ClimateGate busts things wide open

[Udon Map]

There is one salient, recurring fact that believers cannot escape. Their message sucks. They don't win many converts for the same recurring reasons.

Without necessarily disagreeing with anything you said, we're all talking about the wrong thing. We're talking about scientists lying, people being turned by constant haranguing, skeptics laughing at believers when they find intentional concealment, etc. These are all process issues. Why aren't we talking about the actual science, -- you know, objective data that supports or refutes either position? It's only by looking at the data and facts that we have any hope of ever reaching any type of consensus.

[Lone Star]

. . .

We're talking about scientists lying

. . .

Why aren't we talking about the actual science

. . .

That's why.

It always takes time for credibility to be restored -- if ever. And then the next data manipulation occurs and is exposed.

The discussion has evolved to 'how' and other tangents mainly for that reason.

[Udon Map]

It always takes time for credibility to be restored -- if ever. And then the next data manipulation occurs and is exposed.

I don't agree. It's not about credibility. The science is the science.

[Lone Star]

It always takes time for credibility to be restored -- if ever. And then the next data manipulation occurs and is exposed.

I don't agree. It's not about credibility. The science is the science.

The climate is the climate. It has credibility.

The environment is the environment. It has credibility.

The atmosphere is the atmosphere. It has credibility.

The Earth is Earth. It has credibility.

The ones who provide the data on it all and try to explain it are the ones who need the credibility. The believers have lost credibility. If that were not true, their message would be crystal clear, specific, detailed and easily explained.

[Udon Map]

The ones who provide the data on it all and try to explain it are the ones who need the credibility. The believers have lost credibility. If that were not true, their message would be crystal clear, specific, detailed and easily explained.

Exactly my point. Ignore the past, get equal numbers of people with each points of view on the committee and let them figure it out. Put only skeptics on the committee, and you and I both know what the answer's going to be. No point in wasting the time or money on the committee, in that case.

[Lone Star]

The ones who provide the data on it all and try to explain it are the ones who need the credibility. The believers have lost credibility. If that were not true, their message would be crystal clear, specific, detailed and easily explained.

Exactly my point. Ignore the past, get equal numbers of people with each points of view on the committee and let them figure it out. Put only skeptics on the committee, and you and I both know what the answer's going to be. No point in wasting the time or money on the committee, in that case.

Except those lacking credibility for manipulating data aren't the skeptics. It's still up to believers to make their case.

[Udon Map]

Except those lacking credibility for manipulating data aren't the skeptics. It's still up to believers to make their case.

You keep getting hung up in the past. Tabula rasa. This is exactly why you need both sides on the committee. If, as perhaps you suspect, the believers try to pull any nonsense with the data, the skeptics will be right there to call them on it.

[Lone Star]

Except those lacking credibility for manipulating data aren't the skeptics. It's still up to believers to make their case.

You keep getting hung up in the past. Tabula rasa. This is exactly why you need both sides on the committee. If, as perhaps you suspect, the believers try to pull any nonsense with the data, the skeptics will be right there to call them on it.

The results and the analysis will all work itself out. I've said from the start that I will scrutinize whatever findings come from it.

In a perfect world, everything would be balanced. The world's not perfect. I'm not going to lose a minute of sleep over this -- even if packed with LIBs.

[parrot]

If you're interested in one 9 years old view, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/opin ... e=Homepage (the book is included in a pdf)

[Lone Star]

If you're interested in one 9 years old view, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/opin ... e=Homepage (the book is included in a pdf)

Yes, it's another version of using innocent children as shields to blur the failures of believers. LIBs, border invaders and Islamic terrorists use the same tactics in varying degrees.

The LIB Green Youth will tug at your heart strings and try to use guilt and emotion to dominate your critical thinking and reasoning skills.

If the believer scientists can't articulate their position and convince us, use a 9 year-old.

I'll say it again: the messaging of believers sucks. So predictable.

[FrazeeDK]

9 years old and has the presence of mind and maturity to analyze climate science and convinced enough to write a book.. What a clever lad.. He'll be in Harvard by age 10 if he wasn't led down this trail by an adult and programmed accordingly....

[Lone Star]

. . .

if he wasn't led down this trail by an adult and programmed accordingly....

My bet.

[Lone Star]

Gregory Wrightstone, Heartland Institute Policy Advisor

[rick]

Yet another skeptic who is vague and selective with his facts.

Average CO2 2,600 ppm? Very hard to provide averages as reconstructions of earth's CO2 levels use indirect methods and depend on a limited number of estimates spread over a timescale of - how long - he doesn't say but it could be 500 million years or 2 billion years .... basically CO2 levels over the last 600 million years have gradually been falling - from 6000 ppm during the Cambrian period to about 3.000 ppm 200 million years ago, and 760 ppm about 34 million years ago.
Since then CO2 levels continued to decline until the ice age that started about 3 million years ago. So let's be clear, 1000 ppm plus of CO2 hasn't been around for the last 40 million years.

Also just because CO2 levels were higher doesn't mean the Earth was a lot hotter. The Eocene climate was very similar - over the whole planet, very similar temperatures to the tropics of today. This was probably because ocean currents pushed polar water into the tropics, warming the poles and cooling the tropical areas. When that ended, the poles started to cool. Also, the sun was a lot cooler when CO2 levels were very high, only 70% of what it is today back 2 billion years ago. The CO2 stopped the planet from freezing, do not need so much now.

Droughts - at this point in time we just do not know if higher temperatures will lead to more droughts or not, as average rainfall will probably increase, but higher temperatures will exacerbate the problems that drought causes. His claim that the worse droughts occurred more than 50 years ago is debatable - When i accessed a list the first 5 were all in the last 40 years. Higher temperatures and higher humidity could lead to more deaths from Hyperthermia - a sustained temperature of over 35 degrees is fatal to humans unless they can keep cool from sweating or other means to cool the body down.

[Lone Star]

Algore, inventor of the Internet, says 99% PLUS scientists agree with him

Another GREAT example of how the messaging of believers is pathetic. No rational, clear thinking adult with reasoning skills would believe this, but all those kids cutting class to protest would believe it. Useful idiots.

Well, I don’t think that there are, obviously, there’s no basis for doubting what Mother Nature is telling us now. It’s beyond consensus of 99 percent of the scientists. Just listen to Mother Nature, and the climate-related extreme weather events have quadrupled in recent years. Here in the U.S. alone, in less than nine years we’ve had 17 once-in-a-thousand-year events, and they keep on coming, and they keep on getting worse. So, the old strategy of trying to fool people into disbelieving the evidence in front of their own eyes is failing. And, we’re crossing a tipping point now, Brooke. We’re seeing many Republicans change there positions and join the growing bipartisan consensus. The debate’s not about the science. That debate’s long since over. The debate now is about the best ways to move as fast as we can to solve this crisis.

"That debate's long since over."

Really? 55555

[Lone Star]

.

Globalist Believers Strike Again -- Rewriting History

Source: Twitter

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, has been "edited out" by Globalist Leftist Believer Google. It's just a coincidence that Moore is no longer a believer and no longer considers CO2 to be an alarming threat.

Moore's tweet:

Oh my! @Google has removed my photo and name from the "Founders of @Greenpeace". It was still there 2 days ago but now I am erased. Tech Tyranny!!

Just one more incident in a long line of MANIPULATION by believers. It's no wonder that their membership has become stagnant and/or falling. They cannot be trusted.

[Lone Star]

.

Recycling in Cities is Being Discontinued

Source: NY Times

Too expensive for the cost benefit.

Recycling, for decades an almost reflexive effort by American households and businesses to reduce waste and help the environment, is collapsing in many parts of the country.

Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents’ recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy. In Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a landfill. And last month, officials in the central Florida city of Deltona faced the reality that, despite their best efforts to recycle, their curbside program was not working and suspended it.

Those are just three of the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed to huge price increases.

Oh well. I guess that's another too expensive fix.

[Udon Map]

Recycling in Cities is Being DiscontinuedSource: NY Times

Too expensive for the cost benefit.

Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents’ recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy.

Those are just three of the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed to huge price increases.

Well, first, burning waste to convert it to energy is recycling, isn't it?

Second, OK, let's accept that hundreds of cities and towns are discontinuing their recycling programs, and for a variety of reasons. That would be a relevant statistic if 1) we knew the reasons, and 2) we also knew how many had started new ones or renewed existing ones in the same period of time. Otherwise, it's pretty much meaningless as a standalone statistic, and is indicative of little to nothing. I mean, suppose that 500 hundred cities and towns discontinued programs, but 5,000 started new ones in the same period of time. The context gives it a different slant, no?

[Lone Star]

Too expensive for the cost benefit stated in the NYT article.

Whatever the reason, it's no longer a priority, or they would "continue it for the children." That always seems to be the LIB default position.

[Lone Star]