Good News Sucks for Climate Cultists

[Into the Night]

That's why I helped him find them. He doesn't know how hyperlinks work on the internet. No harm, no foul. Everybody has to learn sometime.



That's a lie.

Lie. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Saint Guinefort]

A Holy Link is not a proof. You never provided any links to the data he requested.

Stop lying.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Post #79. Second paragraph. There's two links in there.

Gosh I hate to think how sloppy you are overall if you couldn't find those. THey were addressed directly TO YOU.

Okay, I read them. NASA practically breaks a proverbial arm patting themselves on the back. What that article amounts to is, We did an analysis of our analysis and we were right! The article in Science is a bit better but hardly convincing on its own. I would assume the modelling is getting better, but the problem remains that it's basically a variant of the McNamara fallacy in the form of a fallacy fallacy. That is, it is a quantitative analysis with so many unknows in it as to be little more than a guess.

More damning for the True Believers are articles that are now popping up like this one:

The Right Words Are Crucial to Solving Climate Change
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-right-words-are-crucial-to-solving-climate-change/

(See? That's an obvious link)

It was in February 2023's Scientific American, and the author for all intents is telling the reader how to use propaganda techniques and other means of obfuscation to try and convince people about the radical Left's version of Gorebal Warming. When the True Believers are resorting to propaganda and lies to try and convince someone of their beliefs they've become no better than religion and many cases worse.

I also don't buy the idea that the solutions to this problem are set in concrete the way the Left does. They push solar and wind, not what works which would be nuclear and natural gas. They push battery cars and such when the solution would be anhydrous ammonia or hydrogen (gas or liquid). They have a set and entrenched position, and stridently ignore other solutions. Again, that reeks of religion not science.

There is every reason NOT to believe the Gorebal Warming crowd, and every reason to reject them.

 

[Into the Night]

You're too funny. (Well, not really "funny", more like "sad" and "pathetic". But if it helps keep you occupied I guess it's all good. Enjoy spreading misinformation and lies.

So where does that grant money come from? Taxes? Printing it? Borrowing it?

It's communism, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Stop lying.

Contextomy fallacy. Random statement. No apparent coherency.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Sorry you are unfamiliar with how hyperlinks work. They have been on the internet since the 1990's.
Are you new to the internet?

I know how they work. You obscured yours rather than making them obvious as I pointed out. Yours were easy to miss when skimming through pages of posts. That's why they should be made obvious.

 

[Into the Night]

Okay, I read them. NASA practically breaks a proverbial arm patting themselves on the back. What that article amounts to is, We did an analysis of our analysis and we were right! The article in Science is a bit better but hardly convincing on its own. I would assume the modelling is getting better, but the problem remains that it's basically a variant of the McNamara fallacy in the form of a fallacy fallacy. That is, it is a quantitative analysis with so many unknows in it as to be little more than a guess.

More damning for the True Believers are articles that are now popping up like this one:

The Right Words Are Crucial to Solving Climate Change
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-right-words-are-crucial-to-solving-climate-change/

(See? That's an obvious link)

It was in February 2023's Scientific American, and the author for all intents is telling the reader how to use propaganda techniques and other means of obfuscation to try and convince people about the radical Left's version of Gorebal Warming. When the True Believers are resorting to propaganda and lies to try and convince someone of their beliefs they've become no better than religion and many cases worse.

I also don't buy the idea that the solutions to this problem are set in concrete the way the Left does. They push solar and wind, not what works which would be nuclear and natural gas. They push battery cars and such when the solution would be anhydrous ammonia or hydrogen (gas or liquid). They have a set and entrenched position, and stridently ignore other solutions. Again, that reeks of religion not science.

There is every reason NOT to believe the Gorebal Warming crowd, and every reason to reject them.

I see you found the same thing I did. It's just a circular argument.

 

[Into the Night]

I know how they work. You obscured yours rather than making them obvious as I pointed out. Yours were easy to miss when skimming through pages of posts. That's why they should be made obvious.

Often a good practice for exactly the reasons you describe.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Okay, I read them. NASA practically breaks a proverbial arm patting themselves on the back.

So you have no rebuttal to the data.

I also don't buy the idea that the solutions to this problem are set in concrete the way the Left does.

Funny but I've never heard a consistent theme as to what exactly needs to be done. But I'm sure it is important to you to find the most loony suggestion and assume everyone believes that.

They push solar and wind, not what works which would be nuclear and natural gas.

Well, see, you're wrong there! I like nuclear as an alternative. I'm not overly fond of it but I recognize it has a very valuable place. As for renewables, well, I put my money where my mouth is and I installed solar on my house. Best investment I've ever made. I haven't paid an electric bill in years.

They push battery cars and such when the solution would be anhydrous ammonia or hydrogen (gas or liquid).

Speaking as someone who worked in that EXACT area briefly I can tell you H2 isn't going to be in your car anytime soon. MAYBE (maybe) methanol cracking but even that's a nightmare and you wouldn't want to fuel your car with that stuff and you wouldn't want countless thousands of Americans playing with it.

I went to a transportation fuels conference in about the year 2000 in Europe. At that time we were focused on H2 storage. It was suggested at that time that if the problems with storage of H2 were taken care of, fuel cell vehicles would rise to the top. If not they would always be a minor player.

Fast forward 23 years and, well, you can see what happened.

There is every reason NOT to believe the Gorebal Warming crowd, and every reason to reject them.

If you ignore the actual science, then sure. If you ignore what the opposing side actually SAYS and go with the extremes then, yeah, sure. But if you base your conclusions on "reality" then you'll wind up in a rather different place.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I know how they work. You obscured yours rather than making them obvious as I pointed out. Yours were easy to miss when skimming through pages of posts. That's why they should be made obvious.

LOL. "Obscured". I'm sorry but that is really standard operating procedure for links embedded in text. Seriously, just admit, you missed them. No one was hiding them from you.

(You really must be completely new to the internet.)

 

[Into the Night]

So you have no rebuttal to the data.

There is no data to rebut.

Funny but I've never heard a consistent theme as to what exactly needs to be done. But I'm sure it is important to you to find the most loony suggestion and assume everyone believes that.

Lie. The consistent theme of the Church of Global Warming has been that CO2 somehow magickally warms the Earth and that industry and anything using coal, gasoline or other oil products, must be eliminated to 'save the planet'.

Well, see, you're wrong there! I like nuclear as an alternative. I'm not overly fond of it but I recognize it has a very valuable place. As for renewables, well, I put my money where my mouth is and I installed solar on my house. Best investment I've ever made. I haven't paid an electric bill in years.

So you haven't air conditioned your box yet. Gotit.

Speaking as someone who worked in that EXACT area briefly I can tell you H2 isn't going to be in your car anytime soon. MAYBE (maybe) methanol cracking but even that's a nightmare and you wouldn't want to fuel your car with that stuff and you wouldn't want countless thousands of Americans playing with it.

People use tanks of hydrogen all the time. Hydrogen powered cars exist too. Fueling stations for them can be found in some areas such as the southern SDTC and some parts of Europe.

I went to a transportation fuels conference in about the year 2000 in Europe.

Didn't learn a damn thing...didja?

At that time we were focused on H2 storage.

H2 is easily stored. The only downside is hydrogen embrittlement. That is dealt with in H2 tanks by regularly testing them.

It was suggested at that time that if the problems with storage of H2 were taken care of,

They are. Have been for many decades before the year 2000 when you supposedly went to your 'conference'.

fuel cell vehicles would rise to the top.

Nope. Fuel cells require expensive rare metals to produce. Further, fueling with hydrogen presents problems with freezing. Further, you cannot store much energy in a car in the form of hydrogen. Gasoline is a much more efficient storage of energy by volume.

If not they would always be a minor player.

You obviously are completely unfamiliar with the hydrogen powered car.

Fast forward 23 years and, well, you can see what happened.

What?

If you ignore the actual science, then sure.

There is no science here. Buzzword fallacy.

If you ignore what the opposing side actually SAYS and go with the extremes then, yeah, sure. But if you base your conclusions on "reality" then you'll wind up in a rather different place.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Try English.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. "Obscured". I'm sorry but that is really standard operating procedure for links embedded in text. Seriously, just admit, you missed them. No one was hiding them from you.

(You really must be completely new to the internet.)

There is no 'standard operating procedure' for embedding links in text. It is generally good practice to make the link obvious. You STILL haven't provided the links he asked for. You must really be completely new to the internet.

 

[Bigdog]

The topic you are taking a stab at is called "Climate Sensitivity". It has been estimated over and over again and found to be in the range of 2-4.5degC.

This illustration (from an article by Knutti and Hegerl, 2008) shows the various methods that have been used and the likely estimate of the sensitivity.

So I'm sorry but since you provided no evidence for your position I'm going to go with the one that has evidence.

You do know that the effects of aerosols and clouds are very poorly understood, right?

You do know that sea level rose at the rate of 4 ft. per century for 10k years when the last glacial period ended, right?

You do know that the Earth is currently in an Ice House state, right?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You do know that the effects of aerosols and clouds are very poorly understood, right?

Not as much as you may wish for them to be.

You do know that sea level rose at the rate of 4 ft. per century for 10k years when the last glacial period ended, right?

In no small part due to isostatic rebound. Are you thinking there's been a major ice age since the end of the last one?

You do know that the Earth is currently in an Ice House state, right?

It is in an "interglacial". Which, per the Milankovich Cycles, SHOULD be getting cooler again. But it isn't. I wonder why that is. Hmmmm.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

There is no 'standard operating procedure' for embedding links in text. It is generally good practice to make the link obvious. You STILL haven't provided the links he asked for. You must really be completely new to the internet.

LOL. AHahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

[Bigdog]

Not as much as you may wish for them to be.



In no small part due to isostatic rebound. Are you thinking there's been a major ice age since the end of the last one?



It is in an "interglacial". Which, per the Milankovich Cycles, SHOULD be getting cooler again. But it isn't. I wonder why that is. Hmmmm.

Aerosols and clouds are very poorly understood ... and they are extremely significant. Don't doubt me.

Then you can provide the data in Feet for the amount of isostatic rebound and post it here for all to see, right?


"There are five known Icehouse periods in Earth's climate history, which are known as the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Late Paleozoic, and Late Cenozoic glaciations."

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Greenhouse_and_iceho..

Milankovitch cycles predict glaciation cycles every 40,000 years. Yet for the last 2 million years, glaciation cycles have averaged one every 100,000 years. Do you understand 40k and 100k are very different numbers?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Aerosols and clouds are very poorly understood ... and they are extremely significant. Don't doubt me.

Why shouldn't I doubt you? Are you a professional researcher in this area?

Then you can provide the data in Feet for the amount of isostatic rebound and post it here for all to see, right?

Buy a geology textbook.

 

[Bigdog]

Why shouldn't I doubt you? Are you a professional researcher in this area?



Buy a geology textbook.

It's common knowledge.

Textbook? ... I'm not going to do your research for you. If you can't support your argument with actual data, ... that's on you.

Al Gorians

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It's common knowledge.

Common knowledge that clouds are not well modeled? Yeah, but it doesn't really change the science that much. There's always questions in science, even the stuff you think we know perfectly well.

The key is that it doesn't appear to be enough of a problem to cause the vast majority of the earths' professionals in this field to suggest AGW is likely not real.

Textbook? ... I'm not going to do your research for you. If you can't support your argument with actual data, ... that's on you.

Here you are claiming things are "common knowledge" and you don't even know basic intro Geology 101 stuff? Oooookaaay.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And you don't know how grant money is apportioned.



Funny...I lived with someone whose job it was to assess incoming grant applications for earth science research. And she never said that. In fact she said just the opposite.

But I'm sure YOU are far more knowledgeable on this topic than the people who actually do it.

Right,

Pure as the driven snow...



The AGW cult is 100% about chasing grant money. For large corporations, it's pretty much extortion. For government, it's a power grab. In both cases, the conclusion drives the research.