It’s funny, but it makes sense, without the federal government to slowly coddle us into responsibility for the environment, and our contribution’s to global climate change (emissions from fossil fuel burning being just one part of that), thousands of businesses across the country will be taking an active approach to reducing waste.
I am willing to bet we see quite a bit of an uptick in company rideshare and carpooling. Investments in energy efficiency in the way of boilers, air conditioning units, windows, and other means will be on the rise. Trainings will be done to help employees of each company what they can do in their own day-to-day lives to reduce their impact on the environment.
Gee, sounds like commerce and progress, right? This should be EXACTLY what hardcore right-wingers want to hear: thousands of businesses and dozens of the largest cities and states in the country welcoming a new era of investment and job training to increase incomes, spending, and therefore move the country into the 21st century.
With any luck, America can still be a green energy leader on the world stage, with or without our misguided leaders.
How about that!! Self-governance and taking responsibility for one’s own actions. What a concept! Those climate change savvy businesses will show Trump a thing or two.
That Trump is one tricky guy. He gets those organizations concerned about climate change to police themselves and make changes and IT”S NOT GOING TO COST THE GOVERNMENT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS! Maybe he can piss them off enough to pay our school taxes, too!
He is even going to get the blue states to force the various “resident” industries to comply with the Paris Accord on their dime. The democrats in those states are going to be taxed out the wazoo!
Old news. All that has been going on for decades. A ‘Green Energy Leader’ is not the badge of honor you make it out to be.
‘World leader in liberties, freedoms, economic opportunities, and self-reliance’ are the goals of a ‘progressive’, not regressive, oppressive, tyrannical nation. Reminder; mandating health care insurance purchase and payment of carbon tax credits, for example, is tyranny, plain and simple. If you don’t see that, you’re blind as a bat.
The problem is the majority of scientists do not support the theory of man made global warming. Global data shows absolutely no warming in the past 15 years. Top NASA scientists have said that climate change is caused by solar activity and we are going into a cooling phase that could last hundreds of years. Other scientists say that climate change is caused by ocean currents and the rising of cold water from the deep ocean.
The famous “97% of scientists agree” lie was based on 97% of 200 scientists polled (all of whom would have their funding cut if there was no global warming). Meanwhile, 31,000 scientist have publicly stated there is no man made global warming.
To try and do something to “fix” nature (that we can’t even agree is a problem) is arrogant, foolish and dangerous.
Yeah, I am going to need some MAJOR scholarly citations for that.
Because I could provide you with data from NASA’s Goddard Institute that refutes your statement. In fact, each year for the last 4 have been the hottest on record (137 years of historical record), and are trending continually towards more heat.
I don’t want citations from conspiracy nut sites or singular scientists, but scholarly sources, peer-reviewed studies, etc.
Any thoughts on if Trump did this on purpose to take government out of the equation and save tax money, and let us/business self govern our footprints and take accountability for our actions, knowing it would have the desired effect in the end? To me it appears to be working. Businesses are stepping up to be more responsible and it’s bringing awareness to the issue for the public to take action on themselves if it means so much to them.
Doug,
You continue to focus on 137 Yr short term historical record, instead of considering NOAA 420,000y Ice Core Data.
( Shortsighted is an understatement. )
BP
Doug,
You continue to focus on 137 Yr short term historical record, instead of considering NOAA 420,000y Ice Core Data.
( Shortsighted is an understatement. )
BP
The same Ice Core Data you say you are the only one smart enough to have figured out that if you just reverse the graphs, it will support your arguments entirely?
Perhaps a layman looking at ice core data and trying to finagle the data to make the science fit his preconceived notions is a terrible, short-sighted idea?
Doug,
Me,, The “only one smart enough to have figured out…” ?
Actually I asked you to investigate for yourself.
Don’t you trust your own judgment enough to investigate?
Instead, you consistently regurgitate the dogma of others without question.
So,,, kindly tell us why should we trust your second-hand assertions if you don’t trust your own judgment?
Please do investigate for yourself.
Thanks,,, BP
I have not studied for years in scientific pursuits, nor do I have any qualifications to judge the data of actual scientists with any sort of authority.
If I looked at an ice core sample, or a graphed interpretation thereof, and said, “it looks like temperature increases lag behind CO2 increases by several hundred years. Therefore, man-made climate change is wrong,” my assertion would be based on incomplete data, and would therefore be foolhardy.
For example, I would not be aware of compression of air bubbles, since I am not well-versed in how that works.
Instead, I am going to out-source my lack of knowledge on the subject, and refrain from using my relatively elementary comprehension of the science, and default to others who have made it their life’s work to do so.
That, and the fact that there are peer-reviewed studies done en masse…
Show me a peer-reviewed research study which refutes the relationship between CO2 and global climate change, or that man isn’t the biggest cause for global warming in the past 2 decades. You can’t, and you won’t. Instead, you will slip back into more vague logical fallacies.
I’m guessing Faux News, Breitbart, Newsmax, or the other conservative fake news sites have a source he can recite. But, it won’t be honest or true. And now, back to squirrels on skis.
June 9, 2017 at 6:21 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Doug – Have you read the NOAA report on global warming and how they actually “theorize” the earth has been warmer over the past several years? Go to there website for your source.
As summarized in previous posts months ago, they will use “estimated” temperatures in areas that they cannot put instrumentation. Those estimates are also based on averages (also estimates).
Additionally, for credibility and accuracy, they do NOT disclose when the temperatures are taken (time/day) or if the temperatures are taken at the SAME time/day from year to year. What is the elevation for each gauge? This is critical. Nor do they disclose the locations of the gauges. Is there an equal amount in the various hemispheres?
Logic and experience has proven to me that temperatures can vary significantly in short distances (<10 miles) and with elevation changes.
Combine this with other potential variables (sun and moon activity) and the credibility of accuracy and consistency shrinks. Now measure that against the fractional change in temperature that their results are "proving" (I think the report said the temperature has increased a half degree over a ten year period).
That is not much of a change that can be solely blamed on mankind when natural forces can likely have an equal or greater impact on the climate.
Doug,
Some years ago I read a Scientific Study on water pollution written by several leading scientists, and accepted by many peers. None questioned the study.
To Paraphrase the Abstract, ‘40% of waters in the Psudo Marina were polluted, while only 2 of the sampling stations in the natural area showed pollution.’ The data schedule in the report showed 5 Stations in the Natural Area.
None of the Scientists would answer any questions.
I would hope that you can understand this.
Since then I use my own judgment when considering scientific reports.
It is truly sad that so many intelligent people have abdicated their judgment to charlatans.
BP
June 12, 2017 at 8:22 am
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@Captain Planetoid: NOAA is not a news org. Nor are dozens of other scientific orgs.
Please note there is a distinction between ‘Scientist’ and ‘Climate Scientist’; the latter is a SMALL subset of the former. Stratified random sampling of opinions of SCIENTISTS requires impartial, credible volume samples from each strata of the entire population to reach a meaningful weighted average sample of the population based on proper weighting of each strata.
Go ask another qualified statistician to explain the above if my brevity lacked clarity.
June 12, 2017 at 11:15 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Yogi – Please note there is also a distinction between ‘Doctor’ and ‘Brain Surgeon’; the latter is a SMALL subset of the former. I doubt you would sample ALL doctors to inquire about their research of different types of brain surgery and the effectiveness of the same – you’d just want to ask the people who specialize in that field, right?
June 13, 2017 at 9:36 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
No. Any scientist can credibly comment on the proper application of the scientific method, and specifically, use of adequate statistical data to yield meaningful conclusions.
The brain surgeon vs. doctor analogy is improper. But I doubt you know that. I’ll explain why; almost any doctor can properly comment on whether the brain surgeon has used the proper methods of diagnosing the patient.
June 9, 2017 at 5:47 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
Some of my favorite lines from this article which shows:
1) How the media lies and tries to “sway” opinion, and
2) How clueless people are.
For #1 – Here’s the quote from the article
“According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly six-in-10 people disagree with Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Nearly half of those polled believe it will cost jobs vs. 39 percent saying it will create jobs.”
Let’s dissect and expose the lying and swaying –
a) “Nearly 6 in 10 people” means 5 point something (but less than 6 people.
b) “Nearly half of those polled” means less than 50% (notice they did not actually give an actual number) vs. 39 percent (amazing that they actually have that number!!). If they were referring to the “nearly 6 in 10”, the number is less than three people and “39%” would equate to 2.34 people. In either case, that is not a huge difference. Let’s not forget that Washington Post/ABC is not known for their complete truthfulness and accuracy, either.
For # 2 –
“Some insurers have told her that to use those words opens them up to climate or environmental litigation, others have told her there’s just no business benefit to talking about climate change (insurance companies don’t sell flood insurance).”
Really??!!?? And these “insurance professionals” believe that? “Insurance companies don’t sell flood insurance”?? I better tell my boss we have to stop selling flood insurance because apparently, the rest of the industry has stopped!!
And, this my friends, is why there are so many people that believe climate change (aka. global warming) is man made. Because people believe what they are told without researching themselves and not applying common sense. Case closed.
Intregity,
There was also a Report done by Anthony Watts 10 or 12 Years ago (Website >> Watts up<< or something like that.), showing infrared photograph evidence of Artificial Warming of Temperature Stations by AC exhaust, WWTPs and many other sources.
Caught and Embarrassed, NOAA started relocating the stations.
A year or so later, GAO found the relocations were so poorly documented, that transfer of data index was impossible, ( Note to Doug- That's not me saying this. That was the GAO.)
The US IPCC says that 'the US Temperature record is the Best in the World.'
Discouraging.
BP
Another Note: The 420,000 NOAA graph mentioned elsewhere was reversed from normal reading. This misleads our brains.
It never ends.
Against my better judgment, I will respond to you, only so that I am more educated and better prepared to deal with science illiterates:
Anthony Watts is not a scientist. He holds no degree, nor has any formal training to interpret, collect, observe, or report on climate data. He worked as a meteorologist and is able to tell someone accurately when it is raining out, and maybe when it is warm or cold out, although the jury is still out on that one.
On a more serious note, his positions and investigations have been taken seriously by many official government organizations over the years. We should be glad that he did so, because after reviewing false claim after false claim, NOAA offered peer-reviews of its data, confirming their positions entirely and refuting his.
You say that they were using temperature stations which skewed the data to show warmer-than-average temperatures, but stations identified as problematic by Watts and his followers were more likely to report lower-than-average surface temperatures, not higher. Even factoring THAT in, all of the stations fell within standard deviation and any variations have been accounted for.
I don’t know why I am even typing this, or wasting my time, because you don’t care to be educated and will continue to cite this shyster at the next opportunity you get.
To refute your next argument, since you haven’t actually internalized what I just wrote and frankly won’t care:
The Sun as the principal source of increased surface temperature on Earth:
Conclusion: It doesn’t matter what I post because:
A)You don’t trust scientists, only skeptics
B)You don’t trust peer-reviewed studies because you either don’t understand why they have more merit than the assertions of a skeptic with no data to back up their positions, or something else equally unreasonable.
C)”The Backfire Effect” in full force.
For example, here is a link to a Popular Science article which details scholarly resources that detail a few obvious indicators of rapid global climate change. It would be fun if you read it, studied the resources linked therein, and changed your misinformed opinions, but as I said before…The Backfire Effect.
Now, if I may further check my sanity at the door, I am going to go argue with our resident super genius Bob (who shares a name with the serial killer from Twin Peaks…a coincidence, no doubt), in another climate change article. I better hope my subhuman intelligence level can match his wits in the arena of the minds. :)
June 12, 2017 at 8:25 am
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Trash talking against those whose opinions differ in a polar opposite manner will earn you no points. It will, however, lead to censoring by people you offend.
June 12, 2017 at 10:29 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Doug,
I truly appreciate it when folks like you provide “factual scientific reports” allegedly proving the man made climate change is settled science. The reason is because the “details” always show that the reports are based on estimates. For example, please read the Executive Summary on Page 131 and don’t forget to read the footnotes.
These reports always share their scientific calculations and use terms such as “likely”, extremely likely or unlikely” and “medium confidence”.
Here is the footnote on what “extremely likely” and “likely” mean.
The use of ‘extremely likely’ is an example of the calibrated language used in this document, it represents a 95% confidence level or higher; ‘likely’ (66%) is another example (See Box TS.1).
Even within this footnote, it states that these terms are examples of the calibrated language used in the document. (By the way, it should be no surprise that this report is from the IPCC “Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change” and the “extremely likely” language was used for saying “humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate”. They further state that “the RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined
anthropogenic RF.” The RF factor in this case is “human caused” radiative forcing compared to natural causes.
Sooo, there is 66% confidence that man made causes are ESTIMATED to be five times more likely the cause of global warming than solar or natural causes. 66% is not a high number and it is still an estimate.
Here is another great footnote from the report.
“Estimates of RF are accompanied by both an uncertainty range (value uncertainty) and a level of scientific understanding (structural uncertainty). The value uncertainties represent the 5 to 95% (90%) confidence range, and are based on available published studies; the level of scientific understanding is a subjective measure of structural uncertainty and represents how well understood the underlying processes are. Climate change agents with a high level of scientific
understanding are expected to have an RF that falls within their respective uncertainty ranges (See Section 2.9.1 and Box TS.1 for more information).”
This is the best part “the level of scientific understanding is a subjective measure of structural uncertainty and represents how well understood the underlying processes are.”
It is subjective and they measure the confidence level of how well the underlying processes are understood by other climate scientists.
This gives them the ability to be subjective and discount other climate scientists viewpoints and research.
The bottom line is “man made” climate change is NOT settled science. Their own reports state this FACT by declaring their information is based on ESTIMATES and theories.
June 12, 2017 at 3:29 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Integrity Matters:
That’s the way science works. If there is an Extremely High likelihood of something being true (man-made climate change), and an exceptionally unlikely likelihood of increased radiation from the sun being the cause, wouldn’t we want to bank on what scientists are telling us?
You are basing your opinion on apparently nothing, since you can’t provide me with any peer-reviewed studies showing your reasoning for your beliefs, while I can pull more data supporting the science-based reasoning for my belief.
In other words, you are willing to trust all sorts of uninformed, non-scientific people, polls, and graphs, but are unwilling to do so for those with actual science degrees and training. Those who put their methodologies and notes out there for the world to run their own tests.
These scientists discount other findings because the studies that are done to PROVE that the sun or some other thing is influencing climate change more than man-made sources don’t publish methodology, hard data, etc. You can’t prove or disprove what you can’t replicate, right? That is why climatologists leave their models out for the world to see. If you disagree, feel free to try out their models themselves and test them. If you discover holes in their logic, you will become a multi-millionaire, easy.
But you won’t, because I forgot that the last tactic people like you use to avoid assimilating new knowledge:
D)Ignore the science entirely and try to break down how scientists report data, instead of learning why they report them as such.
June 15, 2017 at 6:21 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Your posts are blocked because they violate board rules.
If you state your opinions in a civil manner, without the spam of several links of biased sources that NO ONE will ever read, thinking it adds credibility to your post due to the volume of those biased sources, you won’t be censored. If not, you will have to set up YOUR OWN website to do so.
June 15, 2017 at 6:27 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
IJ does not allow you to respond to certain posts because you violate board rules and spam these boards with biased sources that you THINK adds credibility to your position due to their sheer volume.
In your case, the fallacy of extension fails; i.e. a big pile of gold is better than a small pile of gold does not lead to a big pile of garbage being better than a small pile of garbage.
Popular Science, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, NOAA, Scientific American, University studies, and peer reviewed published scholarly papers are not biased sources!
You are embarrassing yourself here, buddy. You realize that, right?
June 13, 2017 at 9:58 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Attention; Libitterals concerned about carbon emissions generated by humans! Reply to this post if you used your air conditioning unit(s) over these past few days, explaining why you contradicted your political philosophy.
It’s funny, but it makes sense, without the federal government to slowly coddle us into responsibility for the environment, and our contribution’s to global climate change (emissions from fossil fuel burning being just one part of that), thousands of businesses across the country will be taking an active approach to reducing waste.
I am willing to bet we see quite a bit of an uptick in company rideshare and carpooling. Investments in energy efficiency in the way of boilers, air conditioning units, windows, and other means will be on the rise. Trainings will be done to help employees of each company what they can do in their own day-to-day lives to reduce their impact on the environment.
Gee, sounds like commerce and progress, right? This should be EXACTLY what hardcore right-wingers want to hear: thousands of businesses and dozens of the largest cities and states in the country welcoming a new era of investment and job training to increase incomes, spending, and therefore move the country into the 21st century.
With any luck, America can still be a green energy leader on the world stage, with or without our misguided leaders.
How about that!! Self-governance and taking responsibility for one’s own actions. What a concept! Those climate change savvy businesses will show Trump a thing or two.
That Trump is one tricky guy. He gets those organizations concerned about climate change to police themselves and make changes and IT”S NOT GOING TO COST THE GOVERNMENT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS! Maybe he can piss them off enough to pay our school taxes, too!
He is even going to get the blue states to force the various “resident” industries to comply with the Paris Accord on their dime. The democrats in those states are going to be taxed out the wazoo!
How shrewd and brilliant!
Old news. All that has been going on for decades. A ‘Green Energy Leader’ is not the badge of honor you make it out to be.
‘World leader in liberties, freedoms, economic opportunities, and self-reliance’ are the goals of a ‘progressive’, not regressive, oppressive, tyrannical nation. Reminder; mandating health care insurance purchase and payment of carbon tax credits, for example, is tyranny, plain and simple. If you don’t see that, you’re blind as a bat.
The problem is the majority of scientists do not support the theory of man made global warming. Global data shows absolutely no warming in the past 15 years. Top NASA scientists have said that climate change is caused by solar activity and we are going into a cooling phase that could last hundreds of years. Other scientists say that climate change is caused by ocean currents and the rising of cold water from the deep ocean.
The famous “97% of scientists agree” lie was based on 97% of 200 scientists polled (all of whom would have their funding cut if there was no global warming). Meanwhile, 31,000 scientist have publicly stated there is no man made global warming.
To try and do something to “fix” nature (that we can’t even agree is a problem) is arrogant, foolish and dangerous.
David,
Source required.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, please do your job to be the best steward of the environment as you can. Our future generations thank you.
Source for YOUR assertion that Global Climate Change is significantly impacted by humans. Ready, steady, …. GO!
Liar!, liar!
Another of Planet’s great lies is on fire!
Yeah, I am going to need some MAJOR scholarly citations for that.
Because I could provide you with data from NASA’s Goddard Institute that refutes your statement. In fact, each year for the last 4 have been the hottest on record (137 years of historical record), and are trending continually towards more heat.
I don’t want citations from conspiracy nut sites or singular scientists, but scholarly sources, peer-reviewed studies, etc.
137 years? Four generations of humans is a credible measuring stick?!
Any thoughts on if Trump did this on purpose to take government out of the equation and save tax money, and let us/business self govern our footprints and take accountability for our actions, knowing it would have the desired effect in the end? To me it appears to be working. Businesses are stepping up to be more responsible and it’s bringing awareness to the issue for the public to take action on themselves if it means so much to them.
Doug,
You continue to focus on 137 Yr short term historical record, instead of considering NOAA 420,000y Ice Core Data.
( Shortsighted is an understatement. )
BP
Doug,
You continue to focus on 137 Yr short term historical record, instead of considering NOAA 420,000y Ice Core Data.
( Shortsighted is an understatement. )
BP
The same Ice Core Data you say you are the only one smart enough to have figured out that if you just reverse the graphs, it will support your arguments entirely?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
Perhaps a layman looking at ice core data and trying to finagle the data to make the science fit his preconceived notions is a terrible, short-sighted idea?
Doug,
Me,, The “only one smart enough to have figured out…” ?
Actually I asked you to investigate for yourself.
Don’t you trust your own judgment enough to investigate?
Instead, you consistently regurgitate the dogma of others without question.
So,,, kindly tell us why should we trust your second-hand assertions if you don’t trust your own judgment?
Please do investigate for yourself.
Thanks,,, BP
I have not studied for years in scientific pursuits, nor do I have any qualifications to judge the data of actual scientists with any sort of authority.
If I looked at an ice core sample, or a graphed interpretation thereof, and said, “it looks like temperature increases lag behind CO2 increases by several hundred years. Therefore, man-made climate change is wrong,” my assertion would be based on incomplete data, and would therefore be foolhardy.
For example, I would not be aware of compression of air bubbles, since I am not well-versed in how that works.
Instead, I am going to out-source my lack of knowledge on the subject, and refrain from using my relatively elementary comprehension of the science, and default to others who have made it their life’s work to do so.
That, and the fact that there are peer-reviewed studies done en masse…
Show me a peer-reviewed research study which refutes the relationship between CO2 and global climate change, or that man isn’t the biggest cause for global warming in the past 2 decades. You can’t, and you won’t. Instead, you will slip back into more vague logical fallacies.
I’m guessing Faux News, Breitbart, Newsmax, or the other conservative fake news sites have a source he can recite. But, it won’t be honest or true. And now, back to squirrels on skis.
Doug – Have you read the NOAA report on global warming and how they actually “theorize” the earth has been warmer over the past several years? Go to there website for your source.
As summarized in previous posts months ago, they will use “estimated” temperatures in areas that they cannot put instrumentation. Those estimates are also based on averages (also estimates).
Additionally, for credibility and accuracy, they do NOT disclose when the temperatures are taken (time/day) or if the temperatures are taken at the SAME time/day from year to year. What is the elevation for each gauge? This is critical. Nor do they disclose the locations of the gauges. Is there an equal amount in the various hemispheres?
Logic and experience has proven to me that temperatures can vary significantly in short distances (<10 miles) and with elevation changes.
Combine this with other potential variables (sun and moon activity) and the credibility of accuracy and consistency shrinks. Now measure that against the fractional change in temperature that their results are "proving" (I think the report said the temperature has increased a half degree over a ten year period).
That is not much of a change that can be solely blamed on mankind when natural forces can likely have an equal or greater impact on the climate.
Here's a great report from 2013 showing how little scientist know about the sun's impact on the climate.
http://www.astrobio.net/spaceship-earth/how-changes-in-the-sun-impact-earths-climate/
Doug,
Some years ago I read a Scientific Study on water pollution written by several leading scientists, and accepted by many peers. None questioned the study.
To Paraphrase the Abstract, ‘40% of waters in the Psudo Marina were polluted, while only 2 of the sampling stations in the natural area showed pollution.’ The data schedule in the report showed 5 Stations in the Natural Area.
None of the Scientists would answer any questions.
I would hope that you can understand this.
Since then I use my own judgment when considering scientific reports.
It is truly sad that so many intelligent people have abdicated their judgment to charlatans.
BP
@Captain Planetoid: NOAA is not a news org. Nor are dozens of other scientific orgs.
Please note there is a distinction between ‘Scientist’ and ‘Climate Scientist’; the latter is a SMALL subset of the former. Stratified random sampling of opinions of SCIENTISTS requires impartial, credible volume samples from each strata of the entire population to reach a meaningful weighted average sample of the population based on proper weighting of each strata.
Go ask another qualified statistician to explain the above if my brevity lacked clarity.
Yogi – Please note there is also a distinction between ‘Doctor’ and ‘Brain Surgeon’; the latter is a SMALL subset of the former. I doubt you would sample ALL doctors to inquire about their research of different types of brain surgery and the effectiveness of the same – you’d just want to ask the people who specialize in that field, right?
No. Any scientist can credibly comment on the proper application of the scientific method, and specifically, use of adequate statistical data to yield meaningful conclusions.
The brain surgeon vs. doctor analogy is improper. But I doubt you know that. I’ll explain why; almost any doctor can properly comment on whether the brain surgeon has used the proper methods of diagnosing the patient.
Some of my favorite lines from this article which shows:
1) How the media lies and tries to “sway” opinion, and
2) How clueless people are.
For #1 – Here’s the quote from the article
“According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly six-in-10 people disagree with Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Nearly half of those polled believe it will cost jobs vs. 39 percent saying it will create jobs.”
Let’s dissect and expose the lying and swaying –
a) “Nearly 6 in 10 people” means 5 point something (but less than 6 people.
b) “Nearly half of those polled” means less than 50% (notice they did not actually give an actual number) vs. 39 percent (amazing that they actually have that number!!). If they were referring to the “nearly 6 in 10”, the number is less than three people and “39%” would equate to 2.34 people. In either case, that is not a huge difference. Let’s not forget that Washington Post/ABC is not known for their complete truthfulness and accuracy, either.
For # 2 –
“Some insurers have told her that to use those words opens them up to climate or environmental litigation, others have told her there’s just no business benefit to talking about climate change (insurance companies don’t sell flood insurance).”
Really??!!?? And these “insurance professionals” believe that? “Insurance companies don’t sell flood insurance”?? I better tell my boss we have to stop selling flood insurance because apparently, the rest of the industry has stopped!!
And, this my friends, is why there are so many people that believe climate change (aka. global warming) is man made. Because people believe what they are told without researching themselves and not applying common sense. Case closed.
Intregity,
There was also a Report done by Anthony Watts 10 or 12 Years ago (Website >> Watts up<< or something like that.), showing infrared photograph evidence of Artificial Warming of Temperature Stations by AC exhaust, WWTPs and many other sources.
Caught and Embarrassed, NOAA started relocating the stations.
A year or so later, GAO found the relocations were so poorly documented, that transfer of data index was impossible, ( Note to Doug- That's not me saying this. That was the GAO.)
The US IPCC says that 'the US Temperature record is the Best in the World.'
Discouraging.
BP
Another Note: The 420,000 NOAA graph mentioned elsewhere was reversed from normal reading. This misleads our brains.
It never ends.
Insurance Journal does not allow me to respond to you gentlemen. You will unfortunately remain in ignorance.
And by that, I mean my actual response will never show up, it is continually blocked. Thanks IJ, you’re as fair and balanced as Fox News…
Test:
Against my better judgment, I will respond to you, only so that I am more educated and better prepared to deal with science illiterates:
Anthony Watts is not a scientist. He holds no degree, nor has any formal training to interpret, collect, observe, or report on climate data. He worked as a meteorologist and is able to tell someone accurately when it is raining out, and maybe when it is warm or cold out, although the jury is still out on that one.
On a more serious note, his positions and investigations have been taken seriously by many official government organizations over the years. We should be glad that he did so, because after reviewing false claim after false claim, NOAA offered peer-reviews of its data, confirming their positions entirely and refuting his.
You say that they were using temperature stations which skewed the data to show warmer-than-average temperatures, but stations identified as problematic by Watts and his followers were more likely to report lower-than-average surface temperatures, not higher. Even factoring THAT in, all of the stations fell within standard deviation and any variations have been accounted for.
I don’t know why I am even typing this, or wasting my time, because you don’t care to be educated and will continue to cite this shyster at the next opportunity you get.
To refute your next argument, since you haven’t actually internalized what I just wrote and frankly won’t care:
The Sun as the principal source of increased surface temperature on Earth:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm
Check out page 60. That’s a nope, big fella.
Conclusion: It doesn’t matter what I post because:
A)You don’t trust scientists, only skeptics
B)You don’t trust peer-reviewed studies because you either don’t understand why they have more merit than the assertions of a skeptic with no data to back up their positions, or something else equally unreasonable.
C)”The Backfire Effect” in full force.
For example, here is a link to a Popular Science article which details scholarly resources that detail a few obvious indicators of rapid global climate change. It would be fun if you read it, studied the resources linked therein, and changed your misinformed opinions, but as I said before…The Backfire Effect.
http://www.popsci.com/evidence-climate-change-is-real
Now, if I may further check my sanity at the door, I am going to go argue with our resident super genius Bob (who shares a name with the serial killer from Twin Peaks…a coincidence, no doubt), in another climate change article. I better hope my subhuman intelligence level can match his wits in the arena of the minds. :)
Trash talking against those whose opinions differ in a polar opposite manner will earn you no points. It will, however, lead to censoring by people you offend.
Doug,
I truly appreciate it when folks like you provide “factual scientific reports” allegedly proving the man made climate change is settled science. The reason is because the “details” always show that the reports are based on estimates. For example, please read the Executive Summary on Page 131 and don’t forget to read the footnotes.
These reports always share their scientific calculations and use terms such as “likely”, extremely likely or unlikely” and “medium confidence”.
Here is the footnote on what “extremely likely” and “likely” mean.
The use of ‘extremely likely’ is an example of the calibrated language used in this document, it represents a 95% confidence level or higher; ‘likely’ (66%) is another example (See Box TS.1).
Even within this footnote, it states that these terms are examples of the calibrated language used in the document. (By the way, it should be no surprise that this report is from the IPCC “Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change” and the “extremely likely” language was used for saying “humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate”. They further state that “the RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined
anthropogenic RF.” The RF factor in this case is “human caused” radiative forcing compared to natural causes.
Sooo, there is 66% confidence that man made causes are ESTIMATED to be five times more likely the cause of global warming than solar or natural causes. 66% is not a high number and it is still an estimate.
Here is another great footnote from the report.
“Estimates of RF are accompanied by both an uncertainty range (value uncertainty) and a level of scientific understanding (structural uncertainty). The value uncertainties represent the 5 to 95% (90%) confidence range, and are based on available published studies; the level of scientific understanding is a subjective measure of structural uncertainty and represents how well understood the underlying processes are. Climate change agents with a high level of scientific
understanding are expected to have an RF that falls within their respective uncertainty ranges (See Section 2.9.1 and Box TS.1 for more information).”
This is the best part “the level of scientific understanding is a subjective measure of structural uncertainty and represents how well understood the underlying processes are.”
It is subjective and they measure the confidence level of how well the underlying processes are understood by other climate scientists.
This gives them the ability to be subjective and discount other climate scientists viewpoints and research.
The bottom line is “man made” climate change is NOT settled science. Their own reports state this FACT by declaring their information is based on ESTIMATES and theories.
Integrity Matters:
That’s the way science works. If there is an Extremely High likelihood of something being true (man-made climate change), and an exceptionally unlikely likelihood of increased radiation from the sun being the cause, wouldn’t we want to bank on what scientists are telling us?
You are basing your opinion on apparently nothing, since you can’t provide me with any peer-reviewed studies showing your reasoning for your beliefs, while I can pull more data supporting the science-based reasoning for my belief.
In other words, you are willing to trust all sorts of uninformed, non-scientific people, polls, and graphs, but are unwilling to do so for those with actual science degrees and training. Those who put their methodologies and notes out there for the world to run their own tests.
These scientists discount other findings because the studies that are done to PROVE that the sun or some other thing is influencing climate change more than man-made sources don’t publish methodology, hard data, etc. You can’t prove or disprove what you can’t replicate, right? That is why climatologists leave their models out for the world to see. If you disagree, feel free to try out their models themselves and test them. If you discover holes in their logic, you will become a multi-millionaire, easy.
But you won’t, because I forgot that the last tactic people like you use to avoid assimilating new knowledge:
D)Ignore the science entirely and try to break down how scientists report data, instead of learning why they report them as such.
Your posts are blocked because they violate board rules.
If you state your opinions in a civil manner, without the spam of several links of biased sources that NO ONE will ever read, thinking it adds credibility to your post due to the volume of those biased sources, you won’t be censored. If not, you will have to set up YOUR OWN website to do so.
IJ does not allow you to respond to certain posts because you violate board rules and spam these boards with biased sources that you THINK adds credibility to your position due to their sheer volume.
In your case, the fallacy of extension fails; i.e. a big pile of gold is better than a small pile of gold does not lead to a big pile of garbage being better than a small pile of garbage.
LOL.
!Attention everyone!
Popular Science, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA, NOAA, Scientific American, University studies, and peer reviewed published scholarly papers are not biased sources!
You are embarrassing yourself here, buddy. You realize that, right?
Attention; Libitterals concerned about carbon emissions generated by humans! Reply to this post if you used your air conditioning unit(s) over these past few days, explaining why you contradicted your political philosophy.