ClimateGate busts things wide open

[newtovillagelife]

Trump never presents Tariffs as a tax on his base, when he boasts about how much money they bring in, but then again maybe he does NOT understand that Tariffs are a tax on consumers and businesses. Jeff is not the ****** Trump is.

[Lone Star]

"Make all the lists you wish. The US makes all of that and is one of few self-sufficient economies in the world."
And last months 50 billion in trade deficits proves America is self sufficient
self sufficient countries don't have deficits

i'm afraid that's trumps list not mine I did not make the list, and if America is self sufficient in all these products then how can they put tariffs on 35 billion dollars of imported products that they don't import anyway , oh I see they will buy American made aircraft tyres.. at a much higher price... so the price of a ticket will go up .
As I explained , it's a tax on consumers, and then you agree. then you disagree which is it because consumers don't buy Chinese products , American companies buy Chinese products to build things ,they then export those goods or sell to joe public

"Businesses don't absorb added costs to their goods and services. They rarely even absorb local and federal taxes into their goods and services. They pass them on to consumers and into the total cost of the product/service. The consumer then decides whether or not the higher cost is worth it. No skin off the nose of the business or corporation. If the consumer wants to pay MORE for Chinese products, that's their decision. I would believe that most Americans can do comparative shopping, but everyone has different needs and looks at the value of an item differently"

how many different ways can I explain it as you don't seen to grasp these FACTS . consumers don't buy Chinese products why can't you get out your head . it's not complicated . it's like i'm using a computer made in china, with American chips inside , china to carry on selling the computers decided not to tax the chips as it would make my laptop more expensive .

Oh, so you're back to posting things that belong to others and not attributing it to them. Not your list. Trump's list. 55555

You quote me, and then claim that I posted something else. The reading comprehension issue again. That's your way.

International trade provides a choice. Americans had choices before the tariffs, and they have choices after the tariffs. I never said that the US did not import any of those products. I stated that if the tariff causes their price to move higher, as it almost certainly will, Americans will probably buy less of the imported product and buy what is produced in America. I further stated that the tariffs will allow consumers to choose based on value, need and whether or not the higher price is worth it to buy an imported good. If not, they won't buy it.

[newtovillagelife]

Unless of course there is not an American substitute, or the US product incorporates, an imported part. Then the consumer just has to pay more. But the tax cuts will cover that, right.

[papafarang]

here we go

https://youtu.be/5scez5dqtAc

[newtovillagelife]

here we go

https://youtu.be/5scez5dqtAc

Trump and his base don't believe or care about this issue, move on.

[papafarang]

here we go

https://youtu.be/5scez5dqtAc

Trump and his base don't believe or care about this issue, move on.

no mate you got to watch it , hilarious stuff .posted to help some people understand how ridiculous Trump is . it's 20 mins long but well worth a chuckle , manages to combine bad economics, climate change and Trump making a fool of himself all in one

[Lone Star]

Trump and his base don't believe or care about this issue, move on.

There are people all over the world and in every country who aren't buying into the hoax known as MMCC.

[rick]

One little interesting bit from the river Spey in Scotland. Water temperatures have been recorded daily for the salmon fishing for the last 100 years. Average temperatures are now 3 degrees centigrade higher than when they started .....

[Lone Star]

And the hits just keep coming!

I have one question, why are the MISTAKES always exaggerations of the bad things that will happen? Why aren't any of the mistakes in favor of things NOT being as serious as they claim?


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/cli ... ing-study/

“The findings of the . . . paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote in a critique of the paper. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

After correcting their mistake, Keeling said their research indicates oceans are warming only slightly faster than previously thought, not dramatically faster as they initially reported.

It will always be difficult for Believers to gain any traction as long as errors like this are repeatedly exposed that show that the models are not accurate. The predictions of gloom always reach their deadline without the predicted effect.

[rick]

Well, the sea is warming, and sea level is going up. Surprisingly as more data is gathered models are predicting that the estimates of even 10 years ago are far to low. This is from Wikipedia -

At least since 1880, the average global sea level has been rising, with about an 18 cm (7.1 in) rise from 1897 to 1997.[1] More precise satellite based data show about a 7.5 cm (3.0 in) accelerating rise in sea level from 1993 to 2017.[2]:1554 This is due mostly to anthropogenic global warming that is driving the thermal expansion of seawater while melting land-based ice sheets and glaciers.[3] This trend is expected to accelerate during the 21st century.[4]:62

Projecting future sea level has always been challenging, due to our imperfect understanding of many aspects of the climate system. As climate research leads to improved computer models, projections have consistently increased. For example, in 2007 the high end of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections through 2099 was less than 2 feet (0.61 m),[5] but in their 2014 report the high end was considered to be about 3 feet (0.91 m).[6] A number of later studies have concluded that 2.0 to 2.7 metres (6 ft 7 in to 8 ft 10 in) rise this century is "physically plausible".[7] The contributions to sea level rise since 1993, based on 2018 figures, divide into ocean thermal expansion (42%), melting of temperate glaciers (21%), Greenland (15%) and Antarctica (8%).[2]

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Whoops!!! Big mistake. Sorry.

Scientists acknowledge critical errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming
The findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper's conclusion, says a study co-author: 'Unfortunately, we made mistakes'

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sc ... re-warming

[Lone Star]

Truth continues to haunt the ClimateGate creators.

Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann is back in the news.

Mann is releasing his emails -- according to him -- for the following reasons:

(a) using these emails to show how scientists are making an honest and diligent effort to understand the science underlying Earth’s climate system,

(b) showing how scientists are engaged in the good-faith give-and-take that is central to the scientific enterprise, which includes appropriate skepticism and critical assessment not only of other scientists’ work but our own, as evident through internal deliberations between the scientists, and

(c) demonstrating the understandable frustration that scientists have with those who intentionally misrepresent them and their research for the purpose of advancing an ideological agenda.

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/29/m ... eased-eeli

However, he's only trying to get ahead of the fact that the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute is calling for them to be released since he has been eyebrow deep in the ClimateGate scandal. The email link that Mann provided is already a broken link. Gee ... wonder why?

The emails that HAVE been released are not complete. Many are redacted, edited, held back completely and had attachments deleted. Hmmmm ... wonder why?

There has already been some Mann exposure in several of the emails. In one particular instance, a colleague of his questions Mann's methodology. In another, Mann admits to adjusting data after completed in order to give the correct alarmist narrative. In another, a colleague becomes concerned that the evidence for MMCC theory is shakier than they would like it to be.

Similar revelations were part of the great initial exposure of ClimateGate, and this email release has reinforced and confirmed initial skepticism. The global warming Believers, their "science" and their data models are nothing more than a trillion dollar per year exercise to promote the global MMCC industry of the Believers.

I wonder how many of Mann's emails will be accidentally deleted?

[GT93]

Whoops!!! Big mistake. Sorry.

Scientists acknowledge critical errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming
The findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper's conclusion, says a study co-author: 'Unfortunately, we made mistakes'

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sc ... re-warming

This is science working - the work can be challenged by other scientists and the scientists behind the published paper open-mindedly review the criticisms. It would be disturbing if this never happened.

[papafarang]

Whoops!!! Big mistake. Sorry.

Scientists acknowledge critical errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming
The findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper's conclusion, says a study co-author: 'Unfortunately, we made mistakes'

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sc ... re-warming

This is science working - the work can be challenged by other scientists and the scientists behind the published paper open-mindedly review the criticisms. It would be disturbing if this never happened.

exactly the point GT, computer models are exactly what they say models. you can design ,build ,work out how things work. But predicting nature will always be a hard one. some people expect scientists to be able to tell them how many drops of rain per square foot 500 miles away, some like our resident denialist can't even get their head around the difference between climate and weather, and yet still continues with the climategate saga. even though endless peer reviews and inquiries came to the same conclusions ,there was no climategate. The hilarious thing about it is this was a decade ago, the amount of data collected since then makes it obsolete by now anyway, now it's just part of statistics, and in another 10 years time they will have more of the jigsaw puzzle and be able to give a better picture....Meanwhile the rest of the world forges ahead with renewables anyway. climategate ..chewing on a 10 year old bone

[Lone Star]

Whoops!!! Big mistake. Sorry.

Scientists acknowledge critical errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming
The findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper's conclusion, says a study co-author: 'Unfortunately, we made mistakes'

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sc ... re-warming

Yes, it shows what I have been positing all along: The Science Is NOT Settled and the models and data are easily manipulated -- accidentally or purposely -- but always in the most disastrous direction.

Believers say "the science is settled." Real scientists never believe that. Believers provide no answers to basic questions. Believers want everyone to just accept their data, accept their models, accept their beliefs -- without providing relevant information as to WHAT and HOW.

I've asked these questions before across many forums. Still no answers.

1. What is the measurement -- specifically -- of man's contribution to climate change?
How much -- at what percentage -- is man's contribution to climate change? How was the earth warmer before -- with no planes, trains and automobiles or industrialization -- than it is now?

2. What will Believers do -- specifically -- to reverse, stop or slow climate change?
What specific measures will be taken and how?

3. How -- specifically -- will Believers spend the money from carbon taxes?
Talking about solar panels and wind farms isn't specific.

4. What measurable result -- specifically -- will we see from the Believers' efforts to reverse, stop or slow climate change?
What percentage of the claimed MMCC will be reduced after the Believer's plan are put to work? What percentage of MMCC will be reversed, stopped or slowed? More importantly, how will it be maintained? Will a hurricane, volcano, earthquake or tsunami destroy what has been accomplished? By how much?

5. How do Believers explain all of the mistakes in data and models that exaggerate the agenda of Believers?
Why are there never mistakes made that LESSEN the effects of MMCC? The mistakes are always exaggerations of the Earth being destroyed.

[rick]

Just weather, but so far Udon temperatures this 'winter' are running about 5 degrees Centigrade above normal.

Sometimes weather can vary quite a bit from what is expected, but when it is different most of the time, you know something is changing. How much is the climate changing? The average temperature by decade has risen every decade since the 1960's, and over the last 40 years is rising by about 0.18 degrees centigrade per decade. Since the 1880's, temperatures have already risen by one degree centigrade, and at the current rate, two degrees will be reached well before the end of the century.

What is causing it? Well, the one thing that is changing is CO2 levels, and we know that emissions by humans is quite sufficient to account for this change in CO2. We also KNOW that CO2 causes global warming. Are their any other causes? Possibly, but no-one has been able to prove that any are significant. Biologists are already observing significant changes among animal and plant communities. It is not a time for complacency.

[papafarang]

Whoops!!! Big mistake. Sorry.

Scientists acknowledge critical errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming
The findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper's conclusion, says a study co-author: 'Unfortunately, we made mistakes'

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sc ... re-warming

Yes, it shows what I have been positing all along: The Science Is NOT Settled and the models and data are easily manipulated -- accidentally or purposely -- but always in the most disastrous direction.

Believers say "the science is settled." Real scientists never believe that. Believers provide no answers to basic questions. Believers want everyone to just accept their data, accept their models, accept their beliefs -- without providing relevant information as to WHAT and HOW.

I've asked these questions before across many forums. Still no answers.

1. What is the measurement -- specifically -- of man's contribution to climate change?
How much -- at what percentage -- is man's contribution to climate change? How was the earth warmer before -- with no planes, trains and automobiles or industrialization -- than it is now?

2. What will Believers do -- specifically -- to reverse, stop or slow climate change?
What specific measures will be taken and how?

3. How -- specifically -- will Believers spend the money from carbon taxes?
Talking about solar panels and wind farms isn't specific.

4. What measurable result -- specifically -- will we see from the Believers' efforts to reverse, stop or slow climate change?
What percentage of the claimed MMCC will be reduced after the Believer's plan are put to work? What percentage of MMCC will be reversed, stopped or slowed? More importantly, how will it be maintained? Will a hurricane, volcano, earthquake or tsunami destroy what has been accomplished? By how much?

5. How do Believers explain all of the mistakes in data and models that exaggerate the agenda of Believers?
Why are there never mistakes made that LESSEN the effects of MMCC? The mistakes are always exaggerations of the Earth being destroyed.

Wow , I can see the flaws now "I've asked these questions before across many forums. Still no answers". . you actually think the answers to you questions are on a local forum about udon thani are you mad ? I don't think there are many climate researchers on udon map. and I noticed the refence to taxes again why all the BS about taxes . I've already pointed out that as a red herring, if governments want more tax revenue they just raise taxes , just like they have by putting 10% tax on Chinese goods, what specifically are they going to spend that on ? yep stupid question
Anyway if your looking to the answers on a forum of local for retired people your lost. try searching the internet mate you might find the answers out there. Perhaps find a science forum http://climatechangenationalforum.org/

[Lone Star]

Wow , I can see the flaws now ... you actually think the answers to you questions are on a local forum about udon thani

The flaws are in the details that are lacking in your belief system on the fight against climate. You can't articulate any answers to those 5 questions, but you shouldn't feel badly about it. I've been on other forums and posited the same. Not even the ones who claim to be men/women of science can answer them. However, the latest Believer idea that was in the news recently was a plan to block out the sun. Google is your friend.

As I stated above:

I've asked these questions before across many forums. Still no answers.

I throw these questions in HERE again for the geniuses like you who do what you are doing now -- ignoring questions and failing to refute -- specifically and with facts. Your opinions and jokes are fine, but you can't back up your religion. Weak.

and I noticed the refence to taxes again why all the BS about taxes . I've already pointed out that as a red herring, if governments want more tax revenue they just raise taxes

Ask the French today about carbon taxes.

I don't often agree with vlad, but he has a point. You shouldn't bother with your half-baked, half-cooked ideas. When you start responding with off-handed remarks that are only meant to minimize statements and questions, and you provide no citations, you're only trolling for some chuckle of the day. Weak. I will say that at least it's better than what you have tried to do in the past -- win arguments that I'm not making. Now THAT is a red herring.

[GT93]

climategate ..chewing on a 10 year old bone

Some fellas will still be chewing it in another 10 years time. They enjoy the chew.

[rick]

1. What is the measurement -- specifically -- of man's contribution to climate change?
How much -- at what percentage -- is man's contribution to climate change? How was the earth warmer before -- with no planes, trains and automobiles or industrialization -- than it is now?

2. What will Believers do -- specifically -- to reverse, stop or slow climate change?
What specific measures will be taken and how?

3. How -- specifically -- will Believers spend the money from carbon taxes?
Talking about solar panels and wind farms isn't specific.

4. What measurable result -- specifically -- will we see from the Believers' efforts to reverse, stop or slow climate change?
What percentage of the claimed MMCC will be reduced after the Believer's plan are put to work? What percentage of MMCC will be reversed, stopped or slowed? More importantly, how will it be maintained? Will a hurricane, volcano, earthquake or tsunami destroy what has been accomplished? By how much?

5. How do Believers explain all of the mistakes in data and models that exaggerate the agenda of Believers?
Why are there never mistakes made that LESSEN the effects of MMCC? The mistakes are always exaggerations of the Earth being destroyed.

Well let's play Lone stars game and give him some answers, Obviously his questions are full of loaded implications, so they will not be EXACT answers.

1. Man's contribution to Climate change.
The quick answer is two-thirds, so say 66.6%. But obviously it is not that simple. It is not possible to measure it exactly, due to the many factors that affect climate change, We can group these as greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings, Natural forcings and natural variability. ALL of these come within statistical confidence limits. If you took the most negative attitude to these factors limits you would get slight cooling, this is not happening. If you took the most positive position, warming would be double that which has been observed. Other anthropogenic forcings actually incline towards causing cooling. So the best estimate is about two-thirds. However, this is what we can confidently implicate as causing warming. The reality is that all non-anthropogenic forcings would seem to cancel out, so may provide, on average, 0% of the warming. It is just we cannot be absolutely sure of that. But man is the major cause.

2. What will Believers do -- specifically -- to reverse, stop or slow climate change?
What specific measures will be taken and how?
No-one can answer for the other 7 billion people. What is being done? Energy efficiency. Countries like the UK actually consume less energy now than they did 20 years ago. Renewable energy has also become a significant source, now supplying over 25% of all global electricity, and in the UK, provides 30% (that is a 240% increase in the UK in about 8 years). It is quite possible that fossil fuels will be of minor importance in 50 years time - or even less.
What else can be done? Reduce air travel, improve public transport so that car can be left at home, drive a smaller car (large cars should be banned), drive an electric car. Become a vegan .... Believers will do some or even all of these. In the home, have a smaller home - save on heating or cooling costs, wear warmer clothes when cold, and use fans rather than air-con all day. Change lights to LED. Hot water should come from solar heaters. Install solar power to cut energy demand. Governments should provide incentives for these changes. Many are actually economically beneficial to a country (i.e. reduce expenditure on imported oil).

3. How -- specifically -- will Believers spend the money from carbon taxes?
Talking about solar panels and wind farms isn't specific.
Carbon taxes are a blunt instrument with to many loopholes, not particularly in favour. If there was money to spend, I would use it on sustainable development and environmental protection. With a little for extra-terrestrial development and colonisation.

4. What measurable result -- specifically -- will we see from the Believers' efforts to reverse, stop or slow climate change?
I am not a fortune teller. It will take hundreds of years to reverse the effects, assuming no wonderful new technology and the world is not enslaved to reversing it. Current Natural events have no long term impact on climate other than for a year or too (large comets not included).

5. How do Believers explain all of the mistakes in data and models that exaggerate the agenda of Believers?
Why are there never mistakes made that LESSEN the effects of MMCC? The mistakes are always exaggerations of the Earth being destroyed

That my dear bigot, is nonsense. Models can be wrong, analysis can be wrong, transliterations can be wrong. Most are fairly accurate. Obviously the press sensationalise the most impressive claims, while most are unreported. Of course the earth will not be destroyed, but many animals already are on the brink of extinction, SOME due to climate change. Just look at the change that has ALREADY occurred, you do not need a computer model to tell you that we are in for some serious problems. What we spend on trying to stop it is peanuts compared to the cost of do nothing.