Is it too late to avoid catastrophe?

[Tim the plumber]

And if you cherry pick a different timeframe you can get there in 50

Please do so; explain how we can get a +2c warming in 50 years.

You will find that there are no cherries you can find that include todays temperature that will do that.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Your fake science is revolting.

You have no clue about physics.

 

[Threegoofs]

https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/

I don't have time to find them but independent reviews have shown their peer review process to be highly bias and nothing more than confirmation bias. They found that peer review is supposed to be a hidden confidential process but with these guys they all know each other and do nothing but check off their work.

They found that paper that do not agree with their opinion are highly rejected not on grounds that the data was bad but thy simply don't agree.

They basically confirm all the emails that were found in climate gate.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/whistle-blower-scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa/

Clearly there is something that is unethical going on here.

Yes there is. And the NR cited a Daily Mail article as its main source... and that article was subsequently admitted to be wrong in a lengthy correction.

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

You’re right. There IS clearly something unethical going on here.

 

[ludin]

You can say it. Conspiracy.

Tens of thousands of scientists in many different nations are all conspiring to fake data, or accept fake data, to further their careers as part of some unstated political group.

Say it.

Because you might realize how nutty it sounds if it actually comes out of your mouth.

It doesn't take 10's of thousands of scientists.
All it takes are a few handful of them that dictate what data is used how it is used and what is rejected.

It is called confirmation bias and the IPCC and those in charge of it have been busted numerous time for using bad data, non-peer reviewed papers. They have been found to distort and leave out authors works.

There are thousands of scientists that have worked directly on and with the IPCC papers that have quit because of the unethical bias and how they were treating the data.

These are actual authors for the paper.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/whistle-blower-scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-...t-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

As you can read which we know you won't IPCC scientists themselves have called out that the organization is highly bias and controls the data in an unethical manner

They also point out that by doing so their papers have little chance of being published.

 

[Threegoofs]

Scientific papers you have not read will not do.

I require you to explain your thinking. Your take on it.

Then use such papers to justify your position. With quotes from such papers not just a link to them.

You have posted links to too long to read irrelevance too often for me to waste my life following your distrations.

LOL.

Ok, sure.

Reading the graphic below and having it backed up by the article I posted is just way too involved. And giving you the resources to answer the question that you’ve asked multiple times is just a waste of your time to read.

I apparently need to dumb it down for you. But when I do that, you then tell me that I can’t back up my points.

What a joke.

 

[ludin]

Yes there is. And the NR cited a Daily Mail article as its main source... and that article was subsequently admitted to be wrong in a lengthy correction.

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

You’re right. There IS clearly something unethical going on here.

Glad you finally admit that what is taking place at the IPCC is unethical.

You are finally coming around maybe. I doubt it.

Nope you're don't care as long as th end justifies the means.
Sorry thousands of authors on the IPCC papers have called gen out on their dishonesty.

You ignoring evidence doesn't mean squat.

Their emails prove that eh are engaged in unethical behavior.

 

[Threegoofs]

It doesn't take 10's of thousands of scientists.
All it takes are a few handful of them that dictate what data is used how it is used and what is rejected.

It is called confirmation bias and the IPCC and those in charge of it have been busted numerous time for using bad data, non-peer reviewed papers. They have been found to distort and leave out authors works.

There are thousands of scientists that have worked directly on and with the IPCC papers that have quit because of the unethical bias and how they were treating the data.

These are actual authors for the paper.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/whistle-blower-scientist-exposes-shoddy-climate-science-noaa/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-...t-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

As you can read which we know you won't IPCC scientists themselves have called out that the organization is highly bias and controls the data in an unethical manner

They also point out that by doing so their papers have little chance of being published.

Really? Thousands of scientists who’ve quit the IPCC?

You live in a very special world.

 

[Tim the plumber]

LOL.

Ok, sure.

Reading the graphic below and having it backed up by the article I posted is just way too involved. And giving you the resources to answer the question that you’ve asked multiple times is just a waste of your time to read.

I apparently need to dumb it down for you. But when I do that, you then tell me that I can’t back up my points.

What a joke.

From what paper?

 

[calamity]

Lately, I've been thinking that we are certain to face the societal problems warned of by scientists and politicians. 2 degrees warming seems inevitable now. And 2 degrees warming seems like the best case scenario, rather than the fought for boundary.

What do you guys think?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

Here's an interesting article highlighting what former politicians and administrators were doing or trying to do about climate change, before it was so politicized.

We'll probably see at least 5 Degrees F (3 Deg C) of warming from the baseline by the time you are my age--I assume that to be about 30 years from now.

 

[Threegoofs]

From what paper?

Already posted. It’s also referenced right on the ****ing graphic.

 

[Winston]

We'll probably see at least 5 Degrees F (3 Deg C) of warming from the baseline by the time you are my age--I assume that to be about 30 years from now.

Sad because all the information and the know-how is readily available to change that.

 

[late]

As you can read which we know you won't IPCC scientists themselves have called out that the organization is highly bias and controls the data in an unethical manner

They also point out that by doing so their papers have little chance of being published.

What that article doesn't say is that most of the scientists that are unhappy with IPCC reports think that politics is keeping them from showing the full extent of the problem, and the danger.

It's as much the result of politics, as it is of science. A lot of them participate for a while, and then decide they have better uses for their time.

You are being fed a whole lot of crap. If a paper is good, you can get it published. The problem is that if you become a shill for the oil industry, it's not hard to tell.

 

[Jack Hays]

What that article doesn't say is that most of the scientists that are unhappy with IPCC reports think that politics is keeping them from showing the full extent of the problem, and the danger.

It's as much the result of politics, as it is of science. A lot of them participate for a while, and then decide they have better uses for their time.

You are being fed a whole lot of crap. If a paper is good, you can get it published. The problem is that if you become a shill for the oil industry, it's not hard to tell.

:bs Complete nonsense.

 

[ludin]

What that article doesn't say is that most of the scientists that are unhappy with IPCC reports think that politics is keeping them from showing the full extent of the problem, and the danger.

It's as much the result of politics, as it is of science. A lot of them participate for a while, and then decide they have better uses for their time.

You are being fed a whole lot of crap. If a paper is good, you can get it published. The problem is that if you become a shill for the oil industry, it's not hard to tell.

No they are unhappy that work is being used and distorted in a begging the question fallacy.
These people have made up their mind that global warming is real. I won't call it climate change because that is something else.
They have put their entire reputation in it being true. So they attempt to justify their conclusion before hand.
I see that you were dishonest and left out the links I posted which show exactly why these people are
Ticked off and upset.

No you can't get it published. The people that control the papers and what gets printed are all agw zealots.
Former IPCC. Scientists have even stated that they have a hard time getting their papers published
Since they do not conform to AGW zealots.

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

They are finally starting to break free.
1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers ?Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,? Says Harvard Astrophysicist!

He offers an even harsher assessment of the UN climate science, writing that the IPCC is made up of “bureaucrats” who harbor a political agenda. “Extreme bias of climate research was deliberately created through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing runaway global warming,” he wrote to NTZ in an email. “The political message and funding were directed to only research that proved their hypothesis. Only journals that favored the objective were used and encouraged, so the preponderance of research and publications supported the predetermined message. It is a classic case of Lysenkoism

Then again we already knew this.

 

[calamity]

The denial is strong in this thread.

I highly recommend reading the article linked in the post below.

Let's face it. We've known. We've all known. The data has been out there for over 30 years.

Here's a nice summary of what's been said, who said it and when.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html


So, no excuses.

TLDNR: We've known about CO2 induced climate change for over 30 years.

 

[Jack Hays]

The denial is strong in this thread.

I highly recommend reading the article linked in the post below.




TLDNR: We've known about CO2 induced climate change for over 30 years.

CO2 is not the primary driver of recent warming.

 

[longview]

What that article doesn't say is that most of the scientists that are unhappy with IPCC reports think that politics is keeping them from showing the full extent of the problem, and the danger.

It's as much the result of politics, as it is of science. A lot of them participate for a while, and then decide they have better uses for their time.

You are being fed a whole lot of crap. If a paper is good, you can get it published. The problem is that if you become a shill for the oil industry, it's not hard to tell.

