Finally -- Open, publicized debate on Climate.

[SSDD]

Those are unscientific weasel words. WHAT does the world believe is real? That if we reach a 2degC trigger, this defective junker of planet will commit suicide no matter WHAT we do? What is "real"?

How much will the temperature RISE by 2065 or 2100? THAT'S what's required to guide ANY public policy..

Not platitudes like "it's real"... That's WHY -- we need to AIR THIS and I would vote to invoke the Emergency Broadcast system and FORCE voters in America to LISTEN to "what the world believes" and the people who want to CORRECT some of the exaggerated claims and bullshit that's floating like turds in the public minds.

Not sure why you continue to argue with someone who has freely admitted that he is ignorant and fully intends to remain so. That he has no intention of learning anything at all and is blissfully prepared to be a sheep for the rest of his life and believe whatever the people he has accepted as credible in his ignorance tell him to believe. Although one must question how an admitted ignoramus believes he is capable of determining what is credible. He has stated that mere numbers are sufficient to convince him. He is blissful in his ignorance and has stated that he has no intention of changing. He is a lowest common denominator bumper sticker philosopher and has no wish or desire to be anything more...so long as he gets his daily fix of professional wrestling, and shock TV he will remain the tool of the consensus...and when the consensus changes, as it is bound to do at some time, he will follow along and never realize that he changed sides.

 

[BULLDOG]

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Do you have any idea how many times thought history you would be dead wrong by simply accepting the consensus?...any idea at all?

I'm sure there would be several. Not nearly as many times as if I didn't accept the consensus though.

 

[SSDD]

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Do you have any idea how many times thought history you would be dead wrong by simply accepting the consensus?...any idea at all?

I'm sure there would be several. Not nearly as many times as if I didn't accept the consensus though.

Well now, that is one of the problems with being ignorant....if you are right you are just lucky but like this time, you will mostly be wrong. Name a branch of science which, at its early stages such as the level to which climate science is now where the consensus wasn't wrong. My bet is that you won't be able to name any. Such is the nature of science. The answers come slow and with much trial and error. Climate science is no different and right now the consensus is wrong although the truth is on the way.

Not so long ago, climate science was calling CO2 the control knob of the climate...now the estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 are trending towards zero..which is the amount that CO2 contributes to the global cliamte. By the time another 10 years passes, you will be hard pressed to find anyone who will admit to having believed that CO2 ever had anything to do with the global climate...just as you can't find anyone now who will admit to having believed in and supported eugenics.

 

[BULLDOG]

I choose to take the word of virtually all the credible climate scientists in the world, and every major country in the world, except the RWNJs in the US. You choose to believe the word of Alex Jones. Sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Do you have any idea how many times thought history you would be dead wrong by simply accepting the consensus?...any idea at all?

I'm sure there would be several. Not nearly as many times as if I didn't accept the consensus though.

Well now, that is one of the problems with being ignorant....if you are right you are just lucky but like this time, you will mostly be wrong. Name a branch of science which, at its early stages such as the level to which climate science is now where the consensus wasn't wrong. My bet is that you won't be able to name any. Such is the nature of science. The answers come slow and with much trial and error. Climate science is no different and right now the consensus is wrong although the truth is on the way.

Not so long ago, climate science was calling CO2 the control knob of the climate...now the estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 are trending towards zero..which is the amount that CO2 contributes to the global cliamte. By the time another 10 years passes, you will be hard pressed to find anyone who will admit to having believed that CO2 ever had anything to do with the global climate...just as you can't find anyone now who will admit to having believed in and supported eugenics.

No.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension.

In other words, your a useful idiot who parrots what they are told and has no cognitive thinking capabilities... Yet your dead set on "nothing more needs to be discussed or explored" but your ignorant of the subject.

That explains a lot about your parroting of idiocy..

 

[BULLDOG]

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension.

In other words, your a useful idiot who parrots what they are told and has no cognitive thinking capabilities... Yet your dead set on "nothing more needs to be discussed or explored" but your ignorant of the subject.

That explains a lot about your parroting of idiocy..

Do you accept your doctor's word for your condition, or do you insist on seeing the x-rays, and results of the blood tests? Do you consent to being put to sleep for exploratory surgery, or do you insist on just a local anesthetic, so you can poke around in there too? Unless you are an expert in something like that, you would be a fool to think just looking at a few bloggs and a couple of web sites makes you as qualified to interpret the data as well as someone who has put in the years required to know what they really mean.

 

[flacaltenn]

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension.

In other words, your a useful idiot who parrots what they are told and has no cognitive thinking capabilities... Yet your dead set on "nothing more needs to be discussed or explored" but your ignorant of the subject.

That explains a lot about your parroting of idiocy..

Do you accept your doctor's word for your condition, or do you insist on seeing the x-rays, and results of the blood tests? Do you consent to being put to sleep for exploratory surgery, or do you insist on just a local anesthetic, so you can poke around in there too? Unless you are an expert in something like that, you would be a fool to think just looking at a few bloggs and a couple of web sites makes you as qualified to interpret the data as well as someone who has put in the years required to know what they really mean.

Actually, I MAKE my doctors work for it. I was diagnosed by 3 docs with kidney cancer. They took my left kidney. It was a large benign rare tumor. There were tests before surgery that QUESTIONED the diagnosis. Since then -- I DO argue with them. In fact, right now -- I'm losing sleep due to a tonal tinnitus issue and they are stumped. Everything they've TRIED is because I've prompted them to look at it.

Sitting around "trusting the experts" is unwise when you have much at stake. You should NEVER leave a loved one or relative ALONE in the "hands of professionals" in a hospital.

That's where you and I are VASTLY different. You WORSHIP science. I practice it and KNOW it's frailties.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No I don't. Have no fucking idea what Alex Jones thinks. But at the same time -- you have no idea "what the WORLD thinks". What does "the world" think the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be? You got an answer to that? Or you just want to try to attack me with Alex Jones shit?

Need an answer to that question in bold. Might focus your attention on how little we actually have to go on here in terms of ACCURATE and realistic climate projections.

According to "climate science" --- "our children will not know what snow is" in a decade or so.. But in reality, somewhere around 2005, 160 published climate scientists were ACTUALLY POLLED by Bray and von Storch. And they were asked if they considered their field to be a MATURE science. Over 40% of them said it was NOT. And when asked about the accuracy and maturity of the MODELING driving the exaggerated projections -- Only about 50% rated them good or excellent.

I've read your posts. Don't sound much different to me.

So -- you're saying that "the world" believes the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be WHAT?

I have no idea-------not a climate scientist----remember? I go by the most credible source I can find. As a side note, I don't serve as my own cardiologist either. I depend on a credible expert for that too

So -- you cant tell us "what the world thinks" about ANY of those simple ass questions that I asked you? And you've just gonna continue to troll me and believe "the science is settled"? Well get out a checkbook and start writing those $TRILL checks to the 3rd world bud. Make sure it's on your personal account.

I want those debates and confrontations. That's how the science thingy ALWAYS works..

"What the world thinks" is that climate change is real. I don't have to know every detail why. again.......not a climate scientist.

Let me get this straight...

Your an ignorant troll... One who will parrot what your are told... You have no science or scientific evidence to promote your position but Your right and were wrong and we should believe you...

Who the fuck do you think you are? Talk about a fool trying to lead others.. only a fool would follow you..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension.

In other words, your a useful idiot who parrots what they are told and has no cognitive thinking capabilities... Yet your dead set on "nothing more needs to be discussed or explored" but your ignorant of the subject.

That explains a lot about your parroting of idiocy..

Do you accept your doctor's word for your condition, or do you insist on seeing the x-rays, and results of the blood tests? Do you consent to being put to sleep for exploratory surgery, or do you insist on just a local anesthetic, so you can poke around in there too? Unless you are an expert in something like that, you would be a fool to think just looking at a few bloggs and a couple of web sites makes you as qualified to interpret the data as well as someone who has put in the years required to know what they really mean.

I insist on seeing what the evidence is... I research it and I make my own decisions, only fool would do otherwise..

 

[BULLDOG]

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension.

In other words, your a useful idiot who parrots what they are told and has no cognitive thinking capabilities... Yet your dead set on "nothing more needs to be discussed or explored" but your ignorant of the subject.

That explains a lot about your parroting of idiocy..

Do you accept your doctor's word for your condition, or do you insist on seeing the x-rays, and results of the blood tests? Do you consent to being put to sleep for exploratory surgery, or do you insist on just a local anesthetic, so you can poke around in there too? Unless you are an expert in something like that, you would be a fool to think just looking at a few bloggs and a couple of web sites makes you as qualified to interpret the data as well as someone who has put in the years required to know what they really mean.

Actually, I MAKE my doctors work for it. I was diagnosed by 3 docs with kidney cancer. They took my left kidney. It was a large benign rare tumor. There were tests before surgery that QUESTIONED the diagnosis. Since then -- I DO argue with them. In fact, right now -- I'm losing sleep due to a tonal tinnitus issue and they are stumped. Everything they've TRIED is because I've prompted them to look at it.

Sitting around "trusting the experts" is unwise when you have much at stake. You should NEVER leave a loved one or relative ALONE in the "hands of professionals" in a hospital.

That's where you and I are VASTLY different. You WORSHIP science. I practice it and KNOW it's frailties.

Did you insist on being awake during the removal of that kidney so you could make sure they were doing it right? If 99 out of 100 doctors told you that kidney had to go, but one said it's not a problem, would you give the 1 doctor's opinion as much credibility as the 99?

 

[BULLDOG]

I've read your posts. Don't sound much different to me.

So -- you're saying that "the world" believes the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be WHAT?

I have no idea-------not a climate scientist----remember? I go by the most credible source I can find. As a side note, I don't serve as my own cardiologist either. I depend on a credible expert for that too

So -- you cant tell us "what the world thinks" about ANY of those simple ass questions that I asked you? And you've just gonna continue to troll me and believe "the science is settled"? Well get out a checkbook and start writing those $TRILL checks to the 3rd world bud. Make sure it's on your personal account.

I want those debates and confrontations. That's how the science thingy ALWAYS works..

"What the world thinks" is that climate change is real. I don't have to know every detail why. again.......not a climate scientist.

Let me get this straight...

Your an ignorant troll... One who will parrot what your are told... You have no science or scientific evidence to promote your position but Your right and were wrong and we should believe you...

Who the fuck do you think you are? Talk about a fool trying to lead others.. only a fool would follow you..

You are correct. I have no scientific expertise in the area, but I'm still sure I have as much as you or most of the deniers on message boards do. You parrot a few numbers that you have heard and take that as proof that Hannity and Alex Jones are right. I can't do that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Unfortunately, I am not a climate scientist, and all the charts and projections and such are far beyond my comprehension.

In other words, your a useful idiot who parrots what they are told and has no cognitive thinking capabilities... Yet your dead set on "nothing more needs to be discussed or explored" but your ignorant of the subject.

That explains a lot about your parroting of idiocy..

Do you accept your doctor's word for your condition, or do you insist on seeing the x-rays, and results of the blood tests? Do you consent to being put to sleep for exploratory surgery, or do you insist on just a local anesthetic, so you can poke around in there too? Unless you are an expert in something like that, you would be a fool to think just looking at a few bloggs and a couple of web sites makes you as qualified to interpret the data as well as someone who has put in the years required to know what they really mean.

Actually, I MAKE my doctors work for it. I was diagnosed by 3 docs with kidney cancer. They took my left kidney. It was a large benign rare tumor. There were tests before surgery that QUESTIONED the diagnosis. Since then -- I DO argue with them. In fact, right now -- I'm losing sleep due to a tonal tinnitus issue and they are stumped. Everything they've TRIED is because I've prompted them to look at it.

Sitting around "trusting the experts" is unwise when you have much at stake. You should NEVER leave a loved one or relative ALONE in the "hands of professionals" in a hospital.

That's where you and I are VASTLY different. You WORSHIP science. I practice it and KNOW it's frailties.

Did you insist on being awake during the removal of that kidney so you could make sure they were doing it right? If 99 out of 100 doctors told you that kidney had to go, but one said it's not a problem, would you give the 1 doctor's opinion as much credibility as the 99?

No-- way too late to argue. You know that. I did VET the surgeon thoroughly tho. The point at which to argue is EVIDENCE based. And they MISSED or discounted a very important test. Which was the whole body nuclear scan for metastasized cancer that came back COMPLETELY NEGATIVE. So -- with a 3 inch tumor sitting on my kidney, that ONE FACT should have caused them pause. And I brought it up later after they poo pooed it to the oncologist involved and she was honest enough to agree. The others were probably afraid that I would sue them.

What does that have to do with GW and consensus, debate and standing up to DEFEND your theories against doubt and disagreement?

1) Global warming isn't just ONE QUESTION. Every CONSENSUS is on separate questions. Doesn't matter if 99 out of hundred agree on just ONE question. You have to have consensus on ALL the issues.

2) When presented with even ONE CONTRARY FACT OF EVIDENCE -- it needs to get resolved COMPLETELY before ANYONE declares "the science is settled". That's why the science is rarely EVER settled.

 

[IanC]

1) Global warming isn't just ONE QUESTION. Every CONSENSUS is on separate questions. Doesn't matter if 99 out of hundred agree on just ONE question. You have to have consensus on ALL the issues.

2) When presented with even ONE CONTRARY FACT OF EVIDENCE -- it needs to get resolved COMPLETELY before ANYONE declares "the science is settled". That's why the science is rarely EVER settled

Exactly. Bray and Storch actually polled scientists from climate related fields, with specific questions rather than just simple general ones. There was no consensus.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So -- you're saying that "the world" believes the temperature anomaly in 2100 will be WHAT?

I have no idea-------not a climate scientist----remember? I go by the most credible source I can find. As a side note, I don't serve as my own cardiologist either. I depend on a credible expert for that too

So -- you cant tell us "what the world thinks" about ANY of those simple ass questions that I asked you? And you've just gonna continue to troll me and believe "the science is settled"? Well get out a checkbook and start writing those $TRILL checks to the 3rd world bud. Make sure it's on your personal account.

I want those debates and confrontations. That's how the science thingy ALWAYS works..

"What the world thinks" is that climate change is real. I don't have to know every detail why. again.......not a climate scientist.

Let me get this straight...

Your an ignorant troll... One who will parrot what your are told... You have no science or scientific evidence to promote your position but Your right and were wrong and we should believe you...

Who the fuck do you think you are? Talk about a fool trying to lead others.. only a fool would follow you..

You are correct. I have no scientific expertise in the area, but I'm still sure I have as much as you or most of the deniers on message boards do. You parrot a few numbers that you have heard and take that as proof that Hannity and Alex Jones are right. I can't do that.

LOL

Right to name calling while avoiding any question that would expose your ignorance. Some of us actually have degrees in this field and are unafraid of the name-calling and fantasy drivel you call "science" which is actually politically driven pseudoscience..

 

[flacaltenn]

1) Global warming isn't just ONE QUESTION. Every CONSENSUS is on separate questions. Doesn't matter if 99 out of hundred agree on just ONE question. You have to have consensus on ALL the issues.

2) When presented with even ONE CONTRARY FACT OF EVIDENCE -- it needs to get resolved COMPLETELY before ANYONE declares "the science is settled". That's why the science is rarely EVER settled

Exactly. Bray and Storch actually polled scientists from climate related fields, with specific questions rather than just simple general ones. There was no consensus.

And that survey was repeated 3 times. With over 150 questions on GW in most of 3 biannual polls.. That's science. Claiming there is "consensus" without identifying the question -- is just propaganda.

 

[BULLDOG]

1) Global warming isn't just ONE QUESTION. Every CONSENSUS is on separate questions. Doesn't matter if 99 out of hundred agree on just ONE question. You have to have consensus on ALL the issues.

2) When presented with even ONE CONTRARY FACT OF EVIDENCE -- it needs to get resolved COMPLETELY before ANYONE declares "the science is settled". That's why the science is rarely EVER settled

Exactly. Bray and Storch actually polled scientists from climate related fields, with specific questions rather than just simple general ones. There was no consensus.

What is meant by "Climate Related Fields"? Examples?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This is actually an idea I wrote up into a Libertarian candidate white paper. And has already been adopted by the Johnson/Weld ticket last year and many other LParty candidates. And that is to stage and host a series of technical debates at a high visibility in Washington D.C. and encourage the public to view them. It's a very thing to have open debate on the subject EVER. And most of time, very questionable folks (like the Science Guy) ruin the decorum..

Trump’s EPA Chief Promises ‘Red Team’ Climate Debate Sometime Next Year


EPA Chief Scott Pruitt said Thursday that the agency’s much-discussed red tam vs blue team climate debate could happen as soon as January.

The agency’s plan to pit climate scientists against one another on a public forum could come to fruition early next year after the review process is concluded, Pruitt said before lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. Democrats have railed against the idea.

Environmentalists and scientists are not buying Pruitt’s argument. They believe it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices, and argue an existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project.

Stay tuned. We'll all meet here for the viewing !!! I'll cater the affair. The whining is ALREADY epic. Every excuse in the book NOT to discuss and debate the science. Not happy that Heartland is a player. I hope that gets fixed. Because there are DOZENS of better choices. Especially folks like Bray, vonStorch (moderates on the issue), Christy and Spencer at UAHuntsville, several former disgruntlled IPCC chairs, and superstars like Judith Curry.

"Bout time. The "Romp in the Swamp" grudge match is ON !!!!

Not sure any credible scientist would want to be part of that circus.

It's not a circus. It's a debate. To resolve discrepancies between sides, suggest projections that can be used for Public Policy. Don't know if you noticed. But since the IPCC shut down, there haven't been weekly, monthly screaming headlines about what the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be. Since every important projection from 1980 to 2006 or so was constantly REVISED DOWNWARDS..

If ANYTHING -- it will provide a baseline for what is BELIEVED NOW.. Versus the early original BS being fed to the public in 1980 1990 that induced panic and rampant fear.... Problem with the internet is --- all those bogus "panic the herd" predictions that have been withdrawn and modified are STILL OUT THERE. Need a fresh reboot on the CURRENT thinking..

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Those suds coming out of your ears are caused by the severe brainwashing you have undergone. For your reference, real scientists welcome debate and exploration of ideas. Especially on complicated systems like climate. Oh, and you have some soap coming out of your nose.

 

[flacaltenn]

1) Global warming isn't just ONE QUESTION. Every CONSENSUS is on separate questions. Doesn't matter if 99 out of hundred agree on just ONE question. You have to have consensus on ALL the issues.

2) When presented with even ONE CONTRARY FACT OF EVIDENCE -- it needs to get resolved COMPLETELY before ANYONE declares "the science is settled". That's why the science is rarely EVER settled

Exactly. Bray and Storch actually polled scientists from climate related fields, with specific questions rather than just simple general ones. There was no consensus.

What is meant by "Climate Related Fields"? Examples?

You can get a climate science degree the EASY way or the HARD way. The easy way is thru a geology dept where you focus on terrestrial effects of global warming, historical proxy evidence of past climates and such. Not really much in the way of Atmospheric physics, or Ocean Thermodynamics, or deep into modeling, statistics and math. The other way is thru a more comprehensive and rigorous "physics" approach which is usually the case when the school HAS a Climate program.

At any rate -- there are about 30 disciplines involved in GW science. All types of specialties. From dating ancient materials for climate clues to atmos physics, modeling, various oceanography specialties ect. ANY of these folks that publish vetted peer reviewed papers on climate change were eligible for the Bray vonStorch polling. No one person can cover all that ground. This also includes OUTSIDE specialties like the guys who design and maintain all the space science packages. Or the ice core/tree ring squad. Or folks that are specialists in the modeling and data preparation techniques. ANY of them -- if they publish on GW is considered "a Climate Scientist"...

In fact -- Bray is a statistician specializing in processing CC data and vonStorch was a contributing member to the IPCC (with which he's had disagreements) and a pre-eminent expert on many topics in Climate Change. But LATELY -- he was disappointed in the way that CC science was being handed to policy decision makers and he's VERY active in polling the field and assuring that the information given to policy makers is ethical, well reviewed, and objective.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- Even biologists, economists, sociology, disaster planners and other disciplines publish on GW.. Most of these are to testify and frighten folks about the looming cluster fuck that's not likely to happen. It's a HUGE family..

 

[BULLDOG]

This is actually an idea I wrote up into a Libertarian candidate white paper. And has already been adopted by the Johnson/Weld ticket last year and many other LParty candidates. And that is to stage and host a series of technical debates at a high visibility in Washington D.C. and encourage the public to view them. It's a very thing to have open debate on the subject EVER. And most of time, very questionable folks (like the Science Guy) ruin the decorum..

Trump’s EPA Chief Promises ‘Red Team’ Climate Debate Sometime Next Year


EPA Chief Scott Pruitt said Thursday that the agency’s much-discussed red tam vs blue team climate debate could happen as soon as January.

The agency’s plan to pit climate scientists against one another on a public forum could come to fruition early next year after the review process is concluded, Pruitt said before lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. Democrats have railed against the idea.

Environmentalists and scientists are not buying Pruitt’s argument. They believe it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices, and argue an existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project.

Stay tuned. We'll all meet here for the viewing !!! I'll cater the affair. The whining is ALREADY epic. Every excuse in the book NOT to discuss and debate the science. Not happy that Heartland is a player. I hope that gets fixed. Because there are DOZENS of better choices. Especially folks like Bray, vonStorch (moderates on the issue), Christy and Spencer at UAHuntsville, several former disgruntlled IPCC chairs, and superstars like Judith Curry.

"Bout time. The "Romp in the Swamp" grudge match is ON !!!!

Not sure any credible scientist would want to be part of that circus.

It's not a circus. It's a debate. To resolve discrepancies between sides, suggest projections that can be used for Public Policy. Don't know if you noticed. But since the IPCC shut down, there haven't been weekly, monthly screaming headlines about what the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be. Since every important projection from 1980 to 2006 or so was constantly REVISED DOWNWARDS..

If ANYTHING -- it will provide a baseline for what is BELIEVED NOW.. Versus the early original BS being fed to the public in 1980 1990 that induced panic and rampant fear.... Problem with the internet is --- all those bogus "panic the herd" predictions that have been withdrawn and modified are STILL OUT THERE. Need a fresh reboot on the CURRENT thinking..

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Those suds coming out of your ears are caused by the severe brainwashing you have undergone. For your reference, real scientists welcome debate and exploration of ideas. Especially on complicated systems like climate. Oh, and you have some soap coming out of your nose.

Yes. I'm well aware of all the debate about whether gravity is something real, and whether it has any impact on us. It is still just a theory, after all. I'm also impressed with all the debate on the heliocentric theory as well. After all, whether the earth circles the sun, or the other way around is still just another theory.