Climate change: Is it for real?

Yes, France came out for freedom of expression after Charlie Hedbo but speaking truth to power cannot be tolerated. This is the new normal. Like Senator Whitehouse calling to prosecute skeptics or the RICO20 calling to abuse RICO statutes to prosecute skeptics (of which the leader, Shukla, and his family has made millions off of taxpayers with climate change alarmism). The new Church of Alarmism is out to burn heretics at the stake.

 

Like all denier claims, that's a fantasy. Even if no models existed, AGW would still proven just by the directly observable physical evidence.

Of course, everything the deniers claim now is simply a fantasy. For decades running, they've gotten everything totally wrong, which is why the world ignores them now. And rather than blame their own ineptitude at science, the deniers blame a vastsecretglobalconspiracy. Go fig.

 

and as I have asked you repeatedly in here, what is your observable physical evidence? Post it dude/dudette.

 

So you think computer models are fact and observation that does not march the hysterical alarmism is conspiracy? Go figure.

 

The model predictions have been excellent, and deniers look increasing desperate by pretending otherwise.

Why this denier hysteria? Their political fortunes keep sliding, with no end in sight. They're now losing 70-16, with the trend not going their way.

http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2015-fall-climate-belief.pdf

Deniers reached their zenith after they faked the ClimateGate pseudoscandal and got their conservative MSM buddies to play along. But the evidence kept piling up against them, even their pet media abandoned them, every other conservative party in the world jumped ship, and now even the Republican Party is starting to back away. It's not looking good for them. And the scientists are on their guard against the sleaze and lies now, so deniers can't get away with fabricating some new fake scandal.

By the way, deniers should avoid WUWT buzzwords like "alarmist". They should always want to hide their affiliation with WUWT or any other cult websites, being that's the only way to maintain their charade of independence.

 

Evidently you have no clue what excellent is. Curve fitting the past and not being able to predict the future must serve as excellence for you. You also prove you have no clue what ClimateGate represents or what is in the leaked emails but don't worry, you resort to politics as usual instead of science.

 

Dr Indur Goklany, who has previously represented the United States on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere “is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally”.

Carbon Dioxide the good news.

 

It's not real. And if it is, who cares

 

There are times when that is appropriate. Peer-review is a very low bar; a lot of junk gets past peer-review. So if someone has an allegedly scientific advance that he can't even get past peer-review, there is a very high probability that it's junk, and a waste of time to read. This is the second such "discovery" that David Evans has made in the past few years that hasn't been able to surmount that molehill of an obstacle.

All you've got is one guy blogging from his basement. Compare that against 10,000 climate scientists, and it's no contest.

And then, of course, there is the rather important matter that David Evans isn't even saying what you claim that he's saying. David Evans, unlike yourself, does not deny that the globe is warming. He only disputes the cause.

 

Isn't it interesting that you can just dismiss new ideas because of fealty to authority?

 

That's because in broadcast news, unlike in life generally, there is an absolute obligation to tell the truth. (Faux Snooze excepted, of course.)

Credibility is a journalist's only currency. If he loses that, he's worthless as an employee.

 

Is that why broadcast news has had to fire some of their biggest names?

 

I didn't. I actually have read David Evans' stuff, and found absolutely nothing there that's convincing, or even interesting. I've read so much of his junk that I'm now convinced he's not worth my time to read any more.

Let me know if he manages to crawl past peer-review. Until then, it's not worth discussing.

 

there you go with that peer review crap again. don't you have anything else? How many times have i told you I give two hoots about a good ole boys club who read each others work? It means squat. And your personal like dislike is up there right with what I just stated. /so?

 

If that is truly your view, there is probably nothing I can say that might dissuade you. So I will not try.

Again, there is no attempt to refute what the man says; merely an attempt to stultify him.

I really do not make my decisions by piling up rows of "experts," and seeing which row is larger.

According to UCAR, the Earth's temperature (on average) has increased by 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012: https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

But anthropogenic global warming (AGW)--i.e. human-caused global warming--is another matter entirely.

I think some people secretly wish that humans just did not exist, so that the Earth could (supposedly) remain in a pristine state...

 

I think this is known as question-begging, or a circular argument. (The fancy, Latin name for it is the petitio principii fallacy.)

Essentially, you have begun with your conclusion as a part of your premise: i.e. that AGW is "the truth"; so it must not be disputed by broadcasters...

 

Yep, you buck the political consensus and this is what happens.

France’s top weatherman says he was placed 'on leave' for stance on climate change

 

Aside from the (rather obvious) attempt at mockery--most fourth-graders would be proud of you, in this regard--there is this important point:

The left really wants to silence those with whom it disagrees--whether it is Fox News or those who do not march in lockstep with AGW theorists.

It is not content to merely access a different source (e.g. CNN or MSNBC, as concerning 24/7 news channels). Oh, no. It wishes, instead, to silence those with whom it disagrees.

I think that is what is known as an authoritarian mindset...

 

We know climate change happens. We know it's been the leading or contributing cause in many extinctions throughout the history of the Earth. We know that climate on the Earth is changing although our ability to sample effectively has only just begun in the last century. But, we also know enough about the effects of pollution on the environment to understand that there's no way it exists there without having a contributory effect. It's the level of that effect that people are debating about most often, even if they don't realize it.

I wish Al Gore had never made his movie. He's made more climate change deniers than any other person or thing simply because of who he is politically. And I don't expect this country to put science above politics.

 

Good ole Kerry came out and said anyone that does not believe the political consensus on climate change shouldn't hold office.

 

Curve fitting is mathturbation. The real climate scientists know that and thus never use it. Deniers, OTOH, depend on curve-fitting almost exclusively in their pseudoscience. Look at Dale Evans and his Fourier Analysis, which is a fancy way of saying curve fitting. And if you were even vaguely familiar with the actual science, you would have known that.

Yep, more cult fables, a hallmark of the bitter 16%.

It seems to represent some kind of last desperate myth that you're pinning your hopes on. Good luck.

The denier-friendly government in Canada just get voted out in a landslide. PM Harper had pretty much banned science in Canada, with all the scientists being fired or muzzled and the data tossed in the dumpster. Obviously, that sort of proud Stalinism made him a big hit with deniers, who hold the motto "If you control the data, nature will be forced to follow your edicts."

That follows shortly after the denier PM Abbot in Australia got replaced. While the new PM is still conservative, he's definitely not a denier.

So, denier political fortunes continue to decline across the globe. Their cult was always entirely based on politics instead of science, and now they've failed at the politics, so that's pretty much it for their cult.

 

Pretty much shows how clueless you are on this.

 

I've asked before and gotten no response, but what is it that Fox news lies about? The libs bring that point up all the time and then I ask for an example and crickets. So they merely lie.

- - - Updated - - -

so your point is what? You don't like deniers because there are too many of them?

 

Nor is there any attempt on your part to support what the man says, other that hit-and-run link posting. Have you actually read what he's written? Where and how does it "refute", in any way, the scientific consensus?

Zero argument brings zero reply.

Your problem is you make decisions about science by piling up rows of right-wing idealogues. Your problem is that you're so wedded to the politics that you've completely lost sight of the data.

So, when you said earlier that you hadn't noticed any global warming in your lifetime -- even though you now admit that warming has actually taken place during your lifetime -- were you just trying to fool the ignorant? Or were you trying to fool yourself?

Only if you're willing to ignore the data.



... which, I'm predicting, you will be most happy to do.

 

Again, you rely upon "the scientific consensus," as if we could just see what a majority of all scientists say, in order to determine the truth. (At one time, the "scientific consensus" was that the Earth is flat.)

Not at all.

I simply reject the leftist interpretation of that data (based upon "models").

The increase of 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit goes back to 1880--far before my lifetime began--and, in any case, would certainly not be noticeable to me.