The Global Warming Fraud

[Jimmy Higgins]

The climate simulations as I recall say some areas may get drier, some wetter.

Global warming does not men uniform temperature rise in all places. It means the average temperature goes up.

Unless you think the rise in sea levels is due to water cuming from nowhere, it is melting ice. How do you melt ice?

Rising sea levels are also caused by the slowing of deep ocean currents, like off the SE US coast. We live in a large ecosystem, and climate science deniers are always trying to find small examples of localized weather to disprove what is generally an indisputable truth of a warming Earth.

 

[Jarhyn]

The climate simulations as I recall say some areas may get drier, some wetter.

Global warming does not men uniform temperature rise in all places. It means the average temperature goes up.

Unless you think the rise in sea levels is due to water cuming from nowhere, it is melting ice. How do you melt ice?

Rising sea levels are also caused by the slowing of deep ocean currents, like off the SE US coast. We live in a large ecosystem, and climate science deniers are always trying to find small examples of localized weather to disprove what is generally an indisputable truth of a warming Earth.

The climate is changing. Most human infrastructure was built... less than completely tolerant to such changes.

And it turns out some of those changes are caused by human infrastructure.

 

[Shadowy Man]

When the scientific consensus, based on demonstratable facts is overwhelmingly united, to just wave that off like that is irresponsible bullshit.

The garbage from climate denialist cranks is on par with flat Earthers.

I think this is an understated point in many of these discussions. I'm not a scientist, so when I am curious about the validity of a theory, this is the first step - Is there an overwhelming consensus of independent experts, and whose data can be correlated from other fields of study? If that is the case, then I am going to treat it as if the theory is correct until the consensus proves otherwise.

Has the consensus been wrong in the past? Very very rarely...and when it is, it's science that sorts it out.

check out “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates of human-caused global warming” by John Cook, Environmental Research Letters (2016)

Of course the consensus itself doesn’t prove the idea. It just represents how many scientists are swayed by the evidence that exists as published by all the other scientists. Therein lies the actual proof.

For me it's less about consensus and more about whether the results are reproducible or whether the results of continued investigation stand on previous results.

But then, that's how most scientists arrive at consensus, not through group-think but through a thousand attempts to cut without apparent wound landing on the model.

By the way, here's the abstract from Cook's paper:

Abstract​

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Note that he specifically addresses other results that seem to indicate a lack of consensus. He states that those include non-experts as well as assume that papers that don't explicitly state the cause of global warming are considered to a non-endorsement of the position of anthropogenic global warming: "an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics".

 

[steve_bank]

The climate simulations as I recall say some areas may get drier, some wetter.

Global warming does not men uniform temperature rise in all places. It means the average temperature goes up.

Unless you think the rise in sea levels is due to water cuming from nowhere, it is melting ice. How do you melt ice?

Rising sea levels are also caused by the slowing of deep ocean currents, like off the SE US coast. We live in a large ecosystem, and climate science deniers are always trying to find small examples of localized weather to disprove what is generally an indisputable truth of a warming Earth.

I have to give some credibility to climate scientists who no more than I do.

I'd say it is unlikely they have missed a significant variable,

 

[Swammerdami]

Don't ban him, his entertainer value is too high.

Speaking as a Member, this is rather my attitude!

As a Super-Mod I am required to keep a strict "Chinese firewall" regarding private staff discussions. I achieve this by avoiding reading recent private threads altogether!

 

[Ford]

Don't ban him, his entertainer value is too high.

Speaking as a Member, this is rather my attitude!

As a Super-Mod I am required to keep a strict "Chinese firewall" regarding private staff discussions. I achieve this by avoiding reading recent private threads altogether!

As a person who has been here for 12 years (really?) I must disagree.

I would not be the least bit surprised to find that our newest chew toy is the latest incarnation of a previously banned user.

Why?

I hate to break it you y'all, but this isn't exactly the most happening space on the internet. If I were a person dedicated to a "checkmate atheists!" proposition, then this little corner of the internet would not be a primary target. Discussion forums? That's so 2002. Or 2004. Or even 2010.

"Freethought Pariah" is pretty clearly a person who has a grudge against the repeatedly renamed Internet Infidels forum. He (or she) has been kicked off here before, and simply can't let it go. He (or she) relishes the thought of being banned once again, and is trolling hard in pursuit of this goal. When the inevitable ban comes, he (or she) will no doubt declare that they have "owned the radical left atheists" and stomp away.

The pattern has been repeated over and over again. "Checkmate, atheists" and the only thing that remains is to figure out which sock is at work.

 

[Swammerdami]

Don't ban him, his entertainer value is too high.

Speaking as a Member, this is rather my attitude!

As a Super-Mod I am required to keep a strict "Chinese firewall" regarding private staff discussions. I achieve this by avoiding reading recent private threads altogether!

As a person who has been here for 12 years (really?) I must disagree.

I would not be the least bit surprised to find that our newest chew toy is the latest incarnation of a previously banned user.

You're probably right, Ford. Still, the Pariah's posts are so obviously useless that he is easy to ignore. Sometimes his ignorance may provoke interesting discussion.

For example, estimating the odds against evolution of useful genes is an interesting and unsolved combinatorial problem. (Starting a useful thread on the topic probably needs to wait until the pest goes away.)

 

[atrib]

I would not be the least bit surprised to find that our newest chew toy is the latest incarnation of a previously banned user.

Indeed. I would recognize that smell anywhere

 

[steve_bank]

Don't ban him, his entertainer value is too high.

Speaking as a Member, this is rather my attitude!

As a Super-Mod I am required to keep a strict "Chinese firewall" regarding private staff discussions. I achieve this by avoiding reading recent private threads altogether!

He is a scientifically ignorant theist, not exactly a crime.

I learn from the debate.

 

[bilby]

Starting a useful thread on the topic probably needs to wait until the pest goes away.

Which is why it's important to ban unrepentant and inveterate rule breakers.

It's fun for a while, and might even inspire interesting topics, but ultimately their presence makes actual discussion impossible.

Without dissent, there's not much to discuss, and it gets pretty boring. But if every second post is a long and crazy rant that declares everyone to be wrong and stupid, without giving any evidence or adding any ideas that haven't been debunked a thousand times, it gets a lot more boring.

Debunking nonsense can be fun, but pigeon chess gets tedious pretty quickly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't ban him, his entertainer value is too high.

Speaking as a Member, this is rather my attitude!

As a Super-Mod I am required to keep a strict "Chinese firewall" regarding private staff discussions. I achieve this by avoiding reading recent private threads altogether!

He is a scientifically ignorant theist, not exactly a crime.

I learn from the debate.

When does the debating start? The trouble is, and this isn't questioning moderation, just speaking to the posting behavior... it is virtually nothing but spam. When they don't interact, it is only noise. And they can be noisy down in ~E~ until they actually want to interact. Though, they've made it clear they have no intention of wanting to interact.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Don't ban him, his entertainer value is too high.

Speaking as a Member, this is rather my attitude!

As a Super-Mod I am required to keep a strict "Chinese firewall" regarding private staff discussions. I achieve this by avoiding reading recent private threads altogether!

He is a scientifically ignorant theist, not exactly a crime.

I learn from the debate.

When does the debating start? The trouble is, and this isn't questioning moderation, just speaking to the posting behavior... it is virtually nothing but spam. When they don't interact, it is only noise. And they can be noisy down in ~E~ until they actually want to interact. Though, they've made it clear they have no intention of wanting to interact.

There’s no debate. I politely asked him to cite one of the claims he made early in the thread and he freaked out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't ban him, his entertainer value is too high.

Speaking as a Member, this is rather my attitude!

As a Super-Mod I am required to keep a strict "Chinese firewall" regarding private staff discussions. I achieve this by avoiding reading recent private threads altogether!

He is a scientifically ignorant theist, not exactly a crime.

I learn from the debate.

When does the debating start? The trouble is, and this isn't questioning moderation, just speaking to the posting behavior... it is virtually nothing but spam. When they don't interact, it is only noise. And they can be noisy down in ~E~ until they actually want to interact. Though, they've made it clear they have no intention of wanting to interact.

There’s no debate. I politely asked him to cite one of the claims he made early in the thread and he freaked out.

Dude... do your own research!

Where going online and aggregating misleading quotes and writing up small chances of probabilities is "research".

 

[steve_bank]

Ok, I learn from the exchange. if yiu prefer.

Those of us who have been here a while know there is no debate as we would define it. It is pointless to expect a theist to engage in real debate on science as we might do with each other.

That being said I get better insight from the posts into Christians I see out in the world and more importantly our Christian elected politicians. Peeople in congress who actually are creationists.

Also, once in a while science I am unfamiliar with comes up and I look at it on the net. When my eyes were better I'd get a book.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Don't ban him, his entertainer value is too high.

Speaking as a Member, this is rather my attitude!

As a Super-Mod I am required to keep a strict "Chinese firewall" regarding private staff discussions. I achieve this by avoiding reading recent private threads altogether!

He is a scientifically ignorant theist, not exactly a crime.

I learn from the debate.

When does the debating start? The trouble is, and this isn't questioning moderation, just speaking to the posting behavior... it is virtually nothing but spam. When they don't interact, it is only noise. And they can be noisy down in ~E~ until they actually want to interact. Though, they've made it clear they have no intention of wanting to interact.

There’s no debate. I politely asked him to cite one of the claims he made early in the thread and he freaked out.

Dude... do your own research!

Where going online and aggregating misleading quotes and writing up small chances of probabilities is "research".

Then I did my own research and I found his claim to be absurd but he never responded to that either.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ok, I learn from the exchange. if yiu prefer.

Those of us who have been here a while know there is no debate as we would define it. It is pointless to expect a theist to engage in real debate on science as we might do with each other.

That being said I get better insight from the posts into Christians I see out in the world and more importantly our Christian elected politicians. Peeople in congress who actually are creationists.

Also, once in a while science I am unfamiliar with comes up and I look at it on the net. When my eyes were better I'd get a book.

But if you've been here enough, you know when a person is just wasting your time and lacks any actual knowledge on the subject and is effectively yelling outloud with fingers in their ears. There are different types of people that come wandering here, this one is one of the least interesting.

 

[bilby]

Ok, I learn from the exchange. if yiu prefer.

Those of us who have been here a while know there is no debate as we would define it. It is pointless to expect a theist to engage in real debate on science as we might do with each other.

That being said I get better insight from the posts into Christians I see out in the world and more importantly our Christian elected politicians. Peeople in congress who actually are creationists.

Also, once in a while science I am unfamiliar with comes up and I look at it on the net. When my eyes were better I'd get a book.

But if you've been here enough, you know when a person is just wasting your time and lacks any actual knowledge on the subject and is effectively yelling outloud with fingers in their ears. There are different types of people that come wandering here, this one is one of the least interesting.

It's like a streaker at a cricket match. The crowd gets a good laugh, and it is entertaining to watch the security guards and cops trying to deal with it; But nobody would buy a ticket to watch nothing but a bunch of streakers invading a cricket oval.

Or maybe it's like salt on your dinner. A little makes it a more enjoyable experience, but if there's too much, it's no longer pleasant.

 

[steve_bank]

Ok, I learn from the exchange. if yiu prefer.

Those of us who have been here a while know there is no debate as we would define it. It is pointless to expect a theist to engage in real debate on science as we might do with each other.

That being said I get better insight from the posts into Christians I see out in the world and more importantly our Christian elected politicians. Peeople in congress who actually are creationists.

Also, once in a while science I am unfamiliar with comes up and I look at it on the net. When my eyes were better I'd get a book.

But if you've been here enough, you know when a person is just wasting your time and lacks any actual knowledge on the subject and is effectively yelling outloud with fingers in their ears. There are different types of people that come wandering here, this one is one of the least interesting.

I have time to waste.

If you think respomding to another member is a waste of time, don't respnd and waste your time.