Commentary #6: Global Warming

[Barry Charles]

Also, once again, the point I am making is in regards to individuals complaining about social media and people being unable to think for themselves. These are the same people who are using social media to drive propaganda.

Why don’t you defend an original thought about global warming without using social media or posting a link? Nothing too rigorous , just a general idea.

It’s not that easy but it does demonstrate independent and creative thinking. It, and really only it, can serve as a basis for an argument. Pro tiips: Scientific consensus is not an argument and most original ideas are easily shown to be wrong.

[Frivillesid]

Why don’t you defend an original thought about global warming without using social media or posting a link? Nothing too rigorous , just a general idea.

It’s not that easy but it does demonstrate independent and creative thinking. It, and really only it, can serve as a basis for an argument. Pro tiips: Scientific consensus is not an argument and most original ideas are easily shown to be wrong.

Couple things here. First, I am not sure how you read what I just wrote and chose this as a response. Second, do you realize that everything that has been posted on here regarding the refutation of global warming is nothing more than a posted link from social media sites without the use of any critical thinking?

[wal]

Wal, did you forget that they get offended when people refer to them as BOM? They must be referred to by their full title or in short as The Bureau or something will happen.

They've been wrong twice in a week for me. 5 degrees hotter than predicted a day beforehand. And 40% chance of rain today with no rain in sight. It's more accurate just to go outside and look up.

Weather forecasting today appears no more accurate then it was reading it in the news papers back in the 1970's, before using computers, climate software and weather satellites. It all comes unstuck when they use algorithms which may guess correctly occasionally, but mostly ends up in confusion as what what happened with our BOM in its failure to work out if we were having an El Nino or La Nina event. I find that the daily weather a week out changes as the current day approaches so corrections are made daily so that the weather you receive on a particular day is as you say just as good as looking out the window. The best function a weather site is the rain radar at least you can see when raining is coming, but that is not relying on predictions,but current radar information.

The BOM i.e. Bureau of Meteorology as they like to be called.

Bureau of Meteorology or BoM: How Parkinson’s law of trivia exposed the bureaucracy in a name change

More confusion

BOM app update: How to decipher the new rainfall forecast - ABC News

Why the farming community is angry with the BOM

"Last Sunday, National Farmers Federation vice-president David Jochinke was startled to learn that the bureau would soon replace meteorologists who conduct around 700 scheduled local radio crosses each week with spokespeople to be known as “community information officers”.

How the BoM failed to predict and warn NSW, Victoria of deadly floods, extreme weather


I use these services, they are not 100%, but sometimes closer that the BOM

Windy: Wind map & weather forecast, Yr, eldersweather.com.au/

[Mark Rippetoe]

Couple things here. First, I am not sure how you read what I just wrote and chose this as a response. Second, do you realize that everything that has been posted on here regarding the refutation of global warming is nothing more than a posted link from social media sites without the use of any critical thinking?

You goddamn idiot, can you not actually make a substantive argument about a point of contention? Who gives a fuck about social media if the media makes a valid point? The point is not rendered invalid just because it appeared on Yahoo! or MSNBC or the Heartland Institute -- it is rendered invalid by YOU. Do so, now, or go away.

[Barry Charles]

. Second, do you realize that everything that has been posted on here regarding the refutation of global warming is nothing more than a posted link from social media sites without the use of any critical thinking?

Well here is something that was posted here without a single link to social media. Your claim is wrong.

“One of the branch of physics I have direct experience with is radiation transfer and hydrodynamics. Both of these are deeply modeled with full experimental verification. The investment in these models is for the prediction of the performance and safety of nuclear weapons in the absence of testing real weapon's (test ban treaty).

The supercomputers and the field of supercomputing is almost entirely a product of the US Nuclear weapons program. Has it been tempting to brand these exa and peta flop behemoths as multi purposed? Of course. The obvious is climate modeling. Dual use. Swords into plowshares.

But the fact that climate modeling does occur and is funded doesn’t mean jack shit. Every aspect of nuclear weapon modeling is tested against old data AND verified using actual experiments. Climate modeling does neither, and, at best, overestimates the “bad” news.”

If you or anyone wants to go into more detail it would be my pleasure. Or we can debate how well climate modeling works.

In the meantime, can YOU defend an original thought?

[Subby]

But when you are drawing flawed conclusions from the data collected so that you can post misinformation to social media to aid in the spread of the disinformation it becomes a problem. You cannot be this dense.

Your browser is not supported | usatoday.com

You originally stated that the source of the funding was a problem. Now you are are claiming that they are drawing false conclusions. Bring those goalposts back to my original question How does the source of funding to actually travel to those locations affect the observations of those locations?

[wal]

Second, do you realize that everything that has been posted on here regarding the refutation of global warming is nothing more than a posted link from social media sites without the use of any critical thinking?

I don't think I posted anything from social media, perhaps from you tube which is bit of a garbage bin, but some good stuff does get through now and then. Most of if not all sites I posted are from reputable sources, I use don't twitter or face book, shit toc or such ilk. What is your opinion anyway about man made climate change?

This guy Christopher Monckton is worth a listen.

Lord Christopher Monckton | Global Warming is a Hoax - YouTube

How Climate Miscalculations Have Misdirected Policy, Lord Christopher Monckton - YouTube

Lord Monckton: Net Zero Emissions — The Costliest Error of Physics and of Economics in History - YouTube

[golftdibrad]

Well here is something that was posted here without a single link to social media. Your claim is wrong.

“One of the branch of physics I have direct experience with is radiation transfer and hydrodynamics. Both of these are deeply modeled with full experimental verification. The investment in these models is for the prediction of the performance and safety of nuclear weapons in the absence of testing real weapon's (test ban treaty).

The supercomputers and the field of supercomputing is almost entirely a product of the US Nuclear weapons program. Has it been tempting to brand these exa and peta flop behemoths as multi purposed? Of course. The obvious is climate modeling. Dual use. Swords into plowshares.

But the fact that climate modeling does occur and is funded doesn’t mean jack shit. Every aspect of nuclear weapon modeling is tested against old data AND verified using actual experiments. Climate modeling does neither, and, at best, overestimates the “bad” news.”

If you or anyone wants to go into more detail it would be my pleasure. Or we can debate how well climate modeling works.

In the meantime, can YOU defend an original thought?

It cant, because its a bot. Probably some vastly overfunded government funded grant to research ways to "change the mind of the climate change deniers using AI"

[Mark Rippetoe]

It cant, because its a bot. Probably some vastly overfunded government funded grant to research ways to "change the mind of the climate change deniers using AI"

Well, I'm glad they turned it off.

[golftdibrad]

A BITTERLY DISAPPOINTING VERDICT – Watts Up With That?

They jury found in favor of Mann. How very disappointing.