Re: Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change

by Guest Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:38

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

The 97% number is and always has been pure bullshit.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

I don't believe your psuedo-science, sorry. I stopped reading when I saw "liberal media". Your argument is fucking dumb and politically biased Goose.

Nope. My argument is that these people have been wrong every single time in the past but now you treat them as god like in their accuracy. Silliness.

There's nothing political about it. The facts are the facts.

100 years ago it was global warming. 50 years ago it was an ice age. the last 20 years have been global warming again. Next will be an ice age. Wash, rinse, repeat. Ignoring history doesn't erase it.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:39

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Thank you for proving that we have been talking about climate change for many years Goose. Thank you.

Goose is not a republican.

And we'll be talking about it it 100 years from now....because the climate is always changing.

Well, I mean, if it's always changing we should probably just not worry about it. Let's allow businesses to destroy/change/altar (however you want to spin it in your head) it - history tells us companies and the market will police themselves.......................................

Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change - Page 3 1431518612

Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change - Page 3 1431518612

You couldn't even respond to travis without going into some rant about celebrities that promote saving the environment. Jesus dude.

Goose is not a republican.

by Guest Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:44

And of course this all happened....Millerites.

Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change - Page 3 CsIIYA6VIAAW4oW

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:44

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

I don't believe your psuedo-science, sorry. I stopped reading when I saw "liberal media". Your argument is fucking dumb and politically biased Goose.

Nope. My argument is that these people have been wrong every single time in the past but now you treat them as god like in their accuracy. Silliness.

There's nothing political about it. The facts are the facts.

100 years ago it was global warming. 50 years ago it was an ice age. the last 20 years have been global warming again. Next will be an ice age. Wash, rinse, repeat. Ignoring history doesn't erase it.

OK. Please spam us with more right wing based theories and tell us it's not political. Care to show us the link to where you are getting these old timey new stories from?

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:47

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

And we'll be talking about it it 100 years from now....because the climate is always changing.

Well, I mean, if it's always changing we should probably just not worry about it. Let's allow businesses to destroy/change/altar (however you want to spin it in your head) it - history tells us companies and the market will police themselves.......................................

You couldn't even respond to travis without going into some rant about celebrities that promote saving the environment. Jesus dude.

Goose is not a republican.

You can't reason with people that act like this. It's a exercise in futility.

by Guest Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:49

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Well, I mean, if it's always changing we should probably just not worry about it. Let's allow businesses to destroy/change/altar (however you want to spin it in your head) it - history tells us companies and the market will police themselves.......................................

Do you want to control pollution or the climate? We've done a fine job on the pollution and honestly the billions spent on climate change would have been better spent on giving away the pollution technology we've used in the US for 50 years.

You somehow have conflated the anti global warming stance with me endorsing pollution which is nuts.

And you blame businesses without mentioning possibly the worst polluter in the world - the US government. Strange that.

by **steveschneider** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:49

I find these old dated articles laughable and they hold little relevance to 2016. It's like pulling up articles about the 1976 Tigers team and using them to make predictions about the upcoming 2017 Tigers team all while ignoring current information about the 2017 Tigers team.

I already found one of the scientists in your articles and his current 2016 views based on current research refutes everything you are arguing.

by Guest Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:50

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:You can't reason with people that act like this. It's a exercise in futility.

I know the feeling.

Not one of you has tackled the question of why you believe they're right this time when they've been wrong every other time in the past with their predictions.

by Guest Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:52

steveschneider wrote:

I find these old dated articles laughable and they hold little relevance to 2016. It's like pulling up articles about the 1976 Tigers team and using them to make predictions about the upcoming 2017 Tigers team all while ignoring current information about the 2017 Tigers team.

I already found one of the scientists in your articles and his current 2016 views based on current research refutes everything you are arguing.

Steve honey? The point of the old articles (with the exception of the St Pete Times) is to show that all of this shit has been predicted many times in the past. It's NOT new. It's the same old shit and you people all fall for it.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:52

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:You can't reason with people that act like this. It's a exercise in futility.

I know the feeling.

Not one of you has tackled the question of why you believe they're right this time when they've been wrong every other time in the past with their predictions.

