Jump to content
tanknet.org

Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics


Recommended Posts

 

 

Recently read that Leonardo DiCaprio, took a private jet from Cannes, where he was staying on a megayacht, to fly thousands of miles to accept an award for his global warming awareness efforts and then promptly flew back to continue partying with his fellow SJWs. But don't worry, he owns a Prius!

 

I hate hypocritical arseholes like that.

 

 

 

Ya know, in their minds, these hypocrites think they do nothing wrong because they donate their money to organizations that support climate change initiatives. By doing so, they justify jetting back and forth as long as they donate their money and use their influence/star appeal for the cause. I reckon that's how they think, and do so very sincerely. All the less influential, poorer proles like us will have to actually lower our carbon footprint, because we don't have the cash or influence to "save Gaia" through speaking engagements and altruistic feelings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

http://e-tangata.co.nz/news/how-climate-change-is-like-the-slave-trade

 

Climate change is like slave trade...written by a "Pacific" (btw which nation/ethnicity is that exactly) studies academic. Most importantly though no actual policy ideas, just a loose set of accusations against the economic system, mass consumer culture, and how we all must identify as "victims" of our economic interactions.

 

I'm sure a high profile defender of climate science will be along to repudiate this nonsense. I won't hold my breath. But seriously, this could have been written as a troll piece by the anti climate change crowd.

 

And there it is. In the end, the point of it all isn't protecting Gaia or shit. It's about demanding and getting reparations from The Man because it's easier to blame the rich for the poor's socio-economic situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

http://e-tangata.co.nz/news/how-climate-change-is-like-the-slave-trade

 

Climate change is like slave trade...written by a "Pacific" (btw which nation/ethnicity is that exactly) studies academic. Most importantly though no actual policy ideas, just a loose set of accusations against the economic system, mass consumer culture, and how we all must identify as "victims" of our economic interactions.

 

I'm sure a high profile defender of climate science will be along to repudiate this nonsense. I won't hold my breath. But seriously, this could have been written as a troll piece by the anti climate change crowd.

I imagine because the intended audience already shares agreement in what the policy solutions are. Marx wrote them up a long time ago.

 

Beg your pardon, but please can you point me to where exactly Karl Marx wrote about world wide climate change?

 

http://www.dearchiv.de/php/mewinh.php

http://www.mlwerke.de/me/default.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then there is a real case of selling of indulgences :D

 

Some, I think, false cases in the 15th century helped to trigger the Reformation.

Selling good feelings to people with bad karma is big business!

 

Most prolific salesman of good karma Johann Tetzel said "Sobald der Gülden im Becken klingt im huy die Seel im Himmel springt" (as soon as the coin rings in the box, the soul jumps to heaven) or jumps out of purgatory and similar claims to sell his product. ("As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs") Luther directly relates to this travelling salesman in things spiritual in his famous thesis.

 

And it has not changed much since. It is so much easier to spend a bit of money and receive a good concince than to actually reflect and change own behaviour. Today people are scared of the environment instead of hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://e-tangata.co.nz/news/how-climate-change-is-like-the-slave-trade

 

Climate change is like slave trade...written by a "Pacific" (btw which nation/ethnicity is that exactly) studies academic. Most importantly though no actual policy ideas, just a loose set of accusations against the economic system, mass consumer culture, and how we all must identify as "victims" of our economic interactions.

 

I'm sure a high profile defender of climate science will be along to repudiate this nonsense. I won't hold my breath. But seriously, this could have been written as a troll piece by the anti climate change crowd.

 

And there it is. In the end, the point of it all isn't protecting Gaia or shit. It's about demanding and getting reparations from The Man because it's easier to blame the rich for the poor's socio-economic situation.

 

Because the usual Cargo Cult practices haven't worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beg your pardon, but please can you point me to where exactly Karl Marx wrote about world wide climate change?

 

http://www.dearchiv.de/php/mewinh.php

http://www.mlwerke.de/me/default.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/

 

 

You misunderstand. Their (those on the global warming bandwagon) policies always boil down to implementing Marxism. Capitalism is the disease and good old fashioned socialism is the cure. In their world climate change is but a symptom of the biggest problem facing humanity, and that is capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Beg your pardon, but please can you point me to where exactly Karl Marx wrote about world wide climate change?

 

http://www.dearchiv.de/php/mewinh.php

http://www.mlwerke.de/me/default.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/

 

 

You misunderstand. Their (those on the global warming bandwagon) policies always boil down to implementing Marxism. Capitalism is the disease and good old fashioned socialism is the cure. In their world climate change is but a symptom of the biggest problem facing humanity, and that is capitalism.

 

 

bigstock-Sliced-Ripe-Watermelon-72055993

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today people are scared of the environment instead of hell.

Not scared of the environment*, scared of being publicly flogged after being convicted in the courts of public opinion for being insufficiently concerned about the environment.

 

* The SJWs wouldn't be smoking pot grown in national forests that have had their forest bulldozed to make room for grow ops, if they were worried about the environment. Or pot grown in basements using grow lamps powered by dead dinosaurs...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, then there is a real case of selling of indulgences :D

 

Some, I think, false cases in the 15th century helped to trigger the Reformation.

Selling good feelings to people with bad karma is big business!

 

Most prolific salesman of good karma Johann Tetzel said "Sobald der Gülden im Becken klingt im huy die Seel im Himmel springt" (as soon as the coin rings in the box, the soul jumps to heaven) or jumps out of purgatory and similar claims to sell his product. ("As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs") Luther directly relates to this travelling salesman in things spiritual in his famous thesis.

 

And it has not changed much since. It is so much easier to spend a bit of money and receive a good concince than to actually reflect and change own behaviour. Today people are scared of the environment instead of hell.

 

 

And you here explained the business model of almost all street beggars, charities, and NGOs that in the world have existed: sell quietness of conscience in exchange for a reasonable amount of money.

 

So most of them do not bother to apply the money to their stated ends, as the act of donating to some cause that could be even remotely felt as good by the public to the organization is the real purpose for most of the donors, traceability of the funds be damned. Most of those funds should be invested in marketing, in order to convince the public that the cause is Good.

Edited by sunday
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with the gist of XKCDs irony. However, my question has a point. What's the precision of the data sets it derives it's humor from?

Because one problem with current measurements is that they're using different methods, with different intervals, and different sampling rates/sizes than the data that is used for paleoclimate sources.

The old data has less fidelity. Trying to draw substantive hard conclusions from totally different data sets is problematic. Anyone in computing should know that.

Sample system load once a day for years at 12 am, then sample load for a host at all times. Your low rate load sample will miss critical spikes that should be part of your load average. Add to the fact that the historic data is even spottier than once a day and your variability for comparisons between the new and the old will be HIGHLY questionable with no real way to check for accuracy of the comparisons of low interval spot samples vs constant rate sampling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

http://e-tangata.co.nz/news/how-climate-change-is-like-the-slave-trade

 

Climate change is like slave trade...written by a "Pacific" (btw which nation/ethnicity is that exactly) studies academic. Most importantly though no actual policy ideas, just a loose set of accusations against the economic system, mass consumer culture, and how we all must identify as "victims" of our economic interactions.

 

I'm sure a high profile defender of climate science will be along to repudiate this nonsense. I won't hold my breath. But seriously, this could have been written as a troll piece by the anti climate change crowd.

I imagine because the intended audience already shares agreement in what the policy solutions are. Marx wrote them up a long time ago.

Beg your pardon, but please can you point me to where exactly Karl Marx wrote about world wide climate change?

 

http://www.dearchiv.de/php/mewinh.php

http://www.mlwerke.de/me/default.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/

 

 

Marxists take over cause and ideas they see they can attack Western Civilization with - since they culturally dominate the media, the typical journalist is always searching for ways to make people that read them guilty of something.

Guilty people don't resist either the Marxists or the Mercantilist Capitalism - the one that need state power to have control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the problems with sample data. I've no idea how correct his specific data is or how he averaged his results from different data sets; I consider the graphic predominantly humor not hard science. That said I suspect it isn't wildly inaccurate given what the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on. Your mileage may differ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"vast majority of the scientific community agrees on"

I'd say that sample size is off.

"Your mileage may differ."

​Deferring to a local expert, the climatologist have a credibility issue with me. Their models which they place in high regard, have a problem with matching up to reality.

slide1.png

  • ""
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the problems with sample data. I've no idea how correct his specific data is or how he averaged his results from different data sets; I consider the graphic predominantly humor not hard science. That said I suspect it isn't wildly inaccurate given what the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on. Your mileage may differ.

 

So you consider that today - i am not even going to the past - the temperature measure of earth is reliable to the 0.5 C even if larges earth spaces on earth have no temperature measurements and forgetting that atmosphere is not 2D but 3D, that max and min temps are crude way to measure energy is atmosphere system to the precision required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with the gist of XKCDs irony. However, my question has a point. What's the precision of the data sets it derives it's humor from?

 

Because one problem with current measurements is that they're using different methods, with different intervals, and different sampling rates/sizes than the data that is used for paleoclimate sources.

 

The old data has less fidelity. Trying to draw substantive hard conclusions from totally different data sets is problematic. Anyone in computing should know that.

 

Sample system load once a day for years at 12 am, then sample load for a host at all times. Your low rate load sample will miss critical spikes that should be part of your load average. Add to the fact that the historic data is even spottier than once a day and your variability for comparisons between the new and the old will be HIGHLY questionable with no real way to check for accuracy of the comparisons of low interval spot samples vs constant rate sampling.

 

Fucking. Use. Google. Scholar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm aware of the problems with sample data. I've no idea how correct his specific data is or how he averaged his results from different data sets; I consider the graphic predominantly humor not hard science. That said I suspect it isn't wildly inaccurate given what the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on. Your mileage may differ.

 

So you consider that today - i am not even going to the past - the temperature measure of earth is reliable to the 0.5 C even if larges earth spaces on earth have no temperature measurements and forgetting that atmosphere is not 2D but 3D, that max and min temps are crude way to measure energy is atmosphere system to the precision required.

 

 

Do you actually know anything about these topics or are you just poking at things with sticks?

 

The biggest issue is not skepticism, or religiosity, or politicization.

 

It's sheer fucking ignorance and the unwillingness to educate oneself.

 

Anything you'd like to know is trivially accessible online. It's clear however, that you aren't accessing this because you don't even know what the temperature anomaly so oft reported actually means.

Edited by Jason L
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"vast majority of the scientific community agrees on"

 

I'd say that sample size is off.

 

"Your mileage may differ."

 

​Deferring to a local expert, the climatologist have a credibility issue with me. Their models which they place in high regard, have a problem with matching up to reality.

 

slide1.png

  • ""

 

 

The model is not what is used to determine whether or not the earth is warming. :rolleyes:

 

This is equivalent to saying you shouldn't have faith in medical science because sometimes treatment plans fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The model is not what is used to determine whether or not the earth is warming."

 

But the models ARE being used to say WHY the earth is warming. And the models are not matching reality. Which means the models are probably wrong.

 

When your predictions depart from observed behavior your predictions and understanding of the overall system is wrong. This is a basic function of performing an experiment. In this case we have the models and ONE test subject.

 

Now, there are also issue with the observations and how they're handled. Surface temperatures and Satellite data have been diverging for a while. That divergence has increased.

 

 

 

 

 

Fucking. Use. Google. Scholar.

You mean like this?

 

A Reconstruction of Regional

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely

associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of

the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

figure-2.png

 

For quite a while, I've been convinced that treating solar activity as a steady state non factor has been a problem with the AGW crowd. Newer studies of solar variability AND how it interacts with the earth is making my conjecture seem more reasonable.

 

Looking at the Marcott 2013 data...what temperature is the earth supposed to be again?

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm aware of the problems with sample data. I've no idea how correct his specific data is or how he averaged his results from different data sets; I consider the graphic predominantly humor not hard science. That said I suspect it isn't wildly inaccurate given what the vast majority of the scientific community agrees on. Your mileage may differ.

 

So you consider that today - i am not even going to the past - the temperature measure of earth is reliable to the 0.5 C even if larges earth spaces on earth have no temperature measurements and forgetting that atmosphere is not 2D but 3D, that max and min temps are crude way to measure energy is atmosphere system to the precision required.

 

 

Do you actually know anything about these topics or are you just poking at things with sticks?

 

The biggest issue is not skepticism, or religiosity, or politicization.

 

It's sheer fucking ignorance and the unwillingness to educate oneself.

 

Anything you'd like to know is trivially accessible online. It's clear however, that you aren't accessing this because you don't even know what the temperature anomaly so oft reported actually means.

 

 

Aha, so the temperature anomaly of your balcony says what is the temperature anomaly of your city. I wonder what is the temperature anomaly of my city that can change 4 or 5ºC between near the river and in interior...

 

But of course you know the world temperature anomaly to the precison of 0.x Cº... because it is enough to have a smallish sample to know world temperature - and whatever world temperature means - and of course not knowing how winds change, how much energy from the sun arrives and what is the evaporation rates and cloud cover anyway, nothing like that matters.

 

But you just like to feel you know because ... well it's like the Titanic. Hubris.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"The model is not what is used to determine whether or not the earth is warming."

 

But the models ARE being used to say WHY the earth is warming. And the models are not matching reality. Which means the models are probably wrong.

 

When your predictions depart from observed behavior your predictions and understanding of the overall system is wrong. This is a basic function of performing an experiment. In this case we have the models and ONE test subject.

 

Now, there are also issue with the observations and how they're handled. Surface temperatures and Satellite data have been diverging for a while. That divergence has increased.

 

 

 

 

 

Fucking. Use. Google. Scholar.

You mean like this?

 

A Reconstruction of Regional

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely

associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of

the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

figure-2.png

 

For quite a while, I've been convinced that treating solar activity as a steady state non factor has been a problem with the AGW crowd. Newer studies of solar variability AND how it interacts with the earth is making my conjecture seem more reasonable.

 

Looking at the Marcott 2013 data...what temperature is the earth supposed to be again?

 

 

You really don't know the first thing about physics-based modelling do you and are just plodding along with Dunning-Kruger powered pseudo-intellectual ruminations aren't you?

 

Let me explain how a model works:

 

The scientist choses WHICH physical aspects of a system they want to include in the model, they come up with an appropriate mathematical representation of that physics and then they must chose appropriate source terms for those mathematical representations. If it is a computational model they must then deal with the numerical scheme and formulation with which to solve the governing physics.

 

A model CANNOT tell you what physics controls the system being studying because YOU ARE DECIDING WHAT PHYSICS TO CONSIDER. What a model can tell you is the relative importance of various bits of physics based on the source terms.

 

A good example: considering material strength effects in hypervelocity penetration changes a result by around 5%, strength is thus not a hugely important physical consideration.

 

The physics behind climate models is very well established: it is inviscid flow and subsonic heat transfer. The big unknowns are the source terms because the detailed transport parameters are not know an there are all sorts of effects that change those source terms. That is why model fails.

 

You have no idea what that paper you linked is saying do you? It is 100% arguing that current warming is due to human greenhouse gas emission.

 

BTW total solar irradiance IS nearly constant (0.2% variation from mean). Variations due to sunspots and flare activity is not an unstudied problem. Stop pretending you're a genius that knows something climate scientists don't. Sunspot and flare effects are very much studied because they obviously do have major effects on climate. That is also a very tough modelling problem.

 

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

plodding along with Dunning-Kruger powered pseudo-intellectual ruminations

 

 

 

I am stealing that phrase for future use in appropriate circumstances.

 

Hell, that describes me.

Edited by Corinthian
Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

The models do not PROVE warming is due to human driven Co2 emissions, the models show that CO2 release CAN plausibly cause the sort of warming we are seeing.

And that is a powerful statement against the "science is settled" crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Say it ain't so!

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-27/climate-study-under-fire/7881740

 

 

Climate change study accused of erring on rising temperature predictions

 

Prominent climate scientists have issued a warning that a paper published in the influential journal Nature sensationalised climate change predictions and used an "incorrect calculation".

Key points:
  • Study found Earth's temperature could rise by between 3 and 7 degrees Celsius over next thousand years
  • But prominent climate scientists argue there is a logical error with the calculation
  • However, they welcomed the temperature history provided by the study

 

The Evolution of Global Temperature over the Past Two Million Years paper reconstructed 2 million years of global average temperatures.

It found temperatures gradually cooled until about 1.2 million years ago and then stalled after that, and concluded that Earth's temperature could rise by between 3 and 7 degrees Celsius over the next thousand years.

But that prediction has come under fire from prominent climate scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

He said he did not think the conclusion was correct.

Edited by Adam_S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...