Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?

[Flann 5]

Flann 5 wrote:
This is a simple point of logic. If C02 levels drive warming and cooling the lag should be the other way round.


You really don’t get it do you? As the talk by Richard Alley linked in my previous post notes, there is a fairly simple scientific concept called "causality". Have you heard of it? That talk is really worth watching before you make too many more extremely false statements.

Under natural climate change, the main driver is orbital factors. These cause warming and cooling which in turn cause CO2 change due to ocean uptake and rotting rate. The science is clear and simple, as per the link that you have ignored.

O.K. Robert I'll give a listen to that talk. It strikes me though that you just dismiss real specialist scientists who disagree as being fundies or paid shills.

You have nothing to say about the blatant dishonesty and incompetence of the people working for the IPCC at East Anglia.

As for super storms the frequency and strength of hurricanes has not increased according to the the data.


Epic fail by Flann
Image

The data you provided is for natural disasters in a general sense. You can say if you like that earthquakes are caused by global warming, but I doubt it, to put it mildly. I questioned your statement about super storms specifically.

Here's an article referencing data on major hurricanes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... 80e777c5c0
Bad link here. Google Forbes. Major hurricanes less frequent, if interested.

Flann 5 wrote:
data doesn't support the claim that melting in the Arctic is unusual or unprecedented


Epic fail by Flann
Image

I didn't dispute the fact that the Arctic has been melting in recent decades. The question is whether it is unusual or unprecedented.
There seems to have been a strong melting period also between 1920-1940 which it recovered from. And as far as I tell the Antarctic is not melting but increasing in ice.

https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/hist ... 1920-1950/

Sorry Flann, the experts all agree on the science of global warming. The only expert difference is around what to do about it. By and large, those who disagree with climate science tend to be trolling fundy liars or fossil fuel shills.

I don't know why you think that Christians should have a particular slant on this. In fact they don't. Like I said even among U.S. evangelicals there are many who support the climate change caused by man doctrine.
The Pope goes with it too,
I'm skeptical but that's because of the many problems I've encountered with the official line.

[Robert Tulip]

you just dismiss real specialist scientists who disagree

If you can find real specialist scientists I am all ears. Climate science consensus is robust, but as I have pointed out, the question of how to respond is far from settled. People such as Curry and Lomborg who dispute plans for renewable subsidies do not dispute climate science. People like Bob Carter are cranks.

the people working for the IPCC at East Anglia.

The theft of emails in 2009 was designed to derail the Copenhagen Climate Conference. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/so ... zcc-5F9600 provides a good window into how this event was manipulated and distorted by denialists.

The data you provided is for natural disasters in a general sense. You can say if you like that earthquakes are caused by global warming, but I doubt it, to put it mildly. I questioned your statement about super storms specifically.

Here is a better version, splitting between climate and non climate disasters.
http://www.etmsolar.com/gsuu/gs/natural ... age001.gif
also http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83 ... 970c-550wi

I didn't dispute the fact that the Arctic has been melting in recent decades. The question is whether it is unusual or unprecedented.
There seems to have been a strong melting period also between 1920-1940 which it recovered from.

What is your game here Flann? You are just spouting rubbish that you could easily tell is untrue if you made the slightest effort to look. It is of a piece with ant’s whole denialist trip in this thread and elsewhere. See https://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/09/gr ... predicted/ to easily refute your “strong 1920 melting period” myth.

I don't know why you think that Christians should have a particular slant on this. In fact they don't. Like I said even among U.S. evangelicals there are many who support the climate change caused by man doctrine. The Pope goes with it too, I'm skeptical but that's because of the many problems I've encountered with the official line.

Fundamentalists are living in a delusional fantasy world where they believe major claims about reality that are simply false. They are alienated from nature and therefore are immune to evidence. It is sick and dangerous. God says in the apocalypse that his wrath is against those who destroy nature. this does not fit with the delusional supernatural dogma of fundamentalists so they just ignore such texts.
On Antarctica sea ice increase, https://www.skepticalscience.com/increa ... ediate.htm shows well how complex science is distorted by denialists.

[Flann 5]

Flann 5 wrote:
you just dismiss real specialist scientists who disagree


If you can find real specialist scientists I am all ears. Climate science consensus is robust, but as I have pointed out, the question of how to respond is far from settled. People such as Curry and Lomborg who dispute plans for renewable subsidies do not dispute climate science. People like Bob Carter are cranks.

There is a majority of scientists who hold to AGW I'll grant you that. The 97 percent consensus line is propaganda and is anything but robust.

And there is a nuance as to what exactly these scientists think about AGW.

Based on this Dutch government commissioned survey of climate scientists we could not even say that a majority agree that global warming is man made.

That's going by those who actually responded to the survey. Those who didn't we don't know their views.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/ne ... ensus.html

Flann 5 wrote:
the people working for the IPCC at East Anglia.


The theft of emails in 2009 was designed to derail the Copenhagen Climate Conference. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/so ... zcc-5F9600 provides a good window into how this event was manipulated and distorted by denialists.

It's amusing that you turn this into a conspiracy to derail the Copenhagen Climate Conference. It's even more amusing and replete with Orwellian irony, that the "Union of concerned scientist's" article is titled "Debunking misinformation."

Is Bill Nye a leading voice for this group?

People can read the emails for themselves and draw their own conclusions. We don't need the Union of concerned scientists to teach us to understand the English language.

https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets ... uiries.pdf

In relation to your graphs showing a steady and dramatic rise in climate related disasters. You would certainly think so going by the mass media. However there are studies with data refuting this.

Dr Roger Pielke Jr thinks we do have an impact on the environment through C02 production nevertheless he does not think there is this dramatic rise in climate related natural disasters.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin ... 013.38.pdf

That's not to say that humans do not have an adverse effect on the environment in various ways. It goes without saying that we often do.
Certainly wildlife are often getting crowded out by encroaching human destruction of their natural habitats for example.

I'm not a scientist or expert. I draw my own conclusions based on what makes sense in terms of the arguments and evidence.
You obviously think that it's irrefutably proven. Fine. I don't.

[ant]

That's not to say that humans do not have an adverse effect on the environment in various ways. It goes without saying that we often do.
Certainly wildlife are often getting crowded out by encroaching human destruction of their natural habitats for example.

Very good point.
And what is it that's actually gotten us this far in environmental degradation?
Science and technology. Now we have a bunch of "concerned" scientists.

Excellet point Flann about resorting to conspiracy theories.
Just like mythicist conspiracy theories that things being added to ancient sources.

[Robert Tulip]

survey of climate scientists http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/

As far as I could tell that denialist website propaganda was not a survey of climate scientists and is entirely unreliable. For information on this secretive linked site which Flann has promoted here see https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 745AALYIHO

conspiracy to derail the Copenhagen Climate Conference. It's even more amusing and replete with Orwellian irony

http://www.ialtenergy.com/climategate.html provides a good analysis of the political interests involved in this theft and distortion which you find so amusing and Orwellian.

In relation to your graphs showing a steady and dramatic rise in climate related disasters. You would certainly think so going by the mass media. However there are studies with data refuting this.

The insurance company Munich Re is not “going by the mass media”. That insinuation is just manipulative propaganda on your part. To say “there are studies refuting this” is a direct unethical attack by you on the insurance industry, as I show with links below, which are far more credible than Dr Pielke Jr. Well done.

Dr Roger Pielke Jr thinks we do have an impact on the environment through C02 production nevertheless he does not think there is this dramatic rise in climate related natural disasters.

Pielke is a political scientists and widely regarded as a renowned denialist. His opinions on disasters and climate are refuted at https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurric ... arming.htm and http://www.preventionweb.net/english/ha ... cs/?hid=62

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin ... 013.38.pdf

That congressional testimony by Pielke contains anti-science assertions which contradict the scientific papers I linked. I would not trust Pielke at all. See http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... roger.html for a good analysis of Pielke’s embarrassing lack of credibility.

[Flann 5]

Flann 5 wrote:
survey of climate scientists http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/


As far as I could tell that denialist website propaganda was not a survey of climate scientists and is entirely unreliable.

Hi Robert. It's getting hot in here isn't it? Well you know,the article provides a link to the actual survey. You could say that a majority of the climate scientists surveyed think that human C02 production contributes to some level of warming.

Nothing particularly sinister about that survey.

It's the dogmatic mantra that 97 percent of climate scientist agree that human C02 emissions have absolutely caused over 50 percent of warming since the mid 20th century that is propaganda.

Flann 5 wrote:
conspiracy to derail the Copenhagen Climate Conference. It's even more amusing and replete with Orwellian irony



http://www.ialtenergy.com/climategate.html provides a good analysis of the political interests involved in this theft and distortion which you find so amusing and Orwellian.

Again Robert you can believe the guys at C.R.U. weren't trying to fiddle the data to fit the warming polemic, but the emails speak for themselves.
The House of Commons inquiry found as much, inadequate as it was.

Flann 5 wrote:
Dr Roger Pielke Jr thinks we do have an impact on the environment through C02 production nevertheless he does not think there is this dramatic rise in climate related natural disasters.


Pielke is a political scientists and widely regarded as a renowned denialist. His opinions on disasters and climate are refuted at https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurric ... arming.htm and http://www.preventionweb.net/english/ha ... cs/?hid=62

This is ridiculous. Pielke is not a renowned denialist. That's clear from his own writings. In fact when you look at his submission he's actually citing IPCC reports on the subject of climate related natural disasters in many cases.

The article you linked shows the extreme intolerance of many in the warmist camp, even trying to get the guy sacked.

[Robert Tulip]

dogmatic mantra that 97 percent of climate scientist agree that human C02 emissions have absolutely caused over 50 percent of warming since the mid 20th century that is propaganda.

Flann you continue to ruin your credibility and show inability to look at evidence. Far from being a “dogmatic mantra”, the overwhelming expert consensus on anthropogenic global warming is a rigorous evidence based statistic according to http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 1/4/048002
You would expect such a consensus, since it has similar status to saying the earth goes around the sun.

Pielke is not a renowned denialist. ..he's actually citing IPCC reports on the subject of climate related natural disasters in many cases.

The commentary that I linked gave the impression that Pielke twists IPCC reports to support his nonscientific political agenda of climate denial, for example by manipulating statistics to include earthquakes in his alleged climate related natural disasters. He is not a reliable source.

It is pretty obvious if you take causality seriously that heating up the sea by adding a carbon blanket to the air will make hurricanes worse. That is the broad prediction of what is now happening. In a complex system exactly how it will manifest in terms of intensity, number and location of storms will vary, but the trend is clear from the insurance data. You have to wonder what Pielke’s motive might be to twist this data to support such a dubious hypothesis as climate denial.

I am not saying there has never been exaggeration by climate activists. Of course there has. But that problem is minimal against the overwhelming scientific evidence and risk, and does not slightly compare to the scale and malevolence of distortion and misinformation practiced by climate deniers.

[Flann 5]

Flann 5 wrote:
dogmatic mantra that 97 percent of climate scientist agree that human C02 emissions have absolutely caused over 50 percent of warming since the mid 20th century that is propaganda.



Flann you continue to ruin your credibility and show inability to look at evidence. Far from being a “dogmatic mantra”, the overwhelming expert consensus on anthropogenic global warming is a rigorous evidence based statistic according to http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 1/4/048002
You would expect such a consensus, since it has similar status to saying the earth goes around the sun.

We can go back and forth all day examining these surveys.There are good reasons to question them and it's easy to find analyses showing their shortcomings. As far as methodology and accuracy goes I would say the Dutch one is easily the best.

It is pretty obvious if you take causality seriously that heating up the sea by adding a carbon blanket to the air will make hurricanes worse. That is the broad prediction of what is now happening.

Not so Robert. The data simply does not comply with your assertion.

The U.S. National Hurricane Centre's stats flat out contradict it. They must be all "deniers" there I suppose.

The IPCC'S models predictions monotonously overshoot the real temperature data. There was a 19 year pause wasn't there?
How inconvenient! If nature doesn't comply with the hypothesis,we'll have to make the stats somehow fit the story.

[Robert Tulip]

Flann is defending the indefensible. Some excellent analysis of the lies of Roger Pielke is at http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... roger.html

What we routinely find in these climate debates is that the scientists use data responsibly, while the denialists engage in constant mendacious lying.

[Flann 5]

Flann is defending the indefensible. Some excellent analysis of the lies of Roger Pielke is at http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... roger.html

What we routinely find in these climate debates is that the scientists use data responsibly, while the denialists engage in constant mendacious lying.

Mendacious lying? Come on Robert,the stats on hurricanes from the U.S. National Hurricanes Centre are not mendacious lying.

On the track record of the IPCC's climate models predictions, I would have more confidence in the British tabloid newspaper astrologer Mystic Meg's prognostications.

http://climatechangepredictions.org/uncategorized/6209

And when it comes to real long range weather prediction Piers Corbyn is consistently more accurate than the British Met office.

And he's an AGW skeptic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Ae4DES9z8

Their virtual world may sustain their belief, but the real world doesn't care about their beliefs.