Ice Age on the Way!

[zeehag]

since 1958 i have been awaiting the 2025 water rising.... want to sail over fla.... now are you telling me it is or aint gonna happen. enquiring mineds need to know.....
all bubba fur tells me is i may get to ice skate over fla....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Yes, turning to a reactionary, blatantly partisan Tory tabloid like the Daily Mail as your "more credible" source is hilarious.

What's next, the Sun, the NY Post, the National Enquirer?

Xenophobic / racist, misogynist, neo-fascistic, and of course, anti-science. Literally supported the actual Nazis pre-WW2.

Very reliable as a "reverse fact check"; if anything important is addressed in the Daily Fail, whatever they print is reliably untrue.

Wikipedia has banned it as an 'unreliable source', while still accepting RT and Fox!

Tell us how you really feel about the Daily Mail.

Your critique may or may not be justified, but Conachair's post seemed to show that the Daily Mail rendition got it right in this instance. Or are they to be shunned in all instances because of YOUR particular political bias?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Yes, turning to a reactionary, blatantly partisan Tory tabloid like the Daily Mail as your "more credible" source is hilarious.

What's next, the Sun, the NY Post, the National Enquirer?

Xenophobic / racist, misogynist, neo-fascistic, and of course, anti-science. Literally supported the actual Nazis pre-WW2.

Very reliable as a "reverse fact check"; if anything important is addressed in the Daily Fail, whatever they print is reliably untrue.

Wikipedia has banned it as an 'unreliable source', while still accepting RT and Fox!

Again, you choose to ignore opinions you don't agree with, or perhaps understand. And once again, you do so on the basis that you don't like the place that published a quote from someone else, which is intellectually daft. Do try to pay attention John. The data comes from NASA. It doesn't matter iff the dats is written on the men's room wall right below "call Lola for a good time". It is still the data. So, is the thermosphere cooling or not? If it is, what does that mean?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Tell us how you really feel about the Daily Mail.

Your critique may or may not be justified, but Conachair's post seemed to show that the Daily Mail rendition got it right in this instance. Or are they to be shunned in all instances because of YOUR particular political bias?

A stopped clock is right twice a day, too.

The choice of source speaks to what sort of media the "quoter" is apparently spending time in... which telegraphs their bias, and it's also kind of lazy for not finding a link that's closer to the source and/or from a more responsible outlet.

Originally Posted by Delfin

It doesn't matter iff the dats is written on the men's room wall right below "call Lola for a good time".

Yeah, it matters. If you trust and circulate data you find on washroom walls, or in the Daily Mail, that's your problem. Chase it back to NASA, or as close as possible, and you'll get a hearing.

[odonnellryan]

More sociological here: can anyone answer me how you benefit as a person from denying climate change?

[Delfin]

The problem with sorting this issue out is that unlike every other scientific question I can think of, this one has been so politicized that everything you read has to be filtered, just like you would filter what some politician had to say about his opponent. Publishing data in a prestigious peer reviewed journal generally means the data has been carefully arbitrated for truth. But not with "climate science", which is a term you have to put in quotes given the track record for honesty of those who call themselves climate scientists. The paper in Nature already mentioned is a classic example. It's reviewed by "experts in the field", published in the best journal, the popular press picks it up and those who believe what they read in the LA times, but not some other publication their politics finds odious lap it up and yammer about how it means we're all going to die if we don't immediately make energy more expensive for poor people. Well, here's what the lead author now has to say about his work:

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

Allow me to translate:. "our paper is complete rubbish, and the people who reviewed it and published it are either pursuing a political agenda or are morons."

So excuse me if I am skeptical about the wisdom of upending the global economy based on the "scientific" conclusions of hacks like this. The fact that you can gather a large group of such hacks together to form a consensus of hacks doesn't make them any more convincing.

Note to John....you should be able to find Keeling's quote in a state approved media, like the LA Times, should you need that to get the picture....

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

More sociological here: can anyone answer me how you benefit as a person from denying climate change?

You mean you honestly don't believe the fossil fuel industry hasn't been outright paying billions for decades to "public relations" aka propaganda firms?

who in turn employ thousands of "social media specialists" and now AI data-mining experts, bot networks etc.

