Another closed thread because of politics @Egon

[turnkey4099]

As if Wikipedia is the clearing house for factual information...hardly...! (don't shoot the messenger because you disagree with the message)

In the case of 'Ddaily Mail" it is a source used by denialists. That pins it as "unreliable"

15 or 20 years ago, the denialists at least had a bit of something to stand on. Not anymore, the evidence is not in question.

Another indication of Climate Change. I saw a skein of Canada Geese flying NORTH yesterday. That normally wouldn't have been seen for at least another month.

 

[turnkey4099]

You act as if you think there are folks that believe there are no changes to climate or seasonal shifts taking place...
Have you done any actual research into possible causes other than being told and blindly believing that greenhouse gasses are solely responsible?

IMO the very first sign that an entity is not being 100% honest is when there is absolute definitive proof that numbers have been fudged and consensus percentages have been misconstrued or outright lied about.

Nobody has said that greenhouse gases are the SOLE cause. Strawmen anyone?

 

[/pine]

What's wrong with this picture is that there have been numerous studies on the ocean's ability to moderate the climate and absorb all the crud humans dump into it. Not just solids and liquids, but carbon dioxide as well. It used to be said the solution to pollution is dilution. That is no longer the case.

See what I mean?...any mention of climate change and the oceans automatically turns to pollution and how GHG may be effecting them...

I hate pollution as much as anyone...IMO, unnatural disasters are inexcusable...the devastation to both wildlife and habitats by oil spills is pure horror...but in the same respect there are places on the sea floor where oil freely vents into the ocean...IMO, they need to do much more research on thermal and volcanic vents that we don't even know about yet because there is so much of the ocean floor that has not been thoroughly explored for such activity...

The majority of all those studies you mentioned are and were solely for the purpose of proving the GHG theory...you said it yourself...

El Ninos have only been taken seriously as a climate indicator for about 20 years...they really don't even fully know what causes the phenomenon just the apparent early symptoms...Yet historical records indicate that for thousands of years S.A. fishermen have been able to predict the phenomenon and expect to catch fish in June that they normally don't see until Dec...
...Torrential rains would turn deserts into inland lakes etc...tree ring and other sciences back up this information but does not necessarily mesh with their co2 etc. theories so it is rarely mentioned and kept under the rug...

 

[turnkey4099]

The way I see it most of these global warming threads mix a lot of issues.

Is climate change happening? Of course it is. What the debate should be is the impact. Like everything else there will be both positives and negatives.

2. Is human activity responsible and to what degree? Personally I think we influence our climate but it is not solely caused by our use of fossil fuels. So how much of an impact we have and which activities have the greatest impact can also be debated.

3. What can we do, if anything, to alter or stop climate change? How does taxing the people of the US and sending that money around the world stop, slow, or reverse climate change?

2. No, we are not the sole cause.

3. IMO we cannot reverse what damage we have already caused. At most we could hold our input to the current leverl. Realistically, we can't even do that without wrecking the world economy.

 

[sseelhoff]

In the case of 'Ddaily Mail" it is a source used by denialists. That pins it as "unreliable"

15 or 20 years ago, the denialists at least had a bit of something to stand on. Not anymore, the evidence is not in question.

Another indication of Climate Change. I saw a skein of Canada Geese flying NORTH yesterday. That normally wouldn't have been seen for at least another month.

LOL.

Disagree with the conclusions, therefore it is a disreputable source. Who's the denialist?

The Mann Hockey Stick trial is about to be dismissed because they (Warm Mongers) refused to produce the data.

Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

But it gets worse for the litigious Penn State professor. Close behind Dr Ball is celebrated writer Mark Steyn. Steyn also defends himself against another one of Mann’s SLAPP suits – this time in Washington DC. Steyn boldly claims Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Esteemed American climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae legal brief exposing Mann. The world can now see that his six-year legal gambit to silence his most effective critics and chill scientific debate has spectacularly backfired.

Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael 'hockey stick' Mann | Principia Scientific International

The scientific method is about review and replication, not hiding data from scrutiny.

 

[turnkey4099]

LOL.

Disagree with the conclusions, therefore it is a disreputable source. Who's the denialist?

The Mann Hockey Stick trial is about to be dismissed because they (Warm Mongers) refused to produce the data.





Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael 'hockey stick' Mann | Principia Scientific International

The scientific method is about review and replication, not hiding data from scrutiny.

The "Hockey Stick" is old news. It was pretty accurate for its time. Science has moved on by about 20 years. Keep up.

 

[/pine]

Nobody has said that greenhouse gases are the SOLE cause. Strawmen anyone?

OH please...that is nothing but "grasping at straws"

As far as your "evidence" statement...you are extremely misinformed (or delirious) ask any lawyer or paralegal about "tampered with evidence" and how well it holds up against any jurist that can think for them self...geeze!

And FYI...the 'DailyMail' has as much credibility as most of the AGW zealot rags out there...shooting the messenger has been a go to action by left for ever...all they know how to do is demonize anything they see as a threat to their agenda...

 

[sseelhoff]

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

 

[sseelhoff]

The "Hockey Stick" is old news. It was pretty accurate for its time. Science has moved on by about 20 years. Keep up.

LOL. It forms a large basis for the "science" of climate change.

Denialist.

 

[Egon]

I answered it aboui 3 posts ago and others have also.

No; the question was not answered. Formation of ice was but not the question.