Page 2 of 56 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 828

Thread: OT: Duke Climate Change Study

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushinbear View Post
    Ahem. A Duke study of 1,000 years of observed climate data and not climate models concluded temperature variance due to "natural variability" and that temperature shifts are because of "ocean-atmosphere interaction and other natural factors."

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/glo.../24/id/640540/
    To all my fellow skeptics: it all depends whose ox is being gored. I never said that there is no change in the climate; just that:

    1. Warming is not proven by the deception of the IPCC, Al Gore or their acolytes, to the extent that there is warming (or cooling - see 1980);

    2. To the extent that there is warming and cooling, it is first and most massively, a complex natural process that is impacted by many more forces than those being argued by the CC believers. The climate changes...all by itself;

    3. To purport to be improving temperature change by giving big money to phony environmental corps like Solyndra solely because of their campaign (and other) donations, only to have them pocket the money and declare bankruptcy, is criminal;

    4. To purport to be improving temperature change through the taxation of every form of fossil fuel use and "carbon footprint" only to have the money go to the general fund coffers of the state is criminal;

    5. To discount the skepticism of an increasing number of scientists who are bucking the arm twisting of their peers is dishonest. The scientific community not controlled by the carrot-and-stick approach of the Administration (and, to some extent, I blame the prior ones, too), is beginning to speak out in opposition yet the vilification continues, even in the face of hard data that contradicts the conventional "wisdom."

    6. If anyone believes that the world is burning too much fossil fuel, change your career to diplomacy and see how you do presenting your rationale to China and India - they're the dirtiest ones. The USA is pristine by comparison.

    I posted the Duke study, not because it came from NewsMax, but because the NewsMax story about it concedes the two sides to the issue, as does the study. As I've said many times, we need to be good stewards of the planet, but not use that stewardship as a pretext for the state takeover of our lives.

    I've read over the statements by many of you in the last thread (Glob) and those going back some time and I've found precious little hard evidence in support of your position - lots of name calling and legerdemain, but little that's objective. For example, no one has yet even recognized, let alone tried to defend, that the IPCC relies on surface temperature readings to the exclusion of historic periodicity, solar, oceanic, and electromagnetic data. May I point out that surface temps are only a symptom (and poorly detected, at that) while the causal factors are ignored (perhaps because they cannot be accounted for in your calculations or that they may prove your claims false). Even in the responses in this thread, NewsMax is attacked as an unbelievable source, despite their merely reporting on a reputable study from a reputable source.

    And, you expected the Duke people, who had up to now drunk the Kool Aid, to come out and admit that they were dead wrong, completely, unequivocally and forever more? If you believe that, you don't understand people and higher ed financing principles. It took time to convince them that they should support Gore's and IPCC's position. It will take time for them to back away from it.

    And, for the record, I am not a Koch; I'm not in any way affiliated with them; I don't know them; I don't read any of their blogs or those of their followers. I've been studying this for 30 years from the day I first read NOAA data that showed them choosing the higher temperatures in every case of anomaly. I'm not offended that you might question my efforts on this. I just continue to hope that we can have a rational discussion about it.

  2. #17
    Slam the messenger instead of trying to understand the message. Understandable when you don't like the message. Here is virtually the same press release on the Duke University website:

    https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/globa...st-case-models

    The extreme IPCC models are wrong, wrong, wrong. Using empirical data to check the models, not using computer models to check other computer models. Shouldn't we see this a good news? The Doomsday predictors, as always, are wrong.

  3. #18
    No, it can't be - Duke must be a pawn of the Koch Bros. and Fox News!

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenokiebear View Post
    No, it can't be - Duke must be a pawn of the Koch Bros. and Fox News!
    And Coach K and the men's lacrosse team.

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by bearister View Post
    I certainly know what the possible motivation is of those who deny man's role in climate change. Please advise what the ulterior motive is of the majority of scientists who proclaim global warming and man's responsibility therefor to be a fact.
    Kind of like how Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer spent 70 million in the 2014 in the mid-terms to Dems as long as they took up his cause. Going green is big money- ask your boy Al Gore. You're a smart guy and to buy into the propaganda surprises me. Why can't people just think critically instead of towing the company (progressive) line?

  6. #21
    Thank you for bringing some reality to the equation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushinbear View Post
    To all my fellow skeptics: it all depends whose ox is being gored. I never said that there is no change in the climate; just that:

    1. Warming is not proven by the deception of the IPCC, Al Gore or their acolytes, to the extent that there is warming (or cooling - see 1980);

    2. To the extent that there is warming and cooling, it is first and most massively, a complex natural process that is impacted by many more forces than those being argued by the CC believers. The climate changes...all by itself;

    3. To purport to be improving temperature change by giving big money to phony environmental corps like Solyndra solely because of their campaign (and other) donations, only to have them pocket the money and declare bankruptcy, is criminal;

    4. To purport to be improving temperature change through the taxation of every form of fossil fuel use and "carbon footprint" only to have the money go to the general fund coffers of the state is criminal;

    5. To discount the skepticism of an increasing number of scientists who are bucking the arm twisting of their peers is dishonest. The scientific community not controlled by the carrot-and-stick approach of the Administration (and, to some extent, I blame the prior ones, too), is beginning to speak out in opposition yet the vilification continues, even in the face of hard data that contradicts the conventional "wisdom."

    6. If anyone believes that the world is burning too much fossil fuel, change your career to diplomacy and see how you do presenting your rationale to China and India - they're the dirtiest ones. The USA is pristine by comparison.

    I posted the Duke study, not because it came from NewsMax, but because the NewsMax story about it concedes the two sides to the issue, as does the study. As I've said many times, we need to be good stewards of the planet, but not use that stewardship as a pretext for the state takeover of our lives.

    I've read over the statements by many of you in the last thread (Glob) and those going back some time and I've found precious little hard evidence in support of your position - lots of name calling and legerdemain, but little that's objective. For example, no one has yet even recognized, let alone tried to defend, that the IPCC relies on surface temperature readings to the exclusion of historic periodicity, solar, oceanic, and electromagnetic data. May I point out that surface temps are only a symptom (and poorly detected, at that) while the causal factors are ignored (perhaps because they cannot be accounted for in your calculations or that they may prove your claims false). Even in the responses in this thread, NewsMax is attacked as an unbelievable source, despite their merely reporting on a reputable study from a reputable source.

    And, you expected the Duke people, who had up to now drunk the Kool Aid, to come out and admit that they were dead wrong, completely, unequivocally and forever more? If you believe that, you don't understand people and higher ed financing principles. It took time to convince them that they should support Gore's and IPCC's position. It will take time for them to back away from it.

    And, for the record, I am not a Koch; I'm not in any way affiliated with them; I don't know them; I don't read any of their blogs or those of their followers. I've been studying this for 30 years from the day I first read NOAA data that showed them choosing the higher temperatures in every case of anomaly. I'm not offended that you might question my efforts on this. I just continue to hope that we can have a rational discussion about it.

  7. #22
    Loyal Bear Bobodeluxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    SURRENDER MONKEY
    Posts
    4,454
    75 % of accepted freshmen at UC during the last three decades of the 20th century were required to take Subject A English.

    “By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”


    https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/globa...st-case-models

  8. #23
    Rushin Bear
    Thanks for the above. In the end it is about the truth and manipulation of data has no place. Climates gave changed long before fossil fuels. It is implied by the media that somehow it is now all man made since the former is never brought up.
    I am all for being good stewards of the environment and have met an expedition leader to Mount Everest who sees changes om the mountains there and believe him. I also come from Holland where my family as farmers and nursery owners depended on nature to make a living. They would still say that Mother Nature has a way of adjusting itself within the cycle and can tell from looking at the sky what kind of wheater is in the offing. So I believe to have a fair assessment of it all is to allow all view points to be discussed. To say that anyone who is skeptical about a media driven view is a stupid conservative or misguided individual is hypocritical.

  9. #24
    True Blue Golden Bear bearister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Out here on the perimeter there are no stars Out here we is stoned – immaculate. J. Morrison
    Posts
    12,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Ncsf View Post
    ..... Going green is big money- ask your boy Al Gore...
    I don't doubt for a minute that there are hucksters like Al Gore that have lined their pockets promoting "going Green," but the money to be made by big business denying man's involvement with climate change exponentially dwarfs any financial gain realized by the Green crowd. Always follow the money. Is the proper pronunciation of Koch "cock?"