Actually, that is not true, after IPCC AR5 was released in it's final form, many of the lead authors were not happy that their findings were not included, so they
published a letter about their findings in Nature.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.361.3688&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Their finding were that based on the empirical data, ECS should be lower.

 

[late]

Then again we already knew this.

Snopes..

"NTZ employs three main strategies: straw man arguments that falsely change the evidence for global warming into something that is easier to refute; the inclusion of papers wholly irrelevant to the reality of anthropogenic climate change; and the inclusion of papers (or conference abstracts) that almost certainly underwent little or no peer review process."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

In short, that's wacko.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Snopes..

"NTZ employs three main strategies: straw man arguments that falsely change the evidence for global warming into something that is easier to refute; the inclusion of papers wholly irrelevant to the reality of anthropogenic climate change; and the inclusion of papers (or conference abstracts) that almost certainly underwent little or no peer review process."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

In short, that's wacko.

Nobody here is saying the earth isn't warming. We are just saying there is no acceptable evidence that what we will see is a problem.

 

[Surface Detail]

Nobody here is saying the earth isn't warming. We are just saying there is no acceptable evidence that what we will see is a problem.

Steve Case and Jack Hays both claim that the earth isn't warming. Into The Night claims that it is impossible to determine whether the earth is warming.

 

[Steve Case]

Steve Case and Jack Hays both claim that the earth isn't warming. Into The Night claims that it is impossible to determine whether the earth is warming.

I don’t make any such claim. You show me where you think that I have.

 

[Surface Detail]

I don’t make any such claim. You show me where you think that I have.

Look back at the start of this thread. You begin by claiming that the US is cooling rather than warming, and then you go on to imply that this can be extended to the globe because the US has the best weather records. You have also made repeated claims that temperature records have been faked or unduly altered.

 

[CLAX1911]

Lately, I've been thinking that we are certain to face the societal problems warned of by scientists and politicians. 2 degrees warming seems inevitable now. And 2 degrees warming seems like the best case scenario, rather than the fought for boundary.

What do you guys think?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

Here's an interesting article highlighting what former politicians and administrators were doing or trying to do about climate change, before it was so politicized.

I think it's time to give up and just go on about our daily lives in deal with the end of the world when it happens.

 

[CLAX1911]

Says me. You guys have been at this for over thirty years and it's not happening.



I'd accept Climate Science:
If climate science wasn't pushed as an absolute in schools.
If the predictions from climate science seemed to be true.
If climate scientists didn't rig the peer review process.
If climate scientists didn’t sabotage scientific careers.
If IPCC reports weren't re-written after final approval.
If climate scientists didn't try to sue the opposition.
If climate scientists didn't appear to fudge the data.
If climate scientists didn't resort to name-calling.
If climate scientists complied with FOI requests.
If climate scientists agreed to debate the issue.
If climate scientists didn’t exaggerate findings.
If climate scientists didn’t rig grant programs.

Canards and BS:
Methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat.
Warm water is melting the Antarctic ice cap from below.
Thermal exapansion affects relative sea level
Water vapor rains out after a few days
Cattle are a major source of methane.
People depend on glaciers for water.
Burning biomass is carbon neutral.
The coral reefs are in danger.
Polar bears are going extinct.
CFCs caused the Ozone Hole.
Average world temperature
97% of scientists agree
Antarctica is melting.
Greenland is melting.
Drought is increasing
Ocean acidification

If you dare show the slightest bit of skepticism for this religion up excuse me scientific certainty you will be dubbed a heretic excuse me a denier. Because somebody's political party has placed all their apples in this basket and that's it

It's just yet another form of partisan nonsense.

 

[Steve Case]

Look back at the start of this thread. You begin by claiming that the US is cooling rather than warming, and then you go on to imply that this can be extended to the globe because the US has the best weather records. You have also made repeated claims that temperature records have been faked or unduly altered.

That’s right summer afternoons are cooler for much of the United States. Winters are warmer. Overall average world temperatures are up about a degree. I’ve posted that any number of times on these boards.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and should produce some warming. Whether it actually has or not is a matter for debate.

What I have said is Climate Change/Global Warming is not a looming catastrophic disaster requiring that I change my lifestyle.