The latest instance of "proof" of global warming.

More Proof : Of the Climate change media COLLUSION. Article in Sunday's DMN by AP and Dr Klotzbach "Biblical Storms" Hurricanes. The timeline they use was 1950/2010 for how bad the storm are and how costly and its all because of climate change. WOW
1) Of course the storms are more costly EVERYTHING has gone up in price
2) If you are smart enough to look back from 1890 to 1950 you will see many "Biblical storms" 1935 Labor day that killed 400+ people in key west and a unknown # that were working on the Flagler RR.
1938 New England Express a lot of damage in NY NJ etc
1942 Texas And on and on the cult only looks at what they want and the media follows.

More Proof : Of the Climate change media COLLUSION. Article in Sunday's DMN by AP and Dr Klotzbach "Biblical Storms" Hurricanes. The timeline they use was 1950/2010 for how bad the storm are and how costly and its all because of climate change. WOW
1) Of course the storms are more costly EVERYTHING has gone up in price
2) If you are smart enough to look back from 1890 to 1950 you will see many "Biblical storms" 1935 Labor day that killed 400+ people in key west and a unknown # that were working on the Flagler RR.
1938 New England Express a lot of damage in NY NJ etc
1942 Texas And on and on the cult only looks at what they want and the media follows. Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Depends on your definition of "climate change." The evidence for global warming is very strong. It's either weak or nonexistent for any increase in the number or strength of hurricanes, although there are models and simulations that indicate they will increase in the future.

My point is they (media) cherry picks "evidence" ( very strong work for and idea but) never passes the smell check. And yes to you point NOW the Climate change people are leaving out hurricane for the most part because there is no link.

Kehaar, See responses in blue



Both sides are represented in the media, and by your definition some of the extremists on both sides are "fascist." Originally Posted by Tiny

What is your definition of fascist?

""[/COLOR] Originally Posted by Tiny

There are probably 50 scientist who understand the global warming "model", yet I hear repeatedly of the "consensus" of thousands of scientist who proclaim it to be true.

There are more than 50. The majority or most of the so called "skeptics" among his group believe as I do, that carbon and methane emissions by humans are probably part of the reason for global warming. Some of the "skeptics" have been condemned by colleagues because they question whether global warming is calamitous, or whether doing a lot to lower carbon emissions is worth the cost
^^^quoted

The number of people who are in control(and therefore understand) of models such as these are vanishingly small.

Saying that human methane and co2 emmissions(noting your extension of the CO2 effect to methane) has an effect on the climate is equivelant to saying "water is wet". It has no scientific or decision making relevance. It is the statement of the first "bible" that was touted as saying all reasonable scientist are on board. It is a propoganda statement made by controlling authorities with the intent to bias an unwary public. i.e. It is a fascist statement.

[/COLOR] Originally Posted by Tiny

Physics is not the specialty required for understanding climate models.

It's sure as hell not some Micky Mouse degree in climatology or meteorology. The top scientists have backgrounds in geophysics, physics, geology, engineering and mathematics.
^^^quote

Physicist can't deal with complexity. If you ask a physicist to describe turbulent flow in a pipe, their head will spin.

In then end, you get what we have gotten, which is something that has been made up, and isn't based upon physical reality.

[/COLOR] Originally Posted by Tiny

The underlying data has been perverted. The raw data has been obfuscated to the point that that, for all intents and purposes, it is useless.

Not true

^^^quote

I have the history that shows the "evolution" of weather station weather data. When global warming was first proferred as a means of changing our society, I was asked at a party whether this was going to stick.

I downloaded multiple station data for a wide representation of sites. It did not show a trend.

About 6 years later, when things really started to snowball, I redownloaded the data. It was changed such that the trend showed recent global warming. The changes were continuous(not triggered by environmental change events such as buildings), and the changes were such that the met the centroid of the modelling work. Imagine that. We contacted NASA concerning this, and they gave a bunch of run around(we actually talked to Hanson(I think that is his name). The funny thing is that he said the historical data will continue to change as they get new data. I stopped the discussion, as that is preposterous.

There have been three major data sources that did not initially meet the model predictions(upper atmosphere, land, and sea). Upon not matching the model predictions, in every case, plausible theories were proposed that would allow "adjustments" to the data so that it matched the models. Those changes have always been in one direction(older data colder). Casinos spot such behavior, and roust the participants. They are called cheaters.

I have both modelers and experimentalists that work for me on high consequence processes. If someone came to me, and proposed to do what they did to the temperature data, they would be removed from my group. I have done this on multiple occasions.

[/COLOR] Originally Posted by Tiny

Your final statements are fascist. To paraphrase:

"This problem is so complex that I must rely on a priest to tell me what is important. "

There's a huge difference in relying on a priest and relying on the top researchers in a field. Regarding the question "is global warming happening and are emissions of carbon dioxide and/or methane probably contributing to it", agreement among top climate scientists would be similar to the level of agreement among biologists and geologists that evolution is real. Almost everyone believes the data supports that.

^^^^^^Quote

To conflate the scientific certainty of evolution(which has been re observed literally millions of times, is predictable, and has documented high confidence mechanisms with plausible, testable, and identifiable first principle effects) with "Global Warming Science" is absurd. Can you give me an instance where "Global Warming Models" have provided actionable data that has turned out to be true?


An empirical model that does not contain major independent drivers for its dependent variables cannot be extrapolated, and can never be considered "science". It can be useful for engineering, but no engineer would ever use the existing model for anything of consequence.

Is summary, your attempt at scientific "equivalance" is propaganda, and has all the characteristics of fascism.

[/COLOR] Originally Posted by Tiny

I have done due diligence on this effort, and what they are proffering isn't science.

Are your statements the ones that are actually "fascist"? That you've done the due diligence so, irregardless of the views of the top experts in the field, we should consider global warming a non-issue? I actually don't think so, because you're not, say, dictator of a large country, who would have the power to stop debate. I don't understand your definition of "fascist", and note you include Eva Peron and Imelda Marcos among the top fascists in history worth mentioning, unless you were kidding. In addition to Antifa types, there are also people on your side of the debate that want the other side to shut up. See the FU comments in this thread from Marshall for example.


kehaar

PS
Does anyone find it odd that all of the "consequences" of global warming that are being reported are negative. I recently received a crop and market report from an organization that has skin in the game for potential climate change. The last several years have been remarkably productive, with all major crop growing regions, on average, having productive weather year after year.

Agreed. Some areas would benefit from global warming, Canada and Russia for example.
This has been atypical. Not once did they mention "global warming", or "climate change", but if both side were represented in the media(if they weren't fascist), such observations would be noticed and reported. They weren't. Why? Because it does not fit the agenda.
Both sides are represented in the media, and by your definition some of the extremists on both sides are "fascist."

^^^^Quote

The global warmist are in complete control of the data, funding, and documentation of global climate change. They punish folks who disagree with a degree of ruthlessness not seen since the Catholic Church had control of science in the middle ages.

Skeptics can't be fascist because the central authority has been purged of them. Completely and totally.

If you think the media gives a balanced shake on global warming, perhaps you can explain the silence when Hillary and Obama went to Alabama and propogated the lie that it was scientifically proven that the Hurricanes in the Caribbean that hit Florida and Alabama were caused by Global warming.

Only a fascist would come to the conclusion that the media response to those lies was "balanced news coverage".

Again, it’s the media’s doing.

Boogie men in the closet.

Again, it’s the media’s doing.

Boogie men in the closet. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

One part of one post is about the media, and was discussed in direct response to Tiny.

What did you add to this conversation? Is this an ad hominem attack? Yep.

What is your definition of fascist? Originally Posted by kehaar

Fascism "is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy." No one in the media, in the White House, or in the halls of academia in the United States of America is putting a gun to your or my head and telling us we have to believe a particular way re: climate change. OK, admittedly, there's more than a tinge of fascism when Sheldon Whitehouse and various attorney generals want to prosecute or sue climate change deniers, be they companies, think tanks or scientists. But calling someone like me who's a proponent of free speech and debate and who has no power in the political or legal systems a fascist doesn't make sense. You need to pick another word besides fascism, it's not the word you're looking for.

characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy."

You need to pick another word besides fascism, it's not the word you're looking for. Originally Posted by Tiny

You pick the word. It is what describes the group that is forcing socialism/chavism onto our country, under the guise of "Global warming"

In modern society, nationalism has become globalism. That that is why most people who study these movements have come to the conclusion that communism/national socialist, Maoism, Peronsim. pol potism, etc, are essentially the same phenomena.

Name the word that connects these, and I will start using it.

In modern society, nationalism has become globalism. That that is why most people who study these movements have come to the conclusion that communism/national socialist, Maoism, Peronsim. pol potism, etc, are essentially the same phenomena. Originally Posted by kehaar

Please note that Trump is an extreme Nationalist and an anti-globalist. Agreed that communism/national socialism, Maoism, Peronism and Pol Potism have similarities.

You pick the word. It is what describes the group that is forcing socialism/chavism onto our country, under the guise of "Global warming"

Name the word that connects these, and I will start using it. Originally Posted by kehaar

How about fanaticism instead of fascism, although you can't really pin that one on me either. You can perhaps on some people who think the world is coming to an end because of global warming.

I'm not seeing the connection between socialism/chavism and "global warming." Yes, idealists who have no appreciation for economics are probably more inclined to become global warming fanatics, but there must be a lot of socialists who believe global warming is bunk and a lot of free market capitalists who take it very seriously and would like to see the USA doing more about it.

scientist should be prosecuted for data fraud which what they are doing.