US Scientiest leak Blunt climate change report to NYT

Sorry but an unverifiable hypothesis from an organization pushing an agenda does not make it fact. The same scientists cannot identify natural variability and without that it is all just opinion.

 

They admit that, but read again. 95% probability. If you were told that about a medical procedure surgery to save your life, you would do it, wouldn't you?

 

LOL, opinion, not fact. Even after they had to lower the low bound due to observed science they increased their opinion to 95%. Unverifiable models are not fact. Sorry.

 

Didn't answer the question, did you. LOL!

 

Not in any way a true believer would understand.

 

Scientists have been taught and have accepted certain ideas, and their studies and theories are based around those ideas. Its hard for them to let go and start all over again, especially geologists.

As an example, geologists believe that earthquakes cannot be predicted. I go on to Dutchsense on youtube, and he follows the swarms of lava in the earth and not only knows when an earthquake will hit a certain area, but the size of it and when.... yet there is a geologist that keeps telling him he's wrong, even though he proves he is right over and over again.

Another belief is that global warming will cause the oceans to rise from the melted ice, when in reality the oceans have been getting lower throughout the ages because the earth expands... something the scientists will not accept. As an example, my mother comes from the island of Chios in the Aegean. A half mile from where she lived is an enormous rock with carved seats that tradition holds was the place where Homer taught his students. It is up on a hill and about a quarter of a mile distance from the sea, and yet I saw a 300 year old drawing by a French traveler, and in it the rock is directly over the sea... which means the sea had to have been higher. It also means that 3000 years ago when Homer taught, the rock was probably level with the sea and the island was much smaller.

The same with the ancient port city of Ephesus which is now in Turkey. It is frozen in time, and has no inhabitants because the port disappeared about 1500 years ago. Today it is seven miles from the sea.

 

Not only you as Brit ...

It is the same problem as what the EU had after end of cold war... who did not say fast enough "No" at three, became nearly automatic member of EU and NATO! This too fast extension of both, NATO and EU, is the main trouble shooter.

This short minded politicians of these days of the past did not use the organ in the head fully, because they acted as if the EU is still what they wanted the EU is, but still not is today for gods sake - an independent country of "United states of Europe" where all the countries of Europe are only states like Texas, Virginia, California etc. within!

In case of NATO they extended also too fast too the east on one hand and did not take weak Russia under Yelcin into the process really, but ignored him and also Putin later! In short: Russia was for them only a necessary evil which needs to be included and respected, but only at absolute necessary minimum!

So yes, I agree that Ukraine should NOT become member of NATO!

 

How open should my mind be?
Every day I am bombarded with new things that will revolutionise my life.

People try and sell me things all the time.
And almost all of these things which will greatly enhance my life.... I do not agree will. And so I don't buy them.
And if my mind was as open as those who wish to sell to me prefer, I should have bought them all.

But that is stupidity.




On the subject of rising sea level.

This holds no fear for me.
I live now and have always lived, below sea level.

On land that has been reclaimed from the sea.
If I can, you can.

I already know the solution to this problem. I already practise it.
It's not the future for me. It is the present.

 

Me, me, me... Rising sea levels won't affect me either. I live at at 5000 feet elevation. OK, we're both cool. I feel better now.

 

Well ... and what about to have your own internal US people refugee wave of all these who have bad luck to live too low, eh?

 

Meh, at the current rate it will take about 120 years to raise a foot. By then most rich people on the coast can deal with it.

 

In the UK, our own refugee wave came from the EU. They weren't displaced by rising sea levels any more that the US migration has been displaced by rising sea levels, any more than the recent German migration has been caused by rising sea levels.

In the UK, what migration has been caused by is the exact same people who want more money for global warming.
The EU and the government.
You will excuse me if I go deaf. I have no money for you and you have no votes for me. Your politics are not my politics.
Nor are your politics very popular here. In fact they are ridiculously unpopular with the Greens getting about 1% of the vote nationally.



You chaps, you are not the solution to anything. You just want more money.
But you aren't in power now, so you won't be getting it.

@Media_Truth living up his mountain, since you have no issues with rising sea levels you won't be needing any money to pay for them.
I do have issues, but I pay for them myself. Or rather we here do have issues but we pay for them collectively between ourselves. We, we , we.

We will continue to deal with our issues, and you, you, you who has no issues, need not pay us a bean. Enjoy the view from up there. Do you have to acclimatise for that altitude? Where are you?

 

Well said, and to the point.

 

Garbage -

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University: 'The PNAS paper is another sad contribution to the demagogic anti-science campaign for AGW. It is at odds with observational facts and ethical principles." - "The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts.'

The media is hyping another doomsday global warming study. This time on sea level rise. But Professor Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University calls the new study and the media spin surrounding it “demagogic.”

“The PNAS paper is another sad contribution to the demagogic anti-science campaign for AGW. It is at odds with observational facts and ethical principles,” Morner wrote to Climate Depot. “The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts,” Morner explained.

Few scientists have published as much on the subject of sea level rise as Dr. Mörner. He is also a co-founder of the Prague-based Independent Committee on Geoethics.

New Study sea level expert Prof. Morner: ‘At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all’ – Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.– ‘Modelling is not a suitable method of determining global sea-level changes, since a proper evaluation depends upon detailed research in multiple locations with widely-differing characteristics. The true facts are to be found in nature itself’​

By now Britain should be under water.

 

If I have a 95% probability that I will throw snake eyes because I designed my dice to always roll snake eyes playing craps, and I throw 100 7s in a row, does that make my 95% assertion because I designed my dice a real thing? Or, put it this way. The odds of throwing snake eyes is 1:36. That means I have less than a 95% chance of doing so. If I rolled snake eyes 10 times in a row, because I invented dice that would only deliver snake eyes, is that a real test of the probability? Either way, we demonstrate the fallacy of the predictive value of probability. The only way to make probability win for you is, as the house, you reduce the potential payouts of the outcomes. If you believe that you have a 50:50 shot at wining on roulette, you're wrong. Why? Because of the 0 00 panels. Even then, you still don't have a 100% probability of hitting either red or black.

The models that are being produced today that suggest that a probability is 95% is based on deviation. The unfortunate truth is that the statistical models require too many of the variable components to remain static to produce an expectation of that many sigmas. Just can't happen. So, instead of just saying, "we think" they suggest that they "know" because if they "know" then actual economic and political policy can be designed to make sure that the least number of individuals can receive the greatest economic benefit from your fleecing.

 

Best to force all coastal dwellers to evacuate inland. Just like removing the Cherokees from TN and resettling them in OK. What a stellar image liberals always want to replicate.

 

Morner is a Geologist, not a climatologist. His work on sea level rise has been amateurish, and has been disproved by many other scientists. Even the INQUA, of which he was once president, has asked him to stop using their organization to represent his opinions, because 99% of the scientists in the organization support as fact - that the sea level rising. Here's a link:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims

Does this invalidate global sea-level rise? Of course not – because sea levels fluctuate all the time due to winds and currents, even over several years in every location, a truly global picture can only be obtained from hundreds of tide gauges operating over multi-decadal periods.

For shorter time-periods, estimates of sea level change depend on satellite data. Mörner however chooses not to believe the published satellite record, probably because it shows a clear upward trend across the global oceans of 3.3mm a year. This conscious rejection of the established satellite data comes about, the Spectator reveals, because of something Mörner claims to have overheard several years ago at a scientific conference in Moscow which he interprets as evidence of a conspiracy.
...
Mörner also claims in the Spectator article to speak on behalf of the INQUA (the International Union for Quaternary Research) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, whose members he says are "the world's true experts on sea level" – as opposed to the IPCC, which he asserts has "hijacked and distorted" the data. Mörner was indeed president of this commission until 2003. However, as documented by the Carbon Brief, INQUA now clearly dissociates itself from Mörner's views. Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that Mörner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."

 

I love these kind of long-winded narratives that basically say, "I'm smarter than the folks at NASA, even though their scientists can put a man on the moon". "I'm smarter than 97% of climatologists". Take me at my word.

 

If you're so smart, you can pay for it without my help.

Show me how smart you are. Sell me some of that free eco energy for zero Pounds.

Being smart isn't enough. You have to be wise.

 

So, take a shot, discount the observation. I'll wait. And for the record, this doesn't have much to do with who is "smarter" or not. If you fall for the BS, it's your own fault. Those of us who point out the fallacies, the problematic methodology, are challenging the erroneous conclusions based from the faulty process. So, take a shot.

 

Well, they are certainly smarter than those still using the misleading and false 97% meme.

 

It is simply breathtaking and frightening as here the man-made climate change is questioned.
With every nonsense and any idiotic argument, or any idiotic statement from any doctor, professor, who said something like this, is drawn!

On the other hand, I can understand it also humanly! The truth hurts, especially the actual consequences of this truth which have to be taken. They mean changes and new things, coupled with the farewells of loved things and things in everyday life. This is rarely someone is willing, especially if it costs maybe money, therefore one would rather look for more comfortable alternatives to prove the undeniable facts of the climate change itself with other reasons!

 

Sorry, but your science is too weak for there to be no disputing your theories.

In order to use scientific method to prove or disprove any theory, we require a controlled environment and what we are studying here, is as an uncontrolled environment.

It's the unprovable theory kind.

So the "science" you are offering us is not the indisputable kind. It is empirically measured but the theories based upon interpretation of those measurements are not qualified by experiment using scientific method.

Which isn't the kind of science we are willing to pay much for.


So, to test the affect of CO2 in the atmosphere scientifically, we need to be able to accurately measure it. And then, we need to compare that to the results from a control group which has no CO2 in it so that we can isolate the results of it.

Unfortunately the planet is rather big and not being godlike enough to make you a new planet every 7 days, I can't provide you with the tools to test your theory to the standards of scientific method. I can't and will never be able to.. provide you with a control group.
(Second CO2 free planet or.. a second man free planet with everything else the same).
And until you are able to accept that, you aren't allowed to teach science to children.
You are disbarred from education.

You start with something intuitively correct. Unproven but broadly believable.
Man has an effect on climate.
And if you stop right there, 95% of everyone will agree with you.

But you aren't going to stop right there. You are going to pretend that the belief in this simple statement also infers belief in a whole load of moronic and ridiculous statements.
Typically hinging on bad things happening to us all unless we all take your advice and do as you suggest. Unless we all bow to your will.

It's a crock of ****. And no amount of man made climate change could ever be worse for the planet than having you put in charge of it.
All your anticipated problems from it, bloody ridiculous. All your suggested solutions to your bloody ridiculous anticipated problems, even more bloody ridiculous. Compound stupid. Compound bloody stupid. An idiot magnet.

Tell someone the end of the world is about to occur... unless, oh I know! we renounce capitalism and right wing political parties. Oh yeah.
Of course



So, no money for you. Unless it's your own. Clown squad says the world is going to end unless I do as they say.
You know what I say right back.
Jog on. No money here. Economic consequence that.