Climate Denier Turns

[Baldy]

The outcome was just as I said. They were cooking the books.
Of course it's not going to invalidate their "consensus". Climate change theory has turned into a cash cow subsidized industry that rakes in untold billions and billions in government dollars.

The investigations did not find any books that were cooked.

Whose investigations?

[Baldy]

We will go to the poorhouse because alternative energy is not profitable without mammoth government subsidies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unlike fossil fuels.

How much money does "Big Oil" receive in subsidies from the government?

[kalm]

The investigations did not find any books that were cooked.

Whose investigations?

The British House of Commons
The EPA
The National Science Foundation
The Department of Commerce
Penn State University
Roger Goodell

and

the undead zombies of the original Warren Commission.

...among others. And no cooked books were to be found anywhere.

(I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before)

[kalm]

Unlike fossil fuels.

How much money does "Big Oil" receive in subsidies from the government?

Direct subsidies or all subsidies?

[Baldy]

Whose investigations?

The British House of Commons
The EPA
The National Science Foundation
The Department of Commerce
Penn State University
Roger Goodell

and

the undead zombies of the original Warren Commission.

...among others. And no cooked books were to be found anywhere.

(I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before)

Hansen altered data. There really isn't any doubt about that. The animation below shows US Temperature data before Hansen started at NASA and what it was changed to after Hansen joined NASA.



It's kinda like the Dustbowl never happened.

The "investigations" didn't refute that data was altered. Only that the emails were taken out of context and the emails were an exchange of ideas between scientists.

[Baldy]

How much money does "Big Oil" receive in subsidies from the government?

Direct subsidies or all subsidies?

subsidy - n - a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

I'm not sure how you indirectly give money to an entity.

[CID1990]

I get my "science" minded colleagues (I'm one too, actually) in a lather when they bring up climate change by asking them to tell me exactly what effects we will see as a result of anthropogenic change.

Then I remind them that there is only one scientifically known, hard fact... then one scientifically supported, widely accepted theory... and then finally there are hundreds of hypotheses which are unproven and some have actually been disproven.

They are as follows:

1. Climate change is real. It has been happening since the earth acquired an atmosphere. (This is the fact)

2. Human activity does have an effect on climate (this is the scientifically supported, accepted theory- not proven, but the available evidence tilts heavily in that direction)

3. Here come the hypotheses- a currently debunked one: the hockey stick... publish a negative peer review and the author will haul you into court for defamation (heh)

Or, "cities will be inundated"... with all the massive melt we've seen, we should already be seeing some rise

Or, superstorms

Or, major topographical changes

Or, et cetera

Right now climate change is being blamed for everything from tennis elbow to the price of theater tickets

At the end of the day it doesnt matter, because the solution, if AGW is in fact going to greatly alter the planet, is to reduce our population to around 5 billion and keep it there.

And, if it IS possible for human activity to wreck the planet given the right levels, then eventually we will reach that point, regardless of what we do.

Is there a country currently in existence with the political will to reduce our world population, maintain it at that level, and simultaneously make us impact-free in terms of climate? Or are there two countries with the capability to cooperate to do this without the consent of the rest of the world?

This climate bickering is pointless if we stop and think logically about it - if tomorrow, every person suddenly sees the light and agrees that humans are changing the climate in catastrophic ways.... does it matter?

No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Hockey Stick theory, similar to Climategate was a mostly made up comtroversey by the likes of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Peter Singer. They did a nice job of casting doubt, but in the end, the Hockey Stick was also vindicated by science.

Agree with you on most everything else, especially over-population. And yes, over-population, like pollution is tough to control...at least in the third world.

I'm not sure how you can say how the hockey stick has been vindicated since it hasn't occurred along the author's predicted timeline, and the evidence that it is happening at all is sketchy at best.

It has been a sacred cow of AGW proponents for a ling time now, but saying it has been vindicated simply because some of the arguments against it are also scientifically suspect is not part of the scientific method.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cx500d]

We will go to the poorhouse because alternative energy is not profitable without mammoth government subsidies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unlike fossil fuels.

How are fossil fuels given mammoth subsidies to operate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

The Hockey Stick theory, similar to Climategate was a mostly made up comtroversey by the likes of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Peter Singer. They did a nice job of casting doubt, but in the end, the Hockey Stick was also vindicated by science.

Agree with you on most everything else, especially over-population. And yes, over-population, like pollution is tough to control...at least in the third world.

I'm not sure how you can say how the hockey stick has been vindicated since it hasn't occurred along the author's predicted timeline, and the evidence that it is happening at all is sketchy at best.

It has been a sacred cow of AGW proponents for a ling time now, but saying it has been vindicated simply because some of the arguments against it are also scientifically suspect is not part of the scientific method.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It didn't change the minds of the deniers, though--and soon Mann and his colleagues were drawn into the 2009 "Climategate" pseudo-scandal, which purported to reveal internal emails that (among other things) seemingly undermined the hockey stick. Only, they didn't.........

In the meantime, those wacky scientists kept doing what they do best--finding out what's true. As Mann relates, over the years other researchers were able to test his work using "more extensive datasets, and more sophisticated methods. And the bottom line conclusion doesn't change." Thus the single hockey stick gradually became what Mann calls a "hockey team." "If you look at all the different groups, there are literally about two dozen" hockey sticks now, he says.

Indeed, two just-published studies support the hockey stick more powerfully than ever. One, just out in Nature Geoscience, featuring more than 80 authors, showed with extensive global data on past temperatures that the hockey stick's shaft seems to extend back reliably for at least 1,400 years. Recently in Science, meanwhile, Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University and his colleagues extended the original hockey stick shaft back 11,000 years. "There's now at least tentative evidence that the warming is unprecedented over the entire period of the Holocene, the entire period since the last ice age," says Mann.="#author-information">


So what does it all mean? Well, here's the millennial scale irony: Climate deniers threw everything they had at the hockey stick. They focused immense resources on what they thought was the Achilles Heel of global warming research--and even then, they couldn't hobble it. (Though they certainly sowed plenty of doubt in the mind of the public.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ed/275753/

[kalm]

Direct subsidies or all subsidies?

subsidy - n - a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

I'm not sure how you indirectly give money to an entity.

Indirect subsidies (for better or worse): military spending to protect and manipulate oil production. Environmental clean-up.

(I like it when you play dumb )

[houndawg]

I get my "science" minded colleagues (I'm one too, actually) in a lather when they bring up climate change by asking them to tell me exactly what effects we will see as a result of anthropogenic change.

Then I remind them that there is only one scientifically known, hard fact... then one scientifically supported, widely accepted theory... and then finally there are hundreds of hypotheses which are unproven and some have actually been disproven.

They are as follows:

1. Climate change is real. It has been happening since the earth acquired an atmosphere. (This is the fact)

2. Human activity does have an effect on climate (this is the scientifically supported, accepted theory- not proven, but the available evidence tilts heavily in that direction)

3. Here come the hypotheses- a currently debunked one: the hockey stick... publish a negative peer review and the author will haul you into court for defamation (heh)

Or, "cities will be inundated"... with all the massive melt we've seen, we should already be seeing some rise

Or, superstorms

Or, major topographical changes

Or, et cetera

Right now climate change is being blamed for everything from tennis elbow to the price of theater tickets

At the end of the day it doesnt matter, because the solution, if AGW is in fact going to greatly alter the planet, is to reduce our population to around 5 billion and keep it there.

And, if it IS possible for human activity to wreck the planet given the right levels, then eventually we will reach that point, regardless of what we do.

Is there a country currently in existence with the political will to reduce our world population, maintain it at that level, and simultaneously make us impact-free in terms of climate? Or are there two countries with the capability to cooperate to do this without the consent of the rest of the world?

This climate bickering is pointless if we stop and think logically about it - if tomorrow, every person suddenly sees the light and agrees that humans are changing the climate in catastrophic ways.... does it matter?

No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

we are

[houndawg]

The biggest issue I have with what he said involves this paragraph:



First of all, I don't think he made the case for the idea that the costs and benefits are going to be a wash. Secondly, it's not just Exxon and Koch industries. We ALL depend heavily on fossil fuels. I think we can all agree that if fossil fuels were to suddenly become unavailable tomorrow it would be a complete disaster. Life as we know it could not continue.

It's not like phasing out fossil fuels affects only the "fat cats" at Exxon and the Koch brothers.

The second biggest thing involves this statement:



I don't think the standard "climate change" concern narrative involves considering the entire distribution of possible outcomes. I think It focuses on a particular set of negative scenarios.

We will go to the poorhouse because alternative energy is not profitable without mammoth government subsidies.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Neither is oil.

[houndawg]

Unlike fossil fuels.

How much money does "Big Oil" receive in subsidies from the government?

How much does it cost to keep mideast oil fields and sea lanes under our control?

[houndawg]

Why doesn't it matter?

Since you didn't follow me, let's do a thought exercise

We'll start with the assumption that anthropogenic global warming is a given

The world population is growing exponentially (that's an actual, observable hockey stick)

Between when I was born in 1968 and now, the population has grown as much as it did again in the last 800 or so years

AGW is caused by human activity - consuming energy - just the act of putting food on the table is an environment-impacting activity. These activities will continue to grow with the population

We can talk about clean/renewable energy all day long, but we cannot sustain continual population growth with current clean energy technologies. 2/3rds of the world will have the choice to either oxidize organic material, or starve.

Tell me how anyone can have an open discussion about how to get the world population down to where it was before 1930 and be taken seriously- because that discussion has to happen in conjunction with the electric cars/solar/windmills one.

Whatever the real effects of AGW are, we are destined to receive them IN FULL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All talk about energy alternatives is pie-in-the-sky not because of technological hurdles which would be easily solvable with only a couple of years of the Pentagon's budget equivalent being invested in R&D and a new grid but because of the calamity of billions of barrels of oil being suddenly worth dogshit.

[CID1990]

I'm not sure how you can say how the hockey stick has been vindicated since it hasn't occurred along the author's predicted timeline, and the evidence that it is happening at all is sketchy at best.

It has been a sacred cow of AGW proponents for a ling time now, but saying it has been vindicated simply because some of the arguments against it are also scientifically suspect is not part of the scientific method.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It didn't change the minds of the deniers, though--and soon Mann and his colleagues were drawn into the 2009 "Climategate" pseudo-scandal, which purported to reveal internal emails that (among other things) seemingly undermined the hockey stick. Only, they didn't.........

In the meantime, those wacky scientists kept doing what they do best--finding out what's true. As Mann relates, over the years other researchers were able to test his work using "more extensive datasets, and more sophisticated methods. And the bottom line conclusion doesn't change." Thus the single hockey stick gradually became what Mann calls a "hockey team." "If you look at all the different groups, there are literally about two dozen" hockey sticks now, he says.

Indeed, two just-published studies support the hockey stick more powerfully than ever. One, just out in Nature Geoscience, featuring more than 80 authors, showed with extensive global data on past temperatures that the hockey stick's shaft seems to extend back reliably for at least 1,400 years. Recently in Science, meanwhile, Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University and his colleagues extended the original hockey stick shaft back 11,000 years. "There's now at least tentative evidence that the warming is unprecedented over the entire period of the Holocene, the entire period since the last ice age," says Mann.="#author-information">


So what does it all mean? Well, here's the millennial scale irony: Climate deniers threw everything they had at the hockey stick. They focused immense resources on what they thought was the Achilles Heel of global warming research--and even then, they couldn't hobble it. (Though they certainly sowed plenty of doubt in the mind of the public.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ed/275753/

Its bizarre that The Atlantic ignores one of the biggest and most credible criticisms of the hockey stick model - or maybe it isn't bizarre at all

(I'll let you research that one too)

The follow ups to Mann's research works with the same original assumptions: that all of the earth's natural carbon sinks are saturated, and now every bit of carbon gas we emit is being added to the atmospheric total

Eventually, the earth's ability to absorb carbon gas (like the oceans) will reach a peak, and then Mann's theory will get a real test. And mind you- I'm not saying we aren't seeing a rise in temps - I'm saying that Mann's model suggests a runaway greenhouse effect, and there is little evidence to support that theory, because it physically cannot happen at this stage. Our oceans will literally have to become poisonous before that (and they ARE changing)

but to my original point-

none of it matters




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

I get my "science" minded colleagues (I'm one too, actually) in a lather when they bring up climate change by asking them to tell me exactly what effects we will see as a result of anthropogenic change.

Then I remind them that there is only one scientifically known, hard fact... then one scientifically supported, widely accepted theory... and then finally there are hundreds of hypotheses which are unproven and some have actually been disproven.

They are as follows:

1. Climate change is real. It has been happening since the earth acquired an atmosphere. (This is the fact)

2. Human activity does have an effect on climate (this is the scientifically supported, accepted theory- not proven, but the available evidence tilts heavily in that direction)

3. Here come the hypotheses- a currently debunked one: the hockey stick... publish a negative peer review and the author will haul you into court for defamation (heh)

Or, "cities will be inundated"... with all the massive melt we've seen, we should already be seeing some rise

Or, superstorms

Or, major topographical changes

Or, et cetera

Right now climate change is being blamed for everything from tennis elbow to the price of theater tickets

At the end of the day it doesnt matter, because the solution, if AGW is in fact going to greatly alter the planet, is to reduce our population to around 5 billion and keep it there.

And, if it IS possible for human activity to wreck the planet given the right levels, then eventually we will reach that point, regardless of what we do.

Is there a country currently in existence with the political will to reduce our world population, maintain it at that level, and simultaneously make us impact-free in terms of climate? Or are there two countries with the capability to cooperate to do this without the consent of the rest of the world?

This climate bickering is pointless if we stop and think logically about it - if tomorrow, every person suddenly sees the light and agrees that humans are changing the climate in catastrophic ways.... does it matter?

No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

we are

OK

Go do something about it then


Houndawg for President

"First we need to kill about 2 billion people, and then only one child per adult"

Nobody will vote for you though, because climateers think conventions in Paris and multilateral agreements are the way forward




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

So, Climategate didn't happen?

What was the final outcome and how did invalidate the global warming consensus?

[kalm]

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ed/275753/

Its bizarre that The Atlantic ignores one of the biggest and most credible criticisms of the hockey stick model - or maybe it isn't bizarre at all

(I'll let you research that one too)

The follow ups to Mann's research works with the same original assumptions: that all of the earth's natural carbon sinks are saturated, and now every bit of carbon gas we emit is being added to the atmospheric total

Eventually, the earth's ability to absorb carbon gas (like the oceans) will reach a peak, and then Mann's theory will get a real test. And mind you- I'm not saying we aren't seeing a rise in temps - I'm saying that Mann's model suggests a runaway greenhouse effect, and there is little evidence to support that theory, because it physically cannot happen at this stage. Our oceans will literally have to become poisonous before that (and they ARE changing)

but to my original point-

none of it matters




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah. It's your turn to back up your assertions. What you got?

[Silenoz]

What was the final outcome and how did invalidate the global warming consensus?

Nice try Kalm, but all your gonna accomplish here is

[Silenoz]

You're*

Goddamit


edit: *Goddammit

Double goddammit

[BDKJMU]

subsidy - n - a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

I'm not sure how you indirectly give money to an entity.

Indirect subsidies (for better or worse): military spending to protect and manipulate oil production. Environmental clean-up.

(I like it when you play dumb )

Those aren't subsidies.

[UNI88]

Indirect subsidies (for better or worse): military spending to protect and manipulate oil production. Environmental clean-up.

(I like it when you play dumb )

Those aren't subsidies.

Semantics - call them indirect support then.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

we are

OK

Go do something about it then


Houndawg for President

"First we need to kill about 2 billion people, and then only one child per adult"

Nobody will vote for you though, because climateers think conventions in Paris and multilateral agreements are the way forward




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotta work the big things; after population its energy. Free fusion up in the sky when we solve the transmission problem, and now that we know the entire western US is on top of a super volcano we put Big Oil's drilling expertise to work on a decentralized national geothermal network. The energy is there and could be developed with the money spent protecting oil abroad... a good quarter of a trillion dollars per year. Yeah we could have things up and running in a decade or less with that kind of investment and put a lot of Americans to work building it. Never happen, but not because it can't...the population side of the equation will be unpleasant and will need to be managed, before the masses lose their fear of authority...

[houndawg]

Indirect subsidies (for better or worse): military spending to protect and manipulate oil production. Environmental clean-up.

(I like it when you play dumb )

Those aren't subsidies.

Sure they are; we pay for their protection

[cx500d]

Those aren't subsidies.

Sure they are; we pay for their protection

Then I guess we are all subsidized; by our own taxes... Unless you had operations in Venezuela say, that got expropriated by the government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk