Until we get a Carbon Tax, we haven't even started - Page 20 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15051716
BeesKnee5 wrote:This has already been thoroughly blown out of the water by another poster.

No, that's just another false claim from you. You make a lot of false claims.
POD has offered you an example and shown that it is not a scientific research paper, nor does it contain anything more than a reference to a paper already included in the study.

He showed no such thing, and I proved him wrong by quoting several passages that affirmed the cooling but did not mention the Starr and Oort paper.
As I already pointed out they are added to skew the figures and are not genuine peer reviewed research papers that have been published in scientific journals to be open to analysis by fellow researchers.

Garbage. All of them are open to analysis by anyone who cares to try. Where are the refutations?

<crickets>
#15051718
Truth To Power wrote:That's not a strawman. It's a plain fact. That's why they had to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period (and Little Ice Age).


...and I predict you will offer no evidence for your claim that the vast majority of climatologists are deliberately dismissing natural causes when looking at causes for the current global warming.

I have stipulated from the outset that human activities indisputably have some effect on climate. To now claim that is a "concession" on my part is false and disingenuous.

Much less than the amount of current global warming that is due to dishonest manipulation and outright falsification of temperature data.


Can you actually give me a percentage instead of these vague accusations?

Now, what percent of the current global warming is anthropogenic and how much is natural?
#15051721
BeesKnee5 wrote:The 2008 study showed that the majority of scientists in the 1970s believed the future trend was warming.

Because it is a CYCLE that had just finished its cooling phase.
The WUWT study showed that the majority of scientists in the 1970s beleived global temperatures had cooled during 1940-1970 (even allowing for the gerrymandering).

Proving me right and you wrong.
It did not find this view to be unanimous and as the decade progresses, the less support for cooling appears in the dataset.

Because the cycle had begun its warming phase ~1970.
Whilst this is a fun game to play, the two studies do not actually contradict each other.

But the WUWT study contradicts -- in fact, it flat-out disproves -- YOUR claim that the 1940-1970 cooling never happened, and was only claimed in one research paper.
The point is also about what scientists beleived at the time not what was actually found to be true once all the data was available. For example, quoting a paper from 1965 will not answer the period up to 1970.

Your attempt to get rid of the 1940-1970 cooling trend failed. You have been proved wrong. I have been proved right. Deal with it.
So just look at the data,

Which have now been falsified to agree with anti-CO2 hysteria propaganda.
1940s were warmer on average than the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s. However 1957-1963 were not dissimilar to 1940s temperatures and by 1970 global temperatures were on a par with the 1940s. Across all the datasets this is borne out with a 0.2C margin of error.

Not the original datasets before they were retroactively falsified to agree with anti-CO2 hysteria.
Clearly someone with a motive would instead draw a line between the hottest year in the 1940s and the coldest year in the 1950s to claim a 0.4C cooling but I expect most would understand how disingenuous that would be.

But you don't seem to understand how disingenuous it is to alter data retroactively to agree with a lie:
Image
It also shows there is little doubt about whether the earth has been warming since the 1970s and is continuing to warm.

I don't doubt, and have stipulated before, that the earth warmed from ~1970-~2000, just as it had cooled from ~1940-~1970. Whether it has warmed since ~2012 is questionable. It has cooled since 2016.
Obviously you won't acknowledge this because anything not fitting your preconception must be seen as false.

Refuted above.
#15051724
Pants-of-dog wrote:...and I predict you will offer no evidence for your claim that the vast majority of climatologists are deliberately dismissing natural causes when looking at causes for the current global warming.

Because I made no such claim -- you just made it up, as usual -- and don't think they are. It is the minority of very loudly -- and expensively -- publicized anti-fossil-fuel hysteria propagandists who dismiss natural causes of the late 20th century warming, not the majority of climatologists, who must certainly know better even if they don't dare say so.
Can you actually give me a percentage instead of these vague accusations?

No. Even a single digit of precision is probably not justified.
Now, what percent of the current global warming is anthropogenic and how much is natural?

The globe is currently cooling and has been since 2016, so any claimed warming since that time is anthropogenic in the sense that it is entirely fabricated. Of the actual warming that has occurred since 1970, I would guess 70% is natural and no more than 20% due to increased CO2.
#15051733
Truth To Power wrote:Because I made no such claim -- you just made it up, as usual -- and don't think they are. It is the minority of very loudly -- and expensively -- publicized anti-fossil-fuel hysteria propagandists who dismiss natural causes of the late 20th century warming, not the majority of climatologists, who must certainly know better even if they don't dare say so.


Provide evidence that most climatologists think this minority are dismissing natural causes.

No. Even a single digit of precision is probably not justified.

The globe is currently cooling and has been since 2016, so any claimed warming since that time is anthropogenic in the sense that it is entirely fabricated. Of the actual warming that has occurred since 1970, I would guess 70% is natural and no more than 20% due to increased CO2.


Provide evidence for this claim.
#15051764
Truth To Power wrote:Because it is a CYCLE that had just finished its cooling phase.

You will now need to supply evidence that the majority of scientists in the 70s beleived the earth had finished it's cooling phase.
From what I've seen the majority beleived the cooling due to an increase in sulphur and particulate emissions after world war 2.
Proving me right and you wrong.

Now you will need to provide evidence that I previously said the average temperature in the 50s and 60s weren't cooler than the 40s.
I have repeatedly said that the PDO contributed to this. It's not even an argument.

Because the cycle had begun its warming phase ~1970.

I'm beginning to think you are unaware of what the WUWT dataset was looking for. The problem you have is by 1970 the global temperature was on a par with 1940s, any warming since 1970 has been over and above your claimed high of 1940. It hadn't begun it's warming phase, it was already as warm as your peak in the 60 year cycle you claim is the key driver of climate.


But the WUWT study contradicts -- in fact, it flat-out disproves -- YOUR claim that the 1940-1970 cooling never happened, and was only claimed in one research paper.

That's not my claim. My claim is that the temperature records are clear and that by 1970 temperatures were similar to 1940s average.

Your attempt to get rid of the 1940-1970 cooling trend failed. You have been proved wrong. I have been proved right. Deal with it.

Your clearly not taking onboard what I'm saying.
Which have now been falsified to agree with anti-CO2 hysteria propaganda.

Evidence please.

Not the original datasets before they were retroactively falsified to agree with anti-CO2 hysteria.

Still waiting for the evidence

I don't doubt, and have stipulated before, that the earth warmed from ~1970-~2000, just as it had cooled from ~1940-~1970. Whether it has warmed since ~2012 is questionable. It has cooled since 2016.
.


There is nothing questionable about it. Globally 2012 wasn't even a particularly warm year. It cooled for 12-18 months from 2016-18 and has warmed since then. 2016 was an el niño year and we are now approaching the same global temperatures with a neutral ENSO.

Image

Your stipulations are not reflected in any of the temperature records and you have completely failed to support it.

The earth did not cool from 1940-1970, it was cooler between those dates but by 1970 the temperature was similar. You miss out 2000-2012 for some bizarre reason. Then use a year that wasn't particularly warm, presumably because you equate the GAC that hit the Arctic in 2012 to some false proxy of global temperatures for that year. So apart from saying that temperatures rose 1970-2000, none of what you claim is borne out by the evidence.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]