global warming

[Handlebars]

I take the simple approach regarding these things. When 95% or so of the experts on climate science say that it is man made then I go with the odds rather than believe in say Trump's assertion that it's a hoax...

Your mistake is to pick the weakest challenge you could think of.

Let's take a look at the study "Quantifying the Consensus" produced to show that world famous headline 97% consensus in the climate science literature.
We can actually see the absurd amount of cheating for ourselves if we only look. It doesn't take a scientist to know it's a lie. You CAN know things about the science without being a scientist. We have seen the lying by the most famous. For the most part they all know about the lying but are part of an activist group takeover that is very very powerful and controls enormous wealth distribution. It gives huge gifts to friends, and destroys opposition careers. So you get an almost perfect fear-based unanimity of cowards in chorus at the trough. It is not science.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Here is the study claim:

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. .... Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations) .

After they began their politically motivated stunt, they quickly realized that almost no papers state explicit agreement with the scientific quantified consensus. In truth, less than half of 1% do, according to their own data WHICH YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF in a 2 minute scan of the titles. Right here: https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

So they quickly found out they couldn't produce the expected 97% consensus. They convened a meeting to fix that. Here's the fix: secretly rule out their own definition they said they are using for "AGW" and make it something almost meaningless. Humans contribute. That is not the scientific quantified amount consensus they claim to be finding.

They accidentally left their secret meeting open to view.

OK, so we've ruled out a definition on AGW being (...) "more than 50% human influence

They secretly ruled out the definition they claim to be using

When you go to their data sheet, and you look for such agreement signs, after each title they have two numerals, and the second numeral is for agreement that humans caused over half of recent warming, like IPCC says. Easy to scan some for yourself and after 200 titles in the list scanned, you realize that it's all a lie. You didn't even find one category 1 paper, category 1 means that it explicitly agreed with IPCC type of AGW that humans are mostly the cause, or over half, or over 50% the cause.


Here you can see that a numeral 1 of the two numerals after each title, means they agreed with IPCC, that over half is human-caused. this is what they say they are out to find, but never again mention it.


"Endorsement 1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% "


https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

But if you look at the titles there, you'll be unable to see ANY without diligent searching, forget 97 % of them. You can scan through 2 hundred and not find one. It was all a lie ...and NO CLIMATE SCIENTIST in the propaganda group known as climate science said anything over a world wide hit in headlines that was a lie that they clearly had to know was without doubt a lie.

Anyone can understand that it's ridiculous to think all papers parrot the same thing. Scientists would know immediately that it's a false claim and that they cheated.

Their claimed definition:

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. .... Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations) .

Secret meeting to rule out the definition they say they are using:

Okay, so we’ve ruled out a definition of AGW being ‘any amount of human influence’ or ‘more than 50% human influence’. We’re basically going with Ari’s porno approach (I probably should stop calling it that) which is AGW = ‘humans are causing global warming’. e.g. – no specific quantification which is the only way we can do it considering the breadth of papers we’re surveying.

Click to expand...

They ruled out the definition they claim to be using and never again mention that type of endorsement, which is what the the paper and the title says they are to show.

And it's got nothing at all to do with the "breadth of papers". It's got to do with producing the familiar bogus 97% figure headlines when the facts do not support their propaganda.


As well as quietly dropping the required "scientific" quantification element, they kicked out 2/3 of the papers. So actually not based on 11,944 papers. Now look at their data sheet for level 1 endorsement. It's very rare.

To believe that junk is just sad. Go look for yourself for 3 minutes. See their classification given. See the 2 numerals after each title. Look for the second numeral being a "1". Practically non-existent! Just a stupid lie that went worldwide and NOT A SINGLE CONSENSUS SCIENTIST objected to the obviously known lie.

That people give up their own wits and depend on that kind of propaganda, is not a good sign.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

The glaciers have a pretty strong consensus that the planet is warming. Nearly all glaciers globally (outside of the east Antarctic Ice Sheet, which appears stable at the moment) are receding and losing mass at a rapid rate. Note that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is not stable and appears to be in the process of collapsing. We do not know the time scale for its collapse and that would seem something worth knowing.

I doubt the glaciers are in on any conspiracy.

 

[Handlebars]

Your mistake is to substitute glaciers lying, for scientists lying, and your own mind deceiving you. Glaciers cannot speak to the lies, do not publish, or have media empires and governments protecting the lies.
An examination of the history of the inland glaciers, for example, as historically the most observed and photographically documented glaciers, tell a different story from what the famous climate scientists and even your own mind might tell you.
You do not see the history beyond your own experience.

