Global warming all wrong?

Comments

daftcunt's picture

This was supposed to be a response to the biastoids idiotic submission about this study. I guess it was voted off or the coward deleted it. 
Thankfully potholer54 took the time to read the study and belittle inform the twats and alternative-truth believers so I don't have to do it, it's not a fucking easy read after all.

From 6:00 he specifically addresses the "carbon discrepancy". 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I have to assume it was voted off by petty pathetic little scum like you. As of midnight last night it had 10 votes and a score of 2.4. And I'm reposting both videos right here so everyone can see how very reasonable they are. Clear-cut and unambiguous unlike your triggered horseshit - you clearly did not watch the vid since the first thing Suspicious 0bservers says is that the headlines regarding this topic have been misleading. I'm tired of you responding to things you don't even bother to watch. There's no better indication of your lack of objectivity than the way you are freaking out over something so undeniable as the impact of this latest revelation. As I have said to you repeatedly, the very top level experts that you admire not only can't answer the most basic questions upon which their prescriptions are based - they can't even estimate with confidence. Given what you now know, have your thoughts on the Paris accord changed at all? I'm guessing lol not?

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

I guess it was voted off by people that have an interest in the science behind the issue and don't blindly believe shit people post or blog about because it feeds their bias. And of course reposting shit that was voted off is pathetic enough so someone like you would actually do it.

Go "consulting", coward!

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Why don't you stop crying and just watch the two videos? They are videos for people who have an interest in the science behind solar activity, space weather and climate change. My confident guess is that half the people who voted it down didn't watch it.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

My prediction is they will dial it back again within 2-4 years, where CO2 scare is downgraded, and other factors like the sun become more prominent in the models.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

You still don't understand that the suns influence on climate IS WELL UNDERSTOOD AND INCORPORATED in the models. It was also mentioned in the debunking I submitted earlier. And looked at IN DEPTH and from an agendaless point of view in the potholer54 video series regarding global warming.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

At the end of the first video I posted above, which you obviously did not watch, it states clearly that the influence of the Sun is only just now being included in the models for the first time. I'm sorry you bought into a con perpetrated by folks who misrepresented science - you wanted to be on the smart team with the reasonable people: I understand. People like you have an easy time accepting that horseshit systems of belief can happen with religion but not with other conceptual control systems, and so you fall in deep. You can still crawl out though - let it go bud. 

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Again you believe the bloggers rather than the scientists.

Watch the potholer series I referred to various times and then make up your mind INFORMED. But learning, unlearning, relearning and educating yourself is not what you like if it isn't in line with your bias....

 

In contrary to how you like to portray yourself you actually are on of the most biased and closeminded people on here.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Right back at you bud. Potholer is a blogger drawing from your fanboy field of science, which just got smacked. Suspicious Observers is the exact same thing, drawing from the solar and cosmic side of science for its hypotheses and predictions. I can tell you haven't looked even one second into the depth of the science upon which Suspicious 0bservers bases a lot of their opinions because if you had done so you would realize that we truly are dealing with two legitimate and competing branches of science. They should NOT be in competition with each other, which see this having become more about politics than about science. Which is my chief complaint, since what I'm actually really concerned about, in the end, is our understanding of climate change.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Again: If there is something to it REAL scientists look into it.

potholer of course is a blogger but with some twists you don't like: 

  • he puts current knowledge in laymens terms.
  • ALL "claims" he makes can EASILY  be verified as every information is backed up by reference to SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, and not just drawn from someones arse.
  • What he reports is not cherrypicked to follow an agenda  
  • The videos on global warming do not focus on PART but the ENTIRETY of factors we currently undestand are part of the issue.
  • Potholer CONSTANTLY ENCOURAGES viewers NOT TO TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT but to look at the papers and studies themselves.

 

 All this presented in an (for me at least) entertaining fashion, WITHOUT "daily mail headline speech" or "climate alarmists vocabulary". Of course this is not very accomodating to someone who constantly feels there is some sort of conspiracy going on (against the world in general and them in particular).

"Finger pointing, bold head line" videos and news articles like the one that was voted off and all the crowder or shapiro or Patrick moore etc.shoit on the issue are based on cherrypicked information driven by an agenda.

THAT IS WHY IT IS SO EASY TO DEBUNK THEM!

That is why crowder did not debate with potholer54.

Even I could have done it thanks to backdraft providing the link to the full study. Which YOU, OF COURSE did not even glance at because science can get scary when it does not feed the bias.

 

Lastly:

Some are just too stubborn, others too dumb and a few (like you) just too scared to look past their comfort zone that is their bias!

