Climate change

[baraka]

Yo, shite for brains!

 

Once again, if you are going to bother to post your silly little screeds, please take the time and effort to ensure that there aren't already FAQ pages dubunking your latest discovery. I don't expect you to post anything intelligent, but stupid plus lazy is a particularly unflattering combination.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-retirees-letter2.html

 

I particularly like the following line:

 

"It's purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science."

 

These guys can put men on the moon and bring them back safely but know nothing of mathematics, engeneering, modeling, chemistry, physics, space the whole shibang and cant model the acquired data on climate ? Wow ! That'a quite a statement !

[hrothgar]

These guys can put men on the moon and bring them back safely but know nothing of mathematics, engeneering, modeling, chemistry, physics, space the whole shibang and cant model the acquired data on climate ? Wow ! That'a quite a statement !

 

Comment 1:

 

NASA employees lots of people with lots of different areas of expertise. In fact, NASA actually employees a decent number of individuals whose job it is collect data about the climate and model the results there of. Guess what? They have already addressed the questions raised "The Right Stuff" report and reached completely different conclusions.

 

Comment 2:

 

Given a large group of people, I can find a small minority willing to advocate most any piece of bullshit.

 

For example, Jack Parsons was a principle founder of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He was a brilliant scientist and responsible for an enormous number of technical breakthroughs regarding rocket fuels. He was also batshit crazy and seriously involved in thelemic occultism.

 

A lot of NASA employees and astronauts come out of the military. A bunch more come out of defense contractors.

I don't find it at all surprising that bunch of them are right wings loonies...

[baraka]

Comment 1:

 

NASA employees lots of people with lots of different areas of expertise. In fact, NASA actually employees a decent number of individuals whose job it is collect data about the climate and model the results there of. Guess what? They have already addressed the questions raised "The Right Stuff" report and reached completely different conclusions.

 

Comment 2:

 

Given a large group of people, I can find a small minority willing to advocate most any piece of bullshit.

 

For example, Jack Parsons was a principle founder of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He was a brilliant scientist and responsible for an enormous number of technical breakthroughs regarding rocket fuels. He was also batshit crazy and seriously involved in thelemic occultism.

 

A lot of NASA employees and astronauts come out of the military. A bunch more come out of defense contractors.

I don't find it at all surprising that bunch of them are right wings loonies...

 

It's still all propaganda BS.

 

On one hand we have a group of multi-disciplinary retired scientists who put men on the moon and returned them safely to earth. This group is retired and therefore has no boss to answer to, is not waiting for any grant money and do it voluntarily on their own time, and yet they come forward with a climate model that fits the climate data.

 

On the other hand we have a corrupt IPCC, made up of corrupt political appointees, with a corrupt political agenda, fudging the climate data to fit their politically corrupt climate model, skipping the whole scientific process in doing so. And yet, despite all the data fudging, their model is way off !

 

I’m left to wonder ! Who should I trust ?

 

For your enjoyment, a climatologist who’s man enough to say he does not know…

 

 

And this one who trashes the corrupt IPCC methods big time…

 

[hrothgar]

It's still all propaganda BS.

 

On one hand we have a group of multi-disciplinary retired scientists who put men on the moon and returned them safely to earth. This group is retired and therefore has no boss to answer to, is not waiting for any grant money and do it voluntarily on their own time, and yet they come forward with a climate model that fits the climate data.

 

On the other hand we have a corrupt IPCC, made up of corrupt political appointees, with a corrupt political agenda, fudging the climate data to fit their politically corrupt climate model, skipping the whole scientific process in doing so. And yet, despite all the data fudging, their model is way off !

 

I’m left to wonder ! Who should I trust ?

 

Baraka,

 

Have you noticed how I keep referring to you as "stupid" or an "idiot"? This posting is a classic example why.

 

Let's count the number of ways that your posting is wrong:

 

To start with the Right Right Climate group is sponsored by H. Leighton Steward. In case you don't know who he is, he is a director at EOG Resources (formerly known as Enron Oil and Gas) and President and Chairman of "Plants need C02".

 

On January 12th 2015 Steward appeared on a Heartland Institute podcast where explained that he was financially supporting "The Right Climate Stuff" and described the group's "findings".

 

Next, if you bother to look over the FAQ that I posted, it shows all the various mistakes that The Right Stuff Climate has made.

 

Each post that you make does nothing more than demonstrate that you are too stupid and lazy to be trusted on this topic.

 

You try to portray the Right Stuff Climate as principled independent researchers, when a simple google search shows that they are sponsored by an oil industry executive. Your attempts at argument are laughable, at best.

 

If you can't be bothered to do even a modicum of research on this subject, why should we care about your opinions?

[baraka]

Baraka,

 

Have you noticed how I keep referring to you as "stupid" or an "idiot"? This posting is a classic example why.

 

Let's count the number of ways that your posting is wrong:

 

To start with the Right Right Climate group is sponsored by H. Leighton Steward. In case you don't know who he is, he is a director at EOG Resources (formerly known as Enron Oil and Gas) and President and Chairman of "Plants need C02".

 

On January 12th 2015 Steward appeared on a Heartland Institute podcast where explained that he was financially supporting "The Right Climate Stuff" and described the group's "findings".

 

Next, if you bother to look over the FAQ that I posted, it shows all the various mistakes that The Right Stuff Climate has made.

 

Each post that you demonstrates that you are too stupid and lazy to be trusted on this topic.

 

You try to portray the Right Stuff Climate as principled independent researchers, when a simple google search shows that they are sponsored by an oil industry executive. Your attempts at argument are laughable, at best.

 

If you can be bothered to do even a modicum of research on this subject, why should we care about your opinions?

 

Does that give the right to the IPCC to be even more stupid ?

 

NASA people have bosses who have bosses who have bosses. They can't speak publicly. They can't work on something else then what they were assingned to. Even if they work on something else at home on their own free time, they will never be aloud to speak out about it. And if a NASA guy is told to fudge the data then he will fudge the data. So maybe, just maybe, that's why you dont here about them.

 

Furthermore, it's not because a group is being payed to work on something that the results have to be in their favor. Those guys are retired with a pension. What's their motive to come to that conclusion if it's not true. Money ? If that's the case then the IPCC has a lot more blood on their hands.

 

You see, every group on each side of the issue is being payed. So I'll always choose the opposing side of the government.

[hrothgar]

 

You see, every group on each side of the issue is being payed. So I'll always choose the opposing side of the government.

 

If your opinion is 100% preordained, what information do you provide to a discussion?

You are entirely predictable and entirely uninteresting.

 

You're just a random braying asshole who fancies himself clever, but demonstrates himself a fool with every posting that he makes.

[hrothgar]

 

You see, every group on each side of the issue is being payed. So I'll always choose the opposing side of the government.

 

So, you have pretty much announced that you are a conspiracy theorist who will discount any information that doesn't correspond to your idiosyncratic world view.

 

What, pray tell, are you hoping to accomplish by posting here?

 

Its not like there is any chance that you're going to convert anyone to your world view?

 

Your posts are universally mocked. Al-U-Card (our resident 9/11 truther) is the only one who agrees with you on anything and even he's not dumb enough to say that he will ignore any information that doesn't support his own biases. (Don't get me wrong, he does. But he's not stupid enough to admit it)

[cherdano]

You see, every group on each side of the issue is being payed. So I'll always choose the opposing side of the government.

LOL

[baraka]

And here’s a good trash of the IPCC. She’s not even a scientist, but a journalist doing a good journalistic job…

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pruTqY_JLcg

 

 

This one by an aviation engineer trashing the IPCC…

 

[Al_U_Card]

Could Mann-made CAGW need a new hockey stick for Christmas?

 

From Elbert et al 2015, lump of coal for Mikey?

 

 

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V18/dec/Elbertetal2015b.jpg

[1eyedjack]

I wanted to share this map. Don't read anything special into it. I just thought it was pretty impressive.

 

I tried to embed the picture into the post itself without success, so sorry, you will have to click on the link to see it - or not as the case may be:

 

http://kvisit.com/SxtXWAw

[helene_t]

I always thought climate changes were caused by homosexuality but it appears that the Syrian refugees are to blame:

 

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/08/gays-are-off-the-hook-ukip-candidate-blames-refugees-for-latest-floods/

[Al_U_Card]

I always thought climate changes were caused by homosexuality but it appears that the Syrian refugees are to blame:

 

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/08/gays-are-off-the-hook-ukip-candidate-blames-refugees-for-latest-floods/

Sometimes by yo-yos according to the local Imams back in the last real drought they had in the 50's... here it is just yo-yos that blame it on CO2

[Zelandakh]

From Elbert et al 2015

I could not find the paper quickly so you need to provide a link. You should know that a graph of this type is meaningless without showing where the numbers come from. No doubt there is a reason why the numbers finish in 2000 and the trend line stops ~1990. No doubt there are also good reasons why the shape is quite different from the more commonly given sequences. That you have not provided commentary suggests quite strongly that you are being misleading again.

[Daniel1960]

Could Mann-made CAGW need a new hockey stick for Christmas?

 

From Elbert et al 2015, lump of coal for Mikey?

 

 

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V18/dec/Elbertetal2015b.jpg

 

Please tell me you have not chosen the graph for Lago Plomo as your evidence.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272199523_A_600_years_warm-season_temperature_record_from_varved_sediments_of_Lago_Plomo_Northern_Patagonia_Chile_%2847S%29

[PassedOut]

Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal

 

In both cases, the professors discussed ways to obscure the funding for the reports, at the request of the fake companies. In Happers case, the CO2 Coalition which was to receive the fee suggested he reach out to a secretive funding channel called Donors Trust, in response to a request from the fake Greenpeace entity to keep the source of funds secret. Not disclosing funding in this way is not unlawful under US law.

 

Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like, he wrote.

 

He suggested an alternative process whereby the article could be passed around handpicked reviewers. Purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review, he said. I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.

Those damnable purists...

:P

[Zelandakh]

Please tell me you have not chosen the graph for Lago Plomo as your evidence.

Thanks Daniel. Now I can see where AIU got his evidence.

[PassedOut]

Good news! 196 countries approve historic climate agreement

 

Officials acknowledged that the compromise accord is insufficient, by itself, to prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees C [3.6 degrees F] above pre-industrial averages, an increase that many scientists believe is the maximum amount of warming the planet can sustain without massive disruptions in natural ecosystems. But the treaty is structured to allow nations to adopt more ambitious cuts in emissions as new technology becomes available.

Nevertheless, it's a good start for sure.

[y66]

Some highlights from recent NYT news reports:

 

Representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark deal on Saturday that will commit almost every country to lowering planet-warming carbon emissions. It was six years in the making.

 

The tough task of delivering on those promises now begins, but scientists are optimistic because of the cooperative tone of the negotiations.

 

Seven concrete measures have been agreed to. And here’s what they mean for the planet, businesses and politics.

[y66]

Adam Vaughn's take at the Guardian:

 

Dear BBO Water Cooler friends,

 

I've just returned from Paris, where exhausted delegates from 195 countries agreed on the first ever universal deal on climate change.

 

There was no end of superlatives for the Paris Agreement. It would be a turning point in human history, transformative, momentous, historical, according to François Hollande, Ban Ki-moon, Al Gore and the many other dignitaries in the French capital.

 

This deal would be a game-changer and redefine future economic development, Jim Yong Kim, the World Bank president, told my colleague Fiona Harvey.

 

The atmosphere at COP21, where the deal was struck after several sleepless days and last minute haggling over a verb in the 31-page text, was unprecedented in two decades of climate talks, according to veterans of the negotiations.

 

When Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister and president of the talks, announced the deal's adoption and brought down his leaf-shaped gavel, the halls of the summit erupted with applause. UN and French officials laughed, hugged, held hands aloft on stage and gave thumbs-up to the crowd. Even journalists clapped.

 

Not everyone thinks the deal goes far enough, and the carbon curbs it's linked to are entirely voluntary. But, as Barack Obama put it, the Paris Agreement is the "best chance" we have of stopping dangerous global warming.

 

Adam Vaughan

Editor, theguardian.com/environment

 

Reading list:

 

How the deal was done

The deal at a glance

Countries signal fossil fuel phase-out

The Guardian view on the deal

[billw55]

I still believe that said "best chance" won't be enough. Adaptation will necessary whether we like it or not.

[PassedOut]

I still believe that said "best chance" won't be enough. Adaptation will necessary whether we like it or not.

I'm sure you are right. It remains to be seen how much, and how troublesome, it will be.

[kenberg]

There are an enormous number of thing where I would never be able to hold my own in a discussion. Quantum physics. The poetry of Ezra Pound. Anything from the Middle Ages. And, of course, climate science, I expect I share these failings with many others.

 

But at some point we make decisions.

 

This Paris agreement is one such point.

 

I know that there are times when 195 people, or countries, are wrong and the one dissenter is right. But, to borrow a bit from Damon Runyon, that's not where I place my bet.. We are now signed on, and I strongly suggest we follow through.

[Al_U_Card]

The last minute was spent changing the words "shall" to the words "should" regarding targets, compliance and contributions. The US insisted, the IPCC changed them "accidentally" so Kerry et al actually read the final draft before it was agreed to...even James Hansen calls it bullshit.....

[PassedOut]

...even James Hansen calls it bullshit.....

Understandably, he thinks it's much too weak, but it was the best deal possible at this time.