Take Glacier National Park glaciers as an example.

Receding glaciers.
Next to check out their actual history. When did they grow to recent history (a few centuries) maximim size? When did they begin to seriously lose that size?

 

[Handlebars]

US government: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock...ce_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects


"The history of glaciation in Glacier National Park spans thousands of years of glacial growth and recession, carving the steep and striking mountain features we see today. Glaciers have been present within the boundaries of present-day Glacier National Park since as early as 6,500 years ago (Munroe and others, 2012). These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic trends, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age, around A.D. 1850. "

Their maximum was at the tail end of the Little Ice Age cold period, 160-170 years ago and that was during the Holocene period. Pretty cold Little Ice Age.
Next is when the great recession began in the US.

US Gov: https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/education/geology.htm

"Today, we are living in a relatively warm interglacial period. All remnants of the Pleistocene ice have disappeared. There are no active glaciers in Waterton Lakes National Park; however, the last survey in Glacier NP resulted in about two dozen named alpine glaciers. They are of relatively recent origin, having likely formed in the last 6,000 to 8,000 years. They probably grew rapidly during the Little Ice Age that started about 400-500 years ago and ended about 1850. However, they work in the same way as larger glaciers of the past."

"Tree-ring studies indicate that retreat of the recent glaciation began about 1850. When Glacier National Park was established in 1910, there were around 80 glaciers within the national park compared to about two dozen now. Retreat rates appear to have been slow until about 1910. There was a period of rapid retreat during the mid- to late 1920s. This corresponds to a period of warmer summer temperatures and decreased precipitation in this region. Several of the larger glaciers separated into two smaller glaciers at this time. The Jackson and Blackfoot Glaciers separated as did the Grinnell and Salamander Glaciers."

After The Little Ice Age, they immediately began to recede.

 

[Handlebars]

The most famous climate scientist in the world, climategate deceiver Michael Mann, deceives his followers regarding the history of those glaciers by neglecting to mention the just prior history: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/glacier-national-park-climate-change_b_5656836

"I did my best to get away from work last week while my family and I were on vacation visiting friends who live in Kalispell, the gateway to Montana's Glacier National Park. But it wasn't quite possible. You see, I'm a climate scientist. And the spectre of climate change stares you in the face as you tour the park.
The once great mountain glaciers that gave the park its name have retreated dramatically in recent decades. Of the roughly 150 glaciers that existed in the park when it was established in 1910, only 25 remain today. "

He even outright lies about the history:
US gov: When Glacier National Park was established in 1910, there were around 80 glaciers within the national park"

 

[Gordon71]

Your mistake is to pick the weakest challenge you could think of.

Let's take a look at the study "Quantifying the Consensus" produced to show that world famous headline 97% consensus in the climate science literature.
We can actually see the absurd amount of cheating for ourselves if we only look. It doesn't take a scientist to know it's a lie. You CAN know things about the science without being a scientist. We have seen the lying by the most famous. For the most part they all know about the lying but are part of an activist group takeover that is very very powerful and controls enormous wealth distribution. It gives huge gifts to friends, and destroys opposition careers. So you get an almost perfect fear-based unanimity of cowards in chorus at the trough. It is not science.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Here is the study claim:



After they began their politically motivated stunt, they quickly realized that almost no papers state explicit agreement with the scientific quantified consensus. In truth, less than half of 1% do, according to their own data WHICH YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF in a 2 minute scan of the titles. Right here: https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

So they quickly found out they couldn't produce the expected 97% consensus. They convened a meeting to fix that. Here's the fix: secretly rule out their own definition they said they are using for "AGW" and make it something almost meaningless. Humans contribute. That is not the scientific quantified amount consensus they claim to be finding.

They accidentally left their secret meeting open to view.

They secretly ruled out the definition they claim to be using

When you go to their data sheet, and you look for such agreement signs, after each title they have two numerals, and the second numeral is for agreement that humans caused over half of recent warming, like IPCC says. Easy to scan some for yourself and after 200 titles in the list scanned, you realize that it's all a lie. You didn't even find one category 1 paper, category 1 means that it explicitly agreed with IPCC type of AGW that humans are mostly the cause, or over half, or over 50% the cause.


Here you can see that a numeral 1 of the two numerals after each title, means they agreed with IPCC, that over half is human-caused. this is what they say they are out to find, but never again mention it.


"Endorsement 1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% "


https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

But if you look at the titles there, you'll be unable to see ANY without diligent searching, forget 97 % of them. You can scan through 2 hundred and not find one. It was all a lie ...and NO CLIMATE SCIENTIST in the propaganda group known as climate science said anything over a world wide hit in headlines that was a lie that they clearly had to know was without doubt a lie.

Anyone can understand that it's ridiculous to think all papers parrot the same thing. Scientists would know immediately that it's a false claim and that they cheated.

Their claimed definition:

Secret meeting to rule out the definition they say they are using:




They ruled out the definition they claim to be using and never again mention that type of endorsement, which is what the the paper and the title says they are to show.

And it's got nothing at all to do with the "breadth of papers". It's got to do with producing the familiar bogus 97% figure headlines when the facts do not support their propaganda.


As well as quietly dropping the required "scientific" quantification element, they kicked out 2/3 of the papers. So actually not based on 11,944 papers. Now look at their data sheet for level 1 endorsement. It's very rare.

To believe that junk is just sad. Go look for yourself for 3 minutes. See their classification given. See the 2 numerals after each title. Look for the second numeral being a "1". Practically non-existent! Just a stupid lie that went worldwide and NOT A SINGLE CONSENSUS SCIENTIST objected to the obviously known lie.

That people give up their own wits and depend on that kind of propaganda, is not a good sign.

Well don't tell me. Send your proof to all the climate scientists on the planet and they'll rethink there position and we can roll back emission standards to pre 1950 standards and live happily ever after.

 

[Handlebars]

Well don't tell me. Send your proof to all the climate scientists on the planet and they'll rethink there position and we can roll back emission standards to pre 1950 standards and live happily ever after.

The proof is there for you to see. The climate scientists already know very well that they are supporting many lies by staying quiet, and in the face of being deplatformed, thrown out, degraded by the liars, and never being able to publish again, it's understandable that they do stay quiet about it. They do not care about truth as much as about their own lives. That's natural. The evidences for that are found in the climategate emails.

But now you know and have made your own choice to disregard the facts.

 

[Handlebars]

I take the simple approach regarding these things. When 95% or so of the experts on climate science say that it is man made then I go with the odds rather than believe in say Trump's assertion that it's a hoax

Well don't tell me. Send your proof to all the climate scientists on the planet and they'll rethink there position and we can roll back emission standards to pre 1950 standards and live happily ever after.

Send them proof that you made a big mistake in logic?

 

[DavidRvR]

Were sure never going to solve anything if the attitude is that there's nothing that can be done as it's ordained by the mythical deities.

You dont believe in a deity which is fine but doesn't make it truth... Likewise O dont believe in your flawed science.. Seems to work both directions so whos right? Time will tell on both..My belief in climate change or not wont affect me at any point (if it is true I will leave it for the next generation)... but your non belief in a deity will affect you for eternity

I've read newspapers from the 1920's on microfiche. Have you? Didn't see any of this. I've read Scientific American from 1910-20. Have you? Didn't see any of this. Lots of ink on the new airplane technology. I was thinking of building a glider in college, before all the yuppies started doing it. I did my elementary school work out of a neighbor's 1926 Encylopedia Britannica which I read in the slow summer vacations. My grandfather in Boone Cty WV had a copy of 1922 Encyclopedia Britannica which was flood damaged but I read what I could during slow vacation days while Mother yakked about relatives. I didn't see any of this.
Maybe all the scientists & CNN newspeople snuck into the libraries and replaced all the microfiche papers & magazines with sanitized versions? Maybe they took the time machine back & changed out the encyclopedias I read 1957-1962? Laughing emoticon 1F61C if I knew how to do it. Read 1984 by George Orwell!

Im not as old but I have read some microphiche in my classes when they was teaching about ancient systems that have evolved. They actually have had "Print" in some form for a thousand years. Microphiche or not its there.

https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002152103/page/15/mode/2up

Read one where the ploar bears and the penguins would be gone in 50 years if it wasnt fixed... Last I checked we still have them

Here is a good Video to help... He has a few articles from 1906.. They have been crying wolf for over a hundred years.. Just have to look in the right areas.. Microphiche or not.

He actually has some good content

 

[ActionJackson]

Generally speaking I agree with the idea that the planet is warming and on a perilous path to destruction due mostly to human consumption and carbon combustion. The only real answer is to reduce the population by a few billion. That’s why it’s important for me to enjoy life as much as possible and delegate that task to my grandchildren. I’ve more pressing worries like heart disease and cancer prevention, or at least delaying the onset thereof.

 

[Gordon71]

Generally speaking I agree with the idea that the planet is warming and on a perilous path to destruction due mostly to human consumption and carbon combustion. The only real answer is to reduce the population by a few billion. That’s why it’s important for me to enjoy life as much as possible and delegate that task to my grandchildren. I’ve more pressing worries like heart disease and cancer prevention, or at least delaying the onset thereof.

I can agree with that which is one reason I don't have any grandchildren which of course came about by not having any children.

 

[Handlebars]

I think the only thing I can say about that is that if all things were in fact created by some god then he truly did a shitty job of it. At the very least I wouldn't have given us male pattern baldness if I'd been in charge.

But what if that pattern gives other information to potential mates ...maybe certain testosterone levels that could be valuable to male offspring and so on?
Would it be wise to eliminate it?

 

[scrambler]

They have been crying wolf for over a hundred years.. Just have to look in the right areas.. Microphiche or not.

Someone needs to learn what an exponential curve is

 

[Handlebars]

The job of deciding what is an advantageous or disadvantageous genetic difference within a species can be incredibly complex, and on top of that, it's never been or ever will be a static target as both species and environmental conditions change constantly.
Take lifespan as an example. For a type of fish living in lakes/ponds with annual dry up, is it an advantage to be hatched, become adult and finished laying eggs and then die, all in a few months? That's one way to carry on. If it took a year to grow up, nothing would survive. So dying early is the way for them. Others might go a different route, like walking away or burying themselves in the mud until later.
They "why" question is thorny. The scientific "how " question is usually simple enough to solve, in comparison.

 

[Gordon71]

But what if that pattern gives other information to potential mates ...maybe certain testosterone levels that could be valuable to male offspring and so on?
Would it be wise to eliminate it?

Aside from it being a joke my opinion is that the male gender (and the world) would benefit greatly from less testosterone.

 

[Air2air]

Aside from it being a joke my opinion is that the male gender (and the world) would benefit greatly from less testosterone.

Believe me, we know the Left would love that, and they've made great strides there.

So much that they're injecting their kids with hormone replacements and making them use girls' bathrooms.

 

[Handlebars]

Aside from it being a joke my opinion is that the male gender (and the world) would benefit greatly from less testosterone.

But how the world is now that isn't how it was when humans first existed...nor is how humans will be in the future. Some famously argue that the neck of the giraffe should be considered badly designed, but that can only be done by neglecting to account for how it became what it is.

 

[scrambler]

No worry, Humans will go extinct sooner or later, out of shear stupidity and selfishness.
The planet will recover and make place for a better iteration of this failed experiment

 

[Mr. Coffee]

I'm sorry, but you have to convince me that what I am seeing and experiencing directly just isn't happening. And I have a hard time with that.

Twenty or more years ago, I could ski every month of the year here and usually find very good skiing (September was the hardest month). Now that is rare and many of the former best places for high-elevation skiing in August and September no longer have year-round snow. One of my favorite places for a summer ski was on one of several north-facing pocket glaciers on a ridge northeast of Mount Baker. There is nothing but dirt and rocks there now, the glaciers are gone.

On the other side of it, last July my house was overrun by a wildfire and my hot tub caught on fire. Now, there are a lot of factors in why wildfires are happening more often, but a big one is that typical fuel moistures are much lower. Small increases in average temperatures can cause dramatic decreases in fuel moisture regimes. Just before the Cub Creek 2 fire ran over my house the fuel moisture in timber close by was 2 percent. Your typical sheet of newsprint has a 3 percent fuel moisture.

So you guys can go on pretending it is all "fake". I'll use my eyes and ears and brain and draw my own conclusions.

 

[Air2air]

Scrambler I was referring to your comment:

No worry, Humans will go extinct sooner or later, out of shear stupidity and selfishness.
The planet will recover and make place for a better iteration of this failed experiment

You totally nailed the fundamental crux of the Global Warming argument. The underlying philosophical differences.

Your view is popular among AGW supporters... Almost universal. A fatalism that predicts the demise of humanity because we are so horrible and terrible. Seems almost hopeful in fact.

Any further depth/details on your quote?