And so it starts....
-
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.[^] So now he can't be sacked by NOAA, because Trump put his own man in charge, he is now free to speak out about data corruption and scientific fraud. This is end for the CAGW bullshit thats mis-formed govt policy for decades and cost the taxpayer billions, because a lot of it has come from US scientists. Personally I think Trump shouldn't try to muzzle scientists, he should just put funding on the table for them to prove CO2 is safe. Nothing will undo CAGW quicker than a volte-face by its former adherents.
I distinctly remember that during the 1970s, scientists were worried about global cooling bringing on another ice age. Given the fact that the computer models are not tracking the actual changes in the weather, I believe that we do not at present have enough data to settle the questions: 1. Is there any long-term global warming? 2. How much of it is anthropogenic? Bogus publications by so-called scientists with an agenda do not help.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
I distinctly remember that during the 1970s, scientists were worried about global cooling bringing on another ice age. Given the fact that the computer models are not tracking the actual changes in the weather, I believe that we do not at present have enough data to settle the questions: 1. Is there any long-term global warming? 2. How much of it is anthropogenic? Bogus publications by so-called scientists with an agenda do not help.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
I distinctly remember that during the 1970s, scientists were worried about global cooling bringing on another ice age. Given the fact that the computer models are not tracking the actual changes in the weather, I believe that we do not at present have enough data to settle the questions: 1. Is there any long-term global warming? 2. How much of it is anthropogenic? Bogus publications by so-called scientists with an agenda do not help.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Given the fact that the computer models are not tracking the actual changes in the weather
The weather-forecaster does that - you can download their datasets that does not only include temperature and humidity, but also windspeed and pressure.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Is there any long-term global warming?
That has already been answered.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
How much of it is anthropogenic?
Because if were not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Given the fact that the computer models are not tracking the actual changes in the weather
The weather-forecaster does that - you can download their datasets that does not only include temperature and humidity, but also windspeed and pressure.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Is there any long-term global warming?
That has already been answered.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
How much of it is anthropogenic?
Because if were not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The weather-forecaster does that - you can download their datasets that does not only include temperature and humidity, but also windspeed and pressure.
A weather forecast is accurate to - at most - a week. We are talking about climate forecasting for years (decades) in advance. So far, when the computer models are given the data we collected from (for example) 1990 onwards, they have not managed to "predict" the changes in the years 1990-2016. This makes their forecasts useless.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That has already been answered.
Then why are the scientists who claim that global warming is real being caught again and again "massaging" the data? If the evidence is so clear-cut, no massaging would be necessary. Please note that scientists are human, and have the same failings as other people. The evidence for both Global Warming and for Anthropogenic Global Warming is far from clear-cut; many climatologists have staked their reputations (and their careers) on global warming existing, and admitting that they could be wrong is as difficult for them as it is for anyone else. (The same applies in the opposite direction, of course.)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Because if we're not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
No. Because if we're not the cause (e.g. global warming is caused by the Sun warming up, or by changes to the Earth's orbit), there is very little that we can do about it; even returning to the Stone Age (and killing off 99% of the population) wouldn't help.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
I didnt say GW, I said CAGW. There is a big difference.
-
So you think CAGW is a fraud? Is this limited to CAGW or do you extend this conjecture to all environmental pollution? I mean if all pollution is a hoax, we could just do away with all legislation formulated to protect the environment. Imagine how our industry would thrive, we could beat the pants off China. Is there any other scientific fraud we should be aware of? Carcinogens? The link between smoking and lung cancer? Surely that was concocted to destroy the tobacco industry. Maybe lead and mercury aren't poisonous after all. Complete BS, purely for the benefit of class action lawyers. And what of deforestation? Could it be possible that we'll get along just fine without any trees?
Nighthowler wrote:
So you think CAGW is a fraud?
Of course it is.
Nighthowler wrote:
do you extend this conjecture to all environmental pollution?
Of course not.
Nighthowler wrote:
smoking and lung cancer
Lame attempt to associate plant food with a carcinogen. I see two people were convinced by it though. :rolleyes:
-
I distinctly remember that during the 1970s, scientists were worried about global cooling bringing on another ice age. Given the fact that the computer models are not tracking the actual changes in the weather, I believe that we do not at present have enough data to settle the questions: 1. Is there any long-term global warming? 2. How much of it is anthropogenic? Bogus publications by so-called scientists with an agenda do not help.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Is there any long-term global warming?
Depends how long you go back. 100 years yes, 200 years yes, 3000 years no.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
How much of it is anthropogenic?
About a third of the last centuries rise is due to CO2 according to my estimate. The rest is due to the well understood short wave increase.
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Given the fact that the computer models are not tracking the actual changes in the weather
The weather-forecaster does that - you can download their datasets that does not only include temperature and humidity, but also windspeed and pressure.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Is there any long-term global warming?
That has already been answered.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
How much of it is anthropogenic?
Because if were not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Because if were not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
No, we have to stop wasting time and money pretending we are and do something about the impact of any warming if it is in any way negative. So, we build dams, flood protection, etc etc etc in those countries that might be affected. And this would cost a tiny fraction of the $60 billion already wasted on junk science like this garbage from NOAA. And the left overs we can spend on tackling REAL pollutants, like electronics recycling in China, Ship recycling in Bangladesh, and the millions of tonnes of plastics we are dumping into the ocean every day, that very soon is about to end up in OUR food chain.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The weather-forecaster does that - you can download their datasets that does not only include temperature and humidity, but also windspeed and pressure.
A weather forecast is accurate to - at most - a week. We are talking about climate forecasting for years (decades) in advance. So far, when the computer models are given the data we collected from (for example) 1990 onwards, they have not managed to "predict" the changes in the years 1990-2016. This makes their forecasts useless.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That has already been answered.
Then why are the scientists who claim that global warming is real being caught again and again "massaging" the data? If the evidence is so clear-cut, no massaging would be necessary. Please note that scientists are human, and have the same failings as other people. The evidence for both Global Warming and for Anthropogenic Global Warming is far from clear-cut; many climatologists have staked their reputations (and their careers) on global warming existing, and admitting that they could be wrong is as difficult for them as it is for anyone else. (The same applies in the opposite direction, of course.)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Because if we're not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
No. Because if we're not the cause (e.g. global warming is caused by the Sun warming up, or by changes to the Earth's orbit), there is very little that we can do about it; even returning to the Stone Age (and killing off 99% of the population) wouldn't help.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
A weather forecast is accurate to - at most - a week.
I did not claim otherwise, but your claim that we do not have data on the climate is incorrect.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
This makes their forecasts useless.
So, their forecast is useless because it is not accurate enough to predict? :D Any sailor would claim otherwise :)
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Because if we're not the cause (e.g. global warming is caused by the Sun warming up, or by changes to the Earth's orbit), there is very little that we can do about it;
Remove any smoke-alarm from your house, there's nothing you can do about fire that is not caused by yourself :thumbsup: There are a lot of scientists who can support the theory of global warming. Your orbit-change theory is more of the likes like "Planet X" causing the changes.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Because if were not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
No, we have to stop wasting time and money pretending we are and do something about the impact of any warming if it is in any way negative. So, we build dams, flood protection, etc etc etc in those countries that might be affected. And this would cost a tiny fraction of the $60 billion already wasted on junk science like this garbage from NOAA. And the left overs we can spend on tackling REAL pollutants, like electronics recycling in China, Ship recycling in Bangladesh, and the millions of tonnes of plastics we are dumping into the ocean every day, that very soon is about to end up in OUR food chain.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And the left overs we can spend on tackling REAL pollutants, like electronics recycling in China, Ship recycling in Bangladesh, and the millions of tonnes of plastics we are dumping into the ocean every day, that very soon is about to end up in OUR food chain.
:thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The weather-forecaster does that - you can download their datasets that does not only include temperature and humidity, but also windspeed and pressure.
A weather forecast is accurate to - at most - a week. We are talking about climate forecasting for years (decades) in advance. So far, when the computer models are given the data we collected from (for example) 1990 onwards, they have not managed to "predict" the changes in the years 1990-2016. This makes their forecasts useless.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That has already been answered.
Then why are the scientists who claim that global warming is real being caught again and again "massaging" the data? If the evidence is so clear-cut, no massaging would be necessary. Please note that scientists are human, and have the same failings as other people. The evidence for both Global Warming and for Anthropogenic Global Warming is far from clear-cut; many climatologists have staked their reputations (and their careers) on global warming existing, and admitting that they could be wrong is as difficult for them as it is for anyone else. (The same applies in the opposite direction, of course.)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Because if we're not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
No. Because if we're not the cause (e.g. global warming is caused by the Sun warming up, or by changes to the Earth's orbit), there is very little that we can do about it; even returning to the Stone Age (and killing off 99% of the population) wouldn't help.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
You should read "State of Fear" by Michael Chrichton You wil love it.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Because if were not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
No, we have to stop wasting time and money pretending we are and do something about the impact of any warming if it is in any way negative. So, we build dams, flood protection, etc etc etc in those countries that might be affected. And this would cost a tiny fraction of the $60 billion already wasted on junk science like this garbage from NOAA. And the left overs we can spend on tackling REAL pollutants, like electronics recycling in China, Ship recycling in Bangladesh, and the millions of tonnes of plastics we are dumping into the ocean every day, that very soon is about to end up in OUR food chain.
I sometimes don't like your speech, but this time... I agree 100% with you. Well said
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The weather-forecaster does that - you can download their datasets that does not only include temperature and humidity, but also windspeed and pressure.
A weather forecast is accurate to - at most - a week. We are talking about climate forecasting for years (decades) in advance. So far, when the computer models are given the data we collected from (for example) 1990 onwards, they have not managed to "predict" the changes in the years 1990-2016. This makes their forecasts useless.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That has already been answered.
Then why are the scientists who claim that global warming is real being caught again and again "massaging" the data? If the evidence is so clear-cut, no massaging would be necessary. Please note that scientists are human, and have the same failings as other people. The evidence for both Global Warming and for Anthropogenic Global Warming is far from clear-cut; many climatologists have staked their reputations (and their careers) on global warming existing, and admitting that they could be wrong is as difficult for them as it is for anyone else. (The same applies in the opposite direction, of course.)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Because if we're not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
No. Because if we're not the cause (e.g. global warming is caused by the Sun warming up, or by changes to the Earth's orbit), there is very little that we can do about it; even returning to the Stone Age (and killing off 99% of the population) wouldn't help.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The weather-forecaster does that - you can download their datasets that does not only include temperature and humidity, but also windspeed and pressure.
A weather forecast is accurate to - at most - a week. We are talking about climate forecasting for years (decades) in advance. So far, when the computer models are given the data we collected from (for example) 1990 onwards, they have not managed to "predict" the changes in the years 1990-2016. This makes their forecasts useless.
But here, you're responding to a response to a question that you didn't ask. I.e. you didn't ask if there will in the future be any long-term global warming; you asked if there is. Eddy's response that the data -- empirical data, not projected -- is available is quite correct. The trouble is that hardly anyone is bothering to look at it with an open mind. As typically happens, there's too much "This is what I think, so it's Right!", and not enough "Let's look at the facts that we actually have, and see what conclusions we can reach".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The weather-forecaster does that - you can download their datasets that does not only include temperature and humidity, but also windspeed and pressure.
A weather forecast is accurate to - at most - a week. We are talking about climate forecasting for years (decades) in advance. So far, when the computer models are given the data we collected from (for example) 1990 onwards, they have not managed to "predict" the changes in the years 1990-2016. This makes their forecasts useless.
But here, you're responding to a response to a question that you didn't ask. I.e. you didn't ask if there will in the future be any long-term global warming; you asked if there is. Eddy's response that the data -- empirical data, not projected -- is available is quite correct. The trouble is that hardly anyone is bothering to look at it with an open mind. As typically happens, there's too much "This is what I think, so it's Right!", and not enough "Let's look at the facts that we actually have, and see what conclusions we can reach".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
"Let's look at the facts that we actually have, and see what conclusions we can reach".
Yes, I'm tired of all the conclusions based in Confirmation Bias.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
So you think CAGW is a fraud? Is this limited to CAGW or do you extend this conjecture to all environmental pollution? I mean if all pollution is a hoax, we could just do away with all legislation formulated to protect the environment. Imagine how our industry would thrive, we could beat the pants off China. Is there any other scientific fraud we should be aware of? Carcinogens? The link between smoking and lung cancer? Surely that was concocted to destroy the tobacco industry. Maybe lead and mercury aren't poisonous after all. Complete BS, purely for the benefit of class action lawyers. And what of deforestation? Could it be possible that we'll get along just fine without any trees?
What boneheads upvoted this? :doh:
Nighthowler wrote:
do you extend this conjecture to all environmental pollution?
Why would you even assume that? You must see link that I don't at all.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The weather-forecaster does that - you can download their datasets that does not only include temperature and humidity, but also windspeed and pressure.
A weather forecast is accurate to - at most - a week. We are talking about climate forecasting for years (decades) in advance. So far, when the computer models are given the data we collected from (for example) 1990 onwards, they have not managed to "predict" the changes in the years 1990-2016. This makes their forecasts useless.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That has already been answered.
Then why are the scientists who claim that global warming is real being caught again and again "massaging" the data? If the evidence is so clear-cut, no massaging would be necessary. Please note that scientists are human, and have the same failings as other people. The evidence for both Global Warming and for Anthropogenic Global Warming is far from clear-cut; many climatologists have staked their reputations (and their careers) on global warming existing, and admitting that they could be wrong is as difficult for them as it is for anyone else. (The same applies in the opposite direction, of course.)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Because if we're not the cause, we don't have to worry about the consequences?
No. Because if we're not the cause (e.g. global warming is caused by the Sun warming up, or by changes to the Earth's orbit), there is very little that we can do about it; even returning to the Stone Age (and killing off 99% of the population) wouldn't help.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Because if we're not the cause ..., there is very little that we can do about it;
I've never understood this belief. We are not the cause of many things that we can certainly do something about. :doh: :confused:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Because if we're not the cause ..., there is very little that we can do about it;
I've never understood this belief. We are not the cause of many things that we can certainly do something about. :doh: :confused:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Yes, there are many things we can do about Earth-bound problems, even ones not caused by us. However, if the cause of non-anthropogenic global warming is, for example, changes in the Sun's output, what do you suggest we do about that?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Yes, there are many things we can do about Earth-bound problems, even ones not caused by us. However, if the cause of non-anthropogenic global warming is, for example, changes in the Sun's output, what do you suggest we do about that?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Send nukes on the Sun :doh:
CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver "Go ahead, make my day"
-
Yes, there are many things we can do about Earth-bound problems, even ones not caused by us. However, if the cause of non-anthropogenic global warming is, for example, changes in the Sun's output, what do you suggest we do about that?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
changes in the Sun's output, what do you suggest we do about that?
Filters.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
changes in the Sun's output, what do you suggest we do about that?
Filters.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
That would be a pretty big filter - it would have an area of approximately 128 million square kilometers (50 million square miles)! I grant you that it's more feasible than Larry Niven's idea of moving the Earth out so it orbits Saturn, but it would still be a massive undertaking! Assume that the filter has a mass of 1 gram per square meter; the total mass of the filter would be 128 billion kg, or 128 million tons. Even if we improved our launching abilities so as to be able to boost 100 tons in each payload, we would need a million launches. Add to that the launches for the construction workers, food, other perishables, etc. What do you think well over a million launches of such magnitude would do to the environment?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill