Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real
Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,907 Views)
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
I don't believe droughts, floods and weather severity are a thing of my imagination. and when it occurs season after season, year after year, it must be evidence of a climate change having occurred. I'll leave the arguing to the unconvinced who are unable to see what is before their very eyes for what it is.

Texas where you live Chris is a prime example of a distinct change in weather. I have quite a few friends down there and they tell me the fall and springtime weather has changed. Some fall outdoor events have been moved to the spring due to the change in weather patterns. It's not just the change in patterns but severity of the weather that is causing agriculture issues.

There will come a point where it will become impossible to obtain crop insurance or property insurance for weather related losses.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mike
Nov 1 2011, 12:01 AM
I don't believe droughts, floods and weather severity are a thing of my imagination. and when it occurs season after season, year after year, it must be evidence of a climate change having occurred. I'll leave the arguing to the unconvinced who are unable to see what is before their very eyes for what it is.

Texas where you live Chris is a prime example of a distinct change in weather. I have quite a few friends down there and they tell me the fall and springtime weather has changed. Some fall outdoor events have been moved to the spring due to the change in weather patterns. It's not just the change in patterns but severity of the weather that is causing agriculture issues.

There will come a point where it will become impossible to obtain crop insurance or property insurance for weather related losses.
Mike, there's a difference between weather and climate change. Texas has been going through these cycles throughout recorded history. This is my second time through it, it teaches you want types plants to grow that will loast through these droughts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Oct 31 2011, 09:38 PM
Well, if the Koch Bros fund it then they control it and it must be tainted, I mean if we follow the illogic of some liberals.

eek

I didn't think though that the argument over climate was whether temps were rising but what was the cause and whether we can do anything about it.
Come on Chris. Are you going to claim no one has argued (wrongly, apparently) that the earth has been cooling down since 1998?

What is the mechanism driving the warming?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 1 2011, 12:00 AM
Brewster
Oct 31 2011, 11:56 PM
I gather you didn't read the article, just posted your repeated "ad hom" nonsense when I point out usual modus operandi.

Why don't you surprise me some day and actually learn some facts? Maybe you'd be surprised to find my "ad homs" suddenly stop.
Thanks for admitting all you've got is ad homs.

I gather you didn't read the facts and logic of the article I posted. You certainly didn't respond to it, merely attacked one of the messengers.

Why don't you surprise us all and when someone disagrees with your agenda actually post some facts and logic in rebuttal..
Chris, if you had read the link I posted, you would have seen that it answers every single one of Curry's points with pure science.

She has no "facts and logic" on her side at all.

Any "ad homs" in Tamino's article are a result of the sheer Frustrations of dealing with the willfully ignorant.

I sympathise with him. I have the same problem.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 1 2011, 12:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 1 2011, 12:07 AM
Chris
Oct 31 2011, 09:38 PM
Well, if the Koch Bros fund it then they control it and it must be tainted, I mean if we follow the illogic of some liberals.

eek

I didn't think though that the argument over climate was whether temps were rising but what was the cause and whether we can do anything about it.
Come on Chris. Are you going to claim no one has argued (wrongly, apparently) that the earth has been cooling down since 1998?

What is the mechanism driving the warming?
Of course the earth has been warming and cooling throughout time, that's what I meant by I didn't think that was the argument.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Nov 1 2011, 12:08 AM
Chris
Nov 1 2011, 12:00 AM
Brewster
Oct 31 2011, 11:56 PM
I gather you didn't read the article, just posted your repeated "ad hom" nonsense when I point out usual modus operandi.

Why don't you surprise me some day and actually learn some facts? Maybe you'd be surprised to find my "ad homs" suddenly stop.
Thanks for admitting all you've got is ad homs.

I gather you didn't read the facts and logic of the article I posted. You certainly didn't respond to it, merely attacked one of the messengers.

Why don't you surprise us all and when someone disagrees with your agenda actually post some facts and logic in rebuttal..
Chris, if you had read the link I posted, you would have seen that it answers every single one of Curry's points with pure science.

She has no "facts and logic" on her side at all.

Any "ad homs" in Tamino's article are a result of the sheer Frustrations of dealing with the willfully ignorant.

I sympathise with him.
Is this an example of "pure science": "I didn’t expect Judith Curry to embarrass herself more than she did with her fawning over Murry Salby’s folly. But she’s topped (perhaps I should say “bottomed”) herself by a huge margin."

It came out of the article you posted, ad hom from start to finish.

"Any "ad homs" in Tamino's article are a result of the sheer Frustrations of dealing with the willfully ignorant."

No excuse. "Pure Science" doesn't engage in hom, pure BS does.


Besides, Bruce, I didn't post an article by Curry, I posted one by James Delingpole who does present facts and logic and shows how statistical manipulation results in a false view of the facts.

Edited by Chris, Nov 1 2011, 12:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Delingpole just copied Curry's mindless nonsense, which is actually a step up for him.

He has never posted a proven fact in his life. In fact, he's so bad that REAL Climate Scientists use him a a yardstick now.

"One Delingpole" is a standard Denier talking point that has been debunked so often it's becoming embarrassing even to Deniers.

"Two Delingpoles" is a new talking point with not a shred of evidence behind it.

"Three" is when a Denier takes real evidence and (deliberately?) misunderstands it.

Curry's article is a rare breed, a Four Delingpole, where she contradicts the facts that she herself helped gather.

Let's be clear: There is not a legitimate working Climate Scientist in the world outside of those with obvious financial or political agendas who Denies any major part of AGW.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Nov 1 2011, 12:25 AM
Delingpole just copied Curry's mindless nonsense, which is actually a step up for him.

He has never posted a proven fact in his life. In fact, he's so bad that REAL Climate Scientists use him a a yardstick now.

"One Delingpole" is a standard Denier talking point that has been debunked so often it's becoming embarrassing even to Deniers.

"Two Delingpoles" is a new talking point with not a shred of evidence behind it.

"Three" is when a Denier takes real evidence and (deliberately?) misunderstands it.

Curry's article is a rare breed, a Four Delingpole, where she contradicts the facts that she herself helped gather.

Let's be clear: There is not a legitimate working Climate Scientist in the world outside of those with obvious financial or political agendas who Denies any major part of AGW.
Just more ad hom. Let me know when you can counter Delingpole's facts, Bruce, yes, counter it with with your "Pure Science". :haha:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Oct 31 2011, 09:45 PM
Here...is a chart produced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation's David Whitehouse. It was plotted from BEST's own figures.

Posted Image

Note how the 10 year trend from 2001 to 2010 – in flat contradiction of Muller's claims – shows no warming whatsoever.

...Here is a graph released by BEST:

Posted Image

The GWPF's David Whitehouse is not impressed:
Quote:
 
Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure it. They present data covering more almost 200 years is presented with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.
Bumping the deception, cutting out the extraneous. Can anyone counter these facts? No ad hom obfuscation, please.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
I can't argue against your point Chris that the weather changes regularly and the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles. If we look at the dictionary definition of climate, the weather changes mark climate changes.

cli·mate/ˈklīmit/
Noun:

1. The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
2. A region with particular prevailing weather conditions.

What were once prevailing patterns are no more, and new patterns are setting in.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis