"Whether we like it or not" - Page 5 - 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.
#15191862
Truth To Power wrote:Of course it is.

That is nothing but absurd, anti-scientific garbage. Why would it?

That is a claim based on objectively false premises.

No, he is objectively correct.

No, he is being completely honest by reporting the fact that 2016 was hotter than 2020.

Right. It is a lie that you made up. Where did I or Spencer say the planet has cooled "remarkably"?

No, that is what you said:

Remember?

Shocker...

But only in one direction? It naturally cools but never warms?

And it is, as I already demonstrated.

No it isn't. I already proved that to you.

If your objectively false premises were true instead of being objectively false.


This is poorly written.

Please write a few simple and clear sentences with a clear argument or refutation. Provide sources for any claims. Once you show that you have the required reading comprehension and writing skills, we can discuss whatever it is you are claiming.

Back to my argument:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-wh ... -to-humans

    How much warming is caused by humans?
    In its 2013 fifth assessment report, the IPCC stated in its summary for policymakers that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By “extremely likely”, it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans.

    This somewhat convoluted statement has been often misinterpreted as implying that the human responsibility for modern warming lies somewhere between 50% and 100%. In fact, as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt has pointed out, the IPCC’s implied best guess was that humans were responsible for around 110% of observed warming (ranging from 72% to 146%), with natural factors in isolation leading to a slight cooling over the past 50 years.

    Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities.

    These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.

    ‘Forcings’ that change the climate
    Scientists measure the various factors that affect the amount of energy that reaches and remains in the Earth’s climate. They are known as “radiative forcings”.

    These forcings include greenhouse gases, which trap outgoing heat, aerosols – both from human activities and volcanic eruptions – that reflect incoming sunlight and influence cloud formation, changes in solar output, changes in the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface associated with land use, and many other factors.

    To assess the role of each different forcing in observed temperature changes, Carbon Brief adapted a simple statistical climate model developed by Dr Karsten Haustein and his colleagues at the University of Oxford and University of Leeds. This model finds the relationship between both human and natural climate forcings and temperature that best matches observed temperatures, both globally and over land areas only.

    The figure below shows the estimated role of each different climate forcing in changing global surface temperatures since records began in 1850 – including greenhouse gases (red line), aerosols (dark blue), land use (light blue), ozone (pink), solar (yellow) and volcanoes (orange).

    The black dots show observed temperatures from the Berkeley Earth surface temperature project, while the grey line shows the estimated warming from the combination of all the different types of forcings.

    Image

    …..(article continues)…..

The article goes on to show the effect of the major natural forces (solar and volcanic activity) that are causing cooling, and how much larger the anthropogenic warming is.
#15191879
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is poorly written.

No it isn't. Your claims are just objectively false.
Please write a few simple and clear sentences with a clear argument or refutation.

My sentences are always clear, and as simple as they can be while expressing the complexity of my thoughts. My arguments and refutations are likewise clear, and expressed in clear sentences.
Provide sources for any claims.

:lol: :lol: Like you do...?
Once you show that you have the required reading comprehension and writing skills, we can discuss whatever it is you are claiming.

<yawn> I spent many years as a professional writer and editor, and scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not, so I will thank you to have appropriate respect for someone whose reading comprehension and writing skills are clearly superior to yours.
Back to my argument:

You mean your copy-paste from anti-fossil-fuel hysteria sites like:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

    How much warming is caused by humans?
    In its 2013 fifth assessment report, the IPCC stated in its summary for policymakers that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By “extremely likely”, it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans.

    This somewhat convoluted statement has been often misinterpreted as implying that the human responsibility for modern warming lies somewhere between 50% and 100%. In fact, as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt

Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen are the two liars-for-hire in charge of making sure NASA and NOAA erase empirically valid climate science and replace it with absurd and dishonest nonscience like:
has pointed out, the IPCC’s implied best guess was that humans were responsible for around 110% of observed warming (ranging from 72% to 146%), with natural factors in isolation leading to a slight cooling over the past 50 years.

Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities.

These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.

