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

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

To tie together two threads, Lindzen is one of the best credentialed scientists in the fields of atmospheric physics and climate change, winner of multiple awards and over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers on these topics.

 

Yet the bulk of his Wikipedia entry is given over to insults sent his way by people far less credentialed than Lindzen himself, slanderously calling him, among other things, "not intellectually honest at all.".

 

The legacy media would rather eat rat turds than allow Lindzen on the air to explain his views or, God forbid, debate with anyone.

https://www.desmog.com/2015/03/06/denial-hire-richard-lindzen-cites-debunked-science-defend-willie-soon-wsj/

 

 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, bignok said:

True, Gore would never debate with him. Lindzen would rip him apart.

Whether Lindzen speaking skills or knowledge or both are superior to Gorie's is irrelevant. Public speaking isn't the way science works.

[Rimmer]

An unattributed troll post has been removed also a reply

[placeholder]

 

13 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

To tie together two threads, Lindzen is one of the best credentialed scientists in the fields of atmospheric physics and climate change, winner of multiple awards and over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers on these topics.

 

Yet the bulk of his Wikipedia entry is given over to insults sent his way by people far less credentialed than Lindzen himself, slanderously calling him, among other things, "not intellectually honest at all.".

 

The legacy media would rather eat rat turds than allow Lindzen on the air to explain his views or, God forbid, debate with anyone.

As I noted above, in 2004 offered to bet that global temperate average in 20 years would be lower than it was in 2004. When someone offered to take him up on that bet he punked out by demanding a 50 to 1 payout. I guess it's lucky for him he did punk out. The odds of him winning had he taken that bet don't look good. In other words, Lindzen was dead wrong about global warming.

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, nglodnig said:

More to the point, there is NO RECORD FULL STOP. Oh sorry I forgot about the ice-cores in Nevada and southern Italy

We're so lucky to have all these ice-core experts at hand.  They've got ice-cores from Hell, I bet.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

We're so lucky to have all these ice-core experts at hand.  They've got ice-cores from Hell, I bet.

No doubt.

[Eleftheros]

35 minutes ago, placeholder said:

https://www.desmog.com/2015/03/06/denial-hire-richard-lindzen-cites-debunked-science-defend-willie-soon-wsj/

Ah, so we have one climate zealot complaining about posts from a "far right-wing media outlet" and then another climate zealot quoting as an authority the Desmog blog, which is about as far in the other direction as you can go.

 

Still, I guess it all backs up what the Wall Street Journal said yesterday: Climate Change Obsession is a Real Mental Disorder.

 

Better late than never, I suppose.

 

[bignok]

12 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Ah, so we have one climate zealot complaining about posts from a "far right-wing media outlet" and then another climate zealot quoting as an authority the Desmog blog, which is about as far in the other direction as you can go.

 

Still, I guess it all backs up what the Wall Street Journal said yesterday: Climate Change Obsession is a Real Mental Disorder.

 

Better late than never, I suppose.

 

Better to just put them on ignore. Waste of time explaining science to people who don't understand how the world works.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Ah, so we have one climate zealot complaining about posts from a "far right-wing media outlet" and then another climate zealot quoting as an authority the Desmog blog, which is about as far in the other direction as you can go.

 

Still, I guess it all backs up what the Wall Street Journal said yesterday: Climate Change Obsession is a Real Mental Disorder.

 

Better late than never, I suppose.

 

It's significant that you claim that DeSmog is somehow left wing. Can you point to something that is leftist about it? Where does it get the science wrong? More pertinently, what claims about Lindzen did it get wrong?

 

And more name calling via "alarmism". Why should I pay any attention to the vaporings of Allysia Finley? She also called the temperature record "tenuous". Is she a climatologist? Or even a psychologist?  I guess when the facts are against you, make it emotional instead. 

[Eleftheros]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I guess when the facts are against you, make it emotional instead. 

Well, that's certainly the strategy of the people who are handling Greta Thunberg and organizing her weepy rants at evil capitalism.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Well, that's certainly the strategy of the people who are handling Greta Thunberg and organizing her weepy rants at evil capitalism.

When all else fails, Greta Thunberg is the irrelevant gift that keeps on giving. Whatever the truth is about Greta Thunberg even having handlers or her stance on capitalism, is she a climate scientist? Was she enlisted by the IPCC to contribute to one of its reports?

[Eleftheros]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

When all else fails, Greta Thunberg is the irrelevant gift that keeps on giving. Whatever the truth is about Greta Thunberg even having handlers or her stance on capitalism, is she a climate scientist? Was she enlisted by the IPCC to contribute to one of its reports?

No, she is not a climate scientist, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

So, if we're supposed to take the "climate crisis" seriously, why has this ignorant teenager been made into the global public face of climate change activism, addressing the UN, the UK Parliament, and the EU?

 

Precisely because her handlers agree with the argument you made earlier: "When the facts are against you, make it emotional instead."

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

No, she is not a climate scientist, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

So, if we're supposed to take the "climate crisis" seriously, why has this ignorant teenager been made into the global public face of climate change activism, addressing the UN, the UK Parliament, and the EU?

 

Precisely because her handlers agree with the argument you made earlier: "When the facts are against you, make it emotional instead."

Your argument about Thunberg being handled or having been made depends on  unproven conspiratorial assumptions. And she is irrelevant, anyway. 

My statements about people using emotion goes to those who when confronted with the science, go with emotionalism instead. Or conjure up motives which is a kind of mindreading claim that, by its nature, can't be disproven. And it can't be proven either.

[metisdead]

A post with a trolling meme has been removed.

[Eleftheros]

51 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your argument about Thunberg being handled or having been made depends on  unproven conspiratorial assumptions. And she is irrelevant, anyway. 

My statements about people using emotion goes to those who when confronted with the science, go with emotionalism instead. Or conjure up motives which is a kind of mindreading claim that, by its nature, can't be disproven. And it can't be proven either.

Thunberg is far from irrelevant, and it is no secret that she was being handled. Everyone involved was proud of their association. Thunberg was deliberately placed at the centre of climate change publicity to influence young people, no different to using a celebrity to shill McDonald's or Diet Coke.

 

She is therefore absolutely central to the climate change narrative. because policy responses are conducted at the political level, not the scientific one.

 

And of course she was being handled - how many 16-year-olds get to meet the Pope and harangue the U.N. in a single year, then address the World Economic Forum in Davos?

 

Her main handler in the early days was a woman named Jennifer Morgan, a lifelong activist who has worked for every rent-seeking environmental NGO in the book from Greenpeace to the WWF, Climate Action Network and the World Resources Institute.

 

As I said, none of this is secret, they all felt it to be mutually beneficial to the cause to be seen to be acting in visible solidarity.

 

It might make an interesting experiment to have the scientists in charge. But they are not. The politicians are in charge, the political and media narrative is all that counts, and it is the scientists who are largely sidelined, subordinated to political ends, or even, irrelevant.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Eleftheros
link added

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Thunberg is far from irrelevant, and it is no secret that she was being handled. Everyone involved was proud of their association. Thunberg was deliberately placed at the centre of climate change publicity to influence young people, no different to using a celebrity to shill McDonald's or Diet Coke.

 

She is therefore absolutely central to the climate change narrative. because policy responses are conducted at the political level, not the scientific one.

 

And of course she was being handled - how many 16-year-olds get to meet the Pope and harangue the U.N. in a single year, then address the World Economic Forum in Davos?

 

Her main handler in the early days was a woman named Jennifer Morgan, a lifelong activist who has worked for every rent-seeking environmental NGO in the book from Greenpeace to the WWF, Climate Action Network and the World Resources Institute.

 

As I said, none of this is secret, they all felt it to be mutually beneficial to the cause to be seen to be acting in visible solidarity.

 

It might make an interesting experiment to have the scientists in charge. But they are not. The politicians are in charge, the political and media narrative is all that counts, and it is the scientists who are largely sidelined, subordinated to political ends, or even, irrelevant.

She's a teenage climate activist with a disability. She has the same appeal as any musician / movie star / tv star / sports star / k-pop dancer. Get over it.

[Yellowtail]

On 7/29/2023 at 12:40 PM, heybruce said:

What evidence or sources do you have that show the temperature measurements are not correct?

What evidence or sources do you have that show the temperature measurements are correct?

 

Particularly the ones from 100 years ago? 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What evidence or sources do you have that show the temperature measurements are correct?

 

Particularly the ones from 100 years ago? 

You think that they didn't have accurate thermometers back then? Back then being 1923.

Edited August 1, 2023 by placeholder

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Your argument about Thunberg being handled or having been made depends on  unproven conspiratorial assumptions. And she is irrelevant, anyway. 

My statements about people using emotion goes to those who when confronted with the science, go with emotionalism instead. Or conjure up motives which is a kind of mindreading claim that, by its nature, can't be disproven. And it can't be proven either.

Middle aged men fixated on a teenager and fanaticizing over her being ‘handled’.

 

Give that the thought it deserves.

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Thunberg is far from irrelevant, and it is no secret that she was being handled. Everyone involved was proud of their association. Thunberg was deliberately placed at the centre of climate change publicity to influence young people, no different to using a celebrity to shill McDonald's or Diet Coke.

 

She is therefore absolutely central to the climate change narrative. because policy responses are conducted at the political level, not the scientific one.

 

And of course she was being handled - how many 16-year-olds get to meet the Pope and harangue the U.N. in a single year, then address the World Economic Forum in Davos?

 

Her main handler in the early days was a woman named Jennifer Morgan, a lifelong activist who has worked for every rent-seeking environmental NGO in the book from Greenpeace to the WWF, Climate Action Network and the World Resources Institute.

 

As I said, none of this is secret, they all felt it to be mutually beneficial to the cause to be seen to be acting in visible solidarity.

 

It might make an interesting experiment to have the scientists in charge. But they are not. The politicians are in charge, the political and media narrative is all that counts, and it is the scientists who are largely sidelined, subordinated to political ends, or even, irrelevant.

Please. Link to some evidence to a credible source that Thunberg is being handled. I put "It is no secret" into the same category as "everyone knows that". When people resort to such usage, it almost invariably means they've got nothing.

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You think that they didn't have accurate thermometers back then? Back then being 1923.

Who are they ? 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please. Link to some evidence to a credible source that Thunberg is being handled. I put "It is no secret" into the same category as "everyone knows that". When people resort to such usage, it almost invariably means they've got nothing.

I feel left out.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What evidence or sources do you have that show the temperature measurements are correct?

 

Particularly the ones from 100 years ago? 

Accurate temperature measurements where achieved and standard technical ability well before 100 years ago.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Middle aged men fixated on a teenager and fanaticizing over her being ‘handled’.

 

Give that the thought it deserves.

It's because the science is all against them. So they cite celebrities who have taken a position supporting climate change science and urging people to consume less  but they themselves overconsume one way or another or in many ways. And these denialists try to use this hypocrisy as somehow being relevant to the scientific questions.  Apparently, according to their way of thinking, science is evaluated by ad hominem attacks. on those who have houses on beaches

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Who are they ? 

Weather stations.

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You think that they didn't have accurate thermometers back then? Back then being 1923.

This is not to say that early temperature readings didn't have to be adjusted in a systematic way.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

[bignok]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Accurate temperature measurements where achieved and standard technical ability well before 100 years ago.

Totally wrong.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/what-old-weather-reports-dont-reveal-about-climate-change/419850/

 

And then there are the thermometers themselves. Thermometer enclosures, which shield the temperature sensor from direct sunlight and other sources of radiation, can be wooden or plastic; the variation in materials can, in turn, introduce discrepancies in the results (which some stations in the U.S. discovered firsthand in the 1980s when they switched from traditional enclosures to electronic screens). The instruments are also sensitive to their surroundings: If you measure the temperature on a sunny day versus a cloudy day, direct sunlight on the thermometer will record a higher temperature, even if the two days are equally warm.

Edited August 1, 2023 by bignok

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, bignok said:

Totally wrong.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/what-old-weather-reports-dont-reveal-about-climate-change/419850/

True. But scientists have learned through experimentation how to adjust for old records. And the fact is that the last 40 some odd years show a sharp increase in temperature.

 

"Independent analyses conclude the impact of station temperature data adjustments is not very large. Upward adjustments of global temperature readings before 1950 have, in total, slightly reduced century-scale global temperature trends. Since 1950, however, adjustments to input data have slightly increased the rate of global warming recorded by the temperature record by less than 0.1 degree Celsius (less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit)."

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/#:~:text=Independent analyses conclude the impact,century-scale global temperature trends.

Edited August 2, 2023 by metisdead
6. After pasting a reply format the text you have pasted. An easy way to do this is to click the "Paste as plain text instead" option at the bottom of the reply box.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, but who was doing it? 

How were the records maintained? 

How many people were doing it? 

How many times a day?

At the same times every day?

Who was verifying the data? 

etc. 

 

Comparing the data from today, to the data from 100 years ago requires a good bit of extrapolation. 

 

 

 

You think that you are the first person these questions have occurred to? Go ahead and look up the answers to your questions and report your findings back to us.

[bignok]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, but who was doing it? 

How were the records maintained? 

How many people were doing it? 

How many times a day?

At the same times every day?

Who was verifying the data? 

etc. 

 

Comparing the data from today, to the data from 100 years ago requires a good bit of extrapolation. 

 

 

 

Given the dodgy data prior to 1980 I wouldnt trust any of it