Emma Thompson on Global Warming

[Schache It Off]

Yep. It's all a massive conspiracy by communists.
The science is all wrong, just like it was with the harmfulness of tobacco and asbestos and the benefits of vaccinations.

I always tell people if they want to get a quick handle on if your being sold snake oil, just ask for the evidence. If the response is an irrational conspiracy theory, you know your dealing with woo.

Unfortunately for you Tripwire, your bullshit metre isn't terribly sensitive.

Big difference between smoking cigarettes and global warming. No idea why you would bother including a situation where a man inhales a rather toxic substance into his body multiple times a day to a religious idea on the pretense of 'saving' the earth. No warming for 18 years, words from Naomi Klein about climate change being used to change capitalism and markets...You can't help but see that this is all about socialism, redistribution and a religion that the secular left like you have fully embraced.

Al gore and his crony green institutions get rich off simpletons like you.

 

[Schache It Off]

I challenge you to post just once without resorting to using the term left.

The term 'Left' are people who support bigger government, especially through use of force and violence.

You see, global warming has already been proven to be a joke and the fact that now more Australians don't believe in this rubbish, and it ain't coming off the Andrew Bolt polls I tell you. So what makes climate change leftist? Well you see I already explained it's socialism, redistribution, elements of corporatism while showing worship off the earth - Being the religion that people like you follow fanatically.

 

[apparentlydead]

The term 'Left' are people who support bigger government, especially through use of force and violence.

You see, global warming has already been proven to be a joke and the fact that now more Australians don't believe in this rubbish, and it ain't coming off the Andrew Bolt polls I tell you. So what makes climate change leftist? Well you see I already explained it's socialism, redistribution, elements of corporatism while showing worship off the earth - Being the religion that people like you follow fanatically.

You failed.

 

[medusala]

Like with immunisations, the sane world, has accepted the science regarding the reality of man made global warming.

You keep banging on about immunisation and tobacco, as if somehow it is relevant.

Just like you bang on about scientific consensus. One can easily agree with the below and still REJECT claims of 2-4c warming by 2000.

http://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/consensus-about-what.aspx

The IPCC `consensus', remember, is that

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

And that the temperature will rise by 1.1C-6.4C by the end of the century

..

In any event consensus isn't a scientific argument. See Bayes Theorem, tectonic plates, leeches, Copernicus etc

There have been numerous times when the consensus has been wrong. Hardly a foolproof "scientific" argument.

 

[Grin]

Big difference between smoking cigarettes and global warming.

But lots of similarities when it comes to how vested interests were/are able to create doubt in the minds of the scientific illiterate and easily led regarding the overwhelming scientific consensus.

 

[Grin]

You keep banging on about immunisation and tobacco, as if somehow it is relevant.

The relevance is that anti vacc crazies ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus, just like the climate change skeptics.

Just like you bang on about scientific consensus. One can easily agree with the below and still REJECT claims of 2-4c warming by 2000.

So you agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that current climate change is, by and large, man made?
Well done you

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Again, look up the Dunning-Krugar effect.

Experts in a topic often don't talk in absolutes, partly because, according to Dunning-Krugar, they underestimate their competence, partly because science rarely talks in absolutes, ie the theory of gravity.

The incompetent, who are so incompetent that they fail to recognise their own incompetence, will read this as doubt and weakness and proof that the competent don't know what they are talking about, and that themselves, with no expertise at all, know much, much more then the competent. These ignorant and incompetent people have, of course, no doubt at all in their own expertise on the subject, despite the fact that they have none. Which they are to incompetent to recognise.

Powerful interests can influence and manipulate these incompetent people as has happened with the current debate around climate change and as happened with previous debates around the harms of tobacco and asbestos.

 

[not a warmonger]

The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1870. There have been three significant warming periods since then. However, the IPCC's headline statement is that 'It is extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming since 1951 is due to the increase in greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings together'. Since 1951, warming only occurred during 1975-1998. So effectively the IPCC are using a period of 23 years out of a much longer period of natural or unattributed warming to justify their conclusion. There is no evidence that increased CO2 caused the warming between 1975-1998. It is similar in length and rate of increase to other warming periods that the IPCC does not attribute to rising CO2. The IPCC conclusion depends on the output of climate models which does not qualify as scientific evidence.

If the AGW hypothesis were valid then the models would have predicted the hiatus in warming we have seen since 1998. They didn't and spectacularly so. Von Storch at al. looked at a large range of models and found

that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.​

http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming

That's not to say warming will not continue but there is no proof that carbon dioxide is the main driver for it. The models are clearly missing a major factor, which could be a natural phenomenon.

none of the temp records show a pause. Using GISS LOTI, the peak 18 year trend in recent decades is from 1992-2009. At 0.23 C per decade, it is 39% greater than the trend from 1981-1998, and is statistically significant. Given that, claiming the "pause" or "hiatus" started "...about the year 2000" is clearly based "put[ting] too much emphasis on individual years" - specifically, 1998.

The following is the GISS LOTI showing the running five year mean:

Looking at the five year moving average, it is very clear that there has been a more or less constant upward trend from about 1915-1970 with a single large excursion peaking in 1945. The description of the temperature history as a warming trend from 1910 to 1940 followed by a cooling trend/pause from 1940-1970 imposes a preconcieved pattern onto the data, and is not supported by that data. The 60 year sawtooth or sine pattern in the temperature data are a figment of the imagination. Therefore even if we were to be so statistically adventurous as to infer a long term cycle from a single repetion of the cycle, you would have no basis for predicting a pause from about 2000 (said pause not existing in any event).

 

[not a warmonger]

The term 'Left' are people who support bigger government, especially through use of force and violence.

You see, global warming has already been proven to be a joke and the fact that now more Australians don't believe in this rubbish, and it ain't coming off the Andrew Bolt polls I tell you. So what makes climate change leftist? Well you see I already explained it's socialism, redistribution, elements of corporatism while showing worship off the earth - Being the religion that people like you follow fanatically.

a small L libertarian. Says it all

 

[Ripper]

 

[medusala]

Experts in a topic often don't talk in absolutes, partly because, according to Dunning-Krugar, they underestimate their competence, partly because science rarely talks in absolutes, ie the theory of gravity.

Classic humour. How to utterly destroy your own argument. The IPCC put a range out of 1-6c and yet who are the people that only talk of the extreme projections?

Lol at you bringing out some theory you have googled without realising it makes your argument look utterly absurd.



May as well close the thread now.

 

[Grin]

May as well close the thread now.

For your sake, I hope they do

 

[Lebbo73]

none of the temp records show a pause. Using GISS LOTI, the peak 18 year trend in recent decades is from 1992-2009. At 0.23 C per decade, it is 39% greater than the trend from 1981-1998, and is statistically significant. Given that, claiming the "pause" or "hiatus" started "...about the year 2000" is clearly based "put[ting] too much emphasis on individual years" - specifically, 1998.

The following is the GISS LOTI showing the running five year mean:

Looking at the five year moving average, it is very clear that there has been a more or less constant upward trend from about 1915-1970 with a single large excursion peaking in 1945. The description of the temperature history as a warming trend from 1910 to 1940 followed by a cooling trend/pause from 1940-1970 imposes a preconcieved pattern onto the data, and is not supported by that data. The 60 year sawtooth or sine pattern in the temperature data are a figment of the imagination. Therefore even if we were to be so statistically adventurous as to infer a long term cycle from a single repetion of the cycle, you would have no basis for predicting a pause from about 2000 (said pause not existing in any event).

Maybe you should take it up with the IPCC. Even they acknowledge there has been a pause since the late 1990's that they cannot explain.

 

[Lester Burnham]

none of the temp records show a pause. Using GISS LOTI, the peak 18 year trend in recent decades is from 1992-2009. At 0.23 C per decade, it is 39% greater than the trend from 1981-1998, and is statistically significant. Given that, claiming the "pause" or "hiatus" started "...about the year 2000" is clearly based "put[ting] too much emphasis on individual years" - specifically, 1998.

Stop denying the science

Von Storch at al. looked at a large range of models and found

that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.​

Looking at the five year moving average, it is very clear that there has been a more or less constant upward trend from about 1915-1970 with a single large excursion peaking in 1945. The description of the temperature history as a warming trend from 1910 to 1940 followed by a cooling trend/pause from 1940-1970 imposes a preconcieved pattern onto the data, and is not supported by that data. The 60 year sawtooth or sine pattern in the temperature data are a figment of the imagination. Therefore even if we were to be so statistically adventurous as to infer a long term cycle from a single repetion of the cycle, you would have no basis for predicting a pause from about 2000 (said pause not existing in any event).

You scored an own goal I'm afraid. Of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1870 the IPCC only attributes the warming between 1975 and 1998 to increased carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[apparentlydead]

Stop denying the science

Von Storch at al. looked at a large range of models and found

that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.​

You scored an own goal I'm afraid. Of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1870 the IPCC only attributes the warming between 1975 and 1998 to increased carbon dioxide emissions.

You castigate people for not being experts in other fields, yet you demand that people take notice of your amateur hour Climatology Science interpretations and cherry picking.

Hypocrite.

 

[Lebbo73]

You castigate people for not being experts in other fields, yet you demand that people take notice of your amateur hour Climatology Science interpretations and cherry picking.

Hypocrite.

Take your bs elsewhere. You are being conned by people who aren't even close to being right. I hope you don't go to the pubs in Kingaroy. If you do, you must have copped a few touch ups. Of course not. That is right, you only dribble on BF.

 

[apparentlydead]

Take your bs elsewhere. You are being conned by people who aren't even close to being right. I hope you don't go to the pubs in Kingaroy. If you do, you must have copped a few touch ups. Of course not. That is right, you only dribble on BF.

But YOU'RE right, yeah??

You can barely string a sentence together, but you reckon that you can interpret climate science!

LMFAO

 

[Lebbo73]

But YOU'RE right, yeah??

You can barely string a sentence together, but you reckon that you can interpret climate science!

LMFAO

Yep, you holding your stick up in the air should nail it.

 

[apparentlydead]

Yep, you holding your stick up in the air should nail it.

I'm not the one claiming anything here.

You're stating that the vast weight of scientific evidence is flawed somehow, but you have zero ability to articulate why, because you are barely literate and basically stupid.

But yeah, you read some confirmation bias somewhere and ran with it and like shouting about it like a loon at the back of the special bus.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

The term 'Left' are people who support bigger government, especially through use of force and violence.

You see, global warming has already been proven to be a joke and the fact that now more Australians don't believe in this rubbish, and it ain't coming off the Andrew Bolt polls I tell you. So what makes climate change leftist? Well you see I already explained it's socialism, redistribution, elements of corporatism while showing worship off the earth - Being the religion that people like you follow fanatically.

Commenwealth Bank said it best;

that moving to limit warming to 2 degrees "will require a transition from traditional economic models",

No, that's not satire - that's a real and serious statement from a national bank.

 

[not a warmonger]

Take your bs elsewhere. You are being conned by people who aren't even close to being right. I hope you don't go to the pubs in Kingaroy. If you do, you must have copped a few touch ups. Of course not. That is right, you only dribble on BF.

from a guy who has an invisible friend and thinks the universe was made with him in mind.

 

[not a warmonger]

Stop denying the science

Von Storch at al. looked at a large range of models and found

that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.​

You scored an own goal I'm afraid. Of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1870 the IPCC only attributes the warming between 1975 and 1998 to increased carbon dioxide emissions.

wrong again.

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record

https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

 

[not a warmonger]

Maybe you should take it up with the IPCC. Even they acknowledge there has been a pause since the late 1990's that they cannot explain.

where?? surface, air or sea?

 

[Lester Burnham]

wrong again.

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record

https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

Another own goal. 2014 was warmer than the next warmest years, 2010 and 2005, by about 0.04 degrees Celsius - which is statistically insignificant. And even further below model projections than previous years.

“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade. This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations.”

— Judith Curry, professor in school of earth and atmospheric sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology​

I can understand the media running with bogus, alarmist stories like this - but the fanfaring of this mistruth by so called scientists is disgraceful. It shows you the desperation by them to abuse science to achieve political ends.

 

[apparentlydead]

Another own goal. 2014 was warmer than the next warmest years, 2010 and 2005, by about 0.04 degrees Celsius - which is statistically insignificant. And even further below model projections than previous years.

“With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade. This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations.”

— Judith Curry, professor in school of earth and atmospheric sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology​

I can understand the media running with bogus, alarmist stories like this - but the fanfaring of this mistruth by so called scientists is disgraceful. It shows you the desperation by them to abuse science to achieve political ends.

While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[15] she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change

So Cancat, the good scientist is not a denier, but urges more caution on some peoples more tribal barracking on both sides. I would tend to agree.

I'm sure that she is thrilled to have you holding up her quote in the vain hope of painting her as a denier.

How very disingenuous of you.

 

[Grin]

Maybe this thread should be merged with the Anti-vacc thread and renamed "Anti science crazies at it again. Post appropriate outrage"

Far left and far right sillies: different sides of the same coin.