Are human activities influencing the climate?

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

So you don't believe it now?
Or, do you?

You're keeping your cards quite close to your chest.....

I'd say these people do though, going by their "Thanks" for one of the first posts that mentioned it:

Nope. Never said I did. Even a brief scan of the Abstract in that paper will tell you that the 97% number refers to a very specific thing and not what you're promoting it as claiming.

People "Thanks" things all the time without reading them. Not sure I'd use that as a basis for the whatever conclusion you're drawing.

As an aside, if I was to use your debating tactics right now I demand that you prove to me that 97% of scientists don't believe in climate change. Then when you fail to do that (which is impossible to do) I'd claim that it's proof that it's true.

You're not making much sense there, Akrasia and I have actually aligned on this point and agreed that Ireland's emissions are negligible, meaning they have no affect. (That is, unless Akrasia decides to change his/her mind on it.)





It doesn't matter to me, they can buy what they like, but if you agree with Akrasia and I that there's no affect on the climate from our emissions can you explain why there are "carbon taxes" and why is the Citizens Assembly climate activist group calling for dramatic increases in them?

As part of an ideological, moralistic endeavour, based on Christian values, or some other cultish values?

Maybe it's the subtle, unspoken push towards a new global socialism as recommended by the UN, the home of the IPCC, which itself is home to more ideology and politics than it is to proven science.

There either is or there is not an affect.
The numbers, the actual data, tells us that we are just playing games here, trying to impress others with our futile actions, when in reality someone needs to call a halt and call a spade a spade.

Where are these numbers and actual data you're talking about? You still haven't produced them yet keep claiming you have and it's accepted fact now.

I care because people are being constantly lied to.

People, here in Ireland, are being lead to believe that their emissions are detrimentally affecting the earth's climate, causing climate change and global warming and that having more "carbon taxes" will help to address a problem that does not exist.

If you want to demonstrate proof of just how our emissions are in any way responsible for causing climate change or global warming, be my guest.

It hasn't been done for global emissions and you certainly won't be able to do it for Irish emissions.

My point is that Akrasia called you out on using the weak diversionary tactic of saying "other people are worse so there's no point in me doing anything" and I'm pointing out that you were doing the same thing again. It's a nonsense argument. You can apply that logic to anything to justify it to yourself (why should I drive carefully when there's drunk drivers out there?). Your CO2 emissions have the same impact as everyone elses CO2 emissions. The atmosphere does not follow country borders. You might not emit as much as an oil platform in the Pacific or a billionaire taking a private helicopter everywhere, but every cubic meter you produce is the same as the cubic meter they produce. So the "proof of just how our emissions are in any way responsible for causing climate change or global warming" is the same proof that emissions in general impact on climate. And once again you try to masquerade your own opinions as fact in the last line. We're still waiting for you to provide some links to reputable sources that disagree with the general consensus on human influence on the climate. I'm actually amazed you haven't been able to find anything yet. That 3% must have published research somewhere

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

This is the definition of a straw man argument.

No way, according to them, we can dance against climate change.

Sorry, too late, that was last month.

Pity, we could have busted a few cool moves to "make Ireland a Leader on tackling Climate Change."

How exactly "dancing" is going to help make Ireland a leader on tackling climate change isn't explained in scientific terms, but what harm is there in the activists getting a few more lost children into the cult.

https://www.stopclimatechaos.ie/events/2017/11/04/dance-for-climate-action/

On what scientific grounds would you advocate dancing as a means of fighting climate change Arkrasia; what is the overall stance of the peer reviewed "literature" on weather modification rituals?

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

People "Thanks" things all the time without reading them.

Sure thing.

Next, please.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

No way, according to them, we can dance against climate change.

Sorry, too late, that was last month.

Pity, we could have busted a few cool moves to "make Ireland a Leader on tackling Climate Change."

How exactly "dancing" is going to help make Ireland a leader on tackling climate change isn't explained in scientific terms, but what harm is there in the activists getting a few more lost children into the cult.

https://www.stopclimatechaos.ie/events/2017/11/04/dance-for-climate-action/

On what scientific grounds would you advocate dancing as a means of fighting climate change Arkrasia; what is the overall stance of the peer reviewed "literature" on weather modification rituals?

Its a straw man argument because nobody you are arguing against mentioned this website or encouraged anyone to dance against climate change. You brought this into the discussion purely so you could poke holes in it, although you can't even do this right, because it's not an indian rain dance, its a political rally. It has the same purpose as a March. I wouldn't be bothered going myself, but by you equating it with a weather modification ritual, you're just doing another laughable straw man argument.7

You're like those idiot republican politicians who complain about wasted government funding on 'studying fruit flies' implying that fruit flies are a stupid thing to study, when anyone who knows anything about genetic research knows that fruit flies are one of the most useful tools in genetic research.

Political rallies are proven vehicles for change, whether it's marching, sitting, civil disobedience, or dancing, the point is that it sends a message that there is a movement that demands political action.

dense

Just as we recently learned that applications for grant research for junk science studies with "Climate Change" in the title have thankfully fallen by almost half,

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/29/564043596/climate-scientists-watch-their-words-hoping-to-stave-off-funding-cuts

it now turns our that millenials, who are rapidly losing interest in climate change, may be the cause:

According to Deloitte, and it's 2017 Millenials Survey, millenials have also now dropped climate as being an important concern.



"It is of note that environment/climate change lies toward the bottom of millennials’ personal concerns.


That’s somewhat surprising, given that when we asked about the world’s greatest challenges in 2014, climate change and resource scarcity, taken together, topped the list."

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-deloitte-millennial-survey-2017-executive-summary.pdf

What a coincidence!!

dense

This is an interesting paper.


Abstract

Although the science of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 is well established, all efforts to relate this phenomenon to fossil fuel emissions has failed because of deficiencies in the methodology used in the presentation of empirical evidence.

Circular reasoning is used in the IPCC carbon budget to relate atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions as a way of dealing with insurmountable measurement problems.

No evidence exists to relate changes in atmospheric CO2 or the rate of warming to fossil fuel emissions because correlations presented for these relationships are spurious.

The UNFCCC holds annual COP meetings and calls for reductions in fossil fuel emissions to attenuate global warming without evidence that warming is related to emissions.


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2873672


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862438

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Political rallies are proven vehicles for change, whether it's marching, sitting, civil disobedience, or dancing, the point is that it sends a message that there is a movement that demands political action.

You can dance as much as you like against climate change or we could just ban Irish emissions outright, it's all just charades.

The fact remains that people, here in Ireland, are being lead to falsely believe that their emissions are detrimentally affecting the earth's climate, causing climate change and global warming and that having more "carbon taxes" will help to address a problem that does not exist.

If you want to demonstrate proof of just how our emissions are in any way responsible for causing climate change or global warming, be my guest.

It hasn't been done for global emissions and you certainly won't be able to do it for Irish emissions.

dense

It is impossible to conclude that increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2.

Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2.

That is the take home message from the APS, the American Physics Society.

(It also recommends further research into nature's role and introduces a new emphasis on water vapour as a GHG.)

The APS (which represents 53,000 physicists in academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and throughout the world) has watered down it's original statement on climate change, now dropping the word "incontrovertible" to describe evidence of warming, in favour of "compelling".

The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling.

However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas.

Some still use it though.

The original version

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

The revised version

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate.cfm#

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

It is impossible to conclude that increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2.

This is absolutely not what the APS said. The APS strongly agree that Anthroprogenic CO2 is the main cause of currently observed global warming.
All they have said is that it is impossible to say for absolute 100% certain, but then it's impossible to say for absolute certain that you are a real poster and not a computer generated bot. It doesn't mean you are, or even likely to be one. 100% certainty is impossible for anything other than cogito ergo sum.

That is the take home message from the APS, the American Physics Society.

If this is your take home message, then I wouldn't trust you with a shopping list. You'd probably go to the shop to get bread, and come home with a sledge hammer and nothing to eat.

(It also recommends further research into nature's role and introduces a new emphasis on water vapour as a GHG.)

Water vapour is the primary GHG, all climate scientists know this, and all climate scientists also know that water vapour is a feedback, not a driver of climate change. We need to do more study on water vapour to assess how damaging our CO2 emissions will be, this depends a lot on how the water vapour is distributed in our atmosphere, but this is in terms of the impact of climate change, not the underlying reality of climate change, or the underlying cause of climate change.

The APS (which represents 53,000 physicists in academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and throughout the world) has watered down it's original statement on climate change, now dropping the word "incontrovertible" to describe evidence of warming, in favour of "compelling".




Some still use it though.

The original version

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

The revised version

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate.cfm#

You're gas. You've been asked many many times to find a single reputable scientific body that doesn't agree with the consensus on climate change, and all you can come up with is the APS who absolutely do accept the global warming consensus. There is no question that the APS are not on your side on this debate dense.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

You can dance as much as you like against climate change or we could just ban Irish emissions outright, it's all just charades.

The fact remains that people, here in Ireland, are being lead to falsely believe that their emissions are detrimentally affecting the earth's climate, causing climate change and global warming and that having more "carbon taxes" will help to address a problem that does not exist.

If you want to demonstrate proof of just how our emissions are in any way responsible for causing climate change or global warming, be my guest.

It hasn't been done for global emissions and you certainly won't be able to do it for Irish emissions.

So lets all start pumping out CFCs then, seeing as Ireland's CFCs wouldn't go past grafton street and would just hang around ireland having a pint and not interacting with the ozone layer at all. Sure Irish people aren't capable for contributing to pollution at all.

You're not a relative of the Healey Raes by any chance are ya?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

This is an interesting paper.


Abstract

Although the science of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 is well established, all efforts to relate this phenomenon to fossil fuel emissions has failed because of deficiencies in the methodology used in the presentation of empirical evidence.

Circular reasoning is used in the IPCC carbon budget to relate atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions as a way of dealing with insurmountable measurement problems.

No evidence exists to relate changes in atmospheric CO2 or the rate of warming to fossil fuel emissions because correlations presented for these relationships are spurious.

The UNFCCC holds annual COP meetings and calls for reductions in fossil fuel emissions to attenuate global warming without evidence that warming is related to emissions.


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2873672


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862438

It will take quite a long time for me to explain the main flaws in this paper, so before I go to this effort, I would like to know if you actually understand any what this paper claims to show. Could you paraphrase in your own words the findings of this paper. Why does the author of this paper choose to use de-trended data and why is his de-trended data a better reflection of the human contribution to climate change than all the other datasets that show very clear correlations between human GHG emissions, and rising CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere?

Also of note, is that this paper was not peer reviewed in any way, this website will publish almost any paper as long as the author can show that it is somewhat scientific, and somewhat relevant to the field of intererst. So if you think that this is a convincing paper, you should show that you at least understand it, because if you can't, you're basically saying that anything written anywhere on the internet is valid supporting evidence for your position, and that is the case, then you'll have to accept that the world is also flat and that elvis is alive and living with hitler on the moon.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

It will take quite a long time for me to explain the main flaws in this paper, so before I go to this effort, I would like to know if you actually understand any what this paper claims to show. Could you paraphrase in your own words the findings of this paper. Why does the author of this paper choose to use de-trended data and why is his de-trended data a better reflection of the human contribution to climate change than all the other datasets that show very clear correlations between human GHG emissions, and rising CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere?

Also of note, is that this paper was not peer reviewed in any way, this website will publish almost any paper as long as the author can show that it is somewhat scientific, and somewhat relevant to the field of intererst. So if you think that this is a convincing paper, you should show that you at least understand it, because if you can't, you're basically saying that anything written anywhere on the internet is valid supporting evidence for your position, and that is the case, then you'll have to accept that the world is also flat abd that elvis is alive and living with hitler on the moon.

Stick to dancing against climate change Akrasia, because your pretending to know everything is fooling no one.

As someone who refused to admit a flaw in a previous study, a study which contained a graph that you, Samaris and nobody else could explain, you talk a great talk.

Now, explain the flaws in these papers, in your own words. Take your time.

Actually, if what you say is true, you could submit your rebuttal not here, but to the website you say will take anything from anyone and Dr. Munshi could discuss your concerns.

Should be good for a laugh, like your Dr. Ed Berry fiasco.

B0jangles

dense wrote: »

Stick to dancing against climate change Akrasia, because your pretending to know everything is fooling no one.

As someone who refused to admit a flaw in a previous study, a study which contained a graph that you, Samaris and nobody else could explain, you talk a great talk.

Now, explain the flaws in these papers, in your own words. Take your time.

Should be good for a laugh, like your Dr. Ed Berry fiasco.

No no, I too would be interested to hear your understanding and interpretation of the methodology and conclusions of the paper you just posted a link to.

If you understand enough of it to think it supports your position, you should be able to do that.

dense

B0jangles wrote: »

No no, I too would be interested to hear your understanding and interpretation of the methodology and conclusions of the paper you just posted a link to.

If you understand enough of it to think it supports your position, you should be able to do that.

I said it was an interesting paper.

If there are flaws in it, be brave and point them out.

Or are you just blowing hot air, like Akrasia does?

B0jangles

dense wrote: »

I said it was an interesting paper.

If there are flaws in it, be brave and point them out.

Or are you just blowing hot air, like Akrasia does?

No, no no - after all the demands for other posters to explain things that you have posted (explanations they have delivered in great detail), your turn to make an effort and explain something is long overdue.

Please, go ahead.

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

I said it was an interesting paper.

If there are flaws in it, be brave and point them out.

Or are you just blowing hot air, like Akrasia does?

What's interesting about it?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

I said it was an interesting paper.

If there are flaws in it, be brave and point them out.

Or are you just blowing hot air, like Akrasia does?

Here's an interesting paper.


Your 'interesting paper' is something that you obviously haven't understood. If it's so interesting, you should have read it and you should be able to paraphrase why it is interesting.

There are Boards.ie rules against link dumping. Saying 'here's an interesting link' without adding your own opinion is not allowed here

dense

B0jangles wrote: »

No, no no - after all the demands for other posters to explain things that you have posted (explanations they have delivered in great detail), your turn to make an effort and explain something is long overdue.

Please, go ahead.

You're mistaken.

The only thing I have "demanded" is a little honesty from those who could not explain why they couldn't explain a graph in a study.

They refused to find fault with that paper, so pardon me if I think it looks like they're all bluffing about this one now.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

There are Boards.ie rules against link dumping. Saying 'here's an interesting link' without adding your own opinion is not allowed here

Are you back seat moderating now?

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

What's interesting about it?

What a strange question.

Do you have an issue with me saying it's an interesting paper?

What is the issue, if you do?

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

What a strange question.

Do you have an issue with me saying it's an interesting paper?

What is the issue, if you do?

How is that a strange question? It would be the first thing I asked someone that describes anything as "interesting".

What would your reaction be to someone saying something is interesting? Clumsily try to change the subject and demand they answer unrelated questions?



So what do you find interesting about it? Font choice?

B0jangles

dense wrote: »

You're mistaken.

The only thing I have "demanded" is a little honesty from those who could not explain why they couldn't explain a graph in a study.

They refused to find fault with that paper, so pardon me if I think it looks like they're all bluffing about this one now.

dense wrote: »

Are you back seat moderating now?

dense wrote: »

What a strange question.

Do you have an issue with me saying it's an interesting paper?

What is the issue, if you do?

I think it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are completely unable to explain either the methodology or the conclusions of the paper you just cited.

Why should anyone believe anything you have to say about climate change? All you seem to have are very strong opinions founded on virtually no knowledge at all.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Are you saying we're not on course for worst case scenario RCP 8.5?

That's interesting;
Akrasia says we are actually there already, which is not terribly surprising.

Yet the report states that:

"To get to the dark future of RCP 8.5, Ritchie found, you'd have to burn more coal than anyone should expect to be dug up

This pathway for future warming, often considered a business-as-usual scenario, wasn't likely."

Yet again we see Akrasia placing us right bang in the middle of "the dark future", the worst case scenario, a future that we now learn depends on burning more coal than exists and envisages no further measurable technological improvements or implementation of sustainable energies into the future.

And I didn't see any of the other warmists disagreeing with it either.

All toeing the alarmist line.RCP 8.5.

Business as usual is current trend. Any sensible analysis of business as usual which takes into account a continued growth in population, fossil fuel usage, food production, growing living standards, increased consumption etc. (because all that is business as usual) will result in a catastrophic outcome for the globe. At some stage of that business as usual scenario we have the catastrophic outcome. At the moment that seems to be that we run out of coal just before we hit the catastrophic outcome.

All that means though is that we know things have to change, the only debate is how things should change.

By the way, other than the most drastic reductions in carbon consumption, the scenarios are all dark outcomes. Getting rid of the quickest, darkest outcome as a likely scenario doesn't improve the outlook in any meaningful way.

dense

B0jangles wrote: »

I think it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are completely unable to explain either the methodology or the conclusions of the paper you just cited.

Why should anyone believe anything you have to say about climate change? All you seem to have are very strong opinions founded on virtually no knowledge at all.

I have already said, that, like Akrasia, I am not qualified in the area, therefore I'm not in a position to vouch for the methodology.

If it is flawed as Arkasia has claimed it is, it is legitimate of me to ask them to point out the flaws.

I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

One more thing, do you yourself have qualifications in this area, and if so, where can we see them?

B0jangles

dense wrote: »

I have already said, that, like Akrasia, I am not qualified in the area, therefore I'm not in a position to vouch for the methodology.

If it is flawed as Arkasia has claimed it is, it is legitimate of me to ask them to point out the flaws.

I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

One more thing, do you yourself have qualifications in this area, and if so, where can we see them?

So can we take that as an open admission that you do not know what you are taking about and that you are totally unable to tell the difference between junk science and well-conducted research?

You demand other posters explain everything to you, and then when they are kind enough to do so, you have the absolute gall to criticise the quality and completeness of their explanations?!

I am perfectly happy to admit that I have no qualifications in this particular area, that is why I have made no claims to a deeper understanding of the material than those that do. You would perhaps be wiser if you did the same.

dense

B0jangles wrote: »

So can we take that as an open admission that you do not know what you are taking about and that you are totally unable to tell the difference between junk science and well-conducted research?

I have never claimed to have any expertise, that's why I'm asking ever so slightly relevant questions, such as, how much of the barely perceptible/made up increase in the global temperature can be attributed to Irish emissions?

What effect on alleviating catastrophic anthropogenic global warming can be expected if Ireland quadruples carbon taxes.

Or how much US warming NASA says has occurred in the 20th century that hasn't been made up by NASA.

Why did Barack Obama lie to the world about 97% of scientists?

And why do those who claim to know he did get so upset about being reminded that he did?

How would you like your salary to be adjusted?

Your date of birth maybe?

Temperature records are fair game obviously, so why not your own data while we're at it?

If you want me to be "a believer" you'll have to provide a few credible answers to the most basic of questions.

B0jangles wrote: »

You demand other posters explain everything to you, and then when they are kind enough to do so, you have the absolute gall to criticise the quality and completeness of their explanations?!

If someone makes an unfounded claim, yes I'll certainly ask them to verify it.

Like Akrasia's 100% claim. 100% made up.
Or the IPCC glacial melt.

Or what about xckjoo who now happens to reject the 97% claim but also claims to believe that large numbers of boards users thank posts that they don't actually read. They'll sign and endorse lots of things obviously.

B0jangles wrote: »

I am perfectly happy to admit that I have no qualifications in this particular area, that is why I have made no claims to a deeper understanding of the material than those that do. You would perhaps be wiser if you did the same.

There's not much happiness evident in your post, if I may say so, you're actually coming across as being quite upset about something or other.

But leaving your alleged happiness to one side, are the people that you believe have "a deeper understanding of the material" here the same people who can't explain why they couldn't understand a graph in the Met Eireann study?

Surely if they have such a deep understanding of the material they'd have been able to explain that graph?

Because there was no problem with the study, was there? They think it was flawless.

Odd.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

I have never claimed to have any expertise, that's why I'm asking ever so slightly relevant questions, such as, how much of the barely perceptible/made up increase in the global temperature can be attributed to Irish emissions?

What effect on alleviating catastrophic anthropogenic global warming can be expected if Ireland quadruples carbon taxes.

Or how much US warming NASA says has occurred in the 20th century that hasn't been made up by NASA.

Why did Barack Obama lie to the world about 97% of scientists?

And why do those who claim to know he did get so upset about being reminded that he did?

How would you like your salary to be adjusted?

Your date of birth maybe?

Temperature records are fair game obviously, so why not your own data while we're at it?

If you want me to be "a believer" you'll have to provide a few credible answers to the most basic of questions.



If someone makes an unfounded claim, yes I'll certainly ask them to verify it.

Like Akrasia's 100% claim. 100% made up.
Or the IPCC glacial melt.

Or what about xckjoo who now happens to reject the 97% claim but also claims to believe that large numbers of boards users thank posts that they don't actually read. They'll sign and endorse lots of things obviously.




There's not much happiness evident in your post, if I may say so, you're actually coming across as being quite upset about something or other.

But leaving your alleged happiness to one side, are the people that you believe have "a deeper understanding of the material" here the same people who can't explain why they couldn't understand a graph in the Met Eireann study?

Surely if they have such a deep understanding of the material they'd have been able to explain that graph?

Because there was no problem with the study, was there? They think it was flawless.

Odd.

So many terrible questions, not enough time to laugh at each one individually.

By the way, you've admitted that you know so little about climate science that you can't even paraphrase an argument that you yourself introduced as evidence for your position, so we can safely assume that you also don't know enough about climate science to know if my (or anyone else's) rebuttal of that paper is valid or not.

I could spend an hour writing a carefully researched argument for why that paper is flawed, but actually, there's no point because you would neither understand it, nor bother to educate yourself enough to escape from the Dunning Kruger effect.

dense

Snow will be a thing of the past......


How can one explain what's happened here?

In the wake of heavy snowfall in 2010, early in 2011, the UK newspaper, the Independent published an opinion piece excusing how in 2000 it ran with a headline which claimed that snow will be a thing of the past.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/steve-connor-dont-believe-the-hype-over-climate-headlines-2180195.html

The article offers a lot of stupid reasons and excuses as to how the headline came into being.

I got as far as something equating to "couldn't fit the truth on the page, so had to make up lies."

It even purports to link to the original article.

It may well have done at one time, but try opening the link now, and you'll find that the Independent has seen fit to change the link to its homepage instead of it's original silly headline.

Ironically, the lesson here, from the warmist author, is that newspapers adore climate change for its clickbait value, and facts will invariably come in at second place.

I must load some coal on the fire now, it's very chilly, and besides, no one can illustrate the alleged climate change anyone in Ireland has ever caused or is causing by doing so.

Bless them all the same.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

I have already said, that, like Akrasia, I am not qualified in the area, therefore I'm not in a position to vouch for the methodology.

If it is flawed as Arkasia has claimed it is, it is legitimate of me to ask them to point out the flaws.

I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

One more thing, do you yourself have qualifications in this area, and if so, where can we see them?

I'm not qualified, but at least I'm willing to be learn and be educated. You, in contrast, have decided that despite knowing nothing about climate science, you know enough to know that the experts are wrong, but fringe non peer reviewed contrarians are 'interesting' and therefore climate change isn't real.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

I could spend an hour writing a carefully researched argument for why that paper is flawed, but actually, there's no point because you would neither understand it, nor bother to educate yourself enough to escape from the Dunning Kruger effect.

You could??? That's it?????

So you've lied again? Bejeepers, there's a shock.

What gives with the warmists?

You"ve boldly claimed that there's a load of errors and flaws in the paper and now you can't find them.

There's a definite pattern here; it's known as waffling.

Dancing against climate change. Refusing to read reports. 100% claims.
Unflawed, perfect paper/study/research from Met Eireann. IPCC melt not melting then melting then not. Imaginary Gallup polls. Claiming to know what someone else has read. Launching space shuttles.

Chortle.

In reality it's just another keyboardist talking the big talk.

And it looks like quite a few are drawn to that kind of thing.

100 users thanked that 97% post.

They get a bit upset when it's explained to them what they're swallowing.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

So many terrible questions, not enough time to laugh at each one individually.

Why are you terrified by the most basic of questions?

Answer them please, if you're unable to that's absolutely fine.

Cheers.

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

Why are you terrified by the most basic of questions?

Answer them please, if you're unable to that's absolutely fine.

Cheers.

Pot, kettle.

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Pot, kettle.

Irony central around these parts, Doctor.

Mind if I ask you if you've got multiple fake framed medical certificates on your walls, or are you a real live doctor, Doctor, Jimbob?

You wouldn't be masquerading as a doctor here would you, Jim Bob?

I was warned that the internet is full of people pretending to be doctors and scientists and never to buy anything off of them.

Good advice.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

You could??? That's it?????

So you've lied again? Bejeepers, there's a shock.

well you've shown nothing but bad faith on this thread, whenever someone goes to the trouble to answer your question, you ignore the substance and focus on one or two words and take them completely out of context, and then loudly claim that these words mean that the person who answered your question hasn't answered the question and is in fact a liar who must be best friends with the climate scientists and is covering for them.

But, in case there is anyone else wondering why Jamal Munshi is full of sh1t on this topic

There are loads of datasets that show a clear correlation between cumulative anthroprogenic CO2 emissions, and the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which look a bit like this


But Munshi just dismisses this evidence for an idiotic reason, and instead plots 'de-trended' graphs that try to match annual co2 emissions from human sources against annual changes in recorded atmospheric co2 concentrations

Because these are not correlated on a year by year basis, due to all kinds of complicated reasons, Munshi declares that there cannot be a relationship between Anthroprogenic GHGs and the sudden rapid increase in CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

He's trying to use arcane statistical methodology to argue that there is no correlation to make it sound scientific and mathematically impressive, but in order to do this, he needs to ignore all of the other evidence for a human induced change and instead go back to his assertion that annual co2 concentrations should track closely with annual human co2 emissions, when nobody who knows anything about atmospheric sciences would expect there to be this kind of correlation (for example, there are multi annual oscillations between atmospheric and ocean CO2 concentrations, periodic upwelling and downwelling events linked to ocean circulation and enso)


Munshi also completely ignores the isotopic evidence that shows that the atmospheric CO2 ratio of 12c to 13c isotopes is being changed by humans burning sequestered fossil fuels which are lower in 13c than natural Co2 sources


Not to mention further evidence in the change in oceanic PH as human emitted CO2 is interacting with sea water and creating Carbonic Acid.

Munshi has been banging on about this for years. He has 'published' numerous 'papers' on the SSRN site for years but has never managed to get anything into a peer reviewed journal, instead he has been pimping his work on the forums of blogs and websites looking for credulous people to be impressed by his fancy maths words and find his 'papers' 'interesting' despite not having a bulls notion what he's actually talking about

B0jangles

dense wrote: »

I have never claimed to have any expertise, that's why I'm asking ever so slightly relevant questions, such as, how much of the barely perceptible/made up increase in the global temperature can be attributed to Irish emissions?

What effect on alleviating catastrophic anthropogenic global warming can be expected if Ireland quadruples carbon taxes.

Or how much US warming NASA says has occurred in the 20th century that hasn't been made up by NASA.

Why did Barack Obama lie to the world about 97% of scientists?

And why do those who claim to know he did get so upset about being reminded that he did?

How would you like your salary to be adjusted?

Your date of birth maybe?

Temperature records are fair game obviously, so why not your own data while we're at it?

If you want me to be "a believer" you'll have to provide a few credible answers to the most basic of questions.



If someone makes an unfounded claim, yes I'll certainly ask them to verify it.

Like Akrasia's 100% claim. 100% made up.
Or the IPCC glacial melt.

Or what about xckjoo who now happens to reject the 97% claim but also claims to believe that large numbers of boards users thank posts that they don't actually read. They'll sign and endorse lots of things obviously.




There's not much happiness evident in your post, if I may say so, you're actually coming across as being quite upset about something or other.

But leaving your alleged happiness to one side, are the people that you believe have "a deeper understanding of the material" here the same people who can't explain why they couldn't understand a graph in the Met Eireann study?

Surely if they have such a deep understanding of the material they'd have been able to explain that graph?

Because there was no problem with the study, was there? They think it was flawless.

Odd.

You've just openly admitted that you do not possess enough knowledge or expertise to even understand the methodology used to gather the evidence that you youself put forward, never mind the actual evidence itself.

You ask questions you don't understand, you then receive answers you don't understand.

And yet somehow the problem is not your lack of knowledge, it's a global conspiracy?

As the tech support people say : PEBCAK*



*'Problem Exists between Chair and Keyboard'

Dr Crayfish

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/08/starving-polar-bear-arctic-climate-change-video

This video will cheer us all up. You know I just don't f**king care any more, what's the point, nothing will ever change, we're just a greedy horrible destructive species. Do the planet a favour, don't have kids.

RoundBox11

I just can't fathom how there can be any debate on this topic and how this thread can be so long.

The human effect on climate change has been shown time and time again with cold hard scientific facts. But yet it's still so common for people with no scientific education or knowledge of how scientific research is carried out to spout out ****e about how they 'just don't buy it' or 'its a conspiracy'.

Why post an article or link that you don't understand and can't back up with your own critical thinking? Do you have any idea how much critical appraisal and peer reviewing it takes for papers proving climate change to be published? I mean, nobody wants climate change to be real, but it's not about what we want. We can't just deny it and hope it will go away.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

well you've shown nothing but bad faith on this thread, whenever someone goes to the trouble to answer your question, you ignore the substance and focus on one or two words and take them completely out of context, and then loudly claim that these words mean that the person who answered your question hasn't answered the question and is in fact a liar who must be best friends with the climate scientists and is covering for them.

But, in case there is anyone else wondering why Jamal Munshi is full of sh1t on this topic

There are loads of datasets that show a clear correlation between cumulative anthroprogenic CO2 emissions, and the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which look a bit like this


But Munshi just dismisses this evidence for an idiotic reason, and instead plots 'de-trended' graphs that try to match annual co2 emissions from human sources against annual changes in recorded atmospheric co2 concentrations

Because these are not correlated on a year by year basis, due to all kinds of complicated reasons, Munshi declares that there cannot be a relationship between Anthroprogenic GHGs and the sudden rapid increase in CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

He's trying to use arcane statistical methodology to argue that there is no correlation to make it sound scientific and mathematically impressive, but in order to do this, he needs to ignore all of the other evidence for a human induced change and instead go back to his assertion that annual co2 concentrations should track closely with annual human co2 emissions, when nobody who knows anything about atmospheric sciences would expect there to be this kind of correlation (for example, there are multi annual oscillations between atmospheric and ocean CO2 concentrations, periodic upwelling and downwelling events linked to ocean circulation and enso)


Munshi also completely ignores the isotopic evidence that shows that the atmospheric CO2 ratio of 12c to 13c isotopes is being changed by humans burning sequestered fossil fuels which are lower in 13c than natural Co2 sources


Not to mention further evidence in the change in oceanic PH as human emitted CO2 is interacting with sea water and creating Carbonic Acid.

Munshi has been banging on about this for years. He has 'published' numerous 'papers' on the SSRN site for years but has never managed to get anything into a peer reviewed journal, instead he has been pimping his work on the forums of blogs and websites looking for credulous people to be impressed by his fancy maths words and find his 'papers' 'interesting' despite not having a bulls notion what he's actually talking about

It comes as no surprise that there are NO errors that you're able to identify, even though you said it was full of them.

Instead, you want to focus on the fact that you're just not happy that the professor has used alternative but accepted methods, referencing a dozen of previously published studies in his paper.

We get that you don't like anyone thinking outside the box.

A fact which seems to keep going over your head is that there is no empirical evidence proving a link between CO2 emissions and an alleged catastrophic temperature rise.

Munshi:

"The UNFCCC holds annual COP meetings and calls for reductions in fossil fuel emissions to attenuate global warming without evidence that warming is related to emissions."

Any joy with figuring out how much climate change and catastrophic global warming we in Ireland are responsible for?

Inconsequential. Of NO consequence.

It's just an ideological craze to fulfil the agenda of the UN to redistribute wealth from first world countries to developing countries.

Tax emissions to the hilt anyway as advised by the Climate Change Assembly, even though our emissions, as you've accepted yourself, are of no significance.

BTW, have you ever managed to get anything at all published in this area yourself?

Sorry, I forgot, you've no qualifications, which makes it rich when you're making some digs at the professor there.

You were the same about Dr. Berry whose theory you similarly disliked but were unable to debate.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

It comes as no surprise that there are NO errors that you're able to identify, even though you said it was full of them.

Instead, you want to focus on the fact that you're just not happy that the professor has used alternative but accepted methods, referencing a dozen of previously published studies in his paper.

We get that you don't like anyone thinking outside the box.

A fact which seems to keep going over your head is that there is no empirical evidence proving a link between CO2 emissions and an alleged catastrophic temperature rise.

Munshi:

"The UNFCCC holds annual COP meetings and calls for reductions in fossil fuel emissions to attenuate global warming without evidence that warming is related to emissions."

Any joy with figuring out how much climate change and catastrophic global warming we in Ireland are responsible for?

Inconsequential. Of NO consequence.

It's just an ideological craze to fulfil the agenda of the UN to redistribute wealth from first world countries to developing countries.

Tax emissions to the hilt anyway as advised by the Climate Change Assembly, even though our emissions, as you've accepted yourself, are of no significance.

BTW, have you ever managed to get anything at all published in this area yourself?

Sorry, I forgot, you've no qualifications, which makes it rich when you're making some digs at the professor there.

You were the same about Dr. Berry whose theory you similarly disliked but were unable to debate.

Lol. Why am i not surprised that you ignored everything i said.

You introduced this paper. Tell me why a detrended series is a better representation of human influence than the cumulative series.

Why do you quote a man saying there is no evidence while ignoring the isotopic evidence that i referenced (as well as all the other evidence)

You're a joke Dense

dense

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/08/starving-polar-bear-arctic-climate-change-video

This video will cheer us all up. You know I just don't f**king care any more, what's the point, nothing will ever change, we're just a greedy horrible destructive species. Do the planet a favour, don't have kids.

Have you had the snip or have you had your tubes tied as a favour to the earth?
Good for you if you have! And it entitles you to preach to everyone else that hasn't.

Thing is, polar bears do actually get old and they do actually die. All of them.

But they don't go to Polar Bear General Hospital to it, it happens where crying photographers can photograph them.

This GIF will cheer us all up.

pitifulgod

dense wrote: »

Have you had the snip or have you had your tubes tied as a favour to the earth?
Good for you if you have! And it entitles you to preach to everyone else that hasn't.

Thing is, polar bears do actually get old and they do actually die. All of them.

But they don't go to Polar Bear General Hospital to it, it happens where crying photographers can photograph them.

This GIF will cheer us all up.

Except that polar bear was actually not old and it was simply dying of starvation.

Master of the Omniverse

Heres some more manipulated data.Plus national geographic pulled the plug on researcher of huge number of ocean bed sinkholes .Excuse the pun.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/06/tidalgate-climate-alarmists-caught-faking-sea-level-rise/
Ofcourse I can allready predict the forthcoming barrage of"breibart news,well ofcourse that is not a peer reviewed ,scientist backslapping respected journal,so its obviously fake news".I post for people who want to see both sidez of the coin,not to change the minds of climate change alarmists.

Master of the Omniverse

Phil Hogan,big cahunas in the eu,comes out and says ireland is going to end up paying alot of money in eu fines because they cannot or will not be able to reduce emissions in alotted timeframe.So there we have it folks.Money for nothing .A direct injection of capital from our pocketz into the ubercoffers of the eu elite.What a great scam.

Doctor Jimbob

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Heres some more manipulated data.Plus national geographic pulled the plug on researcher of huge number of ocean bed sinkholes .Excuse the pun.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/06/tidalgate-climate-alarmists-caught-faking-sea-level-rise/
Ofcourse I can allready predict the forthcoming barrage of"breibart news,well ofcourse that is not a peer reviewed ,scientist backslapping respected journal,so its obviously fake news".I post for people who want to see both sidez of the coin,not to change the minds of climate change alarmists.

Never mind whether or not it's a scientific source, it's not even a reputable news source.

Going to brietbart for views on climate science is like going to stormfront for immigration policy ideas, or people before profit for a realistic budget.

Brietbart ffs.

Master of the Omniverse

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Never mind whether or not it's a scientific source, it's not even a reputable news source.

Going to brietbart for views on climate science is like going to stormfront for immigration policy ideas, or people before profit for a realistic budget.

Brietbart ffs.

Its always good to read the link.This is not breibarts opinion,but breibart reporting on research into data manipulation by two australian scientists who published a paper on it.

Doctor Jimbob

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Its always good to read the link.This is not breibarts opinion,but breibart reporting on research into data manipulation by two australian scientists who published a paper on it.

Calling anything that comes from that rectum of a website reporting is being far too generous.

Akrasia

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Phil Hogan,big cahunas in the eu,comes out and says ireland is going to end up paying alot of money in eu fines because they cannot or will not be able to reduce emissions in alotted timeframe.So there we have it folks.Money for nothing .A direct injection of capital from our pocketz into the ubercoffers of the eu elite.What a great scam.

So the fines Ireland may have to pay go into the personal bank accounts of EU elites??

I can't believe we signed up to that!

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

So the fines Ireland may have to pay go into the personal bank accounts of EU elites??

I can't believe we signed up to that!

It has to.Statistics show that most of the worlds wealth ends up in the pockets of the elite eventually.This is why carbon tax and fines for emissions will eventually end up there.I remember reading an article in the times on sunday arou.d the time of the rwandan genocide that reported how the european committe responsible for allocation of funds were found to have committed fraud and embezzlement on such a massive scale that they a had to resign.That report was soon buried and I never saw reference to it again.So when I talk about the uberpockets of eu elite,I dont imagine much has changed,except the size of the coffers.

Master of the Omniverse

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

It has to.Statistics show that most of the worlds wealth ends up in the pockets of the elite eventually.This is why carbon tax and fines for emissions will eventually end up there.I remember reading an article in the times on sunday arou.d the time of the rwandan genocide that reported how the european committe responsible for allocation of funds were found to have committed fraud and embezzlement on such a massive scale that they a had to resign.That report was soon buried and I never saw reference to it again.So when I talk about the uberpockets of eu elite,I dont imagine much has changed,except the size of the coffers.

Forgot to add that the entire committee had to resign,not just a few members.

xckjoo

Can't help but notice that one specific poster keeps making claims about how I've (and others) changed my stance on things I never previously commented on when it suits their narrative. I'm calling bad-faith and finishing my interaction with them. Too much of their post content is structured to elicit personal responses for me to take them at face value.