Climate Change is a Hoax

[tmcom]

4 hours ago, tortugabob said:

In reviewing the posts I see that Doug has Doug-splained everything in the GAST paper.  Not published in the pro-AGW periodicals, writers not qualified to address the issue, don't know the math. No long list of reference papers one needs to prove that you speak truth. ...... All the usual stuff. .....Sokay we deniers are still gonna win.  No one is going to jump through all the hoops the alarmists want.  Their weather models will turn out to be bull**** again. They will kick the doomsday can further down the road, much to our glee.  And we will continue to laugh at them and resist the totalitarian entities pushing more taxes and rules on the people.

The main thing I came in here to do today is congratulate my denier brothers and sisters down in the land of Oz.   The liberal climate alarmist crowd got a good a-r-s-e kicking in the election.  I hope the re-election of Prime Minister Scott Morrison's Liberal National coalition government party shows them that the honest hard working people of Australia have had enough of the climate lies.

And by the year 2030 when all is well, (again) they will spin something up to proclaim, that the end will be nigh by 2040. And the CCC crowd will buy it again, and we will be showing that this happened previously and nothing came to pass, which of course don't make any difference to them, they are fanatically determined to end the world.

A fanatic may prove to themselves that they are not fanatical, but when they try to prove it to everyone else, it becomes obvious.

I thought that in the past that if a fanatic saw sufficient evidence then they would turn, or create some doubt, l know now that that isn't possible. Checkmate a nutter and they will throw their King at you and say, "you cheated", or "it was done with magnets" or anything else instead of just saying "l lost".

 

Thankyou @tortugabob, yeah, pretty happy, on Friday l was dreading Labour waving to the crowd saying "we did it" behind a red background. But no, the Liberals hammered them, and the greens with them, or the end is nigh reterich wasn't enough.

Labour and the Greens said that this election was a Climate Change vote, and they lost, why, manly because they wanted to take money away from retiree's and use it for their own stupid, unnecessary climate nonsense.

Most Retiree's don't believe in the end is nigh, (in AU) and do believe that losing money every year to fund the saving the world, isn't good, so Lab/Gr, lost!

I guess Australia isn't Completely F........ after all, lol.

[+joc]

20 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Sounds like you've successfully insolated yourself from ever learning anything.  Good luck with that.

Doug

That's just it Doug...you don't ever learn anything from the News Media...you get their Narrative...that's it.  That's not learning...that's indoctrination.  Good luck with that!

[tortugabob]

Yes indeed tmcom it was a sweet victory for all the sane people of Australia and for the world too.  Climate realists all over the world are slowly exposing the myth of global warming.  Of course the best thing that is happening is the politicians and the college educated fools keep generating tons of the end is nigh BS and time and again it falls flat on its face.  Even us stupid ole deniers can see that.  As an example let us cite my post #3002 for which I was loudly denounced by one of the thread's most useful. The article is a straightforward admission that the great extinction event, so loudly lamented by the AGW crowd, is for all practical purposes non-existent. But the goal of the article was not to admit that the pro-AGW whiners were wrong.  No the goal was to kick the can down the road by warning us if we didn't lower carbon emissions it is going to happen .........sometimes............... in the future.  The pro global warming crowd gets to weasel out of another prediction that is not happening and yet keep the mantra of doom going forward. So Junior I didn't miss the nuances and really appreciate you posting the quotes to make my point.  I've got some more articles to post.  Make sure you read them.  Your insight is most helpful.     

Edited May 20, 2019 by tortugabob

[tortugabob]

I love this one.  Many a truth was spoken in jest. 

 

[tortugabob]

Obviously everything said on this FOX video is lies.  The man does not have the right credentials or facts on this subject.  He's probably a Republican too.   Be  sure to listen to his Trump lies about Obama's EPA Endangerment Finding.  The Endangerment Finding that our current federal environmental policies are based on. But that shouldn't be according to Doug.  Doug tells us that our climate models aren't accurate enough to base policies on. Didn't Obama get the mandate from our resident expert?

 

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by tortugabob

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, joc said:

That's just it Doug...you don't ever learn anything from the News Media...you get their Narrative...that's it.  That's not learning...that's indoctrination.  Good luck with that!

When it comes to climate science, the news media are not at all reliable.  The peer-reviewed journal article is still the gold standard of scientific truth.

Doug

[tortugabob]

 

Quoting Doug's lastest nugget  "When it comes to climate science, the news media are not at all reliable.  The peer-reviewed journal article is still the gold standard of scientific truth."

That was true when the peer-reviewed journals were not politicized and when the study funding came from sources not trying to monetize an issue. 

[Doug1029]

4 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

 

Quoting Doug's lastest nugget  "When it comes to climate science, the news media are not at all reliable.  The peer-reviewed journal article is still the gold standard of scientific truth."

That was true when the peer-reviewed journals were not politicized and when the study funding came from sources not trying to monetize an issue. 

If a scientific journal publishes political tripe, it gets the reputation for publishing political tripe and scientists quit subscribing to it.  It goes out of business.  The only way it can stay in business is to publish the best-quality scientific work it can.

Doug

[tortugabob]

Doug-splains it:  "If a scientific journal publishes political tripe, it gets the reputation for publishing political tripe and scientists quit subscribing to it.  It goes out of business.  The only way it can stay in business is to publish the best-quality scientific work it can."

No Doug, when scientific journals publish global warming articles based on bad science some pseudo-scientists get to continue sucking on the grant teat and sit in their offices clacking on taxpayer funded computers. 

 

[Doug1029]

23 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

Obviously everything said on this FOX video is lies.  The man does not have the right credentials or facts on this subject.  He's probably a Republican too.   Be  sure to listen to his Trump lies about Obama's ERA Endangerment Finding.  The Endangerment Finding that federal environments policies are based on. But that shouldn't be according to Doug.  Doug tells us that our climate models aren't accurate enough to base policies on.

 

You seem to have nailed it in the first sentence.

Credentials don't matter if the person knows what he's talking about.  McKitrick made major mistakes in his paper and now you deniers worship him.  And the anti-global warming propaganda machine adores him, even though he can't tell degrees from radians.  "Four years of the most-rigorous peer review" and his paper is debunked within two weeks of publication.  Another of your darlings, James Inhoffe, quoted a paper that had been withdrawn from publication by the authors, citing mistakes.  One thing your side is not noted for is its scholarship.

There are about 300 different climate models.  Most target a specific area, like a major watershed.  You use those in a general way, but when it comes to speciifcs, like how high will the water in the Columbia at Oregon City get in the next fifty years, you can't count on them.  This is especially so in dry areas subject to summer thunderstorms - the precip is too random and variable for easy prediction.

Instead, go to specific papers on whatever you want to know.  For now, that's the best you're going to do.  However, general circulation models are getting better and I think they'll achieve the needed accuracy in just a few years.

Doug

There are about half-a-dozen genral circulation models.  Those are the ones used in world-wide climate simulations.  They work well on average, but when it comes to specific 

[Doug1029]

2 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

Doug-splains it:  "If a scientific journal publishes political tripe, it gets the reputation for publishing political tripe and scientists quit subscribing to it.  It goes out of business.  The only way it can stay in business is to publish the best-quality scientific work it can."

No Doug, when scientific journals publish global warming articles based on bad science some pseudo-scientists get to continue sucking on the grant teat and sit in their offices clacking on taxpayer funded computers. 

 

Scientific journals are funded through subscriptions, not grants.

Doug

[tortugabob]

No one said journals were funded by grants.  I just said pseudo-scientists suck on the grant teat and clack away at their taxpayer funded computers. I would guess that some of them even clack away at websites like Unsolved Mysteries.

Edited May 20, 2019 by tortugabob

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, tortugabob said:

Yes indeed tmcom it was a sweet victory for all the sane people of Australia and for the world too.  Climate realists all over the world are slowly exposing the myth of global warming.  Of course the best thing that is happening is the politicians and the college educated fools keep generating tons of the end is nigh BS and time and again it falls flat on its face.  Even us stupid ole deniers can see that.  As an example let us cite my post #3002 for which I was loudly denounced by one of the thread's most useful. The article is a straightforward admission that the great extinction event, so loudly lamented by the AGW crowd, is for all practical purposes non-existent. But the goal of the article was not to admit that the pro-AGW whiners were wrong.  No the goal was to kick the can down the road by warning us if we didn't lower carbon emissions it is going to happen .........sometimes............... in the future.  The pro global warming crowd gets to weasel out of another prediction that is not happening and yet keep the mantra of doom going forward.    

Yes, a few days ago, (before the election) in a Rupert Murdock, Newspaper, which according to a CCC nutcase, (other forum) is the epitome of evil for the CCC crowd, had a advertisement stating what the truth was, or there was no end is nigh, and the usual article by one of the two editors with an actual brain who still use it, also stated that if AU went back to the stone ages tomorrow it would make very little difference globally, (1-3%) (the US or China is different).

But does that make any difference to a CCC, in AU, nope, Labour was going to Take Action on Climate Change, by p****ing away a quarter of a trillion at least, where at least 30 billion of that would be stripped from retiree's, (the key reason they lost) so up to half of us would be driving electric cars by 2030, eventhough they would by charged at night, when solar is junk and wind, well it would blow part of the time at night.

And if you want a 4 Wheel drive or tow a speedboat forget it, no Tesla 4WD's available, (l know by 2030 there might be, but a 4WD enthusiast isn't going to vote on a maybe).

And in the meantime none of this makes any difference globally, we are just too small a country!

But a CCC voter runs on Action and Emotion, so...no surprize that 70% of CCC's are age 18+

 

And as for the CCC nutter l mentioned earlier, on the other forum, he seemed to be happy and posting regularly, and took a stab at me, politically in one post, And months ago has rubbished the Liberals to death, saying they will be run over by Labor/Greens, since they believe in Climate Change, and was certain that L'G would win.

After they didn't, he disappeared, and hasn't been seen since, although still active, (not posting though) on one forum he frequents.

My guess is he is at a bar, crying that the end is nigh over a beer, or it a forest somewhere hugging tree's?

I expect that he will return soon, to crack the s****ts big time, like a child having his CCC lollypoop yanked away from him, so l will look forward to that light entertainment, lol.

22 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

Obviously everything said on this FOX video is lies.  The man does not have the right credentials or facts on this subject.  He's probably a Republican too.   Be  sure to listen to his Trump lies about Obama's ERA Endangerment Finding.  The Endangerment Finding that federal environments policies are based on. But that shouldn't be according to Doug.  Doug tells us that our climate models aren't accurate enough to base policies on.

 

Yes, he is wearing glasses and only has 30 years experience, Fake News, bo-ho- sob, sob!

[tortugabob]

Dodgy Doug sez:   "McKitrick made major mistakes in his paper and now you deniers worship him.  And the anti-global warming propaganda machine adores him, even though he can't tell degrees from radians.  "Four years of the most-rigorous peer review" and his paper is debunked within two weeks of publication."

Minor mistakes Doug that don't negate the overall  accuracy of his points. Debunked in  two weeks by the very teat suckers that need to keep the global warming grant machine pumping.  Fess up Doug ...... when was the last time you had a job in private industry? Tell us when was the last time you didn't  have to back up to get your paycheck? 

[tortugabob]

And I missed this Doug-gem on first reading:  "Credentials don't matter if the person knows what he's talking about." 

Doug is the only person on this thread who gets to have things work like this.  Basically what he is saying is that people engaging with what Orwell defined as Correct Thought or Speech are the only people we should listen to.  

[tmcom]

11 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

Dodgy Doug sez:   "McKitrick made major mistakes in his paper and now you deniers worship him.  And the anti-global warming propaganda machine adores him, even though he can't tell degrees from radians.  "Four years of the most-rigorous peer review" and his paper is debunked within two weeks of publication."

Minor mistakes Doug that don't negate the overall  accuracy of his points. Debunked in  two weeks by the very teat suckers that need to keep the global warming grant machine pumping.  Fess up Doug ...... when was the last time you had a job in private industry? Tell us when was the last time you didn't  have to back up to get your paycheck? 

I forgot to mention that the day after the great win, or Sunday l drove down to the nearest shopping centre to gloat over the L,G loss in the evil paper l like to read, and the power was out in half the centre, and using the CC in a checkout without power was a chore, (had to show id, and key in the barcode) the terminal still had power.

And l joked with someone there about our premier, (Victoria is labour, and he did unfortunately get a second term, mainly due to the CCC 18+ crowd) who spit the dummy and pulled the plug.

The electrol zone l live in was a key player in whether labor got in again, so our premier probably pulled the plug and spit the dummy, which is no surprize from an idiot that uses brainwashed children to get elected.

It was on him thought, since l enjoyed the more relaxed atmosphere, and went to an area, that still had power, (shopping centre power is covered by two grids, with one being out) and realized that they have a good selection available.

There are a lot of dimwits in my state that unfortunately outnumber the sane ones, but that will hopefully change over time.

[Doug1029]

54 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

Obviously everything said on this FOX video is lies.  The man does not have the right credentials or facts on this subject.  He's probably a Republican too.   Be  sure to listen to his Trump lies about Obama's EPA Endangerment Finding.  The Endangerment Finding that our current federal environmental policies are based on. But that shouldn't be according to Doug.  Doug tells us that our climate models aren't accurate enough to base policies on. Didn't Obama get the mandate from our resident expert?

 

 

I have one major advantage over most climatologists:  I work with the past.  What I "predict" has already happened.  A tree ring chronology can "predict" past temperatures, right up through 2018.  But all I can tell you about 2019, so far, is that there will be no ice storm signature.  I don't know about false rings in cedar yet, because those result from summer storms.  I suspect 2019 will be a nice fat ring because of all the rain we've had.  But until the trees go dormant this fall, all that is in the future.

I understand the reasoning here and there's an off chance he's right.  My global figures have been filtered through NOAA, so let's not trust those.  But my local records come from the National Archives.  They show about 1.6 degrees of warming since 1826.  And those temperatures correlate with NOAA's published list of temperature anomalies.

If you're going to forge something, you have to get it to fit with all the other records on the subject.  That's no small job.  When Dave Stahle published the McCurtain County Shortleaf Pine Chronology in 1982, he had no idea that 25 years later I would make another collection of shortleaf pine cores from the same area and find an ice storm signature in 1836.  In 1982 they didn't know there was such a thing as an ice storm signature.  That signature is in two of Dave's chronologies and one of mine and is confirmed by weather records from Fort Gison collected by the Surgeon General's office.

So I can tell you that global warming is real, because it has already happened and I have measured it.  I can tell you that there have been dire consequences of that warming already and I listed a bunch of hurricanes that show it.  So even if Fox News is right, they're not accounting for history.

Doug

[tmcom]

14 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

And I missed this Doug-gem on first reading:  "Credentials don't matter if the person knows what he's talking about." 

Doug is the only person on this thread who gets to have things work like this.  Basically what he is saying is that people engaging with what Orwell defined as Correct Thought or Speech are the only people we should listen to.  

So De Caprio is an expert, knew it!

[Doug1029]

29 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

Dodgy Doug sez:   "McKitrick made major mistakes in his paper and now you deniers worship him.  And the anti-global warming propaganda machine adores him, even though he can't tell degrees from radians.  "Four years of the most-rigorous peer review" and his paper is debunked within two weeks of publication."

Minor mistakes Doug that don't negate the overall  accuracy of his points. Debunked in  two weeks by the very teat suckers that need to keep the global warming grant machine pumping.  Fess up Doug ...... when was the last time you had a job in private industry? Tell us when was the last time you didn't  have to back up to get your paycheck? 

Mistaking radians for degrees is NOT a minor mistake.  It conpletely invalidates the paper.

When did I last have a job in private industry?  I ran my own forestry consulting business from 1991 to 2003.  Does that count?

Doug

Edited May 20, 2019 by Doug1029

[tortugabob]

quoting tmcom :" I expect that he will return soon, to crack the s****ts big time, like a child having his CCC lollypoop yanked away from him, so l will look forward to that light entertainment, lol."

I'm trying to remember who else in here is from Oz.  I know it's not marsman.  We ran him off before the election.  And our resident expert on American coal is that Irishman who told us in  ten years there would be no mining of coal in America.  He's probably the one who told Al Gore there would be no snow in a decade ..........  what was that?  Back in 2001?  Anyway we ran him off before the Oz election. What sobbing snowkflake are you referring to?

[Doug1029]

1 minute ago, tmcom said:

So De Caprio is an expert, knew it!

Everybody has to be able to present evidence to support what they're saying.  I'm not aware that De Caprio has presented any.  And, for that matter, neither have you.

Doug

[tortugabob]

The Dougster sez: "When did I last have a job in private industry?  I ran my own forestry consulting business from 1991 to 2003.  Does that count?" 

 

I have two ways to answer this. 1) Not when your paycheck came from the government funding and/or  2) Were you the one who recommended that US national forests be planted in mono-culture pine forests so that timber companies could maximize their profits at taxpayer and wildlife expense?

[Doug1029]

3 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

quoting tmcom :" I expect that he will return soon, to crack the s****ts big time, like a child having his CCC lollypoop yanked away from him, so l will look forward to that light entertainment, lol."

I'm trying to remember who else in here is from Oz.  I know it's not marsman.  We ran him off before the election.  And our resident expert on American coal is that Irishman who told us in  ten years there would be no mining of coal in America.  He's probably the one who told Al Gore there would be no snow in a decade ..........  what was that?  Back in 2001?  Anyway we ran him off before the Oz election. What sobbing snowkflake are you referring to?

You need to be specific.  WHO said there would be no coal mining in America in ten years?  Please cite the article.

My own opinion:  there will always be a small amount of coal mining in America to supply industries that can't get along without it.

Snow is being brought to you courtesy of the Polar Vortex which is forcing Arctic storms to dip southward to get around it.  That's weather, not climate, but the "wild weather" has been going on at least since 2007, so we're 11 years into the 30-year minimum.

Doug

[tortugabob]

Doug sez; "Mistaking radians ofr degrees is NOT a minor mistake.  It conpletely invalidates the paper."

Radians or degrees.  It was probably a a typo by his grad student typist.  But this isn't about his paper.  This is about the points he makes on the climate models and their projections.  Projections that are way off the mark as shown by their lousy predictions.   

Earth to Doug......Earth to Doug. Come in Berlin!    We still have snow. NYC is still above water.  The polar bears are thriving. And the hurricanes and tornadoes are no more violent than they ever were.  Doug-splain that to us my good man. 

[Doug1029]

2 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

The Dougster sez: "When did I last have a job in private industry?  I ran my own forestry consulting business from 1991 to 2003.  Does that count?" 

 

I have two ways to answer this. 1) Not when your paycheck came from the government funding and/or  2) Were you the one who recommended that US national forests be planted in mono-culture pine forests so that timber companies could maximize their profits at taxpayer and wildlife expense?

I worked for private landowners.  I had three major clients and 50 little ones.  Dwarf-mistletoe control was a big item, as was Defensible Space and forest management planning.  I also planted windbreaks.  I had one small reforestation job following the Black Tiger Fire (Google it.).  

About monculture on National Forests:  that was initiated long before my time - I believe it has been policy since Gifford Pinchot initiated it.  The only thing I had to do with it was Stage II cruising on old clearcuts to see if the stands were regenerating properly.

Some species, like Douglas-fir, grow in natural monocultures.  Not all monocultures are bad.

Doug