Derails from Climate Change News thread.

[Tero]

>>That is so stupid, it's laughable. The subject is incredibly complex, and yet you think it's that simple.<<

It's not. I could teach it to high school seniors with no math. You need basic science, you have to grasp molecules as objects and the physics of light.

Start with the kinetic theory of gases, which is in every high school chemistry book.

[Seth]

Stop your hysterical shouting. I think you're overdosed on pills, Sethbaby.

You Warmist Chicken Little's quit first. I'm making a sarcastic point by shouting.

[Seth]

Oh bullshit - still strutting your ignorance. It's your lack of any sort of science knowledge that is the laughing matter.

just saying physics is built on "solid ground" is grounds for hilarity.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... wking.html

Some aspects of physics like the optical properties of CO2 are well established and you can prove it in your kitchen not that you will and you can't even got to that point in your knowledge.

You get in planes when aerodynamic theory is incomplete.

Fallacy of composition and begging the question.

[Seth]

Climate change is not about science ultimately. If CO2 is to be confronted adequately it is likely to become a engineering issue on a very large scale the way planets are lining up.

Damn right it is! And not social engineering project, which is what (and all) it is right now.

If they spent the money they spend on "studies" to try to convince the lumpen proletariat on industrial research of carbon sequestration and scrubbing for coal and gas power plants the largest anthropogenic CO2 source on the planet would likely become a non-issue in 20 years...about the amount of time they've spent trying to persuade us that "global warming" hasn't been on pause.

True scientists wouldn't be pandering this alarmist rhetoric. True scientists would accurately and carefully examine the evidence and, if they conclude that there is a risk, they will stop repeating themselves and turn their efforts towards inventing solutions, and not stupid, flatly idiotic solutions like wind farms and bird-incinerating solar power plants, that can minimize CO2 emissions without bankrupting the economy or destroying the electrical generating capacity of the United States, which we are going to need MORE of to develop, build and deploy the kind of technology that is needed.

And the important thing, the MOST important thing is that there is absolutely no hurry to get this done. There is no immediate crisis that requires that we agree to ill-considered, knee-jerk, panic-induced "protocols" that threaten the economy of the United States for no better reason than that third-world countries want to take us down a peg or two.

We can take 20 or 50 or a hundred years to come up with real solutions to whatever actual problems come to pass. Nothing needs to be done right now.

This is and has always been about money, power and control.

[Seth]

Double post

[Hermit]

We'll just have to do what the humans in the Pacific Northwest (and elsewhere) did 10,000 years ago, when the sea level started to rise from it's then level THREE HUNDRED FUCKING FEET LOWER THAN IT IS TODAY!

Doesn't look so sarcastic to me. More like a hysterical scream.

[macdoc]

and there were what 100,00 humans that made it through the ice age. So fucking what. That was orbital driven....right now it's human driven.

I dare say you be over taking pot shots at the guy pissing in your drinking water.

Pissing in the atmosphere and fucking up the climate is no different.

Wake up.



You are the one that advocates talking personal responsibility....so take it work to remediate it instead being stupid in denial of the obvious.

[Seth]

You are the one that advocates talking personal responsibility....so take it work to remediate it instead being stupid in denial of the obvious.

There's nothing for me to take responsibility for because everything that's happening is perfectly natural and within normal climate parameters.

[Seth]

Expanding tropics...expanding cyclone band

By: Associated Press, Published on Wed May 14 2014
WASHINGTON—Tropical cyclones worldwide are moving out of the tropics and more toward the poles and larger population centres, likely owing to global warming, a surprising new study finds. Atlantic hurricanes, however, don’t follow this trend.
While other studies have looked at the strength and frequency of the storms, which are called hurricanes in North America and cyclones and typhoons elsewhere, this is the first study that looks at where they are geographically when they peak.
It found in the last 30 years, tropical cyclones, regardless of their size, are peaking 53 kilometres farther north each decade in the Northern Hemisphere and 61 kilometres farther south each decade in the Southern Hemisphere.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/ ... study.html

Good. Maybe one will hit London and kill about three million Brit wankers. That would be a start.

[FBM]

This is what makes climate a joke ''science''.

I can't think of any other ''science'' that has this denialist crap.
...

Climate is the only branch of science that has this religious attitude towards disagreement with current theory.
That's why it's a joke.

Einstein steadfastly refused to accept quantum physics, despite plentiful evidence that it works. I would guess that many, if not most, fields have a minority "opposition party." Here's a good handful of examples:

http://ask.metafilter.com/148332/Stubborn-Scientists

[mistermack]

This is what makes climate a joke ''science''.

I can't think of any other ''science'' that has this denialist crap.
...

Climate is the only branch of science that has this religious attitude towards disagreement with current theory.
That's why it's a joke.

Einstein steadfastly refused to accept quantum physics, despite plentiful evidence that it works. I would guess that many, if not most, fields have a minority "opposition party." Here's a good handful of examples:

http://ask.metafilter.com/148332/Stubborn-Scientists

Well, that's what I'm saying. Einstein wasn't ostracised. ( mind you, you would need a special kind of arrogance to go up against him ).
You can still get a job in physics, if you disagree with the mainstream opinion on something.

That simply wouldn't happen in climate. If you made it known that you didn't agree that climate will become a real problem, you wouldn't be employed.
And you would be shunned if you had an existing job, and let it slip. You would have zero future in the lucrative climate game, unless you pushed just one hypothesis, like all the others.

[FBM]

So all those scientists who disagree with the status quo have lost their jobs, been ostracised?

[mistermack]

So all those scientists who disagree with the status quo have lost their jobs, been ostracised?

Not all.
It doesn't have to come to that. The smart ones would keep their mouths shut. I know I would.
And then take a job elsewhere when I got a chance.
Then, new people would be crazy to go in for climate science, if they didn't agree with the alarmists, or weren't prepared to zip it.
It's been a gradual 20 year process that has filtered out dissent.
Not all dissent, but nearly all.

[FBM]

So all those scientists who disagree with the status quo have lost their jobs, been ostracised?

Not all.
It doesn't have to come to that. The smart ones would keep their mouths shut. I know I would.
And then take a job elsewhere when I got a chance.
Then, new people would be crazy to go in for climate science, if they didn't agree with the alarmists, or weren't prepared to zip it.
It's been a gradual 20 year process that has filtered out dissent.
Not all dissent, but nearly all.

If a scientist in any field proposes radically divergent conclusions based on the same data that the majority uses, then the odds are very good that s/he's not a very good scientist and should either improve or move along to a career that's more suitable for their skills. Science isn't like literatry criticism or economics; your opinions and guesses don't count for shit. You share your work with your peers and if they can find logical and procedural flaws in it, it's shot down. It's not a witch hunt. It's the way science is done. Flawed work doesn't survive. That's why such a wild and crazy hypothesis as quantum mechanics survived. It worked, despite being counter-intuitive. It didn't matter who liked it or disliked it or how famous they were. Logically and experimentally, it was proven over and over again. Therefore, Einstein, despite being a great physicist at the height of his career, became a has-been in his later years. "God doesn't play dice" and "spooky action at a distance" and such biased, out-moded thinking. You just gotta accept the science when it's not been shown to be flawed. And if you're one of the minority who stubbornly clings to a biased and flawed analysis, then it's only proper that you find it hard to get your papers published, or get funding for your research or get tenure, etc. Bullshit walks. As it should. There's nothing quasi-religious about it.

[mistermack]

If you are claiming that climate science is no different to any other, you're just blind.

Without any proof, and with seventeen years of contradictory evidence, it's still taboo to suggest that we might not be facing global devastation. Some people HAVE tentatively said that some of the early predictions MIGHT have been a bit pessimistic. And even that took a lot of nerve.

You said '' You just gotta accept the science when it's not been shown to be flawed.''

No, no no. That's not even scientific.

Maybe when it makes UNAMBIGUOUS predictions, which come true with an accuracy of 99.999999999%.

Climate science makes any old prediction you like, depending on how you tweak your model.
And still manages to miss the target by 99.9999999999%. And that still doesn't affect the opinion of the faithful.

And yet you seem to be saying it's just like any other science, and not at all like religion.