• 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!

Global warming: Fake news becomes no news

jmotivator said:
I hope all of the catastrophic global warming believers believe hard enough to tithe! ;)
Click to expand...
I'm waiting for the carbon credit scam to really take off. I'm hoping they are all roiling in enough guilt and self loathing for their use of gas powered vehicles and air conditioning that they invest in paying off their guilt by buying back carbon neutrality. Ive got enough tree's on my property to ease the conscience of at least 300 poor damaged souls.
 
Climate cash / Opinion
[h=1]Shocker: little known ‘Financial Stability Board’ has huge climate deceit[/h]FSB, Climate Cabal expand power and wealth, by targeting financial and insurance industries Foreword: A powerful international organization, the Financial Stability Board, includes a task force that is helping to coordinate numerous attacks on financial, investing, insurance and other firms … and their clients … in the name of preventing dangerous manmade climate change. By…
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate cash / Opinion
[h=1]Shocker: little known ‘Financial Stability Board’ has huge climate deceit[/h]FSB, Climate Cabal expand power and wealth, by targeting financial and insurance industries Foreword: A powerful international organization, the Financial Stability Board, includes a task force that is helping to coordinate numerous attacks on financial, investing, insurance and other firms … and their clients … in the name of preventing dangerous manmade climate change. By…
Click to expand...

If we assume the gist of the article to be true, president Trump will have assassination attempts.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If we assume the gist of the article to be true, president Trump will have assassination attempts.
Click to expand...

He's already had one. Bill Clinton had four, George W. Bush two, Barack Obama three.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...assassination_attempts_and_plots#Bill_Clinton

Uncertainty and abrupt changes are among the greatest enemies of prosperity, both of which are substantial risks of inaction on climate change. Therefore following the Paris climate agreement, the G20 nations asked the Financial Stability Board (whose member institutions include the IMF, World Bank, the G20 nations plus Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland and Spain, the EU, OECD and others) to review measures to maximise positive and minimize negative impacts from climate policy in the financial sector:
"At the request of the G20, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) engaged the private and public sector to review how the financial sector can incorporate climate-related issues in financial reporting. In December 2015, the FSB established the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures to undertake a coordinated assessment of what constitutes efficient and effective disclosure and design a set of recommendations for voluntary company financial disclosures of climate-related risks that are responsive to the needs of lenders, insurers, investors, and other users of disclosures. The Task Force membership spans private providers of capital, major issuers, accounting firms, and rating agencies, thereby presenting a unique opportunity to form a collaborative partnership between the users and preparers of financial reports."​

Anyone contemplating investment in an oil prospecting company, for example, would probably want to be well-advised on what governmental policies are likely to affect her returns on the investment over time.

But rather than seeing this as an intelligent approach to planning for ongoing stability and prosperity, Anthony Watts has tried to spin a tale of vast conspiracy and collusion against the common man. He has avoided mentioning that the FSB is an organization of countries and established international institutions working together to promote financial stability, and even more carefully avoided any hint that G20 requested this review: Quite the opposite in fact, he tries to paint the FSB as shady overlords even of the G20! ("The FSB and Climate Cabal want us to ignore them, focus on climate change – and have the G20 do likewise.") He attempts to paint disclosure of genuine investment risks caused by climate change and climate policy as "attacks" on those risky ventures and as efforts to "target, stigmatize, harass and intimidate" them.

It's fitting that with the abject failure of the CRU email conspiracy theories, Jack felt the need to post this to reassure the contrarian community that "they" really are out to get you.

It would be pathetic, if it weren't for the fact that there's so many dupes out there eager to swallow this tripe wholesale. Good to see you're not one of them LoP :)
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
It would be pathetic, if it weren't for the fact that there's so many dupes out there eager to swallow this tripe wholesale. Good to see you're not one of them LoP :)
Click to expand...

I see that whole CRU email thing as very suspicious, but I also don't see enough evidence that there was fraud, than I do as CO2 being the major cause of our warming.
 
Unfortunately problems occur when they dump the science and start manually fiddling with the numbers.

It really ruins it for everyone. Especially the Al Gore green energy stock.
 
flogger said:
Gawd thats one I hadn't seen and shows what a whitewash that investigation was .

How did they ever get away with this ? :shock:
Click to expand...

akyron said:
Unfortunately problems occur when they dump the science and start manually fiddling with the numbers.

It really ruins it for everyone. Especially the Al Gore green energy stock.
Click to expand...

The thing is, papers adjust numbers all the time and they are covered by saying things like "if we assume."

This is where the science often is lied by the pundits. The pundits don't see these deviations from empirical to changing int a modeled fiction. The papers is still accurate for the assumed conditions, but doesn't represent reality.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The thing is, papers adjust numbers all the time and they are covered by saying things like "if we assume."

This is where the science often is lied by the pundits. The pundits don't see these deviations from empirical to changing int a modeled fiction. The papers is still accurate for the assumed conditions, but doesn't represent reality.
Click to expand...

I can agree. It grates on me when people say "Scientist reach a consensus." Science is not consensus. You dont need one. It either is or isnt.

Simple consistency.
 
akyron said:
I can agree. It grates on me when people say "Scientist reach a consensus." Science is not consensus. You dont need one. It either is or isnt.

Simple consistency.
Click to expand...

If it is, you'd expect most scientists in the field to recognize it (eg. evolution); if it isn't, you'd expect few scientists to do so (eg. homeopathy). When a body of scientific evidence built up over more than a century has persuaded an increasingly overwhelming majority of experts from countries all around the world, it's a pretty solid indication that they're onto something.

Climate Scientists and the Consensus on Climate Change: TheBray and von Storch Surveys, 1996-2008

Asked in 1996 and again in 2003 whether ‘We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway’ the answer increasingly was that ‘we’ could: 62% agreed in 1996, 82% in 2003; only 24% in 1996 and 12% in 2003 disagreed (2007, fig 28). In 2008, no fewer than 93% agreed ‘that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now’ (2008, fig. 20); but, given that climate variability as a natural phenomenon is hardly in dispute, responses to this question don’t tell us much. . . .


Asked in 1996 ‘whether climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes’, less than half (40%) of the respondents said it was. But in 2003 the figure rose to more than half (53%) (2007, fig. 30). At the same time, three-quarters of the respondents (74% in 1996, 76% in 2003) agreed that ‘without change in human behavior, global warming will definitely occur sometime in the future’ (2007, fig 31). In 2008, an even greater proportion (84%) was ‘convinced’ that ‘most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes. . . .


Respondents in all three surveys saw ‘global climate change’ as a leading problem. More than that, a large and increasing proportion saw ‘global climate change as one of the leading problems facing humanity’ (1996, 2003) or at least saw its ‘potential impact’ as ‘as one of the leading problems’ (2008): 65% in 1996, 69% in 2003, and 83% in 2008 saw it in these terms (2007, fig. 29; 2008, fig. 28).​
 
Mithrae said:
If it is, you'd expect most scientists in the field to recognize it (eg. evolution); if it isn't, you'd expect few scientists to do so (eg. homeopathy). When a body of scientific evidence built up over more than a century has persuaded an increasingly overwhelming majority of experts from countries all around the world, it's a pretty solid indication that they're onto something.
Climate Scientists and the Consensus on Climate Change: TheBray and von Storch Surveys, 1996-2008

Asked in 1996 and again in 2003 whether ‘We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway’ the answer increasingly was that ‘we’ could: 62% agreed in 1996, 82% in 2003; only 24% in 1996 and 12% in 2003 disagreed (2007, fig 28). In 2008, no fewer than 93% agreed ‘that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now’ (2008, fig. 20); but, given that climate variability as a natural phenomenon is hardly in dispute, responses to this question don’t tell us much. . . .


Asked in 1996 ‘whether climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes’, less than half (40%) of the respondents said it was. But in 2003 the figure rose to more than half (53%) (2007, fig. 30). At the same time, three-quarters of the respondents (74% in 1996, 76% in 2003) agreed that ‘without change in human behavior, global warming will definitely occur sometime in the future’ (2007, fig 31). In 2008, an even greater proportion (84%) was ‘convinced’ that ‘most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes. . . .


Respondents in all three surveys saw ‘global climate change’ as a leading problem. More than that, a large and increasing proportion saw ‘global climate change as one of the leading problems facing humanity’ (1996, 2003) or at least saw its ‘potential impact’ as ‘as one of the leading problems’ (2008): 65% in 1996, 69% in 2003, and 83% in 2008 saw it in these terms (2007, fig. 29; 2008, fig. 28).​
Click to expand...

"If I were wrong, one would be enough." --Albert Einstein
 
Mithrae said:
If it is, you'd expect most scientists in the field to recognize it (eg. evolution); if it isn't, you'd expect few scientists to do so (eg. homeopathy). When a body of scientific evidence built up over more than a century has persuaded an increasingly overwhelming majority of experts from countries all around the world, it's a pretty solid indication that they're onto something.

Climate Scientists and the Consensus on Climate Change: TheBray and von Storch Surveys, 1996-2008

Asked in 1996 and again in 2003 whether ‘We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway’ the answer increasingly was that ‘we’ could: 62% agreed in 1996, 82% in 2003; only 24% in 1996 and 12% in 2003 disagreed (2007, fig 28). In 2008, no fewer than 93% agreed ‘that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now’ (2008, fig. 20); but, given that climate variability as a natural phenomenon is hardly in dispute, responses to this question don’t tell us much. . . .


Asked in 1996 ‘whether climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes’, less than half (40%) of the respondents said it was. But in 2003 the figure rose to more than half (53%) (2007, fig. 30). At the same time, three-quarters of the respondents (74% in 1996, 76% in 2003) agreed that ‘without change in human behavior, global warming will definitely occur sometime in the future’ (2007, fig 31). In 2008, an even greater proportion (84%) was ‘convinced’ that ‘most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes. . . .


Respondents in all three surveys saw ‘global climate change’ as a leading problem. More than that, a large and increasing proportion saw ‘global climate change as one of the leading problems facing humanity’ (1996, 2003) or at least saw its ‘potential impact’ as ‘as one of the leading problems’ (2008): 65% in 1996, 69% in 2003, and 83% in 2008 saw it in these terms (2007, fig. 29; 2008, fig. 28).​
Click to expand...
The above statements could all be true simply because most Scientist accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the climate is changing.
The statements do not require the amplified feedbacks that are required for the suite of catastrophic predictions to be true.
 
longview said:
The above statements could all be true simply because most Scientist accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the climate is changing.
The statements do not require the amplified feedbacks that are required for the suite of catastrophic predictions to be true.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read far enough to make out the words 'leading problem'...

Of course, maybe you're talking about a different group, since you seem to talk about Scientist while everyone else refers to a group of individuals in a plural, non capitalized form.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess you didn't read far enough to make out the words 'leading problem'...

Of course, maybe you're talking about a different group, since you seem to talk about Scientist while everyone else refers to a group of individuals in a plural, non capitalized form.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You still have that reading comprehension problem, I see!
Since my statement was " The above statements could all be true simply because"
I was referring to, well what was stated above.
As to the paper, some of the questions are questionable, like this one,
Do climate scientists see climate change having positive as well as negative consequences?
Click to expand...
I may be wrong but usually "consequences" imply something not positive!
 
Threegoofs said:
And he was wrong with quantum mechanics, as you are with your denialism of the obvious truth of AGW.
Click to expand...

Actually, he just thought our understanding was incomplete.

[h=3]Einstein on the Completeness of Quantum Theory - University of ...[/h]www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/...Jan.../quantum_theory.../index.html



That Einstein is the first of the modern physicists of the 20th century. He is the the genius of 1905 who established the reality of atoms, laid out special relativity and E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP], and made the audacious proposal of the light quantum. ... In his later years, a different Einstein emerged.
 
Well ... something notable from the survey is that a large percentage of respondents expressed confidence that climate models are able to simulate 10 year mean temperature values.
th

Of course that was before the 15 year warming pause was measurable which the models missed and the survey respondents couldn't consider.

Seriously ... we can all agree that human surveys and models have never accurately reflected real life changes in climate.
So then those models must be applying some known factors of climate influence too heavily with others minimized or not at all.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
You still have that reading comprehension problem, I see!
Since my statement was " The above statements could all be true simply because"
I was referring to, well what was stated above.
As to the paper, some of the questions are questionable, like this one,

I may be wrong but usually "consequences" imply something not positive!
Click to expand...

Again... 'one of the leading problems'.

I don't think people are confusing beneficial effects with problems.

Maybe only Scientist do. ;)
 
bubbabgone said:
Well ... something notable from the survey is that a large percentage of respondents expressed confidence that climate models are able to simulate 10 year mean temperature values.
th

Of course that was before the 15 year warming pause was measurable which the models missed and the survey respondents couldn't consider.

Seriously ... we can all agree that human surveys and models have never accurately reflected real life changes in climate.
So then those models must be applying some known factors of climate influence too heavily with others minimized or not at all.
Click to expand...

Except they do.

Thirty years ago, it was predicted we would be in a period of unprecedented warmth.

We are.

This isn't real hard to understand.
 
longview said:
The above statements could all be true simply because most Scientist accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the climate is changing.
The statements do not require the amplified feedbacks that are required for the suite of catastrophic predictions to be true.
Click to expand...

Reality isn't black or white - there's not some discrete "suite of catastrophic predictions" which, if not realised, mean that global warming is nothing to worry about. It would be more accurate to say that a number of serious consequences of global warming really don't require much in the way of amplified feedbacks: For example just extrapolating forwards from estimates of the last few decades' trends, a negative impact (even before consideration of specific extreme events) somewhere in the order of ~5% to 20% on yield per hectare for the major agricultural crops is obviously an issue of serious concern. Even if it's possible that we can compensate for it, as you've speculated, until it's actually known how that will be dealt with a dismissive attitude to climate change is hardly appropriate. And that's just one example.

I was just thinking the other day how strange it is that you tend ignore or 'like' even some of the more illogical or counterfactual contrarian posts on the forum. After all you yourself have offered your personal guestimate for temperature rise at the point of doubled CO2 concentrations (~1.8 degrees) which is in the top half of the IPCC range for Transient Climate Response (~1-2.5 degrees). You've also highlighted from the GISS temperature data that a greater than average amount of the warming occurs in high northern latitude winter - at least in part an indicator of albedo feedback from less snowfall and faster melting periods.
 
Threegoofs said:
Except they do.

Thirty years ago, it was predicted we would be in a period of unprecedented warmth.

We are.

This isn't real hard to understand.
Click to expand...
No it isn't so you should try and escape the corner you've gotten yourself in.
It's only unprecedented if you:
1) select the right time frame.
2) ignore the fact that the warming had paused while the models failed to show it.
3) don't realize that there are many elements in nature which have their own cycles and that have always predicted changes in climate more accurately and that have nothing to do with CO2.
4) insist that models show trends so we can't determine accuracy until we and our children's children are gone.
 
Threegoofs said:
Except they do.

Thirty years ago, it was predicted we would be in a period of unprecedented warmth.

We are.

This isn't real hard to understand.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right.

Average temperature is up about a degree from what it was in 1850
and most of that warming is in the winter. Summers in the United
States at least have been cooling for decades. The frequency of the
most violent classes of tornadoes has decreased, and precipitation is
up.

Add it all up and we are enjoying a mild climate compared to what
it was 80 years ago. Pretty soon the claims that "Climate Change" will
bring extreme weather will have to scare us with extreme mildness.
 
bubbabgone said:
No it isn't so you should try and escape the corner you've gotten yourself in.
It's only unprecedented if you:
1) select the right time frame.
2) ignore the fact that the warming had paused while the models failed to show it.
3) don't realize that there are many elements in nature which have their own cycles and that have always predicted changes in climate more accurately and that have nothing to do with CO2.
4) insist that models show trends so we can't determine accuracy until we and our children's children are gone.
Click to expand...

LOL.

No- it's pretty much unprecedented - never seen before in the historical record, almost certainly the highest in the last 1000 years or so, likely longer, and if the models continue to hold as well as they have, higher in the very near future than ever in the history of civilization.

There is no pause, the last 20 years have had something like 16 of the warmest ever recorded.

Cycles exist, but the extremely rapid warming we see conforms to no model we know of, although deniers are happy to make stuff up.

And your last comment comes full circle. The models HAVE been predictive, and despite your feverish wishes, there's no a lot of evidence that tells us they won't continue to be in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom