Cal88;842851989 said:

---

Not many know that they are being sold trillion dollar carbon taxes, widescale energy poverty and entire industrial sectors to be mothballed, all because of a near religious devotion to CAGW, and this despite the fact that temperatures have barely budged in the last 20 years.

Our planet isn't lost, but many of its inhabitants seem to be.

---

I still don't need understand what the problem is w a carbon tax.

Cough, cough. Climate change.

oski003;842852064 said:

---

Cough, cough. Climate change.

---

Problem solved

oski003;842852064 said:

---

Cough, cough. Climate change.

---

Are we really getting anywhere on that? Seems like that discussion has devolved into:

1. Somebody (Cal88 usually, though not exclusively) makes some claim about global warming being false.
2. Someone else pokes holes in that claim, demonstrating why the information is either false or unrepresentative of the larger data sample.
3. Cal88, et al, leave the discredited argument behind and make a new claim.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

sycasey;842852028 said:

---

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Quote:

---

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

---

Cal88's examples are cherry-picked, as usual. This is the survey cited here, for those who actually want to check up on the work and not just believe climate denier websites run by hobbyists:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

---

Sy my man, do you really believe that, if indeed there was some kind of notable scientific consensus for global warming in the 60s/70s, all these articles I've posted above (which also cover and reference scientific research) wouldn't have mentioned at the very least a small line about it? Journalistic standards back then at outfits like the NYT were still pretty decent, you know.

The survey you've cited above, done by Connolley and Peterson, tries to claim that there were more global warming papers done in the 70s than global cooling studies, in an attempt to dispel the notion that the era was dominated by the global cooling narrative in the science community.

Connolley and Peterson claim that during that period, global warming papers outnumbered cooling papers by a wide margin, 44 to 7, here's the picture they gave to bolster their claim that "there was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then" :




This is a gross misrepresentation, and it's just funny how it's not even close... They claimed that there were only 7 papers on cooling from 1965 through 1979, vs 44 warmist, when in fact there were well over 200 (LINK). The real score in the 1965-79 time frame was around 220 to 44 in favor of the global cooling narrative.

There are hundreds of scientific studies about global cooling from that era that have been listed and referenced here below and in the link above:

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.FaaBYGtx.FJwRTwLK.dpbs

So 83% of scientific papers from that era were written about global cooling, and not 13% as Peterson and Connolley falsely claimed. They could not have conceivably been that far off without them deliberately lying, they've underreported the number of studies by a factor of 3,000% (220 actual vs 7 reported, and some of the studies left out were very well-known works, like Kukla's, which is on top of the list of 285 studies focused on global cooling that are very clearly referenced in the link I've provided above. These people are basically professional propagandists.

I've now shown three things related to the global cooling phenomenon in the 1960s/70s, first that it was very much the zeitgeist in the media. Second, that it was also the consensus in the scientific community (as was clearly implied by the articles I had quoted, and now officially confirmed here).

Third, I've shown that professional scientists from leading climatology public institutes like NOAA or the British Antarctic Survey/Natural Environment Research Council will shamelessly lie and distort the facts in order to further their political agendas.

The fact that the climate was cooling through the 60s/70s while CO2 emissions were accelerating with the world going in industrial expansion mode, and that the scientists of the era were predicting an ice age, and/or attributing this cooling to human air pollution, with many calling for drastic measures (curbs on emissions, massive geo-engineering projects etc) in order to save the planet, the fact that they were so wrong about all this, casting doubt about the current global warming narrative, on top of the fact that we've had nearly 20 years with ever-growing CO2 emissions and very little to no concurrent increases in global temperatures... All this is a very inconvenient fact for the climate establishment today.


Your choice here Sy is between "hobbyists", many of whom happen to be full-blown scientific researchers, and professional liars like Connolley (British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council) and Peterson (NOAA), and I guess you will make the wrong choice every time unfortunately. You know very little about the subject, that much is clear, so you will seek those sources to assuage any discomfort from the cognitive dissonance that comes from being confronted with serious information challenging your basic belief system about global warming. Those alarmist sites are there to keep a misinformed public tightly tethered to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cord, and it's unfortunate that most people will not stray from the double yellow line.

sycasey;842852069 said:

---

are we really getting anywhere on that? Seems like that discussion has devolved into:

1. Somebody (cal88 usually, though not exclusively) makes some claim about global warming being false.
2. Someone else less knowledgable about the subject pokes holes in that claim, using ready-made talking points from activist sites.
3. Cal88, et al, destroy that argument.

(see Exhibit A above)

Lather, rinse, repeat.

---

fify

I keep waiting for the climate change deniers (skeptics if you prefer) here to cite data that suggest that climate change is a hoax (and, no, a ski slope in Mammoth does not count as data). I have read numerous studies (not reports of studies in the NYT or the WSJ or Infowars, but the actual journal articles) and the data are quite compelling. There are disagreements about the significance of many of the findings: how much will the sea likely rise given an X rise in sea temperature; how much more will CO2 readings increase with an x pH increase in ocean acidification, etc., but not of the general thrust. I'm still waiting for the counter DATA. The argument that temperature has always fluctuated across the millennia is a silly one. Of course, over the past couple of billion years the earth has gone through many different cycles, but that has nothing to do with current short-term (in geological time) shifts. It's like saying that throughout history people have inevitably died; therefore, AIDS can't possibly be a cause of death, since there was death before AIDS.

Those of us who actually conduct scientific research know about Type 1 and Type 2 errors. For the non-scientific here, a Type 1 error involves concluding that there is no effect when there, in fact, is one. A Type 2 error is one in which you conclude that there is an effect when there, in fact, isn't one. When you do research, you set your significance level based upon which error is more serious. To cite an example from medicine. Rabies vaccination is a long, painful process (or at least used to be) that one wants to avoid if at all possible. OTOH, rabies is a 100% fatal disease with no cure. If you were bitten by an unknown animal,what percentage chance would you accept to decline the vaccine? The Type 1 error in this case is death. The Type 2 error is a difficult and painful course of shots. Would you accept a 50% chance? 25%? 1%? I suspect that most here would set the bar pretty low, not wanting to risk a potentially preventable death. It is kind of the same with climate change. The Type 1 error is assuming that it is not real when it is; the Type 2 error is assuming it is real when it is not. The risk of the Type 2 error is some possible economic disruption (although some argue that alternative energy opportunities may offset that) and lifestyle changes (and, to be fair, problems for the fossil fuel industries). The risk of a Type 1 error involves huge disruptions in life on earth: coastal cities becoming uninhabitable, food sources in many parts of the world threatened, etc., etc. Clearly any prudent individual would err on the side of preparing for the possibility of climate change being real in a state of uncertainty.

I must say I'm particularly laughing my ass off on the repeated posting of Leonard Nimoy's In Search Of as evidence there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s that an Ice Age was forming.

Cal88 I'm not sure how old you are, but do you have any idea what In Search Of was? Personally, I remember it well. Never missed an episode because it was hysterical. If you never had the pleasure of seeing this let me tell you it was a TV series almost exclusively devoted to ridiculous myths and legends. It wasn't journalism. Hell I'm pretty sure it wasn't even supposed to be watched unless you were stoned. Even in the wacked out 70s no one took it seriously. Just scan the titles for one second. Let's see...

Bigfoot... check
Ancient Aviators... check
Dracula... check
Animal ESP... check.
The Mummy's curse... check
The Magic of Stonehenge... check
Voodoo... check
Martians... check, and of course
The Ogopogo Monster (alright maybe I did miss that one)

I think if anything the fact that In Search Of was talking about "the coming ice age" proves it was a ridiculous theory that no one (and especially the scientific community) was taking seriously.

Lol thanks for that Sebasta. Maybe somewhere on another football message board this exact same convo is happening but OleMiss88 is arguing that the Ogopogo Monster exists.

Sebastabear;842852129 said:

---

I must say I'm particularly laughing my ass off on the repeated posting of Leonard Nimoy's In Search Of as evidence there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s that an Ice Age was forming.

Cal88 I'm not sure how old you are, but do you have any idea what In Search Of was? Personally, I remember it well. Never missed an episode because it was hysterical. If you never had the pleasure of seeing this let me tell you it was a TV series almost exclusively devoted to ridiculous myths and legends. It wasn't journalism. Hell I'm pretty sure it wasn't even supposed to be watched unless you were stoned. Even in the wacked out 70s no one took it seriously. Just scan the titles for one second. Let's see...

Bigfoot... check
Ancient Aviators... check
Dracula... check
Animal ESP... check.
The Mummy's curse... check
The Magic of Stonehenge... check
Voodoo... check
Martians... check, and of course
The Ogopogo Monster (alright maybe I did miss that one)

I think if anything the fact that In Search Of was talking about "the coming ice age" proves it was a ridiculous theory that no one (and especially the scientific community) was taking seriously.

---

Maybe you're still a few pages behind on this thread, Sebasta and have missed the two megaposts with dozens of clippings from the NYT and other leading media outlets talking about dramatic global cooling and upcoming ice ages (not so much about Bigfoot), or the site linked earlier today with 285 scientific studies on global cooling from that era showing that there was a scientific consensus around global cooling in the 1960s/70s.

In any case, I knew that In Search Of was 70s pop culture, but it was meant to show that global cooling and ice ages were part of the cultural zeitgeist then, just as global warming is part of today's zeitgeist.

bearlyamazing;842852842 said:

---

Thank you, Cal88. That is what this all boils down to. A big money grab by those vested in power of the climatology establishment.

Our country is being duped and have no idea of the consequences.

These global warming "climate change" arguments will likely look as silly as the ice age alarmists a few decades down the road as we inevitably experience another climate cycle.

Just imagine if we were experiencing the disastrous dust bowl era of the 30's right now. Climate change nazis would rule the world.

---

Most of the developed nations have bought in to the Global Climate Change conclusion except for the current Republican administration (i. e. Not alll Republicans). Heck even the Vatican has come to the "man-made climate change" conclusion.

But somehow every one except for a few outliers has bought in.
Of course I wonder how many of these outliers also deny the existence of Evolution.

GivemTheAxe;842852906 said:

---

Most of the developed nations have bought in to the Global Climate Change conclusion except for the current Republican administration (i. e. Not alll Republicans). Heck even the Vatican has come to the "man-made climate change" conclusion.

But somehow every one except for a few outliers has bought in.
Of course I wonder how many of these outliers also deny the existence of Evolution.

---

Those national leaders have bought in because they want to keep and expand power and they want the $trillions in taxes to do it.

drizzlybears brother;842852851 said:

---

I still don't need understand what the problem is w a carbon tax.

---

Carbon tax is the means to 1. override every nation's sovereignty; and 2. finance the One World Order movement. Do you want to say goodbye to the USA and instead be ruled by the UN and the despots who control it (supported by the OWO vested interests such as George Soros)? It isn't simply a matter of a little more money out of the pockets of the so-called privileged, being redistributed to the poor. That money will be redirected to finance the political efforts of the wanna be Big Brothers.

Rushinbear;842852910 said:

---

Carbon tax is the means to 1. override every nation's sovereignty; and 2. finance the One World Order movement. Do you want to say goodbye to the USA and instead be ruled by the UN and the despots who control it (supported by the OWO vested interests such as George Soros)? It isn't simply a matter of a little more money out of the pockets of the so-called privileged, being redistributed to the poor. That money will be redirected to finance the political efforts of the wanna be Big Brothers.

---

Ok that sounds bad, but you're going to have break that down for me a little because it feels like you skipped a couple of steps.

drizzlybears brother;842852917 said:

---

Ok that sounds bad, but you're going to have break that down for me a little because it feels like you skipped a couple of steps.

---

The longer this goes, the more these climate change deniers sound like nutso conspiracy theorists.

It all begins when the government wants to charge us for our God- given grazing rights.

Cal88;842852861 said:

---

Maybe you're still a few pages behind on this thread, Sebasta and have missed the two megaposts with dozens of clippings from the NYT and other leading media outlets talking about dramatic global cooling and upcoming ice ages (not so much about Bigfoot), or the site linked earlier today with 285 scientific studies on global cooling from that era showing that there was a scientific consensus around global cooling in the 1960s/70s.

In any case, I knew that In Search Of was 70s pop culture, but it was meant to show that global cooling and ice ages were part of the cultural zeitgeist then, just as global warming is part of today's zeitgeist.

---

It was meant to sow doubt and confusion. That's what makes you a denialist.

bearlyamazing;842852842 said:

---

Thank you, Cal88. That is what this all boils down to. A big money grab by those vested in power of the climatology establishment.

Our country is being duped and have no idea of the consequences.

These global warming "climate change" arguments will likely look as silly as the ice age alarmists a few decades down the road as we inevitably experience another climate cycle.

Just imagine if we were experiencing the disastrous dust bowl era of the 30's right now. Climate change nazis would rule the world.

---

Years ago I wouldn't have understood how anyone would be able to make such a bad argument. The "alarmists" are biased on account of their financial interest in climate research? Can't this hypothesis be used to 'discredit' any professional scientist? After all, every professional scientist is dependent upon the perpetuation of his/her field for their livelihood. The average climate scientist makes $89k/year. These people went through years of hard science courses to get their BS and MS/PHD so they can become perpetuators of an unprecedented scale of fraud for $89k/year? (not even to mention how ridiculously competitive the academic labor market is. I know PhDs who've never been able to get more than temp adjutant work) If they were that greedy, why didn't they take their intellect and tuition $ and get a degree that actually pays?

Tell me bearlyamazing, how is it that climate scientists can't be trusted on account of this pathetic suggestion of bias but the claims of deniers escape your scrutiny despite the fact that the leadership of the denialist movement is overwhelmingly dominated by people who have an enormous financial stake in sabotaging climate change policies? Koch Industries is arguably the most powerful denialist force in the world. Their existence is predicated upon fossil fuels. They made over $100 billion last FY and almost all of it off of carbon polluting industries. Every legislation or regulation that adds even the very small carbon costs to polluters can cost Koch millions of dollars. And they are just the tip of the iceberg. You should be embarrassed to have brought this argument, not merely because it's so very bad, but because highlighting the influence of bias via financial dependence annihilates the credibility of nearly everyone leading the denialist camp.

Cal88;842852855 said:

---

There are hundreds of scientific studies about global cooling from that era that have been listed and referenced here below and in the link above:

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.FaaBYGtx.FJwRTwLK.dpbs

So 83% of scientific papers from that era were written about global cooling, and not 13% as Peterson and Connolley falsely claimed. They could not have conceivably been that far off without them deliberately lying, they've underreported the number of studies by a factor of 3,000% (220 actual vs 7 reported, and some of the studies left out were very well-known works, like Kukla's, which is on top of the list of 285 studies focused on global cooling that are very clearly referenced in the link I've provided above. These people are basically professional propagandists.

---

If you've gotten wise to Cal88's strategy, you may have figured this out already, but just to go over this.

Here he is comparing a survey done by credentialed scientists from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to an informal survey done by "Kenneth Richard," which is an Internet alias for a climate denier named Rick Cina. Does he have any credentials in climate science? No.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/16/current-solar-cycle-weakest-in-2-centuries-and-grant-fosters-far-fetched-model-claims/comment-page-1/#comment-1154323

The blog is run by Pierre Gosselin, who is also not a credentialed scientist:

http://notrickszone.com/about-pierre-gosselin/#sthash.BY4WyEPc.dpbs

However, he has been known to misrepresent claims about global climate change and the scientific consensus surrounding it before:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/07/wuwt-shows-that-999-of-recent-papers.html

I also do not purport to be a climate scientist, so I wouldn't expect anyone to take my interpretations of scientific papers more seriously than NOAA either. However, just in looking at the quotes from the papers provided in Cal88's link, I already see some things that look pretty questionable as support for "global cooling." Some of them only actually describe temperature changes in the Northern Hemisphere (which is not "global," as you might have guessed). Some of them only describe temperature changes over a certain number of years but do not necessarily predict that the cooling trend will continue. Some of them are really just papers that express doubts about the effect of CO2 on global temperature changes (which I and the sources I link to already acknowledge was still not clear in the 1970s, much clearer now) and don't mention global cooling. Cal88, of course, is lumping these in with the others in an attempt to prove a "global cooling" scientific consensus at the time.

So just looking at those examples already has me skeptical that this guy is not on the level. The fact that he publishes under a pseudonym on a site called "No Tricks Zone" also seems fishy. And the fact that he admits himself that he does not have any formal education in the sciences makes me think that he is probably not qualified to review scientific papers and determine what they are saying about global climate change.

So again, this comes down to who you want to believe: actual credentialed scientists or bloggers who post under fake names?

It's all the Jews and Muslims and NASA. Does that clarify it?

sycasey;842852920 said:

---

The longer this goes, the more these climate change whack jobs get enraged that opponents of their dogma might cause them and their "settled science," "97% of experts agree and anyone who doesn't is ignorant or a religious extremist" mantra to lose their stranglehold over public debate.

---

Fify. The unrelenting dogma and arrogance of the left that you display continuously is exactly why a boob like Trump won the election. A LOT of people are sick of the tyranny of the left and are willing to accept any alternative to being saddled with "it's our way or you're a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, climate-denying, money-grubbing, ignorant deplorable" mentality that's taken a hold of the once-proud democratic party.

It's just killing you that cogent counter points are being made by people like Cal88 and others in this thread and that you don't get to shut down all debate.

Live with it.

bearlyamazing;842852942 said:

---

Fify. The unrelenting dogma and arrogance of the left that you display continuously is exactly why a boob like Trump won the election. A LOT of people are sick of the tyranny of the left and are willing to accept any alternative to being saddled with "it's our way or you're a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, climate-denying, money-grubbing, ignorant deplorable" mentality that's taken a hold of the once-proud democratic party.

