The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scientists agree on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (190 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..39..72..105..138..171..175~176~177 [Next]
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2726 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Tommy, do you ever bring anything to the table except cynicism?
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 13:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Citing the current temperature in a given place as "proof" of anything is almost exclusively done by AGW deniers.


No, it's not. I've heard the counter-examples, even if you haven't.
"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."
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 20:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 13:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Citing the current temperature in a given place as "proof" of anything is almost exclusively done by AGW deniers.


No, it's not. I've heard the counter-examples, even if you haven't.


And many right here on NVMS. Of course, when someone here claims how it proves AGW, Bob usually replies that it's because they obviously understand the science.

Anytime there is ANY type of unusual weather event, you can find news stories talking about how this is all because of climate change.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Beware of studies done by climate activists.

“97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05......#Update2

So, even though this study has been discredited, expect to continue to find it quoted over and over by warmists just as the previous stucy 'claiming' that 98% of climate scientists believe in AGW continues to be quoted despite it also being discredited.

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone did a study where they asked climate scientists if they agreed with the following claims.

1. Climate models have so far accurately predicted temperature increases
2. Within the next 100 years AGW will cause catastrophic results to civilization
3. Current proposed solutions to combat AGW will cost less than the cost of damage caused by AGW.
4. There is a direct correlation between rising CO2 and temperature.
5. It is expected that AGW will cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet within the next 100 years.

Don’t expect it because I don’t think warmists would like the answers they got back.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
After checking out a couple of those abstracts linked, I see that a few of the "skeptics" cited there claim that humans contribute "only" about 50% to climate change. However they want to word it, that says that those scientists believe that there is strong support that man made climate change is real. That "natural" climate change is also real doesn't change that.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 21:06, rockwall wrote:
Beware of studies done by climate activists.

“97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05......#Update2

So, even though this study has been discredited, expect to continue to find it quoted over and over by warmists just as the previous stucy 'claiming' that 98% of climate scientists believe in AGW continues to be quoted despite it also being discredited.

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone did a study where they asked climate scientists if they agreed with the following claims.

1. Climate models have so far accurately predicted temperature increases
2. Within the next 100 years AGW will cause catastrophic results to civilization
3. Current proposed solutions to combat AGW will cost less than the cost of damage caused by AGW.
4. There is a direct correlation between rising CO2 and temperature.
5. It is expected that AGW will cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet within the next 100 years.

Don’t expect it because I don’t think warmists would like the answers they got back.



Did the authors even read what they wrote. For example, Scafetta was rated as agreeing that agreeing and endorsing the view that anthropogenic sources account for 50% or more of the observed increase in temperature.

Scafetti seems indignant that his paper could be so classified, replying

Quote:
"Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.


Oh my.

Shaviv is rated as "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise". He and the Popular Science blogger get all upset over this, even though the abstract to Saviv's article says

Quote:
increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19°K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes.


How is one to read this except that he attributes some of the temperature increase to anthropogenic causes?

The readers of this blog must be awfully gullible.
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
Kevin Connolly
View Profile
Inner circle
New Jersey
1329 Posts

Profile of Kevin Connolly
I love when Chicken Little people run around with their hair on fire.

30 years ago Time magazine we were going into an Ice Age.
Please visit my website.
www.houdinihimself.com

Always looking buy or trade for original Houdini, Hardeen and escape artist items. I'm interested in books, pitchbooks and ephemera. Email [email]hhoudini@optonline.net[/email]
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15919 Posts

Profile of tommy
But a Fraction of One Degree warming since Chief Sitting Bull was at large in 1880 is no laughing matter.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Nice cherry picking of your quotes Magnus.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
"Carlin: "If Cook et al's paper is so far off in its classification of my paper, the next question is whether their treatment of my paper is an outlier in the quality of their analysis or is representative. Since I understand that five other skeptic paper authors whose papers were classified by Cook et al. (Idso, Morner, Scaffeta, Soon, and Shaviv) have similar concerns to date, the classification problems in Cook's paper may be more general. Further, in all six cases the effect of the misclassifications is to exaggerate Cook et al's conclusions rather than being apparently random errors due to sloppy analysis. Since their conclusions are at best no better than their data, it appears likely that Cook et al's conclusions are exaggerated as well as being unsupported by the evidence that they offer. I have not done an analysis of each of the papers Cook et al. classified, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 20:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 13:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Citing the current temperature in a given place as "proof" of anything is almost exclusively done by AGW deniers.


No, it's not. I've heard the counter-examples, even if you haven't.


Of course there are a few counter examples. You'll find those on ANY topic. But the fact remains that the great majority of those who accept the scientific findings on AGW also understand the difference between global climate change and specific weather events at varying locations.

As to tommy's question about when we will actually be in a catastrophic situation because of AGW- it depends on when we decide to accept that the problem exists and do something major in reducing carbon emissions. But as long as the lobbying power of Big Energy continues to block regulations that could ease the situation, it is likely that serious consequences will result sooner rather than later.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
818 Posts

Profile of acesover
Magnus said:
I gave a link to the source, you should be able to tell us what is wrong with the graphics.


Answer. Nothing is wrong with the graphics. They are very pretty. It is nice to cherry pick and answer , just as many who try and prove their claims. Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20190 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Ok let me ask again. Solutions anyone?

More appropriately what are the solutions? What will those solutions cost? What will the economic impact of said solutions be? How long will it be before the solutions are in place? And finally exactly what can I expect to see as a "fix" once the solutions are in place.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
818 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 12:47, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 12:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 11:51, acesover wrote:

If all else fails to convince people. Throw in pretty colors. That usually works. If not then make some sort of graph and throw in some sort of study by some group that supports your theory. That should close the deal. Smile Oh and be sure to call the group scientific. Smile


So tell me. Where is there an error in the data? Sarcasm and pretense of superiority gets you only so far. What is wrong with the data. I gave a link to the source, you should be able to tell us what is wrong with the graphics.


Exactly, Magnus. He presents NOTHING to contradict that data. The reason being, of course, that he has nothing to contradict it with. Hence the sarcasm and condescension. That's really all that the conspiracy theorists and science deniers have, anyway.


I would not say we have nothing to prove our ideas. It is still cold and colder than it has been in a long time. What more proof do you need.

This article seems to say we have set some record cold temps. http://www.weather.com/news/weather-wint......20140103

Just saying. Not a guess or theory just facts. of course I am sure you cam find something to refute this info. Some scientific study of some sort can show that these cold temps were caused by global warming. Smile Of course those who claim global warming is a threat and really happening getting paid because they say so. One does not bite the hand that feeds one.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 23:07, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 20:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-01-19 13:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Citing the current temperature in a given place as "proof" of anything is almost exclusively done by AGW deniers.


No, it's not. I've heard the counter-examples, even if you haven't.


Of course there are a few counter examples. You'll find those on ANY topic. But the fact remains that the great majority of those who accept the scientific findings on AGW also understand the difference between global climate change and specific weather events at varying locations.

As to tommy's question about when we will actually be in a catastrophic situation because of AGW- it depends on when we decide to accept that the problem exists and do something major in reducing carbon emissions. But as long as the lobbying power of Big Energy continues to block regulations that could ease the situation, it is likely that serious consequences will result sooner rather than later.


The great majority of AGW proponents don't understand the science any more than the great majority of AGW opponents. They don't "accept the science"; they accept the position.
"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."
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
If human-made climate change exists (which seems to be the majority view from the climate scientists), and we know what it is that humans are doing to change the climate, then the logical action seems to be to find ways to do less of those things until technology allows us to do none of those things (or as close to it as will ever be possible.) In other words- everyone should start riding motorcycles because they use way less gas Smile
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15919 Posts

Profile of tommy
If human-made climate change exists (which seems to be the majority view from the Climate Oracles). Then good.

Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death

Of the cold summers in the period 1811 to 1817, the year 1816 has gone down in the annals of New England history as "The Year There Was No Summer," the "Poverty Year" and "Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death."

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/history/1816.htm
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
818 Posts

Profile of acesover
Those of you who believe in Global Warming put those of us who do not believe in Global Warming as you believe, put us at a distinct disadvantage when trying to make a point. You want us to prove you wrong, while you can only give theory that you are right. You are more or less asking us to prove a negative.

I can say it is colder at this Longitude and latitude then it has ever been before. I could say that is my proof. However you will come up with some explanation to say that is just a temporary condition and means nothing. So you therefore dismiss my proof. However I must accept your theory as truth until I can prove it wrong, even though it is only a theory. Remember the earth was thought to be flat by many scientific minds until proved differently.

Is there some climate change due to human activity? Probably.

Is it as catastrophic as many try and lead us to believe? Probably not.

However all of this makes for a good Sy Fy original movie. Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
The closest thing to a literal translation of the word "karma" is "action." If we know that our actions likely disrupt the climate that "God and Mother Nature intended" then we'll find out eventually where the karma of willfully continuing along this path will take us. Or...
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Randwill
View Profile
Inner circle
1915 Posts

Profile of Randwill
I have a feeling that in the future, if nothing is done to minimize the human activities which climate scientists believe lead to global warming and the climate becomes screwed to the point where life as we enjoy it now is severely compromised, the deniers (or their like-minded progeny) will agree that the climate is screwed, but that man-made activity had no part in it. It's God's punishment for homosexuals or pot smokers or something.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scientists agree on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (190 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..39..72..105..138..171..175~176~177 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.17 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