Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 131. (Read 636443 times)

There are any number of graphs by any number of people, but as I noted we don't need scientists to tell use the results of FIRST SEMESTER STATISTICS.   Duhhh!  Therefore on this matter your arguments from authority utterly, completely fail.

Further, your claim that "more heat" is going to the oceans is only that, a claim.  You don't have a clue as to how much heat was going into the oceans three decades ago compared to now.

I am curious if you understand that the 20 years of no warming means the climate models and the alarmists were wrong.  You try to cover this up by saying "Oh, the heat isn't going into the air, but the sea."

But that is yet another misunderstanding of science.  The planet's latent heat never was in the air.  It was the idiots of poor science that thought they could compute and use a measure of average atmospheric temperature on the Earth, a multi phase system in non equilibrium.

Kills puppies also most likely.


Firstly, many of the 'thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers' don't say what most Warmistas have heard that they say.

Secondly, 'thousands' of people confessed to witchcraft over the years and were punished appropriately.  'Thousands' of experts in witchcraft formed a strong 'consensus' about the subject and used state-of-the-art science to deal with the various catastrophes that witches brought about.

Thirdly, if one is ejected from the ranks of 'expert' by going against the grain then no, the surviving hypothesis is not especially relevant.

In my mind, the jury is out on the science behind current atmospheric changes and the associated risks.  It's a complex and (likely by design a) poorly understood subject.  Two things I can say with confidence at this point:

  1)  The science is NOT settled

  2)  The issue is currently being totally abused to run a variety of scams in which by this time TRILLIONS of dollars have changed hands.  Somehow it seems to be the case that everything the 'scientific consensus of experts' produces supports more scammery rather than less and promotes certain projects of certain of those in unrelated fields of politics and social science.

What do you mean by "no statistically significant warming" then?


But there is no lack of warming. It's warming at a slower rate, but it's still warming. And more energy is going into the oceans. Have you paid attention to a single thing I've written?

Yeah, the only problem with that graph is that 1) it's from Monckton (who is not a scientist and has no knowledge on climate), and 2) it's completely false (his graph doesn't match the data). I actually linked to a graph for the past 20 years. You seemed to ignore it.

I'm afraid I simply can't ignore the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly backs the hockey stick. In fact, it has been independently verified by numerous papers.

More energy going into the oceans is a simple fact. You can choose to ignore it, but why would you do that?

I'm afraid I don't know what you are referring to. Please elaborate.

I would not be able to trust reported results from a computer model controlled by Hofor without full disclosure of the method, parameters, source code which enabled critical evaluation of the work.

Because it was eminently ignorable.   There's simply no need for ad hominem attacks, or for arguments from authority as you have produced.  There is no need to refer to a "Phil Jones comment."  

The lack of warming can be understood by taking RSS data and applying first semester statistics.

First semester....

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/18/no-global-warming-for-17-years-3-months-a-monckton-analysis/

That was 2013, now it is right about 20 years.

I suggest simply abandon this line of argumentation, including the hockey stick.  Your claim that the missing heat is going into the oceans is a different argument and a different issue.  Essentially this is a backup argument if the hockey stick alarmism fails.  

The ice caps I refer to are those which Climate Alarmists claimed would be gone within a few years.  I'm sure you have heard of them.  The ones where the nice cuddly polar bears hang out?

Isn't Salby the professor who claims that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and who has been fired for fraud or similar violations a few times (misusing grant money to enrich himself, etc.)?

So, do we believe you or thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers? Isn't it a bit more relevant what makes sense to people who are actual experts?

Hmm... thousands of scientists and scientific papers, or someone on a forum... who do we believe?

Are you one of the people who prefer to visit the carpenter instead of the doctor when you get sick?

I'm not sure what ice caps you are referring to. I'm guessing you'll never explain it either.

As for the rest of the quote, I don't think you understand what "statistically significant" means. You may be referring to Phil Jones' comment that the warming trend since 1995 wasn't statistically significant at the time he was asked a question by a journalist. Of course, opponents of science claimed that he said there was no warming. But he never said that. He said that there was warming, but the time period since 1995 was just too short to give it statistical significance.

By the way, I linked to a graph that shows that there has been a warming trend since 1995. Why did you ignore that?

I'm afraid you are severaly misguided. There has been warming in the past 20 years, but at the same time more of the energy has gone into the oceans.

There's a new presentation by Murry Salby on-line after his last (that I've seen) from Germany a year ago.  People who follow WUWT will have seen the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ0R1MCkSOU

Dr. Salby seems to be a source of highest terror to the climate science establishment/cult, and his presentations demonstrate why.  This one is somewhat less dense in math (no Lagrange integrals, fewer non-time-domain plots, etc.)  I find it fairly convincing because of the inherent simplicity of his logic chains.

Just generally, the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around has better explanatory power, and makes more intuitive sense to me as well.  Salby's recent textbook is graduate level and way way over my head even if I had time and interest to read it.  One thing about the lectures is that you can get a grasp on how competent a guy is in the Q&A a lot of times, and this is one of them.  Especially in answer to Monkton's second question.  Salby clearly knows his shit.

Salby, like others, has paid the professional price for his going against the grain.  I'm still trying to understand the rational behind his strategy which is to publish again only when his research papers are returned and he is able to work in academia again.  If ever.  In the mean time, I hope he continues his independent research and giving lectures from time to time.

Being blacklisted during the McCarthy era eventually became something of a badge of honor, and certainly the people we remember from hundreds of years ago were the few who went against the grain and argued for the heliocentric model.  I have hope that the same will be the case for Salby, Soon, Lindzen, etc.  The establishment seems to be getting more and more outragious which tells me that they are desperate.  On the other hand, the banksters and many other monied power-players are suddenly totally on-board with the catastrophic global climate change (piggybacking on the decades of hard propaganda work of the Socialists now that that has gained traction) so it will be interesting how things will play out.  Or more precisely, the timings of things...the truth always wins out in the end.

Cherry picking?  Don't make me laugh.  It was cherry picking that caused the problem, namely looking at disappearing ice caps and such with only three decades of satellite data.  Now we have two decades of data showing no statistically significant warming, and that, my friend, means it is totally correct to say "no warming in 20 years."

Please don't lecture about fluctations and put words in others' mouths that the did not say or imply.  It is the secular trend behind the fluctuations which is being discussed, not the fact that winter is cold and summer is hot.  It is the basic trendline as established with a calculation of the climate sensitivity factor.  And when we compute that with 20 years of no warming, we do in fact find a far, far lower climate sensitivity to co2 than Climate Alarmists have been shrilling crying doom over.

False.

Multiple lines of evidence and malfeasance show the "hockey stick" to be false.

Another video on the hockey stick by a science journalist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

To sum up: The hockey stick is real. Anyone who denies that is denying science itself.

While we're on the topic of topical youtube links, try this one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhExwgiSxt8

I never made such a claim. Individual scientists can make mistakes or even make false claims. But discounting an entire body of scientific research just because you don't like the conclusions is illogical and irrational. Furthermore, the scientists who are commonly caught making false claims on purpose are the tiny minority who reject the consensus on AGW. Those who accept the consensus rarely lie or cheat, and if they do, they are shunned by their colleagues.

But more commonly they make mistakes, and those mistakes are corrected. There are a couple of interesting case studies on how corrections are readily accepted by those who accept the consensus, while those who reject the consensus continue to push flawed studies even after they have been revealed to be flawed, and retracted.

You didn't actually address my comment, though. Do you talk to the experts within a field when you have questions about that field? Or do you contact someone random with no actual expertise within that field. That is, do you prefer your carpenter to your doctor when you get sick?

Doctors can lie and cheat as well, so I guess all doctors are wrong?

Calling someone a denier is not a religious act, no. I didn't call anyone a denier, though.

I don't understand these questions. I never said anything about real science or evil science. There is only science. Scientific measurements using satellite data is real science.

Being wrong is not evil. What's so great about science is that it keeps correcting itself and improving. A model which is wrong today can be improved to be more correct. But the fact is that overall, climate models are surprisingly accurate. But remember, models only make projections, not predictions.

In contrast, those who insist that the science is wrong rarely seem to correct themselves. Even when their claims are shown to be false. False claims are being repeated ad nauseam.

If I don't visit a carpenter when sick why should I accept your assumption everything scientists are saying is always true? Are you a scientist? To have an opinion is not scientific proof. To call anyone who does not believe in you, calling them deniers, is a religious act.

Do you believe the science behind putting satellites up in space to be real science or evil science? Do you believe data coming from a satellite to be good science or evil science? Do you believe a computer model predicting future climates that has been wrong to be less evil than satellite data or more evil than satellite data?

Obviously I respect your opinion... As much as you respect mine.

 

This is not true. The measurements show that more of the excess energy is going into the oceans. But the atmosphere is still warming as well, although it's warming at a slower rate at the moment (again, due to where the energy is going).

Remember that climate is about the trend over time. Cherry-picking shorter periods of time is not an honest way to go about things. Even if the temperature does have periods of variation (the measured temperature has gone down for shorter periods in the past), the overall trend is still up. It's disingenuous to pretend that the science says that the surface temperature will only ever increase. The science actually does point to periods of fluctuations up and down.

You need to look at the trend.

I never claimed that science is a deity, but science does have respected organizations that are well known for their contributions to the progress of our species. It is when you automatically discount and reject the scientific findings of respected scientific bodies that it becomes almost like religion.

And the fact is that science is hard to understand. You have the experts who have spent a lifetime trying to understand their field, and then you have a random person who think he knows it all and claims that the science is wrong because of some obviously misleading argument he read somewhere.

Do you visit the doctor or the carpenter if you get sick? I'm guessing the doctor. Similarly, you don't ask, say, an engineer, to tell you about the climate. You ask the people who actually know what they're talking about, and who have put in countless hours of research into their area of expertise.

Science never becomes a deity. It is the people who reject the science because it doesn't seem to support their ideology who have stopped thinking.

Well, I´m not that concerned about being attacked, It was just a thought connected to that drought crisis. And in these circles having a good word for those dam California commies is unlikely to get me many upvotes anyway.

Good luck, g

Top 10 favorite movie

Only as a result of exactly the same sorts of policies that are causing them to be in exactly the mess that they are in . If the government wasnt vote buying from farmers by providing water at FAR below what would have been the market clearing price were there a market in water, they never would have produced crops like that, and (when considered as a part of a larger picture of government mismanagement) Californians wouldn't be in the drought related mess that they are in.

*edit* oh and then the government creates protectionist policies that disencitivize consumers from importing rice where it actually grows naturally and instead buying rice that was produced in a desert where it made NO economic sense for it to be produced.

*edit2* Idk if you guys have ever seen the movie brazil, but you know how in every scene there are these giant intrusive tubes all over the place that are getting in everyones way but no one seems to notice them. Buying rice from california instead of some asian flood plane somewhere is like this. When you study this stuff you start to see them EVERYWHERE and its just baffling how no one seems to notice them. It really is like standing back and watching people bumping into these giant tubes all day long somehow without noticing that they are there.

This isnt an attack on you, its just your comment inspired me to rant.