The 2018 UN Climate Report

[DutchJazzer]

It the predictions of the mainstream scientists that have passed the test of time.

are you serious bro?

nto sure if serious you seem to be trolling comparing female genital mutilation to circumcision

and now claiming the sicentist predictions have sotod the test of time

1970 their was ga be global cooling. afte a decade and a half they changed it to global warming, then they cnhntge it to climate chance you know why becaus ethye got proven wrong every time. so now that you call it climate chance you cant be proven worng becuase climate is always chancing.

otgher then that their ar eenough prediciotn that by 2000 new york would be underwtae ror we have an ice age.

PREDICTIONS HAVE BEEN WRONG WRONG AND WRONG TIME AND TIME AGAIN

GET SERIOUS.

even other pro climate ******** posters on here admit that in 70's and 80's and 90's they wher ewrong. but now they say the scientist got it right!


modeling and siiulation is a very flawed ssytem and not setled science

 

[One Brow]

are you serious bro?

Yes.

1970 their was ga be global cooling.

This is a lie. You may not realize it, but that just means you are spreading someone else's lie. There was no consensus on climate in the 1970s.

afte a decade and a half they changed it to global warming, then they cnhntge it to climate chance you know why becaus ethye got proven wrong every time.

It was changed to "climate change" because some people don't understand that overall global warming does not imply warming in every place on earth at a uniform rate, and to emphasize there are other effects than just temperature change.

otgher then that their ar eenough prediciotn that by 2000 new york would be underwtae ror we have an ice age.

This is a lie.

modeling and siiulation is a very flawed ssytem and not setled science

It's true that models are always subject to revision. That said, the predictions of the 1990s have held up well.

 

[babe]

It the predictions of the mainstream scientists that have passed the test of time.

Kinda youthful optimism here. From 1965 to 1980 the "mainstream scientists" were almost all predicting an imminent ice age.

We don't know what ends "interglacial warm" periods. I think it might be warm oceans, well warmer. With enough latent heat built up from some other factors, plus less ice melt runoff.... . It takes heat to vaporize water and it takes energy to move that water vapor onshore or up into polar regions. Some late theories are questioning the synchronicity of northern and southern polar changes. Makes a huge difference locally.

The sources you study are mostly politically motivated pushers of a fairly recent "fad" of scientific thought. It's good if we are getting better data now, from satellites and surface stations, all kinds of sensors we can employ, and we should be doing a lot more depth data in the oceans and on land.

Until we establish the heat flux from the interior of planet earth.... and learn about it's cycles.... and study its variability locally..... especially under our oceans. Let's put it this way. The dense water is 4 C, just above freezing. A lot of fresh, cold water comes into the oceans in the polar regions, flows along the ocean floors... . Is mixed by currents driven by differences in salinity. That's what causes the El Nino/La Nina patterns, or one factor anyway. So we should measure salinity as a depth profile....too...

But typically the surface of the earth is about the temp of the air or water in contact with it..... but a little deeper, it is warmer because heat is coming up from depth, at some rate.... and it's all going into the ocean and rock near the surface. We don't measure that, or have any record of its variance.

So all in all, its just too soon to be convinced of anything, bro.

 

[babe]

Yes.



This is a lie. You may not realize it, but that just means you are spreading someone else's lie. There was no consensus on climate in the 1970s.



It was changed to "climate change" because some people don't understand that overall global warming does not imply warming in every place on earth at a uniform rate, and to emphasize there are other effects than just temperature change.



This is a lie.



It's true that models are always subject to revision. That said, the predictions of the 1990s have held up well.

Kinda hard to know if politically-pandering scientists are lying, anytime. In the 1965-1980 era there was not the same level of "agenda" pushing. Scientists had the liberty to express more independent thought and sometimes even got funding for research if they were not totally bought on the subject. Not so much now. And that is a sort of litmus test that should send a strong signal to anyone who wants to be honest about it, that "science" is not working today as it should.

I don't really accept the idea that it's not a lie if you believe it. We often believe our own lies, and the lies of others.... Maybe it's not a lie if its false if we are not consciously promoting it, maybe we are just mistaken. But when we are not willing to consider evidence to the contrary, and we insist on promoting something false, we are "pushers" for ideas that are not true. But in the case of the "progressives" of today, the "cultural Marxists" and such, who have the grand idea of transforming human society on purpose, it is characteristic for many "pushers" to consider lies helpful tools for the greater good. Those sorts deserve to be called liars.

So anyway, I am not quarrelling here with whatever the truth is, I am only raising issues of how well we know stuff, and particularly whether we should be making changes to our cultural and politics on the order of carbon tax and redistribution and global governance.

We know we have a lot of fascist corporate honchos who really don't want to share the power with the common man, and we know those are the folks pushing this political agenda.

What I don't understand is how you can live with yourself without questioning what they are up to.

 

[One Brow]

Kinda youthful optimism here. From 1965 to 1980 the "mainstream scientists" were almost all predicting an imminent ice age.

No one calls me youthful, and you are repeating a lie. You maynot realize it is a lie, but it is.

We don't know what ends "interglacial warm" periods. I think it might be warm oceans, well warmer.

You mean, in the manner the oceans are currently warming?

The sources you study are mostly politically motivated pushers of a fairly recent "fad" of scientific thought.

I'm not impressed with your unevidenced smears against an entire scientific community composed of a wide variety of political views.

So all in all, its just too soon to be convinced of anything, bro.

I am sure that will be true for you until for as long as you inhabit this planet.

 

[One Brow]

In the 1965-1980 era there was not the same level of "agenda" pushing. Scientists had the liberty to express more independent thought and sometimes even got funding for research if they were not totally bought on the subject.

The funding mechanisms for nationally supported science were about the same then as now.

What I don't understand is how you can live with yourself without questioning what they are up to.

I can live with trusting evidence and a history of successful predictions.

 

[Red]

Interesting piece. Monumental Diaster at the Department of the Interior. Suppression of science, ridicule of science, is not confined to the Department of the Interior. Adoptation of an attack on science as a means of learning is endemic to the Trump administration. In that respect, Trump can be seen as the leading proponent of a return to the Dark Ages. He still has not appointed a science advisor to the president, and he never will. Science has created problems as well as benefits over the course of its history since the Scientific Revolution, but this all out attack on science itself is one of the more astonishing traits of an administration led by an individual who would prefer conspiracy theory and irrationality above learning.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...l-disaster-at-the-department-of-the-interior/

"This is a tough time to be a federal scientist—or any civil servant in the federal government. The Trump administration is clamping down on science, denying dangerous climate change and hollowing out the workforces of the agencies charged with protecting American health, safety and natural resources.

At the Department of the Interior (DOI), with its mission to conserve and manage America’s natural and cultural resources, the Trump administration’s political appointees are stumbling over one another to earn accolades for disabling agency operations. I should know; I was one of dozens of senior executives targeted by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke for reassignment in a staff purge just six months into the new administration.

From that day onward, Zinke and his political staff have consistently sidelined scientists and experts while handing the agency’s keys over to oil, gas and mining interests. The only saving grace is that Zinke and his colleagues are not very good at it, and in many cases the courts are stopping them in their tracks. The effects on science, scientists and the federal workforce, however, will be long-lasting.

In a new report, Science Under Siege at the Department of the Interior, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has documented some of the most egregious and anti-science policies and practices at the DOI under Secretary Zinke. The report describes suppression of science, denial of climate change, the silencing and intimidation of agency staff, and attacks on science-based laws that help protect our nation’s world-class wildlife and habitats.

It is a damning report and required reading for anyone who values public lands, wildlife, cultural heritage, and health and safety.

It would be impossible to cover everything this clumsy political wrecking crew is up to, but the report provides details on the most prominent actions that deserve greater scrutiny, such as: the largest reduction in public lands protection in our nation’s history; a systematic failure to acknowledge or act on climate change; unprecedented constraints on the funding and communication of science; and a blatant disregard for public health and safety.

Why is this administration so scared of science? Why cancel a study into the health effects of mountaintop removal coal mining so soon after lifting a moratorium on coal leasing on public lands? Why keep scientists from speaking with the press? Because, while science provides the best evidence we have for making policy decisions that serve the broader public, Ryan Zinke has been very clear that he is in office to serve the oil, gas and mining industries, not the general public.

 

[babe]

Yes.



This is a lie. You may not realize it, but that just means you are spreading someone else's lie. There was no consensus on climate in the 1970s.



It was changed to "climate change" because some people don't understand that overall global warming does not imply warming in every place on earth at a uniform rate, and to emphasize there are other effects than just temperature change.



This is a lie.



It's true that models are always subject to revision. That said, the predictions of the 1990s have held up well.

you're incredible. Sometimes you advance evidence for your beliefs, and even then the evidence is convenient made-up hype pushing a political agenda..... but no evidence submitted here at all.

I evaluate evidence for its substance. What is it based on.... tools, methods, possible biases in interpretation, estimates of precision and accuracy, reproducibility..... and what is missing in the picture. You are a dreamer. You rejected "religion" because nobody can objectively prove "God"......as you want to define the term. I don't think there is even any systematic or scientific definition of "God". Might as well talk about disproving imagination. Then you believe the philosophical claptrap of the nineteenth century that projects a deterministic destiny for mankind on the principles of Hegel, Marx, or Rousseau, as popularized by political hacks of one sort or another.... all claiming that the world must be managed by the smart people. And what is most preposterous of all, you imagine you are the "smart" one.

But you are caught up in a current, a very filthy current of fashionable ideas, pushed by mega billionaires who want a world they can manage conveniently, with little people sorta edge outta the feeding trough.... but cared for in some minimal way as they imagine is best.

I was aware in the era I spoke of, what the pushers were saying and trying to do. The Ice Age always had reputable "deniers" because the data was well.... just like today's climate data.... but no one wanted to believe it. But it was the big "reason" for world management and world-class "solutions" that the managers could use to regulate everybody. It was the same idea.

But the immediate temp trend was warmer, and it was harder to push. Oh, hey, so what. Let's just say it's a planetary climatge meltdown. We can still manage the sheeples. go for it.

your put down, or rejection of reason, is a damn lie because I don't reject science. I reject irresponsible political abuse of "science". And that is what I detailed in my posts above. There is no way any reputable scientist who cares for the basic validity of science can deny the truth of what I've said here.

And yes, there are reputable scientists who know what I've said, and who have said as much. But the determined moneybag interests have mounted an incredible effort to slander them and ridicule them, as you do to folks in here....

The sad thing is that it's hard for human beings to resist such tides. You may win the political war here, or for a generation. But there will be another generation tearing down your statues.... unless, or course, humans decide culturally to remember the past for what it was, not what it should have been.

 

[One Brow]

you're incredible. Sometimes you advance evidence for your beliefs, and even then the evidence is convenient made-up hype pushing a political agenda..... but no evidence submitted here at all.

What would you like to see evidence for? I mean, sure, you'll dismiss it out of hand (as you just did in the paragraph quoted), but I don't mind.

I evaluate evidence for its substance. What is it based on.... tools, methods, possible biases in interpretation, estimates of precision and accuracy, reproducibility..... and what is missing in the picture.

Climate science requires (among other things) the collation of thousands of data points per year across scores of years into a coherent model. What are your statistical credentials, that you can accurately evaluate the aggregation of this data and the resultant conclusions to such a degree that you know exactly what is missing? Ph. D. in statistics? Pass a few actuarial exams? Your gut?

You rejected "religion" because nobody can objectively prove "God"......as you want to define the term.

Is that why? My understanding is: for decades I was a believer in a God I thought no one could objectively prove. Thanks for setting me straight on my life history.

I don't think there is even any systematic or scientific definition of "God".

Agreed. None worth talking about, at any rate.

Then you believe the philosophical claptrap of the nineteenth century that projects a deterministic destiny for mankind on the principles of Hegel, Marx, or Rousseau, as popularized by political hacks of one sort or another.... all claiming that the world must be managed by the smart people.

Which one do I believe in? Hegel, Marx, and Rousseau had incompatible principles, after all.

And what is most preposterous of all, you imagine you are the "smart" one.

I think I am qualified to manage the world?

But you are caught up in a current, a very filthy current of fashionable ideas, pushed by mega billionaires who want a world they can manage conveniently, with little people sorta edge outta the feeding trough.... but cared for in some minimal way as they imagine is best.

So, you are saying we are exactly alike in this regard?

I was aware in the era I spoke of, what the pushers were saying and trying to do.

Said "pushers" being media organizations using fear to sell magazines, of course.

The Ice Age always had reputable "deniers" because the data was well.... just like today's climate data

We have *much* better data today. That's why we had dozens of contradictory hypotheses in the 1970s, and a consensus today.

But the immediate temp trend was warmer, and it was harder to push.

Temperatures dropped just a little in the 1940s-1960s.

your put down, or rejection of reason, is a damn lie because I don't reject science.

Just the outcomes of science you don't like.

I reject irresponsible political abuse of "science". And that is what I detailed in my posts above. There is no way any reputable scientist who cares for the basic validity of science can deny the truth of what I've said here.

Because you consider those scientists who disagree with you disreputable. Circular argumentation.

And yes, there are reputable scientists who know what I've said, and who have said as much. But the determined moneybag interests have mounted an incredible effort to slander them and ridicule them, as you do to folks in here....

The monied interests (fossil fuel industries in particular) have been supporting the climate change deniers.

 

[Alfalfa]

One Brow has the patience of a saint, responding to a bunch of ignorant right wing radio drivel all day.

 

[babe]

One Brow has the patience of a saint, responding to a bunch of ignorant right wing radio drivel all day.

He's no saint, but a true believer in fashionable authority. He has persistence. That is one thing I do like about OB. I can't recall any substantial change in his opinions because of things posted on a sports site, though. Maybe.... I'm not expecting to see anything like that. He'd have to tell me about it if it happened.

 

[babe]

So for anyone who is a liberal today, a cultural progressive, a supporter of ideas of global management/governance, or a true believer that we have a valid kind of science going on in our gub agencies or universities, you can all pull your little snuggies up tight and go to bed now, kiddies. No one who questions anything can possibly know what they're talking about.

 

[babe]

So here's my line by line response to OB's multiquote. It is so tedious to deal with all these things. I don't expect anyone to read this. If OB does, just be on notice that I'm off again for several days, and I have no intention of carrying this discussion any further..... a post for each item. shudder.....

 

[babe]

So here's my line by line response to OB's multiquote. It is so tedious to deal with all these things. I don't expect anyone to read this. If OB does, just be on notice that I'm off again for several days, and I have no intention of carrying this discussion any further..... a post for each item. shudder.....

"What would you like to see evidence for? I mean, sure, you'll dismiss it out of hand (as you just did in the paragraph quoted), but I don't mind."

this is simply an unfounded insult. I love the evidence, pro and con. I use it all. That's why I can spy the political abuse going on as it's spun "the right way."

I don't dispute the 0.9C over the past 150y, or the 0.3 C over the last hundred. Or the 1.5 C over the past thirty or so. It's a fair question to raise about accuracy and precision, and how this all looks over longer spans. Early in our present global warm, according to the few estimates we have going through that time, there was a spike or two that was even warmer than today.... and OB even said so himself several pages ago in this thread.

I am also aware of studies done in the sixties which found typical short term spikes in the data that immediately preceeded each ice age onset over the past several ice ages. It was an attempt to dismiss data suggesting temps were on the rise back then to support the grave prospect of an ice age requiring international planning and management of all mankind.

I find the term "climate change" disingenuous because of the intent of government advocates/managers to use whatever actually is the case, for the same general purpose.... management.

self-interested politicians, guv agency careerists, and folks with enough money on the table to sway lawmakers their way, have corrupted "science" today more than, perhaps, any other age of mankind since Galileo was forced to recant his belief in a solar centric planetary system by determined ideologues almost as hell-bent on managing mankind as today's ilk.

So in short, our data is what it is, and should be evaluated for value in objective truth, but it is not sufficient basis for changing our political system or abridging human rights.

Including freedom of belief, and speech.... and it's hardly a grand thing for anyone in a sports chat site to be so Obdurate as to try to just shut down differing opinions.

Anyone reading my contributions in here, in many threads, should be able to decipher that my concerns and arguments have more to with political exploitation of issues than differing versions of "fact".

 

[babe]

Climate science requires (among other things) the collation of thousands of data points per year across scores of years into a coherent model. What are your statistical credentials, that you can accurately evaluate the aggregation of this data and the resultant conclusions to such a degree that you know exactly what is missing? Ph. D. in statistics? Pass a few actuarial exams? Your gut?

I can see you have a lot of fun with me. Go for it.

I have taken graduate level statistical courses long ago. But I am not really doing my own analysis of the reported data in my posts above.…. I am rather mentioning variables in the research that so far have not been addressed, and saying that it's premature to draw the conclusions with the ideological certainty our politicians and their compliant "experts" seem to be insisting we should all accept. Oh, and I am a bookkeeper who worked for a CPA for a few years when I was working through college, too. I might be able to pass the exam and get a license.....

 

[babe]

I was having some great fun with you bringing this into this thread....

Is that why? My understanding is: for decades I was a believer in a God I thought no one could objectively prove. Thanks for setting me straight on my life history.

What is relevant to the general discussion of what climate change is being pushed for....is that it today, in many respects, is a sort of state-established religion..... a belief system.

Progressives of all kinds.... secular humanists in general.... atheists, agnostics, and every brand of socialism except Mormonism.... asserts denials of "God" as found in older religious thought of a few centuries ago..... but Statism is what they generally push for somehow.

Statism is what the rich and famous and powerful of the medieval times turned relgion into. Every tyrant claimed some kind of authority from "God".

today, the only thing that has changed is that the tyrants claim they need no "God", they are themselves uniquely qualified for the worshipful obedience of mankind, because they are the government.

That is what it looks like to me every time I find anyone trying to make the world a better place through government.....

And even the Mormons today, after joining the WCC and forming good relations with America's brahmin class, pretty much concede that the laws of man rule.

 

[babe]

"Which one do I believe in? Hegel, Marx, and Rousseau had incompatible principles, after all."

of course no one expects these to have perfect agreement, but they have provided a sort of intellectual smorgasbord that is pulled into whatever opinions anyone has today which are not.... say.... religious exactly. And even then..... to some extent.

Where is Siro when we need him?

 

[babe]

We have *much* better data today. That's why we had dozens of contradictory hypotheses in the 1970s, and a consensus today.

We have a lot more data..... needs appropriate analysis for accuracy and precision.... but we also have even more contradictory theories being put out there, if you are willing to stray from the "Straight and Narrow Way" prescribed by the political global tax pushers.

 

[babe]

We have a lot more data..... needs appropriate analysis for accuracy and precision.... but we also have even more contradictory theories being put out there, if you are willing to stray from the "Straight and Narrow Way" prescribed by the political global tax pushers.

So far we have not gone outta bounds statistically for our present interglacial warm. The spike that was referenced in the sixties/seventies for immediate precedent for ice age onset was about 3 C. So far..... this could be it. Warming oceans then outgassed CO2 and spiked the CO2, too. Well, some say.... that is....

Not a lot of really conclusive data, yet. But I'm watching for it.

 

[babe]

The really fossil energy cartelists are all on board with global warming... Al Gore the coal magnate.... BPP....Shell....the Rockefellers....

But they consider the industry spokesmen inconsequential and ignore them.... and let them run around doing stuff.....

Or is it the independents who call the tune there...…. ding ding.

Well, this about all the fun I can stand..... later, 'gator.