‘Forcings’ that change the climate
Scientists measure the various factors that affect the amount of energy that reaches and remains in the Earth’s climate. They are known as “radiative forcings”.

These forcings include greenhouse gases, which trap outgoing heat, aerosols – both from human activities and volcanic eruptions – that reflect incoming sunlight and influence cloud formation, changes in solar output, changes in the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface associated with land use, and many other factors.

But excluding the measures of solar activity that are associated with temperature variation.
To assess the role of each different forcing in observed temperature changes, Carbon Brief adapted a simple statistical climate model developed by Dr Karsten Haustein and his colleagues at the University of Oxford and University of Leeds. This model finds the relationship between both human and natural climate forcings and temperature that best matches observed temperatures, both globally and over land areas only.

The figure below shows the estimated role of each different climate forcing in changing global surface temperatures since records began in 1850 – including greenhouse gases (red line), aerosols (dark blue), land use (light blue), ozone (pink), solar (yellow) and volcanoes (orange).

The black dots show observed temperatures from the Berkeley Earth surface temperature project, while the grey line shows the estimated warming from the combination of all the different types of forcings.

Image

…..(article continues)…..

The article goes on to show the effect of the major natural forces (solar and volcanic activity) that are causing cooling, and how much larger the anthropogenic warming is.

And consists of empirically falsified nonscience.
#15191887
Truth To Power wrote:No it isn't. Your claims are just objectively false.

My sentences are always clear, and as simple as they can be while expressing the complexity of my thoughts. My arguments and refutations are likewise clear, and expressed in clear sentences.

:lol: :lol: Like you do...?

<yawn> I spent many years as a professional writer and editor, and scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not, so I will thank you to have appropriate respect for someone whose reading comprehension and writing skills are clearly superior to yours.

You mean your copy-paste from anti-fossil-fuel hysteria sites like:

Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen are the two liars-for-hire in charge of making sure NASA and NOAA erase empirically valid climate science and replace it with absurd and dishonest nonscience like:

But excluding the measures of solar activity that are associated with temperature variation.

And consists of empirically falsified nonscience.


None of this is a clearly written argument or refutation.

Please write clear and supported claims. Thank you.

Truth To Power wrote:No it isn't. Bone up on your logic, and you might have something interesting to contribute.


Yes, you are making a No True Scotsman fallacy.

You are claiming that only those climate scientists that agree with your claim are true climate scientists and any that disagree with you are not true climate scientists.

This is a classic example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.
#15191972
Truth To Power wrote:
Yes, solar activity was at a sustained multi-millennium high in the 20th century, returning the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.



Tough choice!

Do I believe NASA and thousands of real scientists, or... a handful of kooks that get money from Big Oil.
#15192016
late wrote:Love the insanity, but...

It is fact. The claim that there is some sort of climate crisis or emergency is just flat-out gaslighting: pretending that self-evident facts people can plainly see for themselves are delusions.
late wrote:Here in Maine, species are moving North. Some have left, like the caribou, new arrivals keep coming in. Lobster used to live as far south as New York. They've been moving up the coast, eventually we won't have lobster.

Wait, what? Is that really true?? A lobster moved?? I had no idea climate change could cause a lobster to move! Oh, the humanity! I take back everything I said! No sacrifice is too great if we can just ensure that no lobsters move!
Winter used to kill off a lot of the ticks, but the winter is milder now, and a lot more of them survive. I've had my house for over 20 years. I used to have to shovel the roof twice, then it became once. I haven't had to shovel in a couple years.

Oh, the humanity! I hope you have paid the premiums on your not-having-to-shovel-snow insurance!
The speed of glaciers melting is a danger. Over a billion people depend on the runoff from the Himalayas, and that glacier is melting.

And in just a thousand years, it could be gone! No wonder you call it a crisis, an emergency!
The cost of weather disasters keeps going up, it has insurance guys worried.

Because there is more and more stuff to be damaged, not because the weather has become any more severe.
I could keep going, but the scientists have done a better job than I could.

No, keep going, I'm learning so much!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Spencer gets his money from Big Oil, his recent work is a joke.

Those claims are both just baldly false, but you obviously don't mind making baldly false claims. That's what gaslighting is all about.
Btw, we measure warming from Space now, it's a direct measurement, and accurate, and doesn't help the kooks at all.

There is no direct measure of the earth's surface temperature from space. UAH measures the lower troposphere temperature, which is about as close as it gets. And UAH says the earth has cooled in the last five years.
I've been countering kooks with science for about 30 years.

Like the above? :lol: :lol: :lol: I doubt you have any significant acquaintance with genuine empirical science.
I'm tired of it.

Imagine how I feel!
This became settled science over 20 years ago.

No, it most certainly did not.
The only thing that makes this more prominent than the Flat Earth society is the millions of dollars Big Oil pumps in to create the appearance of controversy.

That's just baldly false. It is billions in government money that has fabricated the whole anti-fossil-fuel scare campaign in the first place. It started when James Hansen surreptitiously arranged to have the Capitol's air conditioning turned off on the hottest day of the year, just as he was about to make his presentation to Congress.
There is no controversy.

And the gaslighting goes on....
#15192019
late wrote:Do I believe NASA and thousands of real scientists,
There's your problem: choosing whom to believe rather than doing any critical thinking.
or... a handful

It's thousands...
of kooks

Of competent, honest, and reputable scientists...
that get money from Big Oil.

That in fact don't.
#15192021
Pants-of-dog wrote:None of this is a clearly written argument or refutation.

And the gaslighting goes on....
Please write clear and supported claims. Thank you.

I have. You just can't address any of them, so you have to pretend I didn't write them.
Yes, you are making a No True Scotsman fallacy.

No, I am not.
You are claiming that only those climate scientists that agree with your claim are true climate scientists and any that disagree with you are not true climate scientists.

No I'm not. You simply made that up. You have evidently been taking strawman lessons from Cathy Newman:


This is a classic example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Yes, but it just isn't what I said.
#15192024
Truth To Power wrote:And the gaslighting goes on....

I have. You just can't address any of them, so you have to pretend I didn't write them.

No, I am not.

No I'm not. You simply made that up. You have evidently been taking strawman lessons from Cathy Newman:



Yes, but it just isn't what I said.


This series of disjointed phrases is meaningless.

Please write clearly.

————————-

If the argument is that there is no climate crisis, then please explain why hundreds of people died this summer from a heatwave in Canada.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01869-0

    Climate change made North America’s deadly heatwave 150 times more likely
    Rising global temperatures probably contributed to a week of record-breaking heat in Canada and the United States.

    The devastating heatwave that struck parts of Canada and the United States late last month would have been extremely unlikely without global warming, researchers have concluded.

    The chance of temperatures in the Pacific Northwest region coming close to 50 °C has increased at least 150-fold since the end of the nineteenth century, found a rapid analysis conducted in response to the heatwave.

    “This heatwave would have been virtually impossible without the influence of human-caused climate change,” says Sjoukje Philip, a climate scientist at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) in De Bilt and a co-author of the analysis. “It was probably still a rare event, but if global warming might exceed two degrees, it might occur every five to ten years in the future.”

    The record-breaking heatwave lasted from 25 June to 1 July, and affected large cities that rarely experience extreme heat, including Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Vancouver, Canada. More than 500 excess deaths and 180 wildfires were recorded in the western Canadian province of British Columbia. The region’s peak temperature of 49.6 °C, recorded on 29 June in the village of Lytton, was the highest ever reported in Canada. Lytton’s inhabitants were evacuated before a devastating blaze almost completely destroyed the village.

    A group of 27 scientists with the World Weather Attribution (WWA) project rushed to analyse whether global warming had influenced the likelihood of such an intense heatwave occurring in the region.

    Their analysis reveals an unambiguous footprint of human-caused climate change. The team compared the observed heat with maximum daily temperatures predicted by climate models, including simulations of temperatures in an atmosphere unaltered by the effect of rising greenhouse-gas concentrations. They concluded that the global average temperature increase of 1.2 °C since pre-industrial times made the extreme heatwave at least 150 times more likely to happen.

    …..(article continues)……
#15192033
Truth To Power wrote:

There's your problem: choosing whom to believe rather than doing any critical thinking.




Ironic, that..

I have been following the science since the 80s. There was a massive furball in the 90s where they argued over everything. I saw one paper where they examined the potential influence of erosion of the Himalayas running into the Indian ocean.

But there was a clear winner.

The warming, and it's cause, has been known since the 1970s. Serious attacks (like the inflience of the Sun) were rejected a quarter century ago. Since then there is a mountain of work that all supports AGW.

I don't know why you are backing such pathetic propaganda. Usually it's because people are paid to do that. We used to have a climate researcher on another forum that used to exist. It was always fun to watch him destroy BS like yours. Expertise is not hard to spot. I don't have it, and it abundantly clear neither do you.
#15192037
late wrote:I have been following the science since the 80s.

Then I have a decade on you. I studied planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university in the 1970s.
The warming, and it's cause, has been known since the 1970s.

Garbage. In the 1970s there had been cooling for decades, in fact my geophysics professors mentioned it in class.
Serious attacks (like the inflience of the Sun) were rejected a quarter century ago.

By the anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers. Not by genuine climate scientists.
Since then there is a mountain of work that all supports AGW.

Of course that is just more gaslighting from you. Anyone who cares to investigate the science can find plenty of peer-reviewed research that refutes AGW nonscience.
I don't know why you are backing such pathetic propaganda.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
Usually it's because people are paid to do that.

That is a bald falsehood. There is a lot more money being made peddling the anti-fossil-fuel scare line.
We used to have a climate researcher on another forum that used to exist.

He was the one being paid to peddle propaganda.
It was always fun to watch him destroy BS like yours.

I'm sure he was a highly skilled propagandist.
Expertise is not hard to spot.

Sometimes experts are right, and sometimes they just can't see the big picture.
I don't have it, and it abundantly clear neither do you.

I don't claim expertise. I just identify facts and their logical implications.
#15192041
Pants-of-dog wrote:This series of disjointed phrases is meaningless.

No it isn't. Anyone reading what I wrote can see for themselves that it is not meaningless. You are just gaslighting again: pretending that facts people can see very well are delusions.
Please write clearly.

You don't know anyone who writes more clearly than I.
If the argument is that there is no climate crisis, then please explain why hundreds of people died this summer from a heatwave in Canada.

Because hundreds or even thousands also die in cold snaps.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01869-0

    Climate change made North America’s deadly heatwave 150 times more likely
    Rising global temperatures probably contributed to a week of record-breaking heat in Canada and the United States.

"Contributed to" is not the same as, "caused."
The devastating heatwave that struck parts of Canada and the United States late last month would have been extremely unlikely without global warming, researchers have concluded.

Of course. If the sun hadn't warmed the earth since the Little Ice Age, it would be a lot cooler. Duh.
“This heatwave would have been virtually impossible without the influence of human-caused climate change,” says Sjoukje Philip, a climate scientist at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) in De Bilt and a co-author of the analysis.

Then what caused the European heatwave of 1540 that killed thousands?
More than 500 excess deaths and 180 wildfires were recorded in the western Canadian province of British Columbia.

"Excess" deaths in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic? Please.
The region’s peak temperature of 49.6 °C, recorded on 29 June in the village of Lytton, was the highest ever reported in Canada.

Lytton has recorded Canada's highest temperatures on more summer days than any other location.
A group of 27 scientists with the World Weather Attribution (WWA) project rushed to analyse whether global warming had influenced the likelihood of such an intense heatwave occurring in the region.

Their analysis reveals an unambiguous footprint of human-caused climate change.

Garbage.
The team compared the observed heat with maximum daily temperatures predicted by climate models, including simulations of temperatures in an atmosphere unaltered by the effect of rising greenhouse-gas concentrations. They concluded that the global average temperature increase of 1.2 °C since pre-industrial times made the extreme heatwave at least 150 times more likely to happen.

…..(article continues)……

Same old post hoc fallacy: attributing solar heating to CO2.
#15192044
Truth To Power wrote:

Garbage.

In the 1970s there had been cooling for decades, in fact my geophysics professors mentioned it in class.



Nope, you just don't know what you're talking about, which is hardly a surprise by this point.

In the 1970s, this was big money research, and secret. DARPA did the heavy lifting, but an oil company found the same thing in their research. Both were kept secret.
#15192048
Truth To Power wrote:No it isn't. Anyone reading what I wrote can see for themselves that it is not meaningless. You are just gaslighting again: pretending that facts people can see very well are delusions.

You don't know anyone who writes more clearly than I.

Because hundreds or even thousands also die in cold snaps.

"Contributed to" is not the same as, "caused."

Of course. If the sun hadn't warmed the earth since the Little Ice Age, it would be a lot cooler. Duh.

Then what caused the European heatwave of 1540 that killed thousands?

"Excess" deaths in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic? Please.

Lytton has recorded Canada's highest temperatures on more summer days than any other location.

Garbage.

Same old post hoc fallacy: attributing solar heating to CO2.


Please write clear arguments or refutations. It is not the job of others to construct your arguments for you out of these disjointed sentence fragments.

—————————

Since this has turned into one of the many threads where everyone who thinks there is a problem with climate change provides evidence, while the climate denialist side does not.

This is yet another example of why this debate is settled and simultaneously useless.
#15192052
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Please write clear arguments or refutations. It is not the job of others to construct your arguments for you out of these disjointed sentence fragments.

—————————

Since this has turned into one of the many threads where everyone who thinks there is a problem with climate change provides evidence, while the climate denialist side does not.

This is yet another example of why this debate is settled and simultaneously useless.



The last thing a propagandist wants is serious dialogue.

They need to create the appearance of controversy, so endlessly repeating their talking points is all they can do..
#15192169
late wrote:Nope, you just don't know what you're talking about,

I most certainly do. I was there.
which is hardly a surprise by this point.

What's hardly a surprise by this point is is that all you can do is deny.
In the 1970s, this was big money research, and secret.

No it wasn't. There were a handful of small teams doing work of varying quality, mostly in the open.
DARPA did the heavy lifting, but an oil company found the same thing in their research. Both were kept secret.

But neither had any genuine scientific credibility, as they ignored Angstrom's demonstration decades earlier that adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air does not significantly alter its infrared transmissivity.
#15192170
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please write clear arguments or refutations.

You are aware that I have, and do. Stop trying to gaslight readers, who are also well aware that I write clear arguments and refutations.
It is not the job of others to construct your arguments for you out of these disjointed sentence fragments.

My arguments are perfectly clear, as readers are well aware. You just can't answer them. But speaking of sentence fragments:
Since this has turned into one of the many threads where everyone who thinks there is a problem with climate change provides evidence, while the climate denialist side does not.

Nice one. As you know, I have provided lots of evidence. You just ignore it and claim I haven't, or that you can't understand clear, simple, grammatical English.
This is yet another example of why this debate is settled and simultaneously useless.

More gaslighting from you. This debate is indisputably not settled, though it is increasingly useless. That is why for the most part, I am content to continue being proved right by actual physical events.
#15192172
Truth To Power wrote:You are aware that I have, and do. Stop trying to gaslight readers, who are also well aware that I write clear arguments and refutations.

My arguments are perfectly clear, as readers are well aware. You just can't answer them. But speaking of sentence fragments:

Nice one. As you know, I have provided lots of evidence. You just ignore it and claim I haven't, or that you can't understand clear, simple, grammatical English.

More gaslighting from you. This debate is indisputably not settled, though it is increasingly useless. That is why for the most part, I am content to continue being proved right by actual physical events.


At this point, you are not even talking about climate science any more.

You are simply telling all of us that you are smart and clear and awesome and perfect and blablabla. This is not an argument.

If you have an argument or a refutation of the evidence already presented, please write it out in one or two clear sentences.

Please be advised that you will be asked to provide evidence. Thank you.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 14

Most of the planet is warming, glaciers are meltin[…]

I loved Starkey's 'Monarchy' series which I cannot[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

Well now I'm never getting vaccinated for the mem[…]

I repeat: I just got through identifying the re[…]