 

+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

All of the bullet points you listed for potholer apply to Suspicious Observers.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

Yeah....you just said "watch my blogger, not the other blogger I don't like". 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

Your talking like the science is set in stone. It is not. It evolves constantly. Just watch as the models will continue change again and again.  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Raining Blood's picture

"Your talking like the science is set in stone. It is not. It evolves constantly"

you're talking like science acts like the wind, its constantly changing. it's not, it's constant and unwavering

2+2=4, it didnt start of as 2+2=3 and it's not evolving into 2+2=5.

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Dagambit's picture

You just gave a math example as science. Just saying.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Raining Blood's picture

math is the language of science. can you science without math? can you figuer out the atomic weight of an atom without it? can you guage the mass of a planet without it? can you.... just saying

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

Just because your math is right doesn't mean your science can't be flawed. Just saying

 

Didn't this get updated sometime ago?

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

no? still exactly the same, with a bit more added and also some clarification.

pluto is still the same size and in the same place it always was, redefining the word "planet" didn't make anything about pluto suddenly wrong, just as clarifying data on carbon doesn't suddenly make climate change wrong.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

A concept that wasn't really based on observing the world but more based on 'these are the culturally dictated rules that you either abide by or get the ostrracized by the group'. Burned on the stake in other words basically.

 

The helio-centric view had been observed and thought out before it was 'scientifically discovered' but 'their God was weak' compared to the God of the earth-centric group.

 

^ Some 3-4 thousand years in five sentences or less, not to be taken as accurate representation of history.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Take as a modern example the unnecessary decades-long rivalry that occurred between The Advocates of membrane Theory and The Advocates of string theory. They fought and were quite nasty to each other before realizing that they were both describing the exact same phenomenon using different languages and that if they had only cooperated they would have made enormous progress instead of wasting years.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

Competition not co-operation is what ruins any attempt at progress. Either today or tomorrow.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

You said that before so, AGAIN:
I don't and the fucking paper we are talking about proves it. 

For my stands on bloggers please refer to my reply to biastoid above, did youwatch the potholer series on cliomate change after all?

If so: what did you think about it?

If not: why?

Can't find it? Part 1

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

When I said the sun might have a bigger influence on the climate than previously thought you replied "suns influence on climate IS WELL UNDERSTOOD AND INCORPORATED" *facepalm

 

kinda implies that there CAN'T be much more that we can learn about the suns impact on climate. And as skeptoid pointed out they are now just being incorporated into the models.

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Says the man who did not even try to understand the study but happily linked it for other people to read (most likely so that they can try and "poke holes" into any reply they would get?).

What do you think:

  • That the suns influence has been ignored completely ALL these years of climate study?
  • Or rather that it has been taken into account and now some changes have to be made and "new" factors incorporated?
  • Would it be more likely that these chages are so influential that the whole construct falls apart or rather that minor adjustments will be made (like with this study, which of course only the ignorant would class as scientists contradicting themselves)?

I take it you did not watch the potholer54 series, despite the clear and proven scientific background behind it?

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

"Says the man who did not even try to understand the study but happily linked it for other people to read (most likely so that they can try and "poke holes" into any reply they would get?)."

 

Fucking hell. Even when I just try to provide a free link for those who want to look at the paper, I get shit on, because I have some agenda behind it....but you're welcome. I'm starting to see why some call it "climate religion". It's so fucking emotionally charged that even the slightest skepticism towards it will cause some people to go apeshit.

 

  • "That the suns influence has been ignored completely ALL these years of climate study?"
  •  

No, I don't think it has been ignored, just not understood completely. I don't know why this is such an impossible idea. Even the sun is just one piece in the puzzle.   

 

  • "Would it be more likely that these chages are so influential that the whole construct falls apart or rather that minor adjustments will be made (like with this study, which of course only the ignorant would class as scientists contradicting themselves)?"

 

Don't think it will bring down the whole construct, just spread the "blame" more evenly among humans and mother nature.  

 

"I take it you did not watch the potholer54 series, despite the clear and proven scientific background behind it?"

 

I've watched quite a bit of his videos, but not the one you linked. I don't know what I'm supposed to get from it. I don't necessarily disagree with him. He's usually just picking easy targets like crazy leftists and the like. Sure that has it's place if you're into that kinda thing, but to me it looks like he's preaching to the choir. 

I've actually had quite a long exchange with potholer at one time. I asked him to look into some videos and tell me what he thought, essentially debunk them. I learned some things from him and am thankful for that, although he does it in a very condescending manner.  When challenging him on things that he could not directly answer, it became apparent that he is very emotionally invested in this whole thing.  Well it isn't a big surprise since his channel is 10 years old and all about defending climate science.

What he does is defend science and mock the loonies, whereas I would argue suspicious observer is actually doing some science and digging into the data. The guy has even published some papers on the sun earthquake connection.  

 

...but yeah all I'm trying to say is it's healthy to hear different views even if you get the knee-jerk reaction to bash them.  

 

 

 

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

He thinks because there's no God involved he can't fall into that trap. Just like with the dog training crap all I'm saying is that there is plenty left to be understood and incorporated into the models that we can have a clear understanding of what drives climate change and, based on that understanding, respond to the negative aspects of climate change and take advantage of opportunities presented by any positive aspects of climate change. I want us to generally understand the phenomenon and then take positive action based on that understanding. Daftcunt keeps saying that the phenomenon is fully understood and settled even as the thing morphs before our very eyes on a regular basis. He accuses me of bias but it would seem to me that he hitched his certainty too early to a conclusion that puts the cart before the horse and is now desperately trying to defend that original position when it's completely unnecessary.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

You should really try to man up and start to have a grown up conversation with people. But every time it gets serious you just chicken out or insult or grasp at red herrings, you are a pathetic little coward.

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

@backdraft

Well, the debunking videos of him are pretty much based on my recent submission I linked above. It is just explaining where this came from. I really don't understand why you declined to watch this, it is informing and entertaining (for some) AND you respect the man........

What am I supposed to think of you if you don't even give it a chance? Maybe you're just a sock of the biastoid?  Don't worry, I don't think so because a reasonable conversation is to be had with you after all.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

I'm not declining to watch it just haven't had the time. Anyway, the video is almost a decade old and skimming the video he's going on how the computer models have been right all along, which isn't true as we have seen. Do you know how many predictions have come and gone since 2008 that didn't come true?  

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-pr...

 

http://climatechangedispatch.com/predictions-of-an-ice-free-arctic-ocean/

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Yep for the "deniers" any excuse will do.

a decade old 

doomsday predictions failed

 

you are on par with the biastoid after all, congrats!

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

Thou shall not question climate science in any shape or form for it is unchanging and  unwavering. If thou shall cast the shadow of doubt forever shall you be cast as a denier.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Like I said, on par with the other twat.

 

Can you show us some scientific, peer reviewed paper that supports your claims, can you? No, you can't. One may have their doubts but PLEASE leave me alone with the red herrings and scienifically unsopported "arguments".

 

Show us when the models have been SO FUCKING WRONG within the last decade that is caused a major change in the core message about climate change! 

 

But, naw, I grasp at very straw of doubt and refuse to educate myself. 
 

Well done.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

I guess you missed the links I posted. I know its nitpicky but should get the point across. Even potholer admitted to me that some predictions got it wrong. You just dont hear about these because they dont publish papers on what thing they got wrong, they just revise them. Just like this one in the op. Try to get it through your head, Im not denying warming just questioning the severity and causes of it. If that makes me a denier in your book, then so be it. You can be as fanatical about this stuff as you want. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

I forgot about the links you posted, so let's have a look at them.....

 

Link 1:

Down to point 62 on the list it is only claims with no verifyable source whrere they come from (some may even be true, many people say a lot of bull about this on both extremes -and mostly only there- of the spectrum)

 

This one, like most of the others, still predicts the future and the link gets you to a general environmental site of the BBC:

 “Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment.”

 

One mentioned an actress (why would anyone care about this) and that's when I got tired of investigating this further.

 

Link 2:

Point 1:

"The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’. This story was within a more rational story in the Daily Mail."

 

I got a little excited about a "more rational story in the daily mail..... Let's have a look at this then:

If I may quote:

 

"And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

  • 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
  • BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
  • Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month"

An alternative fact based on partially reading and quoting a scientific paper, that was picked up by crowder and beautifully debunked by potholer54 (I think the title was "climate change debunked debunked" or something similar, I won't look it up for you, It is on here somewhere and on the potholer channel, you're not gonna watch it anyway)
 

Shall we go further, aaaah, why not it's so much fun....

Point 2:
An article in 2008 predicting north pole could be ice free in 2008? Really? 

Point 3:

Link does not work

 

And it goes on even with steven goddard, FFS. News paper articles over news paper articles. One more spectacular than the other.

 

Are you actually having a laugh?

 

I asked for scientific papers, EVEN IF THEY WERE CHANGED these changes would be meticulously recorded (in the revision history) and mentioned in the summary at the start. THEORY CHANGING developments would result in NEW PAPERS not in amendments.

 

But yeah, it's all aconspiracy.......

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down