The Global Warming Fraud
(12-23-2019, 09:04 PM)Zedta Wrote:
(12-23-2019, 08:23 PM)Stanis Wrote: Data is apparently not your strong point. Your post is full of misinformation - almost nothing is right.

Just picking this one. No, the USA is NOT the lowest per capita producer of CO2. Even China is lower (much higher population). USA is not the absolute highest per capita, but it's near the top of the list. Those with higher per capita production are mostly the OPEC countries - who in addition to having cheap domestic gasoline, tend to burn off natural gas as a waste product.
You are correct on this one, I meant that we have decreased our output more than any other country.
Even that's not true.

In absolute terms the US has not decreased output, or not much, depending on what year is used as a reference. Because population has increased, the US  per capita output has decreased about 20% since 1980, but several other countries have decreased greater amounts per capita, or greater percents per capita. Including both big producers in the mideast (Qatar, UAE both down about 30%), and many EU countries (including UK, France, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, down 30-40%, and let's not forget about Poland.)
Reply
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Zedta
Reply
Hey Stanis!


Perhaps we should be taxing Mt. Etna?

Oh wait, that really small, in comparison amount of CO2 man has produced, is REALLY what is changing the climate.

Sorry, I forgot about the delusion...


[Image: 191230.CO2.footprint.c.jpg]
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
 
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.
J Edgar Hoover

 
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain
Reply
(12-30-2019, 06:39 PM)Zedta Wrote: Hey Stanis!


Perhaps we should be taxing Mt. Etna?

Oh wait, that really small, in comparison amount of CO2 man has produced, is REALLY what is changing the climate.

Sorry, I forgot about the delusion...

Please cite your source.

Mt. Etna produces about 16,000 tons CO2 a day, or 6 million tons CO2 per year. Human activity produces about 30 billion tons CO2 per year.
Per: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...lcano-emit
Reply
Stanis:

You are not, apparently, capable of identifying hyperbolic sarcasm. You missed my point entirely in my posting the meme, etc.

The data used by the majority of academia is flawed, in many respects, as applied to the Climate Change/Warming discussion. It is a problem well beyond any argument over man made CO2.

Really.

I believe you are an intelligent person, so I will give you a piece of information that you should watch, because it is a real climate scientist that points out where the flaws are and shows why the solar influences are gravely underestimated.

Grab a cup of your favorite beverage and become a bit educated, no matter what 'degree' you may possess in your 'field'.

I'd really like your opinion on this, but in honesty, you must view the presentation. Its not long, only 40 minutes, but packed with real, sensible data and observations of the academic bias.

I dare you! :D 


One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
 
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.
J Edgar Hoover

 
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain
Reply
(01-01-2020, 06:36 PM)Zedta Wrote: I believe you are an intelligent person, so I will give you a piece of information that you should watch, because it is a real climate scientist that points out where the flaws are and shows why the solar influences are gravely underestimated.

Grab a cup of your favorite beverage and become a bit educated, no matter what 'degree' you may possess in your 'field'.

I'd really like your opinion on this, but in honesty, you must view the presentation. Its not long, only 40 minutes, but packed with real, sensible data and observations of the academic bias.

I dare you! :D 
 
Oh dear. You think Ben Davidson is a "real climate scientist"? He is not. When he gets something right, he's getting it from real scientists. But he gets a lot wrong. 

What he is good at is communicating. It's sad that he uses that skill to spread misinformation.

And that video is mostly a distraction.

The solar cycle takes about 11 years. An 11-year cycle doesn't account for a 50+ year trend of increasing temperatures. Something else must.
Reply
(01-02-2020, 12:37 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(01-01-2020, 06:36 PM)Zedta Wrote: I believe you are an intelligent person, so I will give you a piece of information that you should watch, because it is a real climate scientist that points out where the flaws are and shows why the solar influences are gravely underestimated.

Grab a cup of your favorite beverage and become a bit educated, no matter what 'degree' you may possess in your 'field'.

I'd really like your opinion on this, but in honesty, you must view the presentation. Its not long, only 40 minutes, but packed with real, sensible data and observations of the academic bias.

I dare you! :D 
 
Oh dear. You think Ben Davidson is a "real climate scientist"? He is not. When he gets something right, he's getting it from real scientists. But he gets a lot wrong. 

What he is good at is communicating. It's sad that he uses that skill to spread misinformation.

And that video is mostly a distraction.

The solar cycle takes about 11 years. An 11-year cycle doesn't account for a 50+ year trend of increasing temperatures. Something else must.
So you attack a person, who very well is, by definition a scientist.
To wit: 
Bing Definition Wrote:scientist NOUN
  1. a person who is studying [emphasis mine] or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
    "a research scientist"
Mr. Davidson is actively studying climate science. He has published a double edition Text Book "Weatherman's Guide to the Sun" and several peer-reviewed scientific papers. Perhaps you should take some of your own advise and check things out before you make statements?

You ignore the actual subject of my post to you and the preponderance of the dare, which is basically your modus operanti in general; to make attacks and comments on the non sequitur but not the subject matter. You are not a valid player, it would appear. Just a pedestrian, naysayer, without basis on any particular point save being in disagreement and able to post very questionable and shallow data from Main Stream, controlled sources with money ties to Global Initiative types who give them big bucks to fund their expensive labs and chairs. You can do better, can't you?

I give you one more chance, since you've been avoiding any serious input of knowledge and not answering basic questions of substance. If you differ on the information provided by Mr. Davidson, point out the error and try to put out a genuine counterpoint. So far your batting average is rather poor. The one about solar cycles is sort of amusingly naively shortsighted and misapplied. 11 year solar cycles mostly, are analyzed based upon their averages over millennia. But you didn't get that one, did you?

Temperatures, BTW, have only been accurate beyond a single degree or two Celcius, for 100 or so years and data in modern times is greatly skewed by the placement of monitoring stations in areas where urban sprawl has overtaken their sites and the resultant generalized heating, due to the heat dams around these sites. Just a small issue, right?

One more chance and if you don't deliver, I will just figure you to be what I supposed, a common naysayer and ever skeptical, google-byline-level, intellectual.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
 
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.
J Edgar Hoover

 
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain
[-] The following 1 user Likes Zedta's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
(01-02-2020, 06:21 PM)Zedta Wrote: I give you one more chance, since you've been avoiding any serious input of knowledge and not answering basic questions of substance. If you differ on the information provided by Mr. Davidson, point out the error and try to put out a genuine counterpoint. So far your batting average is rather poor. The one about solar cycles is sort of amusingly naively shortsighted and misapplied.

I've already given a counterpoint. You ignored that. That's the modus operandi of people suffering from pseudoscience. I point out something that's wrong and you just bring up something else.

I have not found a single peer reviewed article in the field from Davidson. He is not a scientist. His graduate training is as a lawyer - and he says so on his website.

The entire framing of the argument in the video is wrong. That's the lawyer at work. No, climate scientists do NOT simply assign to human activity whatever is not attributed to variation. The video also alleges climate scientists ignore solar forcing. That's untrue.

Instead of following real experts in the field - people who have actually put years of their lives into studying and understanding the topic - you follow snake oil salesmen like Davidson, who have contributed nothing to the field. But you don't work in the field, so you might not recognize when Davidson is peddling nonsense.

Since you seem to like youtube videos, here are three specifically discussing Davidson's views.



(total runtime about 42 minutes)

These videos were made by Keith Strong, who has genuine scientific credentials in climate and space weather.
https://scicolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/Strong.html
Reply
(01-02-2020, 08:15 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(01-02-2020, 06:21 PM)Zedta Wrote: I give you one more chance, since you've been avoiding any serious input of knowledge and not answering basic questions of substance. If you differ on the information provided by Mr. Davidson, point out the error and try to put out a genuine counterpoint. So far your batting average is rather poor. The one about solar cycles is sort of amusingly naively shortsighted and misapplied.

I've already given a counterpoint. You ignored that. That's the modus operandi of people suffering from pseudoscience. I point out something that's wrong and you just bring up something else.

I have not found a single peer reviewed article in the field from Davidson. He is not a scientist. His graduate training is as a lawyer - and he says so on his website.

The entire framing of the argument in the video is wrong. That's the lawyer at work. No, climate scientists do NOT simply assign to human activity whatever is not attributed to variation. The video also alleges climate scientists ignore solar forcing. That's untrue.
You really are dodging the larger question in my original dare: "you've been avoiding any serious input of knowledge and not answering basic questions of substance" is what I wrote. Your answer is to go after one video and its author. What about all the other articles and authors I've posted?


Stanis Wrote:I've already given a counterpoint. You ignored that.

I pointed out error in data, your error in analysis of that data and you totally ignore that and switch to attacking one video I posted from Mr. Davidson, claim him to be nothing more than a lawyer and then act as though my entire thread of many hundreds of posts, most of articles and videos of well known and respected Climate Physicists, Meteorologists, Solar Physicists and other scientists of credentialed rank is without value. Very disingenuous.

Are you unable to think beyond the immediate? Are you unable to look at larger pictures to gain a good Gestalt of a subject?

[edited to add]

I watched the videos and found them interesting but rather dated. They are some 5 years old and it would seem much of what Dr. Keith says is old data and belief. More current data is posted by more current scientists that seem to dispute much of the older data. These more current data also seem to be in conflict with the graphs and data given in times past.

As I posted earlier in this thread, it would appear data is compromised and some 'papers' have been refuted and pulled by publishers because they were fudged.

To wit: https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-na...rming.html ...just for one.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
 
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.
J Edgar Hoover

 
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain
Reply
(01-02-2020, 08:35 PM)Zedta Wrote: You really are dodging the larger question in my original dare: "you've been avoiding any serious input of knowledge and not answering basic questions of substance" is what I wrote. Your answer is to go after one video and its author. What about all the other articles and authors I've posted?

YOU brought up the Davidson video, not me.


Quote:
Stanis Wrote:I've already given a counterpoint. You ignored that.

I pointed out error in data, your error in analysis of that data and you totally ignore that and switch to attacking one video I posted from Mr. Davidson, claim him to be nothing more than a lawyer and then act as though my entire thread of many hundreds of posts, most of articles and videos of well known and respected Climate Physicists, Meteorologists, Solar Physicists and other scientists of credentialed rank is without value. Very disingenuous. 

Are you unable to think beyond the immediate? Are you unable to look at larger pictures to gain a good Gestalt of a subject?

I think YOU are missing the big picture, which is that your "hundreds of posts" here are meaningless. You haven't done anything to advance the field of climate science. 

You didn't point out any error in data or any error in analysis. You asserted, without support: "The data used by the majority of academia is flawed, in many respects, as applied to the Climate Change/Warming discussion."

Climate science has published thousands of peer reviewed articles. You haven't studied them. If you think you can dismiss that body of science with a wave of a hand, a fortiori everything you have written in this thread is as refuse, not worth the paper it's printed on (and it's not even printed on paper).

The reality is that the earth is warming. That's well established. What's causing it? That's been studied for decades, and the things climate "skeptics" bring up have been looked at. Yes, the sun was examined as a cause. Yes, cosmic rays were examined as a cause. Either they don't match the timeline of earth's warming, or they don't have an appropriate trend to account for the changes. What does have an appropriate trend is greenhouse gas emissions. Alone greenhouse emissions would suggest a higher warming than we've actually seen. It turns out aerosols also matter, and they reduce the warming effect a little. The effects of these two causes match observations fairly well. There are other contributors, but their effects are smaller.

In a broad stroke, that's how climate science has come to the conclusions it has. It wasn't arbitrary decisions ala Davidson.

But climate "skeptics" just circle around the same arguments and contribute nothing new to the discussion.

As an analogy, consider the people who deny people landed on the moon. They have their books on the subject, but they're garbage. Someone who is ignorant of the reams of documentation about the moon landings, and lacks the technical training to understand them, does NOT really have anything to contribute. They may on occasion find an inconsistency among NASA images or scientists, but the moon landing skeptics are still wrong.

Quote:I watched the videos and found them interesting but rather dated. They are some 5 years old and it would seem much of what Dr. Keith says is old data and belief. More current data is posted by more current scientists that seem to dispute much of the older data. These more current data also seem to be in conflict with the graphs and data given in times past.

As I posted earlier in this thread, it would appear data is compromised and some 'papers' have been refuted and pulled by publishers because they were fudged.

To wit: https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-nature-retracts-ocean-warming.html ...just for one.

Yes, they are a bit dated, but Davdison is still saying the same stuff, which in itself is telling. 

And you find a paper was retracted. So what? It does not say the data was "fudged" - that's a spin.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)