Climate change hoax exposed? - Page 29

CountryBoy1981 · 03-05-2014, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funkthulhu

Y'know, if I keep saying the following over and over enough times, maybe it will sink in. . .

Global Warming = increased AVERAGE temperature of the ENTIRE planet

Higher Average Temp = More Energy in the Atmosphere and Ocean

More Energy = Increased strength and variability of LOCAL weather events

Therefore Global Warming = Local Climate Change (Up or Down, often both in the same year)

I could go into the recent fluctuations in the Jetstream, the disturbance of the normal Polar Vortex or any number of other system changes, but I want to keep this simple.

"Global Warming is false because it is Cold Where I Live (or over there) Right Now" is a completely stupid and uneducated argument with no logical stability or scientific defensibility.

Then please explain to me why localized events are used by the warmists as evidence that global warming is occurring? The climate scientists use it all the time even though the overall global temperature has not increased since the 1990s.

Funkthulhu · 03-05-2014, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountryBoy1981

Then please explain to me why localized events are used by the warmists as evidence that global warming is occurring? The climate scientists use it all the time even though the overall global temperature has not increased since the 1990s.

They aren't (by scientists at least) and it has (go look at how many of the top 10 hottest years have been since 2000). . .

Let's get meta for a moment.

What is it about global warming/climate change deniers that prevents them from accepting the concept as fact? While the phenomenon has been dragged kicking and screaming into the political arena by both Left and Right, the concept itself is scientific and apolitical. Furthermore, it is not in any way religious and does not negate or disprove the existence of anybody's flavor of invisible sky-bully.

Why do deniers hang on to every miniscule thread of evidence (often woe-fully outdated and completely disproven) that supports their opinion when there is such an insurmountable edifice of evidence showing it to be a real, true, and factual phenomenon? And why will they so arrogantly dismiss any of that insurmountable evidence out of hand as not being significant?

Don't reply with more woo-woo about this graph, that paper, or the nutter spewing who-knows-what on Faux-News. Furthermore, don't bring in your politics, belief system, or your economics. Address the question at hand. What is it that makes this concept so difficult to wrap your head around when there are so many other science facts you just take for granted or at face value?

Why, in short, must you continue to deny long established fact? What does it gain you? And what are you so terrified of if you were to accept what has already been proven?

Yug · 03-06-2014, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountryBoy1981

Then please explain to me why localized events are used by the warmists as evidence that global warming is occurring? The climate scientists use it all the time even though the overall global temperature has not increased since the 1990s.

(psst because it's OK when they do it)

By the way, here is an article on a pretty large local 'region'

North American snow cover at 3rd-highest level on record

north-america-snow-cover

Lucasme · 03-06-2014, 01:57 PM

harveyc · 03-06-2014, 04:01 PM

Funk, I'm not going to answer your supposed questions that you've qualified with many restrictions and assumptions.

Additionally, I'm maybe what I'd say is a GCC agnostic. There is too much poor quality information on both sides of the argument.

Many scientists seem to be of the view that they are all-knowing and that their knowledge is somehow perfected. Forty years ago there were predictions we were going to freeze. We're much smarter now, apparently. Will we be much smarter yet in another 40 years and have different theories on what is happening.

When was the fist time that the global warming alarmists first predicted that our climate would be more erratic and include colder winters? I believe the scientific community first referred to this climate concern as "global warming", then changed to "global climate change" and then, it seems (to me, from memory) that after we had many hurricanes one summer there was reference to all of this increased energy due to climate warming. From an objective back-seat view, this seems to be changing predictions to fit the actual experiences.

Additionally, it seems you want others to change their behavior to prevent GCC but have not indicated what you are doing.

Further, most people with a religious faith don't believe in a "sky bully". That is a very ignorant and rude comment.

Lucas, I won't go to the trouble of digging up a photo, but you can play sheep all you want.

Yug · 03-06-2014, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harveyc

...
When was the fist time that the global warming alarmists first predicted that our climate would be more erratic and include colder winters? I believe the scientific community first referred to this climate concern as "global warming", then changed to "global climate change" and then, it seems (to me, from memory) that after we had many hurricanes one summer there was reference to all of this increased energy due to climate warming. From an objective back-seat view, this seems to be changing predictions to fit the actual experiences.
...
Lucas, I won't go to the trouble of digging up a photo, but you can play sheep all you want.

Believe in ~~global-warming~~ climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change. Believe in climate change.

CountryBoy1981 · 03-06-2014, 10:31 PM

CountryBoy1981 · 03-06-2014, 10:39 PM

Quote:

My copy of the leaked final draft of the world’s most influential global warming report, despite authors of the highest reputation, reads like something from a mental hospital with no doctors or nurses.

The 31-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced the authors' stunning concession that computer-modeled forecasts of imminent planetary catastrophe were catastrophically wrong – global surface temperatures haven’t risen significantly in the last 15 years – but, even with many other doubts, also insisted that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.

Then European Union Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told the London Telegraph that EU policy on global warming is right even if the science is wrong. That’s nuts, but that’s Big Green: Facts don’t matter.

IPCC authors confident their global warming predictions were wrong | WashingtonExaminer.com

Our predictions are wrong, but its a scientific fact!

starling · 03-06-2014, 11:18 PM

Only the scientifically illiterate or slanted creationist right-wing neo-Calvinists contest whether anthropogenic particulate emissions equate to warming. There is in fact no debate in climatology as to whether this is 'true' or not. How particles trap photons within the atmosphere has been understood to science the romantic period. I could prove this to the deniers on this site, if only they were able to read mathematical language, but alas I heavily suspect this is far beyond their powers of intellect.

Yug · 03-07-2014, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starling

Only the scientifically illiterate or slanted creationist right-wing neo-Calvinists contest whether anthropogenic particulate emissions equate to warming. There is in fact no debate in climatology as to whether this is 'true' or not. How particles trap photons within the atmosphere has been understood to science the romantic period. I could prove this to the deniers on this site, if only they were able to read mathematical language, but alas I heavily suspect this is far beyond their powers of intellect.

Perhaps by couching it in mathematical greek the intent is to make it non-understandable so you have to just 'trust' them that it is correct (better than having something understandable that they themselves could clearly see is totally bogus)

(and you are showing yourself to be an arrogant 'twit' re math language - you know nothing of the schooling or intellectual abilities of those on this site. Only an arrogant ass would assume that his position is that of the intellectuals, and anyone else that believes differently is ignorant

just who the hell do you think you are?!? )

starling · 03-07-2014, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yug

Perhaps by couching it in mathematical greek the intent is to make it non-understandable so you have to just 'trust' them that it is correct (better than having something understandable that they themselves could clearly see is totally bogus)

(and you are showing yourself to be an arrogant 'twit' re math language - you know nothing of the schooling or intellectual abilities of those on this site. Only an arrogant ass would assume that his position is that of the intellectuals, and anyone else that believes differently is ignorant

just who the hell do you think you are?!? )

How can I put this is a way you'll understand.....

'we' have tried making the science intelligible to 'you' (the right-wing proletariat). You have chosen to reject these commonsense explanations on ideological grounds, not scientific grounds. And Yes; I do consider you ignorant, because you cannot interpret the mathematical language which describes the hard science that is anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, your opinion is automatically invalidated on the subject, because it is unqualified. If you can explain to me, please, how being totally bereft of any technical knowledge or understanding about the mechanics of a specific scientific process qualifies your opinion on said process, I'd like to hear that argument.

I have a degree in science (not climatology) and currently major in methodology/statistics. I will never respond to anything you post under any circumstances ever again. Please reserve your opinions and critiques to the culinary aspects of different varieties of bananas. I'm sure you're killer at that.

toodles.
s

scottu · 03-07-2014, 07:43 PM

How can I put this is a way you'll understand.....you can't, cause it's stupid!

CountryBoy1981 · 03-07-2014, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas Naranja

When I put the data in a linear model, my r-squared is tiny and my p-value is insignificant. While there is a positive trend over the period, it seems to be dwarfed by the overall natural variation. None of the journals I publish in would let me publish about something with a r-square of 0.01 and a p-value of 0.2.

Looks cyclical to me.

Richard · 03-07-2014, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountryBoy1981

Looks cyclical to me.

Yes, linear modeling hardly seems appropriate. On the otherhand, in college math departments we usually make a steep learning curve for non-linear statistics: typically a course in differential stochastic equations is a prerequisite -- a junior level course.

Funkthulhu · 03-10-2014, 10:20 AM

So, basically, the answer to my question is:

"This cherry-picked data is bad, so all science everywhere forever is bad."
"I can't answer with all your restrictions because that would cut to the heart of the matter and that would not only scare me but also negate my opinion."
also, "here's some pictures I think is funny"

Glad we cleared that up

harveyc · 03-10-2014, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funkthulhu

So, basically, the answer to my question is:

"This cherry-picked data is bad, so all science everywhere forever is bad."
"I can't answer with all your restrictions because that would cut to the heart of the matter and that would not only scare me but also negate my opinion."
also, "here's some pictures I think is funny"

Glad we cleared that up

Your analysis is deeply flawed.

You are not as smart as you believe you are.

Grow up.

Funkthulhu · 03-10-2014, 01:12 PM

Sorry, when all the evidence supports my position I get cocky.

You have my apologies for this breech of professionalism.

caliboy1994 · 03-15-2014, 07:02 PM

So far all of the denialist arguments on here are either cherry picked, recycled and disproven talking points, or just outright lies. I'd like to see you deniers prove using FACTS that the post-Industrial Era warming trend doesn't exist, and that CO2 levels are virtually the same as they were 250 years ago. Then we'll talk.

Yug · 04-10-2014, 05:51 AM

Good video here - definitely worth watching
Arrogant/ignorant Liberal Regressive Explains Global Warming
Video: Liberal Progressive Explains Global Warming and What to Do About It

Quote:

Originally Posted by starling

How can I put this is a way you'll understand.....
...
If you can explain to me, please, how being totally bereft of
...
I will never respond to anything you post under any circumstances ever again.
...

OK, SHYTEHEAD... go away and STFU!

I'll enjoy the silence from your sinkhole.

(and again, you have NO idea what I or anyone else here have by way of education you arrogant arse, yet you assume I am "totally bereft of any technical knowledge or understanding...") (and when I point out your overtly arrogant elitist position, you become even more arrogant and elitist - your way or the highway - and you still aren't even curious about my credentials?!? I see you quite clearly - anyone that agrees with you is somehow more intelligent than anyone that disagrees with you. What 'chutzpah'!

)

I had to add this for the perpetually arrogant/ignorant...

My mathematics credentials alone are:
linear algebra
abstract algebra - tested out early
trignometry
probability
statistics
complex variables
discrete math
calculus I
calculus II
calculus III
differential equations
modeling and simulation
(and this is just from one degree, I have others)

So don't go on wasting words about how I'm too ignorant to understand the math or science behind the argument - the math is massaged/altered, and the 'science' is highly suspect in its integrity, and you already admitted you have no climatology degree yet you babble and blather on, and pontifiate from your self-assumed soapbox high atop mount Olympus deigning to attempt to 'instruct' us lowly knuckle-dragging troglodytes so far far below your (self) esteemed 'personage'. You are lifted up in your own pride and arrogance; nothing more.

Funkthulhu · 04-10-2014, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yug

Good video here - definitely worth watching
Arrogant/ignorant Liberal Regressive Explains Global Warming
Video: Liberal Progressive Explains Global Warming and What to Do About It

OK, SHYTEHEAD... go away and STFU!

I'll enjoy the silence from your sinkhole.

(and again, you have NO idea what I or anyone else here have by way of education you arrogant arse, yet you assume I am "totally bereft of any technical knowledge or understanding...") (and when I point out your overtly arrogant elitist position, you become even more arrogant and elitist - your way or the highway - and you still aren't even curious about my credentials?!? I see you quite clearly - anyone that agrees with you is somehow more intelligent than anyone that disagrees with you. What 'chutzpah'!

)

I had to add this for the perpetually arrogant/ignorant...

My mathematics credentials alone are:
linear algebra
abstract algebra - tested out early
trignometry
probability
statistics
complex variables
discrete math
calculus I
calculus II
calculus III
differential equations
modeling and simulation
(and this is just from one degree, I have others)

So don't go on wasting words about how I'm too ignorant to understand the math or science behind the argument - the math is massaged/altered, and the 'science' is highly suspect in its integrity, and you already admitted you have no climatology degree yet you babble and blather on, and pontifiate from your self-assumed soapbox high atop mount Olympus deigning to attempt to 'instruct' us lowly knuckle-dragging troglodytes so far far below your (self) esteemed 'personage'. You are lifted up in your own pride and arrogance; nothing more.

Okay, we've established that you're educated, but you're still not acknowledging the science or the math. With that much experience in math one would think that you could just burn through all the data and see that the only massaging (or outright fabrication) of data is coming from the denier side of the argument.

Also, I went to your website to watch your video. Even though it is a right-wing nut-job blog covered from head to toe in "BUY GUNS!" and "*BLEEP* OBAMA" 'Murica! ads, I watched it anyway. It is the most simplistic dismissive denyist video I've seen for some time. It tries to be funny, but really just underlines all the ways that the Denier argument has no leg to stand on and must resort casting the opposition is a bad light and committing every logical fallacy of argument it can without actually disproving the position or providing any facts of its own. At the same time it forwards libertarian thinking and isolationism as a good thing and ties those political ideals to the denier position.

So, yeah. . . maybe you should go to your own sinkhole for a while and think about the facts and what you've done.

The uneducated and ignorant can be taught and lifted up.
Those with education and intelligence who choose to be willfully ignorant of stuff they can understand, but refuse to because they don't like it. . . that's just a slap in the face of humanity and sets us all back a few paces.

03-06-2014, 01:57 PM	#564 (permalink)
Lucasme Location: France Zone: 9 Name: Lucas Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 8 BananaBucks : 1,083 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 301 Times Was Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 7 Times	Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

03-06-2014, 04:01 PM	#565 (permalink)
harveyc Been nuts, gone bananas harveyc's Photo Gallery Location: Isleton, Calif Find me on the map! Zone: 9b Name: Harvey Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 5,117 BananaBucks : 260,444 Feedback: 5 / 100% Said "Thanks" 6,024 Times Was Thanked 4,453 Times in 1,894 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1,785 Times	Re: Climate change hoax exposed? Funk, I'm not going to answer your supposed questions that you've qualified with many restrictions and assumptions. Additionally, I'm maybe what I'd say is a GCC agnostic. There is too much poor quality information on both sides of the argument. Many scientists seem to be of the view that they are all-knowing and that their knowledge is somehow perfected. Forty years ago there were predictions we were going to freeze. We're much smarter now, apparently. Will we be much smarter yet in another 40 years and have different theories on what is happening. When was the fist time that the global warming alarmists first predicted that our climate would be more erratic and include colder winters? I believe the scientific community first referred to this climate concern as "global warming", then changed to "global climate change" and then, it seems (to me, from memory) that after we had many hurricanes one summer there was reference to all of this increased energy due to climate warming. From an objective back-seat view, this seems to be changing predictions to fit the actual experiences. Additionally, it seems you want others to change their behavior to prevent GCC but have not indicated what you are doing. Further, most people with a religious faith don't believe in a "sky bully". That is a very ignorant and rude comment. Lucas, I won't go to the trouble of digging up a photo, but you can play sheep all you want. __________________

03-06-2014, 10:31 PM	#567 (permalink)
CountryBoy1981 Location: Baldwin County, AL Find me on the map! Zone: 8b Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 221 BananaBucks : 46,160 Feedback: 1 / 100% Said "Thanks" 98 Times Was Thanked 234 Times in 118 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 6 Times	Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

03-06-2014, 11:18 PM	#569 (permalink)
starling Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 12 BananaBucks : 6,551 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 0 Times Was Thanked 15 Times in 5 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 0 Times	Re: Climate change hoax exposed? Only the scientifically illiterate or slanted creationist right-wing neo-Calvinists contest whether anthropogenic particulate emissions equate to warming. There is in fact no debate in climatology as to whether this is 'true' or not. How particles trap photons within the atmosphere has been understood to science the romantic period. I could prove this to the deniers on this site, if only they were able to read mathematical language, but alas I heavily suspect this is far beyond their powers of intellect.

03-07-2014, 07:43 PM	#572 (permalink)
scottu <div style="font-weight: bold;"><div style="font-weight: bold;">&lt;div style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;&amp;lt;di v style=&amp;quot;font-weight: bold;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&a mp;amp;lt;di v sty scottu 's Photo Gallery Location: Bethlehem,Pa. Find me on the map! Zone: 6 Name: scott Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 1,192 BananaBucks : 7,457 Feedback: 1 / 100% Said "Thanks" 3,595 Times Was Thanked 857 Times in 368 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 3,323 Times	Re: Climate change hoax exposed? How can I put this is a way you'll understand.....you can't, cause it's stupid! __________________ Viva La Banana

Members currently in the chatroom: 0
	The most chatters online in one day was 17, 09-06-2009. No one is currently using the chat.

03-10-2014, 10:20 AM	#575 (permalink)
Funkthulhu Laeti vescimur nos subact Location: Omaha, NE Find me on the map! Zone: 5b Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 223 BananaBucks : 25,580 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 163 Times Was Thanked 330 Times in 145 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1 Times	Re: Climate change hoax exposed? So, basically, the answer to my question is: "This cherry-picked data is bad, so all science everywhere forever is bad." "I can't answer with all your restrictions because that would cut to the heart of the matter and that would not only scare me but also negate my opinion." also, "here's some pictures I think is funny" Glad we cleared that up __________________ "Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn" "In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."

03-10-2014, 01:12 PM	#577 (permalink)
Funkthulhu Laeti vescimur nos subact Location: Omaha, NE Find me on the map! Zone: 5b Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 223 BananaBucks : 25,580 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 163 Times Was Thanked 330 Times in 145 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1 Times	Re: Climate change hoax exposed? Sorry, when all the evidence supports my position I get cocky. You have my apologies for this breech of professionalism. __________________ "Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn" "In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."

03-15-2014, 07:02 PM	#578 (permalink)
caliboy1994 <div style="font-style: italic;"><div style="font-style: italic;"></div></div> caliboy1994's Photo Gallery Location: SFV, California Find me on the map! Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 18/19 Name: Andreas Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,301 BananaBucks : 250,769 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 1,474 Times Was Thanked 2,196 Times in 1,148 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times	Re: Climate change hoax exposed? So far all of the denialist arguments on here are either cherry picked, recycled and disproven talking points, or just outright lies. I'd like to see you deniers prove using FACTS that the post-Industrial Era warming trend doesn't exist, and that CO2 levels are virtually the same as they were 250 years ago. Then we'll talk. __________________ "The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings." ~ Masanobu Fukuoka Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer: https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer Last edited by caliboy1994 : 04-01-2014 at 10:09 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
UK climate zones may be useful	jmoore	Main Banana Discussion	2	08-09-2009 05:42 AM
climate change gardening...	51st state	Cold Hardy Bananas	1	07-28-2009 06:21 PM
Change	Plantaseeds	Other Plants	2	04-05-2009 10:13 PM
Worsleya for change	Plantaseeds	Other Plants	3	10-21-2008 10:11 AM
sudden move to new climate	Zacarias	Main Banana Discussion	7	05-27-2008 07:59 AM