The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby Brian Peacock » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:34 pm

The rich will be the first to go whinging to government when a storm surge wipes away their luxury but otherwise uninsurable beachfront properties. There's nothing that galvanises the OUTRAGE of rich like a crime against property, even if the weather is the perpetrator.
.


"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT


.
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
 
Posts: 16666
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
Location: Location: Location:
About me: Ablate me:

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby JimC » Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:37 pm

We had a windy day recently, and I had to clean up lots of fallen twigs! I want to sue somebody! :lay:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
 
Posts: 55722
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby mistermack » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:34 pm

Some thing you might not know about alarmism.

One is about the consensus. A new study has shown that as many as 99% of climate scientists agree that AGW alarmism has had significant benefits for their bank balance. :hehe:

On the subject of climate models, what a great many people might now know, is that direct warming, via CO2 trapping infra red, only accounts for about a quarter of the warming that is modelled. The rest of it, THREE TIMES as much, is modelled from a hypothetical feedback mechanism, whereby the warming from CO2 causes greater evaporation, leading to higher water vapour levels, (water vapour being the REAL effective greenhouse gas, not CO2) Without this feedback, the models are basically rubbish.
Funny, you never hear that on this site. All you hear is CO2 blah blah blah. But even the models themselves don't agree that CO2 without the feedback is much of a climate force.

The assumed feedback has never been verified, and the cloud effect has been pretty much ignored.

Below are some youtube talks that give a very different picture of climate. And also give an idea of just how great the resistance is in the community to any dissenting view.

The effect of the Sun, Cosmic Rays, and Clouds

The sceptics case by Dr. M W Evans ............... https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case


The 97% consensus fraud.
Some dodgy goings on in the consensus gathering. As far as that goes, I don't really give a toss if the consensus were genuine. It's self-perpetuating and self-serving, so it's meaningless anyway.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
User avatar
mistermack
 
Posts: 14440
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby pErvinalia » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:40 pm

mistermack wrote:Did you know that Al Gore charges over $300,000 dollars for a speaking engagement? And will need to see the questions and approve them? And excludes anyone who might prove difficult?

There is huge money in the global warming game that you people could only dream of.


Therefore conspiracy...

And that porky fat lying pig hasn't got a clue about science.


C'mon, don't denigrate yourself like that. You don't deserve it. :console:

the naive morons who fall for that shit.


Says the guy who thinks climate change is a hoax because he hasn't seen the sea level rise at his local beach... :hehe:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
 
Posts: 40154
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby pErvinalia » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:42 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:The rich will be the first to go whinging to government when a storm surge wipes away their luxury but otherwise uninsurable beachfront properties. There's nothing that galvanises the OUTRAGE of rich like a crime against property, even if the weather is the perpetrator.


Sydney last year:
Image
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
 
Posts: 40154
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby pErvinalia » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:44 pm

mistermack wrote:Some thing you might not know about alarmism.

One is about the consensus. A new study has shown that as many as 99% of climate scientists agree that AGW alarmism has had significant benefits for their bank balance. :hehe:

On the subject of climate models, what a great many people might now know, is that direct warming, via CO2 trapping infra red, only accounts for about a quarter of the warming that is modelled. The rest of it, THREE TIMES as much, is modelled from a hypothetical feedback mechanism, whereby the warming from CO2 causes greater evaporation, leading to higher water vapour levels, (water vapour being the REAL effective greenhouse gas, not CO2) Without this feedback, the models are basically rubbish.
Funny, you never hear that on this site. All you hear is CO2 blah blah blah. But even the models themselves don't agree that CO2 without the feedback is much of a climate force.

The assumed feedback has never been verified, and the cloud effect has been pretty much ignored.

Below are some youtube talks that give a very different picture of climate. And also give an idea of just how great the resistance is in the community to any dissenting view.

The effect of the Sun, Cosmic Rays, and Clouds

The sceptics case by Dr. M W Evans ............... https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case


The 97% consensus fraud.
Some dodgy goings on in the consensus gathering. As far as that goes, I don't really give a toss if the consensus were genuine. It's self-perpetuating and self-serving, so it's meaningless anyway.


Youtube > science.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
 
Posts: 40154
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby Animavore » Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:13 pm

The Sun is in a cooling phase, yet the Earth warms. The Sun doesn't explain why the lower atmosphere warms while the upper atmosphere cools. If the Sun was causing the warming it would warm all of the atmosphere equally. CO2, however, traps heat in the lower atmosphere, because it's heavier and stays near the bottom of the atmosphere, while cooling the upper atmosphere, as less heat is escaping into the upper atmosphere.

This is a prediction of climate science since the early days, now vindicated by reality.

And that's just to answer one part of your pathetic Gish gallop off the top of my head.


I may answer more later when I get home. I may not bother. Swatting flies is not something I have much time for these days.
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
 
Posts: 35675
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby Animavore » Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:18 pm

Lol. And "The Skeptics Case" is a classic argument from authority. Notice the author leads with his credentials, just like creationist fucktard, "Dr." Kent Hovind. And like Kent Hovind his doctorate has nothing to do with the field he's trying to lecture us on. He's an electrical engineer for fuck sake.

Come back when you have something that isn't laughable.
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
 
Posts: 35675
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby Animavore » Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:26 pm

Oh, and he's associated with CFACT.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committ ... e_Tomorrow

Who are, surprise, a libertarian think tank.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Co ... e_Tomorrow

(check out who funds them)

:hilarious:
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
 
Posts: 35675
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby Animavore » Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:58 pm

As for the consensus video: notice how MM posts a video supposed to dispute consensus (I got no further than 2 minutes to see the laughably flawed reasoning in the opening, I don't hold much hope for the rest), but insulates himself from a rebuttal by saying he doesn't care if the consensus is shown to be 97% because it's meaningless (which makes you wonder why he felt he had to post the vid). He is literally standing there with his fingers in his ears saying, "Nah. Nah. I can't hear you."
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
 
Posts: 35675
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby mistermack » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:20 pm

The Danish scientists are not saying that Solar OUTPUT is responsible for warming, but the strength of the Sun's magnetic field.
The magnetic field, so the theory goes, has been about double the normal level for the last 100 years.
This deflects more cosmic rays, which results in reduced low-level cloud cover, which allows more solar energy to reach the Earth.
The correlation between solar magnetic field, and temperatures, that sparked off this research, are extremely strong. Far stronger than the correlation between CO2 and temperatures, which is looking very shaky over the last twenty years.

What's also highly significant, is the antagonistic way that the work has been received.
But then, it would, if you had only one possibility that your brain is willing to consider. And that's what it shows about the climate industry in general. Anything pointing away from the holy message must be fought.

And Ani, I've always said that the so-called consensus is a self-serving irrelevance. Am I supposed to suddenly change my mind on that?
I threw that in just to shed light on the non-scientific atmosphere inside climate alarmism.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
User avatar
mistermack
 
Posts: 14440
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby Animavore » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:30 pm

mistermack wrote:The Danish scientists are not saying that Solar OUTPUT is responsible for warming, but the strength of the Sun's magnetic field.
The magnetic field, so the theory goes, has been about double the normal level for the last 100 years.
This deflects more cosmic rays, which results in reduced low-level cloud cover, which allows more solar energy to reach the Earth.
The correlation between solar magnetic field, and temperatures, that sparked off this research, are extremely strong. Far stronger than the correlation between CO2 and temperatures, which is looking very shaky over the last twenty years.

What's also highly significant, is the antagonistic way that the work has been received.
But then, it would, if you had only one possibility that your brain is willing to consider. And that's what it shows about the climate industry in general. Anything pointing away from the holy message must be fought.

And Ani, I've always said that the so-called consensus is a self-serving irrelevance. Am I supposed to suddenly change my mind on that?
I threw that in just to shed light on the non-scientific atmosphere inside climate alarmism.

Yeah... No.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... w-clothes/

http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-glob ... smic-rays/
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
 
Posts: 35675
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby mistermack » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:34 pm

Animavore wrote:He's an electrical engineer for fuck sake.

You are an idiot sometimes :
wikipedia wrote:Evans obtained the degree of Bachelor of Electrical Engineering from the University of Sydney in 1983; and PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in 1989. He has four other degrees.[1]
From 1999 to 2005 Evans worked in the Australian Greenhouse Office.[2][3] There he contributed to the development of FullCam, a fully integrated carbon accounting model for estimating and predicting all biomass, litter and soil carbon pools in forest and agricultural systems for the Australian government.[3] (FullCam, part of Australia's National Carbon Accounting System, received a Special Achievement in GIS award at the 2010 ESRI International User Conference).[4]


Maybe not just sometimes :funny:
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
User avatar
mistermack
 
Posts: 14440
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby Animavore » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:49 pm

mistermack wrote:
Animavore wrote:He's an electrical engineer for fuck sake.

You are an idiot sometimes :
wikipedia wrote:Evans obtained the degree of Bachelor of Electrical Engineering from the University of Sydney in 1983; and PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in 1989. He has four other degrees.[1]
From 1999 to 2005 Evans worked in the Australian Greenhouse Office.[2][3] There he contributed to the development of FullCam, a fully integrated carbon accounting model for estimating and predicting all biomass, litter and soil carbon pools in forest and agricultural systems for the Australian government.[3] (FullCam, part of Australia's National Carbon Accounting System, received a Special Achievement in GIS award at the 2010 ESRI International User Conference).[4]


Maybe not just sometimes :funny:


Your quote proves exactly what I said. :hilarious:

Do you think the fact that he was contracted to help develop a carbon accounting model (not even a climate model) means he's a climatologist?

His four other degrees. https://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
 
Posts: 35675
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.

Re: The Great Climate Debate: Potholer vs Steve Crowder.

Postby Animavore » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:54 pm

Wow! This Evans guy really is a piece of work.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090308033 ... nce_16.php
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
 
Posts: 35675
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology & Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests