Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You have only stated symptoms. They do not explain the cause.

Hey Evangelical, you got one right!

And you'll be happy to know our new puppy is an aussie!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hey Evangelical, you got one right!

And you'll be happy to know our new puppy is an aussie!

No, he didn't. The first point I mentioned was the increase in CO2 levels to over 400ppm, the first time we have been above 300 ppm in the last 400,000 years. That is clearly the result of the industrial revolution and it is the inferred cause of climate change.

All of the "symptoms" confirm the diagnosis. The cause is the burning fossil fuel, the burning of the rain forest, and the huge herds of cows and pigs.

I saw Al Gore's sequel and thought it was very interesting, though certainly not going to appeal to the masses. He begins with various senators and congressmen ridiculing the first movie and talking about the exaggeration and hyperbole. They were especially outraged at a projection that he made in the movie that with sea level rise the World Trade Center would be flooded. Then after letting us hear their ridicule he then cuts to news footage of the World Trade Center being flooded during hurricane Sandy.

After that he cuts to a Senate hearing where one Senator was literally spitting angry at him, asking him questions, but as he would answer just cutting him off and being a jerk. Eventually the chairman had to step in and tell them that they cannot ask a question unless they will give the witness a minute to answer.

He then cuts to a visit he took to Greenland. He goes on the ice and meets with the scientists on the ice who have been there since 2001. That is a very big contrast. On the one hand you have those screaming every insult and ridicule they can without the slightest evidence, never visiting the scientists, never wanting to hear from them.

Perhaps the most striking visual to me, which most viewers would miss, was the ladder he had to climb to get into the camp on Greenland. It isn't clear why they would build this camp ten feet in the air and then use an aluminum ladder to get up into it. But later you see a picture of the camp the year before. It was built on the ice. However, they put in posts deep into the ice to prevent the camp from falling into a crevasse, etc. The reason you have to climb up 10 feet is because that is how far the ice has melted in the last year.

However, the striking picture to most people is that of fish swimming across the roads in Miami Florida. Apparently this is a common occurrence that happens during high tide.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I saw Al Gore's sequel and thought it was very interesting, though certainly not going to appeal to the masses. He begins with various senators and congressmen ridiculing the first movie and talking about the exaggeration and hyperbole. They were especially outraged at a projection that he made in the movie that with sea level rise the World Trade Center would be flooded. Then after letting us hear their ridicule he then cuts to news footage of the World Trade Center being flooded during hurricane Sandy.

Climate Expert James Hansen:
New York Will Have Vanished Underwater by Midnight!

[Evangelical]

Researchers have found that climate change models have poor long term forecast accuracy. They also do no better than random walk. See here..

http://www.thegwpf.com/ross-mckitric...-reality-test/

It has been shown that physics and climatology adds little. Government policy on climate change is based on models that are outperformed by random walk.

This means that the optimum way to address climate change is to toss a coin and go with the result rather than take some policy based on fitting models to data which gives a result worse than 50%

ZNP seems a true believer in the power of science to predict the future just as economists are believers in the ability to forecast markets. Just as we can't accurately forecast markets we cannot accuratey forecast climate.

Just as investors lose thousands listening to the experts who claim they can predict the future by drawing a trend ...those who claim they can forecast climate are selling a lie.
It is the human way to see patterns in data which arent really there. It fools people in finance and fools people in science too. Most of all it fools the general public.

The optimum way to address climate change is not to look at the weather going up because of some ficticious trend line in the data over a random walk and then panic and implement costly policies that destroy industries. That gives a result less than 50 percent success.

Scientists don't like simple random models because their careers are built on their knowledge being valued. A model without physics puts many of them out of a job with no papers to publish. They need to be seen as valued by governments. No scientist is going to tell a government that they only need to toss a coin.

ZNPs detailed and thorough post of all the factors remind me of a financial advisor explaining all the reasons why the company stock price went up or down. But they are no better at predicting it than chance.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Researchers have found that climate change models have poor long term forecast accuracy. They also do no better than random walk. See here..

http://www.thegwpf.com/ross-mckitric...-reality-test/

It has been shown that physics and climatology adds little. Government policy on climate change is based on models that are outperformed by random walk.

This means that the optimum way to address climate change is to toss a coin and go with the result rather than take some policy based on fitting models to data which gives a result worse than 50%

ZNP seems a true believer in the power of science to predict the future just as economists are believers in the ability to forecast markets. Just as we can't accurately forecast markets we cannot accuratey forecast climate.

Just as investors lose thousands listening to the experts who claim they can predict the future by drawing a trend ...those who claim they can forecast climate are selling a lie.
It is the human way to see patterns in data which arent really there. It fools people in finance and fools people in science too. Most of all it fools the general public.

The optimum way to address climate change is not to look at the weather going up because of some ficticious trend line in the data over a random walk and then panic and implement costly policies that destroy industries. That gives a result less than 50 percent success.

Scientists don't like simple random models because their careers are built on their knowledge being valued. A model without physics puts many of them out of a job with no papers to publish. They need to be seen as valued by governments. No scientist is going to tell a government that they only need to toss a coin.

ZNPs detailed and thorough post of all the factors remind me of a financial advisor explaining all the reasons why the company stock price went up or down. But they are no better at predicting it than chance.

Great quote! First you choose an op ed, great example of the total lack of any scientific integrity on the climate change deniers. Second, the argument in the op ed is not that climate change models are doing a poor job of predicting the future but rather when you look at specific regions and ask climatologists questions outside of their expertise like "spread of invasive species".

Evangelical, great example of the total lack of integrity concerning those that deny the science.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Climate Expert James Hansen:
New York Will Have Vanished Underwater by Midnight!

Great example of fake news. James Hansen has published a lot of information, research, and op ed pieces concerning climate change. You could have quoted anything that he published, I assume this attack piece couldn't find a single thing, therefore they had to manufacture this fake news based on total hearsay. Good job! Now I understand what you mean by fake news.

This is what James Hansen is actually quoted as saying in a paper he published:

Without a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the global sea level is likely to increase “several meters over a timescale of 50 to 150 years”, the paper states, warning that the Earth’s oceans were six to nine meters higher during the Eemian period – an interglacial phase about 120,000 years ago that was less than 1C warmer than it is today. (https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ange-scientist)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great example of fake news.

You gotta love fake news. I hear it all the time.

The New York Times said God was dead.

NY city liberals have been ingesting this stuff for years.

Now you join Al Gore's Climate Cult and you want the truth?

Happy New Year!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You gotta love fake news. I hear it all the time.

The New York Times said God was dead.

NY city liberals have been ingesting this stuff for years.

Now you join Al Gore's Climate Cult and you want the truth?

Happy New Year!

8 And the fourth poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given unto [i]it to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat: and they blasphemed the name of God who hath the power over these plagues; and they repented not to give him glory.

10 And the fifth poured out his bowl upon the throne of the beast; and his kingdom was darkened; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, 11 and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they repented not of their works.

Please explain what they were supposed to repent of? How are these judgments righteous response to the works that they did not repent of?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

8 And the fourth poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given unto [i]it to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat: and they blasphemed the name of God who hath the power over these plagues; and they repented not to give him glory.

10 And the fifth poured out his bowl upon the throne of the beast; and his kingdom was darkened; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, 11 and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they repented not of their works.

Please explain what they were supposed to repent of? How are these judgments righteous response to the works that they did not repent of?

They openly blasphemed the name of God.

By this time the age of grace has ended. Mankind has been warned to fear God. They refused to heed his warnings. Eventually they will learn that global warning has more to do with their sins than with their global footprint.