what's it like to be a climate change denier in 2016?

8/31/2016 12:46:01 PM

I imagine it's been pretty bad for them since the Kochs paid a skeptic for a study that definitively concluded climate change was a thing and humans caused it. 4 years ago.

[Edited on August 31, 2016 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2016 1:03:38 PM

skeptics keep quiet during the summer, but they'll be back out to show how they totally misunderstand the problem when we have our first winter storm of the season

8/31/2016 1:06:07 PM

8/31/2016 1:19:33 PM

[Edited on August 31, 2016 at 1:35 PM. Reason : just read through that guys wiki page. grade A dick]

8/31/2016 1:31:40 PM

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Look at all the Antartic Ice deniers ITT.

8/31/2016 2:32:55 PM

Quote :

"The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss. “The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said."

8/31/2016 2:39:40 PM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/environmental-concerns-cows-eating-seaweed/7946630?pfmredir=sm

Ever eaten a cow on seaweeeeeed maaaaan?

10/19/2016 4:32:55 PM

If that scales up, then it would be huge. Thanks Science.

10/19/2016 5:16:15 PM

PSA: Go watch Before the Flood. Aired tonight on National Geographic.

For the life of me I do not get people that deny Climate Change. Like why would you be against saving the Earth and doing things to help our atmosphere?

10/30/2016 11:35:20 PM

Singles Day, the "Black Friday" for Alibaba, will generate an estimated 1 billion boxes. It will take over 2 million trees to create said boxes.

I've never really been a huge denier of global warming - I'm more in the camp of "it's cyclic but we're definitely adding to it." But it is hard for me to take our efforts as a country seriously when there are other countries doing just as much, if not more harm, to our planet.

I'm also not saying that we're better - I'm sure Black Friday racks up similar totals.

Let's just cancel Black Friday and Singles day altogether.

11/14/2016 9:12:20 PM

Quote :

"PSA: Go watch Before the Flood. Aired tonight on National Geographic."

lol, sure why not watch a biased "documentary". After all it has been around 10 years since the shit show that was An Inconvenient Truth.

11/15/2016 9:02:08 AM

Seeing an "independent paper" (read: probably not in a journal) from August making the rounds on the anti-AGW blogs. Looking for rebuttals. Or is it just a "we kept it out of the journals, so we won't even comment on it because we're gate-keeping."

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf

12/3/2016 2:16:01 PM

Daily reminder that the Koch Brothers funded a climate change denying scientist to do a research project disproving AGW. He ended up concluding that yes, the earth is warming and humans are the cause. Yet, 5 years later, people are still pretending that it isn't a thing. Woops!

^lol of course a non-peer reviewed paper is "making the round" of the conspiracy theory web. Kooks and crackpots are the only thing they have on their side.

[Edited on December 3, 2016 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2016 2:27:02 PM

^^

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/barmy-bloopers-from-john-christy-and-co.html?m=1

The tldr is they are doing some funky stuff when they calculate "cumulative MEI." The link above is more precise in discussing it (some parts which are over my head) but you can tell something is up when you look at figure VI-1 in their article. It almost looks like when they calc the "cumulative MEI" it's a running average of annual MEI (although according to the link above they ACTUALLY used biannual MEI). Notice how cumulative MEI is higher in the years between 1999-2015 even though Annual MEI peaks much more frequently and higher between the years 1976-1998 (because that time period is making up for the negative peaks between 1950-1976).

So adjustments to the temperature record would decrease the 1999-2015 by too much and would decrease (and even increase temperatures during the early part of the time period) temperatures between 1976 and 1998 by too little.

12/3/2016 5:01:54 PM

The U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology retweeted a Breibart article

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

12/7/2016 12:16:06 PM

^

^^, ^^^^

This is also perfect for this convo:



http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67

They are grouping years based on the ENSO effect and each group is still showing the expected warming trend. No need to come up with some new cumulative metric as in that unpublished paper. Also note this is Berkeley Earth data, which typically means temperature stations aren't "adjusted" (due to heat island, screwed up instruments, etc) but instead are statistically "smoothed" according to nearby stations (which was huge in convincing me that climate change is very real).

12/8/2016 11:25:35 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/04/noaa-challenged-the-global-warming-pause-now-new-research-says-the-agency-was-right/?utm_term=.784cbb4cd9c6

Every time scientist go back and revise temperature datasets, they keep finding that their original adjustments were too conservative, which is to be expected considering how science operates.

I'm really fascinated at thinking how history will remember climate science and scientist. Science should be sober and cold, at the same time a significant part of this country only seems to respond to hysterical screaming or chest beating.

1/4/2017 3:09:32 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/18/510405739/2016-was-the-hottest-year-yet-scientists-declare

1/18/2017 11:31:43 AM

Hottest year in satellite era by 0.02°C. Of course the margin of error is +/- 0.10°C.

[Edited on January 18, 2017 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2017 3:59:30 PM

what will it take for you to change your mind?

1/18/2017 5:13:42 PM

^^can you link to where you got 0.1C from? I've only been able to find the C/decade range of uncertainty.

[Edited on January 18, 2017 at 6:21 PM. Reason : For UAH satellite data.]

1/18/2017 6:18:35 PM

It is much worse at the Arctic, as there the effect is more than 2-fold

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2016

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/13/505434080/scientists-report-the-arctic-is-melting-even-more-rapidly

Just watch the video in either link

1/18/2017 6:28:41 PM

^^I'm looking but not having any luck with that. The stated margin of error I quoted was from the blog post where I grabbed that graph.

^^^that's a long list, but for starters:
-When highly inaccurate computer models are stopped being used for policy making decisions and/or referred to as facts/evidence
-When UN IPCC policies aren't thinly veiled attempts at wealth transfer to underdeveloped nations
-When AGW figureheads like Al Gore & Bill Nye stop spreading alarmist propaganda, bad science and false information (if the evidence is so clear cut this is totally unnecessary)
-When dissenting scientists aren't forced out of their positions/have careers hurt for not toeing the in fashion/politically favored stance.
-When the IPCC reports aren't drastically altered when entered into the Summary for Policy Makers
-When AGW believers start to support the advancement and expansion of nuclear power generation. Without this I don't take any policy makers seriously as this is the single biggest thing that could be done, today, to help reduce CO2 emissions.

Everyone knew 2016 would be the hottest due to the strong El Nino. Only someone completely ignorant of global climate current events would have thought otherwise. To claim this is evidence of AGW is mostly ridiculous, unless there's evidence that AGW causes stronger El Ninos of course.

There have actually been some great discussions recently over on Scott Adams' blog:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156040355101/could-a-climate-science-expert-change-your
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155073242136/the-climate-science-challenge
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155142928411/best-arguments-for-and-against-climate-model

1/19/2017 9:31:03 AM

so all your objections are political and not scientific

congratulations, you are part of the problem!

1/19/2017 9:39:54 AM

Climate change is a political issue. This is nothing new.

1/19/2017 9:45:31 AM

The leftist cult of climate change... kill the non-believers! Kill the heathens!

1/19/2017 9:49:21 AM

^^^^can you link to the blog post then?

The only reason I'm making a big deal about it is
A) clicking around "watts up with that" looking for the post fucking spikes my blood pressure more than just about anything on the internet

B) that data is most likely UAH TLT version 6.0, which is still allegedly at the "beta" stage only. Meaning it's still on the review process (though not formally peer reviewed yet, that is allegedly supposed to come later). The only reporting of error I've found is in Spencer/Christy's OG blog post releasing the adjusted data and it was listed as 0.04C/decade. Calculating confidence/error is always complicated as fuck for these types of data sets so I'd like to see how they came up with a 0.1C error




[Edited on January 19, 2017 at 9:56 AM. Reason : ^,^^ is it political or religious? Y'all need to be on the same page for gas lighting to be effectiv]

1/19/2017 9:51:00 AM

Quote :

"Climate change is a political issue. This is nothing new."

how to respond to it is political, the actual science of if it exists should not be

he has political objections to the if it exists part

1/19/2017 10:00:57 AM

Other than his first point (which is a fair objection to any scientific measurement), all of his objections are with the political responses to climate change.

1/19/2017 10:34:12 AM

you're not following me

the dude doesn't believe it scientifically exists because al gore is annoying to him

he is part of the problem

1/19/2017 11:06:22 AM

Quote :

"When AGW figureheads like Al Gore & Bill Nye stop spreading alarmist propaganda, bad science and false information (if the evidence is so clear cut this is totally unnecessary)"

this is absolutely pathetic and telling

1/19/2017 11:40:56 AM

IBT future arguments that Earth is actually cooling, referencing temperature graphs that begin at 2016.

1/19/2017 12:32:38 PM

The temperature isn't warming or cooling, that can be disproven. The climate is CHANGING.

ARE YOU A DENIER? SHAME!!! SHAME!!!!

[Edited on January 19, 2017 at 12:42 PM. Reason : lol]

1/19/2017 12:42:09 PM

1/19/2017 1:05:56 PM

Quote :

"so all your objections are political and not scientific congratulations, you are part of the problem!"

No, that's not it in the least. Apologies for not ranking my bullet points, they weren't organized in any fashion.

Quote :

"-When highly inaccurate computer models are stopped being used for policy making decisions and/or referred to as facts/evidence"

So this is political and not a problem with science? I'm pretty sure on here I've never disputed the changing conditions/temperature of the planet. I've taken issue with the sometimes shady methods of collecting that data, interpreting that data, accuracy of the data, and so forth. Really no point in me digging further into the science of this as I'm sure we've already laid that argument out in this thread 10+ times.

Quote :

"^^^^can you link to the blog post then? The only reason I'm making a big deal about it is A) clicking around "watts up with that" looking for the post fucking spikes my blood pressure more than just about anything on the internet B) that data is most likely UAH TLT version 6.0, which is still allegedly at the "beta" stage only. Meaning it's still on the review process (though not formally peer reviewed yet, that is allegedly supposed to come later). The only reporting of error I've found is in Spencer/Christy's OG blog post releasing the adjusted data and it was listed as 0.04C/decade. Calculating confidence/error is always complicated as fuck for these types of data sets so I'd like to see how they came up with a 0.1C error"

Yeah no problem, though the blog post states the margin of error, doesn't really point a finger in the right direction - which I guess is what you're after. Just gimme a moment to pull it back up.

Here you go, was posted on 1/3
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/2016-edges-1998-as-warmest-year-in-satellite-record-by-0-02c/

[Edited on January 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM. Reason : link]

1/19/2017 1:16:45 PM

Quote :

"this is absolutely pathetic and telling"

It's trolling when Obama tweets about the mythical 97% consensus. It's pathetic when people parrot that stat line without looking into it.

1/19/2017 1:20:22 PM

but guys, al gore!

1/19/2017 1:28:51 PM

The authoritarian left religiously supports a problem in theory that can only be solved by more government control and regulation? No way!

If you are even remotely skeptical of a heavily-politicized theory, you are anti-science

If you religiously believe global warming/cooling/change, you are pro-science

I mean, it's not like the authoritarian left would ever value their marxist ideology over science, right?

[Edited on January 19, 2017 at 1:54 PM. Reason : i]

1/19/2017 1:53:52 PM

1/19/2017 1:55:05 PM

Sorry I insulted your religion.

I forgot, science is all about being skeptical, unless it conflicts with leftist ideology.

1/19/2017 2:09:16 PM

1/19/2017 2:17:38 PM

1/19/2017 2:19:16 PM

I don't get why anyone would be skeptical of the authoritarian left pushing for more authority.

?

1/19/2017 2:30:54 PM

1/19/2017 2:31:53 PM

It's not like there is any pressure in academia or other institutions to fall in line with the leftist ideology...

Don't deny the religion "science"

[Edited on January 19, 2017 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2017 2:37:47 PM

1/19/2017 2:38:23 PM

But guys, a know-nothing famous actor went to a podium and condescendingly told me how the sea level was going to rise by 10 feet if I don't stop driving my truck!

Then he flew back on his private jet to his mansion that is 1 foot above sea level on the coast.

1/20/2017 1:51:19 PM

I know you're really craving attention, but the peole you're seeking that attention from aren't reading your posts.

weirdo.

[Edited on January 20, 2017 at 1:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/20/2017 1:52:53 PM

I don't want attention from you people, none of the remaining posters are even remotely competent at making an argument.

I just like watching them get triggered when they can't respond to something they disagree with.

1/20/2017 2:31:17 PM