Is climate change man-made or natural phenomena?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by stan1990, Jan 21, 2020.

?

Do you believe that climate change man-made or natural phenomena?

Poll closed Feb 20, 2020.
  1. Yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Not sure

    100.0%
  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,563
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think it would be more accurate to say that they don't care about climate change that self-evidently isn't happening.
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,563
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are fully aware that that is not the point in the slightest. It is just an absurd and disingenuous strawman you have fabricated, and repeat often to deflect from the actual arguments on the other side which you cannot answer.
    You are describing the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria cult.
     
  3. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,173
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since you and your side have never put forth any argument we haven't addressed and debunked, that statement just looks like more of your cult propaganda.

    We rational people aren't the ones claiming that every bit of data that contradicts the denier cult religion is fraudulent. You're the only one here pushing such a lunatic conspiracy theory.

    Sucks to be you. All the data says you're wrong, and your cult forbids choosing the "honesty" option, so the only option you do see is conspiracy madness. How's that been working out for you? Has your preaching made any converts to your end-times cult?
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,563
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That claim is false.
    Objective physical reality is not cult propaganda. Claiming that there is a climate "crisis" or "emergency" when there self-evidently and indisputably isn't one is cult propaganda.
    That is a fabrication on your part. No such claim has been made.
    Falsification of data to match the AGW theory has been proved repeatedly.
    Except the actual facts.
    ?? Astonishing. You are really so deep into your cult that you really can't see the irony of climate doomsters claiming that those who point out that nothing bad has happened or will happen are an "end-times" cult? REEEEALLLLYYYYY??????
     
  5. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,173
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Flat-earthers tell similar stories about how all data showing the round earth has been repeatedly proven to be fraudulent. Nobody pays any attention to them either.

    Projection is another standard tactic of conspiracy cults. By accusing others of what they do, they hope to deflect attention away from what they're doing.

    Hysterical fear of a socialist doomsday is what drives denier conspiracy beliefs. Global warming denialism isn't the actual cult. Right-wing kook-fringe extremism is the actual cult. Global warming denialism is just one of the many reality-defying beliefs which cult members are required to believe.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2020
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,563
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Because it hasn't. Temperature data has. Here's one of the smoking guns:

    [​IMG]

    Such a level of correlation between putative "adjustments" to data and the theory the data are supposed to be testing is self-evidently mathematically impossible except through deliberate fraud.
    Right: you are the one whose conspiracy cult is projecting and hoping to deflect attention from what you are doing because your AGW cult is the climate doom crier, while I have said there is no climate crisis or emergency, and will not be.
    GARBAGE. Socialism has nothing to do with it -- other than AGW serving to distract naive leftists' attention from real and solvable problems with modern capitalism like landowner subsidies, bankster thieving, and IP monopolies. I have stated that no climate doomsday is coming. YOUR AGW cult shrieks that all human life will be exterminated in a sea of fire if we don't all immediately comply with their absurd demands.
    If you think I am some kind of right-wing kook, you have not read many of my posts here. One of my chief objections to anti-fossil-fuel hysteria is that it is being used to distract the left from the real injustices and dangers of capitalism they should be opposing -- and will humiliate, marginalize and demoralize them when it is unambiguously and indisputably acknowledged (it has already been proved) to be a fraud.
     
  7. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,173
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a graph that's meaningless without full context. You'll need to explain exactly what it supposedly shows, and show exactly where it came from, and link to the actual raw data it's based on, and show the algorithm that made the graph. Then we can discuss it.

    You didn't really expect people to simply accept a wild claim from a conspiracy blog, did you?

    True. Socialism is just the bogeyman that your cult uses to inspire such Stalinist devotion.
     
  8. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,173
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see the place you cribbed it from.

    https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/61-of-noaa-ushcn-adjusted-temperature-data-is-now-fake/

    It's just some conspiracy fanatics failing to understand how TOBS bias is removed.

    https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/vose-etal2003.pdf

    The data has known errors, yet you're demanding that the known errors not be corrected. Not good. Note that the graph below comes from Judith Curry, who I assume you'll say is reliable.

    [​IMG]

    If we want to explore more, we can show how minor those adjustments how. And how every other org in the world comes up with the same results. And how the total adjustments make the warming look smaller, which completely destroys your conspiracy theory.

    Oh, previously Tony Heller used this graph. Not as much of a correlation there. it appears that in this case, Tony Heller was the one fudging the data to get the conclusion he wanted.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2020
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,563
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    False. It means exactly what it says.
    No, I won't need to do any such thing, because the graph is self-explanatory: it shows a near-perfect correlation between atmospheric CO2 and the size of adjustments to temperature data.
    It's not a wild claim and it's not a conspiracy blog. You are just making wild, false claims again. It's prima facie proof of fraud.
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,563
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I see. So, when you post a graph that's "providing evidence," but when I post a graph, it's "cribbing."

    Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...
    Another false claim from you.
    No, I am saying it would be better if known errors were not introduced.
    She is at least more honest than the AGW fraudmeisters.
    Please post your evidence that every organization in the world has arrived at the same results.

    Thought not. You just made another wild, false claim that you cannot support with evidence. Didn't you?
    Smaller than what? Where is your evidence for this claim? And don't forget to include exactly where it came from, and link to the actual raw data it's based on, and show the algorithm.
    If there were any factual basis for your claims.
    You are so remote from having any scientific competence that you didn't even notice it is a graph of a different relationship. The graph I posted showed adjustment relative to atmospheric CO2 concentration. The one you posted shows adjustment relative to year. As CO2 has increased roughly exponentially, the effect is to straighten the curve. But I guess you don't know enough math to understand why that would be the case.
     
  11. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,173
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And she says you're wrong with your claims of fraud.

    https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

    So, is Dr. Judith Curry part of the fraud as well?

    <brighton's head explodes>

    This is one reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. We never end up tied in knots by conspiracy madness.

    You lack of contrary evidence will suffice. I'll just point out that NOAA, NASA, HADCRUT and the Japanese all have data sets that agree, as does the RSS satellite data and the RATPAC weather balloon data.

    And backing up your claim is ... a conspiracy blog. Well done. <golf clap>

    As usual, you're not even trying to discuss the science. You're just rage-screaming as a way of deflecting.

    First, that's because the science is way over your head. You're literally not capable of grasping it. Cut-and-paste is all you can handle.

    Second, you're afraid you might learn something that contradicts your sacred scripture. You know that would result in excruciating cognitive dissonance, as you try to reconcile the cult being proven wrong with your belief that the cult is infallible.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2020
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,563
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    More accurately, she ASSUMES the clear artificial warming trend introduced by the adjustments as shown by the graphs in her article is the result of innocent error rather than deliberate fraud. That article is also from 2014, six years ago, before she was defenestrated by the Carbonostra for daring to question anti-CO2 orthodoxy. The experience might have made her more receptive to the idea that all is not innocence in the world of climate data.
    No, but her experience of being hounded out of the field since she wrote that article might have made her a bit pensive.
    No, it will not. You made a false and absurd claim and presented no evidence for it, nor will you ever be doing so.
    They agree because they all calibrate and adjust their data based on NASA/NOAA data.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I have posted the actual data from numerous sources.
    No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    <yawn> Unlike you, I have actually studied planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university.
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
     
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,173
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're saying she was stupid instead of malicious. Well done. That's one way to avoid cognitive dissonance.

    Sadly for you, the data doesn't change just because you came up with a different conspiracy theory. The data still says you're parroting nonsense propaganda.

    Then why are you only capable of cutting-and-pasting conspiracy blog propaganda?

    I spoon fed you an article explaining why the adjustments are what they are. You refused to look at it. You're actively avoiding being educated.

    Read it. Once you demonstrate you understand it, we can discuss it. Start by telling us, in your own words, what the TOBS adjustment is, and why it's necessary. After you've demonstrated basic competence in the subject area, we can continue from there.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,563
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, just naive. It's one of my own weaknesses: I often can't make myself believe people would choose to be so evil.
    Your claim is false. You simply dismiss all contrary facts as conspiracy blog propaganda.
    I looked at it. And unlike you, I understood it.
    TOBS adjusts temperature data to account for the fact that the old liquid thermometers only recorded the high and low temperatures for the 24-hour period since the instrument was reset, and the time of day when the instruments were reset could introduce double counting of high temperatures on unusually hot days if the reset time was near the time of peak temperature in the early afternoon, or of low temperatures on unusually cold days if the reset time was near the time of minimum temperatures in the early morning. The adjustment is considered necessary because the reset time for a large number of instruments in the USA was changed from afternoon to morning over a period of decades, introducing a potential cooling bias in the data.
     
  15. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,173
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And your supposed fraud is just the TOBS corrections fading away, as more old stations are gradually replaced with modern stations.
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,563
    Likes Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, there is questionable logic in the toBS "corrections," and other problems such as the increasing amount of modeled rather than observed data.
     
  17. cirdellin

    cirdellin Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,275
    Likes Received:
    507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Weather does change obviously but so does climate. There was a time when the entire earth was covered in miles of ice and a time when the entire planet was tropical. Some think that a small ice age created part of the conditions for the plague through mass starvation or at least under nutrition. My view is that people are terrified of things out of their control so this recent climate change crisis has more to do with people thinking we created it so we can fix it. Nature makes the decisions though and not people. Maybe some day...?
     
    JakeJ and Ddyad like this.
  18. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    31,017
    Likes Received:
    6,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ironically the current global warming is net beneficial.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  19. Cybred

    Cybred Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Well obviously it's both.
     
  20. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    7,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The earth is at the end of an ice age. In the past, the sea level was as much as 200 feet higher.

    The ice WILL continue to melt. There is NOTHING that can be done to stop it. The faster ice melts, the faster it melts as the temperature of the ice overall increases.

    The sea levels WILL rise. Rather than pretending reducing the less than 1/2 of 1% humans contribute to climate change at trillions of wasted money and as a tool for government to take more power, ALL efforts should be instead spent to deal with the inevitable and unstoppable rising sea levels. NOTHING will stop sea levels from rising.
     
  21. Nathan-D

    Nathan-D Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Below is a graph I put together of instrumental ECS estimates between 2012 to 2018 and it seems that ECS is getting smaller.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page