  10. #25
    Real Bear FCBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,092
    Stop questioning science!!

  11. #26
    I think what we've established is that the one thing that liberals and conservatives can agree on is that the other side lacks reading comprehension.

    I particularly enjoy the call for a "rational discussion" because that's clearly what the intent is from Rushlimbear and others. The goal is to deny deny deny for as long as they can get away with it. The next delay tactic is to engage in "rational discussion" for as long as can be. Then you eventually agree that climate change is happening when even those on your own side can't pretend otherwise with a straight face, and then you will agree that something needs to be done but draw out for as long as possible what steps should be taken.

    It's like a child who refuses to go to bed - first they ask you to read them a story, then another. Then they have to go to the bathroom again. Then they want to have a discussion about their day. Then another story, etc. It's all just delaying the inevitable, but the victory is in the delay itself. Rushlimbear and his ilk know it's just a matter of time.

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobodeluxe View Post
    75 % of accepted freshmen at UC during the last three decades of the 20th century were required to take Subject A English.

    “By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”


    https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/globa...st-case-models
    There you go again - of temperature only and omitting the natural forces in the "big picture." Can you, without looking it up, explain the Holocene Interglacial and Ice Age periodicity, for starters? Where are we with respect to their historic variance? When someone uses the term "Pacific Decadal Oscillation", are they referring to the El Nino/La Nina phenomena? If you don't know the answers to those, then you have no concept of the "scientific" context within which decadal temperature anomalies are judged. You accuse others of cherry picking when you rely so heavily on it yourself. Blindfolded, you feel an elephant's leg and think it a tree.

  13. #28
    True Blue Golden Bear bearister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Out here on the perimeter there are no stars Out here we is stoned – immaculate. J. Morrison
    Posts
    12,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Unit2Sucks View Post
    I think what we've established is that the one thing that liberals and conservatives can agree on is that the other side lacks reading comprehension.

    I particularly enjoy the call for a "rational discussion" because that's clearly what the intent is from Rushlimbear and others. The goal is to deny deny deny for as long as they can get away with it. The next delay tactic is to engage in "rational discussion" for as long as can be. Then you eventually agree that climate change is happening when even those on your own side can't pretend otherwise with a straight face, and then you will agree that something needs to be done but draw out for as long as possible what steps should be taken.

    It's like a child who refuses to go to bed - first they ask you to read them a story, then another. Then they have to go to the bathroom again. Then they want to have a discussion about their day. Then another story, etc. It's all just delaying the inevitable, but the victory is in the delay itself. Rushlimbear and his ilk know it's just a matter of time.
    They used to be on the Affordable Healthcare Act is evil bandwagon--until they found out their own constituents like it-now they are incorporating it into their own platform and driving the "us against them fake issue" wagon to the next town.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushinbear View Post
    There you go again - of temperature only and omitting the natural forces in the "big picture." Can you, without looking it up, explain the Holocene Interglacial and Ice Age periodicity, for starters? Where are we with respect to their historic variance? When someone uses the term "Pacific Decadal Oscillation", are they referring to the El Nino/La Nina phenomena? If you don't know the answers to those, then you have no concept of the "scientific" context within which decadal temperature anomalies are judged. You accuse others of cherry picking when you rely so heavily on it yourself. Blindfolded, you feel an elephant's leg and think it a tree.
    Or we could just rely on the scientific concensus

  15. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Ncsf View Post
    Kind of like how Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer spent 70 million in the 2014 in the mid-terms to Dems as long as they took up his cause. Going green is big money- ask your boy Al Gore. You're a smart guy and to buy into the propaganda surprises me. Why can't people just think critically instead of towing the company (progressive) line?
    Amen. And its so odd to me that progressives and liberals never seem to question anything their leaders, government and media spoon feed them. Every conservative I know enquires deeply about the issues and reaches their own conclusions. Conservatives are often the toughest on their own yet I almost never hear a lib question Obama, Hilary, Reid, Pelosi particularly when they are shown to lie outright.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •