Scientists warn that greenhouse gas accumulation is accelerating and more extreme weather will come

[snakestretcher]

Your response should have identified SCIENTIFIC FACTS which refute or rebut the Epoch Times findings

Epoch Times is run by fringe religious lunatics and isn't worth any more than wiping your arse with.

When Anna was 14, her mother set up a 'special appointment' with The Master

An ABC investigation reveals the opaque world of Falun Gong and its mysterious leader Master Li Hongzhi.

www.abc.net.au

Far right newspaper promotes climate disinformation on Meta

Conservative media outlet, The Epoch Times, is targeting people in the UK with adverts on Facebook and Instagram that deny the existence of climate change and question its severity

globalwitness.org

Falun Gong-aligned media push fake news about Democrats and Chinese communists

The Epoch Times, believed to be linked to the Chinese religious movement, is part of an anti-CCP influence operation tapping into the US right, according to a media watchdog

www.theguardian.com

On Ukraine, Outright Lies in the Epoch Times - Providence

Troubling distortions from the right wing outlet The Epoch Times on the Russian Invasion.

providencemag.com

How The Epoch Times Created a Giant Influence Machine (Published 2020)

Since 2016, the Falun Gong-backed newspaper has used aggressive Facebook tactics and right-wing misinformation to create an anti-China, pro-Trump media empire.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Contumacious]

Epoch Times is run by fringe religious lunatics and isn't worth any more than wiping your arse with.

When Anna was 14, her mother set up a 'special appointment' with The Master

An ABC investigation reveals the opaque world of Falun Gong and its mysterious leader Master Li Hongzhi.

www.abc.net.au

Far right newspaper promotes climate disinformation on Meta

Conservative media outlet, The Epoch Times, is targeting people in the UK with adverts on Facebook and Instagram that deny the existence of climate change and question its severity

globalwitness.org

Falun Gong-aligned media push fake news about Democrats and Chinese communists

The Epoch Times, believed to be linked to the Chinese religious movement, is part of an anti-CCP influence operation tapping into the US right, according to a media watchdog

www.theguardian.com

On Ukraine, Outright Lies in the Epoch Times - Providence

Troubling distortions from the right wing outlet The Epoch Times on the Russian Invasion.

providencemag.com

How The Epoch Times Created a Giant Influence Machine (Published 2020)

Since 2016, the Falun Gong-backed newspaper has used aggressive Facebook tactics and right-wing misinformation to create an anti-China, pro-Trump media empire.

www.nytimes.com

Thank you for admitting that GLOBULL WARMING IS A JUNK SCIENCE thereby making a DEBATE UNNECESSARY

 

[snakestretcher]

Thank you for admitting that GLOBULL WARMING IS A JUNK SCIENCE thereby making a DEBATE UNNECESSARY

I admitted no such thing. Go away and do something productive; your towering intellect is clearly wasted here.

 

[Contumacious]

You are free to look up any of the statements in the article and see how they have been debunked. Here’s one for you. Soon (the fossil fuel funded guy who hid his funding sources when he published papers) talks about the urban heat island so called problem, but that issue is not as he described it. Here’s the truth:

View attachment 67577195

Note also that the Epoch Times article talks about all these experts and published studies but doesn’t name any except Soon.

Soon also said that climate change was primarily due to solar variability, but that also been debunked.

Below is a video from a former climate skeptic who had the integrity to go public with his findings when he tested enough data to convince himself to change his mind. His work as described here is primarily based on correlations. Now people will complain that correlation is not causation which is true. However, causation REQUIRES correlation. Soon’s solar variability didn’t make the cut. He also looked at the urban heat island issue.

Richard Muller founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project after declaring himself skeptical about climate change. He was funded in part by the Koch Brothers fossil fuel empire, just like Soon.

