Pages:
Author

Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 72. (Read 636455 times)

hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!
You have three errors in your lecturing. We take them one by one.

No, the surface temperature is not primarily due to the temperatures at the Earth's core.  Study the "radiation budget", here is a link.  This is very well established science.

Here is the answer from a prime "warmer resource,"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

Common sense might suggest that all that heat must have a big effect on climate. But the science says no: the amount of heat energy coming out of the Earth is actually very small and the rate of flow of that heat is very steady over long time periods. The effect on the climate is in fact too small to be worth considering.

Here is a brief discussion of the energy budget.

http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

Next, interglacials caused by ocean currents?  No, they are not.  It is well established that they are the product of periodic variation in the Earth's orbit.

The interglacials and glacials coincide with cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit. Three orbital variations contribute to interglacials. The first is a change in the Earth's orbit around the sun, or eccentricity. The second is a shift in the tilt of the Earth's axis, the obliquity. The third is precession, or wobbling motion of Earth's axis.[1] Warm summers in the northern hemisphere occur when that hemisphere is tilted toward the sun and the Earth is nearest the sun in its elliptical orbit. Cool summers occur when the Earth is farthest from the sun during that season. These effects are more pronounced when the eccentricity of the orbit is large. When the obliquity is large, seasonal changes are more extreme.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

Finally, you have a rather interesting statement.

... making it hotter will change salinity which will change ocean currents which will influence the beginning of the Ice Age.

No scientific findings support the certainty in your statement (bolded.)  They cannot, because this is outright speculation.  Here is the statement corrected to a reasonable level.

... IF CO2 produced by man makes the Earth hotter this MIGHT CHANGE salinity which MIGHT AFFECT ocean currents which MIGHT influence the beginning of the Ice Age.

That's obvious speculation, why not just state it as such?  Obviously it isn't factual or supported by scientific findings.  It's totally reasonable to discuss as speculation, but it's unacceptable to consider or promote as fact.



At least you're trying to discuss.

1/ This point was to make you understand that the most important is not the total heat but how it's distributed. Earth core heat is reponsible for the most part of energy dissipated on our ground BUT has low impact on climate because it's very equally distributed. It just provides a "base temperature" everywhere of something like 200°.

2/"Next, interglacials caused by ocean currents?  No, they are not.  It is well established that they are the product of periodic variation in the Earth's orbit."
That would be true if we were sure that only that cause Ice Age. But we're absolutely not. Variations of Sun activity, Earth's orbit and salinity of oceans. All of them have an impact. Of course Earth's orbit is a FUCKING IMPORTANT one that's for sure. But not the only one to consider, and at similar Earth's orbit, you might have or not an ice age depending on other factors such as salinity.

3/ Ok fair point. You're perfectly right as it is speculation. But not based on nothing, it's based on simulation. Of course simulations are by themselves outrageous speculations as you try to create a model of reality, which will never be complex enough to be sure of yourself.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
I personally think looking at the upper stratosphere temperature is more logical, since radiative balance as the net sum of in flows and outflows occurs...at the upper stratosphere.  So if you would like to argue for the use of another temperature measure, then you will have some trouble substantiating "the more CO2 we have the more energy is being absorbed."
I'm not sure if I understand you.
You think CO2 is not absorbing infrared radiation?

Good question.  Sorry I was not clear.

CO2 absorbs certain specific spectra due to it's dipole movements and vibrations, etc.

That is one of a great many things that absorb, emit and so forth.  The net of all of these is outgoing radiation from the planet.  The essential question of "global warming" is whether net outgoing is decreasing relative to net incoming energy, by how much, and whether man is affecting that balance.

Satellite temperature measurements of the upper atmosphere obviously closely measure these issues.  Ground based temperatures measure such things loosely, if at all...

This is why I mentioned that if one wishes to consider/argue the effect of man on "global warming," he MUST use satellite measurements.  It then happens that satellite measurements show no warming in 20 years (maybe it's still 19, I don't recall).  This indicates that net radiative planetary energy balance is unchanged for 19-20 years.  And what does THAT imply?

For one thing it defeats the "central CO2 hypothesis," which teaches that the climate has a high sensitivity to CO2.  Increase CO2, and temperatures increase. 

It's wrong to look for simple explanations, though.
legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1001
All cryptos are FIAT digital currency. Do not use.
February showers (it rained again last night and this morning) bring March flowers... that is unless hell freezes over for a few days...

hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
If you´re wondering why you´ve been seeing less of those tin foil hat lines lately over the net it´s because one by one the morons that have been using that have been realizing that they have become a small minority.



The only way for the warmists to win 'their scientific argument' will be by force, banning and insults, not by reason.




Facebook is fast becoming the main media. And other social outlets. The more that common people discuss things the more the credibility of the garbage media and politicians and all their propaganda and agenda baggage evaporates.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
If you´re wondering why you´ve been seeing less of those tin foil hat lines lately over the net it´s because one by one the morons that have been using that have been realizing that they have become a small minority.



The only way for the warmists to win 'their scientific argument' will be by force, banning and insults, not by reason.


hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
If you´re wondering why you´ve been seeing less of those tin foil hat lines lately over the net it´s because one by one the morons that have been using that have been realizing that they have become a small minority.
sr. member
Activity: 658
Merit: 252
So banning should re enforced for the non believers then. Get it. Should we ban all of those who not only do not believe in bitcoin or all of those creating altcoins on bitcointalk?
No they shouldn't be banned, reddit should setup a tinfoil section for the anti-science brigade.



THAT I could agree with. Banning should not be a solution.

banning is not a solution for such problems.. they must find another way to solve it..
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
Tavistock has pushed a variety of socialism called Fabianism. It approaches its goals gradually rather than revolutionary. Kind of through attrition. It´s named after Fabius, the Roman who tired Hannibal down back then. Look up Fabianism, I think you´ll understand developments in the last decades much better.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
...

The real problem here is the problem we the climate change believers.

FTFY

Did you know that socialism is a conspiracy promoted by the Tavistock Institute to centralize power and create herd mentality amongst the masses for easier control, manipulation and abuse by the ruling elites? I call socialist conspiracy on this global warming faux pas.

I did not know that, and don't know what the Tavistock institute is.

When I finally decided to dive into the climate change issue (and I came in from the point of view the 'consensus' view was probably valid (or the 'left' so to speak) the first thing I ran across was the shenanigans on Wikipedia.  This was a phenomenon I'd seen in other sham/shill operations which I've been interested in (Zionist propaganda, naked short selling, vaccine issue.)  This put a bad taste in my mouth.  Next I moved on to the climategate e-mails and code/code comments.  That should be enough to turn anyone's stomach, and it did for a number of the scientists who 'flipped.'  Judith Curry in particular. 

Since then I've seen a steady stream of scammery and a steady stream of exploitation and a very clear incidents of hi-jacking the real environmental movement which did some good an necessary things to spur clean-up of the environment when I was a kid back in the 1970's.  Now they are almost totally a tool for the global elitists (esp, associated with the UN, IMF, WorldBank, etc) as far as I can tell.  And whatever Tavistock is, I would say that they may be on to something in associating the power structures behind corporate globalism with 'communism.'  The end result may be quite different in straight up economic system terms, but a lot of the lessons, tools, and tactics that they employ seem to be a good match for those used by the Soviets.

legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
...

The real problem here is the problem we the climate change believers.

FTFY

Did you know that socialism is a conspiracy promoted by the Tavistock Institute to centralize power and create herd mentality amongst the masses for easier control, manipulation and abuse by the ruling elites? I call socialist conspiracy on this global warming faux pas.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
...

The real problem here is the problem we (climate change believers) have to discuss facts with you (climate change denyers).

Your graph clearly show an increase. In the sense that the average temperature continully increase in it.
It does the same in every other graph I can find.

And yet you're here saying "no proof of temperature increase in the last 20 years".
It's like I'm pointing the sky saying "it's blue" and you're answering "no look, it's green".

The fact that we all share this opinion is at least a proof of how bad you are at communicating. I would even dare suggest that it should maybe make you think on the truth of your statement, but that's personnal opinion for sure.
[/quote]

The chart I pulled up shows basically a flat line since around 2000.  The 'hiatus' over which there was much hand-wringing.  Alas, it doesn't show error bars.  If this 'hiatus' has been memory-holed, it has happened fairly recently.

It's actually quite difficult to show 'the average temp' in any sort of a meaningful plot for technical reasons (and political ones for that matter.)  No matter how one does it, though, it is quite accepted that the earth has been generally warming since about the last ice-age with various kinds of variation.  Much of the warming cannot have anything to do with forcing from humans burning fossil fuels since we were not doing so at these times.  That's my point.  I believe that a completely natural phenomenon has been latched on to in order to increase the wealth and power of certain groups.  It's a hypothesis that has much better explanatory power over the observations that I've been able to make.

The funny thing is that from what I read, 30% of the CO2 that humans have produced by burning fossil fuels has been released since 2000 which is when the computer model predictions started to go severely pear-shaped.  This in an of itself should completely destroy the theory of anthropogenic global climate change if the climate 'scientist' had any interest in science at all  Feynman explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

hero member
Activity: 675
Merit: 514
I personally think looking at the upper stratosphere temperature is more logical, since radiative balance as the net sum of in flows and outflows occurs...at the upper stratosphere.  So if you would like to argue for the use of another temperature measure, then you will have some trouble substantiating "the more CO2 we have the more energy is being absorbed."
I'm not sure if I understand you.
You think CO2 is not absorbing infrared radiation?
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Mrs. Sixpack says

Hey guys, I came across an interesting thriller. A friend sent me a copy of The Cassandra Sanction by Scott Mariani, knowing that it would interest me because it’s all about climate change, and also as a kind of joke as the hero has the same surname as me. It’s the only fictional book I’ve seen since ‘State of Fear’ that attacks the warmists with such ferocity. One of the characters is a beautiful woman scientist (has to be beautiful, of course!) who predicts a coming Ice Age. It’s a good read, and the science seems pretty solid to me. Nice to see a bestselling thriller writer weighing in on ‘our’ side in the fight! :-)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cassandra-Sanction-Scott-Mariani-ebook/dp/B012T976YW/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1438118371&sr=1-2&keywords=the+cassandra+sanction
Yes, State of Fear should be required reading.

It looks like Cass Sanction is not available on Amazon in the US.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Quote
"No temperature increase in 20 years"

Meh? Where did you wear in the last 20 years? All records show a global temperature increase for the last 50 years but also for the last 20. It's a very strange statement you're making.

The 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is broadly accepted on all sides.  Here, for example, is a 'warmista' site that just happened to come up top in a quick search:

  http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

Of course it is widely assumed that the reason the models have been wrong and temp readings are low-balling things is that the earth is heating more or less as predicted, but the energy is hiding out somewhere where it is hard to find.  The ocean is the usual culprit.  For my part, given that sea surface rises are also not acting as the scare-mongers predicted, I'm a little skeptical about that explanation as well.

The suggestion that natural variations in climate were seized on and pumped up as a means of gaining increased control over populations seems the strongest hypothesis to me at this point.  Especially since doing essentially that, and for that particular reason, was discussed many decades ago by the same basic class of groups who are now reaping the rewards of the global climate change panic.

Some people seem to indicate that when the pent up energy comes out of hiding it will be very devastating for us all and especially for [insert target animal here] unless we start paying a lot more in carbon taxes.  Scam?  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...



Well, maybe I'm dumb as hell but your graph clearly show an increase of temperature Oo

And so are most sources I managed to find, including NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I mean you can't see that curve and say "no it's ok it's not increasing at all" no? Oo

Go argue with the warmistas.  Almost without exception, the basic construct of the warming 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is accepted among scientists of all stripes.  The problem is how to deal with it.  For the sheeple, it is easy.  Tell them 'hottest year ever' every year.  They don't understand margin of errors anyway and even if they did, their memory span is measured in weeks.  For other scientists it is a more tricky issue.  But as a 'climate scientist' one can make lemonade out of lemons; anyone who adds to the 70-ish and growing explainations for what might have eaten the energy trapped by the evil man-made  greenhouse gasses can expect accolades and grant money to come out of their ears.



The real problem here is the problem we (climate change believers) have to discuss facts with you (climate change denyers).

Your graph clearly show an increase. In the sense that the average temperature continully increase in it.

It does the same in every other graph I can find.

And yet you're here saying "no proof of temperature increase in the last 20 years".
It's like I'm pointing the sky saying "it's blue" and you're answering "no look, it's green".

The fact that we all share this opinion is at least a proof of how bad you are at communicating. I would even dare suggest that it should maybe make you think on the truth of your statement, but that's personnal opinion for sure.
If this (bolded) is the "real problem," then the real problem is that Warmers do not understand science, or how scientific facts are determined.  They do not understand statistical significance, or variance, or correlation.

And if that's the case, then you are being educated. 

if you are being educated, STFU and start learning.
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
Quote
"No temperature increase in 20 years"

Meh? Where did you wear in the last 20 years? All records show a global temperature increase for the last 50 years but also for the last 20. It's a very strange statement you're making.

The 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is broadly accepted on all sides.  Here, for example, is a 'warmista' site that just happened to come up top in a quick search:

  http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

Of course it is widely assumed that the reason the models have been wrong and temp readings are low-balling things is that the earth is heating more or less as predicted, but the energy is hiding out somewhere where it is hard to find.  The ocean is the usual culprit.  For my part, given that sea surface rises are also not acting as the scare-mongers predicted, I'm a little skeptical about that explanation as well.

The suggestion that natural variations in climate were seized on and pumped up as a means of gaining increased control over populations seems the strongest hypothesis to me at this point.  Especially since doing essentially that, and for that particular reason, was discussed many decades ago by the same basic class of groups who are now reaping the rewards of the global climate change panic.

Some people seem to indicate that when the pent up energy comes out of hiding it will be very devastating for us all and especially for [insert target animal here] unless we start paying a lot more in carbon taxes.  Scam?  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...



Well, maybe I'm dumb as hell but your graph clearly show an increase of temperature Oo

And so are most sources I managed to find, including NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I mean you can't see that curve and say "no it's ok it's not increasing at all" no? Oo

Go argue with the warmistas.  Almost without exception, the basic construct of the warming 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is accepted among scientists of all stripes.  The problem is how to deal with it.  For the sheeple, it is easy.  Tell them 'hottest year ever' every year.  They don't understand margin of errors anyway and even if they did, their memory span is measured in weeks.  For other scientists it is a more tricky issue.  But as a 'climate scientist' one can make lemonade out of lemons; anyone who adds to the 70-ish and growing explainations for what might have eaten the energy trapped by the evil man-made  greenhouse gasses can expect accolades and grant money to come out of their ears.



The real problem here is the problem we (climate change believers) have to discuss facts with you (climate change denyers).

Your graph clearly show an increase. In the sense that the average temperature continully increase in it.
It does the same in every other graph I can find.

And yet you're here saying "no proof of temperature increase in the last 20 years".
It's like I'm pointing the sky saying "it's blue" and you're answering "no look, it's green".

The fact that we all share this opinion is at least a proof of how bad you are at communicating. I would even dare suggest that it should maybe make you think on the truth of your statement, but that's personnal opinion for sure.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Go argue with the warmistas.  Almost without exception, the basic construct of the warming 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is accepted among scientists of all stripes.  The problem is how to deal with it.  For the sheeple, it is easy.  Tell them 'hottest year ever' every year.  They don't understand margin of errors anyway and even if they did, their memory span is measured in weeks.  For other scientists it is a more tricky issue.  But as a 'climate scientist' one can make lemonade out of lemons; anyone who adds to the 70-ish and growing explainations for what might have eaten the energy trapped by the evil man-made  greenhouse gasses can expect accolades and grant money to come out of their ears.

The extent of the mythology and warping of scientific facts on the subject of global warming cannot ever cease to amaze.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Shuuuuuuuuut Galdur...

It is ALL coincidences if we're breaking every records concerning meteorological events and temperatures.

It would have happened anyway no?  Roll Eyes

Where is the proof of the link with pollution CO2 and human activities? Apart from the entire world scientific community even if they perfectly admit they have legitimate doubts concerning the extent of such impact due to the incredible complexity of such a system. They still all agree on the fact that we're going to bite the dust. And Nature show it too.

But better continue to consume and pollute and destroy the gift of God.

I don´t know; maybe we´re heading into an ice age and scientists and experts will in due course figure out that CO2 emissions in fact cause cooling. The attention span of modern man seems to be on par with that of the common housefly so most people probably wouldn´t even notice the switch.
Well, hard to deduce the consequences of something so complex.

What's sure though it's we gonna hit the consequences the hard way. And those idiots will just be there freezing or burning "where is your proof, it's just normal weather"
Deduce the consequences?

It's a system that mathematically exhibits chaotic behavior.  You don't "deduce the consequences" or look for linear trend extensions in such a system.

Statistical averages exist, sure - but what of the Maunder Minimum, and the Medievel warm periods?  These indicate longer term trends, 300 to 1500 years.  Statistical averages and "outliers" presume a background without such trends.

If we are headed toward a mini ice age, face it, warmers.  The slight effect of human induced warming through CO2 emissions is GOOD, not BAD.

Wow. So limited understanding of a complex system.

Ok I'll try to explain it to you:
CO2 warms the Earth
Average temperature increases
Ice melts
Salt concentration in oceans changes
The incredibly complex and fragile system of warm circulation is blocked
Greenwhich dies
We enter an Ice Age

That's the theory. Not saying it's true, in fact NO ONE is saying it's the absolute truth, but it's a theory supported by multiple experiments and being backed by most global warming specialists.
The important fact is that yes you can freeze the Earth with CO2. That's possible.
No, I don't buy it one bit.  In fact, what you have posted along with your disclaimers, makes almost no sense.

Hate to say it, but it's just more of this totally bonkers "If it's cold it's due to Global Warming" nonsense.  Blame everything on one factor through some twisted logic.

So let's go at it again.

1.  Cyclically, we appear close to the beginning of a new ice age now.

2.  An ice age consists of sheets of permanent ice moving south in latitude from the North Pole, and north in latitude from the South Pole.

3.  Increases in global temperature prevent that, decreases accelerate it.

4.  Allegedly, man is increasing global temperature in significant amounts.  The extent is disputed ("No temperature increase in 20 years" at present)

This is not complicated.  Please don't hide behind "it's complex" and "maybe it's not true" and other stuff, while at the same time trying to maintain a condescending attitude.  Doesn't work very well, right?

Ok so you just ignored any major change in the way that heat is stocked... Great great great...

You wanna know something? The heat of the sun is not rally important, it's relatively quite a low energy amount compared to the one stocked in the Earth. Even if tomorrow the sun would just stop heating... Well it wouldn't be really bad for at least a few days. And life would remain for still thousands of millions of years (though maybe not humans xD)

The important part is HOW is the warmth distributed. And that's why Ice melting and greenwhich are important...
that's crazy talk.  Within 48-72 hours all the carbon dioxide would be falling as snow, then the nitrogen would liquify, then the oxygen, then the surface would be a vacuum.  the only life left would be spores, virus, other things that can survive in a vacuum at cryogenic temperatures.

The heat from the sun is over a kilowatt per square meter, of which about 1/4 makes it in to the surface IIRC. 

Regarding this ridiculous statement you have made...

yes you can freeze the Earth with CO2. That's possible.

You have not proved this and cannot.  You are saying outright that something can get hotter because it gets colder or colder because it gets hotter.  But at the same time you want to claim that if it gets hotter it gets hotter.  Well, make up your mind, please.   You want to be able to claim that your predetermined outcome will occur no matter if it gets hotter or colder.  This is nonsense, and it ignores the basic facts regarding climate.

Namely, we are currently in the Holocene Interglacial.  Period.  Look at the historical record of ice ages and warm ages, please.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Sorry I wasn't really clear, I was talking about the surface temperature which is mainly due to degradation of radioactive elements inside Earth.
But for sure the consequences on the atmosphere would be much stronger.

Thanks for the link. Here is, in a better English, exactly what we tried to explain you:
"Another important contribution to ancient climate regimes is the variation of ocean currents, which are modified by continent position, sea levels and salinity, as well as other factors. They have the ability to cool (e.g. aiding the creation of Antarctic ice) and the ability to warm (e.g. giving the British Isles a temperate as opposed to a boreal climate). The closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago may have ushered in the present period of strong glaciation over North America by ending the exchange of water between the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.[47]

Analyses suggest that ocean current fluctuations can adequately account for recent glacial oscillations. During the last glacial period the sea-level has fluctuated 20–30 m as water was sequestered, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets. When ice collected and the sea level dropped sufficiently, flow through the Bering Strait (the narrow strait between Siberia and Alaska is ~50 m deep today) was reduced, resulting in increased flow from the North Atlantic. This realigned the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic, increasing heat transport into the Arctic, which melted the polar ice accumulation and reduced other continental ice sheets. The release of water raised sea levels again, restoring the ingress of colder water from the Pacific with an accompanying shift to northern hemisphere ice accumulation."

So yeah, making it hotter will change salinity which will change ocean currents which will influence the beginning of the Ice Age.

You have three errors in your lecturing. We take them one by one.

No, the surface temperature is not primarily due to the temperatures at the Earth's core.  Study the "radiation budget", here is a link.  This is very well established science.

Here is the answer from a prime "warmer resource,"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

Common sense might suggest that all that heat must have a big effect on climate. But the science says no: the amount of heat energy coming out of the Earth is actually very small and the rate of flow of that heat is very steady over long time periods. The effect on the climate is in fact too small to be worth considering.

