Jonathan
-
Posts
7,238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
57
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Blog Comments posted by Jonathan
-
-
Damn. This will make it harder to punish people.
New NASA Data On Forest Fires, Deforestation Refutes Climate Alarmists
Newly released data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) refutes claims made by climate alarmists that forest fires are becoming more prevalent as a result of climate change and that the world is losing its forests...
-
4 hours ago, william.scherk said:
Hurricane Dorian's wind-action, image taken from Earth:nullschool.net
I hope our members in the way of the storm are battened down, and that the least worst track is taken.
-- Earth:nullschool has a Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZyd1nnJuvS-EZvAV-IDtPg/videos
-- a couple of examples of detailed metrics available using Earth:nullschool data visualization. Tweets from the main guy behind the site Cameron Beccario.
Our old friend Paul Beckwith continues to pump out his videos, which I would guess seem dangerously kooky and alarmist, depending on your point of view and priors.
Tasty steamed octopus! What a surprise!
J
-
23 hours ago, william.scherk said:
This is not going to work, at all.
Hi Billy,
Did you see above that I had posted a new version of my set of questions in an effort to communicate more clearly?
Do you understand the questions?
Snubbing isn't working.
J
-
The deniers deserve to have their property destroyed.
We don't have time to wait for the fucking deniers to agree with us. We're reaching the end. Running out of clock. Pretty soon, we're going to have to take serious measures, like butchering the fucking deniers. We have the right to do it. The deniers are putting our lives at risk. They're trying to get us all killed. So it's self defense for us to disembowel them. It's virtuous. Destroy! Kill!
Former Canadian Prime Minister: I Hope Deadly Hurricane Destroys Trump’s Home
Photo by Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images
August 30, 2019On Thursday, the only woman to ever serve as the prime minister of Canada issued a horrifying tweet in which she stated she wanted the deadly hurricane Dorian to strike President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, Florida. In response to a tweet from a scientist warning that Dorian was a major hurricane threat to the East Coast this weekend and that Florida was in the hurricane’s crosshairs, Kim Campbell tweeted, "I’m rooting for a direct hit on Mar a Lago!"
I’m rooting for a direct hit on Mar a Lago! https://t.co/cA14KQvjpC
— Kim Campbell (@AKimCampbell) August 28, 2019Fox News reported on Thursday, "The strengthening storm churned over the warm, open waters of the Atlantic on Thursday, upgrading to Category 2 strength late in the day, with maximum sustained winds of 105 mph, the National Hurricane Center reported. Forecasts showed Dorian tracking toward Florida’s east coast …Forecasters believe the storm will strengthen into a Category 3 hurricane by Friday, and stay well east of the southern and central Bahamas before making a turn toward Florida by Sunday afternoon."
When someone pointed out to the unrepentant Campbell, "What the heck is wrong with you. There are real people who live and work there," Campbell snapped back, "get a grip," tweeting, "As there are in Puerto Rico- sorry you don’t get snark- but Trump’s indifference to suffering is intolerable! We'd also help if he tackled climate change which is making hurricanes more destructive! Instead, he will remove limits on methane! Get a grip!"
After the resignation of Brian Mulroney in 1993, Campbell served for roughly five months as prime minister. She currently serves as the chairperson for Canada's Supreme Court Advisory Board.
The Conservative Party of Canada, founded in 1867, changed its name to the Progressive Conservative Party in 1942. After Campbell, a Progressive Conservative who was serving briefly as prime minister, lost in the 1993 election, the party changed its name back to the Conservative Party; the party regained the leadership in 2006 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who governed until 2015, when Justin Trudeau was elected to the position.
After the party changed its name back to the Conservative Party, Campbell, complaining about the fact that the party did not subscribe to her environmentalist views, said, "Well, I’ve never joined the Conservative Party of Canada; I think (former prime minister) Joe Clark expressed it that he didn’t leave the party; the party left him. It is not the Progressive Conservative party. You know, our party was the party of the acid rain treaty, the Montreal protocol. I’m sorry; I have no time for climate deniers and anybody who is trying to pussyfoot around it."
Asked whether she thought the Conservative party was "weak on that," Campbell answered, "Yeah, I do. They pussyfoot around, they don’t really come out and say, commit themselves to dealing with it, and they’ve produced a plan that has no target. It’s really a sop I think … if certain issues aren’t taken seriously, we don’t have time to hope for people, and if they’re saying things because they’re playing to a recalcitrant base, in theory, they’ll do differently, whatever, sorry, that’s too much of a risk."
-
On 8/28/2019 at 7:23 PM, william.scherk said:
Of all the questions asked above in the set of quotes, the demand for the science got tied (in my mind) into 'the science of CO2.' Probably since this molecule...
In an attempt at conversation and graciousness, I’ll give it another shot, and ask my questions in yet another way:
What was the hypothesis that has been “settled"? Wasn't it that mankind’s activities are the primary cause of global warming — that global warming is happening due to mankind’s activities, and it would not be happening without those activities? That’s what it seems to have been? Was it that if mankind produces X amount of CO2 over time period Y, then the result must be temperature Z, and temperature Z will mean changes in climate, and catastrophic consequences?
Here are the questions:
How many years’ of data of CO2 emissions and temperatures were determined — prior to gathering that data — to be needed to be recorded in order to confirm the hypothesis, and why that amount of time? What duration of time was established as a falsification limit, after which the hypothesis would be considered to have failed if the predictions did not come true in reality, and why that amount of time? What other criteria were identified, ahead of testing, as falsifying the hypothesis? Why those criteria and not others? Or were none identified?
Which one of the many climate computer models has succeeded in predicting future temperatures reliably and repeatedly? When — what date — was that single model proposed as one whose predictions were expected to succeed in reality? When did it become active, and its predictions began to be put to the test and compared to data collected in reality? Was the model unaltered, or, during testing, did it receive any revisions or updates? If so, on what grounds were those modifications deemed to be acceptable rather than as invalidating the original model? On what date was the conclusion determined that the model had met all of the criteria that had been established before testing, and that it had succeeded, had avoided falsification, and had been independently repeated and confirmed?
Prior to all of that, how was it determined what the global temperature should be were it not for mankind’s activities? By what means and reasoning have natural drivers of temperature been accounted for and eliminated as affecting outcomes?
More to come. But, please, start with the above.
J
-
9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Who is whispering? I, for one, state my views out loud...
I think Billy's use of the term "William-Whisperer" is meant to be something like a dog whisperer or horse whisperer.
J
-
14 hours ago, william.scherk said:
What else can I cop to, specifically?
You can cop to not having answered my questions. Please visit the first few posts on the Part 2 version of this thread. Read the many different ways that I've asked the questions. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in accepting the possibility that you haven't understood what I've been asking during all this time -- you haven't grasped my questions. I'll accept part of the blame for that. Please read the questions, and ask questions in return if you don't understand. I'll then do my best to try to explain what I apparently haven't succeeded in explaining so far.
I had asked your friend Brad the same questions. He was sure that the information was out there and easy to find, and he was going to get right back to us with it. He never came back.
In addition to those old questions that have been asked, re-asked, re-worded and asked again, only to be ignored or misunderstood or whatever, there is now an additional question that I would appreciate your answering, and that is the one about the libertarian group and its analysis of the false claim that 97% of scientists believe that mankind's activities are the primary driver/cause of global warming. Do you agree or disagree with their position? Why? Explain, please.
J
-
19 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:
Translation: Stop pointing to facts and expecting responses, Jonathan, it is disagreeable and makes conversation impossible. Our conversation will have to consist of you keeping your mouth shut because when you open it you become crazy and disagreeable. Did you read Tyndall yet?
Quite weak. Transparent. Such an asshole.
Clearly, Billy is stumped.
He's in, like, double checkmate right now. He doesn't know what in the hell to do.
He won't let go of his beliefs, so his next-best option is to continue as usual with the same tired tactics.
He's probably searching for another Meatball to come and try to save him, and maybe even hoping that NASA will come out with a statement about being caught in the 97% lie and offer up enough of an authority pose that Billy can repeat it while wishing really hard to believe in it. "Are you a scientist? No? Well, we ARE scientists, we're fucking NASA for Christ's sakes, and we say that it's totally scientific for us to throw out the 7,930 papers. In fact, now that we mention it, fuck you, we're going with 100%, because we just decided to throw out all of the papers except for the ones that take the position that we want to be true. Eat shit and die, science-denying fuckers!"
J
-
18 hours ago, william.scherk said:
Cross-post from the "Disagreeable" blog entry:
-- from the first chapter of "How to Have Impossible Conversations."
"Many people deal with this by hiding from contentious conversations. That's fine, and in certain circumstances it may even be the right thing to do. However, it's only..."
Damn! Just when it was getting to the good part. I need to know!
Billy, what's the rest of the sentence? What's the rest of the thought?
Shit, I forgot, you wont answer because you're hiding from conversations with me.
One thing that I hope the book covers is the standard notions of leading by example, practicing what one preaches, etc. -- showing that you are open to changing your beliefs, and that you're comfortable admitting to having been mistaken.
J
-
17 hours ago, william.scherk said:
-- of tangential interest to the two "How I Got Here" threads' participants, perhaps. Cross-posted from another blog comment.
Thanks so much for sharing. Looking forward to your practicing all that you learn from the book.
Cheers,
J
-
Billy?
No? No opinion on the methodology used in the 97% lie? No curiosity about it? No comment?
J
-
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:
Interested readers will enjoy a spun-off topic:
Hi Billy. Welcome back.
Have you had an opportunity to review my post about the group that is criticizing the false 97% claim?
It's a pretty short and easy to understand argument. Do you grasp it? Do you agree that they have a valid point?
NASA pushed this falsehood, as have many other organizations. It's methodology is ridiculously flawed, yet NASA bought into it and repeated it. Slop. Carelessness. Or worse.
Is it at all disconcerting to you that this garbage made it past the brightest scientists? Is this level of scientific competence acceptable to you, especially from an organization of NASA's prestige? Does it inspire confidence?
J
-
More actions that don't match words. Do as I say, nor as I do. Good for me, but not for thee.
Internet Wrecks Obamas Over $15 Million Martha’s Vineyard Estate
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
August 24, 2019210.1k viewsThe man who spent eight years lecturing Americans about the evils of wealth and economic inequality, and fear mongered about global warming and climate change is reportedly set to buy a nearly $15 million beachfront Martha's Vineyard estate.
According to TMZ, former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle are in escrow for the multimillion-dollar mansion currently owned by the NBA's Boston Celtics owner Wyc Grousbeck. "The former Prez and First Lady have been renting the house this summer and loved it so much, we've learned they made an offer. The property is listed at $14,850,000. Our sources say they're paying less, but we don't know how much," the report says.
The mansion is nearly 6,900 square feet, complete with seven bedrooms, a pool, outdoor fireplace, second-floor balcony jacuzzi, boathouse, and two guest wings, per TMZ.
The irony of Mr. You-didn't-build-that and At-a-certain-point-you've-made-enough-money himself living so lavishly was not lost on the internet. Nor was the fact that the property is beachfront (with a massive carbon footprint!). If one were to truthfully believe in the climate hysteria echoed by Obama, this purchase would be highly unwise, as the house will surely be underwater in a matter of years.
Founder of the satirical Babylon Bee Adam Ford pointedly posted:
The Federalist’s Inez Stepman mocked, "You didn't build that, guys."
Radio host Mark Simone wrote, "The Obama's totally reject socialism and buy another mega mansion – a $15 million dollar Martha's Vineyard estate that they'll only use a few weeks a year, in an attempt to set a new record for income inequality."
"'At a certain point, you've made enough money.' – guy who got a $65M book deal then bought a 7-bdrm 7,000 sq-foot Martha's Vineyard mansion on 29 acres worth $15 million," the popular Twitter politico known as Razor jabbed.
"If I genuinely believed in 12 years coastal areas would be under water, I wouldn't by a $15 million mansion on...Martha's Vineyard," said podcast host Amy Curtis. "Call me crazy, but it doesn't seem like Obama is taking climate change all that seriously."
"Poor investment. Martha's Vineyard is literally going to be swallowed by the ocean if we don't hand over all of our money and freedom to the government to stop Global Warming," snarked Federalist contributor known as the "red-headed libertarian."
"The estate is currently in escrow and it's not a done deal just yet. We're told there are contingencies so it's possible it could fall apart, but we're told so far it's a go," TMZ said.
According to the New York Post, the Obamas recently spent $8.1 million on a nine-bedroom home in Washington, D.C. The Post also noted that Mr. Obama had a $40 million net worth in 2018, and combined with the former First Lady’s wealth, the duoare worth an estimated $135 million.
-
On 8/18/2019 at 3:23 PM, william.scherk said:
...an avenue toward basic agreements, or agreed basics or agreement on key 'findings'...
So, below I offer my first 'finding' for our platform on the foundation on the boulevard of agreement.
I've posted this previously here on OL, back when it first came out.
Billy, you had asked if there is an agreed-upon set of 'findings,' even for people who may disagree mightily on entailments. Do you agree that the article below offers an argument that is devastating to the falsehood that it refutes? Do you agree that the article is correct that the method used to arrive at the 97% conclusion is fatally flawed?
Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim
(Shutterstock)On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing.
"The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."
According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"
The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.
The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.
So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.
See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).
But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research.
The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit.
He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming."That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote.
Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission."
Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study.
The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.
-
We need to find pathways that indicate possible corridors that might lead toward avenues which will take us to the boulevard of agreement. Let’s see if we can find a foundation near that boulevard on which to establish a platform where we can place our gathered findings to discover if we all agree that they are indeed findings. But first, let’s make more hoops. We need many more hoops to jump through. Place them between us and the questions that Jonathan has asked. Hoops of every size and color. Line them on the pathways, corridors, and avenues. Hoops and more hoops, everywhere! Then let’s hypothesize about the hoops, and research everything about them. What’s the best material out of which to make hoops? Can we find a pathway to a corridor that leads to an avenue which will take us to the boulevard of agreement about the best material for hoops? I’m certain that we can.
-
Hello? Billy?
Are you pouting?
You really, really badly want to pontificate on John Tyndall, but your glorious parade was rained upon?
I'm sorry, pumpkin.
So, let's have your little Tyndall party!!! Yay!!!
Happy Tyndall Day, Billy! Tell us all about him!
Did he make any predictions about global warming? Did those predictions come true in reality? Did he take a position on man-made climate change, hypothesize that man's activities would result in certain specific temperature increases, and then successfully predict future outcomes in reality?
I know, I know. Predictions are icky. But they're a part of grownup science, Billy. You can't have your exciting doom and your controlling other people if you don't have successful predictions first.
Okay, so can we get past Tyndall now? What's next? Let's pick up the pace, okay? What's the next very important non-answer to my questions that we need to explore in-depth?
J
-
18 hours ago, william.scherk said:
Recursion comes on its own schedule: Tyndall mentions on OL.
Re-reading earlier commentary might indicate an avenue toward basic agreements, or agreed basics or agreement on key 'findings.' Much of the superstructure of climatology rests on atmospheric chemistry/radiative physics ... Tyndall was one of the handful of pioneering inquirers who 'cracked the code' or demonstrated physical explanations for how the Earth maintained its "radiative budget" ...
Bob has intelligently laid out this platform of 'findings' several times. I recommend a kind of 'foundational' question posed to self: "Is there an agreed-up set of 'findings'" even for folks who may disagree mightily on entailments. Or 'Did Tyndall "get it right"?'
The questions of mine that you’ve been dodging address all of that, Billy. Drop the professor pose and the discussion leader/moderator ploy. You don’t want a discussion. You can’t handle a discussion. Buh, buh, but, perhaps we can find an avenue forward in which Billy instructs us what to do and how to think, and we can find common ground agreement in avoiding those icky questions that Jonathan asked and that Billy can’t answer?
Billy, what is it about my questions that makes you think that we need instruction in climatological superstructure, radiative physics, etc.? I’ve simply asked you to demonstrate successful predictions via the scientific method. And somehow my doing so suggests to you that you need to give us a presumptuous little course on Tyndall rather than demonstrating the successful predictions? Hahaha!
-
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:
And?
When do we get the part where my questions are answered?
How about you just skip ahead to that part?
Heh. No? Still not able to answer the questions, so you're back to the game of posing as professor who is going to instruct the rubes about everything except the questions they've asked?
Rather pathetic, Billy.
J
-
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:
It usually begins with John Tyndall.
What usually begins with John Tyndall?
Is it the answers to my questions? If so, cool! Let's hear them.
J
-
29 minutes ago, william.scherk said:
That's some mighty fine tasty steamed octopus!
I've heard that Manhattan is 5 feet underwater. Is that true, Billy? Who should be punished first? How exciting!
Anyway, do you have any answers to my questions yet? No? Still hoping that we'll forget what actual science is?
J
-
1
-
-
Oh noes!
Muh, muh consensus!
Muh 97%!
Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim
(Shutterstock)On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing.
"The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."
According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"
The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.
The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.
So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.
See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).
But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research.
The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit.
He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming."That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote.
Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission."
Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study.
The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.
-
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:
When you combine Objectivism with cult, cult will be the last thing standing...
Indeed!
-
On 7/2/2019 at 9:27 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Jonathan,
I skimmed Diana Brickell's own feed a bit. (Like you, I hadn't seen it before.)
Did you see the mountain of love she heaped upon the hoax lady (CB Ford) in the Justice Kavanaugh hearing? This is a direct quote (from here).
Ah... the matters of the heart...
Ford is a psychologist, and knows stuff about the brain, and she mentioned some chemicals, technical terms and theories, and therefore she could not possibly have been mistaken, misremembering, or lying about Kavanaugh.
On 7/2/2019 at 9:27 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:She also said she's a supporter of Beto O'Rourke.
Objectivism in action, that it is...
Michael
She seems to really hate Ted Cruz, and was "supporting" Beto out of spite for Cruz. I haven't seen why she has these feelings. Lots and lots of anger. She seems to have found an outlet for some of it in making customer complaints to companies.
She should think about getting a "I want to speak to your manager" haircut.
J
-
16 hours ago, william.scherk said:
I keep up with the Brickell list, but am blocked from viewing her timeline ...
Heh. Billy, what did you do to get blocked? Whatever it was, it must have been pretty damned horrible, because the Comrade is pretty tolerant and easy going.
[2023] AGW/CC 'How we got here'
in Friends and Foes
A blog by william.scherk in General
Posted
Tasty steamed humans in the near future? It's settled science. It's what we need to do in order to Save The Planet™. Isn't it exciting, Billy? First it will be voluntary, but, eventually, the virtuous wokescolds will have to decide who will be sacrificed for the greater good.
SWEDISH BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST SUGGESTS EATING HUMANS TO ‘SAVE THE PLANET’
The “food of the future” may be dead bodies.
A Swedish behavioral scientist has suggested that it may be necessary to turn to cannibalism and start eating humans in order to save the planet.
Appearing on Swedish television to talk about an event based around the “food of the future,” Magnus Söderlund said he would be holding seminars on the necessity of consuming human flesh in order to stop climate change.
Environmentalists blame the meat and farming industry for a large part of what they claim is the warming of the earth.According to Söderlund, a potential fix would be the Soylent Green-solution of eating dead bodies instead.
He told the host of the show that one of the biggest obstacles to the proposal would be the taboo nature of corpses and the fact that many would see it as defiling the deceased.
Söderlund also acknowledged that people are “slightly conservative” when it comes to eating things they are not accustomed to, such as cadavers.
The discussion took place accompanied by a graphic of human hands on the end of forks. Lovely.
Another proposal to save the earth which has been promoted by numerous mass media outlets and environmentalists is only somewhat less disgusting – eating bugs.
No doubt Greta Thunberg and Prince Harry will be first in line for when cockroaches and human flesh is being dished out at the next international climate summit.