Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[lilhasselhoffer]

I don't know why I bother but you've finally given me something I can respond to:
1) Using the phrase "global warming" excludes articles that concluded the opposite ("global cooling") as well as those that are either inconclusive, states no opinion, nor determine the climate is stable. Cook deliberately ignored the latter group which actually comprised of the majority of articles (>66%).
2) And? It's a statement of fact. Going further, which I didn't do previously, I believe we can strike a balance with the water cycle from producing/consuming hydrogen fuel. It may involve simply bottling the oxygen and hydrogen separately and storing the resulting water so it is never introduced to the atmosphere; thusly, the atmosphere isn't treated as a sink for human activity.
3) I never said anything about removing catalyitic converters (or about catalyitic converters). More thorough combustion is used to reduce NOx emissions especially in diesel engines. It reduces the need for DEF but emissions controls have gotten so strict (especially in the USA), DEF is effectively mandatory.
4a) I really don't care about proving anything. All I know is there are gapping holes in specific fields of atmospheric research that need filling.
4b) I never suggested "twiddling thumbs." I suggest (and always have) action through the discovery and application of technology.
5) I've been very consistent in saying CO2 is an issue. As for methane, see point 4a.

May I buy from your dealer, or perhaps inquire as to what your prescriptions are. It seems like there's some disconnect between reality and you.

To that end, stay away from the science. You've already gotten enough wrong. Before we continue, I'd like you to look up the definition for a few things. Abstract (in regards to summation of a report), bias, context, and inconsistent.

1) An abstract is a summary of a scientific paper. Theoretically you could study climate change, and never include that particular term in the abstract. If you'd like to argue semantics, let's play. The terminology excludes conclusions like "global cooling is a myth," and "global cooling is real and human driven." You continue to be stuck on not getting why the context matters, and trying to explain this should be insulting. If you still don't get it, let's find an example. Wow, how about people you've quoted before: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Sweet jesus, would you look at that. The abstract contains "global cooling," yet the conclusion is that it's bogus. It's almost like...what's that word...of right, it's CONTEXT.

It's why Powell's study was crap (search term = proves it exists), and dismissed in favor of a less biased improvement by Cook (search term to cull list, double blind review to determine what conclusions were drawn). Can you claim some bias, yeah. There aren't infinite amounts of time, resources, or funds so corners were cut. He didn't have all the scientific papers read, though that particular bias was addressed by a survey of the scientist writing the papers. That particular survey concluded that 97.2 percent of the results point to human caused global warming. So, 97.1% of abstracts conclude global warming is man made, and 97.2% of surveys from the authors said the same. In something this large a 0.1% discrepancy is statistically insignificant, but even if you used the lower results you've got 2 standards of deviation (and then some) saying it's man made and real. Let;s even stretch, and say that the responding scientists were gamed in such a way as to prefer one conclusion. How were those results divided again? The remaining results fall into one of several categories, so let's be intellectually honest and list them:
a) Climate change isn't real.
b) Climate change is real, but humans have not impact.
c) Climate change is real, and humans have no impact.

If this were Powell's study, you'd be 100% right to call crap. He searched keywords, and never bothered to read abstracts. This is Cook's effort. Abstracts categorized which of 4 possible responses the studies came to. 97% said that it was man made and real. If Cook was truly trying to game the system then why have four categories? Why not two? The differentiation exists because context matters.


2) Don't argue hydrogen fuel cells here. You just demonstrably don't understand them. In short, 2H2O+energy=2H2+O2. Water plus energy makes two reactive gasses which can be recombined to make energy and water. You carry around the H2, because it's reactive. You pull O2 from the atmosphere because it's comparatively stable and immensely abundant in our atmosphere. This is why hydrogen fuel cells that expel water have an H2 tank, but no O2 tank.

Your complete misunderstanding of having to sequester O2 is baffling. You'd store it somewhere, for what? As the cell converts the H2 into water you'd pull O2 from the surrounding air. It makes no sense to store to O2 from electrolysis, you vent it into the atmosphere. As previous threads demonstrated, to even change to composition of the atmosphere by 1% would require every human to have a lifetime supply of H2 at all times.

Again, you completely and fundamentally misunderstand the chemistry, the lack of impact on the water cycle (take liquid water, eject vapor, vapor reaches saturation and condenses into liquid water), or the sheer volume of what humans would have to do in order to actually have an impact.


3) You apply my words inconsistently, and your own seem to have a fluid definition.

I said that removing a catalytic converter would dramatically increase engine performance. The point was why the automotive industry would not lobby to disprove that human CO2 emissions, specifically from automobiles, influenced climate change if they could. I gave you an alternative to explaining your ideas through a constant wash of singular studies. I asked you why people who stand to have a huge financial gain wouldn't spend a bit of money to prove studies like Cook's wrong. An industry that already spends millions on trying to make regulations on emissions less stringent. Your response is breathtakingly idiotic.

You cited EPA regulations on emissions, to which I linked an article about why the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed the right to regulate this. If your conclusion is what you've stated in the past, specifically that you're waiting on another computer model to demonstrate whether human induced climate change is even a thing, then simply demonstrating that the EPA is full of crap would allow catalytic converters to disappear. Engines run more efficiently over night, and there's an expensive bit removed from the car.

You haven't yet explained why the automotive industry wouldn't counter studies like Cook's if there's so much evidence to the contrary. The implication is either they can't (agreeing with the science that says we have a hand in climate change), or an industry that spends millions on lobbyists wouldn't spend a few hundred thousand to both decrease their costs and remove a huge ongoing expense.


4) I'd like to not address this. I really don't feel like I can't. You've cited the need for accurate models. You've cited the Boulder labs computer as being somehow conclusive. This has been done in several posts, but 765 is my particular favorite.

Let's start this off by saying screw the 10 year predictions. Now that we're starting clean, what are you calling for? You want a complex model based upon historic data. The point of this thread was whether altering data was something to be concerned about. Why hello Ouroboros, how does your tail taste today. You're calling for humanity to not acknowledge climate change, be responsible for our actions despite potentially having no effect, and calling for us to disregard the old data for any trends. What? This absolutely psychotic mix of denial and acceptance is impossible to have without some dogma allowing it to exist. It'd do Schrodinger proud.


5) Slow clap.

CO2 is an issue, even if there's no such thing as man induced climate change. Do you see why you sound incompetent making that argument? If CO2 is really an issue, and we are making it in the quantities we can measure, then climate change induced by humanity is real and the only question remaining is how much and when it will occur. If that's the conclusion, we need to do something now, which doesn't jibe with the stoic "don't jump to conclusions" you want to project from the GDFL.

Arguing the opposite, climate change isn't happening. If it isn't happening, then we can do whatever we want. The EPA's mission to regulate emissions is a huge drag on our economy, and we should do away with it immediately. If we literally can't do anything, then why the heck am I spending money on feel good crap?




Most galling of all, you almost wear the hat of somebody worth listening to. It took me quite some time to get it, but the gaps in your understanding of things are just amazing. Not using the atmosphere as a sink for anything is a joke. To make that even remotely feasible I'd suggest you stop breathing now. The problem is nobody in their right mind believes this is possible, unless we leave Earth. Needing to have something akin to an oil reserve if we transition to hydrogen based cars is insanely backwards, as storing volatile gasses is idiotic compared to simply keeping the water around. You continue to simply gloss over counter points which you seem to not understand, yet somehow feel completely informed on (ie: how the contact patch on a tire works, and why its area is independent of tire geometry). Worst yet you inject your interpretation into things. A scientist saying "there is a high correlation between x and y" in your world still means that there's doubt. That same scientist should tell you there is a high degree of correlation between thalidomide intake and birth defects. It's not 100%, but to the laymen (ie: us) they are saying "you shouldn't take thalidomide while pregnant." It's galling, because people like that, who don't understand scientists have specific word choices as insulation, still claim gravity is only a theory.

I honestly hope I'm just the most dense person here, and everyone else already saw the hastily constructed house of cards you've relied on. Moving the target, claiming bias because of interpretations you inject, completely changing the argument when you've said something goofy, and then simply changing your words post facto to mean something entirely different is dishonest at best. You've managed to weasel around everything by blatantly disregarding the content of your own argument, and then propped it up with a study to appear to have legitimacy.

There's no discussion here. There's you dictating what you feel like today. Today you want science and technology. Yesterday you wanted human accountability. Weeks ago you wanted everyone to just stop calling for any changes for a few decades, so we could have what you thought was an accurate enough model to determine if this was even a thing. It's great. We're playing football against a child, who whenever cornered simply moves the goal line back 50 yards and changes a few rules. I don't even care what you believe in. I just want some intellectual honesty, and some damn consistency. Consistency on something worth while, not on incontrovertible facts. It's a fact that CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gasses. You can't even consistently state whether humanity has any impact, knowing that both of these gasses are being emitted in huge quantities by us. Jesus, jello has more solidity and backbone.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Why did I bother? <insert defininition of insanity here>

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Why did I bother? <insert defininition of insanity here>

Right, it's like when you have nothing to say, and argue in circles, it's frustrating.

I appreciate the moral high horse. You've yet to square the crap that has come out of your mouth. I'll bullet point it, being biased because ten pages of contradictions is pretty nuts.

1) You don't believe in climate change. This is based upon conflicting data.
2) You do believe CO2 emissions and CH4 emissions impact the climate.
3) You do believe that humans are producing these gasses in, what you said, was alarming amounts.
4) You want another couple of decades to determine if climate change is real, based upon a new computer model fed old data.
5) Despite said couple of decades needing to pass, you believe any call to action is inappropriate.
6) Despite the call to action being inappropriate, you're calling for population control and suggesting "humanity must pay for its actions."
7) Despite the complete backwards and contradictory nature of 5 and 6, you now claim technology is going to solve things.
8) You inject your own bias into studies, by selectively deciding on the meaning of words. "There is a high correlation" means "there is some factor of doubt." "There is a general consensus" becomes "science isn't based upon democracy, and therefore no conclusion can be drawn." Best of all, there's no possibility of context meaning a damn thing. Articles whose abstracts include the phrase "global cooling" must negate the idea of climate change, while abstracts with the phrase "global warming" must support the conclusion.
9) Studies can be thrown out based upon whether you like researchers or not. All studies must therefore be completely worthless, because humans have biases. Hell, it's not like a biased person can make a well constructed study including double blind testing, candidates without conflicts of interest, and candidates from a diverse enough pool to negate cultural biases. I mean nobody currently running testing, to the FDA standards for drugs, is working for the companies that make those drugs, right? Well I'll be damned, I guess you should stop taking drugs and eating 90% of food if that's your stance on testing.


You know, I'd be happy to stop the argument here. You've argued against about a dozen people, who've already simply thrown up their hands because talking to you is arguing with a zealot. Your dogma must be true, and it will change without ever having to change. You say things that are monsterous, without the slightest bit of sarcasm. Your points sound as if coming from two people with radically different ideals. What's worse, you haven't stopped for just a minute to review all of the crap you've said, and piece it together.

I could continue pointing out hypocrisy. I could go through dozens of pages of quotes, and link back to you citing singular studies and extrapolating what you want from them by interpreting the, rather...uniquely. I'm tired of this crap. Let me put it simply. Galileo went up against dogma, and stood for the truth which the church would not agree to. I believe you fancy yourself that kind of person. The problem is everyone fancies themselves a genius. Most of us aren't Galileo, and Galileo wasn't one to sit on his hands for decades whilst someone defined the mathematics of orbital motion before he came to a reasonable conclusion.

So let's be Galileo. Let's not find the mathematics, because that's largely not necessary to propose a concept. You have nothing to say here. You've contradicted yourself left and right, with the only real constant being "do nothing until more data is present." Do we need to calculate what level of emissions causes irreparable climate change? No, the IPCC is largely basing numbers off of BS predictions. You seem to think everyone of an opposing view wants magic numbers. Do we need to understand that emissions are impacting our climate? Absolutely, but you've stated time and again that emissions are bad but since we don't have quantitative numbers we can't do anything. Do we need more research? No. What we need is people to come together and drop dogma. Drop the denial, and drop the screaming banshees that believe the world will end tomorrow unless we pray to evergreen Jesus. You're more than welcome to spend the time and effort researching the issue, to define what we need to do to get to a desired point, but we don't need that to start agreeing to common sense things. Don't believe me, then I'd suggest you leave your comfort zone. There are places on Earth that aren't the Midwest, and they demonstrate the impact man can have. Pittsburgh, circa the 80's and 90's. Los Angeles, any time people are traveling to work. Beijing...let's call it any time that there isn't an event.

