Republican EPA chiefs to Congress: Act on climate

[Paul98]

Seems there are a few different kind of deniers. One kind is one that doesn't want to have to think or deal with the consequences. They are able to make themselves believe it isn't happening because it makes them feel good and they don't have to think about what would happen.

Another are the ones that already made up their mind. Rather than look at all the evidence they chose to focus on any small part or event they think supports their position. These are the ones who get some graphs together, champion any thing that supports their position while ignoring the rest of the big picture. If everything isn't breaking a record every year to them it means that global warming is wrong.

Then there are the ones that are simply ignorant some of them are willing to learn, others are willfully ignorant.

Then there are those who are driven by the media rather than the science. Will attack the other side of the media if it doesn't support what they believe. Rather than understanding that the media is not a good place to get science and that they misrepresent things all the time.


Unless someone shows that they are willing to learn, and will change their mind when presented with facts there is no reason to have a discussion with them. They will make a claim they will be shown how it is wrong or doesn't mean what they think it does. They then won't listen and will continue to believe what they already believe, and will continue to bring that same incorrect information up over and over.

 

[Moonbeam]

Seems there are a few different kind of deniers. One kind is one that doesn't want to have to think or deal with the consequences. They are able to make themselves believe it isn't happening because it makes them feel good and they don't have to think about what would happen.

Another are the ones that already made up their mind. Rather than look at all the evidence they chose to focus on any small part or event they think supports their position. These are the ones who get some graphs together, champion any thing that supports their position while ignoring the rest of the big picture. If everything isn't breaking a record every year to them it means that global warming is wrong.

Then there are the ones that are simply ignorant some of them are willing to learn, others are willfully ignorant.

Then there are those who are driven by the media rather than the science. Will attack the other side of the media if it doesn't support what they believe. Rather than understanding that the media is not a good place to get science and that they misrepresent things all the time.


Unless someone shows that they are willing to learn, and will change their mind when presented with facts there is no reason to have a discussion with them. They will make a claim they will be shown how it is wrong or doesn't mean what they think it does. They then won't listen and will continue to believe what they already believe, and will continue to bring that same incorrect information up over and over.

Kind of looks like maybe their self hate is so great they have an unconscious death wish, no?

 

[TerryMathews]

Seems there are a few different kind of deniers. One kind is one that doesn't want to have to think or deal with the consequences. They are able to make themselves believe it isn't happening because it makes them feel good and they don't have to think about what would happen.

Another are the ones that already made up their mind. Rather than look at all the evidence they chose to focus on any small part or event they think supports their position. These are the ones who get some graphs together, champion any thing that supports their position while ignoring the rest of the big picture. If everything isn't breaking a record every year to them it means that global warming is wrong.

Then there are the ones that are simply ignorant some of them are willing to learn, others are willfully ignorant.

Then there are those who are driven by the media rather than the science. Will attack the other side of the media if it doesn't support what they believe. Rather than understanding that the media is not a good place to get science and that they misrepresent things all the time.


Unless someone shows that they are willing to learn, and will change their mind when presented with facts there is no reason to have a discussion with them. They will make a claim they will be shown how it is wrong or doesn't mean what they think it does. They then won't listen and will continue to believe what they already believe, and will continue to bring that same incorrect information up over and over.

Its funny how accurately this also describes gun control advocates.

 

[schmuckley]

I can:
http://www.icleiusa.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o3qW2XJZdSA

It's just another way to get more money out of the people's pockets.That's all it is,that's all it's about.

gg

 

[John Connor]

I love the smell of pollution in the morning! :twisted:

 

[bshole]

Isn't it odd that not a single global warming scientist PREDICTED the global pause.... and in fact many denied for years. The collected data does not match the model predictions. Shouldn't this affect a rational skeptical person's faith?

http://www.economist.com/news/scien...ng-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being

BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’ understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. A convincing explanation of the pause therefore matters both to a proper understanding of the climate and to the credibility of climate science—and papers published over the past few weeks do their best to provide one. Indeed, they do almost too good a job. If all were correct, the pause would now be explained twice over.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.
A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.

Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you even read your own articles? For a "hard scientist", you do a remarkably poor job of it. Then again, anyone stupid enough to make that claim is also probably too stupid to read his own links.

Funny how you dismiss hundreds of scientific papers on climate change while uncritically accepting ones that tell you what you want to hear. Like I said, you're just like a creationist. Climate change challenges your religion, therefore it's false.

 

[Paratus]

What if, what if long ago there were volcanoes and all these volcanoes caused enormous amounts of Co2 and get this! The planet survived!

See I was worried about how much it could fuck our standard if living. But holy crap you are right!

I just read up on the Permian-Triassic "Great Dying" where volcanism burned Gigatons of coal and created runaway global warming that killed upto 96% of marine species and 70% of vertebrates.

But you know what? During the entire time runaway global warming occurred there was no change in food prices, insurance, or cost of living!

Not a single change!

I'm no longer concerned about climate change!

Thanks John Connor!:thumbsup:

 

[Paratus]

Isn't it odd that not a single global warming scientist PREDICTED the global pause.... and in fact many denied for years. The collected data does not match the model predictions. Shouldn't this affect a rational skeptical person's faith?

http://www.economist.com/news/scien...ng-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

Yup that arctic sea ice is recovering quickly now.

 

[BlueWolf47]

See I was worried about how much it could fuck our standard if living. But holy crap you are right!

I just read up on the Permian-Triassic "Great Dying" where volcanism burned Gigatons of coal and created runaway global warming that killed upto 96% of marine species and 70% of vertebrates.

But you know what? During the entire time runaway global warming occurred there was no change in food prices, insurance, or cost of living!

Not a single change!

I'm no longer concerned about climate change!

Thanks John Connor!:thumbsup:

My favorite skeptical argument is that the climate has changed in the past. But then they ignore the fact that these warm periods led to great die offs of animal species. Sometimes i think they rather argue their point with the least amount of information so that they don't accidently convince themselves to change their point of view.

 

[bshole]

Damn it. Nobody addressed my question. Why did not a single gobal climate scientist predict the pause? Not a single one! Instead of thinking of them as gods, perhaps you see them as fallible human beings with a tendency towards confirmation bias. Instead of declaring the science as settled, perhaps we should wait until at least one thing they predict comes true.

 

[fskimospy]

Damn it. Nobody addressed my question. Why did not a single gobal climate scientist predict the pause? Not a single one! Instead of thinking of them as gods, perhaps you see them as fallible human beings with a tendency towards confirmation bias. Instead of declaring the science as settled, perhaps we should wait until at least one thing they predict comes true.

Because climate scientists' models have natural variability in them over shorter time periods such as the so-called "pause". Additionally, the "pause" only deals with surface temperatures, while the system as a whole continues to heat.

I'm still waiting to hear what "hard science" field you work in and what about your expertise makes you able to critique an unrelated field.

 

[xBiffx]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

 

[fskimospy]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

I'll just leave this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

And holy shit if you look at the site the guy is linking to a third grader should be able to figure out why his point is stupid. Not only does he not show his data sets, but he think that the number of hundred degree days in the summer says something about average temperatures in the US, much less globally.

Gullible people duped yet again.

 

[xBiffx]

I'll just leave this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

Never fails. Attack the messenger. Maybe you should read up on the actual claims and the data. None of which Booker had anything to do with except point them out. Nevermind. Attacking the messenger is much easier, please continue.

 

[dank69]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Do you agree with his arguments against evolution, or just climate change?

 

[fskimospy]

Never fails. Attack the messenger. Maybe you should read up on the actual claims and the data. None of which Booker had anything to do with except point them out. Nevermind. Attacking the messenger is much easier, please continue.

Please look at my edit. The data he is mentioning is a joke, and comes from a blog that has a history of making outrageous statements that he must later apologize for.

Dumb data used to make unsupportable conclusions from a known liar. You can't get much worse than that. Like I said, duped again, huh?

 

[xBiffx]

Please look at my edit. The data he is mentioning is a joke, and comes from a blog that has a history of making outrageous statements that he must later apologize for.

Dumb data used to make unsupportable conclusions from a known liar. You can't get much worse than that. Like I said, duped again, huh?

Yep, keep on attacking the messenger. Its not like anyone in here expects anything else.

There's nothing groundbreaking in this report for those who don't drink Kool-aid on a daily basis, that is.

Here is some of the data for those who are interested in perhaps learning something. To the lemmings, do with it what you want, I care not.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/how-zeke-hides-the-decline/

 

[xBiffx]

Do you agree with his arguments against evolution, or just climate change?

Can't say that I know what his arguments on evolution are so I can't answer that question honestly.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, keep on attacking the messenger. Its not like anyone in here expects anything else.

There's nothing groundbreaking in this report for those who don't drink Kool-aid on a daily basis, that is.

Here is some of the data for those who are interested in perhaps learning something. To the lemmings, do with it what you want, I care not.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/how-zeke-hides-the-decline/

Did you read what I wrote? This guy tried, with a straight face, to say that the number of 100 degree days in a summer is a meaningful measure of US climate, and by implication the world's climate. Surely you have enough knowledge to understand why that's a dumb statement. Why would you link to such nonsense?

Furthermore, when the person your article is based on has a pretty long history of making "scientific" statements that he must later apologize for or are shredded by people with actual knowledge. Why would you base your understanding of an issue on someone with such a poor track record?

Now that I read more about the guy, his climate qualifications are a masters in electrical engineering. lol.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, keep on attacking the messenger. Its not like anyone in here expects anything else.

There's nothing groundbreaking in this report for those who don't drink Kool-aid on a daily basis, that is.

Here is some of the data for those who are interested in perhaps learning something. To the lemmings, do with it what you want, I care not.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/how-zeke-hides-the-decline/

Oh also, the idea that you would use the straight temperatures without adjustments for changes in terrain, urban heat/cooling islands, etc, should be a red flag to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of climate change.

Seriously, just google this guy's name and you'll see what an embarrassment he is. Even if you're part of the denier camp this guy is so bad that he's been kicked off other blogs for his bullshit.

 

[xBiffx]

Did you read what I wrote? This guy tried, with a straight face, to say that the number of 100 degree days in a summer is a meaningful measure of US climate, and by implication the world's climate. Surely you have enough knowledge to understand why that's a dumb statement. Why would you link to such nonsense?

Furthermore, when the person your article is based on has a pretty long history of making "scientific" statements that he must later apologize for or are shredded by people with actual knowledge. Why would you base your understanding of an issue on someone with such a poor track record?

You have yet to say anything about the data that has been presented. Only attacks on the individuals who happen to be relaying the data. Again, I expected no less from you but at least you are consistent. It really doesn't matter what the man's past is if the data is true. When you are ready to discuss the data, I might reply back. Until then, enjoy your echo chamber.

 

[xBiffx]

Oh also, the idea that you would use the straight temperatures without adjustments for changes in terrain, urban heat/cooling islands, etc, should be a red flag to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of climate change.

Seriously, just google this guy's name and you'll see what an embarrassment he is. Even if you're part of the denier camp this guy is so bad that he's been kicked off other blogs for his bullshit.

Sounds pretty subjective to use adjustments/adjusted data instead of reporting raw data. Using a model to adjust data seems rather flawed, i.e. adjusting raw data based on assumptions in other data has the potential to be riddled with error.

I would like to know how one might come up with urban heating/cooling models for say the 1920s though. That would be interesting to watch.

 

[Paul98]

Damn it. Nobody addressed my question. Why did not a single gobal climate scientist predict the pause? Not a single one! Instead of thinking of them as gods, perhaps you see them as fallible human beings with a tendency towards confirmation bias. Instead of declaring the science as settled, perhaps we should wait until at least one thing they predict comes true.

During this "pause" the earth has continued to gain heat as it had before, the pause is in the air temperature, and sea surface temperature.

What is happening is a change in trade winds, this happens every few decades. This change causes more mixing of surface and deep ocean. This causes a lowering of sea surface temperature, and air temperature. Once the trade winds change again the air, and sea surface temperature will rise again at a quick pace. This change is normal, the results are normal and what they should be.

I have said it before I will say it again, just because the temperature goes up quickly or down quickly doesn't mean MMGW doesn't exist. There are natural forces and changes that happen that increase and decrease temperature also. MMGW is simply part of the climate change picture, it does not cancel out nature and it's changes. To put it simply if there is some natural event that should cause temperature to fall, and MMGW that should cause the temperature to rise by the same amount you may get flat temperature change over that time.

 

[dank69]

Can't say that I know what his arguments on evolution are so I can't answer that question honestly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1495664/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html

Talking with dinosaurs
It does not take long these days to spot one of that ever-lengthening list of issues on which the BBC has a clear "agenda", which dictates just what can and can't be said on its airwaves. Just as, a few years ago, the BBC was quite shameless in propagandising for Britain to join the euro, one could not now miss, for instance, that it is implacably opposed to President Bush and the Iraq war, and equally in favour of the wind turbine racket as an answer to global warming.
Another recent addition to the BBC's hate list is "intelligent design", the movement gathering way among many respected scientists in the US and elsewhere who have become profoundly sceptical about the adequacy of Darwinian natural selection to explain the complexities of evolution. Not for the first time, this was again prominently featured on last Monday's Today programme. And as usual when Today has an agenda, the subject was presented in such a crudely distorted way as to be laughable.
On the side of the Darwinians were the BBC's science correspondent, the Today presenter and Sir David Attenborough, all of whom went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" are scientists, some very eminent, such as Professor Dean Kenyon who, 30 years ago, was the father of the "chemical evolution" theory for the origins of life.
Despite the best efforts of Dr Steven Meyer, an American scientist who was the lone voice arguing for "intelligent design", the BBC trio tried to present it as no more than a cause for religious nutters, an "upgrade" of creationism. Sir David Attenborough clearly had not the slightest idea of what the "intelligent design" thesis is about.
He insisted that "science looks at the facts" and that "We must stick with scientific logic": oblivious to the fact that intelligent design is argued by expert scientists who have come to their conclusions precisely because they are following those principles.
Twenty years ago, in his series Life On Earth, Sir David himself sought to demonstrate the miracle of Darwinian natural selection by showing how an earthbound shrew evolved into a bat, by growing membranes on its feet which developed into wings. But this was the worst possible example for him to pick. From the moment that membrane began to develop, until it became a proper wing, the creature would have been markedly less fitted to survive rather than more.
It is fascinating to see how the Darwinians have now put themselves in the same position as the Christian creationists they so despise. They rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions, fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their beliefs.
How apt that they should now be supported by that latest home of lost causes, the BBC. And how the BBC might have felt confirmed in its self-righteousness when, later that same day, President Bush himself said he could see no objection to Darwinian orthodoxy being subjected to scientific questioning in the American education system. Of course such a thing should be banned by law.

The bolded seems like a similar line of criticism against MMCC, no?