Australian Politics Forum - mindless hysterics from climate skeptics

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30110
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #180 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 6:48am

Quote:

How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity – without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49476
At my desk.

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #181 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 11:38am

Frank wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 10:00pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:55pm:

So the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

Are we getting close to drawing a line in your delusions?

What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD? If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate.

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion. This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest.

I think you would greatly benefit from looking at what an eminent scientist has said to the relevant US Senate hearing - as well as the other submission at this link. It would straighten your thinking even if not change your mind:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/08/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma-2/

You are lying Frank. And you didn't answer the question.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18051
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #182 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 11:40am

"On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Stephen Schneider

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 48261
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #183 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 11:55am

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 11:38am:

Frank wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 10:00pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:55pm:

So the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

Are we getting close to drawing a line in your delusions?

What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD? If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate.

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion. This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest.

I think you would greatly benefit from looking at what an eminent scientist has said to the relevant US Senate hearing - as well as the other submission at this link. It would straighten your thinking even if not change your mind:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/08/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma-2/

You are lying Frank. And you didn't answer the question.

Where's the yawn??

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49476
At my desk.

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #184 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 7:59pm

Frank wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 11:38am:

Frank wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 10:00pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:55pm:

So the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

Are we getting close to drawing a line in your delusions?

What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD? If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate.

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion. This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest.

I think you would greatly benefit from looking at what an eminent scientist has said to the relevant US Senate hearing - as well as the other submission at this link. It would straighten your thinking even if not change your mind:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/08/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma-2/

You are lying Frank. And you didn't answer the question.

Where's the yawn??

I highlighted your lie. Can you quote me? Or does the truth not matter to skeptics when they get as hysterical as you are?

Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 48261
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #185 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:15pm

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 7:59pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 11:38am:

Frank wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 10:00pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2019 at 9:55pm:

So the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

Are we getting close to drawing a line in your delusions?

What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD? If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate.

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion. This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest.

I think you would greatly benefit from looking at what an eminent scientist has said to the relevant US Senate hearing - as well as the other submission at this link. It would straighten your thinking even if not change your mind:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/08/senate-hearing-data-or-dogma-2/

You are lying Frank. And you didn't answer the question.

Where's the yawn??

I highlighted your lie. Can you quote me? Or does the truth not matter to skeptics when they get as hysterical as you are?

Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

You are sounding like shifty Turdy McTurd.

CO2 is not the magic knob that controls the climate Man-made CO2 is a very small part of the total CO2 economy in the atmosphere. To what extent does it 'effect the climate' compared to non-human CO2 and all other non human effects? You never say because you do not know. Nobody does.

There is a lot of research into the effects of human CO2. All of it inconclusive because of the above obvious facts, making most of such research inconclusive from the start - they are looking to PROVE a POLITICAL point rather than disprove a scientific hypothesis - the latter being the proper scientific method. Hence the political and agit-prop corruption of all 'climate science reporting'.

The media is produced mostly by communication graduates with zero understanding of what they are talking about, be it climate, politics, society, education - anything. They are simply too stupid and uneducated and inexperienced. They cannot think, they are uncritical, they are of a heard. The corporate media do not get anything right, not elections, no referendums, not the climate.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:21pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49476
At my desk.

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #186 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:18pm

I highlighted your lie. Can you quote me? Or does the truth not matter to skeptics when they get as hysterical as you are?

Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 48261
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #187 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:27pm

I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of
1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate
2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration.

I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing:

What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD? If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate.

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion. This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest.

I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:38pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49476
At my desk.

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #188 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:45pm

So you knew I didn't say it, but you claimed I did anyway?

How is that not lying?

Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 48261
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #189 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 9:44pm

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:45pm:

So you knew I didn't say it, but you claimed I did anyway?

How is that not lying?

Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

I said you didn't say it because you cannot know , nobody does.

That's the point, FD. Your hysterics recognises no boundary. You do not know the point where man made CO2 ends and natural CO2 begins, nor do you know where the effects of CO2 end and all other factors begin.

You simply do not know enough. You are soothsaying.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49476
At my desk.

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #190 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 9:51pm

This is what you said:

Quote:

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2

Do you understand that this is a lie?

Instead of running away again, can you clarify if you think the media is correct that there is a lot of research into the effect of C02 on climate, but you think they made up the bit about scientists concluding that it effects climate?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18051 Gender:	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #191 - Dec 6^th, 2019 at 10:46pm freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 9:51pm: Quote: But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 Do you understand that this is a lie? is it? Don't you put it all on CO2?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49476 At my desk.	Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics Reply #192 - Dec 7^th, 2019 at 8:06am No Lee, I only see hysterical climate skeptics taking absurd, absolutist positions here.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #193 - Dec 7^th, 2019 at 8:16am

Frank wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:27pm:

I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of
1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate
2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration.

I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing:

What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD? If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate.

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion. This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest.

I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us.

shouldnt you be asking Greta isnt she the current expert on everything CLIMATE?...

Back to top

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30110
Gender: male

Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #194 - Dec 7^th, 2019 at 8:26am

cods wrote on Dec 7^th, 2019 at 8:16am:

Frank wrote on Dec 6^th, 2019 at 8:27pm:

I cannot quote you because you - or any of the other hysterics - have never separated the extent of
1. CO2 versus all other factors impacting the climate
2. Human CO2 compared to all other CO2 within the above consideration.

I cannot quote you about a point which all you hysterics studiously avoid addressing:

What percentage of climate change is cause by natural variability, FD? If you could tell us that you would also be able to tell us to what extent human CO2 is responsible for the climate.

But you can't so you put it ALL on human CO2 and call the question itself a delusion. This is lazy, unscientific and dishonest.

I have never seen you or any other climate bed-wetter identify the limit of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2. If you/scientists have made such a separation, remind me/us.

shouldnt you be asking Greta isnt she the current expert on everything CLIMATE?...

Well she is at least an expert on CO2 .... because she is the only person on the planet that can actually "see" it.

She should be able to answer all FD questions about what is natural CO2 & what is man made CO2 .....

you know anything man made is synthetic & never looks like the natural product. Roll Eyes

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged