User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Another government report is dead wrong on fragile state of our planet

  1. #11
    Points: 430,772, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 76.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    393305
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    142,288
    Points
    430,772
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,040
    Thanked 40,873x in 30,251 Posts
    Mentioned
    1659 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    Sucks to be you. All the hard data contradicts your political/religious cult, so conspiracy theories are all you have left. Your OP was just a hysterical conspiracy rant.

    Follow the money.

    All the bribe money goes to your side. That's why your side has zero credibility. Your side gets payed well to fake data and commit fraud.

    The reverse goes for the ethical people. Climate scientists could get very wealthy if they chose abandon ethics and lie for your political cult. They don't. They refuse your bribes. They won't lie for money, which gives them even more credibility.

    Follow the money? You mean the government money funding these reports? OK.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  2. #12
    Points: 12,275, Level: 26
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 375
    Overall activity: 31.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2613
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,404
    Points
    12,275
    Level
    26
    Thanks Given
    206
    Thanked 2,603x in 1,742 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    The author of this article, Stephen Moore, has committed a logical fallacy by assuming that any government report that paints a dire forecast of the future must be wrong because other government reports about the environment or state of the future were wrong. He also conflates the predictions made by a private citizen, Paul Ehrlich, with a government report and he does a similar thing with the Club of Rome report which was privately funded. He mentions that the Club of Rome was funded by the federal govt. but I have found no evidence of this. He fails to mention that the this govt. report on the effects of the climate on the U.S. economy provides results based on 4 or more scenarios and they are not all dire. The RCP 2.5 scenario is rather benign.

    Stephen Moore claims that he knows more than the collective wisdom of the top climate scientists in the world. He says that they have no idea of what the climate of the planet will be like in the year 2100. He doesn't say that we should ignore the science and just continue a business as usual path but that is what he is implying. He says that the report is dead wrong and he doesn't provide a single piece of evidence to support that outrageous claim. This is a pathetic article.
    Yet observed science is following along the lines of RCP 2.5 and not from the unlikely RCP 8.5 which all the alarmism is created from. The government report in question even goes farther than the IPCC in their temperature forecast by almost doubling the top end the IPCC reports and uses that for all the doom and gloom. It is claimed that this will affect the GDP negatively by 10%, with no proof. The report is folly.
    Last edited by Hoosier8; 12-05-2018 at 04:46 PM.
    Liberalism (noun): when over-privileged white people rule society by pretending to care about the plight of minorities.

  3. #13
    Points: 1,259, Level: 8
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 291
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    85
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    413
    Points
    1,259
    Level
    8
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 75x in 60 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier8 View Post
    Yet observed science is following along the lines of RCP 2.5
    No, they're matching 4.5 and 6.0, which is what is closest to actual emissions. That is, the models have been excellent. Anyone familiar with the real science knows that, so the lies of your political/religious cult won't fool them.

    Remember, the ratinoal side has credibilty because we've earned it by getting everything right for the past 40 years. Similarly, your side has no crediblity, because you've failed continuously for those past 40 years.


    and not from the unlikely RCP 8.5 which all the alarmism is created from.
    Another false claim. The reports summarize all the scenarios. Claiming they focus solely on 8.5 is a lie.

  4. #14
    Points: 1,259, Level: 8
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 291
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    85
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    413
    Points
    1,259
    Level
    8
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 75x in 60 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Follow the money? You mean the government money funding these reports? OK.
    So by your logic, anything the Trump admin publishes is fake, because it was paid for by the government.

    But then, it's expected that you fail at logic, because people who can reason properly don't get sucked into your political/religious cult in the first place.

    Again, all the bribe money goes to your side, so your side has no cred. Our side rejects the bribe money, giving us more cred.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to mamooth For This Useful Post:

    Safety (12-09-2018)

  6. #15
    Points: 1,259, Level: 8
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 291
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    85
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    413
    Points
    1,259
    Level
    8
    Thanks Given
    2
    Thanked 75x in 60 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    What "hard data"? You mean the fancy computer simulations that purport to predict the future of the climate?
    The models are excellent. If your political/religious cult told you otherwise, then they lied to you. The long term predictions were for 0.20C/decade warming, and we've seen 0.19C/decade warming.

    However, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured hard data proves the human origin of the current global warming. We directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands. There is no natural explanation for those measurements, so all "It's part of a natural cycle!" theories are wrong.

    At this stage, the best you can do is "Well, humans are causing it, but not that much!". After that defensive position crumbles, you can fall back to "Well, humans are causing a lot of warming, but it's beneficial", and then finally to "Well, we're causing it, and it's bad, but oh well there's nothing we can do about it now, and that's your fault because you forced us to oppose you by being so mean."

  7. #16
    Points: 430,772, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 76.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    393305
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    142,288
    Points
    430,772
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,040
    Thanked 40,873x in 30,251 Posts
    Mentioned
    1659 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    So by your logic, anything the Trump admin publishes is fake, because it was paid for by the government.

    But then, it's expected that you fail at logic, because people who can reason properly don't get sucked into your political/religious cult in the first place.

    Again, all the bribe money goes to your side, so your side has no cred. Our side rejects the bribe money, giving us more cred.

    You don't know logic, mamooth, so stop pretending. No one said anything about bribes. Try reading Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on how ideas in science get stuck because of funding.

    Your side? You don't have a side, you're just trolling.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (12-08-2018)

  9. #17
    Points: 128,645, Level: 86
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 605
    Overall activity: 39.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    453761
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    44,946
    Points
    128,645
    Level
    86
    Thanks Given
    8,392
    Thanked 26,485x in 16,802 Posts
    Mentioned
    948 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    The models are excellent. If your political/religious cult told you otherwise, then they lied to you. The long term predictions were for 0.20C/decade warming, and we've seen 0.19C/decade warming.
    "The models"

    "The predictions"

    There have been all sorts of predictions and all sorts of models. So, what, exactly, are you referring to?

    Are you referring to "the models" that failed to predict the recent pause in global warming? Or are you referring to models like Michael Mann's "hockey stick", which was shown to be a total fraud?

    However, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured hard data proves the human origin of the current global warming. We directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands. There is no natural explanation for those measurements, so all "It's part of a natural cycle!" theories are wrong.
    You don't "prove" a hypothesis in science. And there have been many explanations offered involving natural cycles.

    At this stage, the best you can do is "Well, humans are causing it, but not that much!". After that defensive position crumbles, you can fall back to "Well, humans are causing a lot of warming, but it's beneficial", and then finally to "Well, we're causing it, and it's bad, but oh well there's nothing we can do about it now, and that's your fault because you forced us to oppose you by being so mean."
    All I have to do is to keep pointing out the facts.

    Fact: You don't "prove" hypotheses, so your claim that the "human origin of current global warming" was proved is scientifically baseless.

    Fact: Models can be useful, but they are not evidence. And a model is only as good as its inputs. Otherwise, garbage in, garbage out.

    Fact: Many scientists have offered up explanations involving natural cycles.

    Fact: Many mainstream climate modelers failed to predict the recent pause in global warming.

    Good luck trying to get around basic facts.
    Last edited by Ethereal; 12-08-2018 at 08:27 PM.
    Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.
    --Immanuel Kant

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Ethereal For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (12-08-2018)

  11. #18
    Points: 12,275, Level: 26
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 375
    Overall activity: 31.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2613
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,404
    Points
    12,275
    Level
    26
    Thanks Given
    206
    Thanked 2,603x in 1,742 Posts
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    No, they're matching 4.5 and 6.0, which is what is closest to actual emissions. That is, the models have been excellent. Anyone familiar with the real science knows that, so the lies of your political/religious cult won't fool them.

    Remember, the ratinoal side has credibilty because we've earned it by getting everything right for the past 40 years. Similarly, your side has no crediblity, because you've failed continuously for those past 40 years.




    Another false claim. The reports summarize all the scenarios. Claiming they focus solely on 8.5 is a lie.
    Shows what you know. Typical.
    Liberalism (noun): when over-privileged white people rule society by pretending to care about the plight of minorities.

  12. #19
    Points: 128,645, Level: 86
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 605
    Overall activity: 39.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    453761
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    44,946
    Points
    128,645
    Level
    86
    Thanks Given
    8,392
    Thanked 26,485x in 16,802 Posts
    Mentioned
    948 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
    So by your logic, anything the Trump admin publishes is fake, because it was paid for by the government.

    But then, it's expected that you fail at logic, because people who can reason properly don't get sucked into your political/religious cult in the first place.

    Again, all the bribe money goes to your side, so your side has no cred. Our side rejects the bribe money, giving us more cred.
    Your side relies almost exclusively on tax dollars to fund their research. How convenient, then, that your "solution" to the problem of global warming is to raise taxes on everyone in the western world.
    Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.
    --Immanuel Kant

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Ethereal For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (12-08-2018)

  14. #20
    Points: 167,238, Level: 97
    Level completed: 40%, Points required for next Level: 2,412
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdrive
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    258164
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton Washington or Sayulita Mexico depending on the time of year.
    Posts
    73,891
    Points
    167,238
    Level
    97
    Thanks Given
    8,514
    Thanked 27,128x in 20,395 Posts
    Mentioned
    387 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just saw a little news blurb that said it was ten years ago today that Al Gore said that the Nothern polar ice cap would be completely gone in five years.

    I haven't been that far north to see it for myself, but I believe it's still there and bigger now than it was then.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (Yesterday)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

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


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO