How the GW myth is perpetuated

Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
CDNBear said:
An inconvenient truth, lol.
Click to expand...

I don't really find it inconvenient. Some scientists also dispute continental drift. Some dispute the efficacy of vaccines. Some dispute evolution. The difference is that none of those 'actual claims made by scientists' are mainstream in the field. When you just call it a claim by scientists, it certainly can make it appear that way. That's the inconvenient truth here. The only one that is close to accurate is the 2014 'Science is settled', and that requires context. What science is settled? Word choice matters for us geeks in lab coats. :smile:
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Tonington said:
I don't really find it inconvenient. Some scientists also dispute continental drift. Some dispute the efficacy of vaccines. Some dispute evolution. The difference is that none of those 'actual claims made by scientists' are mainstream in the field. When you just call it a claim by scientists, it certainly can make it appear that way. That's the inconvenient truth here.
Click to expand...
I obvioulsy disagree. The claims were made, the years came and passed, and the claims failed to materialize.

It's very inconvenient for some, but you, being an anomaly of sorts, are different.

The only one that is close to accurate is the 2014 'Science is settled', and that requires context. What science is settled? Word choice matters for us geeks in lab coats. :smile:
Click to expand...
It matters to dudes in works shirts and welding helmets too.

All the little changes, and the large ones, have a huge impact on our lives. I get the climate's changing. I've been acutely aware for some time, and as I've said before, we need to address it as well as the acute damage to our ecosystems, across the board. But politicians and agenda trolls have hijacked the climate, for political and ideological gain and seemingly made it the only concern.

We need to fix our environment, as a whole. But we need to do it with a balanced plan that acknowledges our dependance on fossil fuels, and resource needs.

Throttling, restricting and taxing only seems to hurt the end users, some of whom can not afford the aggressive attacks on their bottom lines.
 
Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,365
9,658
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
CDNBear said:
It matters to dudes in works shirts and welding helmets too.

All the little changes, and the large ones, have a huge impact on our lives. I get the climate's changing. I've been acutely aware for some time, and as I've said before, we need to address it as well as the acute damage to our ecosystems, across the board. But politicians and agenda trolls have hijacked the climate, for political and ideological gain and seemingly made it the only concern.

We need to fix our environment, as a whole. But we need to do it with a balanced plan that acknowledges our dependance on fossil fuels, and resource needs.

Throttling, restricting and taxing only seems to hurt the end users, some of whom can not afford the aggressive attacks on their bottom lines.
Click to expand...

Thank You!!! Couldn't (haven't so far, anyway) have said it better myself.
You've summed things up nicely for those of us effected, but not swimming
in the debate.
 
Locutus

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
46
48
66
Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard

100% of US warming is due to data tampering by @NOAANCDC . The ultimate scientific scam.

 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
yo Locutus! You're a veritable cut&paste wizard... do you have more... where you actually go beyond your unlimited twittersphere sources and offer your own understanding/interpretation of "those tweets"? Tweets... from the likes of Steven Goddard, no less! Here's a thought... Goddard has been on about a 2-year tear with his claims about the U.S. temperature record... and, of course, when anyone bothers to give him any attention, he gets his *** handed to him. Fox News has been burnt too often in it's broadcast of Goddards' nonsense... they won't even give him any attention now! Locutus, why doesn't your guy Goddard actually publish his "earth-shattering" claims? Why does he shelter himself in his isolated blog confines... why does he refuse to formally share his vast "knowledge" with the scientific community? :lol:
 
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
CDNBear said:
I obvioulsy disagree. The claims were made, the years came and passed, and the claims failed to materialize.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's all true. I just don't get how it's inconvenient? How is it inconvenient, besides the fact that here I am explaining how these were not mainstream findings?

This is what happens, in every field. Like when I mentioned some scientists dispute evolution- that's not inconvenient to those biologists in the mainstream who accept the findings and theory of evolution. I'm not concerned at all that some people are wrong. It's expected, and it means that there is a competition among ideas. I'd be concerned if there weren't any wrong hypotheses. The fact that there are is normal. In my field right now, there is a big debate on the temperature impacts on immune development. Some people think the low temperatures in some hatcheries are leading to reduced antigen processing, and thus the fish have weaker immune responses when transferred to sea. Others think it has more to do with how fast the vaccine emulsion-water mixed in oil- breaks down, so how long the antigen is available for processing before the two phases separate and the residue is broken down. Eventually, there will be enough data available that we'll be able to piece together what the real story is, but that's no guarantee that all of the immunologists and vaccinologists are going to accept it, especially after studying this for some 10-20 years for some of them, if not more.

Really, what I'm objecting to is lumping everyone together. That's just wrong, and it happens all the time. Every single new thread that gets posted, the usual suspects are here, and whenever they can't dispute something, they often will say something along the lines of the IPCC and East Anglia are corrupt, and that's sufficient for them to dismiss any new findings. That's just plain bull $hit.

Being wrong, of course it matters. I just don't see how it's inconvenient in this case.

petros said:
Geeks in lab coats? Speak for yourself sunshine.
Click to expand...

I apologize to you Petros, and any other geeks in lab coats who don't choose their words wisely. Obviously I wasn't as clear as I needed to be for you- is the red addition below better?

"Word choice matters for us geeks in lab coats who carefully choose our words."
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Locutus said:
Climate News ‏@ClimateNewsCA

RemoteSensingSystem says #climate simulation predicted too much #GlobalWarming (warming not happening as predicted)
Click to expand...

since you appear to present RSS as an authority, I guess you'll have to accept what RSS actually states about tropospheric warming:
  • Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
    .
  • Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
    .
  • The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.
Click to expand...
but yes, their modeling hasn't matched observations for all latitudes... Northern latitudes, yes... other latitude groupings, no. Here's the RSS matching plot for Northern latitudes:



so guess what Locutus... scientists are doing what scientists do... they're investigating why model predictions aren't matching observations for certain latitude groupings. Specifically:
The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. Possible reasons include increased oceanic circulation leading to increased subduction of heat into the ocean, higher than normal levels of stratospheric aerosols due to volcanoes during the past decade, incorrect ozone levels used as input to the models, lower than expected solar output during the last few years, or poorly modeled cloud feedback effects. It is possible (or even likely) that a combination of these candidate causes is responsible.
Click to expand...
 
Tonington

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
petros said:
At least they are mine sunshine.
Click to expand...

The irony. I say word choice matters, then you say speak for yourself, and now you're saying word choice matters.

I'm not looking for a dance partner, and I find the Hokey Petros tiring. Have a good night Derpy :)
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Locutus said:
Click to expand...

:mrgreen: well done Locutus! Why didn't you provide the linkage to that graph... of course, it's from an article by the world renowned "UKIP climate expert", Lawdy (fake Lawdy) Christopher Monckton. Tell me, do you consider that a step up from Steven Goddard?

let me again provide the Pro Tip I mentioned in an earlier post:
waldo said:
Pro Tip: whenever you see reference to periods around 1997, note that as the favoured cherry-pick starting point by deniers... a point that correlates with one of the warmest ENSO events of recent history.
Click to expand...
here's a handy lil' graphic that speaks to the nonsense behind that purposeful cherry-pick - enjoy, Locutus... and this is just surface temperature!

​
let's recap: aside from the cherry-picked starting point, as deniers inevitably do of late, you isolate to exclude ocean warming... you know, that part of the globe where more than 90% of all warming goes. Most deniers do their isolation with surface temperature warming; Locutus, you've upped the ante here by speaking to (satellite based measurements of) lower-tropospheric warming... but you knew that right? Here's a handy visual to highlight the purposeful isolation to exclude considerations of ocean warming:

​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom