I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[twa]

1 I took your graph to show the different models....am I wrong on that?

if you wish to instead post those we can look 

 

 

2 even I am concerned, just not impressed with some 'solutions'

the world continues to change, and will

 

 

 

 

3 the sea level has the same issues as the temps.....your reference points

Land sinking and changing currents make it more than simply measuring sea level

 

feel free to discuss what ya wish

[IHOPSkins]

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

 

So the Polar Bears are not dying off?

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/2599580-demise-of-the-polar-bear-has-been-greatly-exaggerated-survey-says/

 

Gore's water levels did not rise 20 feet?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4839

 

Temps have been exaggerated for YEARS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

 

Since the "Models" have been proven to be exaggerated time and time again....can we hold the Democratic party guilty of FRAUD?

Edited April 27, 2015 by IHOPSkins

[chipwhich]

I am surprised Mad Mike didn't start this thread with the obligatory liberal pic or video.

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

What would you know, hack journalism from the right once again blew something out of proportion (as I mentioned earlier would be the case).

 

The author of the paper released an official statement through the Max Planck Institute.

 

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf

 

This is kind of how it goes... one side has done a really good job a - convincing a lot of people they do/can understand all of this if they just read an article or two, and b - completely muddying the water as to prevent any genuine public conversation on the matter

 

One side seems to constantly have the people writing the reports they claim to support their cause come out and say their work is being misrepresented... but the supporters of this side are completely oblivious to this problem...

Edited April 27, 2015 by tshile

[Larry]

The real trick was convincing people that you can tell whether something is true or not, based on whether it aligns with your opinion.

[twa]

This is kind of how it goes... one side has done a really good job a - convincing a lot of people they do/can understand all of this if they just read an article or two, and b - completely muddying the water as to prevent any genuine public conversation on the matter

 

One side seems to constantly have the people writing the reports they claim to support their cause come out and say their work is being misrepresented... but the supporters of this side are completely oblivious to this problem...

 

the study clearly supported less forcing from co2, just because that is not the researchers focus or desire does not change his result

 

"and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely"

 

are they doing research (the results of which can be interpreted) or are they working for a side/result?

[tshile]

Well, it's certainly clever word play that goes on for the one side.

[twa]

Well, it's certainly clever word play that goes on for the one side.

 

one side??

[tshile]

one side??

 

Pretty much.

 

The oil/gas industry and the GOP have made a living (in terms of this debate) by painting anyone who "believes in global warming" (there are various issues with that statement itself, but it's how they've crafted it) as some extreme ecoterrorist who thinks that the ocean weaves are going to rise up all at once and swallow us whole.

 

Which makes it easier to take a quote like "and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely" and go SEE ONE OF YOUR OWN SAYS YOUR WRONG.

 

Meanwhile the rest of us who think the real consequences will be a little more subtle (harder to grow food leading to scarcity/famine in the world's most vulnerable areas, leading to even more political instability and generally chaotic environments) are left speechless looking at the current form of the dialogue (is it even a dialogue anymore?) wondering how the **** we even got to this point.

 

Oh, that's right, one side (in an effort to protect itself) has completely destroyed our ability to have a conversation about it by flooding the conversation with utter nonsense and bull****. That's how we got where we are.

 

And it's on full display, seemingly everywhere you turn.

 

Even the scientists who are less confident about this issue are not anywhere close to what the GOP says they are.

 

So, yes, one side is significantly worse than the other. When you factor in motives it's not even on the same playing field.

Edited April 27, 2015 by tshile

[PeterMP]

1 I took your graph to show the different models....am I wrong on that?

if you wish to instead post those we can look 

 

 

2 even I am concerned, just not impressed with some 'solutions'

the world continues to change, and will

 

 

 

 

3 the sea level has the same issues as the temps.....your reference points

Land sinking and changing currents make it more than simply measuring sea level

 

feel free to discuss what ya wish

 

It shows the high, the low, the 95-5% range for the models, and then various temperature data sets.  To know if the low is an outlier, you have to know where the next lowest one is.  I don't.

 

We can measure sea levels globally (i.e. at every point) today using satellites.

[twa]

no idea how many models are in the lower 5%?

 

Knowing the sea level now only tells trends since that data and does not account for changing currents, it does tell ya how much the land is sinking though. ect

[twa]

 

 

So, yes, one side is significantly worse than the other. When you factor in motives it's not even on the same playing field.

 

Worse than Gore and Co?

It seems many on the other side are making a bit of cash ....with the purest of motives i'm sure 

 

The EPA with it's co2 determination has created conflict and discord.

[tshile]

I don't think Gore represents the majority, I think he's just the person the GOP wants to represent them because it makes their position easier

 

The EPA is the one creating conflict and discord? That's rich, twa

[twa]

I don't think Gore represents the majority, I think he's just the person the GOP wants to represent them because it makes their position easier

 

The EPA is the one creating conflict and discord? That's rich, twa

 

The majority of what?....big oil doesn't represent the majority of the GOP either....that doesn't stop you lumping them together.

 

Yes the EPA, of course if you support their moves then they are not 

 

Care to tell me who is changing the status quo if not them?......actions which will be before the court

[PeterMP]

no idea how many models are in the lower 5%?

 

Knowing the sea level now only tells trends since that data and does not account for changing currents, it does tell ya how much the land is sinking though. ect

 

5% are in the lower 5%.

 

That doesn't tell me where the next lowest is though still.

 

In any data set, there is a lowest and a bottom 5%.  There isn't an outlier in every data set.

 

The bottom one or bottom 5% aren't necessarily outliers.

 

Can you explain how changing currents would cause lower sea levels in one area without their being an equal increase in sea levels somewhere else?

[twa]

 

Can you explain how changing currents would cause lower sea levels in one area without their being an equal increase in sea levels somewhere else?

 

surely you don't think the water is flat or level across the world?

 

http://www.johnenglander.net/sea-level-rise-blog/sea-level-not-same-everywhere-300-foot-variation

 

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GPS/Projects/CB/SEALEVEL/sealevel.html

Edited April 27, 2015 by twa

[tshile]

The majority of what?....big oil doesn't represent the majority of the GOP either....that doesn't stop you lumping them together.

 

Yes the EPA, of course if you support their moves then they are not 

 

Care to tell me who is changing the status quo if not them?......actions which will be before the court

 

The majority of people who think that this climate change stuff is something more than a bunch of hokus pokus and carefully crafted set of data points

 

I didn't realize that in general change was the root of the conflict. I thought it was the establishment trying to hold on to their... establishment

[PeterMP]

surely you don't think the water is flat or level across the world?

 

http://www.johnenglander.net/sea-level-rise-blog/sea-level-not-same-everywhere-300-foot-variation

 

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GPS/Projects/CB/SEALEVEL/sealevel.html

 

No and I think that should be clear from the number of posts I've written on sea level in the past.

 

However, it not being flat doesn't mean that changes in currents wouldn't cancel out over space and time with respect to sea level changes.

 

Any more than knowing the number of models in the bottom 5% tells me if the bottom 1 is an outlier.

[Larry]

The majority of what?....big oil doesn't represent the majority of the GOP either....that doesn't stop you lumping them together.

 

You've got it backwards. And your proportions are off.

Big oil doesn't represent the GOP. The GOP represents Big Oil.

And it's not the majority of the GOP, it's 100% of the GOP.

[twa]

The majority of people who think that this climate change stuff is something more than a bunch of hokus pokus and carefully crafted set of data points

 

I didn't realize that in general change was the root of the conflict. I thought it was the establishment trying to hold on to their... establishment

 

 

climate change or AGW?

 

Ya'll interchange them despite them being different.

 

The majority are idiots, no matter the subject 

[Mad Mike]

I think I can actually feel brain cells dying from reading TWAs posts.

[twa]

I think I can actually feel brain cells dying from reading TWAs posts.

 

I hope ya can spare them

[Barney B]

I think I can actually feel brain cells dying from reading TWAs posts.

 

He's crafty that way. Once you lose half of them, he'll have you agreeing with Ted Cruz. 

[Mad Mike]

He's crafty that way. Once you lose half of them, he'll have you agreeing with Ted Cruz. 

 

There is only one way to fight ignorance... education.

 

 

[twa]

There is only one way to fight ignorance... education.

 

 

 

That sounds like what the Communists do, with the proper instruction all things are possible.