Nice find Baron.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:50pm:


Thanks Bobby

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:


Keep up the good work. 

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 9:23pm:


Really.....and you reckon you are Moderator material.....sneakily altering what people post....(in this case....me.)  Nah.  Not on Bobby.

No Moderator post for you!

Aussie wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 9:59pm:



OK - in future - I will just point out your disrespect for attacking David DuByne as a snake oil salesman.

Otherwise - I'll just ignore your nasty trolling posts.

Once again - Aussie attacks the man not the message.

Why do posters take the easy way out-
just put labels on someone they don't like?

Call them a snake oil salesman - don't say why -
that would be too intellectually difficult.

Think of any form of abuse -
argumentum ad hominem.




http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem


ad hominem


"You are an idiot, therefore you are wrong."

An ad hominem (short for argumentum ad hominem) is a personal attack. It is by far the most common logical fallacy encountered in online forums. It carries the assumption that by discrediting your opponent, you are also discrediting their argument. However, this would lead to the absurd situation that an argument is correct if one person uses it, and false if another uses it. Inexperienced debaters often fall for this and feel the need to defend their reputation against a troll, otherwise it will invalidate the point they are trying to make in the eyes of others.

An ad hominem is not always a logical fallacy. For example, if someone claims that their point of view on a technical issue carries more weight because they are a scientist then it would be reasonable to point out that they did not complete their PhD. It would not be reasonable to point out that they are divorced, or a socialist.

Merely insulting someone is not technically an ad hominem unless it is done in a way that discredits their argument – however, it is still inappropriate.

The opposite fallacy to ad hominem is ‘appeal to authority,’ claiming that the good qualities of a person making an argument support that argument.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:50am:



Yes. And it still does.

California - 200 year drought -  before AGW. So plenty of natural variation.

Claims of AGW for Cyclone Harvey - but Harvey stalled over Houston for 4 days, constantly being replenished. But it was AGW "wot dunnit".

From your link -

"Today, scientists still generally agree that it's impossible to attribute any individual weather phenomenon solely to climate change. Storms, fires, droughts and other events are influenced by a variety of complex factors. And they're all acting at once, including both natural components of the climate system and sometimes unrelated human activities. For instance, a wildfire may be made more likely by hot, dry weather conditions, and by human land-use practices."

"New scientific data debunks the hyperventilating journalists suggesting the latest hurricanes to hit the United States, Harvey and Irma, were the cause of man-made Climate Change.

As explained by environmental analyst Nicholas Loris — who cites findings and analysis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the National Hurricane Center — "Man-made warming did not cause Harvey and Irma."

"As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have increased, there have been no trends in global tropical cycle landfalls," states Loris. "Before Harvey and Irma, with a little bit of luck, the United States was in a 12-year hurricane drought. More importantly, the average number of hurricanes per decade reaching landfall in the U.S. has fallen over the past 160 years." "
https://www.dailywire.com/news/21289/study-no-hurricanes-harvey-and-irma-were-no...

And then there were the claims that the four hurricanes at one time was confirmation of AGW.

Damn JM you are getting sillier and sillier.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 10:31pm:


Excellent idea Bobby   

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:



So if true,  it is ok to pay for articles that promote climate change but not the other way around?

That really is hypocritical isn't it?

" We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks."

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspec...

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:27pm:



Didn't answer the question HYPOCRITE.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:27pm:



There is far more evidence for smoking causing cancer than there is for AGW.

Show us the evidence; not climate models but evidence.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:57pm:



Try googling Rockefeller funding climate science or similar.
Try googling Rockefeller funding for Greenpeace.

Just a couple of hits.
https://theartofthehierophant.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/rockefeller-part-1-controlling-the-game/comment-page-1/
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/08/big-green-hypocrites/

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:57pm:



The truth is you haven't read the report so you don't know.

You can read it at this link -
http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.p...

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 10:00pm:



Big noting yourself? I don't know.

So let's have a look at that Abstract.

"The findings indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk for the extreme heat waves assessed in this report. How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear, indicating that natural variability likely played a much larger role in these extremes. "

Maybe natural variability played the whole role?

Heat waves - "The Australian summer of 2012/13 was the warmest since records began in 1910 (Bureau of Meteorology 2013a). "

Actually records go back further than 1880. Back then, like now, there were large areas of the continent with no weather stations. So much for measuring heatwaves in Australia.

California Droughts - "The  2013  event  in  historical  context.  The 12-month precipitation and GPH anomalies are both unprecedented in the observational record (Fig. 2.1a,e). "

Figure 2.1c only goes back to about 1900. California has longer records than that.

Then of course we have "BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur."

www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/science/severe-ancient-droughts-a-warning-to-californ...

Published 1994.

Heavy rain events - "Nonetheless, the 2013 heavy rainfall event was large in spatial scale. Weather predictability of the event per se is not addressed herein (see Hamill 2014), but rather how climate change may have affected the relative likelihood of heavy precipitation in this large region. For this purpose, the modeled statistics of  heavy  five-day  rainfall  of  the recent 30-year period (1983–2012) are compared to that of the last 30 years of the 19th century."

Right climate models again.

Storms - " While these anomalies were significantly less than those associated with other blizzards in the region, they were comparable to 24 major snowstorms in Grumm and Hart (2001). These moderately strong anomalies suggest the storm system was intense, regardless of season, but not unprecedented in terms of 500-hPa heights."

Oh, NOT unprecedented.

Perhaps you did read it, just didn't understand it.

Quote:


I agree with the NOAA on this one.
No one single weather event can either prove or disprove global warming.
Global warming is about long term trends and probabilities that can only be seen over decades. This isn't "sexy" enough for the media though.

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 11:08pm:


Quote:


How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear

Less clear, not proven wrong.

indicating that natural variability

likely

played a much larger role in these extremes

Or maybe the natural variations were impacted by climate change and maybe it had a substantial impact. Where they talk about water currents there is no indication of how much is normal and what percentage may be influenced by change for instance, we know the water is warmer.

Also where they talk about  extreme ridging events which block storms moving into the California region from the sea. At one point they point out that the recent events have been unusually prolonged and much higher than in the past. In a separate section they associate that hight with the duration and also the hight is associated with reduced sea ice. That is that reduced sea ice in the north is thought to drive a higher ridge which lasts longer.

This is natural variability ? But the amount of sea ICE is linked to global warming so maybe not as natural as first thought.

Not sure why the report didn't link those two assessments made in the same report ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 12:35pm:



Saying people should read the report is NOT the same as having read the report.

You could of course have given a link to the report. That would show at least you knew where it was. it still wouldn't have shown you had read the report.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 1:33pm:



Is this warmer environment warmer or cooler than the melting temperature of the ice?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 1:33pm:



It is called refrigeration for a reason.

Do you know CO2 can be used as a coolant?