Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 66. (Read 636455 times)

Of course and if you find any mistake in my speech please state them so I can correct my reasoning.

But since the beginning it seems you keep spreading false statements and ignore the questions or proofs I come with.

So they are deniers too now?

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”

“Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,” Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist, echoed in a blog post.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/scientists-finally-admit-climate-models-are-failing-to-predict-global-warming/#ixzz41g2e7Ww8

So now they come clean — sort of.

Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer compile satellite-derived temperature readings at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Their satellite data has shown no warming for about two decades, and has been cited by researchers skeptical of claims of catastrophic global warming.

“The bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest,” Christy said in the hearing, referring to the greenhouse gas effect. “We have measurements for that — it doesn’t match up with the models.”

“Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves,” Christy said.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/scientists-finally-admit-climate-models-are-failing-to-predict-global-warming/

Global Cooling: Is An Ice Age Coming?

The climate is changing, but it's not changing the way the climate change crowd predicted it would. Nature has made a mockery of global warming, so who are the real climate deniers?

http://www.cbn.com/tv/3022250100001?mobile=false

This.

Seems like a whole lot of people are getting a whole lot of money and a few people are getting a whole lot of control out of the 'scary' nature of these models.  As long as the money and control keeps moving upwards, the 'scientists' can question to their heart's content.  But it would probably be a good career move if they kept largely quite on these questions, and in fact I don't see much mention made of the 'divergence' except on the 'denier' side of the fence.

It is a good thing we can all agree this could apply to you too.

 

Ladies and gentlemen your attention please!

Seems like as usual Spendulus and Wilikon are using shameful methods to convince you. As usual they give out no scientific sources but rather biased blog posts, and as usual it seems that if you look a bit more precisely, the blog posts are wrong and misinterpret willingly their sources.

There is no "pause" in the last decades. There is a slow down in climate warming. Which IS interesting and lead the scientist to question their models!

I'm not saying there is no problem with current predictions or climate models! Of course there must be, climate is something too complicated to be perfectly predicted.

I'm saying climate change is real and every scientist agree with this. No data shows a "global cooling". No data shows a "pause".

Don't simply trust what Spendulus and Wilikon posts and take 5 minutes to go further. Then you'll see their claims are based on nothing but pitiful lies.

Spendulus and Wilikon gave this article out saying it proves the "pause they're all claiming". here is the article:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php

Of course ti's not a scientific article or study just a blog. But no problem the article says there is a pause so it's interesting. It's using a very biased vocabulary but hey, who has no opinion? It's not a crime to be happy when your side wins!

Let's check the sources then. Not very diversified sourcing but well. Mainly Nature articles so let's check them.

First source:
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20160225&spMailingID=50779167&spUserID=MTc2NjY4OTI4MwS2&spJobID=863136582&spReportId=ODYzMTM2NTgyS0

Do they talk about a pause in temperature?
"The debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures.

That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 20133  showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid.

Fyfe and his colleagues argue2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14."

Ok so they never talk about a pause here... They talk about a slow down...

Let's check the second source:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-data-1.17700

"All told, Karl's team finds that global temperatures increased at a rate of 0.116°C a decade in 2000–14, compared to a rate of 0.113°C in 1950–99. And Karl says that rate will probably go up once his team calculates the temperature increase for the entirety of the rapidly warming Arctic. Researchers found in 2013 that gaps in Arctic observations artificially cooled the Met Office temperature record2.

The latest study only resolved part of the question. Climate models used by the IPCC still project warming to continue, but scientists have documented various factors for which the models have not accounted, resulting in suppressed temperatures. These contributors include weak solar irradiation, volcanic aerosols that block sunlight and ocean circulation3.

“Once you take into account the slight forcing errors, the actual occurrence of El Niños, et cetera, there is very little left to explain,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City."

Damn no pause here either!


Could it be possible that they talk only about a slow down because it's all there is?

Oh ok I didn't understand that the post of Wilikon had absolutely no use, I thought he was talking about another article

First thing first Spendulus, seems like you believe we got like "High priest" or whatever. I don't even know who this guy is. The fact is that as 99% of scientists agree on climate change, contrary to climate change denyers we don't need to have a personal high priest

Second, I took a look at the article and... Do you even read bro? They're never talking about a pause! They're talking about a slow down!
Oh well no, your article is talking about a pause, then if you go to the sources of the article, they're only talking about a slow down!

You're just a liar as all climate change denyers that interpret data just the way they want without ever confronting reality ^^

Wow. I missed college and studying look at these posts.

Yeah in fact the Wilikon post was as useless as usual man, he just copied past an article that Spendulus gave.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/mann-splaining-the-pause.php

Though few things have to be noted:
1/ This link is just a blog so it's not exactly what I would call a source, it's more an opinion
2/ The blog article goes WAY BEYOND mere interpretation, if you look at the sources used by the blog the author really changes what is said
3/ Seems like Spendulus thinks climate change denyers are common, which is not the case in civilized countries

Lol, the link is right there.

I know it's hard to stomach.

Your high priest has admitted what I've been saying since 2006 - and what's been common knowledge for about four years.

Do not worry he is still your high priest.  You can follow him where ever he leads.  Even when he loudly proclaims there is Global Cooling Now.

ROFL....

Oh yeah because we should believe what Wilikon writes even if there is nothing in it, no link, no source, nothing.

But I guess it's the same thing as usual, you guys always act like that.

Coleman, Spendelus and Wilikon. The trinity of the "I'm right even if I've neither arguments nor sources".

LOL!  Tired of getting beat up for being the shittiest 'scientist' ever and abandoned by even his allies for the embarrassment of supporting his fraud.  I guess he's trying to practice science for a change to salvage something of a reputation after a decade and a half of being a laughing stock.  Better late than never I suppose.

Warren Buffett gives lip service to climate change.

But ends up telling shareholders it should not be on their list of worries. In a letter to shareholders, Warren Buffett dismissed the possibility that climate change could prove a big risk to Berkshire Hathaway’s insurance business.

Here are a few excerpts from that letter, which was released on Saturday:

“It seems highly likely to me that climate change poses a major problem for the planet,” Buffet wrote. “I say ‘highly likely’ rather than ‘certain’ because I have no scientific aptitude and remember well the dire predictions of most ‘experts’ about Y2K.

“It’s understandable that a shareholder) might believe Berkshire is especially threatened by climate change because we are a huge insurer,”

Buffet continued. “…such worries might, in fact, be warranted if we wrote ten- or twenty-year policies at fixed prices. But insurance policies are customarily written for one year and repriced annually to reflect changing exposures.” “Up to now, climate change has not produced more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather- related events covered by insurance.

“As a citizen, you may understandably find climate change keeping you up nights. As a homeowner in a low-lying area, you may wish to consider moving. But when you are thinking only as a shareholder of a major insurer, climate change should not be on your list of worries.”

See pages 25-26 of Warren Buffet’s annual meeting report re climate change:

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2015ltr.pdf

In other words, I was right, and all those who argued against my asserting "there is no warming last 19 years" were WRONG.

THEY WRONG!

WRONG!

WRONG!

Or they be Deniers!

HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!