Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Quick primer for the believers in AGW.

Tags
for in
34K views 463 replies 46 participants last post by  freestoneangler 
#1 · (Edited)
Here's John Stossel and some very qualified climate scientists telling it like it is. An inconvenient truth.


A thorough list of what warming causes.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
click on your largest worries.

Open your minds and let some documented science influence your thinking. If there is no documentation and semi-accurate predictive capacity you can be sure it's not science.

We are indoctrinating our children to believe lies...http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/f...d-schools-ban-on-global-warming-skeptic-book/
 
#90 ·
A little more Blasphemy for your purview. Things ain't what we're required to think. A couple real scientists... Willie Soon, a fun presentation from a "real" climate scientist. If you have a sense of humor wrt science you'll like this one, if not don't bother.

Tony Heller, aka Steve Goddard. Lots of info you should be aware of.


Human emission of CO2 can't do anything but make the planet more productive. We need more CO2 in our atmosphere, not less!
 
#91 ·
That's a couple, and they're not even climatologists: One's an aerospace engineer ( whose been funded by the Koch Foundation) and the other a geologist (whose assertions were very well refuted by Brian Cox in a video earlier in this thread). Yeah, you're right they're scientists, which is irrelevant - why not get some papers from a volcanologist or herpetologist?

How about the hundreds, maybe thousands of actual climatologists, who can and do prove the stupidity of these people? It's a question you ignore, except to suggest that all of them are paid by some supposed big money that benefits from proving climate change. Obviously and provably untrue, as a counterpoint to how their opposition are funded.

You keep dredging up the same types of pseudo-science and posing it as the real thing. It is not.

I'll ask again: show me a vast, overwhelming majority of strong, peer-reviewed science showing that man has no influence on global climate change. You simply cannot.

Done and done.
 
#92 ·
I'll just leave this here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-urge-geological-congress-human-impact-earth

"The current epoch, the Holocene, is the 12,000 years of stable climate since the last ice age during which all human civilization developed. But the striking acceleration since the mid-20th century of carbon dioxide emissions and sea level rise, the global mass extinction of species, and the transformation of land by deforestation and development mark the end of that slice of geological time, the experts argue. The Earth is so profoundly changed that the Holocene must give way to the Anthropocene."
 
#93 ·
  • Like
Reactions: dfl
#94 · (Edited)
Pretty confident (not sure though) the planet used to exist as a single chunk of land surrounded by water. Referred to as Gondwana or Gondwanaland. The earth had one land mass above the water. This planet has been changing since the big bang or Gaia or God made it.

This planet has never stopped changing! There has never been a stable earth or a stable climate and there never will be. If you believe removing the human population from the planet will stop the changing you are extremely confused.

Once again, science...including all peer reviewed published papers have NEVER demonstrated their predictive capacity, they have all failed and failed every time. We have a theory that human CO2 emission must raise the earths temperature but we have no, none, data showing so and no successful predictions. This ain't science folks, it's failed predictions and failed theories.

Here's more, the search for truth does not apply to climate science!
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28825/
The non-science of today!
 
#96 · (Edited)
#97 ·
Media Research Center (MRC) founded by political conservatives and funded by, you guessed it, exon mobile oil! My socialist info comes from Wikapedia!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfl
#99 ·
#109 ·
I assume you clicked the highlighted phrase and read the article. That said, I took the liberty of sending your comment to the publisher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfl
#105 ·
This is the intellectual laziness that passes for science in the CAGW group - Nobody handed me the report, so instead of finding a copy myself, I'll just refute it. I showed you where to get it, the rest is your responsibility.
Fixed it for ya Bob, and I agree with you except for my "required" fix. Once again there is no substantiating data, only assumptions and guesses and failed predictions. If there were substantiating data it would be front page news in every newspaper worldwide, no one would need to "buy the understanding". Do you disagree?

Since many of you demand "peer review" in scientific journals you might "learn" something from this. Publishing is very important for those who receive government grants for their work...peer review has now demonstrated to fail as much or more than it self corrects.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/most-scientific-results-are-wrong-or-use

That link only addresses real demonstrable and repeatable science. Climate change predictions have never become "science" because they've failed to predict anything, wrong on polar ice melt, wrong on sea level rise, wrong on catastrophic storms, wrong on ocean PH, wrong on CAGW! Who'd a thunk?

And a little more about the pause occurring while human release of CO2 has increased dramatically: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...y-alarmists-even-joe-romm-confirms-the-pause/
The link provides a link to this guys blog and pretty much puts it to bed. Remember, this is catastrophic, an increase of .074C degrees since 1998 but an overall cooling in 2016 to date of .07C since the 1998 El Nino.
El Nino's and La Nina's create weather spikes but they don't create climate, everyone agrees on this as far as I can determine.

More on the sun, if you can feel it warming you should be able to assume it causes warming. http://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/...re-important-than-we-though-on-earths-climate.

And finally, since I've wasted an hour on this, I could have been fishing, I'll leave you with this nice little paper titled "The Spuriousness of Correlations Between Cumulative Values". http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...7102071006120122020112069010110098013&EXT=pdf
 
#104 ·
Well, at least you're not a Creationist, I'll give that to you.
And there it is... our reminder that there is a group of individuals in this country that gets chastised more frequently (and with less cause) than the climate deniers.

It may surprise some of you to learn that the Christian church holds the position that environmental issues are very important. We figure it's not God's will that we destroy his creation to indulge our sin nature.

Before anyone jumps on the giant fast ball I just floated you and goes ad hominem on me, I am well aware that the politicians claiming to be Christians today (a collection of bumbling idiots using the name of God to garner votes) don't make it appear that the Church is pro-environment. Rest assured they are politicians before anything, which means they stand for nothing but their own interests in the end.

Contentious issue, for sure. I take more of a Cliff Mass approach to the argument. The best science available points to AGW being a real thing. Sensational viewpoints, on both sides of the argument, are likely wrong. More likely, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, or, that there is an anthropomorphic effect on climate, but its overall influence is not likely as significant as the hardcores would have you believe.

All this aside, when we look at the smog in our air, even in remote areas, after long periods of high atmospheric pressure, can some of us honestly not see a very real, tangible reason why we should stop burning fossil fuels? No matter what you believe about global warming, can you deny that the status quo is choking us all to a slow death?
 
#108 ·
Interesting point of view. Just how long do we wait for the middle of the road folks and the deniers to realize that it's too late to fix? I am not sure where you live but in my ******* part of the state the few of us who promote AGW get hammered! Think for a moment about our Conservative Presidential nominee and the huge masses that praise him for calling global warming a hoax. That said, I find your first paragraph without merit. Very happy to hear you agree that we are choking to death. What are you willing to do about it?

I have been a Methodist for 68 years and been associated with only one minister who addressed climate change with the congregation. He also spoke eloquently about overpopulation which soon got him an exit card from the community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfl
#111 ·
That was a fun read, good passion.
Got a couple of questions lingering...

How did the Gore family come into money?
What happened to the money given to the Solindra Corporation?
Why did Global Warming re-brand to Climate Change?
If a Methodist preacher can be run out of town for expressing differing views, is it possible for educators to be punitive to students with differing views?
How does CO2 directly raise atmospheric temperature?
If temperature increase is a man-made phenom, how did the ice-age start/end?
Was NASA collecting data at the turn of the 20th Century?
Does CO2 ice-core sampling data provide any insight to the CO2 discussions of today?

Some answers may or may not be inconvenient.
 
#112 ·
That was a fun read, good passion.
Got a couple of questions lingering...

How did the Gore family come into money?
What happened to the money given to the Solindra Corporation?
Why did Global Warming re-brand to Climate Change?
If a Methodist preacher can be run out of town for expressing differing views, is it possible for educators to be punitive to students with differing views?
How does CO2 directly raise atmospheric temperature?
If temperature increase is a man-made phenom, how did the ice-age start/end?
Was NASA collecting data at the turn of the 20th Century?
Does CO2 ice-core sampling data provide any insight to the CO2 discussions of today?

Some answers may or may not be inconvenient.
Definitely some "inconvenient" questions here.........
 
#122 ·
OK, we're 9 pages in, time for an instant poll. Has anyone changed their position on the subject? This back and forth bantering is quite amusing... Jeebus, just imagine if we could put all this hot air worldwide to use.

The bottom line is that we earth peoples are hooked on modern living, that will involve use of fossil fuel for the foreseeable future -- and that's a fact Jack.
 
#123 ·
Here's another good read, provided by "China University of Geosciences".

This is read only and will take a while, worth your time if you're interested. Lots of reasonable data interpretation and lots of supporting links. No predictions here other than things might not be the way we're told to believe.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
 
#125 ·
you'll find the answer contained within the groups who made the initial claim...... It's hilarious how "global warming" warriors always try to impeach research by looking at their funding, but never do it to their "own".

What this shows is, that the bears are adaptable, and fully capable of hunting land-dwelling creatures. On the other hand, maybe they just developed a taste for borscht.
 
#127 · (Edited)
Pity the facts don't bear out-no pun intended-your claims...... We completely disagree about the root cause of "global warming": you think it's humans, I think it's not. And there's a ton of research to buttress my opinions as well, it's just that you refuse to consider it. Whatever. Our water here is flowing nicely, the snowpack was above normal, temperatures were lower than the warmists predicted here, and their panicked claims of armageddon have failed to come to fruition.

Your political rants are not based in fact. You can cherry pick this all you want, but you have zero PROOF of anthropogenic global heating. You refuse to accept that the climate of the planet has never been "stable", and has been in flux for 4.5 billion years. It will continue to be in flux for the next 4.5 billion years. You demand we change our lifestyles to fit your assessment, and try to guilt/shame/embarrass us into accepting "your" side's opinion. No thanks; I'm not buying into it. We have a dipshit "president" and his cronies who think maybe they can use the RICO statutes to go after people who don't toe the party line, and I have an M-4 which says "good luck". I believe-note I said "believe"-we're in a cultural war that will pretty soon break out into open warfare. I'd truly not like to see that, but unless things change, we're going to be at each other's throats-literally. You want a concrete example? I'm firmly in that "basket of deplorables" that the democrat candidate mentions. Good. C'est mon honore d'etre une "deplorable"!
 
#130 ·
The facts do bear themselves out.

But if those facts alone don't scare you, University of Alberta biologist Andrew Derocher's newest research may do it.

According to his study, glacier melt is forcing polar bears into the water where they must swim for days at a time to find solid ground. And while polar bears are adept swimmers, they are not evolutionarily equipped to tackle such long distances.

Derocher and his team began tracking the swimming patterns of bears near Alaska and Canada in 2004. Twelve years later, the results are in: By 2012, the number of bears swimming more than 31 miles grew from 25% to 69%. With no ice to land on, one mother bear in particular had swum without stopping for nine days, losing 22% of her body weight and her cub along the way.
 
#132 ·
Dude...I've put up with being spat on, flipped off, denigrated, put down, told I was a "bitter clinger", deplorable, racist, sexist, zenophobic, misogynistic, and "mean-spirited" ad nauseum. It took an act of fucking CONGRESS to get people to hire us after Viet Nam, we were so well loved when we returned. If you believe Trump was suggesting we "2nd Amendment" people would resort to violence to support the Amendment, you're a few beers short of a six-pack. There are approximtely 270 MILLION gun owners in this country. If we tended to violence, you'd know it!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top