The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..12..21..30..39..46~47~48~49~50..86..121..156..191..224~225~226 [Next]
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
763 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 25, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:
And what exactly do 97% of scientists agree on?

1. That global warming is happening?

2. That the primary cause is manmade?

3. That the effects will be catostrophic?

4. That the projections of how much global warming there will be are accurate?

5. That we can expect millions of climate refugees over the next 20 or 30 years?

6. That Florida will be under 20 feet of water by the end of the century?

I would bet that at best you can make the claim of 1 and 2 and find little evidence to support your 97% agreement on anything else.


If you read the report you would know.

But you never bother to get informed. So go back to your blogs and read uninformed opinions that make you feel clever. If you ever bother to learn anything, I'll resume answering your questions. As it is, I have no confidence that you have anything close to the integrity required to get informed.


What is it Bob likes to say. Oh yeah, something like, "If all you've got left are insults, you've got nothing."
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
No insults. Rockwall. You have never made a point of reading anything. Usually not even the things you link to.

Your questions are all answered in the articles we talk about, and they've all been addressed in this thread.

Go read.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
763 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Magnus, you make accusations that you can't prove, that have been proven to be false in the past and at which time you gave phony non-apologies for and now you continue to make them. Your feelings are hurt because I've shown you to be wrong several times in the past at which times you've thrown little hissy fits. You can't even answer a simple question about a claim you make but instead have to give a phony and transparent dodge. You've become a bore and a joke. I think I'm done with you.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Sep 26, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Magnus, you make accusations that you can't prove, that have been proven to be false in the past and at which time you gave phony non-apologies for and now you continue to make them. Your feelings are hurt because I've shown you to be wrong several times in the past at which times you've thrown little hissy fits. You can't even answer a simple question about a claim you make but instead have to give a phony and transparent dodge. You've become a bore and a joke. I think I'm done with you.


Good try to deflect and change the topic. You asked questions that are answered in the paper that we are allegedly discussing. You didn't read it did you?

Sorry rockwall. 8-year-olds might get away with this; but you should be ashamed.

Read the paper. Then discuss it.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Image
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Sounds like an Ayn Rand novel plot.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
763 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Http://www.cato.org/publications/comment......re-wrong

"When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?"

Image


"The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.

The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.

The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments."

"It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong."

A couple of points.

1. Before a few of our resident warmist freinds begin their usual ad hominem attack against the author, I'll go ahead and print his credentials for you:

"Patrick J. Michaels is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He was a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials worldwide. He is the author or editor of six books on climate and its impact, and he was an author of the climate “paper of the year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004. He has appeared on most of the worldwide major media.

Michaels holds AB and SM degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a PhD in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979"

And 2. When someone claims that you don't read any of the articles you post despite the fact that you generally quote from every article you post, (It's kind of hard to post quotes from articles that you haven't read), it's obvious that the person making that claim is at best surprisingly ignorant or at worst, simply lying.
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17674 Posts

Profile of Slim King
Quote:
On Sep 26, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Http://www.cato.org/publications/comment......re-wrong

"When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?"

Image


"The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.

The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.

The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments."

"It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong."

A couple of points.

1. Before a few of our resident warmist freinds begin their usual ad hominem attack against the author, I'll go ahead and print his credentials for you:

"Patrick J. Michaels is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He was a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials worldwide. He is the author or editor of six books on climate and its impact, and he was an author of the climate “paper of the year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004. He has appeared on most of the worldwide major media.

Michaels holds AB and SM degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a PhD in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979"

And 2. When someone claims that you don't read any of the articles you post despite the fact that you generally quote from every article you post, (It's kind of hard to post quotes from articles that you haven't read), it's obvious that the person making that claim is at best surprisingly ignorant or at worst, simply lying.

Well that settles it then!!!!! Smile
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Sep 26, 2015, rockwall quoted an article from the Cato Institute:
Http://www.cato.org/publications/comment......re-wrong

"When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?"

Image


"The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.

The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.


10 minutes on Google showed a few interesting things about this graphic.

1. Climate Change Skeptic Judith Curry has serious doubts about the graph.

2. Climate Science Watch suggests that Christy is simply misrepresenting the data.

3. An article in The Guardian notes that the Christy graph dishonestly compares models for surface temperature to measurements from the upper atmosphere.

I'll leave further reading to anyone with an open mind.

Maybe the Cato Institute is right. Maybe not.

FWIW the Cato Institute does have a short policy statement on Global Warming.

