Climategate - Why are Liberals so stupid - 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.
#15195138
A lot of what winds me up in not what forum members say but what I have to endure from Liberal media, so apologies upfront for expressing my rage. I just endured "The Trick" and a propaganda movie sorry documentary called "Climategate science of a scandal".

So the criminal fraudsters at the heart of this substituted the temperature data for the tree ring proxy data for the most recent part of the graph, to maintain the hockey stick for all curves. And the Liberals were oh so pleased with themselves to repeatedly point out that the tree ring proxy date does not mean the claimed warming in recent years didn't happen.

If I was to be generous I'd say there was at most about two minutes worth of science in the film and the documentary put together. Yes retard we get that the thing that was hidden was not a fall in recent temperatures, but a fall in the temperatures extrapolated from the tree ring data proxy. No retard we don't think that the tree ring data means there has been a fall in recent temperatures. It is of course evidence of such a fall, but its pretty weak evidence when in conflict with the numerous more direct methods of measuring temperature.

No the point is, that if the tree ring proxy is inaccurate in the recent past it may be inaccurate in the far less recent past. If the tree ring data failed to represent "unprecedented global warming" in the recent past it may not represent "unprecedented global warming" in the far less recent past. the recent unprecedented global warming may not be unprecedented at all. just because the end of the hockey stick is accurate in absolute temperatures, doesn't mean the hockey stick isn't a lie, because its relative to warming in the past which can not be measured directly.

Now I'm not a climate scientist, but I would be very surprised if the tree ring proxies have not been used in the calibration of other temperature proxies. Undermining the even longer time period hockey stick claims as well.
#15195188
@Rich, what are you waffling on about. There was climate change in the past but it is the rate of change now that is the issue which wasn't the case when the earth wobbled. What is taking decades to occur today took millennials before and as such the rate of extinction is a thousand times higher than the natural baseline rate.

Also, you are from the UK right? Look out your window. Count the leaves on the ground compared to on the trees and also look at the colour. They are green and on the trees. Also look at the temperature. Above 10c. We are in Autumn, closer to Winter than Summer and plantation is acting as if it is Summer. I don't know how old you are but in my lifetime, I remember hard frost on the ground around bonfire night and having to wrap up warm to watch the fireworks. That wasn't that long ago. So I can see the difference in the climate in MY LIFETIME. I don't need to look at any graph of cut open any trees and count the rings to know there is a problem occurring right now. So the only propaganda that is happening right now is people who have an agenda to make the Climate Change fact into a myth.
#15195200
B0ycey wrote:@Rich, what are you waffling on about. There was climate change in the past but it is the rate of change now that is the issue which wasn't the case when the earth wobbled. What is taking decades to occur today took millennials before

What? What about the Younger Dryas? And that's just in the last fifteen thousand years. You see this is what I mean by the ignorance of Liberals. Of course the Younger Dryas, neither its inception or nor its cessation were caused by the earth wobbling.
#15195207
Rich wrote:What? What about the Younger Dryas? And that's just in the last fifteen thousand years. You see this is what I mean by the ignorance of Liberals. Of course the Younger Dryas, neither its inception or nor its cessation were caused by the earth wobbling.


The Younger Dryas was an event that took over a thousand years to occur and wasn't done in a single lifetime. Not that the Earth Wobble is the only factor in climate change but merely used as an example. I could also mention meteors, tectonic plate shift, plantation, volcanoes and ocean currents.

The point was that slow climate change allows biodiversity to evolve and adapt to the conditions and by defacto that includes humans. Quick change alters the ecosystem to detrimental effect.
#15195217
B0ycey wrote:The Younger Dryas was an event that took over a thousand years to occur and wasn't done in a single lifetime.

I'm just quoting this for now so you can't just edit it away. Rather than responding immediately I'm going to leave it there for others to try and work out for themselves what's wrong with that response.
#15195218
Rich wrote:I'm just quoting this for now so you can't just edit it away. Rather than responding immediately I'm going to leave it there for others to try and work out for themselves what's wrong with that response.


No problem Rich. I only edit spelling errors though and usually stand by what is written. :lol:
#15195267
B0ycey wrote:The Younger Dryas was an event that took over a thousand years to occur and wasn't done in a single lifetime. Not that the Earth Wobble is the only factor in climate change but merely used as an example. I could also mention meteors, tectonic plate shift, plantation, volcanoes and ocean currents.

The point was that slow climate change allows biodiversity to evolve and adapt to the conditions and by defacto that includes humans. Quick change alters the ecosystem to detrimental effect.

A thousand years is the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. And the current anthropogenic Holocene climate change began about 10,000 years ago and is still ongoing.

And there is no guarantee that 'natural' climate change has been slow in the past or will be slow in the future. In fact, the fossil record rather suggests the reverse....
#15195268
Potemkin wrote:
And there is no guarantee that 'natural' climate change has been slow in the past or will be slow in the future. In fact, the fossil record rather suggests the reverse....



We know why it's happening now.
#15195276
Wiki wrote:The change to glacial conditions at the onset of the Younger Dryas in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, between 12,900 and 11,500 calendar years BP, has been argued to have been quite abrupt.[16] It is in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding Older Dryas interstadial. Its end has been inferred to have occurred over a period of a decade or so,[17 but the onset may have even been faster.[18

So the warming at the end of the Younger Dryas seemingly was far more severe than anything we've experienced in recent decades.

Then there's the elephant in the room. Tree ring growth is considered a proxy for temperature. The higher the temperature the more tree ring growth supposedly. So we're supposed to see greater tree growth as a sign of ecological destruction. It is shall we say counter intuitive. Now I'm a proud denier. What does it mean to be a climate denier? Does it mean that I deny any possibility of catastrophic anthropomorphic, global warming over the next few decades? No of course not, it just means that I deny that the average Liberal knows what they are talking about when it comes to climate change.
#15195310
Potemkin wrote:A thousand years is the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. And the current anthropogenic Holocene climate change began about 10,000 years ago and is still ongoing.

And there is no guarantee that 'natural' climate change has been slow in the past or will be slow in the future. In fact, the fossil record rather suggests the reverse....


Everything is a blink of the eye geologically speaking - even our existence. A thousand years is longer than a generation. The Allerod Interstradial was an increase of fresh water that altered the conveyerbelt. It was however a slow process in terms of human existence. If the same processes are in play under the same rate, we can expect a huge global heat increase within a hundred years. In fact, I would say that is already happening in less.
#15195315
Rich wrote:So the warming at the end of the Younger Dryas seemingly was far more severe than anything we've experienced in recent decades.

Then there's the elephant in the room. Tree ring growth is considered a proxy for temperature. The higher the temperature the more tree ring growth supposedly. So we're supposed to see greater tree growth as a sign of ecological destruction. It is shall we say counter intuitive. Now I'm a proud denier. What does it mean to be a climate denier? Does it mean that I deny any possibility of catastrophic anthropomorphic, global warming over the next few decades? No of course not, it just means that I deny that the average Liberal knows what they are talking about when it comes to climate change.

First off, the Younger Dryas did see the extinction of the Megafauna. So, yes, it was fast. But, it is and has been a huge problem. Some scientists think they have good evidence that it started with a meteorite strike on the ice sheet near where Lake Superior is now. Some scientist have pointed out that the ice sheets melted way too fast at that time. That is, we know about how much heat the sun can deliver to that mass of ice. So, we know how long it would take to melt so much ice. And, it melted IIRC about 7 times too fast.

Second, I, personally, have never seen tree rings being used as a temp proxy. We have other ways to know the temps in deep time. I think the main one uses O2 somehow.
. . . I would wonder about using tree rings for temps, because they tell us more about rainfall than, temps. However, I may just have missed this new idea.

So, I conclude that this is no big deal.

.
#15195320
B0ycey wrote:Everything is a blink of the eye geologically speaking - even our existence. A thousand years is longer than a generation. The Allerod Interstradial was an increase of fresh water that altered the conveyerbelt. It was however a slow process in terms of human existence. If the same processes are in play under the same rate, we can expect a huge global heat increase within a hundred years. In fact, I would say that is already happening in less.

I don't deny that. I am merely pointing out that anthropogenic climate change (which clearly exists and is clearly a major threat to the continued long-term existence of our industrial civilisation) is not significantly faster or significantly more threatening than previous 'natural' climate changes. The implied assumption that human=bad and natural=good is what I am challenging.
#15195321
Potemkin wrote:I don't deny that. I am merely pointing out that anthropogenic climate change (which clearly exists and is clearly a major threat to the continued long-term existence of our industrial civilisation) is not significantly faster or significantly more threatening than previous 'natural' climate changes. The implied assumption that human=bad and natural=good is what I am challenging.

That the rate of change is NOT faster than 99.9% of the natural changes for the last 800K years is just false.

The only one that is comparable is the Younger Dryas, and it did see extinctions.

Also, it made it cooler and so didn't risk new tipping points. Then, it is new to me that, maybe, it also heated back up very fast. However, whatever the cause was, it didn't heat up to hotter than it is now, AFAIK. So, it didn't trigger the known tipping points (and we don't know for sure exactly what temp it will take to trigger them). But, if we trigger one, and it is really a tipping point, then we are F'd.
.
#15195324
Rich wrote:No of course not, it just means that I deny that the average Liberal knows what they are talking about when it comes to climate change.


The problem is, scientists do have to look into the past and find commonality to please those who deny the fucking obvious (like you). We don't need to make models or look into past events or even look at tree rings to know CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet given it is a property of CO2 to retain heat ffs. And of course we can look at average global temperatures to notice a pattern anyway. No it is the job of Liberals (scientists) to prove this beyond any doubt so deniers only have their insanity (and frankly gluttony and greed) left on show.
#15195325
Potemkin wrote:The implied assumption that human=bad and natural=good is what I am challenging.


It isn't an applied assumption though. Humans can change their habits for the good of the planet whereas mother nature is just something we need to accept. And when I mean planet, I really mean ecosystem in which most life need to exist. After all in terms of planet Earth, it doesn't mind being Venus with cockroaches given it has no moral conscious. It does matter for most of life though. And it certainly matters for humanity when the food and water wars begin and mass migration starts. And given we are making this a disaster, that to me is worse than ice melting.
#15195327
Potemkin wrote:
I don't deny that. I am merely pointing out that anthropogenic climate change (which clearly exists and is clearly a major threat to the continued long-term existence of our industrial civilisation) is not significantly faster or significantly more threatening than previous 'natural' climate changes. The implied assumption that human=bad and natural=good is what I am challenging.



Image
#15195331
late wrote:Image

Go farther back in time, and you'll find CO2 levels much higher than the current level. And I'm not denying that anthropogenic climate change is a threat to our way of life. It's the portrayal of nature as being somehow always benign and stable which I am challenging. Mother Nature has done stuff which puts our feeble efforts into the shade.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

pheromone driven Well, if you don't want sex and[…]

In the OP I asked people like you to not respond,[…]

With great power comes great lulz. https://str[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

Lies that you are fabricating. You're a lying foo[…]