The Green Room

[Handlebars]

Mulezen, quoting a left-wing newspaper's opinion piece about a right-wing website does not change the climate data.

The Washington Post's own data on tornado frequency: WaPo link to this chart

Yet this is what they go with:

Extreme Weather has made half of America Look Like Tornado Alley

All the data I've posted has been from NOAA, NASA, EPA, NWS and various universities. You should check those sites for more credible information.

That's beautiful - the best is to be able to use their own source to show the exemplars of cognitive dissonance what they still don't get.

 

[Rocket Dan]

Gordon71 said:
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 because last night it was cold outside. Same approach with covid vaccinations.

That is classic herd thinking of the stupid masses.
That's why this 97% lie was created in order to generate this exact reaction from people.

They know that hardly anyone actually reads how the 97% came about.
It was a survey from a student who send this question via email to a bunch of scientists. Lots of them didn't even respond to this email.
From those who responded there was a 70 % agreement.
Then they filtered out people who publish a lot in this area and basically earn their money from it. They of course would not work in this area if they didn't believe it.
That small undergrooup then agreed by 97% that man contributes to climate change.

Because not all scientists were even emailed this survery but only a small fraction you can't even know what the majority of scientists believe or not.
And of those who have been sent this survey only a part responded. The rest ignored it.
So you basically have the opinion of a fraction of a fraction of scientists.
The opinion of the majority of scientists is not known. Therfore there can't be a 97% agreement.

I can get you a 97 % disagreement by sending a survey to scientists who are likely to disagree.
Of course I would let it run by an innocent student as a straw man to make it look like it was unbiased just like the original survey.
Then I sort out all the people who agree and find some way to create a small undergroup to get to a 97 % disagreement.

And by the way, for the herd thinking people here is one very important fact: Agreements in science are completely meaningless.
Back in the day the majority agreed that the sun was moving around the earth.
And if you look at science nobel prize winners you will find that the majority of them were outsiders. So there was agreement that they were wrong before they could prove their findings or were adwarded the nobel prize.
Agreement is irelevant because if something is true or false is not determined by a vote.

 

[PatriciaK]

That is classic herd thinking of the stupid masses.
That's why this 97% lie was created in order to generate this exact reaction from people.

They know that hardly anyone actually reads how the 97% came about.
It was a survey from a student who send this question via email to a bunch of scientists. Lots of them didn't even respond to this email.
From those who responded there was a 70 % agreement.
Then they filteres out people who publish a lot in this area and basically earn their money from it. They of course would not work in this area if they didn't believe it.
That small undergrooup then agreed by 97% that man contributes to climate change.

Because not all scientists were even emailed this survery but only a small fraction you can't even know what the majority of scientists believe or not.
And of those who have been sent this survey only a part responded. The rest ignored it.
So you basically have the opinion of a fraction of a fraction of scientists.

I can get you a 97 % disagreement by sending a survey to scientists who are likely to disagree.
Of yourse I would let it run by an innocent student as a straw man to make it look like it was unbiased just like the original survey.
Then I sort out all the people who agree and find some way to create a small undergroup to get to a 97 % disagreement.

And by the way, for the herd thinking people here is one very important fact: Agreements in science are completely meaningless.
Back in the day the majority agreed that the sun was moving around the earth.
And if you look at science nobel prize winners you will find that the majority of them were outsiders. So there was agreement that they were wrong before they could prove their findings or were adwarded the nobel prize.
Agreement is irelevant because if something is true or false is not determined by a vote.

Oh goodie - another addition to my ignore list!

 

[Air2air]

Oh goodie - another addition to my ignore list!

Yes, we know that's your version of the scientific method. It's what got you in this situation in the first place.

 

[DaveMatthews]

Oh goodie - another addition to my ignore list!

Yup...

 

[DaveMatthews]

Yes, we know that's your version of the scientific method. It's what got you in this situation in the first place.

And another

 

[Mulezen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/11/03/europe-record-heat-summer-climate-change-study/

 

[DaveMatthews]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/11/03/europe-record-heat-summer-climate-change-study/

We got totally roasted in BC as well.

 

[Air2air]

We got totally roasted in BC as well.

The rest of us look at the scientific data, here from National Interagency Fire Center :

 

[Air2air]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/11/03/europe-record-heat-summer-climate-change-study/

Mulezen's dramatic Washington Post photo above about Greek fires was just crying for furthur investigation at the actual sources (below).

WaPo's photo is from the Greek island of Evia, and the arson suspect is shown arrested in the tweet below.

 

[Handlebars]

We got totally roasted in BC as well.

It just can't be the people who told us all that they'd do it if they didn't get their way.

 

[Mulezen]

A mild summer in central VA, at least for me But ran AC some in October, and finally engaged the heat the 1st of November. Up North though the weather has been much worse

 

[Handlebars]

Yes, we know that's your version of the scientific method. It's what got you in this situation in the first place.

They message each other to tell what you posted
It's almost like their energy plans. Can a smart grid be smart enough to send only them the unreliable hyper expensive electricity and leave the normally-thinking people with their reliable natural gas and modernized traditional low cost electricity?

 

[Handlebars]

That's why this 97% lie was created in order to generate this exact reaction from people.

It's an optimized figure and for authenticity they varied it slightly in similar "studies". The funniest part is that they could equally show 100% consensus ...every scientific organization has executives who publicly bend the knee even if their science doesn't have anything to do with climate change.
I think it would be fun to gather all the "97%" pieces and list some of the evidence they used...I remember one paper in agreement with global warming and the paper is actually on the climate in black holes (in space)... they have papers on air conditioner climate control, and so on.
They can have all the scientific unions and so on 100% is OK because people look at that and understand it as a political necessity for any such organization. They understand it is a kind of board necessity.
So that is why they don't do the 100% for other classes of supporters...the pubic would immediately suspect a forced agreement

 

[theemartymac]

The rest of us look at the scientific data, here from National Interagency Fire Center :

What data/argument are you trying to make here?

I'm an Emergency Manager in BC, and I'll tell you that this was an exceptional year and one of our worst for many reasons, even though our hectares burned did not break any overall records. Our costs of firefighting are limited by resources available to purchase and deploy, not the actual need on the ground, or else that number would have been much higher as well. Human impact was up significantly, and the Wildfire Incident Commanders I worked with all summer were at a total loss to explain the fire behavior we witnessed. There wasn't a IMT Commander who didn't use terms like "Haven't seen this type of extreme fire behavior in my 30+ years", or "Completely unprecedented fire spread rates for BC" in briefings. There are many reasons charts don't show gigantic spikes, and your chart clearly shows an increasing baseline since the 60's - despite more money and physical resources available to deploy than ever before.

 

[Handlebars]

What data/argument are you trying to make here?

There are many reasons charts don't show gigantic spikes, and your chart clearly shows an increasing baseline since the 60's - despite more money and physical resources available to deploy than ever before.

And similarly are there not multiple reasons why a chart might show an increasing baseline since the 60's?

 

[theemartymac]

And similarly are there not multiple reasons why a chart might show an increasing baseline since the 60's?

Probably not multiple. The only logical one would be some "let it burn" policies in the name of forest restoration and natural fire management. Due to human, property, and timber value impacts, those generally account for only the most remote fires though, and many if not most of those fires would have been fought with minimal resources anyway, so the overall seasonal impact is pretty insignificant. We just don't have that much area that isn't settled anymore either, so we are forced to keep fighting fires aggressively. All area stats prior to the 50's (when we learned to use all the surplus WW2 aircraft to fight fires very effectively) are in a category of their own. A 60-year trend is too big to be a typical periodic/local/seasonal climactic cycle, and the effectiveness of our equipment, technology, and financial resources are so far ahead of the 60's, that there is very little possible explanation for why we see trends like that. Individual years can vary greatly when fires happen primarily in remote areas vs urban interface zones (like in BC in 2018 when we burned 1.3 million ha mostly in northern BC - our record to date), but the multi-decade trends don't vary like that.

 

[john peck]

None so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[tomjasz]

As Earth Warms, Old Mayhem and Secrets Emerge From the Ice

Climate change is revealing long-frozen artifacts and animals to archaeologists. But the window for study is slender and shrinking.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Air2air]

As Earth Warms, Old Mayhem and Secrets Emerge From the Ice

Climate change is revealing long-frozen artifacts and animals to archaeologists. But the window for study is slender and shrinking.

www.nytimes.com

Exactly Tom. Can the NYT prove that these phenomena are caused *only* by the 4.9% of CO2 that is man-made, and not the other 95.1% that is natural... or a combination thereof?

No of course - it's ludicrous to even attempt. Yet they've made their conclusion, totally outside the boundaries of the scientific method.

In cycles going back hundreds of thousands of years you will see twenty times the level of CO2 and dramatically hotter temperatures. Did the NYT happen to mention that, and why not? You deserve to know.