Limiting temperature rise by 2100 to less than 1.5°C is feasible, at least from a purely technological standpoint, according to the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change by researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), and others. The new study examines scenarios for the energy, economy, and environment that are consistent with limiting climate change to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and compares them to scenarios for limiting climate change to 2°C.
"Actions for returning global warming to below 1.5°C by 2100 are in many ways similar to those limiting warming to below 2°C," says IIASA researcher Joeri Rogelj, one of the lead authors of the study. "However, the more ambitious 1.5°C goal leaves no space to further delay global mitigation action and emission reductions need to scale up swiftly in the next decades."
The authors note, however, that the economic, political, and technological requirements to meet even the 2°C target are substantial. In the run-up to climate negotiations in December 2015, such information is important for policymakers considering long-term goals and steps to achieve these goals.
Key elements: accelerated energy efficiency gains and CO2 removal
The study identifies key elements that would need to be in place in order to reach the 1.5°C target by 2100. One fundamental feature is the tight constraint on future carbon emissions.
"In 1.5°C scenarios, the remaining carbon budget for the 21st century is reduced to almost half compared to 2°C scenarios," explains PIK researcher Gunnar Luderer, who co-led the study. "As a consequence, deeper emissions cuts are required from all sectors, and global carbon neutrality would need to be reached 10-20 years earlier than projected for 2°C scenarios."
Faster improvements in energy efficiency also emerge as a key enabling factor for the 1.5°C target. In addition, all the scenarios show that at some point in this century, carbon emissions would have to become negative at a global scale. That means that significant amounts of CO2 would need to be actively removed from the atmosphere. This could occur through technological solutions such as bioenergy use combined with carbon capture and storage—a technology that remains untested on a large scale, increases the pressure on food supply systems and in some cases lacks social acceptance—or through efforts to grow more forests, sequestering carbon in tree trunks and branches. Afforestation, however, just like bioenergy plantations, would have to be carefully balanced against other land use requirements, most notably food production.
Overshooting the limit—and declining to 2100
In contrast to many scenarios examined in recent research, which set 2°C as the absolute limit and do not allow temperature to overshoot the target, the current set of scenarios looks at a long term goal, and what would need to happen to get temperature back down to that level by 2100.
"Basically all our 1.5°C scenarios first exceed the 1.5°C temperature threshold somewhere in mid-century," explains Rogelj, "before declining to 2100 and beyond as more and more carbon dioxide is actively removed from the atmosphere by specialized technologies".
The recent IPCC fifth assessment report did not describe in detail the critical needs for how to limit warming to below 1.5°C as the scenarios available to them did not allow for an in-depth analysis. Yet over 100 countries worldwide—over half of the countries in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least-Developed Countries (LDCs)—have declared their support for a 1.5°C target on climate change. The target itself is also up for debate at the upcoming climate negotiations. This new study fills this gap.
The authors make clear that an increase of international efforts to curb greenhouse gases is imperative to keep the 1.5°C target achievable.
"The 1.5°C target leaves very little leeway," says Luderer. "Any imperfections - be it a further delay of meaningful policy action, or a failure to achieve negative emissions at large scale - will make the 1.5°C target unattainable during this century."
What do you mean by "scenario?"
Scenarios, like the ones described in this study, are not predictions or forecast, but rather, stories about potential ways that the future might develop, with specific quantitative elements and details about how sectors such as the economy, climate, and energy sector interact. By looking at scenarios, researchers look for insight into the paths and circumstances that might lead us to specific objectives.
Explore further:
Heat still on despite warming slowdown
More information:
Rogelj J, Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Kriegler E, Schaeffer M, Krey V, Riahi K. (2015). Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5°C. Nature Climate Change. 21 May 2015. DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2572
Joker23
2.3 / 5 (21) May 21, 2015ThomasQuinn
3.1 / 5 (26) May 21, 2015That has to be among the silliest reasonings I've ever heard. Hey, these chemical vapours drifting past our house smell kinda funny...maybe we should close our windows, they might be harmful. Ahh, but what if they AREN'T harmful, or if by closing our windows we miss out on a great free recreational drug? No, we shouldn't close our windows until people in the house start dying.
Are you being paid by someone to come up with this nonsense, or do you fail to see that limiting our POLLUTION would be a good thing even if it WASN'T necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change, which is what there is an ALMOST UNIQUELY COMPLETE CONSENSUS about among scientists in relevant disciplines worldwide? Do you simply *like* sniffing exhaust fumes or something? Or are you just pathologically afraid of any kind of change, regardless of what it is? What is your problem?
zz5555
3.9 / 5 (18) May 21, 2015As for causing an ice age, energy efficiency won't cause cooling - we have to get CO2 out of the atmosphere to do that. And that takes a lot of energy. So stop the CO2 sequestration machines before we reach pre-industrial levels of CO2 and you won't have an ice age (for ~50000 years or so).
denglish
2.3 / 5 (16) May 21, 2015Thinking that we can control, or affect, the climate is preposterous.
Guaranteed that in order to save the world, corporations and citizens will be taxed mightily.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (23) May 21, 2015But we cannot exist without a supportive environment, to clean our water, make our Oxygen, and provide us with food.
Try it.
thefurlong
3.9 / 5 (18) May 21, 2015So...only monkeys that lack brains can arrive at the correct conclusion, that they are not the centers of the universe? Perhaps I'd be able to understand your reasoning if I actually didn't possess a brain.
Well, there are these things called aerobic bacteria, and they happened to alter the Earth's climate simply by existing, WITHOUT building machines to aid them in the process. See http://en.wikiped...n_Event.
Please learn how green house gases work, how much extra we pump into the atmosphere, and maybe some basic critical thinking skills.
ThomasQuinn
2.8 / 5 (22) May 21, 2015Thinking we can conrol, or affect, the spread of infections is preposterous is pretty much what was said to Ignaz Semmelweis. And then Pasteur discovered penicilline.
Remarks such as yours are not simply ignorance - they are misanthropic excuses for cowardly or lazy inaction.
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (12) May 21, 2015No, he's absolutely correct. We are delusional to believe we have the understanding and power necessary to control the climate. Even if we DID have it, it would be incredibly unethical to wield it. Mankind attempting to play God pretty much never turns out well.
thefurlong
4.1 / 5 (17) May 21, 2015Nobody is claiming to control the climate. If we could control the climate, AGW wouldn't be a problem. A more accurate description would be affecting the climate, and that we certainly are able to do, and have been doing adversely.
This is one of the most myopic tropes I've ever heard. It's not even close to correct. What do you think we did when we made vaccines, eradicated small-pox, created national electric infrastructures, went into space, landed on the moon, developed sexual reassignment surgery, and so on?
More often than not, playing God benefits us rather than harms us.
jeffensley
2.5 / 5 (11) May 21, 2015denglish
2 / 5 (16) May 21, 2015Drawing correlations between disease control and climate control is a very far reach.
Speaking of critical thinking, I encourage all of you to explore what the other side is saying. The conflict between the two sides, the scandals in the AGW camp, the prophesies not happening, the effort to cripple economies (perhaps to expand the dependent class?) and the colossal money grabs should be enough to give anyone pause.
Anyway, the ball is rolling. I fear the AGW hoax will not end peacefully; by then it will be too late for the common man to avoid the damage done by a select elite intent on global government.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (18) May 21, 2015The mean rate of warming on the terrestrial datasets since 1979 is 0.14 degrees. On the satellite datasets, 0.11 degrees. In the oceans, we don't know: the measurement method that immediately preceded the ARGO network, the XBT network, showed ocean cooling and had to be adjusted to make it fit the story-line. Same with the ARGO network, which originally showed cooling and had to be adjusted. Even then, it only shows warming at a rate equivalent to a quarter of a degree per century.
Anyone got the guts to figure anything out for themselves, or do you want to take what your masters hand out to you?
denglish
2.1 / 5 (18) May 21, 2015Al Gore said in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. Vicky Pope of the Wet Office said in 2009 that all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014.
2015. We still got LOTS of ice.
hmm...critical thinking...hmmm
thefurlong
4.1 / 5 (17) May 21, 2015Humanity's future is in danger, and a bunch of stubborn who are in control of how much our future's going to suck have their heads in the sand, at best, or are trying to actively block any efforts to fix the problem, at worst. Maybe you should fact that into your conjecture.
That was in only in response to Jeff's claim that playing God tends to be harmful.
See, that's the problem. There isn't actually another side, unless you wish to treat overwhelming objective evidence, and wishful thinking with smattering of contrary expert opinions as being equivalent.
Umm, sorry to burst your bubble but the climate has been warming at a dramatic rate, which is what was predicted.
thefurlong
3.9 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015Do you have enough tinfoil on that hat? Where's your evidence of this? And I don't mean anecdotes and vague "evidence" wildly open to subjective interpretation.
Meanwhile, we have a very good paper trail of how powerful multinational corporations like Exxon-Mobile actively work to stymie any useful mitigation of AGW (see http://www.skepti...eat.html as it hurts their short term bottom line.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (14) May 21, 2015A little bit of searching will show you that respected institutions (some of them actually (mis?) quoted by the AGW side) are putting up data that is damning for AGW folks Are the sources on this page a trifling?
http://wattsupwit...erature/
No, its not. Since 1979, mean temperature has gone up .35 of a degree, C:
http://www.drroys...5_v5.png
Perhaps the University of Alabama isn't a reputable source.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (14) May 21, 2015No evidence. Just a personal fear. I suspect that when the common man finally figures it out, those who benefited in power and treasure from this hoax will be very hard to usurp.
I don't care about Exxon. If they broke the law, let them go to prison. If they offend the sensibilities of special-interest groups like the AGW'ers, then good - perhaps it will awaken a few of them.
btw, why hasn't the ice gone away as predicted? Tinfoil hat? No...a willingness to sniff out lies and fear-mongering.
thefurlong
3.9 / 5 (11) May 21, 2015Oh s***t, mofo's gonna drop some knowledge on my ass. What is a google search savvy layman to do?
Before we begin with said knowledge dropping, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with what's called the Gish Gallop (http://rationalwi..._Gallop) and ask yourself if that's what, in fact, you are doing. See, being a non-expert in the subject, I can't reasonably be expected to address every single small (likely spurious) claim you make. However, being fully acquainted with the power of the Internets, I can easily perform a 1-minute google search the quickly check each claim. It will just take a while.
Case in point, it wasn't that the XBT network had to be adjusted to show cooling. Indeed, XBT showed a significant warming bias, which climate scientists recognized, and accounted for. (to be continued)
thefurlong
4 / 5 (12) May 21, 2015Furthermore, you are referring to the 2008 paper by Loehles, and another, by Willis in 2009, which both show a short term cooling trend in the ocean. That's right! A short term cooling trend. And furthermore, another paper, by Leuliette in 2009 actually uses the same data from the ARGO network to show a warming trend! Finally, Cazenave stepped in to try to referee the results and guess what he found after analyzing all papers involved, and eliminating certain systematic errors. That's right! Warming! Now, there's a lot more to this, which hearkens back to my point that it is simply unreasonable to address every claim a denier makes. I will simply direct you and others interested to http://www.skepti...php?a=67
So, here's what you need to do. Instead of throwing easily refuted factoids at me, perhaps you could explain to me why I should trust inaccurate naysayers like you, or 97% of climate scientists who study this stuff for a living?
denglish
1.9 / 5 (13) May 21, 2015Many Universities, NOAA, NODC, Danish Meteorologic Institute, Naval Research Laboratory, NASA, Hadley Center...
Gish Gallop is a creationist. If he lies about the origin of the universe, think he may lie about other things? :)
Anyway, one can now see why this is such a contentious issue. We have strong believers on both sides, and the both sides believe strongly in their facts.
Where can we differentiate the two? How can we figure out who is looking out for us, and is giving us the correct info? Predictions not coming true? Using the narrative to take money? Using the narrative to control economies? Not following their own advice?
I referred to no papers.
Easily refutable? You didn't refute one of the graphs (hard data) I pointed you to.
Critical thinking...where will it lead us?
thefurlong
4.1 / 5 (14) May 21, 2015Nope! Not gonna play this game. See my last comment.
Also, LOL, at providing me a link from Anthony Watts, a man with no academic training in climate science. I will not argue with whatever effluent is on that page, I will only drop this http://rationalwi...ny_Watts and this http://www.source...y_Watts, and suggest that you at least start off by citing people who are actually accredited climate scientists.
Supposing that this is correct (which I don't know since your veracity record has been questionable at best), 0.35 degrees over 36 years is still pretty high. Do you understand that in 100 years, that would mean at least a rise in 1 degree mean global temperature, which would still be bad?
(to be continued)
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (16) May 21, 2015Well, I don't know whether you actually pulled from reputable sources, since I don't have time to check every one, but I can tell you that the conclusions you draw are incorrect, and it speaks volumes that you would think that Anthony Watts' opinion IS worth listening to on this subject.
lol. Gish Gallop isn't a creationist. The Gish Gallop is a strategy named after a creationist, Duane Gish. And it's what you are currently doing. BTW, reading is fundamental.
It has nothing to do with belief, bucko. It has everything to do with people like you denying established scientific results.
Bongstar420
2.1 / 5 (11) May 21, 2015TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (14) May 21, 2015denglish
2 / 5 (12) May 21, 2015gkam
2.2 / 5 (18) May 21, 2015I'll bet they are looking it up on wiki right now, . . .
Ironwood
2.7 / 5 (10) May 21, 2015The above is the money quote from the entire article, er, story.
denglish
2 / 5 (12) May 21, 2015No, I don't think I'm employing it. I'm simply providing another set of data points that support "the other side".
btw, one of the things I find very interesting is that the best physics forum I've found touches on everything BUT AGW. these guys know their shat.
https://www.physicsforums.com/
You may be interested as to why:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/climate-change-global-warming-policy.757267/
leetennant
3.7 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015zz5555
3.9 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015The Univ. of Alabama might be reputable, but Spencer's not. Look at your graph. It's a very noisy graph. Taking the starting point and the ending point of a noisy graph and claiming that you can get the rise in temperature by subtracting the end point from the starting point is about as good a way to lie as I can think of. Spencer knows this. So why was he lying about the data? In addition, he's using satellite data with a built in cooling bias which means he's underestimating the warming. Looking at ground data, the trend over that period is ~.156C/decade. So for a 35 year period, that means an increase of over .5C - which is an enormous increase in a short period. And keep in mind, we still have ~1C of temperature rise built in even if we don't raise CO2 levels any more.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015Can you point out any data here that is "damning for AGW"? All of this seems to agree with the science and what the scientists are saying. Look at the cooling in the stratosphere. This is a particular prediction by the science and confirms that the warming isn't due to the sun. Or look at the ocean heat content - confirmation that the warming has continued. I'm surprised that WUWT has compiled so much data confirming climate science. This is very damning for those that oppose science, but nothing bad for science.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (13) May 21, 2015The University of Illinois is another one that's being badly verballed by this lot. They take a graph from some obscure section of their website, decontextualise it to remove the metadata and then make an extreme claim about what it says. If you actually go back to look where the graph came from, what it's actually representing and the metadata around it, you then miraculously discover it shows the exact opposite of what Spencer or Taylor or Heartland are claiming.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015Can you find a quote by Gore saying that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013? (Hint: You can't, it was made up. Next you'll be saying he bought water front property, another "fact" that was made up.)
Can you find a quote by Pope (from the Met office) saying that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014? (Hint: You can't, it was made up. In fact, she said the exact opposite.)
Returners
2 / 5 (8) May 21, 2015btw, I'm not voting for Rand Paul if for no reason other than his fake filibuster. I got other reasons, but I don't need them now.
We need more spying in America, not less. A family of 4 gets murdered in broad daylight in their own home and not a clue to find them. If there was more spying that might not have happened.
Big Brother isn't good enough. I want Big Brother and Big Sister, and Big papa and Big Mama too.
howhot2
4.1 / 5 (13) May 21, 2015It comes from the rightwing. They also claim that Secretary of State John Kerry said the same thing. If he's lying about that, then you can be certain he's lying about everything!
jeffensley
2.2 / 5 (10) May 21, 2015Wow, 3 5-star ratings for a post that says we're doomed. And you think skeptics are the ones with a death wish.
AZWarrior
1.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2015ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) May 22, 2015http://woodfortre....3/trend
ThomasQuinn
3.1 / 5 (17) May 22, 2015God will take care of us! Just pray and do what your priest/vicar/parson/pastor/etc says. Don't believe science, scientists all work for the devil! Ignore the facts as they are accepted by >95% of scientists in relevant disciplines, because the <5% are speaking the Word of God which is Truth.
Advocates of doing nothing are wrong on every count. They hate progress.
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (15) May 22, 2015It's more like, scientists are correct until they disagree with my world view. Then, suddenly, there's a worldwide conspiracy among scientists, (because we know they're a greedy, unsavory bunch).
Also, somehow, multi-billion dollar multi-national oil and chemical corporations, who have monetary interest in not reducing their emissions, for which WE ACTUALLY HAVE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE of their meddling can't possibly be blamed for sowing seeds of doubt into public discourse.
As for evidence against the lyin' liar scientists, denglish put it best:
RealityCheck
2.9 / 5 (19) May 22, 2015That was what the science was doing about dangers of Asbestos, but denial/obfuscation by those in that industry and in govt allowed them time to create dummy companies offshore to hide away the money and frustrate litigation claims/damages against them.
That was exactly what the science was doing about dangers of smoking, but Tobacco industry/govts denied/obfuscated for decades to avoid damages/legislation against their business product/model.
That was what science was doing about the Ozone Layer problem and its causes, but industry/govts denied/stalled necessary measures for decades while Ultra Violet Radiation levels rose and cancer rates soared.
That is what science is doing NOW about causes/exacerbations of Greenhouse Gas induced Climate Warming/Changes, but now UNholy Alliance of ideological/political/mercenary denying/lying.
As usual: deniers, liars, crims & idiots.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) May 22, 2015Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (17) May 22, 2015@ Really-Skippy. I have not even posted up anything about this article. So why you want to drag me into this with more calling me names? Why you don't at least wait until I say something? I am for limiting the changing of the climates, it's going hit us worst first down where I live.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) May 22, 2015https://www.psych...-sadists
Duh.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) May 22, 2015http://phys.org/n...sar.html
and
https://www.psych...-sadists
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) May 22, 2015"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."
philstacy9
1 / 5 (5) May 23, 2015RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) May 23, 2015Drop one dimensional, facile, misleading rationalizations for not doing something significant to solve/prevent the problem from getting out of hand BEFORE it's too late. You advise unreasoning inaction. Bad.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015Look. There's only one way to save the planet:
Give the AGW Terrorizers all of your money. Shut down your economy. Take your food stamps from the New World Government.
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015No, because it never happened. How does making things up help your case?
Ah yes, more of your belief that thousands of scientists are in on a conspiracy to take over the world. You must be fascinating at parties. ;)
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015Here you go.
https://www.youtu...D8aylRiw
Notice how he hangs his hat on it, but leaves room for deflection? Typical liberal politics.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015Perhaps thousands. There's also thousands of scientists on the other side too.
So, which ones are right?
The ones taking our money and trying to crush our economies, or the ones saying..."hey folks hang on a minute...let's look at this again".
I don't go to parties. I have to work the next day. I don't depend on government handouts. I enable them.
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015Did you listen to it? At no point did he say it would be gone in 7 years. He quoted a model that indicated it could be gone in 7 years (I think the model was actually 7 years +/- 3). He also quoted scientists who said it could be gone in 22 years. Are you aware of the difference between "could" and "would"? So you admit that you made up your comment. As far as using "could", this is how scientists talk. You've admitted that you don't know much of anything about science, so this could be new to you. (Not that I think Gore is a scientists - he's a politician, which means I don't think much of him.)
Oh, I doubt you could scrape up even 100 of actual scientists on "the other side".
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015Well, since you've seen that all the data supports the side of science, I guess it's the thousands.
By the way, I've noticed that your anti-science side likes to make things up a lot. You have Curry and Christie as scientists who've lied to congress in an attempt to refute the science. Pielke, Jr. misled congress (does that constitute lying?). And all sorts of fake skeptics who claim that the warming has stopped, or it's cooling, or the oceans are cooling, or etc. Can you say why you believe that lying is a good policy?
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015That is a typical liberal ploy.
He hung his hat on the studies, yet left room for deniability.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015No.
#climategate
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015Uh-huh, sure you are. And in real life, I'm Batman. ;)
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (11) May 24, 2015And, yet, you lied about his comment. So is lying a typical conservative ploy?
Ah, yes, a few out of context emails. Of course, the people that stole the emails had to remove the context so the intellectually lazy among us wouldn't know that nothing wrong happened. So would you say that being intellectually lazy is a conservative trait? Personally, I find both conservatives and liberals to both have this fault, but maybe you disagree?
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 24, 2015Mocking those who allow the govt to provide "free stuff". Nice.
I did not lie. He said it, I exposed it as a typical liberal political ploy to claim something but leave a backdoor.
That's the way it came out. Think they may have dodged a bullet? I do.
Laziness does not know political boundaries. However, any political message that promotes big govt is advocating laziness.
I think its a crime that some people have chosen to profit by making the masses fear Earth's normal fluctuations.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015Another thing just occurred to me.
In the real world, anyone (the authors of the study) that makes such drastic claims that do not come true come under extreme scrutiny in their next endeavor. In fact, with a claim that big, and the damage it did, they would be lucky not to lose their jobs and careers.
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015Ah, so you now claim you have the moral right to have lied about what he said. Don't bother denying about the lie, you're own evidence proved that. So are you now claiming that conservatives have the moral right to lie?
Ah, so you admit that there's no evidence of scientists lying. So you had to lie to make your claim. Do you think you had the moral right to lie about that? You're revealing all sorts of interesting things today. ;)
You've admitted that you lie (even if you think you have the moral right to do so). Why should we believe this?
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015Can you point to a claim of Gore's that didn't come true? He said it could - that's how science talks. But I'm sure he used to make his point. Most people were skeptical of the study about melting ice, so I for one would have preferred him to say something like "this is preliminary so let's see". But, as you showed, he didn't lie. So hate Gore. He's a politician, I'm sure that plenty of people hate him. I'm betting he doesn't really care.
Instead of talking about Gore, why not discuss the science (which is pretty solid on the basics)? Why do you come to a science site to discuss politics?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015So, you're a wingnut. And you think that the big gubment is trying to put everyone on food stamps. What a surprise.
You think that Obama's a muslim socialist, too, don't you?
You know what? Don't answer that. The concentration of stupidity in the atmosphere is already at the 400 ppm tipping point. We don't need it going up any further.
By the way, here's a clue to how misinformed you are. Nobody else cares about what Al Gore has to say about climate science but climate deniers. The rest of us listen to these people who study climate for a living. They're called experts. Maybe you've heard of them.
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015One other thing: You say you don't like being lied to. Yet you've seen that Spencer and Monckton and the person or persons who stole the emails for "climategate" lied to you. And, yet, I haven't heard you direct any anger towards the anti-science people that have perpetrated these lies on you, or even something along the lines of "Hey, it's the anti-science people that I know have lied. Maybe I should actually try to learn about the science so they can't lie to me anymore." As far as I can tell, you're content to being lied to as long as the lies conform to your version of politics. Is this common among political radicals such as yourself?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015Saying something COULD happen is not the same as saying something WILL happen. I know you are terrible at scientific reasoning, and all, but part and parcel of science is this thing called uncertainty. Everything we measure is done within a margin of error.
Thus, models often make predictions that fall within two extremes. A scientist's duty is not to simply ignore extreme possibilities, but to report on them, just in case.
And yes, I am being condescending, because you are a buffoon.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015gore is not a scientist, he is a politician
politicians are not necessarily scientifically literate, even though some feel compelled to act upon a possibility that may happen, or has the possibility of existing
just because a political hack pushes an agenda doesn't mean the entire thing is correct OR incorrect
gore is an idiot... true
i personally don't like him at all, nor will i ever "follow" his "politics"
that is one reason i suggested keeping the politics out and concentrating on the science, or physics... whatever you want that actually has merit
leave the "political grandstanding" to those who like it
regardless of the politics, there IS a problem, and the science is pointing with overwhelming data to certain areas
and like anything, we CAN make a difference, with small changes that lead to better info, etc
cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015but even given that you will argue that point... lets try another tactic: furlong and zz are well versed in physics (i know furlong is VERY well versed) so the simplest approach is thus:
- present the studies which undermine all the present worldwide knowledge which proves AGW is not real
taking them on a case by case basis, we can then either find refutes or discuss the specific data
and i suggest staying away from monckton (you did not do that in another thread but using monckton is like quoting charlie brown - comical and equivalent to used-toilet paper WRT the subject, NOT science)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015start with statistics and probabilities
just because science says it CAN happen, doesn't mean it WILL happen
science/physics/astrophysics says it is possible that a huge 10+ miles wide meteor CAN hit us any day... but it has NOT happened today
that doesn't mean it CANNOT happen, just that it HASN'T happened
learn to read the probabilities of outcomes re: studies before falling into that trap that is abused by the anti-AGW/global warming crowd... it is a tactic used to great effect among the scientifically illiterate
@zz5555
OMG!
REALLY!
can i get your autograph?
anything you need to tell us now furlong?
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015Yep, but lets get rich and enforce our global agenda anyway.
You're an apologist for evil. May not feel like it, but you are.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015Ah yes, the populist argument.
AKA intellectual dishonesty.
It will, one day, be a crime to profit by making people terrified of the earth's natural climatic rhythms. But until then, let's have a party!
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015If something COULD happen, should you be charged for it?
Especially when his well-connected buddies will get rich on it.
Ah, censorship through humiliation. The circled wagons of the AGW crowd. Well played.
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015Umm, the scientists supporting the science aren't getting rich - they just make normal scientist salaries (which I can tell you aren't bad, but they aren't making anybody rich). If you want to make money researching climate change, then the thing to do is to be against it. That way you get a normal salary as a researcher, and you get paid on top of that for opposing the science. And you don't even have to do any research to oppose the science: when you're doing bad science it doesn't matter if your conclusions reflect reality or not.
Let's see, you're the one that's admitted to lying to try to refute the science. You're the one that's admitted to being lied to by the anti-science group and not being upset. They've lied to you a number of times - what makes you think they're not lying about preventing climate change being bad?
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015Monckton does seem to be on the fringe. Unfortunately, a blind squirrel got a nut in his case vs. AGW.
Re: climategate, I am not angry. I am dissapointed that they got away with it. They were caught re-handed, and the liberal machine got them out of it. And why not? LOTS AND LOTS of money was at stake. The people, and their future, be damned.
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015Hmm, you've admitted that the you're not aware of any lies coming from the pro-science side, but that you've been lied to by the anti-science side. Shouldn't it be a crime for the anti-science side to lie just to make a profit?
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015You're suggesting you're a scientist. First: Those that know don't talk like you do. Those that don't know do. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Second, if you really do live in that world, then you would know of the perks re: being on the right side. It is quite lucrative.
Huh? LOL...you're reeling.
man...you are REELING!
Because if it was real, they'd be blowing the horn too. C'mon, Mr. Scientist...what is a theory if it isn't falsifiable? How should a falsified theory be dealt with? Teach us.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015You are reeling. Stop...seriously.
Also, show me where the anti-AGW side is profiting. Are they taxing countries and states? Are they inflicting their brand of a New World Order on the common people? Are they destroying economies in order to gain global wealth equity? I bet the anti-AGW people are incredibly frustrated. What a waste of time it is; they could be much more productive than standing up against the AGWs.
If I have said anything, it is that claiming the Earth's climatic cycles are the result of human action is a lie.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015Numbers don't lie.
http://www.trivis...arly.jpg
Muslim? No. Socialist? Actions speak.
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.
Liars lie. That's what they do. If it happens once, one must be on their guard. Re: the scientists, its called Conflict of Interest. Re: your argument, its called Expert Fallacy.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015Haha.
What is car insurance, and how does it work?
What is using tax money to pay for national defense in case of an attack, and how does it work?
What is compulsory vaccination, and how does IT work?
Also, to be serious for a moment, I see what you did there. You are conflating the extreme prediction (all polar ice melting in a very short period of time) with a far more realistic prediction. So, yes, for the realistic prediction of us gaining another degree (or more)in mean global temperature or more in 100 years, yes, we would like you to curb your carbon footprint.
Well, you admitted to having no evidence for this, so I don't know why you think it's reasonable to--oh right! Wingnut!
Or I could be humiliating you for other reasons. Whatever could they be?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015nope
i also do not assign morality to scienceagain, you are wrong
it is the power of science... if the world all works on finding out something and 97% find it points one way, that is powerful knowledge, not knowledge by consensus or populist argument
each experiment is being done to try to either outwit or undermine others or find something someone hasn't found yet, but end up supporting the scienceso you don't believe in keeping car insurance then?
because that is the same thing as paying for something that only has a probability of happening...
i've a driving record that spans more than 25yrs and 2 million miles ticket/accident free... and i get no freebies there
your argument is invalid
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015Precautions taken for things that can arise. Not for threats that have been proven not to have arisen.
There is plenty of evidence. carbon tax. Cap and trade. Shut down of industry/
You want me to go away, with all the rest of my type that are saying there's cause for concern coming from the AGW camp. It is best to silence me than to argue.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015Hahaha. How is this supposed to imply that the government is trying to put everyone on food stamps? That's like saying that because there has been an increase in the number of severe weather events over the last 10 years, the government must be trying to control the weather.
Um...also--great big economic collapse of 2008? You know, the one caused by massive deregulation of wall street and the private sector? That might just have something to do with the number of food stamp recipients increasing dramatically like that. Also, you do realize that the Republican controlled government (except for that blackety black guy in the white house) has been actively attempting to gut all the social welfare programs, right?
Man, the Kolmogorov complexity of the frequency domain of your cognitive dissonance must be astronomical.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015i know you are talking to someone else, but you are mixing arguments from various posters and assigning blanket accusations based upon conspiracy theory and your personal ignorance of the science
i can be derogatory, but it won't help
lets try again: you stated in another thread: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
you are doing that here: sharing non-sense and mostly debunked data and calling it science
if you want to argue a point, share some studies that support your conclusions, not political sites, or articles, or conspiracy
you think your view is credible, but you've not been able to provide science supporting it
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) May 24, 2015Let's just say I am the best there is at what I do, and what I do ain't pretty.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015i gave you one study that shows people making a lot of money from anti-agw arguments...
also, for every day that passes that things do NOT change, the power companies, big oil and more make money on not having to change or force change upon future plants or output of carbon etc
there is money in no change... big money, and you should be able to see that considering you are somehow making a claim that scientists are getting rich off of climate change
and although i can't speak for zz, i do know some scientists you've been talking to here on PO who are NOT getting rich working in climate science
you should have read those articles i sent you on conspiracy theory and how to break your cycle of ignorance and faith in conspiracy
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (14) May 24, 2015denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015No, it is showing that since 1975, there has been a 100% increase in the number of people on the dole. You started that one.
You get what you work for. Imagine that.
Word Salad. No.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015I must have missed it.
Good. they are driving our economy and making jobs.
We need to drive an economy, not an agenda. Wealth distributes via gumption, not AGW.
I challenge any of these so called scientists to pony up their records. There are not scientists here.
You mean the oil companies aren't engaged in conspiracy?
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015Hey, look! An attempt to bring out the straw man! No.
denglish
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2015Thank you.
I'm flattered that you're looking me up.There are differences between the two articles. One is describing an observation, the other is reinforcing a supposition.
I did that a long time ago, and it was shouted down. A reasonable doubt is good enough to think again, no?
denglish
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2015But check out this guy; he seems quite level-headed:
http://www.drroys...dummies/
http://www.drroys...manmade/
http://www.drroys..._v61.png
As you can see, there are *reasonable* doubts.
Bomb away. :-)
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015Yes, actually, they do. You've indicated that you have no familiarity with any science, so how would you know how a scientist talks?
Interesting. You've never heard of oil and coal companies? You've admitted that the information you've gotten from groups on this side was false.
No one has said that they do. And no one has said that the current warming is due to any climatic cycle. Can you identify a cycle that is causing the warming? Remember, measurements show quite conclusively that the earth as a whole is warming, so the source of the cycle must be outside the earth. And it can't be the sun since we've received less energy from the sun for the last 40 years - during the greatest warming.
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (13) May 24, 2015denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015Wrong. Wrong. A person that is armed with scientific proof does not resort to insult or pejorative.
Oh! A conspiracy! Pot, meet Kettle. And you're still reeling about with this "you admit" stuff. Huh?
The earth goes through climatic cycles.
No. Yes, .07 C in many years. What a disaster. Huh?
I presented an expert's opinion.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015You're reeling.
Ok to lie? More of this admit stuff? What is it leading you to? You are very hung up on it. It is...odd.
I would much rather discuss Planck Stars than climate politics. Therefore, I will fall back on experts.
I left a few level-headed sources for you to view. Did you?
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015http://www.drroys...esponse/
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) May 24, 2015@denglish
You must not know much about Roy Spencer, re your linking to his blog. Didn't think you would be a fan of someone who denies evolution and promotes intelligent design.
http://en.wikiped...ntist%29
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015Me? All by my lonesome? I am glad you think I wield so much power. And that I time travel. Maybe you mean democrats started that?
Anyway, I see your glib appraisal of the rise in food stamp recipients and raise you an entire article showing how much wages have stagnated since 1975:
http://www.epi.or...gnation/
A website that compares the cost of living in 1975 with the cost of living in 2015
http://carlosrull...e-1970s/
A wage vs productivity chart.
http://cdn.theatl...6c70.png
And some pew research showing how dramatically income inequality has risen since 1980.
http://www.pewres...-income/
Gee. I wonder why people need food stamps.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 20151) Focus, man, fooooocusss. I wrote that in response to you suggesting that big gubment is trying to put everyone on food stamps.
2) Actually, you don't get what you work for. Here, let me post that chart again. You're a wingnut, so, your memory is likely very short:
http://cdn.theatl...6c70.png
Haha. Clearly you aren't familiar with computational information theory or fourier analysis. If you did, you'd be dyin' . Oh lawdy!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015Also, it's cute when wingnuts (and crackpots) attempt to appropriate rationalist nomenclature into their own vernacular.
Case in point: Word Salad is a "confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases", which does not describe what I wrote. You see Kolmogorov complexity is a measure of the randomness of a sequence, and frequency domain is a representation of all the frequencies that make up a signal. So, you see, it was a play on wor--oh never mind.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015So cute.
Anyway, you are talking about argument from authority, and no, that is not the expert fallacy. You see, there is a reason why they're called experts--because they know more than laypeople do. And when you make a statement that is supported by the weight of 97% of experts on a subject, you bet your glib potential mutton chops that it is (likely) more valid than one made by the other 3%. Otherwise, why have experts?
So, try again. You might actually use a term correctly this ti--.
Welp, Dr. Suzuki said that every child has a gift. Some just open them sooner than others.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015I love it. I provided a moderate alternative idea, challenged obfuscation and straw man, ad hominen attacks, and what happens, the so-called scientists double down, pejoratives and all.
And look at that...even a liberal attack on work ethic. Perfect.
By your very behavior, you have discredited your position.
Amazing? No. The internet and its anonymity allows it.
Anyway, thanks for the entertainment, I'll see you guys in the next AGW vs. humanity thread.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015I don't care about his religious views.
I am drawing on his expertise of climate.
Anyway, cya in the next AGW vs. Humanity thread.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015so you support the removal of all those pesky trees/ecosystem interfering with agricultural and commercial land use in the amazon, right?
that means you also support over-fishing as well as the eradication of species not useful for food, too
all this is economy based as well as things tried in the past (and still today) and all for money...
so, what happens if you are wrong?
where is the balance?then pay attention to what is being posted, and you will find exactly that
that is how i got in touch with several of them
all you need is the attention span longer than 3 minutes and the ability to read above the 7th grade levelor you are intentionally ignoring it for your own purposes, like the protection of your delusion, maybe?
conspiracy theorists tend to ignore data that proves them wrong, like religious folk
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015i am not looking you up, you are posting in subjects that i frequent
there is no difference, really
you simply don't like facing the data, and are clinging to anything that will justify your belief system in the conspiracy, just like what is pointed out here: http://phys.org/n...ies.html
read also: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
if you shared Monckton, like with me, then for good reason
share some actual science, not articles
share the studies that justify your refusal to accept the bulk of the science out there proving you wrong, and explain why you think you should ignore the overwhelming evidence against you
because the bulk of the science really is against your belief
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2015only when the reasonable doubt is based upon sound evidence and principles, not delusions or imagination, otherwise we would be flooded with criminals in the streetsthe physics of a lot of this are the same/similar
now, take what you know about GR and SR... could you say that the aether theory is legit "reasonable doubt" to promote theories like electric universe or creationists dogma?
because it is the exact same as climate science: you are ignoring the basic physics for the unsubstantiated meanderings of someone who is NOT versed in the scientific detail, like monckton or ALCHE
and when it comes to finding "reasonable doubt" or scientific evidence to follow, i stick with studies, not blogs, personal sites or anything else
source and validate all material- that is the investigator in me
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) May 25, 2015wrong
people are people regardless, and despite your personal belief in the way scientists seem to rise above the norm, they are people too, and when challenged in a subject that they are familiar with, tend to react the same as anyone else
just like you react to things that challenge your world view, so does everyone else. Some, however, choose to follow the evidence rather than make up the opinion first and then find things to support it
following the evidence is the key phrase
just because you can find support for a belief doesn't mean it is true
you can find over a million pages supporting Faeries, too, but that doesn't mean Tinkerbell is going to teach you how to fly
Source and Material is the key
do not consider a blog/article a good source unless there are linked studies that validate the findings, IMHO
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015if it aint peer-reviewed and subjected to the same rigors of the scientific method that a study is subjected to, then it is NOT good information
the likely reason it is published without peer review is because he doesn't want to address any obvious flaws
for instance:
take his paper, then also look at the following
http://www.cawcr....olar.pdf
http://sun.stanfo....web.pdf]http://sun.stanfo....web.pdf[/url]
http://sun.stanfo....web.pdf]http://sun.stanfo....web.pdf[/url]
http://iopscience...4/044022
or read the following articles & references: http://www.skepti...nced.htm
http://www.skepti...ycle.htm
both pages undermine his post with more than just opinion
they use STUDIES and link them to prove their points
read them- they validate the conclusions posted, not spencer
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (11) May 25, 2015Donglish eagerly showing his eagerness to compete with watermonkeys dumb replies... (and he's adding the coals under the seat in remarkable numbers and for that, earning stellar One out of Fives... ;) )
Captain plays him like a ping pong ball, but he always tries coming back just to look even more stupid... keep it up monkey, while you're at it, bring your antisciencegorilla and watermonkey account in the discussion, or is it a lot of work to post from all three at the same time... ? lol..... can't wait for the next replies. :D
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2015zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015I suggest you stay away from scientific conferences - it might shock you ;).
But when did I insult you? I said you were a liar - but we have objective proof here in this thread (at least twice). I've also said that you indicated you had no experience with science and that also appears true from your comments.
But, just to remind you, here's your liar bits. You claimed that Gore said the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014. I pointed out that wasn't true. You linked to a video that showed I was correct and that you had made up the claim. You said that it was ok for you to make up the claim because what Gore said was a "typical liberal ploy." Which seems silly, but your claims are all about politics which is always silly in a science discussion.
Cont.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015So there's no question that you're ok with lying to make a point - in fact, you see nothing wrong with it.
As for not being familiar with science, it's pretty obvious that you're easily deceived to those on the anti-science side. First of all, your whole "#climategate" debacle.
Cont.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015He's a researcher working at a university. If he thought it was a worthwhile idea, he'd have tried to publish it. As it turns out, there's pretty good reasons why it wasn't published. First, he thinks that clouds will greatly reduce the climate sensitivity via negative feedback. While there has been a great deal of uncertainty, as early as 2008 (when Spencer wrote his blog entry), the evidence was that clouds would provide a positive feedback (http://www.skepti...iate.htm ). This is empirical data, so he'd have to refute that before he could present his idea of clouds being a negative feedback. Of course, recent measurements have proved Spencer wrong.
Cont.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015Except that your beach will have moved upwards 10's of metres and in places 10/100's of miles inland.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015Cont.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015Note that he mentions that opening up of the Northwest Passage in 1939 and 1940? It was made up. Henry Larson got through the passage in the same way others had before him: he took over 2 years to do it. Here's what he says about that trip:
(http://www.skepti...och.html )
Cont.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015By the way, Spencer has had a lot of difficulty figuring out climate models (http://www.skepti...roy.html ). You should be very wary of Spencer when he starts talking about models.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (9) May 26, 2015Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015ubavontuba is bulk down-voting anyone who publishes scientific or any science supported posts because she hates anyone who refutes her with logic or science
her tactics include attempts to distract away from topic and science, using grammatical and syntactical arguments over scientific ones as well as supporting pseudoscience like JVK
JVK is also trying to down-vote anyone who supports science or even refutes anything he says
you can see that here: http://phys.org/n...ols.html
because he cannot use his pseudoscience or his site as science, then he asks everyone to downvote people like me and Jones
I suggest giving them like treatment to insure others do not fall prey to their pseudoscience
that is how their bible works, right? eye-for-an-eye ?
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (12) May 26, 2015...and see the 'unholy alliance' between 'deniers in cosmology issues' (Vietvet, Uncle Ira) and 'deniers in Nuclear Power dangers and better alternatives issues (rbrtwjohnson, WillieWard), downvoting as one from their own prejudices rather than reasoned argument based on the mounting facts/reality which makes their respective positions increasingly untenable.
Not bad, attracting kneejerks form deniers from two opposing self-interested, prejudiced, 'camps', or should I say 'downvoting gangs', hey? Bizarre, for a science site/discussion forum, to say the least, hey? :)
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (10) May 27, 2015Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) May 27, 20151st: that is a situation of your own making
2nd: if you don't provide actual science or links/references, i will downvote you as well
3rd: normally, i ignore your posts unless quoted/discusses with me by someone relevant and knowledgeable, then i determine whether or not to vote and how to vote...
but when you add in your verbose ranting or pontificating which got you banned from other forums, i will immediately downvote you without regard to the rest of the content
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015Shhh... don't tell that to your False "Profit" Al.
http://directorbl...-of.html
Oh wait, he bought that with the millions he made preaching that lie to the ignorant.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (9) May 27, 2015viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) May 27, 2015OMG, you mean a website devoted to science produces articles about science!?! Call the propaganda police! Get it shut down! Oh my poor ontological framework! It hurts, it hurts! Make it stop!
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) May 27, 2015If everything just stopped and we could become zero-CO2 (excluding natural CO2 sources), we might be able to achieve a 1.5C (3,6F) max rise in global average temp by 2100. I'm extremely skeptical it will happen but I agree with their analysis. I'm skeptical because I really don't trust conservatives or conservative run businesses to participate in a global movement to save the environment. With every penny stolen from workers dedicated to profit and growth, how can a company faithful to share holders, participate in something good for the planet?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2015As to evidence/references, it has been provided already in my posts in the Cosmology threads where new observations/results from Supernovae and CMB observations/conclusions make the 'standard candles' and CMB 'evidence for big Bang' untrustworthy now. Just because you don't look doesn't mean it doesn't exist, remember?
And the evidence/logics re Climate has been well presented in discussion by many participants.
PS: since you still bring personal enmity/baggage, you are not fit to judge anything. You're not objective. Learn, CS.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015i never 'judge"
i follow the evidence
the evidence shows that you have lied repeatedly and that it got you banned because your emo outbursts were nothing but tantrums designed to entice others into pitying you as some kind of victim
that is what the evidence shows
that is not judgement, but acceptance of facts
the evidence shows that you like to bait/troll with the same tactics: this is demonstrated above in your reply to me
don't like it?
blog about it or facebook about it.. there is still myspace too, or twitter and many more options
build a shrine to your hate of mods, Captains and those who follow science that is not yours
build a hate page dedicated to promoting a mathless ToE, earthling boy
i don't care
i will still follow logic and science, NOT your perpetual crybaby posts about your moderation
http://www.scifor...page=246
http://www.scifor...?page=68
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) May 28, 2015You still bring up things which I have proved you have twisted and lied about in your usual 'half-truth' way, so your claims to "following the evidence" is ridiculous. Remember when you lied about a thread that you claimed "didn't exist" but I proved it did by referencing it? Remember when you lied about the reasons for my bans which I proved BY INTERNET EXPERIMENTS were due to troll-gang frame-ups, collusion and abuse of rules and moderator position/power? Remember how just yesterday you failed to note that I supported my observations re the 'standard candle' and CMB 'Big Bang etc 'evidence' which have been demonstrated unreliable by Planck/Supernovae data?
Pull the other one, troll. :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) May 28, 2015@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good again too, thanks for asking.
How can anybody not remember all those things? You tell the same GREAT BIG LIES over and over. And more overs too. The Captain-Skippy handed you your head with all your lies and all you are doing is making sure nobody forgets all the GREAT BIG LIES you tell.
Oh yeah, I almost forget. How did the climatic meeting go? I bet they was glad to see you ride in and save the day, eh?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) May 28, 2015Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) May 28, 2015@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? Never mind, I can see you are still in the bad mood again.
Yeah, okayeei. But I really do want to know how the climatic environments meeting went? Was your papers the talk of the town? I bet you really put all those diligenceless heathens in their place.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) May 28, 2015Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) May 28, 2015You don't need to salute me Cher. I just do this as a volunteer for the scientists and humans who can't do their own diligence with you because they got real science stuffs to do instead of fooling around with you.
I don't have you on the list because you are mindless and the moron. I have you on the list because you are big fun to have on the list. I even miss you when you don't come around for a few days.
But 20 meters is opening up so I don't have the time to joke around with you so much tonight. One of the deckhands helped me to string up a end-fed dipole antenna down the tow so maybe I can talk to some of the VK Australia and the ZL New Zealand stations from your neck of the woods.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (10) May 28, 2015RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) May 28, 2015https://www.psych...-sadists
Uncle Ira is a moron with a list; uses it for BOT-voting on a SCIENCE site; thinks his loony psycho driveling + anti-science ethics BOT-crazy-votes are serving 'science'. You gotta laugh, hey folks!
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) May 28, 2015RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) May 28, 2015Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (12) May 29, 2015@ glam-Skippy. Collins used to make some good stuffs too, but that radio is not much good for the Amateur unless you get him for free and want to do a lot of work on him. That is the airplane radio and don't have the VFO tuning us hams like. My radio is the Kenwood TS-2000 that Mrs-Ira-Skippy bought for me for last Christmas. It is the all band and all mode radio. It and his power supply I got mounted in a big surplus army equipment case that is completely water proof and I put in foam compartments to carry my radio station stuffs to and from the boat when I go to work. The three antennas I just roll up and carry in a duffel bag with the coax.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015Since AGW was founded on fraud and is sustained by greed, then what is required is absolutely nothing. However, what it's going to take, is untold human poverty and suffering,especially to the most vulnerable.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015NICE
http://www.univer...978.html
http://www.eham.n...ail/1249
gkam
2.2 / 5 (10) May 29, 2015Yeah, the Collins stuff did not have a Variable Frequency Oscillator because the frequencies were so tight, I think. It's been too long - I liked the set because I could fix it easily, and it seldom needed care. If you want to see some interesting stuff, look up a pic of the antenna coupler for the 618S-1/MC, a shiny, technical Rube Goldberg device fun to watch.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (10) May 29, 2015Nope, I don't know when we ditched the key and fist for microphone, but I used to hear the high-rate bugs zinging it out at night. Mostly, I would dodge the Soviet jamming and tune into the messages sent to Looking Glass, which were mainly numbers, or a Chinese propaganda site. It was 1968.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015Nope the changing climate is based on Emperical Scientific Evidence, You monkey, your sockpuppets and greedy oil is based on fraud, and you have never been able to prove any of your points. Those 1 out of 5's backing it up quite neatly.. ;) :D