March for Science

General Off Topic
41
quote:
Originally posted by natureboy

Local weather and climate are very different. The alarmist have pointed this out to us many times Except when local weather helps their case.

NONE of the CC or GW predictions from 30 years ago have come true. We can see a hurricane on satellite pics & and pretty accurately predict the path. The 97% number has been shown to have been manipulated and rigged over and over.

Another thing , I believe that you have the right to believe what ever you want, and I will support your free speech, without calling you a “dumb ass” or any other insulting terms. How childish of you!

20 years ago the first IPCC report suggested a 1.1 degree change from 1990-2030. As of 2015 we had risen .55 degrees. That is exactly what the IPCC expected…swing and a miss.

Not calling you a dumb ass, just making assumptions based on your response. Weather and climate are different, as I pointed out to you previously (glad you have retained some knowledge). The analogy you failed to comprehend is that weathermen and climatologists are specialist in their field. 97% of weathermen saying a hurricane is coming should make you believe a hurricane is coming. Climatologist have made the same prediction, 97% say a “hurricane” is coming, yet you’re still planning to go fishing offshore. The IPCC predicted the almost exact rate of rise from 1990 thru the present, it is 50 times the amount we rose in the first half of this century. The “radar” is showing you what you need to know if you can comprehend the data…

“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

42

Predicting a rise means nothing. Take any stock on the stock market. There are macro trends, and micro trends on any given ticker. I can zoom in and find that a stock has been rising for the past few days. I can predict that it will continue to rise for the next few days. And, I might be right. Does it prove that I know what the stock will be doing 20 years from now? No. It really doesn’t prove much of anything except that I can tell you about the stock’s history and that I made a good guess based on the fact that the “momentum” had not changed direction. Maybe the stock continues to rise. Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it zigs and zags one way or the other. What science is REALLY good at is looking at the past.

And the 97% comment. How many scientists have truly dedicated their life’s work to this anyway? 97% of all mechanics can tell me that my time machine needs a new flux capacitor based off of what Doc Brown says, but how many of them truly understand the workings of my time traveling DeLorean?

43
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej

Predicting a rise means nothing. Take any stock on the stock market. There are macro trends, and micro trends on any given ticker. I can zoom in and find that a stock has been rising for the past few days. I can predict that it will continue to rise for the next few days. And, I might be right. Does it prove that I know what the stock will be doing 20 years from now? No. It really doesn’t prove much of anything except that I can tell you about the stock’s history and that I made a good guess based on the fact that the “momentum” had not changed direction. Maybe the stock continues to rise. Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it zigs and zags one way or the other. What science is REALLY good at is looking at the past.

And the 97% comment. How many scientists have truly dedicated their life’s work to this anyway? 97% of all mechanics can tell me that my time machine needs a new flux capacitor based off of what Doc Brown says, but how many of them truly understand the workings of my time traveling DeLorean?

Could I ask yall a favor? Would yall please copy and paste this to your wall for an hour? 97% of my friends wont do this, but I think I know the ones that will.

44
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej

Predicting a rise means nothing. Take any stock on the stock market. There are macro trends, and micro trends on any given ticker. I can zoom in and find that a stock has been rising for the past few days. I can predict that it will continue to rise for the next few days. And, I might be right. Does it prove that I know what the stock will be doing 20 years from now? No. It really doesn’t prove much of anything except that I can tell you about the stock’s history and that I made a good guess based on the fact that the “momentum” had not changed direction. Maybe the stock continues to rise. Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it zigs and zags one way or the other. What science is REALLY good at is looking at the past.

And the 97% comment. How many scientists have truly dedicated their life’s work to this anyway? 97% of all mechanics can tell me that my time machine needs a new flux capacitor based off of what Doc Brown says, but how many of them truly understand the workings of my time traveling DeLorean?

That’s a really bad analogy. Stocks have many factors. Some you may and may not know. We know all the facts in this case. We know the effects of greenhouse gas, we can prove it in a lab. Your analogy is based on speculation, this is based on scientific data. You saying predicting a rise means nothing is just wrong? To the macro side of the argument, the same panel predicts a 2-4 degree shift in the next century. The micro has been proven correct and it’s currently tracking that the macro will be correct too.

And its not 97 % of scientists, its 97% of climatologists, those tht specialize in this field, that say humans have dramatically increased the earths temperature. That’s like 97% of delorean time machine mechanic specialists telling you your delorean time m

45
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by natureboy

Local weather and climate are very different. The alarmist have pointed this out to us many times Except when local weather helps their case.

NONE of the CC or GW predictions from 30 years ago have come true. We can see a hurricane on satellite pics & and pretty accurately predict the path. The 97% number has been shown to have been manipulated and rigged over and over.

Another thing , I believe that you have the right to believe what ever you want, and I will support your free speech, without calling you a “dumb ass” or any other insulting terms. How childish of you!

20 years ago the first IPCC report suggested a 1.1 degree change from 1990-2030. As of 2015 we had risen .55 degrees. That is exactly what the IPCC expected…swing and a miss.

Not calling you a dumb ass, just making assumptions based on your response. Weather and climate are different, as I pointed out to you previously (glad you have retained some knowledge). The analogy you failed to comprehend is that weathermen and climatologists are specialist in their field. 97% of weathermen saying a hurricane is coming should make you believe a hurricane is coming. Climatologist have made the same prediction, 97% say a “hurricane” is coming, yet you’re still planning to go fishing offshore. The IPCC predicted the almost exact rate of rise from 1990 thru the present, it is 50 times the amount we rose in the first half of this century. The “radar” is showing you what you need to know if you can comprehend the data…

“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

<hr he
46

Science-Denier Bill Nye: Is It Time To ‘Penalize People For Having Extra Kids?’

John Lamparski/WireImage
Bill Nye
By: John Nolte,

April 26, 2017

In the 13th and final episode of Bill Nye The-Not-A-Scientist-Guy’s new Netflix series, the hardcore, human-hating Leftist who chases trendy science like Bill Clinton chases tail, moved things in a rather dark and some might say Nazi-ish direction while discussing the issue of population control.

First a little context…

Thanks to the spreading of human freedom, and the ingenuity and technology that comes with it, the population scare of the 1970s did not work out the way scientists secretly hoped and openly predicted; meaning, the boom in population over the last 5 decades has not resulted in widespread famine and despair – quite the opposite, in fact. It should also be noted that these are the very same scientists who predicted a new Ice Age as the result of – try not to laugh – Global Cooling and the utter depletion of natural resources like oil, ores, and even water.

Again, none of that proved true; the exact opposite occurred.

So…

If you are a anti-human tyrant-disguised-as-a-scientist desperate to use centralized government as a means to control the lives of others, but… all those hoaxes your brethren invented 40 years ago blew up in their face, what do you do now?

Well, naturally, you come up with a brand new hoax. And in order to control our lives, Nye and his guests are all over the latest shiny scam of Climate Change. You see, Children, climate change (which is a hoax) is caused by greenhouse gases, and you will never guess what the “main driver” of greenhouse gases is.

Are you ready for a 70s ■■■■■■■■■?

Population!

People!

You and me!

Yes, according to Nye’s guest Travis Rieder, who holds the creepy title of a Bioethics Ethicist, you and I and our precious children are what Rieder calls “individual emitters,” meaning we are inconvenient to the Greater Good because our individual emissions of carbon co

47
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission

That’s a really bad analogy. Stocks have many factors. Some you may and may not know.

No, actually it’s not at all… It’s actually very close to the same.

quote:
We know all the facts in this case.

No, you don’t. You only think you do. That’s been the alternate point of view the ENTIRE TIME. The alternate view is that climatologists only think they know all of the variables. Overconfidence…

quote:
We know the effects of greenhouse gas, we can prove it in a lab.

Again, that’s only ONE of the “facts”. Many assumptions are built around this.

quote:
Your analogy is based on speculation, this is based on scientific data

Yeah, if you think professional analysts are merely speculators, then you don’t understand the analogy. These companies pour hundreds of millions of dollars to try to micro-analyze every sneeze and fart of the consumer to try to predict the minuscule rise or fall.

The only difference is, scientists are trying to do the same thing with “natural” processes. Compare the salary of a “climatologist” to a wall street analyst.

quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="qu
48

Honestly, feel free not to answer these questions. I really could care less about this topic and actually regret joining in.

49
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by skinneej</i>

Predicting a rise means nothing. Take any stock on the stock market. There are macro trends, and micro trends on any given ticker. I can zoom in and find that a stock has been rising for the past few days. I can predict that it will continue to rise for the next few days. And, I might be right. Does it prove that I know what the stock will be doing 20 years from now? No. It really doesn’t prove much of anything except that I can tell you about the stock’s history and that I made a good guess based on the fact that the “momentum” had not changed direction. Maybe the stock continues to rise. Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it zigs and zags one way or the other. What science is REALLY good at is looking at the past.

And the 97% comment. How many scientists have truly dedicated their life’s work to this anyway? 97% of all mechanics can tell me that my time machine needs a new flux capacitor based off of what Doc Brown says, but how many of them truly understand the workings of my time traveling DeLorean?

</font id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”>

That’s a really bad analogy. Stocks have many factors. Some you may and may not know. We know all the facts in this case.

We know the effects of greenhouse gas, we can prove it in a lab.

Not Even CLOSE. The hubris in that statement is humorous.

There are huge poorly understood chunks of ignorance in the climate models. The most important green house gas is water vapor. It has a strong heat trapping effect and exists at very high concentrations in our atmosphere. Pick jus

50

Not referring to climate models but our understandsng of the greenhouse effect. Obviously no one, except skinnee maybe, know everything. My point was we have a very good understanding of it. So good that the first ipcc report is only off by a couple hundredths of a degree…

“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

51
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission

Not referring to climate models but our understandsng of the greenhouse effect. Obviously no one, except skinnee maybe, know everything. My point was we have a very good understanding of it. So good that the first ipcc report is only off by a couple hundredths of a degree…

“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

If you look (maybe you are ignoring it), I spoke directly to the green house effect in that last 1/3 of my previous.

Regarding the IPCC getting a model output somewhere close to correct, it is trivially easy to write a model that tells you the current of very near future temperature. I could write you a model in an hour that will tell you the average global temperature next year and get very very close to correct. The assertion is that the models are competent at predicting temperatures out decades and centuries. Developing that model is not trivial. The current library of models fail. Real measured data falls outside the error ranges of nearly all climate models. Ergo, by their own definition and admission, they are wrong. That’s what error ranges mean.

17’ Henry O Hornet w/ Johnson 88 spl
26’ Palmer Scott project hull
14’ Bentz-Craft w/ Yamaha 25
http://www.ulmerboatworks.com

52
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by DoubleN

Not a scientist, but, as Fred and many have eluded to, we had an Ice Age that we are still coming out of.

With that said, it seems, to some, that the warming is due to carbon emissions (man made) creating a layer that will not allow heat to escape?? Educate me, perhaps I am out of touch here.

Gonna blast thru that layer of carbon to get to Mars soon. Just wish I could pick who would be on its maiden voyage!

NN

There is no doubt we are coming out of an ice age and the earth is warming, as it has done for millions of years. The problem is we are heading up at a rate 50 times faster than we should be, 50 times faster!!
Think of greenhouse gases, carbon emissions being one of those gases, as a down blanket that traps heat. Well we’ve put a lot more “down in our blanket”. What do you expect should follow?

“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

Good gracious. You are proofing my own statement. Have you ever researched how high Greenhouse Gasses were in the far past… Back when Dinosaurs roamed the earth? All that high carbon and warm temps sure made this Earth one beautiful planet of growth.

50 Times faster!!! Lol where you getting your info? Rogue scientists? and don’t just use 50 years out of 4.5 billion… how about just a tinsy winsy little 10,000 years out of 4.5 billion. Ok I’ll cut you some slack… 2,500 years out of 4.5 billion… can you still say 50 times faster? Bet a full back hand to the nutz you can’t.

53

I agree Fred. 50 times faster! is ridiculous! The CC crowd seeks the most extreme,the most dramatic BS they can find

54

The Science of Assumptions

c/p
Conclusion: The pre-industrial CO2 level was not significantly lower than current levels. Neither they nor the present readings are high relatively to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that preindustrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combined with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase when all records show the opposite then it is not surprising that IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.

https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf

55
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission

There is no doubt we are coming out of an ice age and the earth is warming, as it has done for millions of years. The problem is we are heading up at a rate 50 times faster than we should be, 50 times faster!!

Please, respectfully, if you got that 50 from somewhere, please provide a citation. I would really like to know who is making that claim. I’m not trying to harass. I really would like to know who is making that claim.

I don’t think ‘5 times faster’ can be supported, certainly not according to any of the relevant data sets. ‘50 times’ is right out.

17’ Henry O Hornet w/ Johnson 88 spl
26’ Palmer Scott project hull
14’ Bentz-Craft w/ Yamaha 25
http://www.ulmerboatworks.com

56

How could the rate of warming reasonably be predicted in the first place? I’m not a big fan of ice core data. They basically show what was in precipitation at the poles. I expect it took a lot of extrapolation and manipulation, and even guesses to get a handle on c02 levels back then.

57
quote:
Originally posted by PalmerScott
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission

There is no doubt we are coming out of an ice age and the earth is warming, as it has done for millions of years. The problem is we are heading up at a rate 50 times faster than we should be, 50 times faster!!

Please, respectfully, if you got that 50 from somewhere, please provide a citation. I would really like to know who is making that claim. I’m not trying to harass. I really would like to know who is making that claim.

I don’t think ‘5 times faster’ can be supported, certainly not according to any of the relevant data sets. ‘50 times’ is right out.

17’ Henry O Hornet w/ Johnson 88 spl
26’ Palmer Scott project hull
14’ Bentz-Craft w/ Yamaha 25
http://www.ulmerboatworks.com

Peer reviewed, as always.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2923.html

Now, I’m off to chase tarpon.

“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

58
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by PalmerScott
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission

There is no doubt we are coming out of an ice age and the earth is warming, as it has done for millions of years. The problem is we are heading up at a rate 50 times faster than we should be, 50 times faster!!

Please, respectfully, if you got that 50 from somewhere, please provide a citation. I would really like to know who is making that claim. I’m not trying to harass. I really would like to know who is making that claim.

I don’t think ‘5 times faster’ can be supported, certainly not according to any of the relevant data sets. ‘50 times’ is right out.

17’ Henry O Hornet w/ Johnson 88 spl
26’ Palmer Scott project hull
14’ Bentz-Craft w/ Yamaha 25
http://www.ulmerboatworks.com

Peer reviewed, as always.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2923.html

Now, I’m off to chase tarpon.

“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

Ok, so where are you getting 50 times faster?

To me the link suggests we need a longer time line of study to get an accurate measurement. :wink:

“Why Bruce?”

59
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by PalmerScott
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission

There is no doubt we are coming out of an ice age and the earth is warming, as it has done for millions of years. The problem is we are heading up at a rate 50 times faster than we should be, 50 times faster!!

Please, respectfully, if you got that 50 from somewhere, please provide a citation. I would really like to know who is making that claim. I’m not trying to harass. I really would like to know who is making that claim.

I don’t think ‘5 times faster’ can be supported, certainly not according to any of the relevant data sets. ‘50 times’ is right out.

17’ Henry O Hornet w/ Johnson 88 spl
26’ Palmer Scott project hull
14’ Bentz-Craft w/ Yamaha 25
http://www.ulmerboatworks.com

Peer reviewed, as always.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2923.html

Now, I’m off to chase tarpon.

“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

Pay walled. Nothing about rate of change in the part we can see. If you subscribe, can you excerpt the relevant portions?

And, if this is based on the same old climate models, we have previously disposed of those. Real data falss outside their own error ranges.

1

60

peer reviewed opinion on a hypothesis built on shaky ground. There was ZERO mention on 50X faster. Also , the 0.55 sea level rise is ridiculous.