Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[seldomseen]

And how will a carbon tax on Canadians make any difference in that 410 number?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So 20 million years ago the C02 concentration was over 400 ppm and sea levels were 25 feet higher than today. So the question begs to be asked, today we are at 410 ppm with little rise in sea level, does this not blow a hole in everything you have just stated?

I was hoping to try to draw that conclusion out of the alarmists themselves. However, logic such as that seems to be lost on them.

[dmlfarmer]

I presented a bunch of facts which are real World observations in a world where CO2 is over 400 ppm. We are in the middle of an experiment with CO2. And so far, the real time results are entirely favorable, and seem to be disproving the CO2 controls temperature hypothesis(at least at these lofty levels, CO2 as a greenhouse gas at lower concentrations is well established)

And please don't confuse human caused desertification, a major environmental catastrophe(which we could actually solve), with the natural greening of deserts due to increased CO2 and decreased droughts.

you gave no facts! you made a bunch of statements with no supporting evidence. Give me a source of the real world observations you claim are being made. Show me the same consideration you expect when you demand facts from those who believe in climate change. Show me real data, not just headlines.

[dmlfarmer]

So 20 million years ago the C02 concentration was over 400 ppm and sea levels were 25 feet higher than today. So the question begs to be asked, today we are at 410 ppm with little rise in sea level, does this not blow a hole in everything you have just stated?

Tell me Hamloc, if you put a large pot of water on your stove to boil and turn the burner on, does the water instantly boil? So if you do not expect instant boiling when heating a pot of water, why do you think it is a valid argument that the earth must instantly heat to the level of 20 million years ago as CO2 increases to that level over just the few decades.

[furrowtickler]

If CO2 have no impact on temperature, precipitation, or weather patterns I would likely agree with much of your list. However, I am sorry I was not clearer with my question so let me rephrase:

Given that CO2 levels over last 800,000 years through ice ages, and interglacial warm periods have never exceeded 300ppm,
and given the last time CO2 levels exceeded 400ppm was over 20 million years ago
and given that sea levels when this occurred were 250 feet higher
and global temperatures were 3 to 6C higher when CO2 levels were above 400ppm
and that historically we have always found a close association between temperatures, seal levels, and CO2 levels
please present factual based data showing what the effect will be to global temperatures and precipitation amounts since CO2 levels are now above 410ppm.

BTW, you keep demanding factual data from anyone presenting climate change theory, so please present facts for each of the wish list you gave. Start with the savannah overtaking deserts seeing as the Gobi desert, western Australian desert, Sahara desert are all continuing to expand

“We have always found a close ......”
sooo , your a climate scientist and a farmer ??? Who knew......

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Tell me Hamloc, if you put a large pot of water on your stove to boil and turn the burner on, does the water instantly boil? So if you do not expect instant boiling when heating a pot of water, why do you think it is a valid argument that the earth must instantly heat to the level of 20 million years ago as CO2 increases to that level over just the few decades.

No, but if I put the pot on, and made a hypothesis that it would boil within a certain period of time, then observed that it not only did not boil, but instead warmed for a period, then cooled, then was nearly constant etc., after 3 plus decades of futility expecting the water to boil, I would revisit the original hypothesis. And likely propose that a different mechanism may be at work.

But as for providing facts to support the null hypothesis, that is not a requirement of the scientific process, it is the responsibility of the party presenting the radical proposition that is not supported by all observed evidence to prove their theory, and disprove the null hypothesis. Science doesn't have to prove that the solar system isn't earth centric every time a crackpot claims the sun revolves around the earth.

When your side starts presenting some actual evidence of catastrophic warming, then I will concern myself with the cause.

If real world, real time observations aren't permissible evidence in your circles, then I guess you will have to stick with your models, and keep trying to make the data fit the models.

[sumdumguy]

One fellow at the community gardens was furious that cars parking along the gardens put CO2 on his garden. I told him greenhouse operators buy CO2 generators to boost the gardens. They pay for CO2.

[Radical]

mailto:?body=https://www.therebel.media/liberals-knew-carbon-tax-would-strip-billions-in-gdp-annually-internal-documents

[Radical]

OVEMBER 16, 2015
Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data
When scientists falsify data, they try to cover it up by writing differently in their published works. A pair of Stanford researchers have devised a way of identifying these written clues.

Facebook

Twitter

Email
BY BJORN CAREY
white-coated doctor with hands behind his back; one hand has fingers crossed in gesture indicating he's lying
Stanford communication scholars have devised an ‘obfuscation index’ that can help catch falsified scientific research before it is published.

Even the best poker players have “tells” that give away when they’re bluffing with a weak hand. Scientists who commit fraud have similar, but even more subtle, tells, and a pair of Stanford researchers have cracked the writing patterns of scientists who attempt to pass along falsified data.

The work, published in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, could eventually help scientists identify falsified research before it is published.

There is a fair amount of research dedicated to understanding the ways liars lie. Studies have shown that liars generally tend to express more negative emotion terms and use fewer first-person pronouns. Fraudulent financial reports typically display higher levels of linguistic obfuscation – phrasing that is meant to distract from or conceal the fake data – than accurate reports.

To see if similar patterns exist in scientific academia, Jeff Hancock, a professor of communication at Stanford, and graduate student David Markowitz searched the archives of PubMed, a database of life sciences journals, from 1973 to 2013 for retracted papers. They identified 253, primarily from biomedical journals, that were retracted for documented fraud and compared the writing in these to unretracted papers from the same journals and publication years, and covering the same topics.

They then rated the level of fraud of each paper using a customized “obfuscation index,” which rated the degree to which the authors attempted to mask their false results. This was achieved through a summary score of causal terms, abstract language, jargon, positive emotion terms and a standardized ease of reading score.

“We believe the underlying idea behind obfuscation is to muddle the truth,” said Markowitz, the lead author on the paper. “Scientists faking data know that they are committing a misconduct and do not want to get caught. Therefore, one strategy to evade this may be to obscure parts of the paper. We suggest that language can be one of many variables to differentiate between fraudulent and genuine science.”

The results showed that fraudulent retracted papers scored significantly higher on the obfuscation index than papers retracted for other reasons. For example, fraudulent papers contained approximately 1.5 percent more jargon than unretracted papers.

“Fradulent papers had about 60 more jargon-like words per paper compared to unretracted papers,” Markowitz said. “This is a non-trivial amount.”

The researchers say that scientists might commit data fraud for a variety of reasons. Previous research points to a “publish or perish” mentality that may motivate researchers to manipulate their findings or fake studies altogether. But the change the researchers found in the writing, however, is directly related to the author’s goals of covering up lies through the manipulation of language. For instance, a fraudulent author may use fewer positive emotion terms to curb praise for the data, for fear of triggering inquiry.

[Radical]

Scientists Aren’t Dumb; They’re Just Liars, Say Totally Reputable Scientists
by Rollin Bishop | 7:10 pm, October 1st, 2012 0
submit to reddit


Scientific papers being retracted after publication isn’t some kind of new phenomenon. The age of press releases might have made such snafus a more widely-known event, but it’s one of those things that happens from time to time. Common wisdom was that the majority of retractions were due to errors present in the work, but a new study has concluded that it’s actually misconduct like fraud or plagiarism that causes most retractions. In other words, scientists aren’t dumb; they’re just liars.