US Scientiest leak Blunt climate change report to NYT

How long after they kill our pets will they start rounding people up?

I mean, if humans are the primary cause of global warming, then why are we trying to feed all of them and save them from disease?

This, of course, is the real reason for opening Europe up to invasion. It'll kill off most of the population eventually.

 

Calling someone a denier is a religious term not a scientific one. Real science welcomes dissenting opinion and strives to prove it's hypothesis to those that are not convinced.

 

A

 

Anyone still on board with the OP FAIL?

The NYT is red faced over it's false reporting.

 

Sounds very like those who prosthelytize for AGW. Thanks for the observation.

 

I believe I mentioned this a couple of times on this thread, so far. The report has been available since January of 2017. The "drafts" have been out there for public comment for a long time. Several of the revisions contained data that frankly demonstrated actual cooling which was then removed because it was antithetical to the tone and breathlessness of the rest of the report and it's conclusions.

 

Name the scientist who are 95~100% sure...?



I guarantee it would be easy because their are only like 30 of them world wide.

.

 

Please. The fool to which I was responding was proud of the fact that he'll never change his mind. That is the thinking of an idiot.

Your side has made their arguments and presented their "data," and the overwhelming majority of the evidence as well as scientists observing the data tell us your side full of crap.

If you'll choose to ignore the science, ignore the evidence, and ignore the empirical world around you then, please, join the Baff guy and await your next instructions.

 

Observing your sides data tells me you don't understand it.
That you are neither scientist nor a mathematician.

And while the maths required is advanced and you can be forgiven that, scientific method is not an advanced study. You are supposed to have mastered it by the age of 12.

Ruthford put it rather succinctly.

If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment. Ernest Rutherford

He was an idiot too of course. Good Cambridge lad. The whole town is simply riddled with idiots.

I don't choose to ignore the science. I've studied it as much as I needed to come to a conclusion. And now I have.
I choose to ignore your interpretations of the science. They are some dumb apocalyptical ****. Anti capitalism claiming "science" undeniably proves them to be smarter than the rest of us, but not knowing what the word means.

Allow me to explain it you, Experiment, method, control, result, conclusion.
Now the problem with climate research is that there is no control group. too many variables to isolate.
We can't conduct a controlled experiment because we are not in control of the environment. And the problem with the maths, is that it is not reliable. The margin of error in the data groups is larger than the difference in temperature scale we are attempting to model.

Go Occupy Wall Street mate. Show us how smart you are. Sit out in the rain and moan about stuff.

You'll find it's not the evidence people are ignoring. Not the science either. Just you telling everyone how much smarter than them you are.
While talking dribble about the end of the world being nigh.

 

If I read all the comments here who deny that that climate change is human caused, then you can only shake your head about the whole ignorance in the answers.

It is far easier to believe any quackery and other idiots that would hide the whole of human-induced pollution and its consequences as "classified", simply because the consequences of the truth are so uncompromising.

I am not ready to pay more for my energy consumption, so I continue to pollute the air and blast millions of tons of CO2 and other things, but I do not care!
Because the South Pole is less scarcely lighter than the North Pole, it is all natural because we are in a warm phase!

My God ... the ignorance of facts and the will to resign themselves with some idiotic explanations, which are far more comfortable are apparently in the USA huge!

Why was Volkswagen then accused in the US?
If it does not matter how much sh ** the coal-fired power plants are blowing into the air as long as the electricity price is low, miners have a job and the climate change is not because of the exhaust fumes, then it does not matter what kind of sh** a Volkswagen Diesel blows into the air ... or not, because Volkswagen is indeed a company from the evil Germany?

 

Really? Maybe we can throw some of the thousands of Atomic bombs to Africa instead of Kim to solve the refugee problems as solution? ould be a fast issue and woops 1 billion people lesser on this planet needed to be feed, eh?

 

Maybe the NYT fails, but the report is reality and all the answers and reactions on it here explain why such a fool like Trump can become US President for me.

 

Wind Mills ?

Yea ok if you say so..

30 years...how about 40 years?






.

 

Unfortunately for the AGW cult most of us graduated from the 2nd grade when they were talking about ice ages and stuff...I still don't know what's worse 6,000 year old earth Bible thumpers or 137 year old earth AGW cult crowd who thinks the earth started when we officially started to keep temperature records.



.


.

 

Ha!
https://science.house.gov/news/pres...nfirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

Where did I say it wasn't real? What I said is the software model's predictions have not been accurate and the solutions to reduce CO2 will have little affect in relation to the cost.

 

And which of the many and different software models used do you mean?

 

You bring up a great point, there are multiple software models, one source I read said there are 20, so they can use whatever one that is closer to the results they are looking for.

 

That's your reality.
And since it's not the commonly shared reality, let alone the consensus of opinion, it neatly explains why mainstream politicians get elected by the mainstream.

In this I agree.
People didn't vote for this, because they don't share your reality.... en masse.

And the truth is, we've heard it all before. It's never been right yet and there is little sign of it being right now.
I don't in any way object to you holding your beliefs and indeed acting on them.
I consider them to be closer to religious in nature than I do scientific. Ideological primarily.

I feel the same way about climate guru's peddling their beliefs as science as I do Creationists doing the same.
I am happy for you to hold those beliefs but there is no place for them in a science class with my own children and will not be teaching it any science class I teach. (Which is not very many at all).

Further to this, it is not on my political agenda to co-operate in such studies or policies.
I feel that you must pay for your own agenda. Especially when it is such a socially detrimental one as this.

As long as you are willing to respect the beliefs of others in this free society as equal to your own, you are welcome to participate in our democratic process.
The minute you are not, I will brand you fascist. And seek to exclude you from it.

 

So fake news defines your world. You realize the report edited out some inconvenient science showing the US had more cooling days than warming days and the 30s had the most warming days historically don't you? Wouldn't push the dogma.

 

A software model isn't science, it's maths.
Statistics.

What statistics is, is a method of representing data in a more digestible format.
A simplification if you like.

As the above previously noted, statistics are used to tell a story. We choose ones which best suit our agenda's.
Which best display the data to agree with our expectations or promote our message. That is their purpose.

So if you expect Global Warming to be the death of the planet, you will choose statistics that best correlate the data set with your ideological position. And this is normal.

And so what you will see is the same dataset being routinely spun by all sides of the argument to represent entirely different conclusions.
And the only reason we are able to do that at all, is because the science is so weak.

1+2=2. And no one argues with this.
Global Warming = the end of life as we know it..... most people argue over this.

So that's where we are. Nothing has been empirically proven. There is no consensus of opinion. Just some wannabe fascists, trying to take over.
Politicians court the green vote to get elected.
EU uses Global Warming as tool to unite it's people in a common worthy goal, and taxers use Global Warming as a hook to tax us with. Stealing from us... is for our own good, after all.

The problem with this ideology politically, is that it is the ideology of anti capitalism and the ideology of globalism.
Two rather unsuccessful political ideologies that standardly are rejected by democracies world wide.

The EU and indeed the Occupy Wall street brigade are so flagrantly out of touch with public opinion, which rather than follow they seek to lead.... that it is never going to go very far.

That is the reality of global warming. It's a fashion. And like any other fashion, people get bored of it.
And so it has to reinvent itself.

Nuclear Winter, became, hole in the ozone layer, became Global Warming and then became Climate change.
They ended up with climate change because every single one of the others got disproved by science.
Climate change should do a little better than these in my opinion, since science and mankind had already concluded that the climate changes.
It wasn't so much a "discovery" as an accepted wisdom already.

Now the climate changes they have been explicitly predicting have been scientifically measured and once again, the science of it is that they are not measurably occurring.
But this was never about science.

This is about social control. And we, won't be ruled by you.
That will never happen. We'll just kill you if you force the issue.

And so you can dismiss my opinion as unscientific. You can attribute me any agenda you please. I am denier or a pawn of big oil or a bigot or a loon or a fool or whatever you like really. But if you wish to live in peace with me, you will respect my opinion as equal to your own. And in that, you have very little choice indeed, because I won't allow it you.


If you think man can accidently end the world for you and your grandchildren, just think what he can do when it is deliberate. When he is actively trying to.



So lets discuss what can be done about climate change for those who want to do such things.
You can seek to promote your opinion. Your school of thinking if you prefer.
I will respect your right and will to make whatever changes to your life you wish to make to these ends.
I will also respect your right to enforce this will and changes on your own children, until they reach adulthood.

I will sell you recycled products, energy efficient products and environmentally aware products, as to your satisfaction if I can.
I aim to please.
What I will not do, is buy them myself in preference to other products for those same reasons or agree to minority rule and my political subjugation by you. And if you attempt to foist them on me, you will get Trump. You will get Farage.
You will get all that you least want, and because you have attempted to rule by fascism, I simply laugh when you don't like democracy.

Better Trump than you mate. I'm sorry, but that is how it is.

In the end, it's not science that I am rejecting at all, it's just your politics.

 

Funny. When you have to start invoking things like "overwhelming majority of the evidence" you obviously don't understand the conversation. Frankly, it's a most dishonest position. Your commentary frames the very essence of denial. So when you qualify it by suggesting that anyone is "ignoring the science", all I can say is clearly, you are. You have clearly wedded yourself to imaginary data. It's religious for you. We get it. The nice folks at NOAA/NASA et al simply manufacture data points. You accept that as "science" it seems obvious that your willful disregard for the veracity of the data itself transcends science and lands you squarely inside the faithful.

And you know, I don't ignore the world around me. Far from it. Clearly, I can tell that there is no longer a mile thick sheet of ice covering NYC. Now. I defy you to explain to us why that happened.

 

I won't comment on the rest of that particularly incoherent comment, perhaps the translation function is too limiting. I will however comment on VW. VW in this country, got railroaded. You may be unfamiliar with the vernacular, but Ill let you consult the google for it's meaning. VW is no better, or worse than any other manufacturer's emmissions. (BMW, MB all having suspended sales of diesel in the US to avoid the same treatment as VW) and frankly light years ahead of US competitors. I have one of the vehicles. I guarantee you that unless I mentioned that it was diesel, no one who ever rode in the vehicle would have even noticed. My very premium SUV version gets around 28 MPG. It weighs over 5K lbs. That's freaking amazing engineering. My neighbors X5 v8 gets about 12 mpg, and my other neighbors land rover gets about 10 mpg. I will attest that my diesel is vastly superior and better for the environment than either of theirs. And yet, because the VW folks haven't allowed the UAW to unionize in Chattanooga, they got targeted, fined, and well, you know the rest. I have to turn in my vehicle. I will miss it as it's proved to be exceptionally reliable, comfortable, and efficient. Likely, now, I will have to replace it with a 10 mpg Range rover. Gas of course, because who can tolerate having the EPA come after their diesel motors?

It will cost my more at the pumps, but this is what the environmentalists in this country demand...

 

The VW scandal upsets us in Germany much more, because what was negotiated in the US all after it, is not valid at us and VW denied that German consumers have the same rights as the US consumers after this scandal! And the the Ex-CEO of VW gets every das 6,000.00 USD pension after he was dismissed is not making situation calmer!

Anyway, what I wanted to say is simple that about the manipulated emission stuff are many in the US upset, because environment protection etc. aside the fraud they did is strange, when every coal power plant is blowing so much more emission into the air every day as all VW in the USA together!

 

It's an excellent observation. It's also something that I know will be rejected by the cultists. The AGW story is just too enticing as a replacement for actual religious faith. So, we can't believe in a design greater then ourselves, but we certainly can believe in a manufactured fantasy designed to impoverish the peoples of the world to enrich the so very few. Because those who believe also believe they will be part of that so very few.

 

VW's in the UK got withdrawn form sale.

For many years VW was my preferred brand and I think they are excellent cars. I have owned a few.
Forecourts at VW dealership that were once rammed with cars are now empty but for a few white vans.

In my opinion this is what happened.
In abeyance to the green lobby's desire to end global warming, cars were legislated to have new standards of efficiency and emission control.

The problem was in reality, car makers were not able to meet those legal goals which law makers who weren't car makers, had prescribed to them.
So they cheated the figures.
What else could they do?
Answer: They could have stopped producing cars entirely. Maybe start selling horses instead, although to be fair I don't expect horses to meet their new emissions standards either.

So they got caught breaking the laws. At which point governments jumped on these massive companies for some free money and fined the crap out of them, despite that the root of the problem came form the government and not the car manufacturers.
Then we have vested interests. So countries with their own domestic car industries went for their foreign rivals.

And there is an element of tit for tat here. The EU had been going after Starbucks and Google and Amazon, Apple and other American companies. Trade retaliation was required and this presented a good hook for it.

Now my mum has a little VW and I borrowed it for a while when I was commuting to London.
I myself drive a 4 litre V8 and with 6 hours of commuting each day for a minimum wage job, every penny counted and while she was on holiday, I used her car in preference to mine.
When she returned I switched back to using my own.

And this is what I noticed. In my mums 1 litre car the trip cost me £28 a day in petrol and in my 4 litre car it cost me £30 a day in petrol.
My car is rated at 25-30 MPG and her car was rated at 50-70 MPG. But in actuality, they were within 5% of each other.
It is no wonder VW doesn't sell cars here so much now. That is false advertising and I don't care how much the government forced you into a position where you felt you had to lie to me to make that sale. Trust lost. Brand destroyed.

Diesels? And another eco piss take.
First we were told we had to buy diesels to save the environment, now are told we have to get rid of them to save the environment. Big funny joke for the greens. Life changing amounts of money wasted for those who listen to them.