Climate change is nebulous. Let me put it into simple terms. All of the places above have a micro-climate similar to hell. The air can be chewed, it's hotter than any of the surrounding locations, and this is a direct result of humans. You're more than welcome to argue what the impact is on a global scale. Arguing that nothing be done until either we magic technology that fixes all of it, or until you have the research into everything you think is necessary, is twiddling thumbs. It took an economic crash to rebirth Pittsburgh. To this day you can still find places where the bricks are ashen from the mills. So we're clear, doing everything without regard for cost is crap. To make positive change we could do little things. Let's start by removing ethanol from fuel, because that's a waste of both corn and tax dollars. The Kyoto accords aren't exactly insane, so how about shooting for them? Maybe we push for better sorting of waste, so that biological materials are separated and the resulting methane decomposition can be burned off for electricity. Asking for roads to be replaced by solar panels, and having windmills everywhere is stupid, but that nuance of response to available information is where you want to consider everyone against you a radical. Demanding action isn't demanding we burn the world, it's acknowledging the reality that 100% certainty and accurate modeling is a pretty unreasonable demand when only crazy people of each side can't agree to reasonable responses.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

*sigh* Why do you constantly try to vilify and berate me? I'm only replying to this because I must be insane:

1) You don't believe in climate change. This is based upon conflicting data.

No, I said climate is always changing.

4) You want another couple of decades to determine if climate change is real, based upon a new computer model fed old data.

No, I said climate is always changing.

5) Despite said couple of decades needing to pass, you believe any call to action is inappropriate.

I suggest (and always have) action through the discovery and application of technology.

6) Despite the call to action being inappropriate, you're calling for population control and suggesting "humanity must pay for its actions."

Should technology fail to provide a solution. If you look at the context population control was brought up, it was responding to a hypothetical. It is a solution but far from the best solution.

And that quote? I can't find that I ever said it. The closest to it is this:

Humanity is going to have to face reality eventually:

I stand by all of the quoted statements in the context they were made. I still believe CH4 is an elephant in the room no one is talking about. The amount of CH4 in the atmosphere isn't enough to do much now but over the next hundreds or thousands of years, it will become an unavoidable problem unless technology finds a way to combat it.

 

[SK-1]

Global Warming,Global Cooling, Acid Rain, The Population Bomb, Holes in the Ozone, China Syndrome, Y2K2, Chernoble, Killer Bees, AIDS, Coral Reefs dying, Killer Smog, Traffic Gridlock, Alien Abductions, Fossil fuels depleted by 1982, 200 million enviro refugees by 2010, Arctic gone by 2015, Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035, James Hansen's Tipping Point by 2008, Al Gores, Tipping Point by 2016, Global Warming, Climate Change, we survived it all in just the last 25 years or so...Imagine that!
The sky will continue to fall for some people....No matter what common logic and facts dictate....

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Pretty sure the Earth couldn't even have 7 billion people if we didn't already make vast improvements in agriculture, water, and health. Our success as a species is the only reason why CO2 has become an issue in the first place. Solve the CO2 issue, something else will come next.

 

[Frick]

So this thread is still going? I'm doing my part, I recently got my old Volvo going. It smells awful.

 

[SK-1]

So this thread is still going? I'm doing my part, I recently got my old Volvo going. It smells awful.

I fired up my old Lawnboy. Every time I fire her up, 3 squirrels 2 gophers and a Shrew kick the bucket.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

*sigh* Why do you constantly try to vilify and berate me? I'm only replying to this because I must be insane:










Should technology fail to provide a solution. If you look at the context population control was brought up, it was responding to a hypothetical. It is a solution but far from the best solution.

I insist on calling out the crap that you're spewing.

Define climate. Define weather. Define event.


You have mutable definitions for each. You say climate is always changing, but that's crap. Climate is general weather patterns over an extended period of time. You've used this definition in the past when arguing severe weather events. In this case you decide that climate is something constantly changing because the summed total is constantly shifting slightly. You are deciding to change definitions to suit your argument. It's like waiting until the day it rains in the desert, and arguing that the single event changes the average by some appreciable amount.

You claim that technology is the magical solution to everything. That's relatively new, and I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around such a statement. It's interesting that you've gone back and edited previous posts, so that there's no point in trying to make you honest to your past statements, That should really be the sign that you're not an honest operator, but I'll give you the fact that this is somehow what you've been playing towards the entire time. Square the point with reality. In reality technology is only a fragment of what we are doing as humans, and its as much the cause of this as anything else. Burning fossil fuels generates carbon dioxide. Generating an abundance of foods has led to more waste, and the drive to consume less efficient products (read: cows generate huge amounts of methane and take enormous amounts of energy for relatively low nutritional values). The magical excuse that technology will fix everything is demonstrably stupid, yet now you want to hide behind it?


This is the point that is baffling me most though. You consistently apply science inconsistently. You want climate to be unrelated to weather events in one instance, yet in another climate would necessarily have to include those events. You want to wait on models, yet in the next you discount the models as simply part of the larger climate data. You claim that there's enough deniability from one group of scientists that calling for any action is irrational, yet in the next find it viable to answer a theoretical situation which you say is an impossibility. If you were trying for devil's advocate, then you really didn't separate it from anything else you are saying.



I'm willing to accept the idea that climate change doesn't exist. I'm willing to accept that humans somehow aren't the primary motivation. These particular ideas are counter to the set of facts that is being presented, but maybe we're looking at the wrong piece of the puzzle. What I can't abide is pretending you've a superior argument based upon what you have provided. You argue points countering one another, with such vast inconsistencies that there needs to be a dogma behind them to make them work. Words have no meaning which can be agreed to on a consistent basis, and you believe that interjected conclusion you've made, that fly in the face of the conclusions presented in the abstract, are viable because you don't read the hundreds of pages of data that were analyzed. You then criticize the word choice in abstracts, because you don't like them. Where's the consistency? Where's the objectivity?

Oh, that's right. Neither of these things matter to you. If you don't like a conclusion you can simply wave it away. There's no need to actually address what an author says, you cite biases you want to have about the authors, and disregard their work. I've seen these tactics before, which is what angers and saddens me. The same exact crap comes from god of the margins, anti-vaxxers, and other fringe elements that desire to dictate reality to you.



What I really, really can't stand is bastardization of a good study. Let's do a little search of some research papers, and test your 60% conjecture. It's limited, but we'll use google scholar (2000-2011). We'll look at the first page, and cover the results.
Global Warming: 730,000 results
Results confirming, and man made: 9
Results confirming, not man made: 0
Results neither confirming nor denying: 1
Results denying climate change: 0

Global cooling: 710,000 results
Results confirming (warming), and man made: 1
Results confirming (warming), not man made: 1 - this is about volcanic eruptions
Results neither confirming nor denying: 8 - this is hard to show, but most focused on dinosaurs
Results denying climate change: 0

It's highly unscientific, because I don't have double blind testing, and I'm biased at demonstrating your assertion is hollow. What I don't have to do though is go through thousands of papers, or even provide context. You stated 60% of papers would have included the term "global cooling," and thus that 97% figure is crap. What I've demonstrated is that there are a ton of papers on global cooling, but unless you're interested in the plieoscene it's pretty much irrelevant. You've stated a study was wrong because of you unfounded biases, that even a cursory freaking google search can demonstrate is blatantly wrong. Let's do the math. 11 total results speaking about the topic directly. 10 suggest climate change is real and man made. That's 90.9% that agrees with the climate change hypothesis. The study cited 97%. Let's go with the lower number. Basically a 91% agreement on conclusions from abstracts, based on varying data. There's a difference between voting on the truth, and it being apparent from the abundance of data provided. I haven't done "climate change," though you're welcome to provide its results.



Why do I berate you? If you were a scientist, as you try to be, the community would have already branded you incompetent and asked you kindly to get the hell out. Utilizing pseudoscience, outright lies, and fabrications to prove your dogma require somebody to call you out. Nobody else seems to have to fortitude for it. I'm game. There are few things I care about deeply, but watching somebody try to use science to support dogma that can't be held together rationally is something that gets me angry even after the third long week of yard work and a miserable job. Science separates us from those who seek another dark age of religion. You may call me whatever you'd like, but if you try the scientific route, and it's just a mask for a dogmatic belief, I'm going to try to eviscerate every ounce of stupidity that I can find. I'll start with words whose definitions are plastic. We can proceed to utilizing individual studies as counter points, functionally making any discussion an infinite grind because the interpretations from the abstracts aren't even being taken at face value. We can end on dismissal of works that don't fit your mold, based upon some unproven bias which can be demonstrated unreasonable with even the slightest modicum of effort. An effort you are unwilling to provide, though you happily throw artificial numbers at the situation and interpolate results based upon nothing. You've really hit the trifecta of poor arguments via the authority of science here.

The layman has problems seeing how poorly constructed the argument is here, because you throw a bunch of numbers and graphs at the problem. I applaud the effort to obfuscate the truth, because the tactic is hard to dispel. At the same time, intellectual honesty on the matter is something I value. You've not been able to demonstrate that. More importantly, the use of editing makes it impossible to consider you honest. I'd gladly argue with anyone, assuming I could just erase all my mistakes post facto. The problem is that's not a discussion. I have no problems with being corrected, but arguing with someone who decides to rewrite history is...impossible. When the lies and half truths can be wiped clean once detected you really aren't a human being. You're a crappy google search.

 

[SK-1]

I insist on calling out the crap that you're spewing.

Opened minded Liberal FTW

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Climate is an aggregate of weather, true, but everytime you add a number to an average and the result is not equal to the average, the average (climate) changes; thus, climate is always changing. I don't believe, like you apparently want me to, that all changes in climate are inherently bad.

To the larger picture (as repeatedly demonstrated), I'm far more concerned about the specifics. Weather is a specific and so is CO2. I can't control climate because it is an effect, not a cause, but I can control my emissions of CO2 to a degree. See why I care about the latter (weather, CO2) and not the former (climate)?

Going even broader, this is where the communication failure has occured between the science (80%+ agreement) and the people (50% agreement). The topic is always framed as a massive sweeping debate which creates legitimate concerns among especially conservative people that won't react unless the problem is starring them in the face. Let's throw the term "climate change" aside for a minute and also all of the other contributors and focus on just CO2. There is numerous examples in world history where a similar focus has occured and legal action took place compensating for it. Two examples off the top of my head are O3, CFCs, and leading fuel. The correct approach should have been showing people that CO2 is rising astronomically from pre-industrial levels, we can definitively proof human activity is to blame for that rise, and we should take these steps (enumerated) to correct it. The "global warming" and "climate change" debates never would have occured. Sure, just like the oil industry complained about leading and manufacturers complained about CFCs, governments around the world rapidly moved to ban the practices because there's no arguing with a graph.

TL;DR: "climate change" is an effect, not a cause.

What I really, really can't stand is bastardization of a good study. Let's do a little search of some research papers, and test your 60% conjecture. It's limited, but we'll use google scholar (2000-2011). We'll look at the first page, and cover the results.
Global Warming: 730,000 results
Results confirming, and man made: 9
Results confirming, not man made: 0
Results neither confirming nor denying: 1
Results denying climate change: 0

Global cooling: 710,000 results
Results confirming (warming), and man made: 1
Results confirming (warming), not man made: 1 - this is about volcanic eruptions
Results neither confirming nor denying: 8 - this is hard to show, but most focused on dinosaurs
Results denying climate change: 0

I already like this better than what Cook did. It's a result I would expect from a scientific community. That is, about the same number for warming/cooling with only a handful making extremely specific claims. At the same time, is Cook one of those that fall under "Results confirming, and man made: 9?" If yes, then you can clearly see why I have a problem with what Cook did.


I am not a scientist and I never claimed to be.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Opened minded Liberal FTW

?

One, not liberal, more of a Libertarian. Unfortunately that particular monicker was tainted.

Two, what does this add to the discussion? If the implication is that I'm hard line for cliate change being a thing, then yes. If it can conclusively be demonstrated otherwise then I'm willing to change my mind. The simplest answer is that there are billions to be made if we can conclusively prove that humans aren't influencing climate. Why wouldn't companies spending millions of lobbyists spend a few hundred thousand proving it was a falsehood? Consider me old fashioned, but self interested parties set to gain huge amounts of money would reasonably do so. If they could, then why haven't they?



Edit:

I already like this better than what Cook did. It's a result I would expect from a scientific community. That is, about the same number for warming/cooling with only a handful making extremely specific claims. At the same time, is Cook one of those that fall under "Results confirming, and man made: 9?" If yes, then you can clearly see why I have a problem with what Cook did.


I am not a scientist and I never claimed to be.

Allow me to be blunt. If you aren't a scientist, but you're willing to interpolate an abstract for a result, it's just wrong. An abstract boils huge amounts of data into a single page, and as such is never designed to be interpreted. To do so is...let's just call it missing the forest for the lichen on the trees.


I don't personally like Cook. I've read other work by him, and he seems to be irrationally in favor of the green movement. I'm talking green tax credits, and the whole ball of annoying 1st world whacks. While I personally would like to punch his smug face, that doesn't mean the study is terrible. To maintain any viability within the community you need to be unbiased (which is why Powell's name doesn't come up any more in rational rings). Cook did that by having the abstracts read by two separate entities, and categorized in one of a few broad groups.

I don't personally like the divisions. Again, I can't fault them though. Cook went in wanting this to be proven man made, the problem is that papers are....let's call it less than fantastic on the description. The whole Plieoscene impact on the Global Cooling side of things is a real pain as far as results. Cook dealt with any inherent bias about the terms by having the abstracts read. It's about as good as you can expect, because this was unpaid. In an ideal world Cook would have gone through significantly more terms, but again science and research are beholden to money. At some point you have to ask whether more efforts will return more rewards. I personally think Cook chose the easy way out here, but again I can't fault the effort.

I guess we agree on Cook being...a less than ideal person. Where we have to disagree is on whether or not he did enough to make his project reasonably free of bias. I can't begrudge those efforts, even if every ounce of me despises what he is. Sometimes even the devil can be right, no matter how much we personally despise them.

 

[SK-1]

?

Not surprising in the least.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Not surprising in the least.

I applaud the low bar. Nothing to add to the discussion, and a massive chip on the shoulder. Please, tell me how I'll be voting for Hillary. Tell me how I didn't vote for Romney in the last elections. Better yet, tell me how morally superior I think I am because I'm from somewhere specific or went somewhere specific. I'll bet on the trolling first, then the inferiority complex. Extra points if you follow up with the claim of me being an SJW. Heck, I could use a good laugh based around someone trying to figure out what I am. It's always interesting.


Back on topic, do you have anything to add, or are you just trying to get a rise?

 

[SK-1]

I applaud the low bar. Nothing to add to the discussion,blaaa blaaa blaaa and a massive chip on the shoulder. blaaa blaaa blaaa It's always interesting. blaaa blaaa blaaa blaaa....


Back on topic, do you have anything to add, or are you just trying to get a rise?

Dismissive, arrogant and condescending. Its a trait/character flaw with you guys.

 

[BiggieShady]

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201602

 

[SK-1]

But the SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!
Plants may be better at acclimatising to rising temperatures and contribute less to carbon dioxide in a warming world than some have previously thought, a new study suggests!!!
"Maybe some of our models are over-predicting the degree to which plant respiration will cause accelerating feedback that speeds up climate change," said Professor Peter Reich, an ecologist and plant physiologist from the University of Minnesota who led the study published today in Nature.
Part of the problem is there is a lack of basic science on plant respiration, especially how plants acclimatise to changing environments.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-...less-less-of-a-global-warming-problem/7248052

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

 

[Frick]

Heck, I could use a good laugh based around someone trying to figure out what I am. It's always interesting.

Well, I do know what diagnose you have.
But at this point that's like knowing the sun is hot.

 

[the54thvoid]

Hate this thread but where relevant science pops up...

Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Its all @qubit 's fault.......

 

[qubit]

Its all @qubit 's fault.......

Definitely!

 

[EarthDog]

I complained here years ago the thanks means nothing. We put a limit on the amount you can hand out /day at OCF. That keeps the thanks whoring to a minimum when you only have 10 /day.

/sorry about OT.

 

[SK-1]

The SKY is still Falling! What a F'n scam!!

NASA scientists have shattered the conventional wisdom that Antarctica's ice surface is shrinking and revealed that the amount of ice is in fact growing.
Though accepting that glaciers are still shrinking because of man-made global warming, the new study published in the Journal of Glaciology suggests that recent gains more than offset losses elsewhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...-that-Antarctica-is-actually-gaining-ice.html

 

[dorsetknob]

Old news conveniently ignored
and can i edit your text

NASA scientists have shattered the conventional wisdom that Antarctica's ice surface is shrinking and revealed that the amount of ice is in fact growing.
Though accepting that glaciers are still shrinking because of man-made global warming, the new Revised study REpublished in the Journal of Glaciology suggests that recent gains more than offset losses elsewhere.

There that looks better

In Other News The UN Plans to Ban the use of Ice Cubes in Cold Drinks Because of Global Warming and the Imminent shortage of Ice

 

[SK-1]