Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Forethat

  1. Did anyone read the article, or "viewpoint", published in Bioscience the other day (I've attached a link)? I mention this article in relation to the past days debate regarding scientific consensus.

    The report claims to be signed by more than 11,000 scientists. The report went viral and was covered by pretty much every media house in the world.


    There's at least ONE grown up reaction:




    Here's a link to the actual report:



    Here's the PDF that lists all signatories (pay special attention to the gynecologists and Micky Mouse at the Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind, as they have signed the report):

    supplemental file S1 - signatory list - Ripple et al 10-14-19.pdf


    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1

  2. 7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

    In fact the real battle humankind is facing is against the "profit at all costs" mentality, which enrich few, while making life difficult for the rest, man made global warming is a false target aimed to confuse and divide the public opinion.

    I beg to differ.


    Mankind's biggest battle is the reptile brain mentality that makes people susceptible to whatever verbal excrement someone comes up with. 

    If I didn't know any better I'd say the climate panic hoax is nothing but a huge psychological experiment; someone is trying to find out how much BS you can shove down someone's throat - and charge them for the privilege - before they realise they are being played. Like a banjo.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  3. 20 minutes ago, rabas said:

    Clearly Global Warming and sea level rise is isolated to Bangkok and surrounding areas.


    Do you know how those elevations are referenced? Bangkok is loosing similar  elevation due to land subsidence and water extraction. This reference suggests that includes Samut Prakan so maybe the sea is not yet rising. https://www.tcijthai.com/news/2015/09/english/5725.


    If oceans do not rise substantially as claimed, I wonder if half a billion people can sue for hundreds of trillions of dollars in lost property value.




    The values are relative to the Revised Local Reference (RLR) established by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL). For the Koh Taphao Noi station this is set at 10.232m below primary benchmark BM AS-1/2531.

    Here's the GLOSS information for the Koh Taphao Noi station



    • Thanks 1

  4. 14 minutes ago, Forethat said:

    Any particular area you are interested in @thaibeachlovers? Gulf of Thailand or Andaman Sea?

    I can serve this data.

    Just to give you some idea of the rise. This is Phrachula Chomklao Fort (Samut Prakan). Note that the rise really kicked off in the 1950's and have been steady since.




    Data source:



    The graph below shows the annual sea level rise at Koh Taphao Noi (Phuket).

    As you can see it's currently jumping between two and three mm rise per year. The rise is trending at 1.76mm/year for 1940-2019.




    Data source:



  5. Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

    Trying to get facts using google is a bit difficult now. They seem to have bought into the <deleted> completely. I tried to find how much the sea level has risen around Thailand, and didn't find any facts, only a lot of Chicken Little could be, might be type results.

    Any particular area you are interested in @thaibeachlovers? Gulf of Thailand or Andaman Sea?

    I can serve this data.

  6. Is there a 97% consensus?

    Here is a great report on the subject written by SINTEF, parented by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 



    This report outlines the main positions and debates surrounding the literally hot topic of man-made global warming. Inspired by social studies of science and technology, the goal of the report is to document, describe and take stock of this potent scientific and public “battlefield” that plays out arguably some of the more pressing issues of our time.




    • Like 2

  7. Just now, grollies said:

    These two are arguing about a completely meaningless survey.




    The paper was produced in 2009 by student Maggie Zimmerman and her master’s thesis advisor Peter Doran.




    Their claim that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperature has risen since before the 1800s and that humans were the significant contributing cause is totally discredited by the structure of the survey.




    These two sent a two-minute online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies. They excluded thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with the Earth’s climate.




    They also ignored scientific status of the respondents, instead they only relied on the respondent’s place of work - universities and government research agencies – places in receipt of public money and who have a vested interest in promoting AGW.




    Indeed, around 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD and some not even a Master’s Degree. Only 5 percent of respondents self-identified as climate scientists.



    Ignoring the low response rate, the questions themselves were irrelevant:




    “Q1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean


    global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively






    Well, even the most ardent skeptic wouldn’t argue that the Earth’s temperature has increased from the Little Ice Age to today.




    “Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”




    And neither would anyone reasonably argue that human activities have had some impact on climate temperature, although to what degree human activity has is hotly debated (puns intended).






    Rubbish survey, already discredited in most scientific circles (but still promoted by NASA et al.)


    Just to point out, I brought this paper up for discussion because several posters referred to it in reference to the 97% consensus. 


    WHat the climate alarmists have done is to build up a series of papers that make incorrect statistical conclusions. The second one refers to the second one, the third one refers to the second and so on. Finally IPCC refers to ALL of them and claims that there are several papers making the same conclusion - that there is a 97% consensus. There isn't. it's a fib, just as you point out.


    First post


    Second post


    Third post



    Forth post



    That someone can argue against this is pretty explanatory for the debate - people simply refuse to admit that they are wrong.  

  8. Just now, bristolboy said:

    At least we're finally getting to a source of your misinformation. Watts-up-with-that. Let me tell you a little something about Watts up with that. There is a very eminent physicist named Richard Mueller. Back when, he was very skeptical about global warming. He felt that the temperature measurements were biased because of various factors like heat islands. Even though climatologist insisted that they had taken that into account.  So, via Anthony Watts, the publisher of watts up with that, he was given money to assemble a dream team of scientists and statisticians to recheck those measurements.

    The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

    "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."


    I am not misinformed. They removed 3069 responses to manufacture the view that there is a 97% consensus. There isn't. You've been had. Live with it.


    • Like 2

  9. 6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

    Nobody who responded to the survey was removed. Arbitrarily or otherwise. Nobody. What you claim is false. The responses were simply broken down by how familiar the scientists would be with climate science. 

    " In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

    That's where the 97.4% figure in this survey came from (not 98%).  Once again here's  definition of arbitrary  "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

    And here's a graph that makes very clear the breakdown of all 3000+ responses

    The 97% claimed consensus refers to 75 out of 77 responses. They removed the remaining 3069 responses when the conclusion was made. There is no 97% consensus, It's a fib. Add the remaining responses and see where you arrive at? You've been had. Sorry. Live with it.



    • Like 1

  10. 3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

    Did you actually follow the link I supplied in post # 2398, page 160? I'm guessing you didn't even look at it. If you had, you couldn't possibly claim that "3069 were removed for arbitrary reasons." Or for that matter, for any reason. No one was removed from the survey. No one. The results were broken down in various ways. One of the results tallied the answers of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change. Other results were for different kinds of scientists:  Non publishers/non climatologists, climatologists, active publishers-all topics, active publishers - climate change. Here's the definition of arbitrary:

    "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

    Yes I read the article, but you didn't. 3069 respondents were removed. For arbitrary reasons.

    The 97% is 75 out of 77. 





    • Like 1

  11. 6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

    Also, the point I was making is that Forethat obviously got it wrong about the results. No respondents were removed from arbitrary reasons. In fact no respondents were removed at all.

    Excuse me? The creators of the survey invited 10,257 members of the American Geophysical Union, AGU, to a survey. As few as 3,146 replied. The creators of the survey removed 3069 replies for arbitrary reasons and out of the remaining 77 replies, 75 replied that they thought that global warming was caused by humans. 


    They invited 10,257 people to the survey. 3,142 accepted by replying. Out of the 3,142 respondents, 3069 respondents were removed for arbitrary reasons.

    And this is what the entire global climate alarmists pin their hopes to?


    I feel for you. Honestly.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  12. 4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

    So after all that nonsense of yours about how I was refuted by the particular stretch of years that I chose, 


    "If you want to debate another period, feel free to do so, but in case you initiate a debate regarding the period 1998-2018 the facts are conclusive - as provided by NASA - the global warming measured in Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water Temperature is 0.45 degrees Celsius. Using the Land-Ocean Temperature Index the warming for the period YOU brought up for discussion is 0.24 degrees Celsius."


    hoist by mine own petard so to speak, (although actually I was replying to the time period that canuckamuck chose) it turns out that it wasn't a question of the time period at all. That, by your lights, it could have been any set of dates. Because whatever dates get chosen you reject NASA's interpretation of it.

    And why would I send Nasa an email about their data? Because some anonymous party on Thaivisa disputes their claim that global warming did occur from the period from 1998 to 2018? That they somehow don't understand what their data means? It is to laugh.

    Maybe I should send the following to NASA. It may give them a laugh:

    "Presumably, given the correctly made up parameters and extrapolated values, there is probably a chance that Bangkok was covered in a layer of six meter thick ice last week, but it'll be much easier to check the real data to figure out that wasn't the case."

    Or who knows, maybe they'll smack their collective forehead and realize that their work has been revealed to be empty and that their lives have been a waste.

    I have yet to see anyone dispute that warming occurred during the period in question. At least on here. I certainly don't dispute that fact. Contrary, I have provided facts to show to show exactly how MUCH warming.


    Hope that helps.

  13. 14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:


    So why did you write this?

    "There hasn't been any significant warming during the period 1998-2018. I have posted graphs, data and links to data sources that shows EXACTLY how much warming there has been during the period. The graph is valid. The data is valid. The links are valid. The data sources are valid. Live with it."

    After all, extrapolated to a hypothetical century, it becomes a temperature increase of 1.2 degrees centigrade. 


    There's no relevance in extrapolating data only to create a sensationalist view of a warming that never occurred. We have the actual data and we don't need to guess or speculate. The warming for the period in question was 0.24 degrees Celsius using the data set YOU referred to. Fact. 


    Presumably, given the correctly made up parameters and extrapolated values, there is probably a chance that Bangkok was covered in a layer of six meter thick ice last week, but it'll be much easier to check the real data to figure out that wasn't the case. 


    I notice you have now resorted to fairytales and what can only be described as a climate alarmists christmas wish list. It'd be a lot easier if you simply admitted to yourself that the data doesn't lie - there IS no significant global warming to speak of during the period 1998-2018, and if you have a problem recognising the facts I suggest you send an email to NASA or NOAAD, where the data I have referred to is published.


    Hope that helps!

    • Like 1
    • Confused 1

  14. 16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

    I lifted that .24 figure from one of your posts. #2308.

    "I should also point out that NASA often uses the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as a measurement. Using that index, the warming during the period 1998-2018 has been even less. According to that index, the deviation was 0.61 degrees Celsius in 1998 and 0.85 degrees Celsius in 2018. That's a 0.24 degree warming in 20 years."


    Of course if you want to use the .45 figure ( I wouldn't)  then extrapolated to a hypothetical century that would be a 2.25 degrees rise. My God, you're one of those Climate Alarmists I've been hearing so much about!

    They are two different data sets.

    1. Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index. 

    2. Combined Land Surface Air & Sea Surface Water Temperature


    I have used both dataset and each time linked to the data as well as been specific as to which set was used. In addition, I have previously described the difference in data sets and warming outcome to exactly the numbers you describe. Here:


    In addition, the 0.24 warming was according to the data set used to create the graph YOU first posted. But I concur, the warming for the period 1998-2018 is 0.24 degrees Celsius if you use the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index.


    • Like 1
  • Create New...