Per my ex: Global warming is a hoax and a money making scam

You can't go swimming in a mountain and fashionable mountainwear is rarely that revealing

 

I've found plenty of it, with hardly any effort:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-021-05626-x
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.970
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-00143-w
Etc.

That's false.

There is no doubt that the earth has warmed substantially, returning to more normal Holocene temperatures, due to the increase in solar activity since the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. That is not evidence that the warming was principally caused by CO2 rather than the sun.

No credible evidence to that effect has been presented. I, too, have looked for peer-reviewed research that supports the anti-fossil-fuel narrative, and everywhere I see faulty methodology, invalid inferences, cherry picking, and disingenuous mistreatment of contrary data. Not one single paper has made the case with genuine, airtight logic, whereas those offering dissenting analyses are vilified, attacked, subjected to severe professional and social sanctions, etc. That tells me something.

As long as you dismiss the influence of the sun by measuring it incorrectly to produce that result.

 

That claim is false. I have identified the relevant facts, and you have not refuted any of them.

 

Yeah but this stuff about humans (bad humans!) are causing climate change is being drilled into our heads even before kindergarten. And climate change can mean getting warmer or getting colder. You can't win if you say the climate's not changing. No wonder nobody will challenge it publicly. Or if they do they'll be banned from the speaker's circuit.

 

I don't know things like recycling are just for feel goods. Sure it's going cool the planert. Or warm the planet depending on your needs. In my neighborhood they have big carbon belching trucks come a round to pick up just your recyclables. What sense does that make?

 

There are at least two companies bidding to bid offshore power generating windmills of the Jersey cost approximately 15 miles out to sea. They each just signed a deal with several construction UNIONS whose members will be utilized in constructing and positioning these turbines and wiring them up for electricity generation. They say they will create thousands of good paying UNION jobs.

 

You've posted your opinions, and made claims about what you call facts, and I have refuted them. Not once have you shared your sources for those claims and opinions.

Still waiting for you to pony up. Please don't reply with another snark unless it includes a link or two.

 

No they aren't. YOUR OWN SOURCE -- which you evidently did not bother reading -- shows that the rate of increase was highest ~10-15 years ago, and has dropped off over the last decade.

That is a disingenuous strawman fallacy you have concocted as an exercise in propaganda. Probably the most common false imputation by anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandists is the claim that those who question the CO2-controls-temperature nonscience are saying that, "all the scientists are lying," or "every scientist in the world is in on a big conspiracy," or "all the science is wrong," or "every research paper is fraudulent," etc., etc. Of course they are aware that no such claim has been made or implied.

The 25-year period of the study is too short and the increase too small to justify the conclusion.

The claims in this document are based on a false and unsupported assumption that CO2 governs temperature.

So YOUR OWN SOURCE shows that sea level began to rise faster when solar activity peaked in the late 50s and early 60s, after having actually declined when CO2 was increasing rapidly in the 1940-1955 period.

As is often the case with climate scaremongers' claims of scientific support for their anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda, I don't have to provide any "sources" because YOUR OWN sources show that your claims are unsupported if not outright false.

 

In your opinion.

I have posted sources many times, in many threads. Usually these discussions take place in the environment and conservation forum, which I suggest you peruse.

Unlike you, I do not believe the mere inclusion of links constitutes an argument -- especially when those links do not support the claims, or even outright refute them.

 

Once again, you rebut my sources with your opinions, dismiss my solidly backed claims, and refuse to include so much as a single link to where you get your information on this topic.

Please do not reply until you can show me yours.

 

And still you refuse to share your sources.

Unless you are a climate scientist, you're getting your information from somewhere. Share, or don't reply. I'm not going on a scavenger hunt for your posts in other threads.

 

My ex used to talk about global warming, but it turned out that she was just getting colder!

 

??
Earth is warming.

Yes, you can't argue against that, because there is no scientific evidence counter to that.

Nobdoy is "banning" anyone. It's just that it's hard to get paid for propagating anti-science.

Why the HELL would anyone pay for that?

 

The "straws" thing you mentioned earlier has more to do with pollution, I think.

The amount of plastic in our oceans is not just disgusting - it is a serious problem for sea life.

The ocean fish you eat today has plastic in it, because we like to make things out of plastic and then through various channels it finds its way throughout our ecosystem.

Making things from plastic gives off nasty emissions.

Humans have plastic in them.

Plastic doesn't really ever "go away". It just gets broken into smaller pieces.

What you discard gets picked up by really disgusting diesel trucks. And, that's true whether recycleables are separated or not.

Perhaps it's a different discussion, but we should be moving to different ways of powering vehicles.

 

The real cause of global warming: boomer generation women are all having hot flashes.

 

I used YOUR sources!

They also get their information from "somewhere."

I am not in the habit of providing sources for every fact I use because the point of my arguments is the logical implications of the facts, not the facts themselves. AFAIAC most of the facts I identify should be common knowledge among those who are interested in climate. If there is a specific fact I have referenced that you don't consider plausible or haven't heard of before, identify it, and I will provide a source.

I did not suggest that you go on a scavenger hunt, merely that you refrain from claiming I never provide sources until you have read a little more of what I have posted on the subject, or have asked me for sources for specific claims, and I have failed to provide them.

 

I did not claim that you never provide sources elsewhere on other issues, just that you refuse to share, here on this thread, the sources that make you so sure you're right and others are wrong.

Now please, put up or shut up: what sources do you have to back up your opinions on the topic of climate change? I am not going to read through web page after web page searching for your every word on the subject. Live up to your user name, ffs.

 

I've read hundreds of sources to obtain the information that informs my views on climate, maybe thousands. It's absurd to ask me to post them.

You could start here:

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/0...pers-nine-peer-reviewed-a-note-from-cohenite/

 

I've read a lot of articles and books about global warming, too. It's a complex issue, not easily understood. When I share a link, it's usually on one specific aspect of climate science. I do not understand why you made it so difficult to get any source information from you. Harder than pulling teeth, ffs.

 

Right. And there are lots of different kinds of empirical data, of widely diverse types and qualities, both direct and proxy, treated in various ways, and that's in addition to all the modeling. That is one reason I try wherever possible to resort to actual physical events as a gauge of the data's validity. For example, the anti-fossil-fuel side says the decline in arctic sea ice since 1980 is unprecedented, and cites historical data showing little variation in arctic sea ice for centuries until a few decades ago. But the Canadian research vessel St. Roch traversed the Northwest Passage in a single season in 1944, the first time in centuries that that had been possible. And it was not possible again until the 1980s. That actual physical event indicates the data showing little variation in arctic sea ice until the modern decline are invalid: cherry-picked, manipulated, or faked.

You never said what you wanted a source FOR. Just, "Post a source. It doesn't matter what it is a source for. I don't care about your arguments or logic. I can't be bothered responding if I don't see a url link to something, anything. Just provide some kind of source."

 

Okay, I read your link. For starters, it's nearly 15 years old, and a lot has been discovered and clarified since then.

The first thing that struct me was a contradiction in the first two paragraphs, where she said:

"The accusation of a lack of peer review (PR) by those who mount arguments against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is at the heart of the elitism, consensus and ad hominem approach used by many supporters of AGW.

It is a red herring. Science should be like the Law; transparent and universally accessible."

First, no one supports AGW, they support the solid, peer-reviewed science from the many disciplines that make up climate science. Secondly, it is a blatant contradiction to state that those demanding peer-reviewed scientific hypotheses are elitists, while concluding that science be transparent and accessible, since peer-review is the best method for making science transparent and accessible.

She complains about the "misrepresentation of temperature base periods" but she has done that herself. In an interview, she claimed that there had been recent cooling by starting with the extreme temperature peak of the 1998 El Niño event. She said that "there has been cooling if you take 1998 as your point of reference..."

The first of the ten papers she referenced no longer exists, perhaps because it has been OBE (Overcome by events) like new findings, and maybe it is no longer valid or relevant ... just guessing. Like, maybe overcome by the debunking of the many nonsensical refutations of Michael Mann's hockey stick meme, something Mann didn't explain very well. I'm going to change OBE to OBS, overcome by science.

Ditto the second link, page not found. She claims that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) is "a major obstacle to AGW." That is not so. Perhaps she was unaware at the time, but the MWP was not global, and mostly affected western and northern Europe.

https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

"... the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms."

The third reference is to a long ago debunked paper regarding tropical temperature trends and the models used to predict them. She's right about the nitpicking on that one, IMO.

A few others were "page not found" so I assume that they, too are OBS.

Worth noting: no few of her cited papers and the scientists behind them are sponsored by, or members of, biased conservative organizations like the Heartland Institute, which is largely funded by fossil fuel corporations including ExxonMobil. The Heartland Institute's Science and Environmental Policy Project is Fred Singer (listed in more than one paper), a known climate science denier/rejector who has been a paid consultant for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal.

Thanks for the link at long last, but I'm not at all convinced that your posts here are based on factual, peer-reviewed science. They seem to come mostly from biased, conservative, oil company shills and some otherwise very intelligent people who've been convinced by them. Apologies for being long-winded, but like I said, climate science is complex.

 

You're posting your personal dirty laundry on the internet?

Bad idea, just sayin'.

 

You're quoting something that I neither said nor intended. Pulling words off my keyboard.

We were discussing rising sea levels, starting with your rather cryptic remark in comment #26.

 

I'm not worried, we're all friends here.

 

And the anti-fossil-fuel narrative has only got weaker.

There is no contradiction there. You are just makin' $#!+ up.

Garbage. As we see in the popular media, almost no one who disseminates the anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda of AGW theory has any acquaintance with peer-reviewed climate science. Moreover, the AGW narrative is not climate science, it is politically based scaremongering that prioritizes policy activism over dispassionate investigation of the phenomena in question.

More garbage. The climategate emails proved that climate science peer review has been weaponized to suppress research and scientists whose findings call AGW into question. There are huge problems with the peer review system generally, which is why so much peer reviewed science is irreproducible garbage, especially in medicine, behavioral science, and climate-related fields.

Huh?? She gave that as an EXAMPLE of how cherry-picking the point of reference invalidates the analysis! Her point is perfectly valid and irrefutable: choosing the "pre-industrial" early 19th century as the base period for temperature comparisons implies that temperatures then were "normal," rather than what they actually were: the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years (which was not coincidentally also the 500-year period of minimum solar activity in the last 10,000 years).

Wrong. It's right here:

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf

Took me all of 30 seconds to find it. I think I begin to understand why you haven't been able to find any sources that dissent from the anti-fossil-fuel narrative...

Garbage. Lyin' Michael Mann invalidly commingled different types of data, removed proxy data that proved his graph was trash, and thus made the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age disappear while grossly exaggerating modern warming. The refutations of his stupid lies have been confirmed repeatedly.

That would describe Mann's hockey stick.

<sigh> Here:

http://faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/GlobalTempResc.pdf

It is indisputably so, which is why Lyin' Michael Mann and other AGW liars have done everything they could think of to get rid of it.

No, that's just more of the same fact-erasure effort Mann tried in the hockey stick graph. It was indisputably global:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=15.56289852571015,25.80380556269848&z=2

It was just -- like all global climate variations -- more pronounced in the northern hemisphere because the southern hemisphere is 90% ocean.

skepticalscience is all AGW bull$#!+, all the time, and one of the most consistently dishonest sites on the Net.

That is a bald falsehood.

And the 20th century had the highest sustained solar activity in several thousand years.

Another bald falsehood. The 20th century had the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years, as Usoskin 2010 determined:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41116-017-0006-9

Confirming Solanki et al., 2004:

https://www.mpg.de/research/sun-activity-high

Wrong again. It was attacked, but not "debunked."

<yawn> While I assume -- correctly, as it happens -- that you made no actual effort to find them.

Please identify which of the papers and scientists were sponsored by or members of HI, with suitable evidence therefor.

Climate science that dissents from the CO2-controls-temperature narrative is not climate science denial. It is genuine empirical science rather than political bull$#!+. Moreover, you have not demonstrated any link whatever between Singer and the papers Marohasy cited.

Again: if you doubt a particular fact that I cite, ask for a source for THAT FACT. Not just "sources."

That is anti-science trash with no basis in fact.

Indeed. And negotiating the anti-fossil-fuel scaremonger narrative that infests the field is obviously beyond some people's capacity for scientific reasoning.