Moderator Action: Berzerker, please reign in your tone. You don't need to reply to posts that irritate you to the point of rudeness. If they warrant rudeness, please use the report function.
Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming
- Thread starter carlosMM
- Start date
- Status
Just gonna use this as an all-purpose thread for climate flat-earther stupidity:
Articgate: Now THAT's cherrypicking
Those wacky commo-warmist scientist conspirators.
Articgate: Now THAT's cherrypicking
This graph by Peter Gleick reveals the cherry pick used by Harrison Schmitt to claim that "Artic [sic] sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage" and Heartland's Joseph Bast to claim
"In fact, National Snow and Ice Data Center records show conclusively that in April 2009, Arctic sea ice extent had indeed returned to and surpassed 1989 levels."
Those wacky commo-warmist scientist conspirators.
Well, let's not be too hasty. That paper was submitted in April. It was cherry-picking in that he looked for convenient denialist indicators, and chose ones that looked good. It wasn't cherrypicking in the sense of (say) submitting the paper in 2010 and suggesting that the 2009 ice was as robust as 1989 ice.
Somehow I dunno that the Heartland Institute is a particularly rigorous journal of record.
Also: read the paper, it's pretty funny. Are you sure this was written 20 months ago? Even if it was, all he said was "Artic sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage" which however you slice it is incredibly misleading and wrong. A lie, essentially.
Edit: Ah so the paper was 2009, but dishonest shmucks like the Heartland Institute guy have been trying to argue the same claim since then. The Heartland guys found April, the ONE MONTH where it was true, ignoring the other 11 months, the averages, the maximums and minimums, etc.
Also: read the paper, it's pretty funny. Are you sure this was written 20 months ago? Even if it was, all he said was "Artic sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage" which however you slice it is incredibly misleading and wrong. A lie, essentially.
Edit: Ah so the paper was 2009, but dishonest shmucks like the Heartland Institute guy have been trying to argue the same claim since then. The Heartland guys found April, the ONE MONTH where it was true, ignoring the other 11 months, the averages, the maximums and minimums, etc.
I suppose that's fair. I caution you, though, that the environment is only the paper on which human history - the interactions between people - is written. That environment sets some parameters, but it never deterministically dictates people's actions.
Berzerker
Deity
The repeated use of strawmen to insult others is not rude? I've had mods lecture me about accusing people of spamming or trolling, but now thats okay? Jesus Christ, I posted a news item in our local paper about an arctic blast and the resulting temperature change over 18 hours and it was turned into a "you're stupid" pile of BS.
The report function is for
babiesModerator Action: PDMA; trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Berzerker
Deity
You posted after me, and I wasn't even talking to you... I stopped talking to you the last time you made a false accusation and would neither back it up or acknowledge it. You took a news item I posted and ignored what I said and instead "inferred" some nonsense you used for a strawman which you proceeded to use for more insults. Just go away, dont ever respond to me in the future. I'm tired of your BS...
I do have reservations about the validity of the science in respect of global warming. That said I would suggest that common sense dictates that there are certain actions we do need to take regardless of whether one believes the gflobe is warming due to human actions. These actions include, but are not limited to:
- cutting pollution (to reduce acid rain, smog etc)
- reducing our dependence on fossil fuels (we must run out eventually)
- researching "clean" energy sources (to cut pollution and dependence on fossil fuels)
- management and preservation of eco-systems
- not dumping toxic waste in waterways or otherwise scattering it about the landscape
- cutting pollution (to reduce acid rain, smog etc)
- reducing our dependence on fossil fuels (we must run out eventually)
- researching "clean" energy sources (to cut pollution and dependence on fossil fuels)
- management and preservation of eco-systems
- not dumping toxic waste in waterways or otherwise scattering it about the landscape
Hello. I am new here and do not wish to get into trouble. Having read this thread with great interest I am familiar with Berzerker's post. I certainly intend no offence however your reaction seems extreme. Could you point me in the direction of the forum rules please. I am unable to find them and, of course, I am concerned that I may inadvertently breech forum rules. Call me braindead if you wish but I wouild be most grateful for directions.
Thank you
Berzerker
Deity
cant disagree with any of that, the way we're going thru natural resources (un-renewables) I'm afraid people 1,000 years from now wont have much to work with.
of course, the co2 gripe is that we're pumping it into the atmosphere without the accompanying dust volcanoes or impacts kick up to counter the warming effect.
On the other hand, whether its called global warming or climate change (both are silly) the little ice age shows just how nice we have it now. Some co2 etc will help counter such cold snaps, maybe...hopefully. Imagine how many people would starve if the sun went "cold" for a century like it did during the 1600s.
welcome to cfc, tread lightly
of course, the co2 gripe is that we're pumping it into the atmosphere without the accompanying dust volcanoes or impacts kick up to counter the warming effect.
On the other hand, whether its called global warming or climate change (both are silly) the little ice age shows just how nice we have it now. Some co2 etc will help counter such cold snaps, maybe...hopefully. Imagine how many people would starve if the sun went "cold" for a century like it did during the 1600s.
welcome to cfc, tread lightly
Thank you for welcoming me Berzerker. This seems like such a friendly forum.
I do think I will have to be very careful though as it seems so very strict. I am trouble finding my way around the forum but I am sure I will get it all figured out.
I do think I will have to be very careful though as it seems so very strict. I am trouble finding my way around the forum but I am sure I will get it all figured out.
Berzerker
Deity
I think the sticky thread has a link to the forum rules, unfortunately its a bit like golf - lotsa rules, and some of em are real petty
yup, the 4th post in the ot notice thread has a link from Knight Dragon (?)
yup, the 4th post in the ot notice thread has a link from Knight Dragon (?)
Thanks for the link. Some of those rules are seem ridiculous but I will be able to keep out of trouble.
Anyway, back on topic. Your point about the "cold" sun is one that I had not thought about. I am not familiar with the 1600's but I do recall reading something about a reduction in agricultural output in the Byzantine Empire in IIRC the 6th century, because some volcano went off on the other side of the world, possibly Krakatoa, not sure.
Any ice ages, changes in solar activity, big volcanic eruprtions and natural changes in sea lkevel will present humanity with great challenges in the future. Rather monumental challenges.
Anyway, back on topic. Your point about the "cold" sun is one that I had not thought about. I am not familiar with the 1600's but I do recall reading something about a reduction in agricultural output in the Byzantine Empire in IIRC the 6th century, because some volcano went off on the other side of the world, possibly Krakatoa, not sure.
Any ice ages, changes in solar activity, big volcanic eruprtions and natural changes in sea lkevel will present humanity with great challenges in the future. Rather monumental challenges.
Berzerker
Deity
Sea level rise will be our main problem, the warming ~125 kya saw even higher seas with big chunks of Florida under water. "If" we can actually cause a warming trend in the midst of the current orbitally forced cooling trend (declining axial tilt) we'll need to store run off somehow. Australia, the Great Basin, the Rift zone of NE Africa, etc... Its do-able, and storing water in those regions would modify local climates.
Thank you for welcoming me Berzerker. This seems like such a friendly forum.
I do think I will have to be very careful though as it seems so very strict. I am trouble finding my way around the forum but I am sure I will get it all figured out.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=cfc_forum_rules
The link is available at the bottom right side of the page. As well, there's a sticky at the top of OT's forum, with specialised instruction. Finally, it's much easier if you're just a nice person. We've had scores of people make thousands of posts each, without knowing the actual rules, because 'being decent' works just fine.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Science Under Attack
It makes the point that scientist will have to engage the public in science to get their information first-hand, instead of through politicians and editorials. Because there is such a lack of a real scientific appraoch to these matters, disinformation has been able to gain a foothold.
It makes the point that scientist will have to engage the public in science to get their information first-hand, instead of through politicians and editorials. Because there is such a lack of a real scientific appraoch to these matters, disinformation has been able to gain a foothold.
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
Oh, I fully agree - I don't believe in any kind of determinism in history .. neither climate nor economic (Marxism)... only influences, of which climate changes have been and will be one of the most important.
In this sense, I believe that rapid climate change will definitely have a large influence on coming events (future history
), including the very real risk of new wars - especially combined with other factors like increasing scarcity of resources and energy shortages.onedreamer
Dragon
I reiterate: considering a 10 years delta *is* being too hasty whatever are the results shown. Again, we are or better should be talking of geological phenomena. What instead everyone is talking about are personal experiences.
No, I disagree. Such a mindset would then not allow us to measure nearly any type of recent human influence upon the climate. If the theory is that we're causing changes that are fast enough to witness on human timescales, then that's what we should be looking for. We examine the premises of the theory with science in the meantime, and allow ongoing refinement of the theory with new information, too. This is what's happening in the AGW theory proper: we knew CO2 would cause warming, but didn't know humidity feedback effect. While collecting data on the warming, we also learned what the humidity feedback effect was, and refined the previous theory. We correct missing holes as we're able.
If I crank the thermostat in my house, under the theory that it will warm the house with heated air, I don't need to factor in the day/night cycle of temperature. People who refuse to acknowledge my furnace's effect due to concern about the influence of the day/night cycle (which currently causes a ~ 10 C difference, day to day) are incorrect in their logic.
Extinctions also occur over geological time, but it wouldn't be wise to ignore current extinction rates. Oceanic acidity, too, can change fast enough (due to what we're doing) for us to detect it. If you think that AGW cannot be detected within human lifetimes, you're likely underestimating the scale of the problem
If I crank the thermostat in my house, under the theory that it will warm the house with heated air, I don't need to factor in the day/night cycle of temperature. People who refuse to acknowledge my furnace's effect due to concern about the influence of the day/night cycle (which currently causes a ~ 10 C difference, day to day) are incorrect in their logic.
Extinctions also occur over geological time, but it wouldn't be wise to ignore current extinction rates. Oceanic acidity, too, can change fast enough (due to what we're doing) for us to detect it. If you think that AGW cannot be detected within human lifetimes, you're likely underestimating the scale of the problem
- Status
Similar threads
