5 of 33
5
Science, science, science.
Posted: 06 September 2017 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01

trouble with posting
Using logic and standing back and looking at the big picture. If it is true that money is affecting our science. Then it really should not be affecting the science in places like China for example. So how are they seeing what is going on with the climate change with the research being done in China? Here is an example http://www.kaltesonne.de/china-warmephase-des-20-jahrhunderts-war-im-kontext-der-letzten-2000-jahre-nicht-einzigartig/

 
Warm Periods in the 20th Century Not Unprecedented during the Last 2000 Years
 
In other words, the heat we are having today has happen twice before in the last 2000 years. Meaning that the CO2 has had no effect as far as the heating of the earth beyond what has happened in the near past.
 
Now I have heard that before from our scientists, but it has been discarded by the CO2 movement. I wonder if that movement is going to do the same with findings by the Chinese scientists? China is part of the IPCC. If the IPCC is being influenced by political influence they should come to butt heads with the Chinese scientists before the next report. 
 
This report came out a week ago and I would like to see how it matches up with the sun cycles.
China chart

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 04:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5251
Joined  2007-08-31
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 01:42 AM

Here is an example http://www.kaltesonne.de/china-warmephase-des-20-jahrhunderts-war-im-kontext-der-letzten-2000-jahre-nicht-einzigartig/

The website of Fritz Vahrenholt. See e.g. here.

He has financial interests in RWE, which promotes nuclear energy. He is known to take results from other scientists and take them out of context, still doing so after being criticised from exactly these scientists.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 04:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4163
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 07:47 PM

What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.

To have a license, you have to have a body that determines who qualifies for the license. Someone makes the test and determines who passes. I trust the 97% consensus as the standard but you think it has become politicized and misused. So who is going to certify these licenses?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 07:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1597
Joined  2016-12-24
Lausten - 06 September 2017 04:26 AM
MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 07:47 PM

What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.

To have a license, you have to have a body that determines who qualifies for the license. Someone makes the test and determines who passes. I trust the 97% consensus as the standard but you think it has become politicized and misused. So who is going to certify these licenses?

Nah, if we could make deliberately misrepresenting what the scientists are actually saying - a criminally actionable offense - that would make all the difference in the world.

I would volunteer to be on the team prosecuting Mike Yohe who feels he as a right to maliciously misrepresent what scientists are saying
and lie about what the state of the understanding actually is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 07:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4163
Joined  2009-10-21
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 06 September 2017 07:37 AM
Lausten - 06 September 2017 04:26 AM
MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 07:47 PM

What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.

To have a license, you have to have a body that determines who qualifies for the license. Someone makes the test and determines who passes. I trust the 97% consensus as the standard but you think it has become politicized and misused. So who is going to certify these licenses?

Nah, if we could make deliberately misrepresenting what the scientists are actually saying - a criminally actionable offense - that would make all the difference in the world.

I would volunteer to be on the team prosecuting Mike Yohe who feels he as a right to maliciously misrepresent what scientists are saying
and lie about what the state of the understanding actually is.

To prosecute something, a law has to be violated. For evolution, we had laws about teaching it and that is where the questions were deliberated. Not sure what the equivalent would be for AGW. Knowingly suppressing data that relates to regulations seems like a crime against humanity to me. Where is Klaatu when need him?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 08:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1597
Joined  2016-12-24
Lausten - 06 September 2017 07:44 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 06 September 2017 07:37 AM
Lausten - 06 September 2017 04:26 AM
MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 07:47 PM

What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.

To have a license, you have to have a body that determines who qualifies for the license. Someone makes the test and determines who passes. I trust the 97% consensus as the standard but you think it has become politicized and misused. So who is going to certify these licenses?

Nah, if we could make deliberately misrepresenting what the scientists are actually saying - a criminally actionable offense - that would make all the difference in the world.

I would volunteer to be on the team prosecuting Mike Yohe who feels he as a right to maliciously misrepresent what scientists are saying
and lie about what the state of the understanding actually is.

To prosecute something, a law has to be violated. For evolution, we had laws about teaching it and that is where the questions were deliberated. Not sure what the equivalent would be for AGW. Knowingly suppressing data that relates to regulations seems like a crime against humanity to me. Where is Klaatu when need him?

How about knowingly, tactically maliciously misrepresenting what scientists have actually said and reported.
How about repeating lies, that have been clarified and explained, over and over and over,
yet continuing to republish original versions of deliberately fabricated lies, having been totally deliberately malicious deaf to all corrections and evidence provided?

We do have slander and liable standards and laws.  Don’t we?

But we seem to have lost our communal expectation of truth from ourselves and others.
Today it’s whatever you want to believe and anyone who doesn’t agree is an enemy.

So to hell with it.

quite literally.

Just sit back and watch the show unfold MikeYohe, you’ll find yourself in the middle of some of this before you know it.

2017 Off to Destructive Start: Severe Weather Reports Tally 5,000+ ...
https://weather.com/storms/.../severe-weather-hail-tornado-wind-damage-2017-mid-a...
Apr 10, 2017 - 2017 Off to Destructive Start: Severe Weather Reports Tally 5,000+, .... rare early- season event when severe thunderstorms spawned three EF1 ...

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Table of Events ...
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events
In 2017 (as of July 7), there have been 9 weather and climate disaster events with .... Severe storms also caused damage across several other states (OK,TN, KY,MS .... 2016-06-22, 2016-06-24, Torrential rainfall caused destructive flooding ...


U.S. Communities Clobbered by $53 Billion in Extreme Weather and ...
https://www.americanprogress.org/.../2017/.../u-s-communities-clobbered-by-53-billio...
Jan 19, 2017 - Center for American Progress analysis found that the economic toll of the 15 most destructive extreme weather events in 2016 was more than ...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
GdB - 06 September 2017 04:20 AM
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 01:42 AM

Here is an example http://www.kaltesonne.de/china-warmephase-des-20-jahrhunderts-war-im-kontext-der-letzten-2000-jahre-nicht-einzigartig/

The website of Fritz Vahrenholt. See e.g. here.

He has financial interests in RWE, which promotes nuclear energy. He is known to take results from other scientists and take them out of context, still doing so after being criticised from exactly these scientists.

Thanks for checking that out.
My checking was with Prof. Quansheng Ge. EurekAlert had the same data. //eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/ioap-wpi080817.php
 
The Professor’s data seem to be more popular in Germany. He had been at the universities in Germany collaborating on paleoclimatic research. His book just came out “Atlas of Environmental Risks Facing China Under Climate Change”. The professor has represented China in several countries, therefore seem to be a good pick for what China is thinking about climate change right now.
 
Wattsupwiththat.com did publish it here first but it did not go anywhere. I know I missed it. A few of the posted remarks were;
“Unless climate is fractal, the signature of a chaotic system. Then variation is the same on all spatial scales. Imagine that?”
   
“Mann’s Hockey Stick went back 1000 years. On this graph, going back the lesser of 600 years, there is another Hockey Stick”
 
“Whether someone believes our present climate change is natural, man-made or a combination of both, somehow many have portrayed it as bad for mankind, when actually history has shown that the opposite is actually true.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 09:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 06 September 2017 04:26 AM
MikeYohe - 05 September 2017 07:47 PM

What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.

To have a license, you have to have a body that determines who qualifies for the license. Someone makes the test and determines who passes. I trust the 97% consensus as the standard but you think it has become politicized and misused. So who is going to certify these licenses?

I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed! cool grin  This fake reporting is making the Americans look like dumb fools and costing too much. 
 
In real life, determination would be done by the bonding companies who have funds at risk. If you’re a crackpot scientist, then no one would bond you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4163
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 09:58 AM

I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!

I don’t think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you’re job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 02:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 06 September 2017 10:39 AM
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 09:58 AM

I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!

I don’t think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you’re job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation?

Would not be a hard job. If you are a scientist working directly on the computer model projects, you stay. Other-wise you go. Once the computer models are up and running then open the field to all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4163
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 02:51 PM
Lausten - 06 September 2017 10:39 AM
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 09:58 AM

I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!

I don’t think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you’re job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation?

Would not be a hard job. If you are a scientist working directly on the computer model projects, you stay. Other-wise you go. Once the computer models are up and running then open the field to all.

Clarifying. All of the current scientists who are working directly on the computer model projects are certified, according to you, to speak about climate change.
What do you mean by “up and running”? Do you think these models can be stabilized and just run on their own at some point?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2017 07:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1597
Joined  2016-12-24
Lausten - 06 September 2017 04:50 PM
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 02:51 PM
Lausten - 06 September 2017 10:39 AM
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 09:58 AM

I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!

I don’t think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you’re job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation?

Would not be a hard job. If you are a scientist working directly on the computer model projects, you stay. Other-wise you go. Once the computer models are up and running then open the field to all.

Clarifying. All of the current scientists who are working directly on the computer model projects are certified, according to you, to speak about climate change.
What do you mean by “up and running”? Do you think these models can be stabilized and just run on their own at some point?

Actually he doesn’t have the first clue what climate models are actually used, or even what they are.
or that it’s climate models run by government people, the horror, giving us days worth of warning about hurricanes paths and such.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2017 06:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 06 September 2017 04:50 PM
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 02:51 PM
Lausten - 06 September 2017 10:39 AM
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 09:58 AM

I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!

I don’t think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you’re job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation?

Would not be a hard job. If you are a scientist working directly on the computer model projects, you stay. Other-wise you go. Once the computer models are up and running then open the field to all.

Clarifying. All of the current scientists who are working directly on the computer model projects are certified, according to you, to speak about climate change.
What do you mean by “up and running”? Do you think these models can be stabilized and just run on their own at some point?

Let’s get out of the want to be world and get back into today’s world. I know some people refuse to go there. But, it is what we make it to be.
 
The 97.1% is a good item for discussion about the science and the money.
 
It relates to the reports. What are there now over 10,000 reports a year being written? 200 work days in a year. Let’s say a scientist spends on average 10% of his overall time reading reports. Therefore, he is going to read 500 reports a day. This would not include the time spent on the peer review of reports. Noting that all these reports are peer reviewed. That’s not going to work, is it?
 
Isn’t a report mostly someone’s idea about a subject giving a different view point or expanding the understanding on the subject, or the rearranging and combining of other reports into one report for better understanding? Four decades of sharping the concepts of global warming by American scientists. Hundreds of thousands of reports. More data and paperwork done on global warming than for projects like going to the moon or creating the nuclear bomb. The best cutting age computers and data accessing equipment used. It should be safe to assume scientists by now with the resources that we, the taxpayers have provided could, if wanted, give names and weight to every rain drop and snowflake that is generated today.
 
The 97.1% report has been used as the proof that all but 3% of our scientists believe that anthropogenic actions are the main cause of global warming today. It has been quoted in the news and by congressmen and even the president.
Lausten, I respect your wordsmithing and your debating skills. I hope to someday reach half the level you’re at. I would be happy.  You say that you agree with the 97.1%. Can you tell us what you are agreeing with and why?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2017 06:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 06 September 2017 07:34 PM
Lausten - 06 September 2017 04:50 PM
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 02:51 PM
Lausten - 06 September 2017 10:39 AM
MikeYohe - 06 September 2017 09:58 AM

I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!

I don’t think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you’re job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation?

Would not be a hard job. If you are a scientist working directly on the computer model projects, you stay. Other-wise you go. Once the computer models are up and running then open the field to all.

Clarifying. All of the current scientists who are working directly on the computer model projects are certified, according to you, to speak about climate change.
What do you mean by “up and running”? Do you think these models can be stabilized and just run on their own at some point?

Actually he doesn’t have the first clue what climate models are actually used, or even what they are.
or that it’s climate models run by government people, the horror, giving us days worth of warning about hurricanes paths and such.

Yea, my degree in computer science is of no help, I need a degree in political science to talk climate change with CC.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 September 2017 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4163
Joined  2009-10-21

This is not a debate. We are not debating. I’m trying to figure out you are saying. If you take that as a challenge to your thoughts, that’s up to you. I used the word “agree” as a shortcut for “I accept that the IPCC and related scientists use methods that are quality controlled and verified to reach a consensus conclusion”.

Your accounting of reports is interesting, but it seems to assume that all scientists related to the climate change debate are, or should have, a full understanding of all of the data and should keep up on every bit of the latest data and analysis. That’s not how science works. Scientists create studies, do them, and report on them. One might study ocean temperatures, another sun spots, and some of them consolidate all of those and look at things that need to include many disciplines, like global climate. What you fail to recognize is the complexity. Which is odd, since all of these reports will tell you what degree of accuracy they think they are achieving and that ultimately, we only have one globe, so we don’t really know.

You also misinterpret the data of 97.1% consensus. Reports don’t translate to people. I suspect you could two reports with someone’s name in the consensus and not in the consensus. That doesn’t make that person whacko, it means they found different data and had differenct conclusions based on it. You might also want to look into the 3%. Some of it is a few people and a few institutions pumping out a lot of bad data. If you count scientists, I believe the vote is higher. But counting scientists is not how you reach a consensus, so it’s a vote, it doesn’t carry the same weight as the consensus.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 33
5