The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-10-2013, 03:32 PM   #26
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,384

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Well, "Medical Issue" is a stretch, yet, irrelevant. If it makes you feel better to stretch a climatalogical "consensus" around what your proctologist thinks, be my guest.
You pick out one and ignore the other ten. Why? Clueless buffoon.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 04:08 PM   #27
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,056
Default

Arctic sea ice as viewed by deniers...

W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 04:54 PM   #28
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
You pick out one and ignore the other ten. Why? Clueless buffoon.
To highlight that the prevailing selection bias will allow you to call almost anyone a consensus "scientist" so long as they're in line with your thinking.

I mean, if the American Veterinary Medical Association issued a statement denying Climate Truthiness, would you consider that a strike against "consensus" or would you just laugh it off?

Wait, I think I know the answer.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 05:45 PM   #29
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Arctic sea ice as viewed by deniers...


data since 1980 eh ?

Wow you sure have me convinced that this isnt a totally normal fluctuation that happens every few hundred years or so.

Whats a matter did the data from 1960 to 1980 show a rapid climb ? and therefor have to be left out.
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 07:09 PM   #30
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
I gave up on Contrarian (Beavis) a long time ago.
This.

He's not worth the time.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 07:21 AM   #31
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
data since 1980 eh ?

Wow you sure have me convinced that this isnt a totally normal fluctuation that happens every few hundred years or so.

Whats a matter did the data from 1960 to 1980 show a rapid climb ? and therefor have to be left out.
This is their process in a nutshell. Show peak to valley. Or valley to peak as needed. Pretend that's all there is.

They keep trying to frame the debate as "if the earth warmed, we caused it"

Any reasonable look at the known facts throughout human history proves beyond any doubt that the earth warms and cools significantly (in this scale) constantly, and with or without our help.

The real question is how much we contribute to changing the natural cycle, and what we can reasonably do about it.

Unfortunately, they'll keep leaning back on charts showing that ice melts as temperature rises as irrefutable proof of something. But it's only a matter of time until the predictions of their apocalyptic models fall off the charts. As I said, Wagsy's hero Hansen is already within the window where he said there would be no arctic summer ice. Without significant change in 5 years, we can assertively say that his view of climate changiness is fundamentally flawed. Although looking at his earlier predictions, we could already easily make that case. No doubt, like most apocalyptic hustlers, JH will follow up with a small 'correction' on his end-of-world predictions, and Wagsy will continue to lap it up unquestioningly.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 09-11-2013 at 07:24 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 07:41 AM   #32
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,384

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
This.

He's not worth the time.
I find it remarkable, the capacity these right wingers have for ignoring overwhelming evidence that conflicts with their ideological preconceptions. As Spock would have said, "Fascinating."
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 08:24 AM   #33
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
data since 1980 eh ?
The era of satellite observations.

Quote:
Wow you sure have me convinced that this isnt a totally normal fluctuation that happens every few hundred years or so.
There are no indications that such a claim is supported by the evidence.

Do you have observations to support your hypothesis?

Quote:
Whats a matter did the data from 1960 to 1980 show a rapid climb ? and therefor have to be left out.
No.


Average July through September Arctic sea ice extent 1870-2008 from the University of Illinois (Walsh & Chapman 2001 updated to 2008) and observational data from NSIDC for 2009-2011, (blue), with a fourth order polynomial fit (black solid line).
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 08:49 AM   #34
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
This is their process in a nutshell. Show peak to valley. Or valley to peak as needed. Pretend that's all there is.
You've got it exactly backwards. It's the deniers who draw straight lines from one point to another, carefully cherry-picked to make their best "argument", and ignore all the rest of the data.

Quote:
They keep trying to frame the debate as "if the earth warmed, we caused it"
No. AGW is more than just "the surface is warmer". There are many kinds of observations and many lines of evidence that point directly at our burning of fossil fuels as the cause of the changes we're observing.

If our use of fossil fuels had very little impact on the climate system, we wouldn't be observing ocean acidification (as we are), cooling in the upper part of the atmosphere (which we are) and the various other changes.

You're basically trying to claim that climate science has gotten it entirely wrong over the last 100 years. That's a very extraordinary claim (on par with the idea that the earth is really flat or that evolution is entirely wrong) and requires extraordinary evidence. So far, the deniers have provided absolutely no evidence for their claims. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

Quote:
Any reasonable look at the known facts throughout human history proves beyond any doubt that the earth warms and cools significantly (in this scale) constantly, and with or without our help.
Wrong. Outside of the random impact or mega-eruption, global climate has never changed with the scale and rapidity we've observed in the history of our species, and for much longer periods than even that.

CO2 has not been at 400ppm for at least 800,000 years, likely at least 3 million years. We've increased it ~40% in under 200 years.

Quote:
The real question is how much we contribute to changing the natural cycle, and what we can reasonably do about it.

The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.


If it wasn't for us, the planet would be cooling. We're overwhelming the natural forcings.

Quote:
Unfortunately, they'll keep leaning back on charts showing that ice melts as temperature rises as irrefutable proof of something. But it's only a matter of time until the predictions of their apocalyptic models fall off the charts.
That's a statement of faith, unsupported by the evidence and observations.

There's no reason to believe that suddenly all the metrics by which we observe anthropogenic climate change to reverse themselves. Again, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?

Quote:
As I said, Wagsy's hero Hansen is already within the window where he said there would be no arctic summer ice. Without significant change in 5 years, we can assertively say that his view of climate changiness is fundamentally flawed. Although looking at his earlier predictions, we could already easily make that case. No doubt, like most apocalyptic hustlers, JH will follow up with a small 'correction' on his end-of-world predictions, and Wagsy will continue to lap it up unquestioningly.
Provide a link to a reference in which Hansen makes this prediction, please. I won't take your word for it - I think like a scientist, and always have doubts about hearsay. I'm skeptical that what you claim Hansen said and what he actually said are one and the same.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 08:50 AM   #35
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I find it remarkable, the capacity these right wingers have for ignoring overwhelming evidence that conflicts with their ideological preconceptions. As Spock would have said, "Fascinating."
You should reevaluate who you're listening to.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...s-fear-debate/
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 09:04 AM   #36
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You should reevaluate who you're listening to.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...s-fear-debate/
"Why alarmists fear debate..."

A statement posted by someone who has repeatedly said he doesn't like graphs and charts, hyperlinks, anecdotes and anything else that goes against his line of thinking, which he conveniently can never really back up on his own.

Excuse me while I

You're right, Roh..."Fascinating."
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 09:59 AM   #37
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,384

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 10:01 AM   #38
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Provide a link to a reference in which Hansen makes this prediction, please. I won't take your word for it - I think like a scientist, and always have doubts about hearsay. I'm skeptical that what you claim Hansen said and what he actually said are one and the same.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/...lwarming_N.htm

Quote:
Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.

"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."

Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.
Written 6/23/2008

But you'll go ahead and keep arguing that the pretty historically average amount of sea ice present 5 years later is somehow irrelevant.

I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if you'd at least recognize MannHansen's Manhattatlantis brand of fear-mongering as fundamentally unscientific as it really is. As Hans Von Storch has repeatedly alluded to.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 10:05 AM   #39
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,384

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/...lwarming_N.htm



Written 6/23/2008

But you'll go ahead and keep arguing that the pretty historically average amount of sea ice present 5 years later is somehow irrelevant.

I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if you'd at least recognize MannHansen's Manhattatlantis brand of fear-mongering as fundamentally unscientific as it really is. As Hans Von Storch has repeatedly alluded to.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 10:13 AM   #40
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You should reevaluate who you're listening to.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...s-fear-debate/
A personal attack on Mike Mann by a Forbes op-ed writer who's a Heartland hit-man?

That all you got?

The debate is in the journals. So far, the deniers are batting about .002 in that regard.

Last edited by W*GS; 09-11-2013 at 10:17 AM..
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 10:17 AM   #41
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
But you'll go ahead and keep arguing that the pretty historically average amount of sea ice present 5 years later is somehow irrelevant.
"Historically average"?

What dope you smokin'? Almost 2 sigma below the long-term mean ain't "historically average".

Quote:
I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if you'd at least recognize MannHansen's Manhattatlantis brand of fear-mongering as fundamentally unscientific as it really is. As Hans Von Storch has repeatedly alluded to.
Does it really matter if Hansen is wrong about 2018 but is correct in 2021? Or 2026? Or 2029?

Does that mean all of climate science is utter crap? Please, explain.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 10:22 AM   #42
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Argument by hyperlink!

Your argument is invalid!

houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 10:36 AM   #43
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
A personal attack on Mike Mann by a Forbes op-ed writer who's a Heartland hit-man?

That all you got?

The debate is in the journals. So far, the deniers are batting about .002 in that regard.
Lolz. Everyone not in Climate Club is a 'denier' or 'hit-man'

Yet even your gynecologist is welcome in Climate Club so long as they Uphold the Credo.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 10:38 AM   #44
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
"Historically average"?

What dope you smokin'? Almost 2 sigma below the long-term mean ain't "historically average".
So long as you define "long term" as "since the 1970s"

Guess you guys are going to have to stop blaming Reagan for things. I mean he was basically only President at the dawn of time.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 09-11-2013 at 10:49 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 10:49 AM   #45
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Does it really matter if Hansen is wrong about 2018 but is correct in 2021? Or 2026? Or 2029?
Quote:
I Concur
-Harold Camping

Quote:
Does that mean all of climate science is utter crap? Please, explain.
No. As I've explained before. It's science mixed with social and political advocacy that is utter crap. The fact that so many worship under the high priests of that very practice only underscores the unfortunate prevalence.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 11:12 AM   #46
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,384

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
-Harold Camping



No. As I've explained before. It's science mixed with social and political advocacy that is utter crap. The fact that so many worship under the high priests of that very practice only underscores the unfortunate prevalence.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 11:53 AM   #47
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Lolz. Everyone not in Climate Club is a 'denier' or 'hit-man'
Taylor is. That's his job. FUD.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 11:57 AM   #48
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It's science mixed with social and political advocacy that is utter crap.
Scientists should strictly stick to science and STFU about everything else, especially political issues?

Since when does being a scientist mean losing one's 1st Amendment rights?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 12:01 PM   #49
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So long as you define "long term" as "since the 1970s"
Again, since you missed it the first time:

W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 12:03 PM   #50
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Scientists should strictly stick to science and STFU about everything else, especially political issues?

Since when does being a scientist mean losing one's 1st Amendment rights?
It's impossible to deny that publicized advocacy and/or financial interest weigh heavily against any "scientist's" ability to remain objective.

If you doubt that, just reference your second to last post. You're basically making that very same argument.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:31 AM.


Denver Broncos