Probably whole orders of magnitude bigger and more skilled than anything state-sponsored.

Of course millions of "useful idiots" are volunteers, motivated by little more than a sense of belonging to their fellow-brainwashed like-minded "tribe".

And of course unwillingness to compromise living an unthinkingly selfish, very comfortable lifestyle "just" for seemingly abstract idealism plays a huge part, IMO the root cause / enabler of most evil in the world.

[john61ct]

The global economy is in dire need of upending anyway.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A stopped clock is right twice a day, too.

The choice of source speaks to what sort of media the "quoter" is apparently spending time in... which telegraphs their bias, and it's also kind of lazy for not finding a link that's closer to the source and/or from a more responsible outlet.



Yeah, it matters. If you trust and circulate data you find on washroom walls, or in the Daily Mail, that's your problem. Chase it back to NASA, or as close as possible, and you'll get a hearing.

Everyone has bias to a greater or lesser degree, and it's only natural to telegraph it. It's only a negative when it so overwhelms that objectivity becomes compromised. If you're aware of the extent of your own bias it's much easier to recognize it in others or in media outlets, and then discount it accordingly.

In this case, Conachair linked the Daily Mail piece along with an actual scientific paper, and they both presented the same info as is relevant to the layman. I agree that sourcing it direct from NASA would be more compelling, but in this case John was automatically dismissive merely because of the source as opposed to the information being provided. This only confirms his own particular bias which only gets confirmed each time he avoids subjecting it to challenge, thereby making it clear to the rest of us that his personal politics rather than the science itself is driving his bus.

Same for me and others who are skeptical about climate science? Of course. But at least I'm making an effort to learn about the position of the other side so I can better understand. This way I don't have to vilify such outlets as the WP & NYT with labels, but can read them with a more open mind. Once all the inflammatory Nazi, homophobe, misogynist, etc. labels are pulled out, the civility and often the debate itself is usually over.

[odonnellryan]

Originally Posted by john61ct

You mean you honestly don't believe the fossil fuel industry hasn't been outright paying billions for decades to "public relations" aka propaganda firms?

who in turn employ thousands of "social media specialists" and now AI data-mining experts, bot networks etc.

Probably whole orders of magnitude bigger and more skilled than anything state-sponsored

It is amazing to me when climate-deniers (seriously, how can you deny that there is a climate?! ) try and say it is Al Gore and his scientist buddies paying off everyone.

Ever met a research professor at a University? These guys don't drive BMWs.... (point is, if they wanted money, they wouldn't be in research at a University...)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

...some other publication ... lap[s] it up and yammer[s] about how it means we're all going to die if we don't immediately make energy more expensive for poor people.

This is just your excuse for dismissing the abundance of solid information and good work that's already out there.

btw, either link to the source of "we're all going to die if we don't immediately make energy more expensive for poor people", or maybe put that strawman back into a field.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

Allow me to translate:. "our paper is complete rubbish, and the people who reviewed it and published it are either pursuing a political agenda or are morons."

Wow. You really are given to hyperbole.
There IS a difference between complete rubbish and making a math error in a serious paper. There are MANY other papers without such a flaw that uphold the fact that the oceans, like the atmosphere, are warming in a way that causes concern.

So excuse me if I am skeptical about the wisdom of upending the global economy based on the "scientific" conclusions of hacks like this.

The exaggeration is strong with this one, Obi Wan.

Originally Posted by Exile

Everyone has bias to a greater or lesser degree. It's only a negative when it so overwhelms that objectivity becomes compromised.

Bingo! Which is why we turn to the scientific method, as the system best able to overcome and neutralize bias. It works. Even when there's a flaw in a piece of the work.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

It doesn't matter iff the dats is written on the men's room wall right below "call Lola for a good time". It is still the data. So, is the thermosphere cooling or not? If it is, what does that mean?

It happens often - every 10 to 12 years, now is the 26th time since 1755, and means little compared to the human effects on the planet heat content according to published science >>
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...90123212001002

We notice that agreement for the parameters variation occurring until the year 1960, especially between the temperature changes and solar cycle variations. There is no agreement between solar cycle variations and Earth surface temperature after the CO2 dramatic increasing from the year 1960. The scientific consensus is that solar variety variations do not seem to play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change, but have played a major role in palaeoclimatic changes. For example, the climate cooling during the Maunder minimum “from year1645 until 1710”, and Dalton minimum “from year 1797 until 1825” might be due to the solar activities collapse. We note that in the last 40 year there are no good correlations between temperature change and solar variability due to CO2 increasing

Not what you want to see so you see something which isn't there. Spoon fed by any number of pseudo science websites, money to be made peddling doubt.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

More sociological here: can anyone answer me how you benefit as a person from denying climate change?

No offense intended, but your post is an example of why so many people ignore climate alarmists - what they say and write just oozes their agenda, which is political and not scientific.

First of all, no one on this thread is "denying" what you call "climate change" and what others might call weather. What is being denied is the proposition that human emissions of CO2 are going to cause a global catastrophe, which in turn warrants spending trillions$ preventing that supposed catastrophe, rather than spending it on something useful, like, oh say, eliminating a few million deaths a year from malaria or cancer research or buying party hats for everyone in China . You know, something more sensible.

Second, the idea that one can "deny" a scientific proposition is silly. You can dispute it with contrary data, which is what skeptics do. Since warmists don't like to hear contrary data anymore than a Muslim likes to hear that Mohammed is not the final prophet (and for the same reasons, apparently), warmists choose to pretend that skeptics are "denying" science rather than showing the reasons it is likely wrong.

Third, by posing your question as "sociological", you are intentionally or unintentionally insulting the people you are asking the question of. Presumably you mean that if you "deny" "climate change", your views should be treated the same as people with other sociological problems, like members of the KKK or the flat Earth Society, rather than people who have sound, data driven reasons for ignoring people who think a few extra molecules of a life vital gas is such a problem we should empoverish the world to reduce it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by john61ct

You mean you honestly don't believe the fossil fuel industry hasn't been outright paying billions for decades to "public relations" aka propaganda firms?

I don't know about "billions," but yes, every interest group -- whether YOU happen to approve of their interests or not -- has a right if not an obligation to get their side of an issue out in the public domain. Depending on your point of view, it's either a benefit or cost of citizenship in a free & democratic society.

who in turn employ thousands of "social media specialists" and now AI data-mining experts, bot networks etc.

This is the new reality, and certainly not limited to one side.

Probably whole orders of magnitude bigger and more skilled than anything state-sponsored.

Doubtful. Just look at how many on this thread & elsewhere don't even know about the highly credentialed scientists who are skeptical of the mainstream position on CC. Or are completely unaware that the 99.9% "consensus" only applies, at best, to scientists who agree that AGW exists and is likely having some sort of "impact," but that the consensus breaks down on the extent of that impact vs. natural forces.

Of course millions of "useful idiots" are volunteers, motivated by little more than a sense of belonging to their fellow-brainwashed like-minded "tribe".

The exact same thing those who ascribe to your position are accused of.

And of course unwillingness to compromise living an unthinkingly selfish, very comfortable lifestyle "just" for seemingly abstract idealism plays a huge part, IMO the root cause / enabler of most evil in the world.

That's just the predominant nature of our species. Learn to deal with it or continue being hateful & unhappy.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by conachair

Daily Mail is a joke, you'd be laughed at in the UK for suggesting it's in any way a credible source of anything.

And from your link >>



Non starter of a troll story.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...90123212001002

here is the part about your link that is really interesting it is from 2012 and talking about being in the solar minimum of cycle 23 in 2009. Solar cycles are supposed to be an average of 11 years long from minimum to maximum and back to minimum. The big problem is this is 2018 or 9 years since then and we are now in the minimum of cycle 24.
It is at a minimum 2 years early. Also we are expected to see the first sunspots of 25 by now but we haven't so many in the astrophysics field are expecting this minimum to last at least 24 months instead of the normal 6 month duration which will lead to planetary cooling in the 1℃ to 1.5℃ range ( we shall see what happens. ) ( we have already cooled since the maximum temps in 2016 during the strongest El Nino on record.