New Zealand defense report says climate change greatest security risk

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Rationality is even faker than science.

That admission makes the content of your posts much easier to understand.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That admission makes the content of your posts much easier to understand.

Sick burn!

[Krataiboy]

29 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

You mean Newton is a pretty big if?

 

i agree with you as I believe that fairies live at the bottom of my garden.

"If the Greenland ice cap melts. . ." is the statement I was referring to.

I repeat, a big if.

[Krataiboy]

47 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Got a link to that alleged Purdue study? I only find references to it on denialist websites. Until you come up with proof that it exists, I am going to assume it's fake.

On the other hand, I did find a links to 2 Purdue studies which contradict the findings of your alleged study. Oddly enough, they are both linked to Purdue University's website:

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q4/study-farmers-and-scientists-divided-over-climate-change.html

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q3/purdue-study-climate-change-consensus-extends-beyond-climate-scientists.html

How can you be so gullible? It's so easy to use the internet and check up on this fakery.

Gullible. . .  fakery? You must confusing me with the inventors and of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph and their disciples.

 

The Purdue study you ask about is among sources cited under the Cons section of procon.org's digest of the main arguments for and against climate change.

 

Oh, and would it be gullible of me to consider this graphic reproduced below to be another nail in the global warming lobby's coffin?

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Rationality is even faker than science.

Please tell me your truthful alternatives.

[fullcave]

6 hours ago, Thunder26 said:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-in-2018

 

Here's another link that shows that the ice mass has actually increased over Greenland recently. Yes some areas saw some loss of ice, but more areas saw ice gain.

That's why the changed the name to climate change so they got all the bases covered. If the ice is thicker than that is also a change. ????

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed along with one with unsubstantiated information.

 

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Gullible. . .  fakery? You must confusing me with the inventors and of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph and their disciples.

 

The Purdue study you ask about is among sources cited under the Cons section of procon.org's digest of the main arguments for and against climate change.

 

Oh, and would it be gullible of me to consider this graphic reproduced below to be another nail in the global warming lobby's coffin?

 

"Gullible. . .  fakery? You must confusing me with the inventors and of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph and their disciples."

A very poor attempt at deflection. The only fakery involved with the hockey stick story was on the part of the people who reported and printed it in the first place:

NEWSPAPERS RETRACT 'CLIMATEGATE' CLAIMS, BUT DAMAGE STILL DONE

"But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February.

In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.”

The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing."

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

The Purdue study you ask about is among sources cited under the Cons section of procon.org's digest of the main arguments for and against climate change.

Well, I tracked down the study that the procon.org citation that claimed to be from Purdue University.

"173 Linda Stalker Prokopy, Lois Wright Morton, J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr., Amber Saylor Mase, and Adam K. Wilke, "Agricultural Stakeholder Views on Climate Change: Implications for Conducting Research and Outreach," Journal of the American Meteorological Society, Feb. 2015"

Actually it was from Iowa State University and 53% of the climatologists believed that climate change was occuring primarily due to human causation and another 37% believed it was due equally to natural factors and human causation. That makes for a total of 90%.

See table on page 184

https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.th/&httpsredir=1&article=1013&context=soc_las_pubs

In other words that 47% figure is wrong as per usual.

 

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Oh, and would it be gullible of me to consider this graphic reproduced below to be another nail in the global warming lobby's coffin?

 

Do you ever stop to think about something called priors? That is the reasonableness of your assumptions. Hadcru4 is put out by the university of East Anglia and is one of the leading centers of climate research in the world. The trendline shows an increase in temperatures over 221 months which would translate to 1.07 degrees increase over a century. What exactly do you think it shows?

[Krataiboy]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Do you ever stop to think about something called priors? That is the reasonableness of your assumptions. Hadcru4 is put out by the university of East Anglia and is one of the leading centers of climate research in the world. The trendline shows an increase in temperatures over 221 months which would translate to 1.07 degrees increase over a century. What exactly do you think it shows?

Sorry, wrong graph. The download I meant to post (reproduced below) and the one I posted in error, both figure in an analysis of the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. (https://www.corbettreport.com/the-global-warming-pause-explained/).

The video presentation also calls into question the supposed vindication of the Hockey Stick model.

 

 

Don't wish to overburden you, but the presentation below explains in greater detail the flaws in the Hockey Stick model (the nitty gritty starts at around the 6min.40sec mark):

 

 

 

 

[Catoni]

18 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Sorry, wrong graph. The download I meant to post (reproduced below) and the one I posted in error, both figure in an analysis of the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. (https://www.corbettreport.com/the-global-warming-pause-explained/).

The video presentation also calls into question the supposed vindication of the Hockey Stick model.

 

 

Don't wish to overburden you, but the presentation below explains in greater detail the flaws in the Hockey Stick model (the nitty gritty starts at around the 6min.40sec mark):

 

 

 

 

     This is an interesting graph also....:  

 

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Catoni said:

     This is an interesting graph also....:  

 

Isn't it odd how this graph stops at just about 1860. Let's bring it up to date, shall we?

 

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Isn't it odd how this graph stops at just about 1860. Let's bring it up to date, shall we?

 

You need to watch this 

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

You need to watch this 

 

Tell me something. After you watched this video did you do any research to find a rebuttal? Because I'm getting kind of tired of consistently correcting the falsehoods you post. What makes it worse is that you don't even acknowledge when your claims are false. You just go on to the next thing. So, did you do any searching at all on the internet to see why this video might be making a false claim?

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Tell me something. After you watched this video did you do any research to find a rebuttal? Because I'm getting kind of tired of consistently correcting the falsehoods you post. What makes it worse is that you don't even acknowledge when your claims are false. You just go on to the next thing. So, did you do any searching at all on the internet to see why this video might be making a false claim?

Fake news is the new truth! Welcome to the future

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Fake news is the new truth! Welcome to the future

You might want to take a glance at that hockey stick video. It looks like the word of a disturbed 12 year old. But apparently to some people, that what science looks like.

[Hummin]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You might want to take a glance at that hockey stick video. It looks like the word of a disturbed 12 year old. But apparently to some people, that what science looks like.

I have given up common sense. I follow the crazyness with one eye, and Im trying to live my life to the fullest before I go under. No kids, so I have done my share for the next genertion, and can enjoy rest of my life with no concern or guilt ????

[fasteddie]

On 12/7/2018 at 7:45 AM, fasteddie said:

I don't care if it's Jack the ripper and the hole in the wall gang if the message is true, anyway meteorologists and hydrologists trump railway engineers.

Actually I'm out of touch, it's now an economist and a civil servant dolling the money out for the IPCC, gotta keep those computer programmers fed ????

[fasteddie]

[Scott]

Post and replies violating Fair Use Policy removed along with a questionable source post.

 

[Krataiboy]

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

Post and replies violating Fair Use Policy removed along with a questionable source post.

 

Sorry, Bristolboy. And just when things were - well, shall we say starting to warm up?!!

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Sorry, Bristolboy. And just when things were - well, shall we say starting to warm up?!!

(To the mods: this reply is about procon.org which is a legitimate organization that provides data for debaters. It is not  a fake news website or a dubious one as can be proven by its sponsors. I am not addressing the dubious videos posted by various members)

 

But it did show the futility of having any kind of exchange with you. I had pointed out earlier that the claim from procon.org about the Purdue study was mistaken.. (I don't assign any sinister motive to procon for this. It's a legitimate organization. Sometimes they can get it wrong). I gave you a link to the study. I even gave you the page number which would prove that the 47% number was false. Your response? To repeat the claim as though I had never posted a challenge to it.

In fact, what better proof of the weakness of your case that you had to resort to procon for information. Procon's purpose is to provide data for debaters. So the weaker a case is, the more you need it.

And it's proof of how weak your case is that the evidence you cited is so worthless. It's true that a petition was signed by 1000 scientists. Not just climatologists but all kinds of scientists. In fact overwhelmingly not climatologists. There are millions of scientists in the world. What does it signify that 1000 signed a petition?

And it's true that another 15 scientists signed a signed a statement. Again, so what?

There have been plenty of statistically valid surveys that show that the scientific community overwhelmingly supports the theory of Anthropocentric Climate Change.

[Krataiboy]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

(To the mods: this reply is about procon.org which is a legitimate organization that provides data for debaters. It is not  a fake news website or a dubious one as can be proven by its sponsors. I am not addressing the dubious videos posted by various members)

 

But it did show the futility of having any kind of exchange with you. I had pointed out earlier that the claim from procon.org about the Purdue study was mistaken.. (I don't assign any sinister motive to procon for this. It's a legitimate organization. Sometimes they can get it wrong). I gave you a link to the study. I even gave you the page number which would prove that the 47% number was false. Your response? To repeat the claim as though I had never posted a challenge to it.

In fact, what better proof of the weakness of your case that you had to resort to procon for information. Procon's purpose is to provide data for debaters. So the weaker a case is, the more you need it.

And it's proof of how weak your case is that the evidence you cited is so worthless. It's true that a petition was signed by 1000 scientists. Not just climatologists but all kinds of scientists. In fact overwhelmingly not climatologists. There are millions of scientists in the world. What does it signify that 1000 signed a petition?

And it's true that another 15 scientists signed a signed a statement. Again, so what?

There have been plenty of statistically valid surveys that show that the scientific community overwhelmingly supports the theory of Anthropocentric Climate Change.

Odd that youl should consider my consulting ProCon, which exists to provide a balanced view of major issues such as climate change, as a "weakness". One misdirected citation does not invalidate the remainder of the facts I have referred to from the Cons section of their climate change information, which I quoted in full in an earlier posting, but which was deleted by a moderator, for unspecified "fair use" reasons.

 

I have not, since you ask, come across any convincing rebuttal of James Corbett's hatchet job on the Hockey Stick, a graphic which remains stubbornly contentious - as indicated by this recent headline and article: AFTER 20 YEARS, THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GRAPH THAT SPARKED A WAVE OF CLIMATE ALARMISM IS STILL IN DISPUTE (https://dailycaller.com/2018/04/30/hockey-stick-graph-global-warming/). Have YOU, incidentally, an explanation for the seemingly inexplicable  pause I referenced in the alleged upward global warming trend for nearly two decades since 1998?

 

I feel bound to point out that majority support for a particular view on a scientific subject as complex as this does not mean their conclusion is necessarily correct.  Science evolves constantly with the acquisition of new knowledge, otherwise we'd still believe the earth was the centre of the universe - and flat to boot.

 

After decades of debate, many reputable scientists still dispute the impact of man on the environment. And some, like Dr Judith Curry, have actually morphed from believers into dissenters. Giving evidence to a House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearing in April 2015, she declared: "Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence". 

 

As far as I can ascertain, she has not changed her opinion.

 

Neither, so far at least, have I.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Odd that youl should consider my consulting ProCon, which exists to provide a balanced view of major issues such as climate change, as a "weakness". One misdirected citation does not invalidate the remainder of the facts I have referred to from the Cons section of their climate change information, which I quoted in full in an earlier posting, but which was deleted by a moderator, for unspecified "fair use" reasons.

 

I have not, since you ask, come across any convincing rebuttal of James Corbett's hatchet job on the Hockey Stick, a graphic which remains stubbornly contentious - as indicated by this recent headline and article: AFTER 20 YEARS, THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GRAPH THAT SPARKED A WAVE OF CLIMATE ALARMISM IS STILL IN DISPUTE (https://dailycaller.com/2018/04/30/hockey-stick-graph-global-warming/). Have YOU, incidentally, an explanation for the seemingly inexplicable  pause I referenced in the alleged upward global warming trend for nearly two decades since 1998?

 

I feel bound to point out that majority support for a particular view on a scientific subject as complex as this does not mean their conclusion is necessarily correct.  Science evolves constantly with the acquisition of new knowledge, otherwise we'd still believe the earth was the centre of the universe - and flat to boot.

 

After decades of debate, many reputable scientists still dispute the impact of man on the environment. And some, like Dr Judith Curry, have actually morphed from believers into dissenters. Giving evidence to a House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearing in April 2015, she declared: "Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence". 

 

As far as I can ascertain, she has not changed her opinion.

 

Neither, so far at least, have I.

There was no real pause in the global warming trend after 1998. But this is an example of how deniers distort the facts. 1997-98 were the years of a huge El Nino. Which means the ocean released a lot of heat which heated up the atmosphere. So for a while the subsequent years were on average cooler than that peak. And what dishonest denialist sites did was to create graphs that started with 1998 so that it looked like a decline was in effect. They never noted that 1997-98 were El Nino years. But if you take away the 1997-98 el nino years, every year subsequent to that was warmer on average than every year going back to 1880, And there have now been non El Nino years that have been warmer than the 1997-98 El Nino years.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998

[Thunder26]

On 12/9/2018 at 7:10 PM, fasteddie said:

It was mentioned about Russian model that shows no Global Warming. I agree. If you ask any local Russian that lives from Ural Mountains towards East (which is away from the influence of Atlantic Gulf Stream) they would confirm that the weather was getting colder for the last decade. The winter lasts 9 months now. It ends in May with the snow melt and it starts with September when the fresh snow arrives. They get only 3 months of warm weather. They would definetely want some global warming ????

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, Thunder26 said:

It was mentioned about Russian model that shows no Global Warming. I agree. If you ask any local Russian that lives from Ural Mountains towards East (which is away from the influence of Atlantic Gulf Stream) they would confirm that the weather was getting colder for the last decade. The winter lasts 9 months now. It ends in May with the snow melt and it starts with September when the fresh snow arrives. They get only 3 months of warm weather. They would definetely would want some global warming ????

Especial the tundra of Sibir needs a melt down, so we get more metan in to the athmosphere! Good point

[Thunder26]

9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Especial the tundra of Sibir needs a melt down, so we get more metan in to the athmosphere! Good point

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. My point is that it is unbelievable how mass media and education in schools brainwash people about something irrelevant to our daily lives and make them pay taxes to governments, different organizations etc. for a lost cause. CO2 has nothing to do with temperature change. There are different factors that influence the climate change and we as humans cannot control. Yes, I would agree to pay tax for making our planet less polluted, but I can't listen to their gibberish about human caused global warming and how bad it is. Why? Because they have no clue what they are talking about. They are not being honest and just looking for another way to get profits in their pockets. Humans are a gullible species. Enough said.

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, Thunder26 said:

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. My point is that it is unbelievable how mass media and education in schools brainwash people about something irrelevant to our daily lives and make them pay taxes to governments, different organizations etc. for a lost cause. CO2 has nothing to do with temperature change. There are different factors that influence the climate change and we as humans cannot control. Yes, I would agree to pay tax for making our planet less polluted, but I can't listen to their gibberish about human caused global warming and how bad it is. Why? Because they have no clue what they are talking about. They are not being honest and just looking for another way to get profits in their pockets. Humans are a gullible species. Enough said.

There is sevaral reasons to clima change, but to deny humans is not an factor is something we should not gamble on. Brainwashed is to believe in creation and other fairytales, but again we have the chance to make the planet earth a better place for most people. 

 

I think for most people who live in the big cities in the world would be happy with cleaner air, and people in rural places will be happy the nature provide them clean food, clean water, and maintain our forrest as best we can. 

 

We can dissagree as much we want, but what I highlight as important above, is just basic common sense. The question is, are we willing to pay what it cost to do in time? 

[Thunder26]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

There is sevaral reasons to clima change, but to deny humans is not an factor is something we should not gamble on. Brainwashed is to believe in creation and other fairytales, but again we have the chance to make the planet earth a better place for most people. 

 

I think for most people who live in the big cities in the world would be happy with cleaner air, and people in rural places will be happy the nature provide them clean food, clean water, and maintain our forrest as best we can. 

 

We can dissagree as much we want, but what I highlight as important above, is just basic common sense. The question is, are we willing to pay what it cost to do in time? 

I totally agree with you for a cleaner planet. I want that as well, but I want it to be sencere and not profit making opportunity.