Jump to content

Wanna-B-Fanboy

Members
  • Posts

    9,015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by Wanna-B-Fanboy

  1. Being completely wrong and continuing to spout the same garbage lies after being completely refuted is a far cry from denouncing someone as a liar because he disagrees... hes called a serial liar for... lying repeatedly. Please stop equating the two- you are just propagating the lie and if you continue people might come to the conclusion that you are a liar too. NOT saying you are- just that some people MIGHT think you are purposely trolling and lying. I will treat "Lord" Monckton's opinion the same as I would treat the opinion of a flat-earther. It amounts to the same.
  2. Sure. When it's been peer reviewed and withstands scientific community scrutiny- then fine, but I am not going to waste my time
  3. Why would anyone give a serial liar the benefit of the doubt? That's dumb and wasteful of one's time. Explain to me why one should give this serial liar a platform at all?
  4. I wouldn't hold my breath.... Just a word of caution.
  5. https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html "The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years. "There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can't claim that anymore," said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System temperature data tracking." The study refutes the idea of a pause in global warming, "but frankly common sense and looking at how Earth was responding over the past 18 years kind of makes this finding a 'duh' moment," wrote University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd.
  6. I will even add this cool little pdf with examples where Monckton misrepresents the very scientists whose work he cites and the scientists who in their own words explain how Monckton misrepresents their research. https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf
  7. I'm going to go out on a limb here and dismiss it outright because of his lengthy history of lying about this: Favourite climate myths by Christopher Monckton Below are many of the climate myths used by Christopher Monckton plus how often each myth has been used. Climate myths by Monckton What the Science Says Usage "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. 15 "Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated" Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting. 11 "Hockey stick is broken" Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years. 10 "Sea level rise is exaggerated" A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century. 9 "Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer" This argument uses regional temperature data that ends in 1855, long before modern global warming began. 9 "Medieval Warm Period was warmer" Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times. 9 "It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. 9 "IPCC overestimate temperature rise" Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner. 8 "CO2 limits will harm the economy" The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over. 7 "There's no tropospheric hot spot" We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot". 7 "Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain" Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain. 7 "It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940" The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940. 7 "Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity" Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists. 6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean. 6 "Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming" There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming. 6 "IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period" The IPCC simply updated their temperature history graphs to show the best data available at the time. 6 "Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming" Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming. 5 "IPCC is alarmist" Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response. 5 "Climate's changed before" Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. 5 "Greenland is gaining ice" Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement. 5 "It's global brightening" This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance. 5 "CO2 limits will make little difference" If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale. 5 "Arctic was warmer in 1940" The actual data show high northern latitudes are warmer today than in 1940. 5 "It hasn't warmed since 1998" Every part of the Earth's climate system has continued warming since 1998, with 2015 shattering temperature records. 4 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives. 4 "Oceans are cooling" The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming. 4 "An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature" CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we decrease emissions, global warming will accelerate this century. 4 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. 4 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident. 4 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore's book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books. 4 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions 4 "Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle" Thick Arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat. 4 "It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low" Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2. 3 "Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use" Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases. 3 "There's no empirical evidence" There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming. 3 "Temp record is unreliable" The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites. 3 "It's Urban Heat Island effect" Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend. 3 "Climate scientists are in it for the money" Climate scientists could make far more money in other careers - most notably, working for the oil industry. 3 "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected" This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia. 3 "There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature" There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term. 3 "Greenland was green" Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer. 3 "Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?" Official records, Editors and emails suggest CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of IPCC rules. 2 "2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells" A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming. 2 "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong" Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right. 2 "IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers" Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report. 2 "CO2 limits will hurt the poor" Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change. 2 "Antarctica is gaining ice" Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate. 2 "Polar bear numbers are increasing" Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species. 2 "Greenland ice sheet won't collapse" When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted. 2 "Ocean acidification isn't serious" Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains. 2 "Arctic sea ice has recovered" Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat. 2 "We're coming out of the Little Ice Age" Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming. 2 "CO2 was higher in the past" When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler. 2 "CO2 is plant food" The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors 2 "Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995" Phil Jones was misquoted. 2 "Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????" Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded. 2 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. 2 "Sea level is not rising" The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations. 2 "Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009" Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline. 1 "Satellites show no warming in the troposphere" The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming. 1 "It's microsite influences" Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend. 1 "CO2 has a short residence time" Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years 1 "Glaciers are growing" Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water. 1 "CO2 is just a trace gas" Many substances are dangerous even in trace amounts; what really matters is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. 1 "Ice Sheet losses are overestimated" A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland. 1 "CO2 is not a pollutant" Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant 1 "Corals are resilient to bleaching" Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year. 1 "Tuvalu sea level isn't rising" Tuvalu sea level is rising 3 times larger than the global average. 1 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. 1 "Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise" Thousands of coral atolls have "drowned" when unable to grow fast enough to survive at sea level. 1 "Peer review process was corrupted" An Independent Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review. 1 "It's not urgent" A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points. 1 "It's not us" Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change. 1 "Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass" Greenland's ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries. 1 "Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted" Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth's energy imbalance, which is more predictable. 1 "It's freaking cold!" A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures. 1 "Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project" The 'OISM petition' was signed by only a few climatologists. 1 "It's too hard" Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change. 1 "Animals and plants can adapt" Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales. 1 "Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature" The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports. 1 "Southern sea ice is increasing" Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time. 1 "CRU tampered with temperature data" An independent inquiry went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. 1 "It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation" The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming. 1 "Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming" Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening. 1 "Clouds provide negative feedback" Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative. 1 "IPCC graph showing accelerating trends is misleading" All of the statements made in the IPCC report regarding the figure in question are correct and supported.
  8. Almost all reputable scientists and researchers. Not the hacks and corporate shills- those people are propping up the junk science. No. No they don't. one side has science and uses it responsibly and keeps working at the problems to refine the data, the other side cherry picks data- spreads lies and supports the misinformation. No, no they don't- one side makes good points, supported by sound science with a very robust conclusion backed by the scientific community. The other... well is just **** , that can not be supported and is easily disproved with a cursory glance. Sorry KBF, but you are wrong about this point too. Well- it's pretty much settled, it's now the nuances that they are trying to figure out and continue to refine their findings. Yes there is much work that needs to be done, but the conclusion that the IPCC have reached with a HIGH DEGREE of confidence is not not wrong. No. no it doesn't seem irrefutable. Refuted:
  9. LOL the app is all junk science. Here is an excerpt: Kevin Mooney shared some of the facts presented in the Inconvenient Facts app, noting they run counter to much of what was presented in Gore's documentary films: ● Inconvenient Fact No. 10: "Cites 'Recent Inconvenient Pause of 18 years in warming, despite rise in CO2.'" ● Inconvenient Fact No. 12: "Modern warming began long before SUVs or coal-fired plants." ● Inconvenient Fact No. 21: "The current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented." ● Inconvenient Fact No. 53: "There are more polar bears now than we've had for 50 years." Each one of those "points" have been disproved. "Actual science" my aunt Fanny. A simple google search and it's easy to see how silly and transparent these lies are (if one were so inclined to learn the facts). I could literally post multiple links disproving each one of these junk pseudo-science "points" but from your history, you won't read any of them so I am not going to bother. I will simply implore you to stop spreading lies. The information you provided here is bunk- it's not science-based- it doesn't conflict with "the narrative" it conflicts with facts. they are disingenuous lies. Good on Apple and Good on Al Gore. I don't think he's too worried about his "golden goose" being cut off- his expertise is based in actual facts and science, so he's golden. Shame on Gregory Wrightstone for spreading lies and misinformation and shame on those promoting his lies. Shame on the heartland institute for promoting these lies- very reminiscent of their trying to sow doubt about the correlation between tobacco and cancer.
  10. Good for Apple, now if only Google play would follow suit. No need to help the app author profit off of ignorance and spread lies.
  11. This is the conservative playbook- I remember seeing something like this from a conservative think tank... I wanna say... Rove? Anyways- it's funny, because this isn't a liberal viewpoint- it's ******* science. Not sure why this needs to be political. Hmmm, looks like I was wrong about the Karl Rove penned tactics- it seems it's unknown: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-karl-rove-write-tactics-conservative-blogging/ But it pretty much what you are talking about:
  12. You are not a sensible realist- you just parrot misinformation and spread lies (inadvertently it seems). You make erroneous equivalences between fact and disinformation. I am not sure if you are trying to muddy the waters here- but you should use credible sources if you want to discuss this serious issue.
  13. Yup, and soon enough, like all the other threads- he will get this one locked down. it's his M.O.
  14. I don't think confirmation bias straw man argument you repeatedly trot out is the issue here- its the constant parading around and spreading lies and misrepresentations you post- there is a pattern at work here. You come up and post the latest and greatest lie (I don't think you believe it is a lie, I'm not calling you a liar-let's be very clear here) and when people show you the courtesy of reading the link that you have posted and respond informing you that it is a lie/misinformation/bad information, even providing you links with corrections and well sourced material that refutes the misinformation you post, you refuse to show the same courtesy by reading what they provide and accuse everyone of confirmation bias. That's why people think it's a waste of time to read your links and engage with you in a discussion over what you have posted. It has NOTHING to do with confirmation bias. The confirmation bias you are talking about might be your own that you project onto others. But I do still read what you post. I do read the links you post. I try to respond to your posts. I don't view it as a waste of time- frustrating, but not a waste of time. You put the time in to post, so I will give them the courtesy they deserve and hope you do the same in return.
  15. The fact that these organizations and people have differing opinions is not what is at issue here... it the fact that these are non-reputable organizations and people who continue to spread misinformation. You held up James Taylor's op-ed as definitive proof that the scientific consensus is false. Yet James is either woefully stupid or just evil because he completely misrepresents what the authors have said (which is par for the course with most of the information you usually provide as PROOF!). The authors even responded, many critics point out to many of the flaws in his misrepresentation of the work in his op-ed yet, he continues to publish it in the Heartland Institute after all the backlash. Also here ( i know its a waste of time, because you won't even read the link) this is the response to the lies you are spreading: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/
  16. I thought it was the perfect equivalent. I fail to see him being "so dramatic".
  17. Yeah- 3 years too late. Must be an election year. I hate the fact they decided to hold back the percent drop so they could use it as a political bribe. they could have easily dropped that PST at the begining of their mandate.
  18. Good, looks like the peer review process is working as intended. Thanks for your contribution.
  19. That is not framing it- it's a quote. One that is very clear in it's context. That's kind of what happens in peer review and the scientific process- it's a moving target, you are always correcting errors as new data comes up. just because some data is wrong doesn't mean you through out ALL the research.
  20. I am a fan of a self contained episode that touches on the season arc- it's pretty good storytelling. You get the immediate gratification every week of a one and done plus investment in the larger story and character development. Though- bring back to life the dude through the mushroom network... that was a bit bunk.
  21. Totally does. They are paid to lie. Those 'eco terrorist" are much more reliable than those big oil paid shills.
  22. Counter punch and KNOCKOUT! nice article. thanks for that.
  23. You mean the easing of sanctions so that Iran wouldn't develop nukes?
  24. Wait... what? who's giving Iran Nukes? And why the deflection?
×
×
  • Create New...