Sorry Rudy, but anyone so stupid as to post about climate in a news group t
hat is about recreational metalworking should be ignored. You obviously ar
e too stupid to be believed. If you want to post about climate change, go
find a newsgroup that is about climate change. Posting here just shows tha
t you are a troll.
I have much more standing than you. I generally post about metalworking or
about how stupid trolls are to post in rcm. Unlike you I do not start th
reads that are off topic. I realize that you start off topic threads becau
se you are ignorant about metalworking. But if you are going to post off t
opic threads , you could pick topics on wbich you have some knowledge. Cop
ying and pasting something is not the same as posting something of which y
ou have some knowledge.
Dan , he posts off-topic bullshit because he's a troll . He has no other
raison d'etre . I've had a little fun poking him with a stick , but he's
gone totally off his liberal nut . We've reduced him to just calling names
and attempting (feebly IMO) to insult us . I scoff in his general direction
while picking my nose and flipping the boogers at him .
And these are big boogers , I've been laying
The FACT is that, at present, the overwhelming majority of scientific
experts in the RELEVANT fields of climatology, etc., concur with the
findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
regarding global warming and mankind's contributions to it. Only a
small minority of scientists, mostly from fields with no bearing on the
subject, continue to disagree.
But if large and influential economic interests, primarily in the
heavily polluting coal and oil industries, did not perceive a threat to
their future profits arising from the obvious implications of
anthropogenic global warming, there would even be that level of mostly
ginned up public controversy or denial of these scientific facts, apart
from a tiny handful of cranks, crackpots and contrarians.
They are following the model laid down by the U.S. tobacco industry in
coping with the scientific fact that smoking causes cancer and other
diseases. First, try to prevent any scientific research on the subject
from ever being conducted. Then try to prevent the results from being
disclosed, using methods such as economic coercion, threats of
litigation, and seek special legislative protections to cut off research
funding, bar research, and prevent public disclosure of findings. Once
the scientific facts have publicly emerged, attack, intimidate and
attempt to silence, discredit or undermine the scientists, their
employers and funding, and the scientific or academic institutions
involved. Lastly, pay other scientists to dispute the known facts and
produce contrary results, and pay to get your propaganda published and
to influence the news media, using hired advertising, PR, and crisis
Using these tactics, the tobacco industry was able to effectively delay
actions to protect public health and thereby maintain their profits for
decades, at the insignificant (to them) human cost of hundreds of
thousands of early deaths and disabilities, and at a financial cost of
untold millions of dollars borne by the public, not the tobacco companies.
We already know that heavy polluting industries are major direct causers
and contributors to many hundreds of thousands of deaths and illnesses
annually, so why would anyone expect them to have any greater concern or
act any differently over global warming and the harm it will cause?
After, the profits are theirs today, but the consequences are somebody
else's in the future.
"I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce.
But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable." -
"Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell" - Numbers 35:34
That FACT is that the above is a major lie. The so-called 95% consensus
is a PROVEN fabrication. Control of journals, employees, trade
organizations and media does not produce facts only propaganda.
The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization not a scientific one. Hence all
pronouncements are suspect for a political agenda (Trillion dollar tax
tackling a non-problem. The idea that only "kooks" are "deniers" shows
that it is all propaganda. And even if there WERE a true "consensus"
science is never established by "majority vote". That is politics not
The FACT is that there has been no warming for 17 years now. THE FACT is
that all the computer models of doom are TOTALLY WRONG! The FACT is that
the more wrong the warmist models become the more the warmballers scream
at how "certain" they are. And finally the FACT is that without warming
there is NOTHING to drive all the "extreme weather" that the media
screams is caused by "climate change".
Clearly the rest of this post is equally fraudulent and not worth reading.
Uh huh. Believe what you want, including the nonsensical idea that
climate science can't discover facts about the climate, but climate
science deniers can prove the "fact" that its all propaganda generated
by the global warming conspiracy.
You climate science deniers like to point to those scientists who agree
with you. The obvious counter to that rather meaningless claim is to
point to the vastly larger number of scientists who concur with the
consensus opinion. So don't complain about your own methodology being
used to set the record straight. Also, a scientific consensus is not
created by a "majority vote" or some sort of poll. It would be helpful
if more people actually understood how science work is actually done in
the real world.
The IPCC is far less "political" than, for example, the National
Institutes of Health or NASA. It doesn't sponsor or conduct climate
change research, set research parameters, or monitor how others collect
data or conduct research. It doesn't answer to any government, taxing
or regulatory authority. It is a scientific body, and it only collects,
collates, assesses and reports the results of research from sources
worldwide on the subject of climate change.
Its credibility is far greater than that of science deniers.
What you claim to be a "FACT" isn't a fact at all.
Not *one* of whom is a climate scientist. They're a few mostly retired
physicists, chemists, medical doctors, etc., but not *ONE* of the
"scientists" trotted out by the deniers is or was a real climate scientist.
Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren?t.
May 6, 2014 By Sean Davis
The Obama Administration released a new report on global cooling global
warming climate change this week, and its findings and recommendations
are about what you?d expect: conservatives are stupidheads who hate
Science?, so give us eleventy trillion dollars.
From the Chicago Tribune:
The Obama administration Tuesday released an updated report on how
climate change requires urgent action to counter impacts that touch
every corner of the country, from oyster growers in Washington State to
maple syrup producers in Vermont.
?Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has
moved firmly into the present,? the report said.
Unfortunately, climate models ? ones that can accurately and
consistently predict global temperatures in the not-so-distant future ?
simply don?t exist in the present. Indeed, for a group that so nakedly
appeals to the authority of ?consensus,? the faith-based global warming
alarmist movement is shockingly impervious to the consensus of actual data:
Climate Model Comparison
I?ll see your ?95 percent of scientists believe in global warming?
talking point and raise you a ?95 percent of reality thinks your climate
models are garbage.? According to that chart of actual satellite and
surface temperature observations vs. what was predicted by 90 different
climate models, 95 percent of models overestimated actual temperatures.
Nothing says Science? like predicting stuff incorrectly over and over
and over again.
And therein lies the real reason why so many global warming cultists are
so desperate to change the terms of the debate. Rather than discuss the
actual science, they?d rather marginalize anyone who disagrees with
their policy prescriptions.
The global warming alarmists aren?t attempting to shut down debate
because they?re worried the dissenters are wrong; the alarmists are
attempting to shut down debate because they know their models are wrong,
and they?d rather nobody focus on that inconvenient little fact.
As the old legal adage goes: When you have the facts, argue the facts;
when you have the law, argue the law; when you have neither, just accuse
your adversary of hating science and hope that nobody will listen to
what they have to say about your consistently wrong forecasting models.
And if that doesn?t work, blatantly manipulate and torture the English
language and hope that nobody will notice.
Of course climate change ? the notion that climates change over time,
not the idea that we should spend a fortune futilely trying to change
the weather ? is real. Climates have changed consistently throughout the
earth?s history. I am not aware of a single person who disagrees with
the fact that climates change. Accusing someone of being a ?climate
denier? (does anyone on earth deny that climates exist?) doesn?t tell me
that you?re awesome at science ? it tells me that you?re awful at
understanding what words mean.
And of course the earth has been gradually warming over the past 150+
years. That?s what happens when you emerge from a Little Ice Age, which
lasted for hundreds of years and extended through the mid-19th century.
It is clearly possible (and quite common) to simultaneously believe that
the earth is warming and that global warming cultists have utterly
failed in their attempts to predict future climate changes.
I have a simple rule when it comes to people who want me to invest
obscene sums of money in their forecasts of discrete future events: just
be accurate. If you come to me and tell me you can predict future stock
market performance based on these five factors, then you had better
predict future stock market performance based on those five factors. All
you have to do is be correct, over and over again. But if your
predictive model is wrong, I?m not going to give you any money, and I?m
certainly not going to pretend that what you just did is science. Any
idiot can make incorrect guesses about the future.
Science, properly practiced, is the search for truth. Science, properly
practiced, rejects forecasting models that consistently produce
inaccurate forecasts. There?s nothing scientific about shouting down
anyone who has the audacity to point out that the only thing your model
can accurately predict is what the temperature won?t be.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.