It's just killing you that cogent counter points are being made by people like Cal88 and others in this thread and that you don't get to shut down all debate.

Live with it.

---

Nope, none of this sounds unhinged at all.

UrsaMajor;842852941 said:

---

It's all the Jews and Muslims and NASA. Does that clarify it?

---

Can't believe you would play the race card on this, standard lefty response.

I really would like to know what other conspiracy theories you all believe in. Any birthers or truthers in the house? Moon landing and Sandy hook was faked? Ogopogo monster believers? Rapture? Don't be shy tell us what else we've been lied to about. I'm open minded - I could be convinced NASA is building a slave colony on mars with kidnapped children.

bearlyamazing;842852942 said:

---

Fify. The unrelenting dogma and arrogance of the left that you display continuously is exactly why a boob like Trump won the election. A LOT of people are sick of the tyranny of the left and are willing to accept any alternative to being saddled with "it's our way or you're a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, climate-denying, money-grubbing, ignorant deplorable" mentality that's taken a hold of the once-proud democratic party.

It's just killing you that cogent counter points are being made by people like Cal88 and others in this thread and that you don't get to shut down all debate.

Live with it.

---

That's a lot of nonsequitors. All of the politically-charged pushback in the world won't affect what's actually going on, though. You can't out talk what has actually begun to happen. I can live with the constant posting of misinformation; however, it's the manmade changes to the world that will be tough to endure.

it pains the eyes to see DUKE and OT at the top of the board, every minute of the day, for weeks on end. climate change is real. it's caused by human activity. and we have 10 years to live. go bears.

Unit2Sucks;842852956 said:

---

I really would like to know what other conspiracy theories you all believe in. Any birthers or truthers in the house? Moon landing and Sandy hook was faked? Ogopogo monster believers? Rapture? Don't be shy tell us what else we've been lied to about. I'm open minded - I could be convinced NASA is building a slave colony on mars with kidnapped children.

---

Don't know about the rest, but the Ogopogo monster is totally legit. Leonard Nimoy told me so

SRBear;842852963 said:

---

---

Just checked. Sadly Mr. Spock never got around to that one. Do remember El Chupacabra got a pretty good episode of the X-Files though.

sycasey;842852945 said:

---

Nope, none of this sounds unhinged at all.

---

Oh yeah, that carries a lot of weight coming from the far left



All of those characterizations come straight from the left handbook. You can't even attempt to deny it, either. Vilify, marginalize, shout over, control the message, dupe the public and deny debate. Classic lefty tools. Are you trying to deny for even a second that the far left and liberal media don't play the "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, climate-denying, money-grubbing, ignorant bible thumper, Trump-lover" card against republicans or Trump voters constantly? In what world does that not happen?

Cal88 and hbbear, among others have brought great counterpoints to the debate but are met with the typical snark, contempt and denial we'd expect to see from true lefties that are outraged at being challenged on their climate mantras. Settled science! 97% of experts agree! They won't accept anyone challenging their narrative, much like the establishment they're shilling for here.

bearsandgiants;842852961 said:

---

it pains the eyes to see DUKE and OT at the top of the board, every minute of the day, for weeks on end. climate change is real. it's caused by human activity. [SIZE=7]and we have 10 years to live.[/SIZE] go bears.

---

Al, is that you? Be sure to give Tipper a good kiss goodbye in 2026 then before you get swallowed by the sea.

Bearlyamazing thinks that very clear falsified propaganda is a "great counterpoint" in a debate. Well the good news bearlyamazing is do I have the president for you.

Anything that doesn't fit the climate change dogma is "falsified propaganda."

Typical from the "settled science, 97% of experts agree" crowd.

Sorry, not buying.

Threads like this will be laughable when we go through another climate cycle and the narrative will inevitably change.

bearlyamazing;842852942 said:

---

Fify. The unrelenting dogma and arrogance of the left that you display continuously is exactly why a boob like Trump won the election. A LOT of people are sick of the tyranny of the left and are willing to accept any alternative to being saddled with "it's our way or you're a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, climate-denying, money-grubbing, ignorant deplorable" mentality that's taken a hold of the once-proud democratic party.


It's just killing you that cogent counter points are being made by people like Cal88 and others in this thread and that you don't get to shut down all debate.

Live with it.

---

Bam!

Don't give up boys!

Question science!

The left hates any questioning of their beliefs..