Green new deal equals magical thinking

[brenthutch 444]

 

2 hours ago, kallend said:

The co-founder in question was not a scientist at all, he was a TV "weatherman".

And Michael Mann, was a grad student when he concocted the hockey stick.

Edited April 10, 2019 by brenthutch

[cjwilt 8]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

No, they didn't.

When you have to lie to make your point - maybe your point isn't so strong to begin with?

What lie are you talking about???

 

It's been well known for a long time now.

 

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/collusion-between-mann-hansen-and-schmidt-to-create-the-hockey-stick/

 

 

https://principia-scientific.org/should-michael-hockey-stick-mann-be-prosecuted-for-climate-fraud/

 

[DJL 235]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You are right it says "could", and as Gowerk pointed out, " could" is a weasel word, rendering the prediction utterly pointless. (Just like all warmist predictions)

NOBODY said that the "wiped out" "destroyed" "flooded" etc was going to happen in 2000, 2008, 2010 or whatever combination you want to pick.  They said that if we don't reach the goal of X by that date then Y will happen at some point further down the road.  We are currently on an irreversible path for several of those things the next question is what other irreversible things will occur, the final question is whether we will hit a tipping point that causes a global warming feedback loop of which we are incapable of reversing.  On example of a current irreversible even is rising sea levels that will make many coastal communities uninhabitable or unusable.  The US Navy is taking this into account in their construction of bases as they're inherently on the water and in zones where there is nothing we can do to reverse our effect on the climate.

[kallend 2,114]

5 hours ago, cjwilt said:

realclimatescience.com

Have you been taking lessons from Marc Rush?

[kallend 2,114]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 

And Michael Mann, was a grad student when he concocted the hockey stick.

Stephen Hawking was a grad student when he showed the Big Bang to be consistent with general relativity.

Jocelyn Bell was a grad student when she discovered the pulsar.

(and as it happens, I knew them both)

Lawrence Bragg was a grad student when he invented X-Ray Crystallogaphy.

That statement of yours was one of the more stupid ones that ypu have made.

Coleman, OTOH, was just a TV personality with NO training in climate science. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by kallend

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

NOBODY said that the "wiped out" "destroyed" "flooded" etc was going to happen in 2000, 2008, 2010 or whatever combination you want to pick.  They said that if we don't reach the goal of X by that date then Y will happen at some point further down the road.  We are currently on an irreversible path for several of those things the next question is what other irreversible things will occur, the final question is whether we will hit a tipping point that causes a global warming feedback loop of which we are incapable of reversing.  On example of a current irreversible even is rising sea levels that will make many coastal communities uninhabitable or unusable.  The US Navy is taking this into account in their construction of bases as they're inherently on the water and in zones where there is nothing we can do to reverse our effect on the climate.

But...

But...
But...

That doesn't sound good. That doesn't take the quote out of context to try to support an irrational point of view.

 

It was said a page or two back that there's a 'belief' that climate change is bullshit, done to take advantage and make money.

No science, no evidence,, no supporting data, no nothing. 

Just a 'belief'.

 

Attack the scientists, attack the data, try to pretend that it's not happening. 

But there's no actual data that contradicts the findings that it's real, it's happening and we are in the process of destroying ourselves.

The level of denial is frightening.

[brenthutch 444]

And you guys think the GND will fix all of that, got it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

And you guys think the GND will fix all of that, got it.

No. 

But pretending it's not happening will only make it worse.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

And you guys think the GND will fix all of that, got it.

Wasn't your post before this about how snark wasn't required?

I don't think anybody here thinks the Green New Deal will fix that. At least not in the sense you mean. The Green New Deal does appear to have restarted a conversation. It has brought conservatives to the table with a counter proposal. Having these discussions and finding a way forward could at least partially "fix things".

[brenthutch 444]

Currently the US has had BELOW AVERAGE temperature for the start of 2019.  NOT the highest, NOT amongst the highest, NOT above average, NOT even average but BELOW average.  According to NOAA, global temperatures have been DROPPING for the last three years, all the while CO2 continues to skyrocket.  If this doesn’t make you question your genuflecting at the altar of catastrophic man-made global warming, there is no hope for you.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

No genuflecting at an altar. Just trust the consensus of scientists more than I trust your cherry-picking of comments from non-scientists.

[kallend 2,114]

32 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Currently the US has had BELOW AVERAGE temperature for the start of 2019.  NOT the highest, NOT amongst the highest, NOT above average, NOT even average but BELOW average.  According to NOAA, global temperatures have been DROPPING for the last three years, all the while CO2 continues to skyrocket.  If this doesn’t make you question your genuflecting at the altar of catastrophic man-made global warming, there is no hope for you.

Another one who equates the US with the world.

And either misunderstands or misrepresents what he reads.

[brenthutch 444]

I do believe I sited NOAA’s GLOBAL temperature data for the last three years.  Do you believe them or are those guys just a bunch of deniers.

I apologize for including both national as well as global temperatures in my response.  It clearly flummoxed some folks.  I didn’t intend to cause confusion.  Again I’m sorry.

Edited April 11, 2019 by brenthutch

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

12 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I do believe I sited NOAA’s GLOBAL temperature data for the last three years. 

I don't believe you actually cited anything. 

 

You made a claim about NOAA data. I did a quick search and didn't find anything about the first three months. And apparently 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record.

[brenthutch 444]

13 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I don't believe you actually cited anything. 

 

You made a claim about NOAA data. I did a quick search and didn't find anything about the first three months. And apparently 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record.

That doesn’t change the fact, according to NOAA, global temperatures have been going DOWN since 2016.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Well, yet again you make a claim without backing it up. 

 

So, again, I did a quick search to see if I could find out if what you say is true or false.

Apparently, the temps have been down a bit since 2016. For a couple different reasons. Including the fact that 2016 is the hottest year on record.
And we've been in an 'La Nina' period, where temps do come down a bit.

So all you are doing is repeating the 'But it stopped in 1998' claim.

 

Which was also false.

Note: This is a link. It's a source of information that backs up what I wrote. Try it sometime.

WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/04/26/global-temperatures-have-cooled-since-2016-heres-why-thats-normal/?utm_term=.27d58b79c30c

[DJL 235]

17 hours ago, brenthutch said:

And you guys think the GND will fix all of that, got it.

This is a familiar sentence structure; "(Thing that I don't agree with and isn't valid but can make the argument dismissable), got it."

I have to ask, what aspect of the GND do you disagree with?

[brenthutch 444]

Just all of the “big government” and “social justice” stuff, other than that it is great.

[kallend 2,114]

58 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That doesn’t change the fact, according to NOAA, global temperatures have been going DOWN since 2016.

Today is colder than yesterday in Chicago.  Proves conclusively that summer is canceled this year. </sarcasm>

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

Today is colder than yesterday in Chicago.  Proves conclusively that summer is canceled this year. </sarcasm>

Thank you for your cunning insight, but we aren't talking about one day in Chicago, we are talking about three years and the entire globe. 

BTW I wonder how the good folks in Fargo are feeling about their 12-14 inches of global warming today.

[DJL 235]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Thank you for your cunning insight, but we aren't talking about one day in Chicago, we are talking about three years and the entire globe. 

BTW I wonder how the good folks in Fargo are feeling about their 12-14 inches of global warming today.

This isn't exactly the most independent source but it's good enough for the color-by-numbers narrative:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02022018/cold-weather-polar-vortex-jet-stream-explained-global-warming-arctic-ice-climate-change

[brenthutch 444]

From your article 

"A team of climate experts who conducted a fast analysis of the late December 2017-early 2018 East Coast cold snap said they didn't find a link to Arctic temperature or sea ice conditions for that particular event"

The polar vortex phenomenon was first described in 1853 long before any supposed AGW, so the whole "its cold because its hot" narrative doesn't hold water.

Edited April 11, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 235]

 

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

From your article 

"A team of climate experts who conducted a fast analysis of the late December 2017-early 2018 East Coast cold snap said they didn't find a link to Arctic temperature or sea ice conditions for that particular event"

The polar vortex phenomenon was first described in 1853 long before any supposed AGW, so the whole "its cold because its hot" narrative doesn't hold water.

Oh good god, I was trying to find a quick description of the fact that climate change has put the jet stream out of whack.  No, polar vortexes don't now exist because of climate change, they are occurring more frequently because the jet stream is out of whack.  During the winter it usually creates a barrier that holds cold air within the arctic circle.  When it oscillates it pulls cold air out meaning more snow in the northern states and frequent polar vortexes. 

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say about arctic sea ice or temperatures.

Edited April 11, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 444]

Read your article.  The very thing you are claiming is undercut by the article you linked to.  

[DJL 235]

18 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Read your article.  The very thing you are claiming is undercut by the article you linked to.  

I did and to finish the sentence you cherry picked:

"A team of climate experts who conducted a fast analysis of the late December 2017-early 2018 East Coast cold snap said they didn't find a link to Arctic temperature or sea ice conditions for that particular event, though the authors noted that their work was a quick analysis and not an in-depth modeling study. They did find that cold spells aren't as cold as they would be in a climate unaltered by greenhouse gases."