Because it's 2016 not 1974?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 11:54

I know it may feel like 1974 up there in Mio, goose, but it is not.

For fuck sake why do I even waste energy typing on this board anymore? Next time Bob trolls you into oblivion, goose, don't look for sympathy - same shit different side of the spectrum. Awful. Do better.

by Guest Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 12:13

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

I know the feeling.

Not one of you has tackled the question of why you believe they're right this time when they've been wrong every other time in the past with their predictions.

Because it's 2016 not 1974?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

But the current predictions of doom and gloom were made in the 90s.....after 20 years of FAIL it's not enough?

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 12:14

LooseGoose wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Because it's 2016 not 1974?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

But the current predictions of doom and gloom were made in the 90s.....after 20 years of FAIL it's not enough?

In classic goose style - you take extremes...highways aren't underwater...therefore it's a FAIL or SCAM by RICH LIBERALS FLYING PRIVATE JETS!!!!!!!!!!!

Rolling Eyes

Do better.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 12:16

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Well, I mean, if it's always changing we should probably just not worry about it. Let's allow businesses to destroy/change/altar (however you want to spin it in your head) it - history tells us companies and the market will police themselves.......................................

You couldn't even respond to travis without going into some rant about celebrities that promote saving the environment. Jesus dude.

Goose is not a republican.

You can't reason with people that act like this. It's a exercise in futility.

I'm not sure why I continue to interact with this guy pylon. I give people on the main board shit for falling for mr. lebowski and vlad's shit but then I fall for this troll's shit every time here. oh well.

by **GRR Spartan** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 12:35

I can present a photographic history of Iceland and the US's own Glacier National Park to show how the glaciers have receded and the rate has increased. I could present data showing the temperature changes have sped up the schedule for the wheat harvest that starts in Texas and ends in Western Canada. I can link articles showing climate change has pushed US durum wheat production west because the temps required for ideal production has moved west. I could link articles showing mild temperature in the Rockies high altitude forests have lead to Pine beetles not dying in the winter freeze decimating evergreen forests that protected the snowpack from rapid thaws causing flooding.

But regardless of what I would use as evidence of Global Climate Change some true believer of fossil fuel proponents will find something to counter it.

I believe there is climate change and the use of fossil fuels by our expanding global population is the major cause. I also know I live in a country where at least 50% of the voting populaion doesn't care or believes science is nothing more than a collection of opinions like economics.

by **The_Dude** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 12:54

Climate change!!!

Hows it like to live your life in fear?

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 13:40

The_Dude wrote:Climate change!!!

Hows it like to live your life in fear?

Mr. Lebowski - you could literally replace the first line with a different issue, and frame it in a way that it makes "your team" living in fear. Bad post, -1, do better.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 14:15

The_Dude wrote:Climate change!!!

Hows it like to live your life in fear?

Is this more or less scary than Obama taking our guns?

by **The_Dude** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 14:28

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
The_Dude wrote:Climate change!!!

Hows it like to live your life in fear?

Is this more or less scary than Obama taking our guns?

I never thought he'd do that.

Plus I dont own any guns.

Try again.

by **The_Dude** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 14:29

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
The_Dude wrote:Climate change!!!

Hows it like to live your life in fear?

Mr. Lebowski - you could literally replace the first line with a different issue, and frame it in a way that it makes "your team" living in fear. Bad post, -1, do better.

Yes, both sides fear monger.

Its funny and worthy of satire.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 14:34

The_Dude wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Is this more or less scary than Obama taking our guns?

I never thought he'd do that.

Plus I dont own any guns.

Try again.

I was speaking in broader terms involving all of you people just like you were. You people were scared Obama was going to take our guns and impose Sharia law and let BLM be its military wing.

by **The_Dude** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 14:42

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
The_Dude wrote:

I never thought he'd do that.

Plus I dont own any guns.

Try again.

I was speaking in broader terms involving all of you people just like you were. You people were scared Obama was going to take our guns and impose Sharia law and let BLM be its military wing.

Who is your people?

Was the mainstream media writing article after article after article of how Obama is going to storm in to your house and confiscate your guns? Where are the credible conservatives who constantly said that?

Anyways, Ive never met a liberal that wasnt pretty much all in on climate change. So..

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 14:50

The_Dude wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

I was speaking in broader terms involving all of you people just like you were. You people were scared Obama was going to take our guns and impose Sharia law and let BLM be its military wing.

Who is your people?

Was the mainstream media writing article after article after article of how Obama is going to storm in to your house and confiscate your guns? Where are the credible conservatives who constantly said that?

Anyways, Ive never met a liberal that wasnt pretty much all in on climate change. So..

Settle down, Trigger.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 15:32

jesus is my science teacher.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 15:33

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

The 97% number is and always has been pure bullshit.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

I don't believe your psuedo-science, sorry. I stopped reading when I saw "liberal media". Your argument is fucking dumb and politically biased Goose.

but yesterday Goose liked the mainstream media.. Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change - Page 3 502811600

by **The_Dude** Thu 8 Dec 2016 - 15:42

Robert J Sakimano wrote:jesus is my science teacher.

Was he from Mexico?

by **steveschneider** Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 9:09

Alaska on pace for warmest year on record.

#2016data #credibleinstitutions #science #realnews

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 9:13

steveschneider wrote:Alaska on pace for warmest year on record.

#2016data #credibleinstitutions #science #realnews

In before another 1874 article about how warm it's going to get.

by **steveschneider** Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 10:10

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
steveschneider wrote:Alaska on pace for warmest year on record.

#2016data #credibleinstitutions #science #realnews

In before another 1874 article about how warm it's going to get.

I actually enjoy the articles, and it's interesting to see what leading researchers had to say back then.

Loosegoose is an entirely different conservative than the dude, he has ideas and he's a reader. The Dude just trolls and espouses conspiracy theories based on fake news. I'll talk all day about politics with a poster like loosegoose over someone that just shows up and spreads conspiracies like the NYT is a propaganda machine for the left.

by **steveschneider** Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 10:13

Also, look at what goose did in the Boeing thread. He used credible links to point out that Trump's 4 billion estimate was reasonable. He was right and as long as its accurate I can live with that.

by Guest Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 12:07

I think I love Steve. Sorry about mentioning you in the Drunk History thread.

by Guest Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 12:17

steveschneider wrote:Also, look at what goose did in the Boeing thread. He used credible links to point out that Trump's 4 billion estimate was reasonable. He was right and as long as its accurate I can live with that.

Since you've been nice I'll get you the link to the radical "other" side of the climate debate. This is the guy that posts the old news articles, I have no idea who digs them up for him.

BUT - he does have one theory that he backs up with facts. That the "warmists" are altering the temperature record to make the past cooler and thus make today look warmer by comparison. He backs this up with printed information from decades ago with temperature information. Then shows that releases from today show entirely different temps for the same time period. Obviously someone is trifling with history. Do a search for "fraud" and he points out over and over where the numbers just don't match. Tha search turns up a lot of articles - if you don't find what I'm referring to let me know and I'll link a couple.

You have to sift through some of the more off the wall stuff to get to the good stuff. As you can tell by the new name for his blog he's a Trump supporter.
The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

And 2 more general link type anti-warmist sites:
Climate Depot

Watts up with That?

by **Cameron** Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 15:54

steveschneider wrote:Alaska on pace for warmest year on record.

#2016data #credibleinstitutions #science #realnews

Link?

by **I.B. Fine** Sat 10 Dec 2016 - 13:52

Interesting article, what a surprise, Al is in it for the money.

No need for unpopular energy taxes or giving up our energy-rich lifestyles.

The problem can be solved with handouts to the green energy lobby. Who doesn’t like distributing handouts?

As Al Gore Told Donald Trump . . .

In its latest report, issued in 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expanded the range of uncertainty regarding future warming—and in the direction of less warming.

It abandoned its central forecast, in its 2007 report, of 3 degrees Centigrade of warming. Now it issues no central forecast.

It said in 2007 that a warming as slight as 1.5 degrees was “very unlikely.” Now it puts the bottom stop at 1 degree.

The latest climate models are backing off on the size of “climate sensitivity.” This implies climate change will be smaller and less severe than earlier estimates.

Even less noticed, it implies a higher, more astronomical cost for avoiding any given amount of warming.

If climate sensitivity is high, you might have to avoid only 50% of future emissions to avoid 2 degrees of warming. If climate sensitivity is low, as increasingly seems the case, you might have to avoid 100% of future emissions to avoid just 0.5 degrees of warming.

As many have said, the climate "changes" all the time, it is pretentious to assume man can actually exert any significant control over it, short of perhaps mass extermination. Any volunteers?

by **xsanguine** Sat 10 Dec 2016 - 17:56

I'd be willing to change my mind on it if more scientists jumped off the bandwagon. I'm sure there's some fuckery with that 'vast majority of scientists believe man-made global warming' statement but the overwhelming numbers (of scientists) are hard to deny.

As much as has been invested in the theory, I'd hope the scientists who are part of this overwhelming number would be willing to recant if the science begins to point elsewhere.

But, I'm also kind of a tree hugger and really high. So I'm contributing squat like usual.

by **xsanguine** Sat 10 Dec 2016 - 17:57

I'm not smart enough nor do I have the resources to go out and study all facets of man-made climate change/global warming, so I'm at the mercy of scientists as to what to believe.

by Guest Sat 10 Dec 2016 - 20:02

X or Steve or anyone else looking for reading....

Here's the lady that runs the blog - her bonafides if you will. If you've followed the climate debate closely you should already know her name.

Judith Curry

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster"[2] in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."[3] Curry also hosts a popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.[4]

Her Blog -- Climate, Etc

And the specific post to read for today....

Climate Heretic: to be or not to be?

If you have been involved in any climate change debates online or in person, you know they always take the following trajectory: Climate science believers state that all the evidence, and 98% of scientists, are on the same side. Then skeptics provide links to credible-sounding articles that say the science is bunk, and why. How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right?

You probably default to trusting whatever the majority of scientists tell you. But how reliable are experts, even when they are mostly on the same side?

Ask the majority of polling experts who said Trump had only a 2% chance of becoming president. Ask the experts who said the government’s historical “food pyramid” was good science. What you really want to know is whether climate change looks more like the sort of thing that turns out to be right or the sort of thing that turns out to be wrong.

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

by **xsanguine** Sat 10 Dec 2016 - 20:15

I dunno. I don't think the Trump experts and the science experts is really an apples to apples comparison. I see what they're saying and I'm certainly aware of the issues surrounding financing with regards to peer reviewed type stuff... but it's difficult to interpret the data in a way that doesn't suggest we're fucking some shit up long term.

I also admit that I'm all for a cleaner earth as it is... so I'm not threatened by the prospect of cleaner fuels being developed or national forests extended over abandoned property or foreclosures. I realize the problem other suggested band aids creates some industries, though.

by Guest Sat 10 Dec 2016 - 20:41

xsanguine wrote:I dunno. I don't think the Trump experts and the science experts is really an apples to apples comparison. I see what they're saying and I'm certainly aware of the issues surrounding financing with regards to peer reviewed type stuff... but it's difficult to interpret the data in a way that doesn't suggest we're fucking some shit up long term.

I also admit that I'm all for a cleaner earth as it is... so I'm not threatened by the prospect of cleaner fuels being developed or national forests extended over abandoned property or foreclosures. I realize the problem other suggested band aids creates some industries, though.

Pollution control and the Climate change hysteria are two wildly different animals that people here are conflating. It's just not the same, not even close.

Anyway - another link.

2016 State of the Climate Report Presented to the United Nations Climate Conference in Morocco November 2016

Page 4

Key climate data highlights:
Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite
data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming

The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the
longest spell since the Civil War.

Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.

Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.

Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.

Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is
no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.

So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by
only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that
are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have
essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.

A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently
contributing to sea level rise.’ 

In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic
sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade’

Deaths due to extreme weather have declined dramatically.

Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.

While the climate fails to behave as the UN and climate activists predict, very prominent
scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus.”

by Sponsored content