Clay Bennett for December 01, 2019

Truth isn’t truth, and science isn’t science.

There’s no “R” in climate science, so it must be fake.

Who needs science when we can rely on Trump’s gut feeling?

Sixty years ago the Republicans had the most college-educated members, today that is true of the Democratic party. The “Republican party” (in name only) now has the prize for having the most non-progressive, wealthy, non-college-educated members … a group that equates fact and conspiracy theory (e.g. climate change denial, the poor don’t work hard enough, most immigrants are criminals, eugenics, etc).

Will their culture reverse again in 60 years or will the “Republican party” vanish?

A trump supporter, for sure….BOO HISS! They wouldn’t recognize the truth If it hit them alongside their empty heads……((((((((SMACK))))))))

The nonexistent climate change is causing big problems for the French wine industry. French grapes being liberal are ripening too early and are not as acidic as they should be.

The GOP, collectively & individually, certainly knows how to KISS.

It’s pretty clear that society’s attention span is severely limited [we’re all kind of busy], and that the most effective way of gaining popular support is to espouse & promote simple ‘common sense’ POVs that align with what most voting citizens already want to believe.

easy-peasy

Republicans in general are not stupid — they know for a fact that AGW is real and almost certainly deadly.

The ‘featured commentator’ on this thread is a sealioner. How many ways from Sunday you prove them wrong really is irrelevant — they win simply because their ‘target market’ already wants to agree with that POV — and disagrees with you simply because you are proving/telling them that they are wrong.

If there is any way to convey AGW factual information in a relatively simple format — utterly devoid of any political connection or ‘us vs. them’ mentality — we might all come together and help to rescue the environment. Until then, leave us leave the troll sealions to themselves.

Wow! They’re way more advanced than I thought.

Climate change: Greenhouse gas concentrations again break records

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases once again reached new highs in 2018.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.

Since 1990 there’s been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

China coal surge threatens Paris climate targets

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50504131?fbclid=IwAR1ZR5Pm_tSpjh-WCSE3Pz4F9yKuNoF6_py7o7BSKa9kklH88KVuuXvfAb0

There was a fascinating paper released by McFadden & Lusk that explains why people believe in UFOs but not in climate change, are afraid of genetically modified food and vaccinations, etc. The reasons include: misinterpreting information, illusionary correlations, selectively scrutinizing information, information-processing problems, knowledge, political affiliation, and cognitive function.

Robinson Crusoe.

“We’re gonna need a longer thermometer.”

“No problem. I’ve invented one that’s just an image printed on a piece of cardboard. And see? It’s laminated!”

Here is an example of climate change information that is for middle school children so it should be easy enough even for deniers to understand.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/climate-change/

When supercomputers can accurately make a ten day prediction of the path (or even the intensity) of a relatively simple system like a hurricane, I’ll start to give credence to their hundred year climate predictions.

GIGO.

What a load of bs from old cross-eyes. If hurricanes were “simple” systems, their behavior would in fact be computable. I know this because I have studied geophysical fluid dynamics. Simple models tend to work pretty well,

But real systems are never simple, so the argument made above is just crap, crap, and more crap. To claim that a hurricane is a simple system is to ignore that it’s behavior takes place in a rather more complex and changing environment. A high pressure system coming from the west may save the east coast from devastating landfall, or a high pressure system to the east may cause it. Where those happen depends on dynamics, influenced by local thermal conditions, etc. So the argument is worthless.

The thing is, the climate predictions might be more accurate because they work from averages rather than specific local conditions. Which is kind of the point of Lonecat’s response to old cross-eys above. In any case, climate models do not have to say that the temperature at B will be exactly 2C higher at the time given, or that at point A is will be 1.8C. Climate models are predictors in the larger sense, and are not to be confused with weather models. (I have some familiarity with the latter because I worked with the Navy’s COAMPS model in real world applications.)

Here’s something the deniers can never answer to: When all climate models are run without man created greenhouse gases, they predict that current global average temperature would be slightly lower than it was in about 1975. Instead it is significantly higher.

The other thing that the deniers here fail to understand is that it is not the models that tell us that things are changing.

It is data of all kinds collected mostly by people who do not get research money for climate.

The behavior of pollinating plants, insects, birds, and other animals is changing in response to warming that facilitates earlier natural cycles of growth, reproduction, etc.

It is the measurements of thousands of people who make measurements of tides. And more people who make measurements of temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction at airports and weather radar stations. People recording the now, which will be used by others to model the next.

The people who find coral reefs dying are not paid to say that it is because of higher temperatures. Higher temperatures are what they measure. The people who see the northern tundras turning into swamps because permafrost is melting. More melting is always associated with higher temperatures.

I could go on and on about the tens of thousands of scientists who find the evidence for globally changing climates. But the deniers won’t care. Oh, and permafrost melting in the north — that is a climate change, so stuff the troll in the garbage where it belongs.

Okay look, people, I know I was the first one to reply to the troll, Islanderman, but seriously, STOP REPLYING TO HIM!!! If you want to keep talking to the troll, start another thread.

Here’s an inconvenient truth for those who mock climate modeling. In 1988, James Hansen and his colleagues made some predictions about the possible changes in global temperature based on 3 different scenarios for greenhouse gas production. For years, the deniers went apes**t over the fact that the models were predicting higher than observed temperatures. (This was especially true when fools were speaking of a “pause.” They were fools because the temperatures in the lower ocean were rising all that time. That’s a warming, not a “pause” because of the huge difference in thermal mass of the oceans vs the atmosphere. To repeat, there was never an actual “pause” in global warming because the oceans count, too.)

However, the models have been rerun with an important change in the data. You see, shortly after the first run, the Montreal Protocols to reduce ozone killing chemicals was signed and over the years, implemented. With the result that measurable (but far from full) recovery of the ozone layer is happening.

That’s a very big deal because it demonstrates that humans do have an effect on atmospheric processes and that some things can be reversed. Lots of fools say humans can’t do that. They are generally stupid about science.

Back to Hansen’s models. Because they were run before the Montreal Protocols, they assumed that the ozone killers would continue to be added. When the models were rerun using actual conditions, the temperatures dropped and are nearly spot on now.

Humans do make significant differences to the global warming, and it is possible to at least limit the effects through global efforts. Deniers, you just suck crap and spew it back out.

Appropriate for the GOP. They probably don’t believe in digital thermometers. Though they do seem to have figured out twittering.

…GOP IQ meter…

^ Quite right; any scientist that doesn’t agree with you and me isn’t a real scientist.

^^And Professor I. Know-Nothing has chimed in with fantasy remarks, as the Know-Nothings always do.