[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But sometimes I've just got to get the broadstrokes from experts and, if their evidence is convincing

And I'm saying that if you go look for the evidence for yourself you'll consistently find two things:

1. The people who cite 'the evidence' won't let you see it for yourself.

2. If you look for corroborating evidence in the world around you (like well documented records of specific glaciers and their retreat over the course of centuries) that the evidence you can readily find for yourself, see for yourself, and immediately understand...is at odds with the people in #1 who don't want you to see their evidence.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Lemmy Lemmy:

But sometimes I've just got to get the broadstrokes from experts and, if their evidence is convincing

And I'm saying that if you go look for the evidence for yourself you'll consistently find two things:

1. The people who cite 'the evidence' won't let you see it for yourself.

Despite the number of times I've posted direct links to the raw data? Or the number of other independent data sources there are?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

2. If you look for corroborating evidence in the world around you (like well documented records of specific glaciers and their retreat over the course of centuries) that the evidence you can readily find for yourself, see for yourself, and immediately understand...is at odds with the people in #1 who don't want you to see their evidence.

Despite the number of times I've posted data from sources other than the NOAA or NASA data that shows the exact same trends as that data? Even the climate denier turned climate activist knows what the data really means.

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Seriously man, after a while I just have to wonder why I even bother.

[BartSimpson]

Because we keep running into shit like this where NASA and etc. are cooking the books to make things look worse than they really are.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/n ... -58-years/

And then we have to sue the fuckers to get them to release information that under law (FOIA) should be public anyway.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... e-research

And then when the fuckers get told that their 'science' doesn't stand up to scrutiny they simply refuse to even acknowledge the fact that they've been called out.

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/201 ... e-alarmism

$1:

On December 15, 2009, EPA issued its Green House Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding, which has driven very significant and costly regulations beginning with CO2. Focusing primarily on the time period since 1950, EPA’s Endangerment Finding predicated on Three Lines of Evidence, claims that Higher CO2 Emissions have led to dangerously Higher Global Average Surface Temperatures.

The assumption of the existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot (THS)” is critical to all Three Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding.

Stated simply, first, the THS is claimed to be a fingerprint or signature of atmospheric and Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) warming caused by increasing GHG/CO2 concentrations[1]. The proper test for the existence of the THS in the real world is very simple. Are the slopes of the three temperature trend lines (upper & lower troposphere and surface) all positive, statistically significant and do they have the proper top down rank order?

Second, higher atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs concentrations are claimed to have been the primary cause of the claimed record setting GAST over the past 50 plus years.

Third, the THS assumption is imbedded in all of the climate models that EPA still relies upon in its policy analysis supporting, for example, its Clean Power Plan - recently put on hold by a Supreme Court Stay. These climate models are also critical to EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon estimates used to justify a multitude of regulations across many U.S. Government agencies. . . .

These analysis results [in this Report] would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate - 13 times in fact - that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts are shown in this research to involve both changes in solar activity and the well-known 1977 Pacific Climate Shift.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Of course it's changed.

You don't want to talk about the subject of the thread. Al Gore's a lying, scamming, evangelistic twat and you know it.

I don't really know Al Gore and I never saw his movie.

$1:

So you tell your favorite lie to divert the conversation.

The conversation I am having is that the deniers change their position all the time. Now, with monthly temperatures consistently breaking temperature records and with the Arctic heating up faster than most models predicted, they are all on board now saying "I never said there was no anthropogenic global warming." Yes. Yes they did. Over and over and over and over. The smarter ones, like Anthony Watts, are cagey. They just ridicule every piece of evidence supporting AGW without actually stating a position, so they can have some plausible deniability at the end.

$1:

And it is a lie. It doesn't even make sense. The theory of greenhouse warming has been around since 1896. The general public didn't become interested until politicians added the alarm aspect.

And entropy and thermodynamics has been around a good deal longer than that. But the deniers didn't believe the greenhouse gas theory. They Earth isn't a greenhouse, they said. Back radiation is wrong, they said. The warming is natural, they said. The warming is an artifact of poor measurement, they said. The models are wrong. The data is wrong. The conclusions are wrong.

And yet here we are, warming up, just like the models predicted, and just like the thermodynamics said. And you guys can disappear to your right-wing echo chambers and try to convince yourselves that you were actually somehow right all along.

$1:

It isn't just that it's a lie. It's an obvious lie that's disproved over and over again. Stop lying.

Well I can understand your frustration. Nobody likes to be told "I told you so", but...I told you so.

[herbie]

Arguing with a (Climate denier/Trump supporter) is like playing chess with a pigeon.
No matter how good you are, the bird shits on the board and struts around like it won anyway.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The conversation I am having is that the deniers change their position all the time.

That's a lie, and I've shown you it's a lie by showing you skeptics from 2007 through 2012 talking about the problem with preaching catastrophe.

An Inconvenient Truth wouldn't have had an audience if it wasn't preaching fear of the coming apocalypse of warming. The issue requires the warmist faithful to fear the End Days.

Again, it doesn't even make sense that the catastrophe wasn't the issue. Without the chicken little hysterics of 'OMG we're all gonna melt n drown n die!!!' there is no issue.

If it's just getting warmer, so what?

[N_Fiddledog]

herbie herbie:

Arguing with a (Climate denier/Trump supporter) is like playing chess with a pigeon.
No matter how good you are, the bird shits on the board and struts around like it won anyway.

C'mon Buddy, if you're going to steal my meme from the meme thread at least post the pic.

[Zipperfish]

The science has been pretty clear all along. The so-called skeptics, driven more by political ideology than anything, have deliberately denied and obfuscated the issues. I didn't see you, or any of the other deniers, say, during the so-called "pause" that warming should be expected to resume given that CO2 concentrations continue to increase.

That would have been the scientifically sound and non-alarmist stance.

Or, for example posting pictures of some climate change voyage getting caught in ice in the Antarctica--the message being that clearly global warming is a pile of crap.

I'm sorry, you can't attack every single finding supporting global warming, vilify every single scientist talking about it and then be expect to be taken seriously when you say "Well we knew all along that humans were causing warming."

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

I need to go back to bed now.

That's why I do my best to stay out of the AGW threads.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The science has been pretty clear all along.

True. This video's 3 year's old, but you can start here if you'd like to catch up.

$1:

The so-called skeptics, driven more by political ideology than anything, have deliberately denied and obfuscated the issues.

$1:

I didn't see you, or any of the other deniers, say, during the so-called "pause" that warming should be expected to resume given that CO2 concentrations continue to increase.

That would have been the scientifically sound and non-alarmist stance.

Well yeah, because it's all about the science for you name-calling hysterics, isn't it?

$1:

Or, for example posting pictures of some climate change voyage getting caught in ice in the Antarctica--the message being that clearly global warming is a pile of crap.

Oh c'mon, learn to laugh at yourselves. That was funny.

$1:

I'm sorry, you can't attack every single finding supporting global warming, vilify every single scientist talking about it

$1:

and then be expect to be taken seriously when you say "Well we knew all along that humans were causing warming."

[Thanos]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Thanos Thanos:

I need to go back to bed now.

That's why I do my best to stay out of the AGW threads.

Yup, it's the same baffling circle jerk it's always been. Wait, I'll post this video from some guy on YouTube who kept a snowball intact in his freezer all summer long! End of didcussion. I win! That'll teach those commies with their science degrees and their hip shoes!

[N_Fiddledog]

Well if you want to get nasty - anything the other guys are trying to pass off as evidence is little more than a collection of imaginings created in computer modelling programs by nerds who weren't good enough to get jobs at Nintendo.

[Thanos]

Not being nasty right now but certainly could be the longer this goes on. Where do you get your videos anyway, the same cesspool where Kirk Cameron used his deep knowledge of bananas to say evolution is a lie?

[N_Fiddledog]

Who? Don't know who you're talking about, but I actually am on board with the theory of evolution.

[Thanos]

Right. I doubt you have much belief in anything, science or otherwise, other than Party Uber Alles.