Bend over and say "Ahhh"

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Bend over and say "Ahhh"

Bend over and say "Ahhh"13-03-2017 19:16
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	I just popped out to another "forum" where they only post papers on the climate. One of the latest was the need for "money in the system" to research AGW. The thing about this is that there being money in the system is what has corrupted not just the science but the political support of it. Scientists have to eat too and if they are willing to corrupt their science by misrepresenting any and everything around AGW to lend support to politicians who are using this as a talking point to retain their own power there ends up a system that hasn't an ounce of truth in it anywhere. The common man looks around himself. He sees a world just like the world he has grown up in and he doesn't believe a word of these climate change hypothesis which have NEVER proven accurate or even close to it. I am reading papers in the sciences and this sort of thing seems to be infecting science as a whole. Hypothesis without support are being offered as fact through computer modeling. In actual studies there isn't any proof. But we can pretend can't we? It appears to me that science needs a VERY sharp reduction in money because people that are mediocre scientists at best will prostitute themselves for an easier life.
13-03-2017 19:41
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: I just popped out.... "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" reflects its sexual racism. Meanwhile, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" is jealous that he can't get any grants.... & don' wan' others to get grants. Edited on 13-03-2017 19:46
13-03-2017 21:45
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	I would like to see a law that jailed people who lied and called it science. That is the bar would be very high. the scientist would have to know what he was saying was wrong. I would even have a devils advocate option where somebody could continue to argue a point to make sure that the full debate was thrashed through and thus laid to rest. Best that he or she runs it past the ethics committee first though and avoid areas where governmental policy is reliant upon it. The most hard hit by this would be journalists. Gone would be the days of toast gives you cancer as a headline. Edited on 13-03-2017 21:45
13-03-2017 22:29
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: I would like to see a law that jailed people who lied and called it science. That is the bar would be very high. the scientist would have to know what he was saying was wrong. I would even have a devils advocate option where somebody could continue to argue a point to make sure that the full debate was thrashed through and thus laid to rest. Best that he or she runs it past the ethics committee first though and avoid areas where governmental policy is reliant upon it. The most hard hit by this would be journalists. Gone would be the days of toast gives you cancer as a headline. The problem isn't so much with the science as the way that we have media members from the lowest class once-a-week newspapers to major media giants using some hypothesis as "proof" of something that is supportive of the most preposterous liberal causes. Science is not about politics and if scientists are not willing to speak out when their studies are misused by others why should the public support them?
13-03-2017 22:53
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Wake wrote: Science is not about politics and if scientists are not willing to speak out when their studies are misused by others why should the public support them? So why are YOU parroting junkscience conspiracy blogs that misrepresent and misuse studies? For example, you blindly parroted a blog that misrepresented and misused the Caillon et al 2003 paper when you repeated a false claim that "CO2 lags temperature by 800 years". You even reject the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect. How did you become so delusional?

14-03-2017 01:33
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Ceist wrote: Wake wrote: Science is not about politics and if scientists are not willing to speak out when their studies are misused by others why should the public support them? So why are YOU parroting junkscience conspiracy blogs that misrepresent and misuse studies? For example, you blindly parroted a blog that misrepresented and misused the Caillon et al 2003 paper when you repeated a false claim that "CO2 lags temperature by 800 years". You even reject the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect. How did you become so delusional? Again from you we get a rant obviously based upon your politics rather than your understanding. "Junkscience" is the sort of term that all True Believers use to try to silence opposition. And your position is why this entire study will soon be totally defunded by the government. http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/energy/_Media/climatemodel.png If you prefer to show CO2 leading temperature then explain this paper. But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg Distinctly shows this delay between temperature and CO2 and this is AFTER corrections for the later arrival of CO2 than temperature changes. And the changes in CO2 just happens to occur at approximately 800 years since the last warm period. You have also denied that you could get both weather and CO2 content records from dendrochronology despite that is part of what an entire study of science is. These sorts of records are also geologically available in several areas from the types of rock formations. But perhaps you better stick with calling a site that quotes these kinds of papers as "junkscience" because that fits your political philosophy.
14-03-2017 03:02
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Wake wrote:... the sort of term that all True Believers.... Meanwhile: The solar TSI has been languid for many decades & low for 10 years (including a 3+year low setting a 100 year record). Yet, 385+ straight months of temperatures have past, all over the 20th century average. The last 3 years have been successively the hottest years ever recorded. Presently, Arctic sea ice extent has been below 14 million square kilometers, ~ 1.5 million square kilometers LESS than the 1980's. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 9,600 cubic kilometers LESS than that of the 1980's. This is an equivalent cube of ice, 21.2 kilometers by 21.2 kilometers by 68,000 feet high, the energy needed to melt it being 30 times the energy consumption of the U.S. All this, while the sun's HEAT.... is low. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=95V9E%2bjf&id=4FC0BEEDAF541FE3EDF1A01694FDEE4CCC8A3E34&q=Arctic+Sea+Ice+Volume+Graph+feb+2017&simid=608038143506452087&selectedIndex=9&ajaxhist=0
14-03-2017 12:38
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Wake wrote: Ceist wrote: Wake wrote: Science is not about politics and if scientists are not willing to speak out when their studies are misused by others why should the public support them? So why are YOU parroting junkscience conspiracy blogs that misrepresent and misuse studies? For example, you blindly parroted a blog that misrepresented and misused the Caillon et al 2003 paper when you repeated a false claim that "CO2 lags temperature by 800 years". You even reject the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect. How did you become so delusional? Again from you we get a rant obviously based upon your politics rather than your understanding. "Junkscience" is the sort of term that all True Believers use to try to silence opposition. And your position is why this entire study will soon be totally defunded by the government. http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/energy/_Media/climatemodel.png If you prefer to show CO2 leading temperature then explain this paper. But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg Distinctly shows this delay between temperature and CO2 and this is AFTER corrections for the later arrival of CO2 than temperature changes. And the changes in CO2 just happens to occur at approximately 800 years since the last warm period. You have also denied that you could get both weather and CO2 content records from dendrochronology despite that is part of what an entire study of science is. These sorts of records are also geologically available in several areas from the types of rock formations. But perhaps you better stick with calling a site that quotes these kinds of papers as "junkscience" because that fits your political philosophy. LOL! You really are a blithering idiot. You haven't even read the Petit et al 1999 paper. You didn't even link to the paper. itself. Just a graphic on wikpedia which isn't even from the paper. Here's the citation, go find the paper yourself this time. Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N. I., Barnola, J. M., Basile, I., ... & Delmotte, M. (1999). Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399(6735), 429-436. Just like you didn't bother to read the Caillon 2003 paper. Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J. P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J. M., Kang, J., & Lipenkov, V. Y. (2003). Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, 299(5613), 1728-1731. Both of which your conspiracy blogs misrepresented. They rely on the fact that glazed-eyed scientifically illiterate conspiracy-addled sheep like you won't actually READ the papers. I'd ask you to try to explain these quotes from the Petit et al 1999 paper, but I know you won't bother to even read it. You obviously desperately need to believe what your junkscience conspiracy blogs misrepresent about them to maintain your ideological/political worldview and can't cope with facts. "There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 (refs 5, 9). This discovery suggests that greenhouse gases are important as amplifiers of the initial orbital forcing and may have significantly contributed to the glacial–interglacial changes. The Vostok ice cores were also used to infer an empirical estimate of the sensitivity of global climate to future anthropogenic increases of greenhouse gas concentrations" and "They suggest the lead of Antarctic air temperature, and of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, with respect to global ice volume and Greenland air-temperature changes during glacial terminations" and "The extension of the greenhouse-gas record shows that present day levels of CO2 and CH4 (,360 p.p.m.v. and ,1,700 p.p.b.v., respectively) are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr" and "The overall correlation between our CO2 and CH4 records and the Antarctic isotopic temperature is remarkable . This high correlation indicates that CO2 and CH4 may have contributed to the glacial–interglacial changes over this entire period by amplifying the orbital forcing along with albedo, and possibly other changes." "Finally, CO2 and CH4 concentrations are strongly correlated with Antarctic temperatures; this is because, overall, our results support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the glacial–interglacial change. This correlation, together with the uniquely elevated concentrations of these gases today, is of relevance with respect to the continuing debate on the future of Earth's climate" What's obvious is that you can only mindlessly parrot the "CO2 lags temperature by 800 years, therefore CO2 can't cause temperature rise" ridiculously silly myth and the misrepresentations of two papers specifically named - Caillon et al 2003 and Petit et al 1999 (and lied about) by your favourite conspiracy blogs. You are not only completely illiterate on the physics, you are obviously completely unaware of all the literature on ice-cores and other paleo proxies and obviously incapable of doing even a cursory search of the literature. There are thousands of papers which contradict your idiotic ignorant pseudoscience claims - which you don't even know about, because your non-scientist conspiracy bloggers haven't mentioned them. Edited on 14-03-2017 13:15
14-03-2017 12:58
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Mr Comatose (aka Wake), I challenge you to cite and quote directly from ANY published paper that supports your ridiculous claims. The published papers themselves. Not parroting what some non-scientist conspiracy blogger claims about them. You completely ignored the Shakun et al 2012 paper (using 80 global proxies) I provided for you. Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., He, F., Marcott, S. A., Mix, A. C., Liu, Z., ... & Bard, E. (2012). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), 49-54. Here's a copy AGAIN: http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf "A comparison of the global temperature stack with Antarctic temperature provides further support for this relative timing, in showing that although the structure of the global stack is similar to the pattern of Antarctic temperature change, it lags Antarctica by several centuries to a millennium throughout most of the deglaciation (Fig. 2a). Thus, the small apparent lead of Antarctic temperature over CO2 in the icecore records does not apply to global temperature" Edited on 14-03-2017 13:21
14-03-2017 18:18
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: And your position is why this entire study will soon be totally defunded by the governmet(sic). We know!!! "Don'T rump" & all the trailing (but agreeing re-pubic-lick-un pukes) are & will defund science & medical aid programs to poor, aged & ill Americans, while transferring the money saved to tax cuts for billionaires who lust for more extra & unearned billions of dollars. Classic example of rich get richer on the backs of the poor, ill, & aged. Edited on 14-03-2017 19:05

Join the debate Bend over and say "Ahhh":