US government report to warn climate change is real

The US government's Fourth National Climate Assessment says that that human activities, "especially emissions of greenhouse
The US government's Fourth National Climate Assessment says that that human activities, "especially emissions of greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide fumes from vehicles, are primarily responsible for climate change

The US government is expected to release Friday a major scientific report that says climate change is real, caused by human activity, and is affecting the daily lives of Americans.

The federally mandated , known as the Fourth National Climate Assessment, is issued every four years.

It is the first to come under the administration of President Donald Trump who has labeled global warming a Chinese hoax and named fossil fuel ally Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

"Average temperatures in recent decades over much of the world have been much higher, and have risen much faster during this time period, than at anytime in the past 1,700 years or more," said a draft of the report, made public in August by the New York Times.

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," it added.

"Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed change."

The updated, full report will be released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at 2 pm (1800 GMT).

The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), which is part of the National Climate Assessment, "is an authoritative assessment of the of climate change with a focus on the US," said NOAA in a statement.

It "serves as the foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision-making about responses," NOAA said.

"New observations and research have increased our scientific understanding of past, current and future since the Third US National Climate Assessment (NCA3) was published in May 2014," the statement added.

Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota and eight of his colleagues this week sent a letter to Trump asking "what safeguards are in place to ensure that the National Climate Assessment and the Climate Science Special Report give fair and accurate summations of the latest climate science without political interference."

The senators also asked how the Trump Administration plans to address the report's findings.


Explore further

New climate change report likely to be ignored to death

© 2017 AFP

Citation: US government report to warn climate change is real (2017, November 3) retrieved 19 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-11-climate-real.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
70 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 03, 2017
More carbon taxes anyone? Surely the more the better for our food crops? In any case, one volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the air as did man since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. And.. CO2 forms only 0.03% of the atmosphere while water vapor up to 10%, and.. the suns is the primary heeater qnd cooler. Global warming?

With reference to the often used '97% of scientists concur', a major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors. They pointed out that the 97% number had appeared in a new and unknown journal. (Suspicious)? The researchers were led by top climatologist Dr David Legates. Their paper was published in the respected Science and Education journal and it clearly demonstrated that number was not 97.1%, as claimed, but only 0.3%!

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers examined by Dr Legates team explicitly stated that 'Man caused most of the warming since 1950'

Read more at: https://phys.org/news

Nov 03, 2017
More carbon taxes anyone? [...]


More idiot troll shrlillings, tomsac?

Your aggressive yammerings betray you, coming --as they do-- before the details of the assessment are even publicized.

Thankfully, it the not-too-distant future, the sheer weight and volume of the LIVING REALITY of AGW is going to suffocate all this denialist claptrap, and we can finally begin to get rolling on properly, proportionally, and pro-actively addressing this most dire of existential threats.

Nov 03, 2017
....we can finally begin to get rolling on properly, proportionally, and pro-actively addressing this most dire of existential threats.


I'm not sure which causes more harm, the 'denialist claptrap' or the scientifically unfounded AGW alarmist gibberish about existential threats.



Nov 04, 2017

Thankfully, it the not-too-distant future, the sheer weight and volume of the LIVING REALITY of AGW is going to suffocate all this denialist claptrap,


Thankfully? So you are welcoming disaster?

Well, I guess that is all an alarmist can hope for, since your big pile of failed predictions is getting quite shameful. You have lost your credibility in science a long time ago. And you know it, that is why we see lawsuits from climate scientists that threaten opposing views. This is the panic of climate scientists:
https://wattsupwi...lawsuit/

Pathetic, but a beautiful sign of skeptic victory


Nov 04, 2017
I'm not sure which causes more harm, the 'denialist claptrap' or the scientifically unfounded AGW alarmist gibberish about existential threats.


Of course you don't, nonounME.

And this isn't at all surprising given your well-known inability to understand reality as viewed through those carbon-tinted glasses of yours.

We know that you invest all your resources into maintaining the delusion that you are insulated from the effects of AGW, and will come through it all like the dewy rose, with plenty of cash in the bank, ready to disaster capitalism upon the ruins.

When you are picked off due to your own stupid, greed-driven delusion of immunity from consequences, I'll be there to dance atop your grave.

Nov 04, 2017
Thankfully? So you are welcoming disaster?


Yeah. I will be thankful to hear your suckhole stopped, and the denier creed wholly ignored. Nor do I consider it a disaster that the denierside lies be abated.

Unfortunately, while you trolls artificially extend the debate, your stupid greed further imperils everyone else.

Well, I guess that is all an alarmist can hope for, since your big pile of failed predictions is getting quite shameful.


Well, Cark,
I guess you could undelude yerself. Da Scneib kindly just posted the report:

https://science20...nge.gov/

Turns out, the only failed prediction is the denierside line that the predicted effects of AGW wouldn't materialize.

contd

Nov 04, 2017
contd

So now, Cark, as the clammy tentacle of AGW encircles their trollpipes, your kind resort to all manner of shrill trollblatt, such as this --your very own words:

You have lost your credibility in science a long time ago.


The similarity to primary school taunting is eerily familiar, but probably based upon the fact of shared origin, ie, " I know you are, but what am I?", but also in which you have answered your own rhetorical question, and thenceforth are arguing from out of your own ignorance. But I'll give answer to question you nevertheless clearly implied:

--Hardly, given that all the climate science is being conducted by scientists researching climate science, and the facts of the matter have been established independently of denierside failure to establish ANY facts at all.

contd

Nov 04, 2017
And then you write:

And you know it, that is why we see lawsuits from climate scientists that threaten opposing views. This is the panic of climate scientists:
https://wattsupwi...lawsuit/


--Apparently unable to distinguish singular from plural, or detect the fact that the actual Scientist in question isn't a climate scientist, and is engaged in defending his proffessional reputation against defamation and slander, and not in an effort to freedom to publish peer-reviewed scientific research findings.

There is a huge difference between the two, and that huge difference, in the first instance, is popularly referred to as "SPIN"-- false imputation of intent or effect.
In the second instance, a lawsuit for defamation of character, slander, or libel is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment specifically excludes those abuses as free speech.

The Constitution of The United States of America. Learn it. Know it.

contds

Nov 04, 2017
contd

After having wilfully disunderstood my initial comment, and then having added deliberate, demonstrable untruth, apparent ignorance,distortion, more distortion, and citing a deliberately inaccurate and false imputation of censorship upon a defamation/slander/libel lawsuit by a scientist concerned for the sake of his professional reputation, your crowning and ultimate epigram, Cark, is this:

Pathetic, but a beautiful sign of skeptic victory


--Which can be immediately converted into a completely true statement by the striking and replacing of one single word.

I will leave it to you, Cark, and the rest of all trolldom to puzzle over the solution, which you know already in the withered vestiges of your souls. Sadly, you will have to struggle mightily to remove the deep, daunting layers of delusion obscuring that knowledge, first.

Good Luck.


Nov 05, 2017
I'm not sure which causes more harm, the 'denialist claptrap' or the scientifically unfounded AGW alarmist gibberish about existential threats.


Of course you don't, nonounME.

And this isn't at all surprising given your well-known inability to understand reality as viewed through those carbon-tinted glasses of yours.


There is no such reality. You just made that up. People rightly tend to regard alarmist claims of 'existential threats' with suspicion, and then this causes them to dismiss the issue in its entirety.


Nov 05, 2017
I suppose it was predictable that Noum would turn out to be a climate denier. And not even a particularly bright one.

Nov 05, 2017
I suppose it was predictable that Noum would turn out to be a climate denier. And not even a particularly bright one.


I have not denied AGW. You just made that up. Your dishonesty was not unexpected though.

Nov 05, 2017


"And this isn't at all surprising given your well-known inability to understand reality as viewed through those carbon-tinted glasses of yours."

There is no such reality. You just made that up. People rightly tend to regard alarmist claims of 'existential threats' with suspicion, and then this causes them to dismiss the issue in its entirety.


Not so fast, nonoUNme--

You have a long history as a supposed fence-sitting "skeptic" here at Porg.

Moreover, your skepticism has always been of the non-committal, maybe-later-I'll-make-up-my-mind variety, which has never responded or been revised in the face of the complete debunking of "skeptic" claims and the acceptance by several scientifically credentialed, outstanding proponents of "skepticism" of the reality of AGW.

This makes you a denier. And saying that I made this up makes you a liar, into the bargain.

Go whinge elsewhere, and finish it off with a piss up the rope.

Nov 05, 2017
You have a long history as a supposed fence-sitting "skeptic" here at Porg. [.....] Moreover, your skepticism has always been of the non-committal, maybe-later-I'll-make-up-my-mind variety...


Making stuff up as you go along again? I have not denied the legitimacy of climate science nor have I been 'on the fence' about it. I've posted about alarmist speculation, political misuse of, and manipulation of data, wrt AGW.

This makes you a denier. And saying that I made this up makes you a liar, into the bargain.


Well no, it makes me objective. Saying that AGW is an 'existential threat' is not being objective.

Nov 05, 2017
I've always made my position clear wrt AGW. Here is a quote from three years ago, that I have posted several times,....

"climatologists are the ones who are entitled to define what is true in their own field. I'm not a climatologist."- Noumenon

Speculating that AGW is an existential threat or cataclysmic to humanity, is not quantifiable climate science.

And saying that I made this up makes you a liar

What I said that you 'made up' was that AGW is an 'existential threat'.

Nov 05, 2017
@Noumenon.

Please note this instance of existential threat to a whole Nation State:

https://phys.org/...onn.html

If the threat is already existential, how much more likely will it be when the transitional climatic instability/extremes really get going once the capability/capacity CO2/Warming buffering/sinks become exhausted?

Fiji is "canary in the coal mine" now; as are many low-lying regions of the globe where extremes/instability are already having extreme/costly effects on agriculture/transport/recovery/sustainability/health etc. Where've you been the last few years, in an induced coma or something? Why are you unaware of the unfolding global AGW reality? Get real; and stop argumentation/opposition purely for argumentation/opposition sake on this one, hey? I always defended your right to skeptical challenge of mainstream orthodoxy (no-one is more skeptical than me, hey?)...but ONLY IF/WHEN the extant reality WARRANTS it. OK? :)

Nov 05, 2017
@RealityCheck

It is scientifically unfounded to attribute AGW as the cause of a specific storm as that in your reference. Your link did not reference any climatologist that even made such a claim, only a politician doing so. In fact at ClimateCouncil.org.au it is stated "it's difficult to determine the exact impact that climate change may have had on Cyclone Winston". IOW, there is no quantifiable way of claiming that that specific storm had anything to do with the present rise in temp as compared to 100 years ago.

However, what can be predicted as generalities, is increased natural flooding and draughts in areas already susceptible. Rather than this causing an existential threat, there will likely be migration from these areas, for which is not new to human history in any event.

Nov 05, 2017
In any case, one volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the air as did man since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.


As per the USGS, volcanos emit 1% of human emissions.

CO2 forms only 0.03% of the atmosphere while water vapor up to 10%

It's 1-4% for water vapour. But still, so what?

With reference to the often used '97% of scientists concur', a major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers examined by Dr Legates team explicitly stated that 'Man caused most of the warming since 1950'


Using this methodology, there's no consensus on plate tectonics on geology. Papers don't have to re-establish a position on demonstrated facts. Unless you think every paper out of CERN has to have a position on the existence of gravity.

Nov 05, 2017
@Noumenon.
It is scientifically unfounded to attribute AGW as the cause of a specific storm as that in your reference. Your link did not reference any climatologist that even made such a claim, only a politician doing so. In fact at ClimateCouncil.org.au it is stated "it's difficult to determine the exact impact that climate change may have had on Cyclone Winston". IOW, there is no quantifiable way of claiming that that specific storm had anything to do with the present rise in temp as compared to 100 years ago.
Are you being disingenuously obtuse; or do you really NOT 'get it'?

Anyway, forget past furphies offered up by BOTH 'sides', mate; concentrate NOW on the evolving AGW reality unambiguously 'jumping out at us' NOW when connecting ALL the 'dots' (instances).

The ongoing across-the-board GLOBAL 'count' is ADDING up; and NO-ONE is claiming to attribute/rely-on any ONE individual event, ok?

You suggest millions/billions 'migrate'? To WHERE? Get real, mate. :)

Nov 05, 2017
Are you being disingenuously obtuse; or do you really NOT 'get it'?


Deliberately disingenuous. I've read quite a few of his comments and he's trying to play the "reasonable sceptic" card by claiming he "just needs more proof". He'll still be asking for "more proof" when New Orleans is uninhabitable and Bangladesh no longer exists.

Nov 05, 2017
@ Nemenon-Skippy. How you are Cher? Longtime no see, eh? I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

Cher why it is every time you come around every post you put up after the first two ends up being you getting called a liar and you calling everybody else liars? It seems like the only time you come around is when you have the bad mood.

Nov 05, 2017
I have never stated I "just need more proof" and further have made my position wrt AGW clear. To state otherwise is 'deliberately disingenuous'.

You suggest millions/billions 'migrate'? To WHERE?

Billions ? Really? Unfounded alarmist gibberish. You cited the Fiji storm as a specific example of an existential threat, yet the people of Fiji still exist and there is no basis in scientific fact that that storm had anything to do with AGW. Generalities are valid to state for the future, which includes migration and adaptation to such changes and possible increased natural events. How is this point AGW denial, when it should be clear that this is a response to AGW?

Nov 05, 2017
Carbon emissions are 12% lower than they were 12 years ago, but the alarmist hysteria continues unabated. This tells me there is no link between alarmism and facts.

why it is every time you come around every post you put up after the first two ends up being you getting called a liar and you calling everybody else liars?


Not everyone can be like you Ira and never get into a debate at phys.org. You may have noted the enormous amount of sarcasm in that last sentence, perhaps even an internet record?

Nov 05, 2017
Not everyone can be like you Ira and never get into a debate at phys.org.
That is nice for you say, thanks.

Sometimes I get into the debates with peoples at the physorg, maybe you just don't notice because I am usually in the good moods and not ever mad with the peoples I am debating with. But that must have something to do with how my mother raised me so she should get the credit.

Nov 05, 2017
Not everyone can be like you Ira and never get into a debate at phys.org.
That is nice for you say, thanks.

Sometimes I get into the debates with peoples at the physorg, maybe you just don't notice because I am usually in the good moods and not ever mad with the peoples I am debating with. But that must have something to do with how my mother raised me so she should get the credit.


it is your premise that I am mad, skippy. I don't know how you can determine this through the internet, but if you wish to respond under that aspersion then I suppose its no worse than calling someone a liar. The usual suspects (won't watch that movie anymore) stated that I was a 'denier', without any basis, but yet Ira does not object to that, only to what Ira chooses to object to, but still Ira presents himself as having a superior mood.

Nov 05, 2017
I don't know what you are trying to say with that so I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Are you still saying nice things about me before? Or are you now saying something bad about me?

Nov 05, 2017
@Noumenon.
You suggest millions/billions 'migrate'? To WHERE?

Billions ? Really? Unfounded alarmist gibberish.
Are you kidding me!? This is not some abstruse philosophical discussion point, Noum! This is the survival of millions-to-billions of people. Why do this? It's obvious (to anyone with a connection to reality) that it will BE millions-to-billions affected, even NOW, let alone if/when RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE phase is allowed to happen....at which point it's MASS EXTINCTION situation. It's like you are just counting the deck chairs on the Titanic!

You cited the Fiji storm as a specific example of an existential threat, yet the people of Fiji still exist....
No no no! Are you this stupid in reality? The WATER TABLE and buffer zones etc also compromized! Vietnam, Bangla Desh, and MANY other low-lying/vulnerable regions around the globe ALSO being/will-be affected.

Rising from Millions to Billions affected. Migration not an option then. Get REAL NOW, Noum.

Nov 05, 2017
RC, you're being ridiculous. Have a look at water level map predictions for the next 100 years, ....mainly coastal areas, and of course gradually over the century, which means natural migration inland will be the response as coastal areas lose value, generation long response perhaps not even consciously noticeable. The notion of mass human extinction on account of AGW exists no where in objective science. Billions are already affected by climate even before AGW. The question was of the hysteria of "existential threat".

Nov 06, 2017


Making stuff up as you go along again? I have not denied the legitimacy of climate science nor have I been 'on the fence' about it. I've posted about alarmist speculation, political misuse of, and manipulation of data, wrt AGW

Well no, it makes me objective. Saying that AGW is an 'existential threat' is not being objective.


No, that makes you guilty of pasting over your denier cred with disengenuous "skeptic" mealymouthing, trying to float the notion that there is still room for "skepticism" at this late date.

Each and every one of your posts wrt AGW is just a further attempt to create the illusion of some remaining, legitimate basis for doubt, when none, in fact, exists, and you trot out yet another example of this --your personal M.O.-- with your post about CO2 emissions being 12% lower than they were ten years ago.

As this has any bearing at all.

That still isn't enough to hit the reduction target, much less to prevent further warming.

Contd

Nov 06, 2017
contd

But this is a perfect example of exactly what distinguishes you as both a denier and a liar.

You don't work for the Deep State, and this doesn't provide you with plausible deniability, indeed, it's certain they wouldn't have you due deficient intellect and absent ethics.

It only, as I said, makes it easy to identify you as a denier.

Now, get going --that rope is still dry.

Nov 06, 2017
Each and every one of your posts wrt AGW is just a further attempt to create the illusion of some remaining, legitimate basis for doubt

Even then it makes no sense.

When you have a cancer diagnosis and are only 97% positive that ut's malignant - do you still cling to the 3% doubt and do nothing? Do you feel it was a wrong decision if you take it out and it turns out to be benign?

Nov 06, 2017
And yes, it really is 97% and no, it's not one study: https://www.desmo...-warming

You'll find links to multiple studies in that article. Oreskes at al. was only the first. And if @Noum was actually following the science, it would know that instead of spouting talking points from politicians.

Nov 06, 2017
Each and every one of your posts wrt AGW is just a further attempt to create the illusion of some remaining, legitimate basis for doubt,


And you keep repeating this vague characterization despite that I have not posted any argument countering the core of climate science, and in fact have stated clearly I don't question it as clearly as I can. What I question is the ridiculous hysteria of existential threat that you spout off which is nothing more than unsubstantiated wild speculation.

The 12% reduction is progress, not generally taken into account by the bed wetters. By good point on your part nevertheless,... so how are you going to get China (etc) to do likewise?

Nov 06, 2017
When you have a cancer diagnosis and are only 97% positive that ut's malignant - do you still cling to the 3% doubt and do nothing?


Where have I done so? You're implying that I reject the 97% opinion of climatologists, despite my having made posts in this very thread demonstrating the exact opposite. Just because I reject the hysteria of "existential threat" does not mean I reject the quantifiable core science. Why is this difficult to understand?

No one learns from Algores mistakes?

Nov 06, 2017
.... that was the point of my first post here, ... how is it helpful to wildly overstate the threat in language like "existential threat"?

Nov 06, 2017
@Noum thinks the people who are going to get screwed by global warming are just going to sit there and take it.

Nov 06, 2017
@Noum thinks the people who are going to get screwed by global warming are just going to sit there and take it.


Schneib like Caliban, likes to be the one that decides what Noumenon thinks rather than reading what's plainly written.

Nov 06, 2017
And yes, it really is 97% and no, it's not one study


No where have I debated that fact, despite how much the invented narrative that 'Noumenon is a AGW denier' is regurgitated by the usual PhysOrg cabal.

More accurately it's more like 84%, (of the 97% who believe that the global temperature is rising), also believe it's cause is at least in part anthropogenic, but it is an overwhelming majority.

What climatologists think outside the bounds of quantifiability is more varied. For example, It is only a minority view amongst climatologist that AGW may be potentially catastrophic in the next century,.... and no use of the phrase "existential threat" exists that I could find.

Despite the flak and obfuscations here , my original objection was with that particular phrase, which as it is, is also the opinion of the majority of climatologists,.... but yet according to the PhysOrg Cult, Noumenon is the bad guy, Very little objectivity here.

Nov 06, 2017
I used this Climatologist Surveys link, but have posted this same point years ago here.

Nov 06, 2017
It's almost a random coin flip the % of climatologists who think "human-induced global warming [may rise] global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years'' ,.... to those who think it will raise temperatures less and those who don't know,.... 56% to 45%.

This is not meant to imply that even 1 *C won't cause change to react to. The point is rather as originally made by me, there is no scientific basis to the alarmist hysteria.

Nov 06, 2017
@Noumenon.
Have a look at water level map predictions for the next 100 years,.....The notion of mass human extinction on account of AGW exists no where in objective science. Billions are already affected by climate even before AGW. The question was of the hysteria of "existential threat".
What is wrong with your intellectual integrity all of a sudden, mate? Is this how you treat one who has supported your right to be heard against the troll gang for years now? Now you repay my objective intellect, and my longstanding support for your right to be heard, by betraying every tenet of proper philosophy/science discourse? It's the EXACERBATING TREND of increasing violence/extremities involved in trending AGW-exacerbated drought/floods/windstorms/rainstorms etc instabilities/events that's the problem going forward. Your use of 'stats games and guesses' are MOOT NOW. Wars, Famine, Political/Social upheavals occurring NOW will become WORSE if we don't ACT NOW. Get REAL, mate.

Nov 06, 2017
@RC, as stated my only objection here is with the use of exaggerated alarmism terminology, such as "existential threat", or "mass extinction". I have characterized such alarmism as scientifically unfounded. I have provided reference to demonstrate that the majority of climatologist would side with me and not you nor Caliban on this particular point.

We will simply have to respectively disagree at this point (despite your insulting rhetoric)

Nov 06, 2017
... with only 41% believing that AGW might be potentially "catastrophic" within the next 100 years. No where was even the phrase "mass extinction" or "existential threat" even found, which would have reduced the % even further into a minority opinion amongst climatologists.

Nov 06, 2017
Just more of the same unctuous squirming from nonoUNme.

Each and every post after the initial one, has been a repeat of the exact same tactic:

First, to claim innocence of an action, and then, in the same breath --so to speak-- to repeat the same action just denied.

Your insistence that AGW doesn't pose an existential threat is DENIALSM.

Your insistence that there is credible proof to the contrary of AGW is DENIALISM.

Your insistence that there isn't virtually complete consensus wrt AGW is DENIALISM.

Your claim that AGW isn't vastly inflating the danger inherent in normal climatic mechanisms is DENIALISM.

Just in case, nonoUNme, you hope to keep serially appending denierside lies, followed by declarations to the contrary in an effort to, what-- get the last word? Rest assured that I will be here to point out the fact --for as long as it takes-- that you are a Denier masquerading as a rational, reasonable, "skeptic".

Nov 06, 2017
And yes, it really is 97% and no, it's not one study


No where have I debated that fact, despite how much the invented narrative that 'Noumenon is a AGW denier' is regurgitated by the usual PhysOrg cabal.

More accurately it's more like 84%, (of the 97% who believe that the global temperature is rising), also believe it's cause is at least in part anthropogenic, but it is an overwhelming majority.

What climatologists think outside the bounds of quantifiability is more varied. For example, It is only a minority view amongst climatologist that AGW may be potentially catastrophic in the next century,.... and no use of the phrase "existential threat" exists that I could find. .


And it's just a mysterious coincidence that "it's happening but it doesn't matter" is the end point of denialist goalpost shifting.

Nov 07, 2017
Your insistence that AGW doesn't pose an existential threat is DENIALSM.

Impossible, because as I have unambiguously demonstrated above, the majority of climatologists agree with me and not with you.

Your insistence that there isn't virtually complete consensus wrt AGW is DENIALISM.

Not only have I never stated that, .... in fact I confirmed it, by use of the phrase "overwhelming consensus" in this thread above. Either you have zero interest in objectively understanding what is posted before you, or you're fundamentally dishonest, or you're borderline retarted, or some measure of each.

I just proved with reference to surveys done of climatologists opinions, that even just that AGW may be "catastrophic" is a minority opinion, so unless you're willing to claim the majority of climatologists are "deniers", then just STFU.

Nov 07, 2017
And it's just a mysterious coincidence that "it's happening but it doesn't matter" is the end point of denialist goalpost shifting.


Another halfwit incapable of intellectual honesty or objectivity. I have NOT in fact stated that AGW "doesn't matter". You just literally made that up. You claim to have read my posts in the past, yet somehow missed the many posts calling for funding of a "Manhatten'esque' project" for development of safe nuclear and alternative energy sources. I was probably the first here to call for such a massive concerted effort, and repeated it many times.

But like Caliban and mush-head liberals in general, you stick to your manufacturered narrative despite demonstrable facts to the contrary , as if you were defending your religion.

Neither of you two dipsticks can delete my posts above, so your dishonesty and incompetence is on display.

Nov 07, 2017
Just 41% of climatologists think AGW will be "catastrophic", .... a MINORITY opinion,.... while the rest would not make that claim either on account of their reasoned analysis of the facts or because they admit that there is no quantifiable basis for doing so.

According to dishonst Caliban, the majority of climatologists are AGW deniers because they don't buy into the bed-wetting alarmist hysteria.


Nov 07, 2017
Where have I done so? You're implying that I reject the 97% opinion of climatologists, despite my having made posts in this very thread demonstrating the exact opposite
Gosh you seem to spend a lot of threadspace saying 'I never said that' and 'I never did that thing'.

Perhaps your memory is beginning to fail you? Or perhaps you say something and think it means something else? Or perhaps it is so vague it means nothing at all?

I think it's your memory dude.

Nov 07, 2017
"When asked [of "leading scientists" and members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Metrological Society, the overwhelming majority of whom accept the theory of AGW],.... what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know."

But according to Caliban,....

Your insistence that AGW doesn't pose an existential threat is DENIALSM.


Thus, I'm forced to conclude that Caliban claims that the majority of the above referenced "leading" scientists are denialists, despite that 84% of them accept AGW. The numbers don't add up, my boy.

Since this particular survey reproduces the "97% agree global temps are increasing" which is validated consistently in many such studies, it must be accurate.

Nov 07, 2017
Gosh you seem to spend a lot of threadspace saying 'I never said that' and 'I never did that thing'.


Even you, had you any objectivity about you, should have noticed a constant amongst all those blatant mischaracterizations,.... not a one of them quoted me.

Instead of jumping on the personal character assassination bandwagon , do you have a comment germane to any points I actually posted?

Nov 07, 2017
Every single one of you whom parrot this AGW clap trap are useful idiots. Oh no look!!! the world is changing!!!! Run for your lives!!!! But give me duh money first!! Man IS nature you mongoloids. Man is not some force acting upon nature from the outside, HE IS NATURE. PERIOD. FULL STOP. Shut your pie holes and calm your tits.

Nov 07, 2017
Gosh you seem to spend a lot of threadspace saying 'I never said that' and 'I never did that thing'.


Even you, had you any objectivity about you, should have noticed a constant amongst all those blatant mischaracterizations,.... not a one of them quoted me.

Instead of jumping on the personal character assassination bandwagon , do you have a comment germane to any points I actually posted?


They are literally in the thralls of madness, there is nothing you can do. In fact they have gone full group think where even dissenting thought should be punished. They have cast their lot into the bosoms of the tyrants. This will only be settled eventually in the realm of men and death. They believe they are righteous crusaders, but they are merely sheep to be shorn, to be ground up in the teeth of the Brahman.

Nov 07, 2017
Yea, the outright obfuscations and abject lies, lack of objectivity, character assassination, troll ratings, ... all point to mush-headed liberals flailing about from having their indoctrinated narrative being challenged.

@GhostofOtto, unlike you otto, I come to PhysOrg not to go after "soft targets" like the religious and cranks,... I enjoy challenging those that present themselves as knowledgeable and seem content with their common understandings despite sometimes surprising facts to the contrary. I'm not popular here for doing this, but it is quite fun non-the-less. People here do indeed get into the group-think mentality exasperated by the fraudulent troll-ratings, and pass around the same narrative without ever challenging each other,.... the result is emotional attacks against anyone who provides facts that question that narrative.


Nov 07, 2017
Yea, the outright obfuscations and abject lies, lack of objectivity, character assassination, troll ratings, ... all point to mush-headed liberals flailing about from having their indoctrinated narrative being challenged
Well I dunno you must like it here...
I come to PhysOrg not to go after "soft targets"
-and philos dont forget. Nothing softer than that.
I'm not popular here for doing this, but it is quite fun non-the-less
Yeah youre a real anti-hero. Sounds more like troll.
get into the group-think mentality
... So the majority think noumonemon is a troll and so he concludes herd mentality. This is exactly how trolls think.

Cognitive decline accompanies loss of memory. So sad.

Hey - sale of drool cups on amazon! Order now!

Nov 07, 2017
You didn't provide any facts Otto, just more subjective characterizations. The last time I had a "discussion" with you, you claimed that my use of the word "ensemble" was a meaningless philosophy word, despite that being in fact a common technical term used in QM. So, in fact Otto doesn't know exactly when Noumenon is speaking about philosophy of physics or when Noumenon is speaking of physics. I corrected some other common misapprehensions about QM in that thread, all factual, and all resented. Such is the quality of the usual crowd these days at physorg.

Did I post something you don't agree with wrt AGW Otto. I don't know much about it and am open to learning.

Nov 07, 2017
Endless hairsplitting from nonoUNme.

Who would have expected that.

Please define for us, if you would, nonoUNme, just what --precisely-- characterizes "moderate" VS "severe/catastrophic" with respect to the human and environmental existential effects of AGW over the next 50 to 100 years. Let's have a hard citation for this, too.

Incidentally, even though you were unable to locate the term "existential threat" anywhere in the survey --for which I'm certain you searched determinedly-- It seems I must question whether you even --in fact-- understand the meaning of the term. Therefore, I must ask you to demonstrate this understanding.

You will notice that being unable to provide answer to one or the other will, again, show you to be a liar and a Denier content to hide in ill-defined, conveniently vague, corners and peripheries of this debate, and existing very much like Schrodinger's venerable Cat, dead and undead at one and the same time.
contd

Nov 07, 2017
Define ensemble mathematically.
philosophy of physics
You speak nothing but philophysics ie, gibberish.

Any reputable scientist will tell you this when hes not being polite.
wrt AGW Otto
I hate the 'wrt' philo thingie. Right away it says pretense. It says 'I know all the right buzzwords and I am about to dazzle you with all the esoteric buzzwords in my vocabulary because I am capable of so much more than you. I can understand the understandable. Can you do that?'

So much meaning in 3 little letters.

Nov 07, 2017
contd

It strikes me that this condition befits you, as you obviously relish this kind of primary school chicanery, thinking that it shows you to be in some way superior to the rest of us, when, in fact, it only proves that you are a mere peek-a-boo ninny.

Having newly made the connection between yourself and the aforementioned Cat, however, I suppose I should go ahead and formalize this new concept, and christen your spotted bottom with the freshly-minted nick: CALIBAN'S TROLL.

How you like it, nonoUNme? Where does it rank on the "likely effects" scale?

More importantly, does that have any meaning --in the sense of global consensus-- or is it too local, or limited, or even cherry-picked, a sample, to have any meaning within that context?


Nov 07, 2017
@Caliban, I provided a link to the study in question. They provided a quantified scale 1 to 10 for the scientists to reference in answering the question, in which they specified at one end of the scale "sever/catastrophic". Given your rhetoric here, you would have answered at that point of the scale,.... which is in the minority opinion amongst the "leading scientists". There is no ambiguity here, except your apparent desire to manufacturer some. I'm not splitting hairs here as I did not conduct the study in question nor state several times that AGW is an "existential threat" or "mass extinction". Such phrases would scale a 10 obviously and render it a minority view. This doesn't mean its wrong per se, it just means that the majority of climate scientists agree with me and not you.

I referenced a legitimate study of the opinion of scientists wrt AGW to substantiate the point made by me. You can accept it or continue to be an alarmist.

Nov 07, 2017
I suspect as well had they scaled a 10 as "existential threat" or "mass extinction", then "sever/catastrophic" would have been lower on that scale rendering your opinion even more of a minority view. Even granting you the benefit out the doubt, and equating your phrases of "existential threat" or "mass extinction" with "sever/catastrophic", it still renders your opinion a minority view amongst scientists, and therefore your claim of denialism quite absurd.

You claim that I am hairsplitting, but then you immediately ask the meaning of the terms as if they were ever ambiguous.


Nov 07, 2017
I don't know how to help you here Caliban, you really got yourself stuck into your own ass.

There is no question that "existential threat" is higher on a scale than sever/catastrophic.I can reference other studies that place the scaling that way, but common sense is sufficient.

In the study that I cited above, even those scientists choosing 9, or 8, less than 10 = server/catastrophic,... would still be in the minority. Unless you are willing to go as far as to claim that your version of "existential threat" is equal to "moderate",.... I don't see a way out for you, except to admit being wrong,... or toss up more flak and insults and hide under your desk.

This may help; Posting more here in this thread brings it back into view.

Nov 07, 2017
@Caliban's Troll

You linked a Wiki article, liar. Post a link to the study you link that surveyed the members of the AGU, etc, and provide the scale of effect used in the survey.

All you have done is to put words into the mouths of the survey respondents and the surveyors both, and then draw your own conclusions, which you falsely impute to them.

You lying liar.


Nov 07, 2017
I suspect as well had they scaled a 10 as "existential threat" or "mass extinction", then "sever/catastrophic" would have been lower on that scale rendering your opinion even more of a minority view.
.

You "suspect"? IOW, you don't have the answer. Not surprising, a lie coming from the mouth of a liar.

You claim that I am hairsplitting, but then you immediately ask the meaning of the terms as if they were ever ambiguous.


Yes, and that still stands, since you are lying, and therefore incapable of disambiguating your lying liar claims.


There is no question that "existential threat" is higher on a scale than sever/catastrophic.I can reference other studies that place the scaling that way, but common sense is sufficient.


Existential Threat is higher on the scale? How do you know, since you can't produce that scale?

Lying liar trolls tell lies.

Nov 07, 2017
As I said there are other studies that place "existential threat" higher than "catastrophic", in line with common sense. As already pointed out, "existential threat" doesn't even have to be higher on that scale, in fact can be a little lower, and yet it would still be a minority view amongst "leading scientists".

It is desperate on your part to try to find a loose thread to pull on. Just admit to overstating AGW threat, or simply admit that you opinion is a subset of the 41%. You "could" still be right after all.

Wikipedia does not conduct such studies, they simply summarize them and link the publicized reference. The above link contains the specifics of the study.


Nov 07, 2017
And my very favorite lying lie yet to dribble from the lips of Caliban's Troll, aka, nonoUNme:

In the study that I cited above, even those scientists choosing 9, or 8, less than 10 = server/catastrophic,... would still be in the minority.


Well, dang.

I suppose that it would be entirely proper and correct to ascribe to all climate sciences the very same proportion of opinion regarding the likely severity of the effects of AGW over the next 50 to 100 years, as expressed by a small subset of that same class, based on an entirely undefined scale.

It would be if you happened to be Caliban's Troll, the lying liar formerly --and still, occasionally-- known as nonoUNme.

If nonoUNme wishes it to be so, then it somehow lying liarly becomes so in the mind of this spotty-bottomed troll.

Nov 07, 2017
I suppose that it would be entirely proper and correct to ascribe to all climate sciences the very same proportion of opinion regarding the likely severity of the effects of AGW over the next 50 to 100 years, as expressed by a small subset of that same class, based on an entirely undefined scale.


Now, you have degenerated into the tactics of "the denialist", in questioning the veracity of a otherwise legitimate study of the opinion of 998 "leading scientists".

If we used your own scale as expressed above, that one is a "denialist" if they reject the notion that AGW poses an "existential threat", then the majority of those 998 "leading scientists" must be denialist. Since this conflicts with the fact that 84% of them agree with AGW, there is something wrong here. I think you specification of "denailism" is wrong.


Nov 07, 2017
As I said there are other studies that place "existential threat" higher than "catastrophic", in line with common sense.[...] and yet it would still be a minority view amongst "leading scientists".

It is desperate on your part to try to find a loose thread to pull on. Just admit to overstating AGW threat, or simply admit that you opinion is a subset of the 41%. You "could" still be right after all.


Perhaps, but since you will never be able to produce a viable link to any of them, any more than to the alleged survey you invoked in the first place, then any opinion you may care to venture on that point is moot, since it claims to derive factual authority from published research which you have not been able to demonstrate to exist.

We have learned to expect nothing less than these sorts of lying lies from troll liars such as Caliban's Troll.

That makes about the 30th time I've termed you a liar, and you have yet to produce evidence to the contrary.

Nov 07, 2017
Anyone reading this thread could indeed see the difference in our respective maturities. 30 times, impressive. Except facts don't lie. Maybe the researchers at that university lied, or the leading scientists lied?

The wiki link provides all the information to the study in question, the researchers names, the University where the study was produced, the journal where the study was published, the source list of the scientists in question.

I'm sure you could use that information to find the actual study, Since I don't question the accuracy of the summarizations in that wiki list of studies, I have no reason to find the original study.

That is a weak thread to hang on to, the hope that that study is faulty, The tactics of the denialist.

I don't extrapolate to all scientists,... I point out the opinion of 998 of them ("leading scientists"). That is quite sufficient for my purposes here,


Nov 07, 2017
I suppose that it would be entirely proper and correct to ascribe to all climate sciences the very same proportion of opinion regarding the likely severity of the effects of AGW over the next 50 to 100 years, as expressed by a small subset of that same class, based on an entirely undefined scale.


Now, you have degenerated into the tactics of "the denialist", in questioning the veracity of a otherwise legitimate study of the opinion of 998 "leading scientists".


PRODUCE THE STUDY, LYING LIAR.

Then explain just how it is that you can extrapolate the results obtained from one sample to an entire class of Scientists? Be sure to detail this in light of the fact that you haven't been able to define the scale of effect for even the small sample to this point.

Nov 07, 2017
I don't extrapolate to all scientists,... I point out the opinion of 998 of them ("leading scientists"). That is quite sufficient for my purposes here,

As I said I don't need to produce the study, I provided all the information you need to do so yourself (the researchers names, the University where the study was produced, the journal where the study was published, the source list of the scientists in question.)

There is no rational reason to question the veracity of the study, just as there is no rational reason to question the other studies that show that 97% of scientists believe that the average global temps are rising, that you have most likely relied upon against the cranks. If a denialist questioned those studies including the one that I referenced that shows the same stat , you would go ape-shit. Now here you are doing what the actual denialists do.


Nov 07, 2017
Just as an aside: is America the most scientifically illiterate place on Earth? Seems to me that, of all the supposedly 'educated' countries in the western world, the U.S.A. struggles the most. Not very bright, are they? Canada seems cleverer.

Nov 07, 2017
^^^^^Add to the above; UK, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, and shed loads of others. What is it with the Yanks? Strange lot!

Nov 07, 2017
Just as an aside: is America the most scientifically illiterate place on Earth? Seems to me that, of all the supposedly 'educated' countries in the western world, the U.S.A. struggles the most. Not very bright, are they? Canada seems cleverer.


Not according to This Data, as Azerbaijan is slightly worse (j/k). Actually not terrible but not nearly good considering. Out dated government run education system and lazy sub-subcultures. My country of origin Canada indeed fairs much better.


Nov 07, 2017
I don't extrapolate to all scientists,... I point out the opinion of 998 of them ("leading scientists"). That is quite sufficient for my purposes here,


No, liar, you provided a reference to the expressed opinions of roughly half of that number. If you had read the extracted information, purportedly from the study, then you would know that.

As I said I don't need to produce the study,


Bullshit. You provided a reference from a wiki article, which purports to extract certain pieces of data from an article which resides behind a paywall. But you don't let this fact stop you from promoting any number of lies. With the exception of one single factual citation from you wrt the content of the wiki extract, everything you have written since has been your own personal "interpretation".

Since unsupported by facts, therefore, the lying lies of a liar.

Nov 08, 2017
There is no rational reason to question the veracity of the study, just as there is no rational reason to question the other studies that show that 97% of scientists believe that the average global temps are rising, ......that you have most likely relied upon against the cranks.

As far as I am concerned this debate has resolved itself. The purpose of referencing this particular study, which is a valid statistical sampling of the opinion of climate scientists and thus valid in general although not necessarily so wrt my purpose, ...was to refute your conjecture that one is a "denier" merely on the basis of not accepting as scientifically objective the notion of "existential threat".

I certainly don't expect you to admit being wrong about this, but at least you've tacitly admitted that your only way out is to attack the veracity of the study. Now, since I have effectively reduced you to the tactics of the real dentists , my work here is complete to my satisfaction.


Nov 08, 2017
you speak nothing but philophysics ie, gibberish.

How would you know the difference if you didn't know that "ensemble" was a QM term. Of course I have posted much here on the mathematical formulations of GR and QM. But your dishonesty is not unexpected.

wrt AGW ...I hate the 'wrt' philo thingie.


It is just short for "with respect to". If you're blinking twice over that, ...then I'm assuming you haven't read A Critique of Pure Reason yet like I asked you five years ago, ....so not understood how it relates to an epistemic interpretation of QM as expressed by Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Born, .... and had guided the theoretical development of that science.

Did you former philo instructor rape you or something?

Nov 08, 2017
Statistical sampling of what, exactly? Subjective perceptions of what the 1-10 scale actually means, supposing that there is even any good definition in the questionnaire you are quoting results from which is well understood by all the participants? What if one person's 3 is another person's 8?

And we can't tell that from the paper because it's paywalled. You are therefore quoting "facts" not in evidence, just as @Caliban says, @Noum.

Nov 08, 2017
@Noumenon.
@RC, as stated my only objection here is with the use of exaggerated alarmism terminology, such as "existential threat", or "mass extinction". ...
Mate, my responses to your trivialization attempts of both Philosophy and serious AGW threats should give you pause to reconsider your present strategy, whatever that is. If you are insulting the intelligence of one who has for years respected and defended your right to have your say against the old troll gang, then imagine the effect, of your misguided semantical/trivializing distractions from the serious reality facing us all, is having on your longtime detractors. You give 'ammunition' to Ghost who derides "philosophy" and "philosophers" as a matter of principle; and NOW you just provide proof that his derision is well-founded in YOUR case and the way you are NOW trivializing the time honored Philosophy which eventually led to Logics, Mathematics and Natural Philosophy/Scientific Method!

Rethinkit!

cont...

Nov 08, 2017
...cont @Noumenon:

As for AGW situation going forward and 'catastrophe' potential to the point of existential threat/mass extinctions, consider the trend/projections:

Current instabilities only a 'taste' of what's to come if we don't prevent runaway greenhouse FEEDBACK triggering via mass releases of methane; violent instabilities/storms/droughts/floods/pets and diseases etc from which recovery will be costly if not impossible before 'the next one' hits (in many parts of the world a 'rolling disaster' situation is already taking hold, with whole nations/regions finding themselves suffering 'yet another event' before even getting back on their feet from the previous one! Not to mention that water aquifers are being compromised; agricultural 'seasons' shot to hell (creating vast losses due to unseasonal in-winter warm spells causing premature flowering killed off by returning cold and losing whole crops) etc.

Please STOP trivializing BOTH Philosophy AND Reality, Noum! :)

Nov 08, 2017
There is no rational reason to question the veracity of the study, just as there is no rational reason to question the other studies that show that 97% of scientists believe that the average global temps are rising, ......that you have most likely relied upon against the cranks.


Caliban's Troll, aka nonoUNme,

The implication that the veracity of the study is being questioned by either myself or anyone else on this thread, is, in itself, a lie which you are promulgating. No one here, including yourself, is able to peruse said study in order to determine its validity or lack thereof. Moreover, even with this single study, you repeatedly misrepresented the the number of those Scientists which responded to the survey.

Therefore, you are a lying liar.

No one here, besides yourself, has expressed any doubt that the consensus that AGW is real constitutes 97% of scientific opinion. In fact, you have been told that it now exceeds that figure.
contd

Nov 08, 2017
contd

Indeed, at least one of the studies referenced on YOUR wiki page says as much. Since none of us here, again --with the exception of you(albeit a past you)-- has expressed any doubt as to the veracity of a 97% consensus, then you implying that anyone here has such a doubt is ANOTHER LYING LIE from a LYING LIAR, ie: you.

contd

Nov 08, 2017
contd

As far as I am concerned this debate has resolved itself.


Oh, but of course you do. Now that even that thickest of trollskulls of yours can't shut out the fact that your wholecloth lying has completely unraveled.

Still feeling clever, nonoUNme?

The purpose of referencing this particular study, which is a valid statistical sampling of the opinion of climate scientists and thus valid in general although not necessarily so wrt my purpose, ...was to refute your conjecture that one is a "denier" merely on the basis of not accepting as scientifically objective the notion of "existential threat".


Even after declaring to quit the field, you can't do so without immediately giving breath to YET ANOTHER LYING LIE!

No one said that a Denier was defined as one who does not accept AGW as an existential threat. The LYING LIES OF LYING LIARS never cease!

I said this is one of several COMPONENTS of Denialism, or A characteristic of Deniers.

cond


Nov 08, 2017
One more point worth making: a mass extinction is currently in progress according to quite a few reports in biology and ecology. The knock-on effects of AGW can only intensify it. The current rate is 100 to 1000 times the expected background extinction rate. Here's something from 1995, in Science: http://science.sc...5222/347 You can read the statistic I quoted in the abstract.

Meanwhile here's a study on amphibians from 2008 that directly links AGW to mass extinction: https://www.ncbi....2556420/

So it looks like you're factually wrong on that too, @Noum.

Nov 08, 2017

I certainly don't expect you to admit being wrong about this, but at least you've tacitly admitted that your only way out is to attack the veracity of the study.


Nor should you expect me to, unless, of course, you are an utter fool in addition to lying liar. Of course this is merely a rhetorical proposition, since you are affirmatively both, and go on to prove as much with the second clause of your deeply flawed proposition. In noway and at no time did I attack the veracity of your single --and misreferenced by yourself, into the bargain-- study, which remains unavailable to any of us, and which, therefore, remains out of reach to myself for the purpose of making any attack upon its "veracity". ANOTHER LYING LIE from a LYING LIAR FOOL.

contd


Nov 08, 2017
contd

Now, since I have effectively reduced you to the tactics of the real dentists , my work here is complete to my satisfaction.


??????????????

Well, Caliban's Troll, nonoUNme --or whatever the hell you call yourself-- I must addmit that you finally have got the better of me, since I've no idea at all what that is supposed to mean.

However, let me have a go at it, just the same, and then we'll leave it to others to judge the effect, shall we?

Using your very own "dentist" analogy, then, why, yes, I think I can claim, on the basis of identifying and naming several untruths( and, yes, even several symptoms, or indications of untruth) in a manner akin to locating specific sites of dental disease-- to have figuratively labored in the manner of a Dentist to extract the offending untruths and disinfect the sockets of their evil, lying liar, repose in the true and solid bone of the jaw of Science.

contd


Nov 08, 2017
contd

As to your observation of being satisfied with the quality of your efforts --whatever they may have been--

That goes a long way towards explaining how you thought there was ever any point(besides that upon the crown of your diminutive trollskull, of course) to your blatherings, in the first place.

One has to wonder how often your work was marked as "Satisfactory" by the Trollmarms whose sad, toilsome, thankless job it was to attempt the semi-domestication and training of all the twitching young moron-liar trollkindern.

Nov 08, 2017
So basically @Noum does a driveby post, using a typical denier meme-- "alarmist"-- gets pwnt, and flounces off after declaring "victory" without answering any of the arguments against its BS substantively.

Is this your "global warming philosophy," @Noum? Just askin'.

Nov 09, 2017
I didn't bother reading most of what you deniers posted yesterday.

I will only reiterate that facts; I referenced a legitimate study, published in a peer reviewed journal, conducted on the opinion of "leading scientists", the overwhelming majority of which (84%) accept AGW, that demonstrates Caliban's alarmist phrase "existential threat" and RC's alarmist phrase "mass extinction" to be of minority opinion.

The salient point being proven objectively is that just because one does not agree with your respective hysteria, does not make one a denier of AGW.

You clowns can now resume emotionally imploding and questioning whether the researchers know how to conduct such a study, whether the peer reviewed journal is competent, whether the scientists polled lied or were too stupid to understand the study questions, whether Wiki lied in its summary ,..... IOW act like AGW deniers in grasping onto what twig will support your bloated scientifically unfounded narrative.

Nov 09, 2017
@RC, To reiterate what I posted above, it could be the case that your terminology (& Calibans) turns out to be more accurate and that Noumenon is wrong and the majority of the scientists surveyed in the above study are wrong. That 41% would use rhetoric approaching (albeit less exaggerated) suffices to establish that possibility.

Again the salient point being made here is that just because one does not think those terms are justified (1) does not make them a "denier", and (2) does not mean that they think AGW is not a problem. Both of these points are established by that peer reviewed journal published study.

Not many posters have proposed greater response to AGW than I have over the years here and elsewhere, despite the remarkable dishonesty of Caliban & Schneib.


Nov 09, 2017
Just more of the same unctuous squirming from nonoUNme.

Each and every post after the initial one, has been a repeat of the exact same tactic:

First, to claim innocence of an action, and then, in the same breath --so to speak-- to repeat the same action just denied.

Your insistence that AGW doesn't pose an existential threat is DENIALSM.

Your insistence that there is credible proof to the contrary of AGW is DENIALISM.

Your insistence that there isn't virtually complete consensus wrt AGW is DENIALISM.

Your claim that AGW isn't vastly inflating the danger inherent in normal climatic mechanisms is DENIALISM.

Just in case, nonoUNme, you hope to keep serially appending denierside lies, followed by declarations to the contrary in an effort to, what-- get the last word? Rest assured that I will be here to point out the fact --for as long as it takes-- that you are a Denier masquerading as a rational, reasonable, "skeptic".

Well said!

Nov 09, 2017
Well said!


Yea, cheers, well said! Oh , wait, except Noumenon never said any of those things.

Nov 09, 2017
Michael Mann must be a "denialist" according to Caliban because he also Cautions Against Overstating doom and gloom. Given the above referenced peer reviewed study, I suspect the majority of climatologists to be more objective than to speculate on unfounded "existential threats" or "mass extinction".

Nov 09, 2017
Yea, cheers, well said! Oh , wait, except Noumenon never said any of those things
https://youtu.be/jcYoMNgOfbE
https://youtu.be/tQXVijenLfE

- same ole' same ole'

See how reumi noumi is referring to himself in the third person? Otto thinks that's creepy.

Nov 09, 2017
Well said!


Yea, cheers, well said! Oh , wait, except Noumenon never said any of those things.


Caliban's Troll, aka nonoUNme has spent the last eight years, at least, repeatedly making claims or otherwise attempting to create the impression of all of the above --and more, besides.

I can't speak to the era further in the past than that, because that was before I knew of Physorg, but it seems a safe bet that, for however long nonoUNme has been commenting here, that the comments have followed the same MO of lying liar denialism.

If you require proof, then just go to nonoUNme's profile page, and investigate his commenting history. Even a cursory review of those comments regarding all things AGW-related will show a continuous stream of insinuating, implicative, doubt-casting, lying-liar Denialism.

The very breath of life to nonoUNme.

The fact that he denies even this plain truth --and one so readily established-- says all.

Nov 09, 2017
Michael Mann must be a "denialist" according to Caliban because he also Cautions against overstating Doom and Gloom.


Not at all. Mann cautions that it is important not to OVER emphasize the threat, to avoid the

"...danger in overstating the science in a way that presents the problem as unsolvable, and feeds a sense of doom, inevitability and hopelessness."

Which is clearly not denial, nonoUNme, but reasonable caution, so that the perceived magnitude of the threat doesn't paralyze the ability to take action to address it. However, the article he's commenting on VERY definitely identifies unabated AGW as an existential threat.

So, by deliberately distorting both the content and intent of Mann's article, you have manufactured UNTRUTH, just as a good little lying liar Denialist always does.

The lying liar Denialist continues with the stream of lying lies.

contd


Nov 09, 2017
contd

Given the above referenced peer reviewed study,


Oh???

And just what "peer reviewed study" did you reference, NonoUNme?

You fail to reference any study at all, and then invoke it by way of citation in support of this dubious piece of mere wishful thinking:

I suspect the majority of climatologists to be more objective than to speculate on unfounded "existential threats" or "mass extinction".


You can suspect all you want, but to equate that with actual fact is yet another of the unending lying lies mouthed by YOU, nonoUNme, a lying liar Denier.


Nov 10, 2017
I provided a link above and referenced a peer reviewed study of the opinion of "leading scientists" to support the point that your alarmists views are a minority amongst them, thus provening sufficiently it not being possible that one is a denier merely on the basis of rejecting such scientifically unfounded alarmists terminology as you repeatedly used. You can't delete what I wrote above. You can only lie about what in fact is posted for all to plainly see.

Another curious thing is that you repeatedly made claims wrt what I think about AGW and conclude that I'm a denier of that science,..... yet you have not quoted me with context, one time doing so. It's easy to lie if you have no standards of discourse.


Nov 10, 2017
[...proving...]

The reference provides all the information pertinent to the study. Unless you are desperate, there is no rational reason to question that study.

Michael Mann must be a "denialist" according to Caliban because he also Cautions against overstating Doom and Gloom.


Not at all. Mann cautions that it is important not to OVER emphasize the threat, to avoid the

"...danger in overstating the science in a way that presents the problem as unsolvable, and feeds a sense of doom, inevitability and hopelessness."


You just quoting me saying that, and was the very point of my first post, which I subsequently emphasized,.... i.e. it's not helpful to overstate the threat, as in alarmism.


Nov 10, 2017
Noted I never got a response on either what "existential threat" means or on the obviously observed and documented mass extinction effects of human activity include AGW.

@Noum as usual ignores facts and keeps on chopping logic because that's more important than a billion deaths.

I could be really nasty and note that most of the deaths will be brown people who @Noum doesn't consider to be "people," and more that it doesn't appear to realize they have nuclear weapons to fight their environmental wars and a major excuse for using them against the Western democracies who are the biggest polluters. This is of course about perception not reality; it's China, India, and Pakistan who are the biggest risks, but they won't want to admit that and they have nuclear weapons. Just sayin'.

Nov 10, 2017
I could be really nasty and note that most of the deaths will be brown people who @Noum doesn't consider to be "people,"


There doesn't seem to be any bounds to your dishonesty. You're intellectually corrupt that is certain, and you will not hesitate to state unfounded outright lies,.... that is, from behind the safety of you computer.

Nov 10, 2017
and you will not hesitate to state unfounded outright lies,.... that is, from behind the safety of you computer
is that anything like being anonymous using a pseudonym [like say: noumenon] to make or state unfounded outright lies?
what about comments like this?
The scientific method does not concern itself with provable things
hmm... really? you sure about that?

what about this?
it is not "racist" to say that while Native Americans were dancing around in circles trying to make it rain...That is a fact of history
it is racist

one could say "some", "southwestern N. AM" or "many" and be ok -

but just blatantly stating the above is no different than stating that all philosophers are ignorant pedophiles seeking to gain access to posters prepubescent relatives simply because you know of more than one who was a pedo

pot-kettle?

Nov 10, 2017
I provided a link above [BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH]..... yet you have not quoted me with context, one time doing so. It's easy to lie if you have no standards of discourse.



Lying liar.

You linked a blogpost by Michael Mann.

That is all.

Lying Liar Denier with yet more Lying Lies.

What lying Lies will Denier troll nonoUNme lyingly lie next?

Let's hope that they are at least NEW Lying Lies, instead of this same batch of Lying Lies, trolled overnovernovernovernovernover again.

Nov 10, 2017
@nou
troll ratings, ... all point to mush-headed liberals flailing about from having their indoctrinated narrative being challenged.
really?

thanks

i am so glad you stated that one, especially considering the following examples:
http://phys.org/n...eet.html

http://phys.org/n...ass.html

http://phys.org/n...ean.html

http://phys.org/n...ife.html

you just stated that you, specifically, are a "mush-headed liberal flailing about from having their indoctrinated narrative being challenged"

i appreciate finally being vindicated
thanks
There doesn't seem to be any bounds to your dishonesty. You're intellectually corrupt that is certain
projection
see above links


Nov 11, 2017
The scientific method does not concern itself with provable things


hmm... really? you sure about that?


Yes, quite. You're not?

"Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain [mathematics], the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.[science]".

I probable explained this very carefully in the given thread from which you have taken out of context and evidently didn't learn anything.

Nov 11, 2017
..it is not "racist" to say that while Native Americans were dancing around in circles trying to make it rain...That is a fact of history


The full quote that you pulled again out of context is this....

".... it is not "racist" to say that while Native Americans were dancing around in circles trying to make it rain, Western culture showed up with chronometers ......[eventually which allowed colonialism to expand]. That is a fact of history, not a statement of intrinsic capacities of an identifiable group of people." - Noumenon


THIS LINK is the only place where the context of that quote should be considered.

All kinds of character assassinations here, with some quoting me from other threads, while some not quoting me at all in the given thread. LOL.


Nov 11, 2017
@nou
THIS LINK is the only place where the context of that quote should be considered
wrong
you've a history of actions that are every bit as dishonest, intellectually corrupt and indoctrinated mush-headed flailing as anyone you've denigrated here

IOW - you're projecting
Yes, quite. You're not?
whoopsie on you, eh?
https://en.wikipe...iability

All kinds of character assassinations here
starting with you

There doesn't seem to be any bounds to your dishonesty. You're intellectually corrupt that is certain

Nov 11, 2017
You linked a blogpost by Michael Mann.

That is all.


Stop pretending that your are an objective and fair person who has read the above thread with consideration, when any idiot can see plainly that I had referenced a summary of a peer reviewed published study, provided the link, and had stated repeatedly that enough information was provided to substantiate it as a peer reviewed journal published study.

This is what you clowns ask for over and over again when debating cranks, but when the results are not to your favour, you degenerate into crankology yourself.

It Literally took me 60 seconds to Find The Paper.


Nov 11, 2017
you've a history of actions that are every bit as dishonest......


I have better things to do than to respond to your vague out of context subjective characterizations and your own incompetent interpretations of what Noumenon thinks.

"every bit as dishonest", ...so your are admitting Schneib and or Caliban are dishonest?

Nov 11, 2017
Unless you can demonstrate that you've understood a given argument that I have actually made, along with properly accurate contextually given quotes, and not your own subjective characterization of what I think (as you're not rationally entitled to both sides of a debate),.... then I will not respond.

Nov 11, 2017
You linked a blogpost by Michael Mann.

That is all.


Stop pretending that your are an objective and fair person who has read the above thread with consideration,


There is no Pretense. I read the blog post that you linked.

when any idiot can see plainly that I had referenced a summary of a peer reviewed published study, provided the link, and had stated repeatedly that enough information was provided to substantiate it as a peer reviewed journal published study.


That makes you the idiot lying liar, nonoUNme. The blog post is a response from Mann regarding an article-- not a study. Your statement that it is a peer-reviewed publication of a science study is untrue. This makes you, nonoUNme, once again a lying liar.

And then providing a link to the study which was not referred to in Mann's blog post is dishonorable and despicable, and the claim that you provided it is a LYING LIE from a LYING LIAR.

contd


Nov 11, 2017
contd

This is what you clowns ask for over and over again when debating cranks, but when the results are not to your favour, you degenerate into crankology yourself.


Conflating two separate issues as if they were one and the same, AND mentioned in the exact same context AND at the exact same time is yet more despicable LYING LIAR LIES.

It Literally took me 60 seconds to https://people.uw...012.pdf.


It's fantastic that you were able to locate an unpaywalled copy of the full study which you didn't bother to properly identify in the first place and which you misrepresented in the second --likely because you it was your intention to do so-- and which was not referenced at all by Mann in his blogpost.

Lying Lie after Lying Lie after LYING LIE.


Nov 11, 2017
@nou cried
I have better things to do than to respond to your vague out of context subjective characterizations and your own incompetent interpretations of what Noumenon thinks
1- don't care what you "think"

1a - nor did i state anything that you "thought"

because

2- i am using your own words from this site, therefore it's not interpretations of what you "think" , it is what you have specifically stated

learn2Read
Unless blah blah boohoo blah ...then I will not respond
and again: not making any subjective statements as i have quoted you
heck, you even provided the link

the only non-full quote was the trimming for length of your racist comments

.

and i don't care if you respond - i just want to show others what your tactics are and how you lie or try the philo twist (much like the religious one, except you think you're being clever)

thanks for helping me demonstrate your philo idiocy though

Nov 11, 2017
Unless you can demonstrate that you've understood a given argument that I have actually made, along with properly accurate contextually given quotes, and not your own subjective characterization of what I think (as you're not rationally entitled to both sides of a debate),.... then I will not respond.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA

This is so intoxicatingly bizarre as to beggar comprehension.

You have spent so much time back-tracking, rear-guarding, and fabricating a desperate, Lying Liar defense of your misrepresented, muddy, mish-mash of Lying Lies that it is great comedy, indeed, to see you demand even a minimum standard of truth-telling, when you, your very own LYING LIAR self, are plainly incapable of attaining it.

This is the trap of the LYING LIAR, nonoUNme, and you've sprung it upon yourself.

Nov 11, 2017
More childish subjective characterizations. I'm the bad guy again apparently for wanting to establish at least some objective discourse and substance here. Apparently this is an impossible task for you two jerry-springer fans. I will take your behaviour as complete capitulation to my defence of your unfounded charge of denialism.

Your obfuscations, ad hominems, and childish behaviour only fools other dolts such as yourself. Congratulations on being the tallest midget.


Nov 11, 2017
@nou is still whinging on
I'm the bad guy again apparently for wanting to establish at least some objectivity and substance here
ah - the RC defense?

also known as Martyr-Victim complex

oopsie for you
More childish subjective characterizations
it's not subjective if there is evidence written by you that is quantifiable and capable of being verified through analytical tools: http://thelawdict...vidence/

I will take your behaviour as complete capitulation to my defence of your unfounded charges

Your obfuscations, ad hominems, and childish behaviour only fools other dolts such as yourself. Congratulations on being the tallest midget.

Nov 11, 2017
@Noumenon (and Captain Stumpy).

@Noum:
Again the salient point being made here is that just because one does not think those terms are justified (1) does not make them a "denier", and (2) does not mean that they think AGW is not a problem. Both of these points are established by that peer reviewed journal published study.

Not many posters have proposed greater response to AGW than I have over the years here and elsewhere,.
Yes, good, you DO accept AGW reality; BUT you STILL play 'sophist games' stressing 'political tactics' DISTRACTING from the AGW reality. Not good!

And a Climate Scientist addresses ONLY evolving AGW reality 'as found'; AND conclusions drawn re consequences MUST INCLUDE WORST CASE SCENARIOS if TREND is allowed to proceed unchecked. Anything else is POLITICAL TACTICS not SCIENCE REPORTING. Ok, Noum? :)

@Cap:
the RC defense?
Why drag me into your 'political games', mate? Anyhow, that "defense" works when facts justify it (as in my case). :)

Nov 12, 2017
Your statement that it is a peer-reviewed publication of a science study is untrue.


I never claimed that Mann's blog post was a peer reviewed study, nor that Mann ever referenced the peer reviewed study that I posted. As I stated above I have zero interest in debating your faulty interpretations of what I said. The above is a good example, along with your random and demonstrably wrong characterizations of "lying".

Yes, good, you DO accept AGW reality; [...] stressing 'political tactics' DISTRACTING from the AGW reality....


Actually not being objective, that is, using unsubstantiated alarmist language, is distracting as all it leads to is unnecessary skepticism. See my first post. Do YOU agree with Caliban that Noumenon is a "denialist of AGW" merely on account of rejecting that "existential threat" and "mass extinction" are scientifically founded? If so, based on the peer reviewed study I linked, most scientists would be "denialists".


Nov 12, 2017
@Noumenon.
Yes, good, you DO accept AGW reality; [...] stressing 'political tactics' DISTRACTING from the AGW reality..
Actually not being objective, that is, using unsubstantiated alarmist language, is distracting as all it leads to is unnecessary skepticism. See my first post. Do YOU agree with Caliban that Noumenon is a "denialist of AGW" merely on account of rejecting that "existential threat" and "mass extinction" are scientifically founded? If so, based on the peer reviewed study I linked, most scientists would be "denialists".
Once the objective science is 'in', the objective scientist will draw the objective conclusion indicated by that objective science. Anything else is politics etc, as I already pointed out. That YOU call those conclusions (which must include the worst case scenario!) "not being objective" and being "alarmist", makes it YOUR PERSONAL NON-OBJECTIVE OPINION; and NOT based on objective reality/objective science. Don't confuse things. :)


Nov 12, 2017
Well no, according to the study I referenced, the majority of the "leading scientists" surveyed, all members of the American Geophysical Union and/or the American Metrological Society,... would not use such language, therefore implying it not objective to do so.

Again, do you consider Noumenon a "denialist of AGW" merely on account of not accepting as objective (at present) the use of such language,... even merely "catastrophe"? You didn't answer this simple question.

Nov 12, 2017
@Noumenon.
Well no, according to the study I referenced, the majority of the "leading scientists" surveyed, all members of the American Geophysical Union and/or the American Metrological Society,... would not use such language, therefore implying it not objective to do so.
You fail to consider the obvious situation in a POLITICAL CLIMATE being intentionally twisted by longstanding funded efforts by vested interests to CONFUSE and SABOTAGE and DELAY etc; which affects the scientists and makes them self-censor in order to try to 'blunt' the very same kind of SEMANTICAL attacks YOU are bringing, Noum. See? Those surveyed may be taking the POLITICALLY allowable approach in order to achieve a political end and get SOMETHING through, even if not what is REALLY NEEDED under the dire imminent trending AGW reality.

Re your question if I agree with others re you being "a denier", I already effectively answered that when I acknowledged you DO accept AGW. :)


Nov 12, 2017
Well no, according to the study I referenced, the majority of the "leading scientists" surveyed, all members of the American Geophysical Union[...] would not use such language, therefore implying it not objective to do so.


This still doesn't fly, moron, even after you've repeated it for the 50th goddam time. 400 plus scientists, regardless of their professional afiliation, do not equate to the ALL of the Climate Scientists in the world, and it isn't suprising that they didn't indicate on a scale of 1-10, That wasn't characterized, at any level of the scale, as "existential threat", that none of those 400-plus Scientists indicated that AGW is an goddam existential threat. EXISTENTIAL THREAT wasn't even an option, you sniveling twat. Stop LYING.

contd

Nov 12, 2017
contd

Again, do you consider Noumenon a "denialist of AGW" merely on account of not accepting as objective (at present) the use of such language,... even merely "catastrophe"? You didn't answer this simple question.


I consider the fact that nonoUNme persists in splitting this hair, and advancing purposefully distorted and misrepresented imformation as support thereof to be DENIALIST, yes, I do.

Because IT IS, especially when taken together with the rest of your demonstrably denier stances, declarations, and tactics.

contd

Nov 12, 2017
contd

Furthermore, the comment with which you so enjoy conflating this one, featuring a blog post from Michael Mann, and containing his reaction to an article, was written by another scientist, who most certainly does consider AGW an existential threat of catastrophic consequences. And nor is that Scientist alone in that opinion.

Purposefully basing your lying argument on a very small opinion survey(only 400-plus responded) that doesn't include "existential threat" as a descriptor, only a purely numeric, 1-10 scale, and in which --consequently-- none of the respondents identified AGW as an "existential threat" is the rankest of horseshite, as you well know, and therefore a LYING LIE from a LYING LIAR.

DENIER LYING LIES.

As I said much, much, much, earlier, only a single statement of yours was factually true. EVERY other thing has been a deliberate distortion, conflation, or outright untruth.

All of this makes you a LYING LIAR OF LYING LIES, and a DENIER.

Nov 13, 2017
Not very mature are you boy.

I never said that the study included "existential threat". The study used "severe/catastrophe" as it's 10. I pointed out clearly that even had "existential threat" been equated with "severe/catastrophe" as used in the study, it would still be a minority view. This was carefully explained by me in this thread multiple times, but apparently you must have sever reading comprehension problems.

Seriously, is it worth lying just to call me a liar?

All that is even required is a significant percentage of those surveyed who would not use your moronic language and who accept AGW, to refute you charge of denialism.

No, I never said that every scientist in the world was surveyed. Do you understand what a statistical sampling means? Several hundred "leading scientists" responded. That is all that is necessary to refute your bs about denialism. Are you a dolt or what?!

@RC, there is no political motivation in the study. Accept it as given

Nov 13, 2017
@Noumenon.
@RC, there is no political motivation in the study.
Please read carefully what I said, mate. It's the political climate making some INDIVIDUAL climate scientists SELF-CENSOR in answer to 'surveys'; I did NOT in any way imply/claim that your linked survey/study was "politically motivated". That is YOUR further confusion introduced due to your obviously biased approach to reading/interpreting. If you keep this up, then you will be further confirming Ghost's and Caliban's suspicions/accusations re YOU as a "philosopher" who is debasing Philosophy principles for your own biased political motives; and in the process insulting someone who has in the past given you credit for being honest/objective (please don't keep insulting me like you have been so far in this one, mate). Now please just forget your biases/ego/politics etc, and just start to consider what is going to happen if we do not act now to avert looming AGW catastrophe. Good luck, mate. :)

Nov 13, 2017

It's the political climate making some INDIVIDUAL climate scientists SELF-CENSOR in answer to 'surveys'; I did NOT in any way imply/claim that your linked survey/study was "politically motivated".


How many times can a single hair be split? Right, so your not implying that the study was politically motivated, but your are implying that the answers given were politically motivated, so that there is "political motivation in the study".

That is pure unjustified speculation on your part. There is no reason to think the "leading scientists" whom are members of the American Geophysical Union and/or the American Metrological Society, would not want to get the message out just like you desire to. In fact the political atmosphere would support such desire, and NOT support any narrative that counters doom and gloom.


Nov 14, 2017
Not very mature are you boy.

I never said that the study included "existential threat".


Maturity, in this context, is irrelevant.

I never said that you said it did, so there's a lying lie right there. Nextly, based upon that particular study's results, it was a lie for you to say that scientific opinion expressed as "existential threat" would be a minority view.

You seem to never tire of your lying lies, lying liar.

contd


Nov 14, 2017
The study used "severe/catastrophe" as it's 10. I pointed out clearly that even had "existential threat" been equated with "severe/catastrophe" as used in the study, it would still be a minority view. This was carefully explained by me in this thread multiple times, but apparently you must have sever reading comprehension problems.


So you've whined a dozen times since.

And yet, here you are, again, trying to hair-split your way out of another lying lie, which anyone can verify by reading your original post.

However, since you failed to qualify your claim, initially, to apply only to that single study, (of only 400 plus respondents), you only too cleverly generalized to ALL Scientists. This makes the claim a lying lie, representing, as it does, one of your typical deliberate distortions, ie --lying lies.

Besides, you aren't authorized to second guess even those few opinions, since they didn't have "existential threat" as an option.

contd


Nov 14, 2017
contd

So, let's look at your own view of this issue:

What climatologists think outside the bounds of quantifiability is more varied. For example, It is only a minority view amongst climatologist that AGW may be potentially catastrophic in the next century,.... and no use of the phrase "existential threat" exists that I could find.

Despite[...] my original objection was with that particular phrase, which as it is, is also the opinion of the majority of climatologists


This is as you have applied it, and using your "Study of 400 Plus", upon whose findings your adamant opinion rests, and examine this "Majority" of which you speak:

contd

Nov 14, 2017
contd
contd

"When asked[...] the American Geophysical Union and the American Metrological Society, the overwhelming majority of whom accept the theory of AGW],.... what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know."


In the context of the prevalence of opinion, 41% is certainly a mathematical minority, but still represents the opinion of nearly half of respondents, and clearly isn't some vanishingly small or marginal percentage of overall opinion.

As you said, if we equate a response of 8, 9 or 10 with "existential threat" -which seems reasonable to me, by the way, but no matter- then it becomes apparent that your claim of there being too few scientists of that opinion to warrant the use of the term is INVALID.

contd


Nov 14, 2017
contd

Needless to say, I'm pretty tired of belaboring the obvious fact that you are an AGW Denier, whose entire MO rests upon deliberate distortion, factual ellision, misrepresentation, obfuscation, goalpost relocation, chicanery, fraud, and outright, lying, lies.

You can do everyone a favor and desist with this, or, as I've already stated, I'll continue to tear apart, debunk, and deconstruct the whole tissue of your lying lies, until "commenting is closed for this thread".

You choose.

Nov 14, 2017
In the context of the prevalence of opinion, 41% is certainly a mathematical minority, but still represents the opinion of nearly half of respondents, and clearly isn't some vanishingly small or marginal percentage of overall opinion.

As you said, if we equate a response of 8, 9 or 10 with "existential threat" -which seems reasonable to me, by the way, but no matter- then it becomes apparent that your claim of there being too few scientists of that opinion to warrant the use of the term is INVALID.


I sincerely appreciate you finally making considering my posts with some measure of objectivity, to which I will now respond in kind.....

Nov 14, 2017
The purpose of my referencing the study in question was categorically NOT to demonstrate that such phraseology is "invalid", (despite my personal opinion that it isn't). In fact I was obliged, given the study, and in direct contradiction to what you just claimed, to grant that, .....

".....it could be the case that your terminology (& Calibans) turns out to be more accurate and that Noumenon is wrong and the majority of the scientists surveyed in the above study are wrong. That 41% would use rhetoric approaching (albeit less exaggerated) suffices to establish that possibility." - Noumenon

The point was to refute your charge of denialism merely on the basis of not accepting that terminology, as after all as it "isn't some vanishingly small or marginal percentage of overall opinion" of those who would not invoke such terminology, of whom the vast majority accept AGW. The logic works both ways.


Nov 14, 2017
To summarize...

Your insistence that AGW doesn't pose an existential threat is DENIALSM. - Caliban

Objectively refuted from the study.

Your insistence that there is credible proof to the contrary of AGW is DENIALISM. - Caliban

Outright lie. Never claimed there was such proof, and accept core of AGW.

Your insistence that there isn't virtually complete consensus wrt AGW is DENIALISM. - Caliban

Never made such a claim. In fact confirmed it. Another lie.

Your claim that AGW isn't vastly inflating the danger inherent in normal climatic mechanisms is DENIALISM.- Caliban


If "vastly inflating the danger" = "existential threat" or even merely "severe/catastrophe" then refuted from the study,.... otherwise I have never claim that a measurable addition to the normal carbon cycle was not attributable to human cause. Another lie.

Nov 14, 2017
The purpose of my referencing the study in question was categorically NOT to demonstrate that such phraseology is "invalid", (despite my personal opinion that it isn't). In fact I was obliged, given the study, and in direct contradiction to what you just claimed, to grant that,


Not so fast, nonoUNme. I already pointed out --oh, about thirty posts ago-- that YOUR, PARTICULAR refusal to allow that AGW is an existential threat brands you a Denier, especially when combined with your many other denialist attributes --also previously listed.

The point was to refute your charge of denialism merely on the basis of not accepting that terminology,


What I just said. Adding on all that after-the-fact balderdash(which I have removed from this quote) to recontextualize your comments into a defensible dialectic is another of the many things that identify you as a Lying Liar Denier.

Nov 14, 2017
To summarize...

Your insistence that AGW doesn't pose an existential threat is DENIALSM. - Caliban
Objectively refuted from the study.


Not at all. Study doesn't include "existential threat" as category of response. Therefore LYING LIE

Your insistence that there is credible proof to the contrary of AGW is DENIALISM. - Caliban
Outright lie. Never claimed there was such proof, and accept core of AGW.


As I said, part of your past comments/insinuations. Handy how you forget. LYING LIE.

Your insistence that there isn't virtually complete consensus wrt AGW is DENIALISM. - Caliban
Never made such a claim. In fact confirmed it. Another lie.


Again, as I said, part of your past comments/insinuations. Handy how you forget. LYING LIE.

contd

Nov 14, 2017
Your claim that AGW isn't vastly inflating the danger inherent in normal climatic mechanisms is DENIALISM.- Caliban

If "vastly inflating the danger" = "existential threat" or even merely "severe/catastrophe" then refuted from the study,....


NOT. Nearly half of respondents indicated as much, which certainly justifies the level of concern. Appending "vastly inflating the danger" as a member of that equation --after the fact--
is another example of your chicanery, ie, a LYING LIE.

otherwise I have never claim that a measurable addition to the normal carbon cycle was not attributable to human cause. Another lie


Otherwise, I never claimed that you did. I said:

contd

Nov 14, 2017
contd

"
Not so fast, nonoUNme--

You have a long history as a supposed fence-sitting "skeptic" here at Porg.

Moreover, your skepticism has always been of the non-committal, maybe-later-I'll-make-up-my-mind variety, which has never responded or been revised in the face of the complete debunking of "skeptic" claims and the acceptance by several scientifically credentialed, outstanding proponents of "skepticism" of the reality of AGW.

This makes you a denier. And saying that I made this up makes you a liar, into the bargain.

Go whinge elsewhere, and finish it off with a piss up the rope."

So I'll let it stand, since merely acknowledging Antropogenic contribution to your "normal carbon cycle" is ABSOLUTELY not the same as acknowledging AGW as a cold, hard, fact.
The squirmy, nonoUNme, LYING DENIER LIES just keep on coming.

You've a real talent for this line of work, nonoUNme.

You should join the Carnival.

It pays better.

Nov 14, 2017
@Noumenon.
How many times can a single hair be split? Right, so your not implying that the study was politically motivated, but your are implying that the answers given were politically motivated, so that there is "political motivation in the study".
Is your biased reading so bad that you don't realize it's not a "hair" but a "log' that is being split, mate? Are you seriously expecting everyone t believe you don't know the 'yawning gap of' meaning difference between an ANSWER being politically motivated and the Study/Survey ITSELF being politically motivated? The former reflects an individual respondent's self-censoring process (if present) whilst the latter may reflect the QUESTIONAIRE design/questions 'construct' which may have built-in political bias (as you should know many such are used by all 'sides' to 'get the result they want' by designing questionaire/analysis criteria etc with a-priori bias; hence I always ignore opinion surveys). Get more objective, Noum. :)

Nov 14, 2017
Sorry, gotta go log out again; very busy offline; back later/tomorrow if I can. Cheers all. :)

Nov 15, 2017
@Caliban, Your generalized characterizations of what I think are merely your own subjective interpretations and are not substantiated by direct contextual quotes by me. To attempt to own both sides of the debate like this is fraudulent. An objective minded person accepts statements as given.

As stated of what I ACTUALLY have posted and think, I accept the core of AGW, and have suggested massive concerted responses, multiple times throughout the years. It is utterly irrational and corrupt for you not not accept what someone has told you they think as what they think, and instead attempt to supply both sides of the argument.

Whenever I have ranted on AGW, it is clear in that given context what it is that I don't agree with, be it leftist political use of AGW, or blaming particular storms on AGW, or generally over the top objectively unfounded alarmism. I can't waste more time on someone as mentally immature and dishonest as you.


Nov 15, 2017
The former reflects an individual respondent's self-censoring process (if present) whilst the latter may reflect the QUESTIONAIRE design/questions 'construct' which may have built-in political bias


There is no basis for you questioning the objectivity of responses given by those "leading scientists". You have to accept the study as given without interjecting your own biases of what you would rather be true!

You can't rationally reject the view given by that majority of scientists wrt the future effects of AGW merely on your own biasely motivated presumptions,.... for if this is allowed, then I could as well claim that that 41% feels political pressure to make statements in terms of alarmism when in 'actual fact' they would rather personally remain quantifiably objective and limit their responses accordingly.


Nov 15, 2017
@RC, ...... more importantly to expose your desire to interject your own biased presumption of 'political motivation' upon otherwise objective scientists, is the fact that your entire argument presumes without justification, that the names and results of the scientists in question were ever published or could be known. Usually, in a published peer reviewed journal, this is NOT done for the exact reason of preventing such issues.


Nov 15, 2017
@Noumenon.
more importantly to expose your desire to interject your own biased presumption of 'political motivation' upon otherwise objective scientists
You are being disingenuous with 'feigned praise' for the very scientists which AGW DENIERS have always accused of 'being politically motivated' to make "alarmist claims', Noum! And now you suddenly say that scientists are NOT 'being political at all', even to the point f being less straightfrward in reporting pending disaster to try to get something done through the 'politicized debate/process' which the fossil industry/Republicans etc etc MADE INTO A POLITICAL FOOTBALL rather than accept the science in the first place! So you allow scientists ARE politically motivated IF it suits DENIER 'sophistry'; but do NOT allow same when it DOESN'T suit? Not only do you want it both ways, but also every way! Please drop this sophistry 'exercise', mate. AGW is not an 'abstraction' for philo-games; it's REAL WORLD DANGER. Ok? :)

Nov 16, 2017
@Caliban, Your generalized characterizations of what I think are merely your own subjective interpretations and are not substantiated by direct contextual quotes by me. To attempt to own both sides of the debate like this is fraudulent. An objective minded person accepts statements as given.


Whatever, nonoUNme.

The FACT is that you've been entirely unable to support any of the claims you've made in comments directed to me in this entire thread, after interminable Denier squirming, sophistry, misdirection, misrepresentation, and Lying Lie after LYING, LIAR LIE.

Whine away, and then go piss up that still unwetted rope.


Dec 31, 2017
I proved by use of a peer reviewed legitimate study that your charge of me being a "denailist" merely on the basis of rejecting your alarmist terminology characterizing the threat of climate change, is false, emotionally irrational, and not of the majority opinion amongst climate scientists.



Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more