He found out what other scientists have known for decades. The Earth is warming, and we're doing it:

Exposing the JUNK SCIENCE known as GLOBULL WARMING - Preventing SCIENCE from being corrupted by POLITICS

 

[snakestretcher]

Exposing the JUNK SCIENCE known as GLOBULL WARMING - Preventing SCIENCE from being corrupted by POLITICS

More shite from you? Stick around and become the laughing stock of the forum. Should be fun.

 

[Contumacious]

More shite from you? Stick around and become the laughing stock of the forum. Should be fun.

Bollocks

"On one end of the political spectrum, the environmental advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists defines junk science as “work presented as valid science that falls outside the rigors of the scientific method and the peer review process. It can take the form of presentation of selective results, politically motivated distortions of scientifically sound papers, or the publishing of quasi scientific non-reviewed journals." (http://www.ucsusa.org/junkscience/whatisjunk.html). On the other side, Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., and co-author of the book Silencing Science, manages an entertaining and provocative Web page (http://www.junkscience.com) that debunks what he considers junk science. He lists numerous cases in which junk science has been used to support attacks on businesses and their products."

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-junk-science-dilemma

 

[rahl]

Again, these scientists are only making papers that are being commissioned. The pundits lie about what the papers actually mean.

You guys are so easily lied to.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Epoch Times is run by fringe religious lunatics and isn't worth any more than wiping your arse with.

How is that any different that the lies and propaganda your sources have?

I agree. Epoch Times is a shady source. But so are you sources.

 

[George50]

Duh. Use the same data and get similar results.

Duh, Berkeley Earth compiled their own data and got similar results.

Climate skeptics like Soon use deliberately dishonest tactics to try to convince people that what is really happening is not true. For example, below he uses data from a different location to try to convince people that the temperature in Churchill, Manitoba had not been rising when temperature records from Churchill show clearly that it was. Not only that, but he continues to make the fraudulent claim even after he is caught.

RealClimate: How Soon is now?

RealClimate: Willie Soon is a name that pops up every so often in climate 'debate'. He was the lead author on the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper (the only paper that has ever led to the resignation of 6 editors in protest at the failure of peer-review that led to its publication). He was a recent

www.realclimate.org

 

[George50]

Bollocks

"On one end of the political spectrum, the environmental advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists defines junk science as “work presented as valid science that falls outside the rigors of the scientific method and the peer review process. It can take the form of presentation of selective results, politically motivated distortions of scientifically sound papers, or the publishing of quasi scientific non-reviewed journals." (http://www.ucsusa.org/junkscience/whatisjunk.html). On the other side, Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., and co-author of the book Silencing Science, manages an entertaining and provocative Web page (http://www.junkscience.com) that debunks what he considers junk science. He lists numerous cases in which junk science has been used to support attacks on businesses and their products."

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-junk-science-dilemma

Your Epoch article is the perfect example of junk science perpetuated by one of the worst kind of junk scientists, Willie Soon. Not only is he not trained in the climate science he is infamous for but he is deliberately dishonest.

Climate skeptics like Soon use deliberately dishonest tactics to try to convince people that what is really happening is not true. For example, below he uses data from a different location to try to convince people that the temperature in Churchill, Manitoba had not been rising when temperature records from Churchill show clearly that it was. Not only that, but he continues to make the fraudulent claim even after he is caught.

RealClimate: How Soon is now?

RealClimate: Willie Soon is a name that pops up every so often in climate 'debate'. He was the lead author on the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper (the only paper that has ever led to the resignation of 6 editors in protest at the failure of peer-review that led to its publication). He was a recent

www.realclimate.org

 

[Lord of Planar]

Your Epoch article is the perfect example of junk science perpetuated by one of the worst kind of junk scientists, Willie Soon. Not only is he not trained in the climate science he is infamous for but he is deliberately dishonest.

Climate skeptics like Soon use deliberately dishonest tactics to try to convince people that what is really happening is not true. For example, below he uses data from a different location to try to convince people that the temperature in Churchill, Manitoba had not been rising when temperature records from Churchill show clearly that it was. Not only that, but he continues to make the fraudulent claim even after he is caught.

RealClimate: How Soon is now?

RealClimate: Willie Soon is a name that pops up every so often in climate 'debate'. He was the lead author on the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper (the only paper that has ever led to the resignation of 6 editors in protest at the failure of peer-review that led to its publication). He was a recent

www.realclimate.org

There was no deliberate dishonesty. He used data from other papers but someone concluded the methodically was wrong. I suspect it is something similar to what I do. Show that the same data doesn't necessary mean one conclusion only. Without details of the assumed problem., we can only guess.


But to say it was intentional dishonesty, is a stretch.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Several times, a study was shown in these forums regarding the global average warming cause by soot. they claimed it to be 1.1 W/m^2 average for soot alone.

What's your point? Isn't this at the higher end of the estimates? Don't most estimates put the realistic contribution at a lower range? Isn't soot short-lived and local? Doesn't CO2 mix around in the atmosphere and build up over time? Doesn't soot have a lifetime of at most a few weeks? Hasn't contribution of soot to atmosphere been trending down since the early 2000s and most notably since 2015? If that's the case why is the earth warming?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Yes I have from time to time. Science is a discipline that requires correct use of terminologies. You however allow words to mean what you want them to mean, and not realizing they can mean more than one thing.

Be specific, what are you talking about? How have I miscommunicated to you or others what the science reveals? Which words are you talking about?

You do not see the lack of technical clarity necessary.

So, in every single post I write on this forum on this topic, and also other topics, I make a deliberate effort to make them as understandable as possible to the widest number of people possible.

You and longview, for whatever reason, tend to the opposite, and I think that is not the right approach for a discussion forum devoted to the politics of the day and general discussion.

You are not distinguishing between what an author implies and what the author can show as legitimate.

So, I think this is a slightly different criticism.

When I am making my arguments about the theory of AGW, I am mostly borrowing from people who've done the hard work of studying the science, and these people are able to synthesize human civilization's body of knowledge about the atmosphere into a coherent theory that makes accurate predictions about the future.

There is no single study that conclusively proves the theory of AGW, but rather, we have a growing body of evidence point towards the idea that the theory of AGW is the best theory that explains why the Earth is warming.

The real key as to whether or not the AGW is accurate is if the simulations of Earth's atmosphere, based on the research you frequently dismiss, make accurate predictions about the future. And the simulations do this. If a theory continues to make accurate predictions about the future then it should see growing acceptance.

Words have meaning!

I totally agree with you on this, and I wish you'd apply the same logic and sense of morality to your analysis of the Alien Enemies Act, and immigration law, and the Constitutional powers of the executive branch. I've seen many instances where you suspend the logic of English words, English sentence structure, and English grammar to artificially arrive at a conclusion that supports your hardline immigration political views.

It's as if the text of the law will say, "Trump can't do this," and you'll say "nuh-uh" that "can't" is really a "can" and the words say, "Trump [can] do this."

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Just look for yourself in papers, what the papers can actually show with science, vs. what people claim they say.

This is my understanding:

The vast majority of the papers within the category of climate science are about specific, niche things, not about Earth's system as a whole. Climate science is a multi-disciplinary field. And the vast majority of scientists involved in climate science publish about those specific things within their domain of expertise, and little else (because that's what their field is about, that's what their academic career/occupation is about, that's what their funding is about, that's what their occupation is about, that's what they're doing on a daily basis, that's what they're comfortable with, etc., because doing this stuff takes a lot of time and hard work).

The closest thing we have to proving the theory of AGW are the computer simulations.

It's those simulations that bring human civilization's entire body of knowledge to bear in a virtual experiment on a Second Earth.

Is this your understanding as well?

Do you accept papers that describe climate model simulations?

And to what extent do these simulations have to make accurate predictions about the future -- which they have -- before you accept AGW as the best theory for what's happening?

It seems like you reject these simulations outright.

I remember bringing up the topic of real-time satellite data, and you waved those away suggesting that the people responsible for launching and receiving the data from the satellites were not calibrating their instruments properly. I can't even talk about the satellite data, let alone the computer simulations it seems like.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

There was no deliberate dishonesty. He used data from other papers but someone concluded the methodically was wrong. I suspect it is something similar to what I do. Show that the same data doesn't necessary mean one conclusion only. Without details of the assumed problem., we can only guess.


But to say it was intentional dishonesty, is a stretch.

Willie Soon is regarded as a dishonest kook who makes his living spreading propaganda for the fossil fuel industry.

Willie Soon's Climate Science Denial Wasn't Ever Credible: Climate Scientists

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless.” – NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, to the New York Times Recent revelations regarding Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon’s financing and coordination with fossil fuel companies for studies undermining the science of climate change has...

www.desmog.com

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless.” – NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, to the New York Times

Recent revelations regarding Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon’s financing and coordination with fossil fuel companies for studies undermining the science of climate change has received quite a bit of attention. Our friends at the Climate Investigations Center have links to source documents, letters to the IRS and Congress, letters to journals that Soon appears to have mislead, and some of the press covering all of this.

The drama has largely outshone the main point among most scientists: Willie Soon’s work is vastly discredited. For those who aren’t familiar with Willie Soon’s fossil fuel company contracting over the last fifteen years, there is probably a legitimate question of whether or not this guy deserves to be in his current pinch.

Frankly, he had it coming.

Scientists and science reporters have often had to waste their time addressing the interference of Soon and his cohorts, who take advantage of the public’s general unfamiliarity with scientific nuance.

But scientists too are talking about Dr. Soon’s work and what it means for the troubled peer-review process that the most stringent journals usually adhere to. Here is a summary of some of the most interesting conversations in science publications about Willie Soon’s #Fakexpert scandal.

First, Soon’s manager at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Charles Alcock, has time and time again said that neither he nor Smithsonian support Soon’s fossil-funded conclusions. From E&E Publishing’s ClimateWire:

Soon’s industry-financed papers have been debunked by climate scientists over and over. Just last month, Soon co-authored a paper claiming to debunk decades of science using a “simple” model of long term temperature projections. Scientists worldwide noted that Soon’s methodology was grossly oversimplified, ignoring key factors that scientists have warned will lead to unprecedented temperature increases in the coming decades.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Your Epoch article is the perfect example of junk science perpetuated by one of the worst kind of junk scientists, Willie Soon. Not only is he not trained in the climate science he is infamous for but he is deliberately dishonest.

Climate skeptics like Soon use deliberately dishonest tactics to try to convince people that what is really happening is not true. For example, below he uses data from a different location to try to convince people that the temperature in Churchill, Manitoba had not been rising when temperature records from Churchill show clearly that it was. Not only that, but he continues to make the fraudulent claim even after he is caught.

RealClimate: How Soon is now?

RealClimate: Willie Soon is a name that pops up every so often in climate 'debate'. He was the lead author on the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper (the only paper that has ever led to the resignation of 6 editors in protest at the failure of peer-review that led to its publication). He was a recent

www.realclimate.org

100%

 

[George50]

There was no deliberate dishonesty. He used data from other papers but someone concluded the methodically was wrong. I suspect it is something similar to what I do. Show that the same data doesn't necessary mean one conclusion only. Without details of the assumed problem., we can only guess.


But to say it was intentional dishonesty, is a stretch.

Sounds like you didn’t read the article.

Soon wrote paper #1.

During review of paper #1 Soon was caught using data from another location where temperature had not risen to represent Churchill’s temperature when he knew that data collected at Churchill had shown that Churchill’s temperature had risen.

Soon writes paper #2 perpetrating the same hoax.

Clearly that is deliberate dishonesty. Is that really what you do? I would be ashamed to admit it.

You are right about one thing though, without reading the article you can only guess and you guessed wrong. There are plenty of details to support what Gavin Schmidt is saying in the referenced article.

As Gavin explains it:

So, the picture here is quite clear. Soon knew (when he wrote paper #1) that the relevant data series for discussing the AO influence on Western Hudson Bay temperature (and by proxy, sea ice) was from Churchill and despite being reminded of the fact by the first set of reviewers (of paper #1) nonetheless continued to only show (in paper #2) the AO connection to a site 1000 miles away, which had a much higher correlation without any discussion of whether this other data was at all relevant to Churchill or the bears nearby.

 

[snakestretcher]

How is that any different that the lies and propaganda your sources have?

I agree. Epoch Times is a shady source. But so are you sources.

What "lies and propaganda"? Name them, with examples.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What "lies and propaganda"? Name them, with examples.

Did I strike a nerve?

Epoch Times is about as reliable as the NY Times.

 

[snakestretcher]

Did I strike a nerve?

Epoch Times is about as reliable as the NY Times.

Are you serious? Proper journalism versus a kook conspiracy publication run by a religious cult? Mate, you need to reorder what you consider fact or fiction.

An Epoch Times executive is facing money laundering charges

The once-small newspaper was founded by Chinese dissidents. It became prominent in right-wing media in recent years but is now facing accusations that a top officer laundered at least $67 million.

www.capradio.org

Far right newspaper promotes climate disinformation on Meta

Conservative media outlet, The Epoch Times, is targeting people in the UK with adverts on Facebook and Instagram that deny the existence of climate change and question its severity

globalwitness.org

Far right media outlet referred to Advertising Standards Authority after spending thousands on UK climate denial adverts

None

globalwitness.org

The conspiracy-loving Epoch Times is thinking about opening…a journalism school?

It would, um, "champion the same values of 'truth and traditional' as The Epoch Times" and, er, "nurture in the next generation of media professionals," ahem, "the highest standards of personal integrity, fairness, and truth-seeking."

www.niemanlab.org

I should cancel your subscription before embarrassing yourself further.

 

[Contumacious]

trained in the climate science

Look pal , we are all earthlings who want to live a long as possible.

But for some reason the" experts in climate science" are socialists or state supremacists who are seeking pretexts to dictate to private industry and/or cause misery.

Debunked: Gulf Stream slowing will cause an ice age?​

 

[snakestretcher]

Look pal , we are all earthlings who want to live a long as possible.

But for some reason the" experts in climate science" are socialists or state supremacists who are seeking pretexts to dictate to private industry and/or cause misery.

Debunked: Gulf Stream slowing will cause an ice age?​

Utter garbage, and you double down on the stupidity and ignorance of what passes for your 'contributions'. The conspiracy forum is open to new members-especially those who rely on social media for their 'information'.

EXPERT COMMENT: Pseudoscience is taking over social media – and putting us all at risk

In light of a new study that argues YouTube is not only promoting climate denial content, but allowing deniers to hijack scientific terms, Dr Santosh...

newsroom.northumbria.ac.uk

 

[Contumacious]

The conspiracy forum is open to new members

Let me pull some strings and see if they if they will allow those who joined on February 25th 2019 post on the Conspiracy Theory Forum - specially those who rely on socialist publications.

​

 

[snakestretcher]

Let me pull some strings and see if they if they will allow those who joined on February 25th 2019 post on the Conspiracy Theory Forum - specially those who rely on socialist publications.

View attachment 67577369​

What "socialist" publications? Keep doubling down on the stupid comments and infantile pictures, you'll win loads of credibility points.

 

[Contumacious]

What "socialist" publications? Keep doubling down on the stupid comments and infantile pictures, you'll win loads of credibility points.

WHO , besides a brain dead demented socialist or state supremacist would conclude that the US must ban gasoline , coal and LPG?


Yes, Biden wants to end fossil fuels. If he says otherwise, he’s lying.See for yourself