Here is a brief discussion of the energy budget.

http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

Next, interglacials caused by ocean currents?  No, they are not.  It is well established that they are the product of periodic variation in the Earth's orbit.

The interglacials and glacials coincide with cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit. Three orbital variations contribute to interglacials. The first is a change in the Earth's orbit around the sun, or eccentricity. The second is a shift in the tilt of the Earth's axis, the obliquity. The third is precession, or wobbling motion of Earth's axis.[1] Warm summers in the northern hemisphere occur when that hemisphere is tilted toward the sun and the Earth is nearest the sun in its elliptical orbit. Cool summers occur when the Earth is farthest from the sun during that season. These effects are more pronounced when the eccentricity of the orbit is large. When the obliquity is large, seasonal changes are more extreme.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

Finally, you have a rather interesting statement.

... making it hotter will change salinity which will change ocean currents which will influence the beginning of the Ice Age.

No scientific findings support the certainty in your statement (bolded.)  They cannot, because this is outright speculation.  Here is the statement corrected to a reasonable level.

... IF CO2 produced by man makes the Earth hotter this MIGHT CHANGE salinity which MIGHT AFFECT ocean currents which MIGHT influence the beginning of the Ice Age.

That's obvious speculation, why not just state it as such?  Obviously it isn't factual or supported by scientific findings.  It's totally reasonable to discuss as speculation, but it's unacceptable to consider or promote as fact.



hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
Mrs. Sixpack says

Hey guys, I came across an interesting thriller. A friend sent me a copy of The Cassandra Sanction by Scott Mariani, knowing that it would interest me because it’s all about climate change, and also as a kind of joke as the hero has the same surname as me. It’s the only fictional book I’ve seen since ‘State of Fear’ that attacks the warmists with such ferocity. One of the characters is a beautiful woman scientist (has to be beautiful, of course!) who predicts a coming Ice Age. It’s a good read, and the science seems pretty solid to me. Nice to see a bestselling thriller writer weighing in on ‘our’ side in the fight! :-)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cassandra-Sanction-Scott-Mariani-ebook/dp/B012T976YW/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1438118371&sr=1-2&keywords=the+cassandra+sanction
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
Weird Mexico...

“”Los meteorólogos afirman no obstante que la sensación de frío que se vive entre la población es mayor a lo habitual debido a que el fenómeno de El Niño demoró en mucho el ingreso de invierno y que cuando llegó lo hizo de forma más intensa que antes””

They blame El Niño for a late harsh winter.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
Quote
"No temperature increase in 20 years"

Meh? Where did you wear in the last 20 years? All records show a global temperature increase for the last 50 years but also for the last 20. It's a very strange statement you're making.

The 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is broadly accepted on all sides.  Here, for example, is a 'warmista' site that just happened to come up top in a quick search:

  http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

Of course it is widely assumed that the reason the models have been wrong and temp readings are low-balling things is that the earth is heating more or less as predicted, but the energy is hiding out somewhere where it is hard to find.  The ocean is the usual culprit.  For my part, given that sea surface rises are also not acting as the scare-mongers predicted, I'm a little skeptical about that explanation as well.

The suggestion that natural variations in climate were seized on and pumped up as a means of gaining increased control over populations seems the strongest hypothesis to me at this point.  Especially since doing essentially that, and for that particular reason, was discussed many decades ago by the same basic class of groups who are now reaping the rewards of the global climate change panic.

Some people seem to indicate that when the pent up energy comes out of hiding it will be very devastating for us all and especially for [insert target animal here] unless we start paying a lot more in carbon taxes.  Scam?  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...



Well, maybe I'm dumb as hell but your graph clearly show an increase of temperature Oo

And so are most sources I managed to find, including NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I mean you can't see that curve and say "no it's ok it's not increasing at all" no? Oo

Go argue with the warmistas.  Almost without exception, the basic construct of the warming 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is accepted among scientists of all stripes.  The problem is how to deal with it.  For the sheeple, it is easy.  Tell them 'hottest year ever' every year.  They don't understand margin of errors anyway and even if they did, their memory span is measured in weeks.  For other scientists it is a more tricky issue.  But as a 'climate scientist' one can make lemonade out of lemons; anyone who adds to the 70-ish and growing explainations for what might have eaten the energy trapped by the evil man-made  greenhouse gasses can expect accolades and grant money to come out of their ears.

Pages:
Jump to: