Author Topic: Climate-Triggered NYC Disaster - New York on Ice, or Real (not faux) Climate Change  (Read 673 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5015
I know you don't like to address the arguments I actually make because those arguments can't be dismissed with tired alarmist propaganda that you endlessly spout. However, it is getting tedious. A discussion board is supposed to about discussion and ideas - not regurgitating the irrelevant talking points to keep the peanut gallery cheering.  Why don't you try demonstrating that are something more than an alarmist bot  by addressing the arguments I make rather than the ones you wish I would make.

say what! After relaying yet another pointed summation on your tired nattering... I did speak directly to your so-called "latest argument"... and you ignored it. Here, have another go (at ignoring it).
citation request to align with your statement/claim that, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response"... you know, a response to a problem you refuse to accept in the first place.
Note: I'm not even challenging your number - I'm most curious about the particulars: who/what arrived at it/based on what. (make sure to clarify your reference to, "rapidly")

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5015
We are being asked by the alarmists to undertake massive restrictions in our economic activity, based on, essentially, a wild guess. I am stating historical facts, that there has already been massive warming not caused by human activity that may well be continuing.

just who/what are your declared "alarmists"? In terms of your stated historical fact - BFD! What caused that past glacier melting (the warming)? Are you offering a correlation between the causal ties to that long past historical warming and the relatively recent warming (forward from the beginning of the 'Industrial Age' to present)? If so, citation request - sure you can!

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
say what! After relaying yet another pointed summation on your tired nattering.
Your "summation" had absolutely nothing to do with my arguments (i.e. I have never argued that CO2 was not a significant factor in the observed warming. I have even said that even though I think the evidence is enough to justify CO2 reductions if and only if there a cost effective options).

https://www.coastalatlas.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/gkss_berichte_2010/gkss_2010_9_.pdf

To the question:
Quote
22. How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?
Only 80% answered yes. The rest were either neutral or answered no.

The 97% number is a meaningless deception based on a question that no one asked.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2018, 08:24:51 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8560
Your "summation" had absolutely nothing to do with my arguments (i.e. I have never argued that CO2 was not a significant factor in the observed warming. I have even said that even though I think the evidence is enough to justify CO2 reductions if and only if there a cost effective options).

https://www.coastalatlas.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/gkss_berichte_2010/gkss_2010_9_.pdf

To the question:Only 80% answered yes. The rest were either neutral or answered no.

The 97% number is a meaningless deception based on a question that no one asked.

97% and 80% are "meaningless" to you? Give it up buddy, I doubt anybody takes you too seriously. 
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5015
(i.e. I have never argued that CO2 was not a significant factor in the observed warming. I have even said that even though I think the evidence is enough to justify CO2 reductions if and only if there a cost effective options).

I will take back calling this reply of yours, 'weasel words', if... if, you simply rephrase and state that you agree with the following:

Quote
I, member TimG, categorically and unequivocally accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to global warming/climate change.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5015
https://www.coastalatlas.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/gkss_berichte_2010/gkss_2010_9_.pdf

To the question:Only 80% answered yes. The rest were either neutral or answered no.
Quote
22. How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?

before I actually speak to your reference: c'mon man... "only" 80%? Only?  ;D Since when does 80% warrant an "only"?

- there does appear to be a tad liberty taken here: your original statement/claim was that, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response". Notwithstanding your quoted 'question 22' could have... should have... been tailored more precisely, your original stated interpretation of that question is open to several interpretations itself.

- in any case, your link is to an unsecured website, but I didn't need to open it as the question itself is well recognized and associates with a single survey; the 2008 survey (published in 2010) by authors Bray & von Storch... the single survey that had 370 respondents (an approximate 18% response rate).
 

- that's quite the broad-based leverage you're attempting to make off a single survey with a smallish response rate - yes? "Only 80%... only!"

- as for the scientific consensus itself... whether you accept the oft quoted 97% or, alternatively, >90%, surely you're not going to offer up another "only" here in terms of the scientific consensus on the (principal) causal tie to global warming - yes? What's your consensus understanding; your preferred number/range... based on what?

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2922
What happened to Tim’s old position that he believes global warming is caused by human activities but that it’s just too expensive to do anything about it?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
- as for the scientific consensus itself... whether you accept the oft quoted 97% or, alternatively, >90%, surely you're not going to offer up another "only" here in terms of the scientific consensus on the (principal) causal tie to global warming - yes? What's your consensus understanding; your preferred number/range... based on what?
20% of scientists saying that they do not believe that climate change is a serious threat is a fairly significant result. 20% is not a small collection of cranks;  it is a significant minority and it is ridiculous to suggest that policy makers should not hear what they have to say. The only way that 20% could exist is if the uncertainties inherent in the science are much greater than what alarmists claim. The 97% is deceptive propaganda because it is used to deny these uncertainties and suppress minority voices. This is not only wrong in principle but it has also destroyed any chance of a sensible debate. For example, I periodically try to get people to learn about the minority position and I am greeted with screams of "denier" and "oil company shill". It is pathetic.

As for methodological problems: every study of scientific opinion I have seen has methodological issues. This one is better than most. But the most important point is it actually attempts to find out what scientists think with a wide range of questions. "studies" that only look at a single question are propaganda exercises.

Lastly, the politics surrounding climate change has made the field extremely hostile for any career academic that dissents from the party line. Judy Curry retired from her tenured position because she got tired of the abuse she received for advancing opinions which she felt were justified given the state of the scientific knowledge. She did not have to retire - she could have simply ignored the scientific evidence as she saw it and continued on but her scientific integrity would not allow her to do that. But not every scientist has the options that Curry did and instead has to leave the field entirely or simply refuse to explore research that might create conflict. The result is a serious problem with group think which means all of the so called "truths" we have been told may actually be complete BS. Respectfully listening to minority scientific opinions is the only way to prevent group think from fooling us even if the minority opinion is not enough to alter the broad conclusions.
Dumb Dumb x 3 View List

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9024
We are being asked by the alarmists to undertake massive restrictions in our economic activity, based on, essentially, a wild guess. 


Horse ****.

1. The Greenhouse Effect is real
2. Greenhouse gases are being produced by humans at an accelerated rate
3. Temperature goes up correlated to the amount of new gases being added

No one would call this a "wild guess"
Agree Agree x 4 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
20% of scientists saying that they do not believe that climate change is a serious threat is a fairly significant result.

Except the survey you reference doesn't come anywhere close to that stupid allegation. That is the problem of taking a survey result, and putting your own frigen words to it to justify your position. Go back and restate your "opinion" is based on personal desires, and nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the survey you reference.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Except the survey you reference doesn't come anywhere close to that stupid allegation.
It is close to a direct quote from the survey. That you seem to have missed the point the exact question *matters* when evaluating these kinds of "appeals to authority". The 97% nonsense that gets tossed around is pure propaganda that alarmists only use because they cherry picked questions that gave them the answer they liked. It is not a useful starting point for any discussion. OTOH, the survey I referenced is very broad and covers a lot of ground. If you see other questions that you feel are more meaningful from a policy perspective then say what they are. Note that we don't really care about how many scientists think CO2 is a GHG or that humans are waning the planet. Policy related questions are things like "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?".
« Last Edit: June 18, 2018, 12:46:40 pm by TimG »

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
It is close to a direct quote from the survey.

No, it is not. There is a lot of daylight between serious and a threat to humanity.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8560
It is close to a direct quote from the survey. That you seem to have missed the point the exact question *matters* when evaluating these kinds of "appeals to authority". The 97% nonsense that gets tossed around is pure propaganda that alarmists only use because they cherry picked questions that gave them the answer they liked. It is not a useful starting point for any discussion. OTOH, the survey I referenced is very broad and covers a lot of ground. If you see other questions that you feel are more meaningful from a policy perspective then say what they are. Note that we don't really care about how many scientists think CO2 is a GHG or that humans are waning the planet. Policy related questions are things like "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?".

So you're saying that NASA is simply an alarmist outfit that simply cherry picks questions to get the results they want. Do you think they faked the moon landing too? How 'bout the shape of the earth?
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8560
It is close to a direct quote from the survey. That you seem to have missed the point the exact question *matters* when evaluating these kinds of "appeals to authority". The 97% nonsense that gets tossed around is pure propaganda that alarmists only use because they cherry picked questions that gave them the answer they liked. It is not a useful starting point for any discussion. OTOH, the survey I referenced is very broad and covers a lot of ground. If you see other questions that you feel are more meaningful from a policy perspective then say what they are. Note that we don't really care about how many scientists think CO2 is a GHG or that humans are waning the planet. Policy related questions are things like "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?".

Even if you don't want to read the fine print, the opening picture should tell you something.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/impact-climate-change-health-is-major-threat-21st-century

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
« Last Edit: June 18, 2018, 02:05:21 pm by TimG »