Climate change denier paid by energy companies:

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I suppose you think the current change in our climate, glaciers melting, right now towns in Alaska having to be abandoned because the ocean is already encroaching on their villages, all that stuff is just temporary"

Maybe it is temporary. That sort of thing is not unheard of.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150224113711.htm

What i ...[text shortened]... e forced to move. Don't have a panic attack.

In the meantime watch out for that glacier.
🙄

I am not afraid of a glacier. I am afraid FOR the glacier. You do hide your head in the sand ignoring the deterioration of the planet going on around you in front of your very eyes. You probably sit around in your little condo with nothing much to do but troll the internet spewing your poison, ignoring the truth of the planet. Humans are the major cause of climate change. That is a fact. You can't hid that forever. People like you will be the first to die when you are totally unprepared for the changes to come.

Just remember, you have been warned plenty of times by plenty of people.

It sounds like you never even heard of the ogallala aquifer. You probably don't also know that aquifer is the result of the end of the last ice age.

Why bother learning stuff like that when you can just smoke your joints in your condo and hide your head in the sand till it's too late.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I am not afraid of a glacier. I am afraid FOR the glacier. You do hide your head in the sand ignoring the deterioration of the planet going on around you in front of your very eyes. You probably sit around in your little condo with nothing much to do but troll the internet spewing your poison, ignoring the truth of the planet. Humans are the major cause of ...[text shortened]... you can just smoke your joints in your condo and hide your head in the sand till it's too late.

"You do hide your head in the sand ignoring the deterioration of the planet going on around you in front of your very eyes."

Deterioration of the planet? Seriously? Can you find a climate scientist that would not laugh at that kind of hysteria?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"You do hide your head in the sand ignoring the deterioration of the planet going on around you in front of your very eyes."

Deterioration of the planet? Seriously? Can you find a climate scientist that would not laugh at that kind of hysteria?

So these people are just pulling the hysteria card?:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-5.html#.VO8rIfnF98E


http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/

This also from National Geographic. I guess you figure they are a bunch of hippy tree huggers no doubt.

Along with rising seas, Florida will be battered in the coming decades by extreme weather—dry-season drought and rainy-season deluges—the U.S. government’s National Climate Assessment predicts. Heat and drought threaten an agricultural industry that supplies the East Coast with winter vegetables, and they could undermine the three mainstays of Florida farming—tomatoes, sugarcane, and citrus. The rainy season will be stormier, with fiercer hurricanes and higher storm surges.

"The most profound disruption will occur along the state’s 1,350 miles of coastline. Three-quarters of Florida’s 18 million people live in coastal counties, which generate four-fifths of the economy. Coastal development, including buildings, roads, and bridges, was valued in 2010 at two trillion dollars. Already more than half the state’s 825 miles of sandy beaches are eroding.

Four southern counties—Monroe, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach—are home to about one-third of Florida’s population, and about 2.4 million people live less than four feet above the high-tide line. The streets of Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, and Miami Beach often flood during the occasional “king tides,” which are much higher than normal high tides.

The oceans could rise two feet by 2060, according to the National Climate Assessment, as their waters warm and expand and as the Greenland and polar ice sheets melt. By 2100 seas could rise as much as 6.6 feet. That would put much of Miami-Dade underwater. For every foot the seas rise, the shoreline would move inland 500 to 2,000 feet.

A two-foot rise would be enough to strand the Miami-Dade County sewage-treatment plant on Virginia Key and the nuclear power plant at Turkey Point, both on Biscayne Bay.

“At two feet they will be sitting out in the ocean,” says Hal Wanless, chairman of the University of Miami’s geology department. “Most of the barrier islands will be uninhabitable. The airport is going to have problems at four feet. We will not be able to keep freshwater above ocean levels, so we’re going to have saltwater intrusion into our drinking-water supply. Everyone wants a nice happy ending. But that’s not reality. We’re in for it. We have really done a job warming our ocean, and it’s going to pay us back.”

Wanless, who is 72, didn’t think he’d witness the serious effects of climate change in his lifetime. For three decades he was a lonely voice warning that the warming ocean could inundate South Florida. In the 1980s he documented that barnacles were attaching themselves higher on bridge piers in Coral Gables, where he lives, than they were in the 1940s. In recent years he analyzed the shrinking glaciers in Greenland and concluded that the main scientific modeling used to calculate sea-level rise hadn’t fully accounted for accelerating ice melt. Last year the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave greater weight to ice-sheet melt in its calculations, raising its projections for sea-level rise.

Florida’s long, low coastline may make it more vulnerable, but no region is immune. In 2012, flooding, wildfires, drought, and storms around the country caused more than $110 billion in damages, the second costliest year in U.S. history. In a foreshadowing of severe weather to come globally, Typhoon Haiyan spiraled across Southeast Asia in 2013 and struck the Philippines, killing 6,200 people. That year also saw crop-destroying droughts on nearly every continent, most notably in Africa and South Asia. The Brazilian Highlands, the center of South America’s monsoon region, experienced the worst drought since 1979, prompting water rationing. Rapid glacial melting in the Andes and Himalaya will exacerbate water shortages in Peru, India, and Nepal.

The coming decades, the World Bank predicts, will see political instability, food shortages, and famine, leading to the displacement of millions of people. South Asia’s and Southeast Asia’s heavily populated coasts, particularly those in Bangladesh and Vietnam, could be inundated. Worse, rising seas could invade major river deltas, poisoning them with salt water and destroying some of the world’s richest agricultural land. The Mekong River Delta in Vietnam, where 17 million people live and half the country’s rice supply is grown, is already battling saltwater intrusion."

But it doesn't mean shyte to you.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So these people are just pulling the hysteria card?:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-warning-signs-of-global-5.html#.VO8rIfnF98E


http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/

This also from National Geographic. I guess you figure they are a bunch of hippy tree huggers no doub ...[text shortened]... supply is grown, is already battling saltwater intrusion."

But it doesn't mean shyte to you.

Are you stupid?

How many times do I have to repeat this fact again and again? CLIMATE MODELS ARE UNRELIABLE. They are not proof of anything. Listen to the climate scientists and most of them will tell you that. If you cannot show the climate models agree with each other (because they do not) your doomsday predictions are nothing but wild theories. I know it is hard for you to accept that everything you know is wrong, but get used to it. The facts will not go away. They will get swept under the rug by climate scientists who want to keep getting funded, but they will still be there for me to bring up and remind you every time you claim wild theories are fact. Climate scientists have incentive to exaggerate because government does very little funding if you say there is no real problem. Want funding? Be an alarmist. It really is that simple. It is sad. It is pathetic, but that is how it really works. Singer only does well because he is extremely intelligent and very competent at what he does. He doesn't lie about his research and even a lot of alarmists respect him a great deal. A few alarmist lie about him because the facts he points out are very inconvenient and embarrassing. That is why you cannot find a credible source of information to confirm any of those false allegations.

Once again, show me proof that Singer lied. If you don't it will show you to be the true liar.

YouTube

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Are you stupid?

How many times do I have to repeat this fact again and again? CLIMATE MODELS ARE UNRELIABLE. They are not proof of anything. Listen to the climate scientists and most of them will tell you that. If you cannot show the climate models agree with each other (because they do not) your doomsday predictions are nothing but wild theories. I k ...[text shortened]... you don't it will show you to be the true liar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI

And are you frigging blind? Did you read any of what I just posted, did you look at the images of the melting glaciers? That means nothing to you?

If you see a congressman getting kickbacks from say, tobacco, and then comes out with a proposed bill to soften the blow to tobacco, changing the cover art to something not so provocative like tobacco kills or some such, would you be so adamant about letting that person get away with that crap?

I think you are so narrow minded you can't see the bigger picture any more.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And are you frigging blind? Did you read any of what I just posted, did you look at the images of the melting glaciers? That means nothing to you?

If you see a congressman getting kickbacks from say, tobacco, and then comes out with a proposed bill to soften the blow to tobacco, changing the cover art to something not so provocative like tobacco kills or ...[text shortened]... y with that crap?

I think you are so narrow minded you can't see the bigger picture any more.

"did you look at the images of the melting glaciers? That means nothing to you?"

Sure, everybody knows glaciers never melt. 🙄

Didn't you claim that Monsanto funding a GMO study was fine as long as it was peer reviewed?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"did you look at the images of the melting glaciers? That means nothing to you?"

Sure, everybody knows glaciers never melt. 🙄

Didn't you claim that Monsanto funding a GMO study was fine as long as it was peer reviewed?

Nice throwing up strawmen. GMO's have nothing to do with climate change, but you knew that since you are into repetition and obfuscation. You didn't answer my question. Did you read the Nat. Geo posts?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nice throwing up strawmen. GMO's have nothing to do with climate change, but you knew that since you are into repetition and obfuscation. You didn't answer my question. Did you read the Nat. Geo posts?

I read it, but since climate models are unreliable it means nothing. It is wild theory put forth by scientists who want continued funding so they pretend to know when they don't. Once again, CLIMATE MODELS ARE UNRELIABLE. Get it through your thick skull!

If you were the one who was fine with Monsanto funding a study about GMOs as long as it was peer reviewed it would make you a huge hypocrite with no credibility at all. ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
but since climate models are unreliable

-a vague and totally baseless assertion coming from an extremely arrogant opinionated none scientist ignorant of basic physics and of the science of computer simulations and mathematical modelling and thus who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about whenever he speaks of such things.
Sorry, virtually nobody, esp scientists, takes your idiotic assertions seriously here (nor anywhere else ).

Oh, and before you yet again equate disagreeing on trivial details with "unreliable": ALL the climate models predict there is measurable (and enough to kill millions ) man made global warming and whatever more trivial details they disagree on doesn't change that fact nor, because of the way the science of modelling works, in anyway imply/indicate they are all wrong about what they all agree on.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I read it, but since climate models are unreliable it means nothing. It is wild theory put forth by scientists who want continued funding so they pretend to know when they don't. Once again, CLIMATE MODELS ARE UNRELIABLE. Get it through your thick skull!

If you were the one who was fine with Monsanto funding a study about GMOs as long as it was peer reviewed it would make you a huge hypocrite with no credibility at all. ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Other than a collection of papers written by Singer, whose objectivity is in doubt, what is the basis for your claim that climate models are unreliable?

Originally posted by humy
-a vague and totally baseless assertion coming from an extremely arrogant opinionated none scientist ignorant of basic physics and of the science of computer simulations and mathematical modelling and thus who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about whenever he speaks of such things.
Sorry, virtually nobody, esp scientists, takes your idiotic assertion ...[text shortened]... ce of modelling works, in anyway imply/indicate they are all wrong about what they all agree on.

"ALL the climate models predict there is measurable (and enough to kill millions ) man made global warming"

What is your source of information? Show deepthought you are not just making it up. Show us how much climate models agree with each other and that all of those unknown factors can possibly be predicted with accuracy.

Originally posted by Metal Brain

What is your source of information?

I believe we have already shown you a relevant link a long time back. Search it for yourself if you like; I will not waste my time searching it just for you to deny it, which we all know you will.

Show deepthought you are not just making it up.

Since I wasn't speaking to deepthought, why him in particular rather than someone else here in particular?

Show us how much climate models agree with each other

On what? Trivial details or man made global warming? Be specific.

and that all of those unknown factors can possibly be predicted with accuracy.

How can something that is “unknown” be “predicted with accuracy”? -I mean, if and when something can be “predicted with accuracy”, it generally ceases to be "unknown", yes? And exactly which "unknown factors" you say are imputed into the models that result in the prediction of significant man made global warming which wouldn't have been made if it was not so inputted?....
You clearly have no idea how scientific modelling works.

The models make predictions from known causal factors (and I don't know where you got this “unknown” from) such as the laws of physics, some basic physics facts such as that from, amongst other sources, the measurements made of the infrared absorption spectrum of C02 in laboratories, and the known geographic layout of the land and oceans of earth and the type of vegetation that covers the land -nothing “unknown” there.
There is some simplifying assumptions that have to be inputted in the models, such as that regarding the exact physics of cloud formation, but nothing that has been shown to so drastically effect the picture outputted to result in the conclusion that there is no significant amount of man made global warming. Instead, these relatively trivial differences of input to the models merely results in far more trivial differences in prediction outputted from the models such as exactly where, not if, the worse droughts are going to be etc.

Originally posted by humy
I believe we have already shown you a relevant link a long time back. Search it for yourself if you like; I will not waste my time searching it just for you to deny it, which we all know you will.

Show deepthought you are not just making it up.

Since I wasn't speaking to deepthought, why him in particular rather than someone else here in ...[text shortened]... nd and oceans of earth and the type of vegetation that covers the land -nothing “unknown” there.

"I believe we have already shown you a relevant link a long time back."

No, you have not and you are fully aware that you have not. You are the perfect axample of how GW alarists can be liars simply in an attempt to save face.

Climate models are only as good as the input from people that amount to opinions. Nobody can agree on how clouds affect outcome (for example) so it isn't dependent on the laws of physics. It is dependent on which climate scientist is right in how he programs his/her model. An honest climate scientist would simply say they don't know the outcome because there are too many factors, but try getting funded again by saying you don't know. To continue funding you have to pretend to be sure about uncertainties. Honesty simply is not rewarded.

You are simply making crap up as you go along. That is why you never have a source of information.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Other than a collection of papers written by Singer, whose objectivity is in doubt, what is the basis for your claim that climate models are unreliable?

My source of information is Singer who is more than qualified.

From the link below:

"So they're faked, you're saying?

They're tweaked. I think that's a polite way of putting it. They're adjusted, or tweaked, until they produce the present climate and the present short-term variation. You have to also understand there's something like two dozen climate models in the world. And one question to ask is: Do they agree? And the answer is: They do not. And these models are all produced by excellent meteorologists, fantastic computers. Why do they not agree? Why do some models predict a warming for a doubling of CO2, of, let's say, five degrees Centigrade--which is eight degrees Fahrenheit)--and why do other models predict something like one degree?

Well, there's a reason for this. These models differ in the way they depict clouds, primarily. In some models, clouds produce an additional warming. In some models, clouds produce a cooling. Which models are correct? There's no way of telling. Each modeler thinks that his model is the best. So I think we all have to wait until the dispersion in the model results shrinks a little bit--until they start to agree with each other."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Singer is a climate scientist. If his opinion is not good enough for you prove him wrong. Present the statements of another climate scientist if you like. I am confident Singer's statements are very accurate. He has debated other climate scientists and nobody ever questioned his honesty that I am aware of. If you claim Singer's objectivity is in doubt is it in doubt by you? I ask this because Singer is a highly respected climate scientist contrary to what some would want you to believe.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
My source of information is Singer who is more than qualified.

From the link below:

"So they're faked, you're saying?

They're tweaked. I think that's a polite way of putting it. They're adjusted, or tweaked, until they produce the present climate and the present short-term variation. You have to also understand there's something like two dozen ...[text shortened]... Singer is a highly respected climate scientist contrary to what some would want you to believe.

Thankyou for the response. There is a risk of bias with Singer, which doesn't automatically mean he's wrong, but it is there. I'm aware of the problems with computer models (I'm working on a transport model at the moment and it's messy and unstable, although it is at the proof of concept level and not expected to be realistic). If I had the time and inclination I'd try to refute Singer's claims, but I don't so I'll leave it to the others. Straightforwardly I simply do not know anywhere near enough about this to properly enter the debate and climate simulation is not trivial. I can refute some claims (the climate is not strongly non-linear for example) but not others (e.g. your point about clouds).

In the unlikely event we had a referendum on this issue with a question along the lines of "Should Britain reduce fossil fuel use to IPCC recommended levels?" then based on what I know and the advice I've been given up until now I would vote yes. Which is the best way I have of stating my opinion on this matter.