×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

cbeaudry Re:Hypocrites, liars and communists. (441 comments)

And we are supposed to take you seriously when you post this kind of drivel?

Broke the chart? Its childish scaremongering.

The temperature increase is 0.09C, that is why they have converted to using "Ocean Heat Content" instead of temperatures and created an elaborate story to explain why joules (which is meaningless) is their new way to scaring people instead of the actual temperature increase.

3 days ago
top

Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

cbeaudry Re:Hypocrites, liars and communists. (441 comments)

This is unfortunately getting boring because you obviously know nothing on the subject but talking points and really dont care about the subject matter, other than wanting to "win points" for being right.

1. It doesnt need to be disproven, it has not been proven. A very very shaky theory was put forth, seemingly supported by some data. However, it is up to the authors to actually make follow up papers using empirical data from observations supporting their theory or to just drop it.

2. There is no debate from you. All the scientists on the AGW side, follow a mantra, very few argue with each other, they toe the line. The rebuttals HAVE to come from the other side, but you will ignore them BECAUSE... right wing... Which is a term that just makes no real sense outside of the US. You do not care for an actual source.

3. I didint mention water vapor, you did. Do you even "f**king" know what a strawman argument is? You are an example. Everyone of your posts has had at least 1 strawman argument. Look it up.

4. About skeptics and goal posts. Its easy to put everyone who disagrees with AGW theories in 1 basket. When in fact there are 2,3,5, 10 baskets. Yes, some denied it even was warming, some still do. But many of the current prominent skeptics where actually climate scientists who where part of the IPCC in AR1 or 2. They have come to see how wrong the AGW theories are and are trying to show this scientificaly. You wont listen to them, because? Your side is "righteous"!!!

5. Nice one about the publishing. They publish ALL THE TIME on the internet. But you ignore them because its not "peer reviewed". So... re-read your self and lets see if your circular reasoning and idiotic thinking makes your head explode.

6. Rush limbaug?? WHO the... what the fuck...?? Why would you bring that idiot up?

7. So what if Australia had a hot summer, you damn idiot. Weather isnt climate RIGHT??? RIGHT???? Fuck, you cant even follow your own instructions.

8. Considering all the points about, your last sentence is hollow. You have no beliefs, as you are completely ignorant on the matter. You also have no idea which leg to stand on and what kind of shit to fling. Stop debating, start reading.

about a week ago
top

NASA, NOAA: 2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record

cbeaudry Re:call me skeptical (360 comments)

It will be my pleasure to edumicate you sir.
Error Bar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

This is from the NOAA Global Analysis - Annual 2014.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

In the above, there is a section called TOP 10 Warmest Years (1988 to 2014).

The anomaly is the divergence from the 20th century average, which is how they compare the global mean temps for one year to each other.

2014 is warmer by 0.04c compared to 2010 and 2005.

If you look further down, it shows the global mean temp for 2014, January to December.
It shows the anomaly in C (+0.69) and next to it you will see a + and - indication, that is the ERROR BAR. The error bar is 0.09C.

So to recap. 2014 is the WARMIEST of all the super duper warm years. By 0.04C. But the error can be + or - 0.09C. You see, 0.04C gets wiped right out by the error bar.

Your bank account is NOT a good comparison example. Because it is hard currency, there is no error bar. The bank will never say, you havea 1000$ in your savings account, + or - 50$.

Now, if you pay close attention to the anomalies for top 10 warmest years, you will find that they all, from 10 to 1 fall within the error bars of the empirical data.

The reason for error bars is, there is no way to be sure with 100% certainty down to a hundredth of a degree C what the global mean temp is. Its scientifically impossible with current technologies and measurements.

Now, one last thing. And probably the most important.

Hidden in the supplemental information, found here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

The NOAA's NCDC states that the change of 2014 being the warmest year on record is 48%.

48% in NCDC speak means "MORE UNLIKELY THAN LIKELY".

Meaning, "we honestly believe, it was NOT the warmest year on record".
That should have been the first thing on the front page of the report. However, they preferred their report to mislead, so as to get alarmist headlines in the news.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

about a week ago
top

SpaceX Landing Attempt Video Released

cbeaudry "More unlikely than likely" (248 comments)

48% confidence that 2014 is the warmest year on record. (Straight from the 2014 NOAA state of climate report)

Warmest year on record, by 0.04C with an error margin of 0.09C (Seriously?)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

about two weeks ago
top

NASA, NOAA: 2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record

cbeaudry Re:call me skeptical (360 comments)

This year is warming (according to their data) by 0.02C.
The error bars for temperature readings would wipe that right out.

about two weeks ago
top

NASA, NOAA: 2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record

cbeaudry Re:call me skeptical (360 comments)

I believe you are frothing at the mouth. And would deny anything that contradicts your believe. Your language clearly demonstrates this.
You would ignore anything, regardless or the source.

about two weeks ago
top

NASA, NOAA: 2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record

cbeaudry Re:call me skeptical (360 comments)

And what consequences are we seeing now?

about two weeks ago
top

NASA, NOAA: 2014 Was the Warmest Year In the Modern Record

cbeaudry Re:Do you really buy your own BS? (360 comments)

So completely false, its not even funny anymore.

Global average MAX temps have not changed in that period of time.

Only global average minimum temps have risen, which has risen the global MEAN temp.

To reiterate, there has been no change in average maximum temperatures. This is not a denier talking point, asking any NASA, NOAA, NCDC or IPCC scientist.

about two weeks ago
top

Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

cbeaudry Re:Hypocrites, liars and communists. (441 comments)

That is one of 53+ and counting reasons theorized for the warming hiatus or pause of the last 18 years.

I'm not saying its false, though there has been many articles pointing out some flaws in some of the data and conclusions on that.

But it is still only 1 theory of many.

Fact is, we dont have reliable data for ocean heat content before ARGO, so what is to say what we are observing is new or not part of the natural cycle?

El nino years create huge spikes in temperatures, its part of the natural process and transfers much heat into the atmosphere, but it does so in a spike, not for 10, 20 years.

So your statement that Eventually though it stops being able to do that and the atmospheric heating continues...now with a warmer ocean to boot. doesnt explain the whole process or even part of it at all.

It is a complex system, and skeptics study it and one of the main skeptics points is that there is much more to climate than just CO2.

"Nope, no problems" is something you just said, not skeptics with science backgrounds trying to get their studies published, but being rejected because it doesnt jive with the IPCC.

Climate is not weather, weather is not climate. We all know that, its funny how this is brought up by people like you for winter, but you all keep silent everytime there is a scientist or when the media brings it up when there is a hot week or warm spell for a short time.

Seems the bias is strong on the warming side in politics and in the media. But thats ok right? Because it fits with your beliefs.

about two weeks ago
top

Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

cbeaudry Re:Hypocrites, liars and communists. (441 comments)

Why would I listen to someone who just believes?

http://business.financialpost....

Polar bar populations are thriving. It is the best conservation success story.
From 5000 in the 60's to 25000 in 2013-14.

Read Susan Crockfords article. It shows clearly that the scientists tasked to monitoring polar bear populations are more interested in keeping their jobs than showing the truth.

Its important that we freeze in winter because energy costs are going up, you idiot. Not because it has anything to do with climate.

Your problem and the AGW crowds problem is fighting a "currently" non-issue, due to faked data and faulty science, and that fight is causing REAL WORLD problems right now in the present.

about two weeks ago
top

Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

cbeaudry Re:Hypocrites, liars and communists. (441 comments)

Indeed. Sweep that under the carpet.

Why hasn't it risen? CO2 has certainly risen. If CO2 went up, than the temperature should have gone up, if that did, Water vapor should be up.

But all of a sudden, your basic laws of 3rd grade physics which is the greenhouse effect, just suddenly don't apply?... they stopped functioning for over a decade. Why?

about two weeks ago
top

Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

cbeaudry Re:Hypocrites, liars and communists. (441 comments)

Are you serious?

Hundreds of billions have been spent worldwide over the last 20-30 years on climate research. That numbers go up very high if you included alternative energies (however... that is a place I approve of for spending, but done right).

Koch brothers wouldnt spend that amount on disinformation, its impossible.

I'm not saying there isnt any lobbying from the fossil fuel industry, there certainly is. But everytime someone posts anything in disagrement with the Church of Global Warming of later day carbon credits, all we get is "But Koch Brothers...".

I'm Canadian. I dont givash*t for the Koch brothers, your congress or your senate. I just care that here in Quebec, our government is enacting California style laws and carbon taxes, which no one else in north america has adopted yet. But our supreme leaders feel that regardless of our shrinking economy, enormous job losses in the last 2 years and that we are on the bring of a recession, its still ok to gouge us on energy prices.

WE ARENT CALIFORNIA. People freeze to death in winter.

Take your Koch brothers argument, and find a better one.
You can start by showing me a climate model that actually tracks with observed data.

about two weeks ago
top

Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

cbeaudry Re:Hypocrites, liars and communists. (441 comments)

Umm, actually, the combined grant money of all nations currently investing in global warming research has more money than the Koch Brothers.

about two weeks ago
top

Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

cbeaudry Re:Hypocrites, liars and communists. (441 comments)

Problem is the NVAP program hasnt shown an increase in water vapour.

The slight warming we are experiencing seems to be only from climate sensitivity to CO2 and that sensitivity is on the low side of the models, very very low.

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss On Scientists As Celebrities: Good For Science?

cbeaudry Re:Yes. (227 comments)

I got that from your post, because you posted it about "denialism" and did not make a comment about it being equally true for the AGW side.

Thats the problem, now, you use a more moderate tone and say there are extremist on both sides, but If I had not called you on it, would you have come back to make those statements?

So someone who has a leaning towards believing AGW dogma, because he's a lefty, because he's a greeny, because he just has no idea but figures "I have children, and CO2 must be a pollutant, they all say so, oh and look those who speak against AGW science are Koch brother shils and religious nutjobs".

When you categorise one side into 1 box, and you speak forcefully, you help make up the minds of those who dont really know anything on the subject and then they believe you and Greenpeace and Leonardo DiCaprio."

You also try to reduce it down to basic physics. As if we are all just too dumb to understand grade 3 science. As if it was that simple, when you have PHD Dr. in Science actively disagreeing on so many of the nuances. Its not black and white, its a whole lot of grey and there is still a mountain of information we just dont have.

Yes, CO2 IR trapping properties known as a fact. Sensitivity is also pretty well known at around 1C to 1.2C for a doubling of CO2.
That is taking into account nothing else but CO2.

When you start adding all other factors, the current theories that CO2 is a forcing for Water Vapor and that increased water vapor can only lead to more heat... that is not established as fact yet. Also, models cant simulate natural processes like ENSO and PDO and those models cannot be relied upon to make policy.

Recent studies showing:

- Thickness of Antarctic Ice his much higher than estimated
- Water vapor has not really changed in the last 20-30 years, shown by satellites (if it hasnt, than warming beyond 1.2C for doubling of CO2 just doesnt hold up)
- Global mean temps, though higher than 30 years ago, havent really increased in the last 18years and 4 months (the pause or hiatus), all the while CO2 has steadily climbed up. If CO2 has gone up, why have "the basic laws of physics" changed and temps no longer increase? There are 52 reasons and counting, all theories.
- Bias in temperature measurements left unchecked (In higher elevations, US western mountains, SNOTEL) University of Montana study.Only after a rigorous audit has this been found.

My point is, if you shut out those who dont believe in the dogma as if it was the word of god, you will only listen to the preachers. (the general you).

And that is what the media is doing now and what the politicians would want as well.

I can take your own phrase : And yes, it would make life a lot easier for alarmists if the asshole scientists would just shut up and learn their place, and stay out of the way of the politicians. But golly gosh, some of these Scientists care and have big mouths.

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss On Scientists As Celebrities: Good For Science?

cbeaudry Re:Yes. (227 comments)

Have a nice day.

Its obvious you don't care about the science, you only want to be right and win the debate.
You like to categorise everything in black and white, while the world is actually a whole lot of grey.

There is truth on both sides, but you ignore the side that doesn't agree with you.

The difference is, us sceptics (not the religious nut deniers), we read all the papers and as many articles are we can from both sides, we don't ignore anything. But then we point out where things just don't stand up to proper observations or things that just are plain old wrong. /s You are obviously on the righteous side.

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss On Scientists As Celebrities: Good For Science?

cbeaudry Re:Yes. (227 comments)

Its allot more complicated than that.

You know, one thing I find particularly annoying is this Left, right hate, Republican, Democrate and everything that comes with it.

As an outsider (from Canada), its astonishing how easy it is for Americans to reduce everything to left, right. As if there is no middle ground, or nothing in between the 2.

Back to topic, I'm a Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptic. I don't deny science, I research scientific papers, read them, draw conclusions, read others comments about them (when It sometimes goes beyond my understanding) and draw conclusions from that, to eventually make up my own opinion on the subject.

In my opinion, politics have been in climate science from the get go. This is not new, the whole modern field of climate science (late 80's to today) has been shaped around the IPCC and the main driver is how to blame the late 21st century warming on man. That is the whole goal of the IPCC, right in its charter. No other answer is possible, because the cause was pre-determined.

Because the IPCC is a political organisation and it had pre-determined the cause, the scientific community has been split and there is heavy debating.
On the one side, you have those that see everything in CO2 colored glasses (and CO2 is a factor, no doubt about it, but not the only one)
And on the other side, those whose research tell them, CO2 isnt the only factor, and sometimes might not even be the main driving factor.

Of course, there are nutjobs on both side. Scaremongers, alarmists and outright deniers of real science on the AGW side.
And there are religious nuts (the creationist, and anti-vaccene kind), science deniers, and interest based deniers on the anti-AGW side.

Whats dangerous, is only letting the pro AGW scientists speak in the media, because that cuts out other real scientists, with something important to contribute that are looking at the world with CO2 colored glasses.

Sorry for rambling on, but this issue, is just so much more complicated than left or right, denier and alarmist.

about two weeks ago
top

Lawrence Krauss On Scientists As Celebrities: Good For Science?

cbeaudry Re:Yes. (227 comments)

You think you are being a smart ass, but you seem to have blurred the lines between fact and conjecture.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

cbeaudry hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

cbeaudry has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?