17 yrs. no warming?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:07 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:It will never be complete. It is a matter of religion and not science at this point.

IT will remain true, whatever IT is, regardless of how many reinterpretations of the "facts" are necessary to prove IT true.

Doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on. It's about sides and not science. Each thinks they are the true God-fearing and the others are the infidels that must be defeated.


Nonsense. If there was scientific evidence to disprove the 97% then it would be pretty easy to get them to believe otherwise.
Obamacare bent the cost curve up as expected. Have opinions changed? :no:

The porkulus failed to stimulate the economy as anyone with a hint of common sense knew it would. Have opinions changed? :no:

Man is a destructive force on the planet and must be constrained and controlled by some intellectual (formerly bloodline) elite whether it is man-made cooling, man-made warming, or just man-made change, the facts don't matter, the opinions will not change. Do you even see anyone arguing about the optimum temperature or optimum CO2 or optimum anything? We know at the extremes we all die and clearly we are not all dead, so there is a point below which it is too cold, above which it is too hot, and right at that point it is just right. Of course, even acknowledging that there is an optimum point crushes the appeal to authority for the very simple reason that that point is HIGHLY subjective based on what humans value. That means for you and me the true perfect optimum is NOT the same value. It is not a matter of pure scientific debate on facts. It is also based heavily on a subjective value judgment. Scientists' value judgments are no more relevant than any other human being on the planet. If they were then you must believe my value judgments are more relevant than yours. They are truly equal.

However, the debate about "facts" that are nothing more than individual value judgments is one huge area where the so-called climate science in particular and most environmental sciences in general have been totally corrupted. To many of these scientists it is a religion just like many of the intelligent design scientists. They "know" the truth and their goal is to use pseudo-science to prove it to the non-believers.

To be a pure scientist you must be obsessed with trying to prove YOURSELF wrong. How many scientist these days try to disprove their own theories? Can't risk the funding, the power, the prestige, the money, the politics, or just the sense of personal intellectual superiority to be proven wrong. There are a lot of scientists with the mental equivalent of the napoleon complex. After all half of them are dumber than the average scientist, but most of them can't admit that to themselves.

According to Vince this should put an end to the debate :wink:

:clapping: great post spinner.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:19 pm

slowshooter wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:It will never be complete. It is a matter of religion and not science at this point.

IT will remain true, whatever IT is, regardless of how many reinterpretations of the "facts" are necessary to prove IT true.

Doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on. It's about sides and not science. Each thinks they are the true God-fearing and the others are the infidels that must be defeated.


Nonsense. If there was scientific evidence to disprove the 97% then it would be pretty easy to get them to believe otherwise.

If Inda wanted to do so, all he would have to do is provide the evidence to change their minds. If his information was credible he would have zero problems convincing me as well.

I have no religion around this at all. If new information comes up and shows that there should be a course correction I'm all for it.

Inda on the other hand not only won't change his mind. He can't change his mind.

I've already provided the evidence discrediting your claim of a 97% consensus. You refuse to acknowledge it. Not my problem.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:32 pm

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
Select excerpts from the letter:

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”


49 former NASA scientists go ballistic over agency’s bias over climate change



LOL! Relying on even more non climate scientists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/12/attacks-climate-science-nasa-staff

Maybe one of these guys was the first climatologist of Uganda or something. :lol3:


You should check the degrees of your proponents of Man Made Global Warming before you laugh. A significant portion of them do not have climate science degrees. Are you telling me that only those with climate science degrees qualify to comment on global warming? Really?? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
Your assumptions and attacks are outrageous. Keep posting the links though, they do paint a picture. :thumbsup:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:33 pm

The odds are 50 / 50 that half the climate scientists are dumber than the other half. There is a 100% chance that they are all biased due to a desperate need for funding.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6470
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby High Sierras » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:34 pm

slowshooter wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:It will never be complete. It is a matter of religion and not science at this point.

IT will remain true, whatever IT is, regardless of how many reinterpretations of the "facts" are necessary to prove IT true.

Doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on. It's about sides and not science. Each thinks they are the true God-fearing and the others are the infidels that must be defeated.

Nonsense. If there was scientific evidence to disprove the 97% then it would be pretty easy to get them to believe otherwise.
Not if their minds are already made up... with a billion-dollar-grant reason to not change them. They would dig in and say something like "well 97% of us agree, so you got nothing when you ask where the mile thick sheet of ice went that covered a good sized chunk of North America 50,000 years ago." They might even be drawn into taunting the fact you can't change their minds, regardless of the facts you show them, as a means to dodge any real debate on the subject. They'll just say those facts are made up anyway.

slowshooter wrote:If Inda wanted to do so, all he would have to do is provide the evidence to change their minds. If his information was credible he would have zero problems convincing me as well.
I have no religion around this at all. If new information comes up and shows that there should be a course correction I'm all for it.
No, you have the preconcieved notion that since 97% of Government Grant recipients agree it's happening, that's good enough for you. You want to call it something other than blind faith, go ahead. But it's still your religion.

slowshooter wrote:Inda on the other hand not only won't change his mind. He can't change his mind.
Ummm.... sounds a lot like 97% of the climatoligist industry. :lol3: :lol3:
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:39 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:... There is a 100% chance that they are all biased due to a desperate need for funding.

^^^^this^^^^

The premise is NEVER questioned. They only give funding to those looking for man made global warming, not those truly looking for the causes outside of man made global warming.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:43 pm

What's funny is that slowshooter has no clue exactly HOW that 97% consensus was arrived at. The guy Cook that created it used word searches of the abstracts of only peer reviewed IPCC papers to arrive at the false bogus consensus. Those that helped him compile the data did not read the papers to understand exactly what the science is. But since it is pure propaganda to attempt to convince the masses, he fell for it! :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:48 pm

Hey Slowshooter, I will be fishing in the gulf of mexico on weds. Weather is calm and seas are flat....grab your flippers and you can dive Bermuda to find your global warming!!! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indawoods » Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:57 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:the IPCC is a political organization pushing an agenda. Period.


Conspiracy is conspiracy. Period.

Haaa haa! Seriously. If Ronald Reagan spoke from the grave and told you that climate change was real you would cover your ears and hide behind your couch.

:lol3: :lol3:

I win...you loose. YOur manufactured 97% consensus is bull schit.


So I just gave up 17% of the consensus willingly. Go ahead. Change the 70%'s mind...




Real quick.... why are we all bothering to explain science to someone who cannot even handle simple subtraction.


I now understand his complete ignorance of fourier synthesis. hopeless.
assateague wrote:I'm not THAT cheap.


-on the viability of Pabst Blue Ribbon as a thirst quenching barley pop.
User avatar
Indawoods
hunter
 
Posts: 6446
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:08 pm
Location: Gonzales, LA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:04 pm

vincentpa wrote:This thread will not be complete without a tome from spinner.

you got your wish Vinny...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:07 pm

slowshooter wrote:You can't even tell when you have data at all. And when you get some you can't tell if it's legit.

So you believe the hockey stick to be legit?? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:12 pm

Image
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:18 pm

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.


:hi:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:28 pm

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
"Here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point that everybody has a car, and everybody has air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, uh, well, the planet will boil over...."
:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Sorry Africa, you can't develop to the same degree that the West has. You have to do your part. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

It's ALL about control!
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:34 pm

What is the word I am looking for? Hypocrite. :thumbsup:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6470
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:50 pm

2. Padding the Results

Powell padded his search results total by using the phrases; "global warming" and/or "global climate change" instead of "anthropogenic global warming" [man-made global warming] or "anthropogenic global climate change" [man-made global climate change], which would have significantly reduced the number of returned results. Without the qualifier "anthropogenic", results are included where no claim of explicit endorsement or rejection of ACC/AGW can be made.

Others alarmists have been challenged to search for the phrase, "anthropogenic climate change" using Oreskes (2004) methods and they only got 108 returned results. These low number of results are not useful to sell the type of propaganda alarmists like Powell are looking for.


:hi:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:03 am

LOL! So no science for the 97%. :lol3:

Maybe you can just stand on the corner near the IPCC office with a sign that says: "You are wrong and I can prove it by saying I said so."

:lol3: :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:12 am

slowshooter wrote:LOL! So no science for the 97%. :lol3:

Maybe you can just stand on the corner near the IPCC office with a sign that says: "You are wrong and I can prove it by saying I said so."

:lol3: :lol3:

In english please....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:17 am

Image
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:19 am

Here is a sample of the misclassification:
Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:21 am

Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:LOL! So no science for the 97%. :lol3:

Maybe you can just stand on the corner near the IPCC office with a sign that says: "You are wrong and I can prove it by saying I said so."

:lol3: :lol3:

In english please....



Translation: You are not a smart man.

:lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:22 am

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:LOL! So no science for the 97%. :lol3:

Maybe you can just stand on the corner near the IPCC office with a sign that says: "You are wrong and I can prove it by saying I said so."

:lol3: :lol3:

In english please....



Translation: You are not a smart man.

:lol3:

continuing....
Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:22 am

I'm not the idiot touting a bogus 97% consensus....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:26 am

Oh look...another one...
Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."



:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

Your consensus is crap slowshooter.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:30 am

Oh Look! Another one!!
Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."


:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56366
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SpinnerMan and 8 guests