.50 a day. UN figures.

This results in those 3 billion people having a life expectancy in the 40's.

If they had an effective doubling of income due to a halving of food prices and the general increase in economy of their fellows due to that drop in food price they would, in a few months, be looking at a life expectancy of around 60ish.

Your inability to look at a graph or comprehend the magnitude of the deaths cause by your chosen religion is not my fault. It is deep denial.
 

The link is old news (2010 whining) and there's no "Big Oil" connection anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…