Nice global warming takedown

[Almost there]

I know, I know, we've beat this horse to death, but this video is actually quite compelling. And for more information, check out the videos in the youtube feed to the right of the video when you watch it in youtube. It's quite interesting stuff, from a political perspective. The comments are fun, too.

 

[Goonie]

Now sum it up in your own words.

 

[Gene2memE]

This is the best they have to offer? Innuendo about funding, claims of 'group think'/a one-sided scientific process and inane repetition of baseless claims, long since punctured.

Not a long term experiment, not a study, not a new paper, not a metastudy, not even a literature review? A couple of talking heads and a right wing TV host who's basically a human punchline in Australia?

What utter tosh.

Every time an 'opposition/prosecution' style group - say, for example, Berkeley Earth or the GWP Foundation - has performed a proper examination on the science of global warming and independently reviewed the data, their conclusions are nearly exactly the same as those of the existing bodies: That earth is warming rapidly (around .9 to 1 degree Celsius in the last 60 to 70 years) and its our fault.

The plain fact is that the earth is heating up alarmingly quickly and humans bear the vast responsibility for that warming through our actions - What's Really Warming The Earth?

NOAA's 2017 Climate Report makes this abundantly clear:

2017 also marks the 41st consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average, with the six warmest years on record occurring since 2010. Since the start of the 21st century, the global temperature has been broken five times, three of those being set back to back (2014–2016). The yearly global land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase is twice as great since 1980. From 1900 to 1980 a new temperature record was set on average ever 13.5 years; however, since 1981 it has increased to every 3 years.

​

 

[Almost there]

This is the best they have to offer? Innuendo about funding, claims of 'group think'/a one-sided scientific process and inane repetition of baseless claims, long since punctured.

Exactly. Inuendo about "deniers" being shills of the oil companies, and baseless claims about climate that are disproven. Models that have been exposed as 180 degrees from reality. Stuff like that.

It's amazing anyone still believes in the Conensus, a political concept that a free and open marketplace for ideas and discussion has utterly destroyed. It's just that many have not yet gotten the memo. But word IS getting out.

 

[Gene2memE]

Exactly. Inuendo about "deniers" being shills of the oil companies,

The strong links between those with ideological and business interests in calling anthropogenic climate change into doubt, and those doing the shilling are actually very well demonstrated. See, for instance, the books 'Merchants of Doubt', 'Heads In The Sand', 'Climate Cover-up' and the Dunlap/McCright paper on organised climate change denial.

and baseless claims about climate that are disproven.

While some climate scientists have made some terrible and or hyperbolic predictions in the past, which have been shown to be wrong, the data shows that the earth is warming and humans are primarily responsible.

It's really not up for debate at this point - except in the minds of those that benefit from the manufacturing of a false controversy.

Models that have been exposed as 180 degrees from reality.

The large scale models are actually pretty close, both historical and forecasting. And, as more and more information is collected and accounted for, they're getting better and better. So, you get stuff like CIMP5 and HadCRUT ect now being correlated to within less than 0.1 of a degree to current warming trends.

I'm not arguing the models are 100% accurate or that they ever will be, because there are fundamental uncertainties to deal with on a short term basis (that's why climatologists use 20, 30, 50 or 100 year baselines in their models).

However, when you look at long term trends and models, on aggregate, the main models have been surprisingly on point.

It's amazing anyone still believes in the Conensus, a political concept that a free and open marketplace for ideas and discussion has utterly destroyed. It's just that many have not yet gotten the memo. But word IS getting out.

It's amazing that anyone could wish to talk about this topic and not know the history of it. The 'free and open marketplace for ideas and discussion' was held - all through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The debate, discussion and data all came to the conclusion that global warming is happening, and its our fault.

The discussion now is what to do about it and who bears the cost. Its that last bit that causes the manufacturing of doubt by those with interests and ideologies to defend.

 

[Occams Barber]

I know, I know, we've beat this horse to death, but this video is actually quite compelling. And for more information, check out the videos in the youtube feed to the right of the video when you watch it in youtube. It's quite interesting stuff, from a political perspective. The comments are fun, too.

If you think this video is "compelling" you probably need a bit more exposure to good arguments. 'Somebody' on YouTube is hardly a sound source of competent opinion.

Your first two 'opponents' presented nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion of the 'Bah, Humbug' variety. No evidence, no explanation, just unsupported opinion.

The second part was an old (around 2011) edited opinion piece put together by one of Australia's least regarded right wing nut cases. By asking the right questions, Bolt (the aforementioned right wing nut case) buffaloed his tame panel into admitting that the science might be wrong. A lot of water has flowed under the global warming bridge since this video was made.

Read the NOAA report Gene mentioned in post #3.
Read the World Meteorological Organisation Report for 2017 when it comes out in March.

Leave YouTube to the kiddies.

OB

 

[Almost there]

If you think this video is "compelling" you probably need a bit more exposure to good arguments. 'Somebody' on YouTube is hardly a sound source of competent opinion.

Your first two 'opponents' presented nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion of the 'Bah, Humbug' variety. No evidence, no explanation, just unsupported opinion.

The second part was an old (around 2011) edited opinion piece put together by one of Australia's least regarded right wing nut cases. By asking the right questions, Bolt (the aforementioned right wing nut case) buffaloed his tame panel into admitting that the science might be wrong. A lot of water has flowed under the global warming bridge since this video was made.

Read the NOAA report Gene mentioned in post #3.
Read the World Meteorological Organisation Report for 2017 when it comes out in March.

Leave YouTube to the kiddies.

OB

If you watch the whole thing it is very telling. To be frank, it is FOR what you call the "kiddies". That is, the general public that doesn't really follow it. The same people that AlGore and Bill Nye shoot for.

I can read the NOAA report. I can read the other several hundred reports I keep in a Gmail draft message I started in 2006. The information is overwhelming that the whole thing is a complete farce and hoax. It is about power and money. Period. And I don't mean by the deniers.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you watch the whole thing it is very telling. To be frank, it is FOR what you call the "kiddies". That is, the general public that doesn't really follow it. The same people that AlGore and Bill Nye shoot for.

I can read the NOAA report. I can read the other several hundred reports I keep in a Gmail draft message I started in 2006. The information is overwhelming that the whole thing is a complete farce and hoax. It is about power and money. Period. And I don't mean by the deniers.

Reading and understanding is two different things.

If you have any real arguments write an article for peer-review, thats how science works.

No, the science is settled. The only real question is what to do about it.

Denying climate change is very ignorant.

 

[Larniavc]

I know, I know, we've beat this horse to death, but this video is actually quite compelling. And for more information, check out the videos in the youtube feed to the right of the video when you watch it in youtube. It's quite interesting stuff, from a political perspective. The comments are fun, too.

Stop going to YouTube for science!’

 

[Larniavc]

Exactly. Inuendo about "deniers" being shills of the oil companies, and baseless claims about climate that are disproven. Models that have been exposed as 180 degrees from reality. Stuff like that.

It's amazing anyone still believes in the Conensus, a political concept that a free and open marketplace for ideas and discussion has utterly destroyed. It's just that many have not yet gotten the memo. But word IS getting out.

And cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.

 

[Almost there]

And cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.

Deflection is an art you have yet to master.

 

[Almost there]

Stop going to YouTube for science!’

Who does? It's a great educational tool, though. That's why you see Bill Nye out there so much. And remember Christopher Hitchins?

 

[Almost there]

Reading and understanding is two different things.

If you have any real arguments write an article for peer-review, thats how science works.

No, the science is settled. The only real question is what to do about it.

Denying climate change is very ignorant.

Your subtle sarcasm is duly noted.

 

[HitchSlap]

 

[USincognito]

Exactly. Inuendo about "deniers" being shills of the oil companies,

Except that's not innuendo. The DeSmog Blog uncovers the financial connections between deniers and fossil fuel companies and their advocacy groups like Heartland.

and baseless claims about climate that are disproven. Models that have been exposed as 180 degrees from reality. Stuff like that.

Like what, and when did that happen?

It's amazing anyone still believes in the Conensus, a political concept that a free and open marketplace for ideas and discussion has utterly destroyed. It's just that many have not yet gotten the memo. But word IS getting out.

There's a lot of confusion among deniers about the consensus. It's not about the individual scientists agreeing. It's about the science itself agreeing. 95-100% of papers, depending on the study, support the global warming consensus.

 

[USincognito]

It is about power and money. Period.

 

[morse86]

We don't even have reliable historical data about metrics of the earth and these tax payer funded fraud $cientists are ready to make y2k style prediction$. The entire theory is garbage, the data is garbage, the researchers are not scientists.

People have different interpretations of data. In the early 1900s, the "data" showed pellagra was caused by a virus but only a few doctors actually examined the data and realized it was caused by a vitamin deficiency. Two different interpretations. It took decades to correct this. Today, the sciencetism is driven by $$$ and is difficult to correct.

 

[HitchSlap]

We don't even have reliable historical data about metrics of the earth and these tax payer funded fraud $cientists are ready to make y2k style prediction$. The entire theory is garbage, the data is garbage, the researchers are not scientists.

People have different interpretations of data. In the early 1900s, the "data" showed pellagra was caused by a virus but only a few doctors actually examined the data and realized it was caused by a vitamin deficiency. Two different interpretations. It took decades to correct this. Today, the sciencetism is driven by $$$ and is difficult to correct.

Right, because we all know scientismcists have more to lose than oil companies due to AGW. Lol

It’s the deep state, isn’t it??

Remember when it used to b safe to smoke?

 

[morse86]

Right, because we all know scientismcists have more to lose than oil companies due to AGW. Lol

It’s the deep state, isn’t it??

Remember when it used to b safe to smoke?

People have been "smoking" for thousands of years. Historically during winter, people inhaled a lot of smoke from cooking and heating...read the papers by weston price.

That doesn't mean smoking today is safe.