Quote:
Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. But global warming is also a very complicated and difficult issue that can provoke very unwise policy in response to political pressure. Although there are many different legislative proposals for substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, there is no operational or tested suite of technologies that can accomplish the goals of such legislation.
Fortunately, and contrary to much of the rhetoric surrounding climate change, there is ample time to develop such technologies, which will require substantial capital investment by individuals.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
RNK
View Profile
Inner circle
5483 Posts

Profile of RNK
Oh, ok. Do this deniers articles/studies are wrong but the believers are right. LOL! To funny....
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Sep 27, 2015, RNK wrote:
Oh, ok. Do this deniers articles/studies are wrong but the believers are right. LOL! To funny....


Are you stupid or dishonest?

rockwall posts a single article. I suggest that there is much more to the graph than meets the eye, giving three places to begin. Note that I do not make any claim as to whether Christy's graph is accurate or honest; all I do is point out that there are questions. Indeed, it is not clear who or what to believe in this instance. And from this, you come to your asinine comment?

I should know better than to engage with ideologues.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
"It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at...


polemics.

to what purpose?

are there metrics for online dialig robustness and digression?

is there a word for this notion: belief that others should express approval for an unfounded proposition? for exampe animals should have rights. this even when proposed without regard to fairly obvious follow up items including: so milk becomes evidence of abuse and burgers are war crimes? if there are more chikens than humans what if they elect a chicken as president? so what do we call opinions which only make sense as comic strip jokes?

of course your opinions are special.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
RNK
View Profile
Inner circle
5483 Posts

Profile of RNK
Quote:
On Sep 27, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 27, 2015, RNK wrote:
Oh, ok. Do this deniers articles/studies are wrong but the believers are right. LOL! To funny....


Are you stupid or dishonest?

rockwall posts a single article. I suggest that there is much more to the graph than meets the eye, giving three places to begin. Note that I do not make any claim as to whether Christy's graph is accurate or honest; all I do is point out that there are questions. Indeed, it is not clear who or what to believe in this instance. And from this, you come to your asinine comment?

I should know better than to engage with ideologues.


Just are there are MANY questions with GW as it's NOT a proven theory. The problem Magnus is you ACT like a scientist which are are not.

I guess I should know better than to address claims from non-scientists. My bad.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5023 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
is there a word for this notion: belief that others should express approval for an unfounded proposition? for example animals should have rights.



is there a word for this notion: belief that others should express approval for an unfounded proposition? For example, animals should not have rights?

Yes: axiom. Moral axioms to be specific.
Pop Haydn
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles
3543 Posts

Profile of Pop Haydn
RNK
View Profile
Inner circle
5483 Posts

Profile of RNK
Quote:
On Sep 24, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 23, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 23, 2015, RNK wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 22, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 22, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So best guess. Got it.


Same way we build cars, rockets, and computers. Same way we do surgery or treat cancer. Same way we manage water and sewage.

Yes. We ALWAYS use the best information we have, and are prepared to change course in light of new info.


Bad scientific analogy and here is why:

When talking about building things or managing things, water and sewage, is a whole different ball of wax as compared to collecting/using temperature data. I.E.- after connecting two wires we KNOW the car will start. That's a fact. But the accuracy and precision of the data in measuring temperature greater than 100 years ago is not a fact but a theory/hypothesis, scientists best guess. These are entirely different scenarios.


Of course it is different.



LOL "It's different" is not much of an argument.

We are dealing with theory, measurement and analysis, just like with any other science. AGW is like evolutionary theory in that a large number of know-nothings plug their ears and run around shouting that it's bad science because it interferes with their most deeply held convictions.

Plug your ears all you want. The science is good, and every competent scientist knows it.


No, every competent scientist doesn't believe so or know it. Didn't know you were a scientist Magnus to make such a comprehensive statement.
Pop Haydn
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles
3543 Posts

Profile of Pop Haydn
Pop Haydn
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles
3543 Posts

Profile of Pop Haydn
RNK
View Profile
Inner circle
5483 Posts

Profile of RNK
Freeman Dyson, a Democrat, Obama supporter and a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994 said this:

“To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,” he wrote.

Full Article: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/1......son.html
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 28, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
is there a word for this notion: belief that others should express approval for an unfounded proposition? for example animals should have rights.



is there a word for this notion: belief that others should express approval for an unfounded proposition? For example, animals should not have rights?

Yes: axiom. Moral axioms to be specific.




Smile

Funny...the same word that applies to assertions that humans DO have rights, and why. I seem to recall Jonathan weighing in on that one, and his model wasn't based upon empirical evidence.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..12..21..30..39..46~47~48~49~50..86..121..156..191..224~225~226 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.27 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL