Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, novacova said:

Scattered throughout this thread by those who refuse to objectify till through the data that is readily available. I must mind you, there are some good unbiased neutral links that were provided by another poster here that you purposely and willfully ignore. The ipcc is a complete scam, corrupt cabal, the computer model data is certainly cherry picked, out of hundreds of conflicting data points that are dismissed. 
 

Here is another denier scientist that you all can dismiss and cancel…

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/clauser/interview/
 

https://www.johnclauser.com/
 

https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate-science-has-metastasized-into-massive-shock-journalistic-pseudoscience/

 

and yes he was dismissed by his peers during his early research of those he eventually “debunked”.

This is your idea of evidence. One Nobel-Prize winning scientist? Not actually a climatologist. You think this is how science gets corroborated or not?

[Bkk Brian]

14 minutes ago, novacova said:

Good grief, stuck chasing the tail of oneself. The link has nothing to do with any of the individuals you mentioned. It was compiled by Tony Thomas who you so desperately want to avoid. So enough of the silly “fact checkers” and the ipcc and news links that all are politically bent. The human caused climate narrative has not been proven or settled beyond theory convoluted with hypotheses and politics. So until the theory has provided ample unbiased evidence that humans caused climate change, there is no need to prove that humans have not caused climate change. The burden is on the real deniers “climate change activists”

Refer to my original response:

 

"In addition, if you check back a few pages in this topic, "Climategate" has already been discussed and debunked. So I can only assume you've also not checked basic research even on this forum."

[Bkk Brian]

34 minutes ago, novacova said:

Scattered throughout this thread by those who refuse to objectify till through the data that is readily available. I must mind you, there are some good unbiased neutral links that were provided by another poster here that you purposely and willfully ignore. The ipcc is a complete scam, corrupt cabal, the computer model data is certainly cherry picked, out of hundreds of conflicting data points that are dismissed. 
 

Here is another denier scientist that you all can dismiss and cancel…

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/clauser/interview/
 

https://www.johnclauser.com/
 

https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate-science-has-metastasized-into-massive-shock-journalistic-pseudoscience/

 

and yes he was dismissed by his peers during his early research of those he eventually “debunked”.

Since when does John Francis Clauser a theoretical and experimental physicist known for contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics, make him a climate scientist with published peer reviewed works?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Since when does John Francis Clauser a theoretical and experimental physicist known for contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics, make him a climate scientist with published peer reviewed works?

And the thing is, as far as I can find, he's never actually committed to writing any kind of fact based challenge to ACC.

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, novacova said:

Scattered throughout this thread by those who refuse to objectify till through the data that is readily available. I must mind you, there are some good unbiased neutral links that were provided by another poster here that you purposely and willfully ignore. The ipcc is a complete scam, corrupt cabal, the computer model data is certainly cherry picked, out of hundreds of conflicting data points that are dismissed. 
 

Here is another denier scientist that you all can dismiss and cancel…

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/clauser/interview/
 

https://www.johnclauser.com/
 

https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate-science-has-metastasized-into-massive-shock-journalistic-pseudoscience/

 

and yes he was dismissed by his peers during his early research of those he eventually “debunked”.

That's called "Argument by Authority", but this particular Authority has zero peer reviewed research on climate.

 

What would be effective would be peer reviewed papers debunking Climate Change. 

[novacova]

On 8/27/2023 at 1:15 PM, Bkk Brian said:

Refer to my original response:

 

"In addition, if you check back a few pages in this topic, "Climategate" has already been discussed and debunked. So I can only assume you've also not checked basic research even on this forum."

No it has not been “debunked” dismissed is the correct terminology. Differentiating between the two isn’t difficult.

[novacova]

20 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

That's called "Argument by Authority",

What authority? The ipcc? The authority of ambiguous computer models? Complete joke.

“Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer; art is everything else.” – Donald E. Knuth

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, novacova said:

No it has not been “debunked” dismissed is the correct terminology. Differentiating between the two isn’t difficult.

I knew you were too lazy to look back, so saved you some time:

 

HERE & HERE

[Danderman123]

12 minutes ago, novacova said:

What authority? The ipcc? The authority of ambiguous computer models? Complete joke.

“Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer; art is everything else.” – Donald E. Knuth

My argument is not Argument by Authority. It's based on the data.

 

Unlike your argument, which is Argument by Crank.

[novacova]

On 8/27/2023 at 1:18 PM, Bkk Brian said:

Since when does John Francis Clauser a theoretical and experimental physicist known for contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics, make him a climate scientist with published peer reviewed works?

I’d most certainly trust an individual who relies on empirical theoretical observation that certainly has the credentials and has read the ipcc bs.

But you’ choose to negate anything other then what the ipcc disseminates. 
 

“Now I am not alone in observing the dangerous proliferation of pseudoscience. Recently, The Nobel Foundation has formed a new panel to address the issue called the International Panel on Information Environment. They plan to model it after the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.
I think personally that they are making a big mistake in that effort because in my opinion the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation. What I’m about to recommend is in furtherance of that, of the aims of that panel….

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

J.F. Clauser 

https://clintel.org/nobel-prize-winner-dr-john-f-clauser-signs-the-clintel-world-climate-declaration/

Rationality, siding on empirical observations is paramount to any good science. It’s reductive rational in the rhetorical architecture of myth, which misleads to blind conformity and metastasize into madness and hysterics. 

 

Here’s the antidote for the dystopian midevil pitch fork mob

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”-

Galileo Galilei

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, novacova said:

I’d most certainly trust an individual who relies on empirical theoretical observation that certainly has the credentials and has read the ipcc bs.

But you’ choose to negate anything other then what the ipcc disseminates. 
 

“Now I am not alone in observing the dangerous proliferation of pseudoscience. Recently, The Nobel Foundation has formed a new panel to address the issue called the International Panel on Information Environment. They plan to model it after the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.
I think personally that they are making a big mistake in that effort because in my opinion the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation. What I’m about to recommend is in furtherance of that, of the aims of that panel….

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

J.F. Clauser 

https://clintel.org/nobel-prize-winner-dr-john-f-clauser-signs-the-clintel-world-climate-declaration/

Rationality, siding on empirical observations is paramount to any good science. It’s reductive rational in the rhetorical architecture of myth, which misleads to blind conformity and metastasize into madness and hysterics. 

 

Here’s the antidote for the dystopian midevil pitch fork mob

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”-

Galileo Galilei

 

 

 

Here’s the antidote for the dystopian midevil pitch fork mob

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”-

Galileo Galilei

 

More poppy cock and yes I can see who you trust.

 

I stick with evidence that includes the physical evidence of the reports.

[novacova]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

My argument is not Argument by Authority. It's based on the data.

 

Unlike your argument, which is Argument by Crank.

The crank you argue is flawed computer models. 

 

21 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I knew you were too lazy to look back, so saved you some time:

 

HERE & HERE

I’ve read through, I’ve been looking at this junk for decades. You’ are stuck in an ideological bubble. Mannequins cannot be educated or reasoned with. I’ll leave you the circular tail chasing of the unobserved empirical lacking hypothetical science of your choice. Wish you the best  and good luck ????

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, novacova said:

The crank you argue is flawed computer models. 

 

I’ve read through, I’ve been looking at this junk for decades. You’ are stuck in an ideological bubble. Mannequins cannot be educated or reasoned with. I’ll leave you the circular tail chasing of the unobserved empirical lacking hypothetical science of your choice. Wish you the best  and good luck ????

I’ve been looking at this junk for decades.

 

Yes I can see that.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, novacova said:

The crank you argue is flawed computer models. 

 

I’ve read through, I’ve been looking at this junk for decades. You’ are stuck in an ideological bubble. Mannequins cannot be educated or reasoned with. I’ll leave you the circular tail chasing of the unobserved empirical lacking hypothetical science of your choice. Wish you the best  and good luck ????

You are talking gibberish.

 

Tell you what. Forget the computer models.

 

Tell me why the Stratosphere is cooling.

 

 

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, novacova said:

I’d most certainly trust an individual who relies on empirical theoretical observation that certainly has the credentials and has read the ipcc bs.

But you’ choose to negate anything other then what the ipcc disseminates. 
 

“Now I am not alone in observing the dangerous proliferation of pseudoscience. Recently, The Nobel Foundation has formed a new panel to address the issue called the International Panel on Information Environment. They plan to model it after the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.
I think personally that they are making a big mistake in that effort because in my opinion the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation. What I’m about to recommend is in furtherance of that, of the aims of that panel….

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

J.F. Clauser 

https://clintel.org/nobel-prize-winner-dr-john-f-clauser-signs-the-clintel-world-climate-declaration/

Rationality, siding on empirical observations is paramount to any good science. It’s reductive rational in the rhetorical architecture of myth, which misleads to blind conformity and metastasize into madness and hysterics. 

 

Here’s the antidote for the dystopian midevil pitch fork mob

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”-

Galileo Galilei

 

 

 

There is zero data in your post that refutes the Global Warming hypothesis.

[Danderman123]

On 8/27/2023 at 1:07 PM, placeholder said:

This is your idea of evidence. One Nobel-Prize winning scientist? Not actually a climatologist. You think this is how science gets corroborated or not?

For some people, this is the equivalent of a debate between fan clubs of different pop stars. They can't grasp that data determines what is correct.

 

The Global Warming hypothesis is the best explanation for the available data.

 

"My scientist is smarter than your scientist" explains nothing.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, novacova said:

What authority? The ipcc? The authority of ambiguous computer models? Complete joke.

“Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer; art is everything else.” – Donald E. Knuth

The Global Warming hypothesis is the best explanation of the available data.

 

If you disagree, what's a better explanation?

[scottiejohn]

51 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The Global Warming hypothesis is the best explanation of the available data.

 

If you disagree, what's a better explanation?

Possibly because it is just all a bloody great hoax!

[gamb00ler]

24 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Possibly because it is just all a bloody great hoax!

A great lighter than air response!

[Danderman123]

28 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Possibly because it is just all a bloody great hoax!

If Global Warming is not real, what is a better explanation for the Troposphere warming while the Stratosphere is cooling?

 

If you can't answer, that's an indication that you simply have a political agenda and you don't really care about Global Warming is real or not.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

Possibly because it is just all a bloody great hoax!

A huge international conspiracy involving tens of thousands of researchers. I wish I could say that who in the world could believe such nonsense? Now I know.

[0james0]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

If Global Warming is not real, what is a better explanation for the Troposphere warming while the Stratosphere is cooling?

I posted a link explaining, but you refuse to read and educate yourself. The preferred route is not to read but gripe in disagreement. Weird…

[0james0]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

A huge international conspiracy involving tens of thousands of researchers. I wish I could say that who in the world could believe such nonsense? Now I know.

Mass erroneous mindset is nothing new 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

Mass erroneous mindset is nothing new 

Really? In scientific research. Tens of thousands of studies that depend on the findings of previous studies are somehow going to work if those previous studies are false? The only way that works is if there is a deliberate conspiracy. Which is not to be confused with an erroneous belief.

[0james0]

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The Global Warming hypothesis is the best explanation of the available data.

 

If you disagree, what's a better explanation?

The discussion is about human caused climate change vs natural and the methods used to make the measurements. Solid proven methods such as empirical observations vs computer models that have large ambiguities in the data flow. I have read what John Clauser has to say about how clouds have a large influence on climate and its mostly left out the equation of the computer models along with other factors and there’s a lot of influences on climate. Also including, believe it or not celestial objects, decaying material on land and in h2o sources, methane released from the ocean, etc… So the whole package needs to go through an objective observation theory before it can be reliable. It has yet to have been develop. The computer models can’t even get known observational data correctly, the data spikes are all over the map. And what other posters are pointing out is the reliability of IPCC and the handling of the data. And John Clauser may not have (yet) written or co-authored white paper on the matter it doesn’t mean that he can’t read the data and fully comprehend what it is in the data. I mean really-take a look at his impressive achievements-literally mind blowing and to put that at risk for a mere notion would be purely stupid, I don’t think he is stupid. I believe John Clauser has more insight on what is going on with organizations like the IPCC more than most are willing to admit, his work has shown to be reliable and if he is making waves then it’s worth paying attention to. So we have this guy with an impressive background standing up and criticizing the IPCC for shelling out conceptual hypotheses based on ideas and concepts fed into computer models measured by people in an office as opposed to real world empirical observation measurements. Yeah he’s going against the grain and annoying a lot of people, that is what science tends to do and that fact is written in history. There’s no disagreement that climate change is in progress, the disagreements are within what is the cause, is there a single cause and of what extent and what course and what the trajectories are. 1.1c increase in temperature over a 100+ years (even that has errors but mitigated) is correlated with human activities, not proven but correlated is the hypothesis. Now some here scream and yell “PROVE IT!!” “Give me a link!!” Prove what? That the IPCC should not be a source of information? That as of yet there is no computer model that is reliable to predict the future and evidently fails to provide an accurate report of known historical trends? Those links have been posted but no one here has the fortitude to do some reading. As I mentioned before-approaching with a predisposition will definitely fail any insight. The problem with science in this day and age is that academically predisposed ideas are interjected in the curriculum and that is where errors occur - actually not this day and age—oh no wait it’s always been that way-the taboo is there will always be independent thinkers that discover things about nature-discoveries that go against the norm. History has shown us that one countless times hasn’t it? But there’s no scene in arguing with a congregated heap that refuses to study objections-

[0james0]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Really? In scientific research. Tens of thousands of studies that depend on the findings of previous studies are somehow going to work if those previous studies are false? The only way that works is if there is a deliberate conspiracy. Which is not to be confused with an erroneous belief.

Yes, really. I suggest go do some serious reading and comprehension of what it is that you are trying to convey here because you have major gaps, your errors begin having faith in the IPCC, the organization you have loving cited so diligently here.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

The discussion is about human caused climate change vs natural and the methods used to make the measurements. Solid proven methods such as empirical observations vs computer models that have large ambiguities in the data flow. I have read what John Clauser has to say about how clouds have a large influence on climate and its mostly left out the equation of the computer models along with other factors and there’s a lot of influences on climate. Also including, believe it or not celestial objects, decaying material on land and in h2o sources, methane released from the ocean, etc… So the whole package needs to go through an objective observation theory before it can be reliable. It has yet to have been develop. The computer models can’t even get known observational data correctly, the data spikes are all over the map. And what other posters are pointing out is the reliability of IPCC and the handling of the data. And John Clauser may not have (yet) written or co-authored white paper on the matter it doesn’t mean that he can’t read the data and fully comprehend what it is in the data. I mean really-take a look at his impressive achievements-literally mind blowing and to put that at risk for a mere notion would be purely stupid, I don’t think he is stupid. I believe John Clauser has more insight on what is going on with organizations like the IPCC more than most are willing to admit, his work has shown to be reliable and if he is making waves then it’s worth paying attention to. So we have this guy with an impressive background standing up and criticizing the IPCC for shelling out conceptual hypotheses based on ideas and concepts fed into computer models measured by people in an office as opposed to real world empirical observation measurements. Yeah he’s going against the grain and annoying a lot of people, that is what science tends to do and that fact is written in history. There’s no disagreement that climate change is in progress, the disagreements are within what is the cause, is there a single cause and of what extent and what course and what the trajectories are. 1.1c increase in temperature over a 100+ years (even that has errors but mitigated) is correlated with human activities, not proven but correlated is the hypothesis. Now some here scream and yell “PROVE IT!!” “Give me a link!!” Prove what? That the IPCC should not be a source of information? That as of yet there is no computer model that is reliable to predict the future and evidently fails to provide an accurate report of known historical trends? Those links have been posted but no one here has the fortitude to do some reading. As I mentioned before-approaching with a predisposition will definitely fail any insight. The problem with science in this day and age is that academically predisposed ideas are interjected in the curriculum and that is where errors occur - actually not this day and age—oh no wait it’s always been that way-the taboo is there will always be independent thinkers that discover things about nature-discoveries that go against the norm. History has shown us that one countless times hasn’t it? But there’s no scene in arguing with a congregated heap that refuses to study objections-

The fact is that the models have predicted the outcome remarkably well. So all this other stuff is just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

"How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted," says the study's lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley...

Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters.

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, 0james0 said:

Yes, really. I suggest go do some serious reading and comprehension of what it is that you are trying to convey here because you have major gaps, your errors begin having faith in the IPCC, the organization you have loving cited so diligently here.

Once again, when you have no specific rebuttal, you resort to unsubstantiated allegations. You previously made a silly comment comparing scientific research to widely shared erroneous beliefs. It doesn't matter what the scientists allegedly believe. If the research rests on earlier research and comes up with results that correspond to reality, that's enough.

Let the critics come up with a theory that has better predictive power. So far, they've failed.

[0james0]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The fact is that the models have predicted the outcome remarkably well. So all this other stuff is just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

"How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted," says the study's lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley...

Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters.

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

No one is interested in repeating themselves in a perpetual redundancy. You can go back and read the previous link. 
 

those that scream the loudest are always in error 

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Once again, when you have no specific rebuttal, you resort to unsubstantiated allegations. You previously made a silly comment comparing scientific research to widely shared erroneous beliefs. It doesn't matter what the scientists allegedly believe. If the research rests on earlier research and comes up with results that correspond to reality, that's enough.

Let the critics come up with a theory that has better predictive power. So far, they've failed.

[placeholder]

Just now, 0james0 said:

No one is interested in repeating themselves in a perpetual redundancy. You can go back and read the previous link. 
 

those that scream the loudest are always in error 

Your comments have no answer for the fact that the predictions have been remarkably accurate. Nor, that no one has come up with an explanation that actually predicts as well as does the current theory.