Visit our Popular Forums

Dieseldude · 02-03-2022, 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

Sarcasm aside, you've made a great case [with which I agree], for taking great care, with the proposed solutions to ACC.
Obviously, your valid argument has nothing to do with the fact of climate change, it's causes, nor it's likely effects.

Dieseldude, on the other hand, is merely indulging in a childish rant.

True GM, trains, planes, and automobiles have little to do with climate variation. The answer to that question lies in solar variation. And there is absolutely not a thing we can do about it but adapt to the effects. Even if CO2 production were the cause, it would take hundreds of years to see results of abatement due to thermal inertia of the sea. Dismissing your challenger as "childish" only discredits yourself. I have already posted the evidence of false predictions by climate zealots in the past. And like any dedicated climate cultist, you refuse to acknowledge.

Bycrick · 02-03-2022, 08:19

Endless nit-picking from someone who can’t argue the point.

Take all the college students and see how many loaves of bread you get at the end of the day. Examining their navels and producing studies and papers doesn’t feed or clothe anybody. There’s a difference between college students as a group and education in the abstract. When they get out of school and finally have to do something "productive" to pay off their student loans, then we will find out how good their education was.

You should study the science of statistics sometime. One of the famous stories was the survey in 1936, a "random sample" of voters. It determined overwhelmingly that Roosevelt was going to lose. When he didn’t, the statisticians went back to their entrails to find out why. Because they made the survey by telephone in the depth of the depression; only the rich could afford a phone. "Random" but not "representative."

"Random" samples aren’t necessarily "representative." And when they try to make a survey "representative" they incorporate biases by definition and it’s no longer random.

"One doesn't vote on science." Ah, then consensus isn’t a good way to prove science. Funny; then maybe the 97% of scientist who supposedly agree that the world is ending aren’t right.

People don’t vote on science, but they vote on proposed solutions to real or imagined problems. So far, when it comes to voting for your proposed solutions, there isn’t a groundswell of support. That’s why you continually denigrate the voters.

**newhaul** · 02-03-2022, 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Roy Spencer plots the data.

1997 was the largest El Nino event in the pervious 50 years. It is called cherry picking.

So now a government employee is faking data? He just plotted the facts and yes biggest el Nino until the one in 2016.Your point ?

**newhaul** · 02-03-2022, 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Roy Spencer plots the data.

1997 was the largest El Nino event in the pervious 50 years. It is called cherry picking.

There fixed it for ya most up to date .

jackdale · 02-03-2022, 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

So now a government employee is faking data? He just plotted the facts and yes biggest el Nino until the one in 2016.Your point ?

Spencer is not a government employee. I never said he was faking data. Byrick is claiming a pause based on a cherry picked data point.

Dieseldude · 02-03-2022, 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

So now a government employee is faking data? He just plotted the facts and yes biggest el Nino until the one in 2016.Your point ?

Interesting NH. The increase on the right seems to be balanced by the lower figures on the left. The average is a horizontal line, so no overall increase. And this is a 33 year record, so quite substantial considering the relatively short period of coal and oil use.

**newhaul** · 02-03-2022, 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Spencer is not a government employee. I never said he was faking data. Byrick is claiming a pause based on a cherry picked data point.

Ok conceded.

Retired government

jackdale · 02-03-2022, 08:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

There fixed it for ya most up to date .

Thanks. From the blog

Quote:

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

We are in long term warming.

And we are in La Nina conditions.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/produc...ensodisc.shtml

Lake-Effect · 02-03-2022, 08:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Take all the college students and see how many loaves of bread you get at the end of the day. ...producing studies and papers doesn’t feed or clothe anybody.

It does so. Look around. Touch your computer. Check your medicine cabinet. Look at a bookshelf. What an ingrate.

Quote:

You should study the science of statistics sometime.

I have. You should too, instead of just raving on.

Quote:

"One doesn't vote on science." Ah, then consensus isn’t a good way to prove science. Funny; then maybe the 97% of scientist who supposedly agree that the world is ending aren’t right.

There's a difference between pulling a lever or making an X on a ballot, and having an expert and informed opinion on something in your field of study. What scientist said the world is ending? Man are you desperate...

Quote:

People don’t vote on science, but they vote on proposed solutions to real or imagined problems. So far, when it comes to voting for your proposed solutions, there isn’t a groundswell of support. That’s why you continually denigrate the voters.

You're simply full of it. Ranting to pass the time. There are no proposed solutions to vote on, I in particular haven't pushed any recently, there's growing public recognition of the problem DESPITE the opposing propaganda efforts and a big flock of useful idiots parroting the lies... and I have not denigrated voters.

Get a life, man. Post about your boat or something.

**newhaul** · 02-03-2022, 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Thanks. From the blog

We are in long term warming.

And we are in La Nina conditions.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/produc...ensodisc.shtml

Yep and now they have pushed the neutral forecast back another month to May getting close to my June isn't it ?

Bycrick · 02-03-2022, 08:35

Thank you, Gord. Sarcasm is simply a tool to make writing more fun for the author and hopefully more interesting for the reader. Swift had a much greater impact with his "Modest Proposal" than he would have with a PhD thesis.

And NB, I agree with the fact that climate is changing. It always has; nothing stays the same. And I agree with the thesis that "doing nothing" simply means that the process will happen without us making any adjustments or adaptations until we’re forced to, which usually results in making the wrong decision under pressure to "do something."

And, while we don’t vote on science per se, we vote on whether, how and how much we do to address the changes.

Thus it’s a political problem not a scientific problem. No matter how many links people post.

**newhaul** · 02-03-2022, 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It does so. Look around. Touch your computer. Check your medicine cabinet. Look at a bookshelf. What an ingrate.
I have. You should too, instead of just raving on.
There's a difference between pulling a lever or making an X on a ballot, and having an expert and informed opinion on something in your field of study. Man are you desperate...
You're simply full of it. Ranting to pass the time. There are no proposed solutions to vote on, I in particular haven't pushed any recently, there's growing public recognition of the problem DESPITE the opposing propaganda efforts and a herd of useful idiots parroting the lies... and I have not denigrated voters.

Get a life, man. Post about your boat or something.

I know let's all post something current about our boat and include a picture .

I know some are waiting for breakup still so upgrades or plans are good

jackdale · 02-03-2022, 08:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Interesting NH. The increase on the right seems to be balanced by the lower figures on the left. The average is a horizontal line, so no overall increase. And this is a 33 year record, so quite substantial considering the relatively short period of coal and oil use.

Learn to read graphs. The horizontal line 1991-2020 mean. The temperatures are deviations from that mean.

Here is the longer instrumental record.

jackdale · 02-03-2022, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Thus it’s a political problem not a scientific problem. No matter how many links people post.

Should policy be based on science?

**GordMay** · 02-03-2022, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bycrick

... Thus it’s a political problem not a scientific problem. No matter how many links people post.

You're right again.
The science is well understood: the climate is changing, and we are the cause.
Which particular solutions we should adopt [political decisions, that should be based, in large part, on several sciences] are still debatable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Should policy be based on science?

Yes, partly, where the sciences can inform them.