climateprediction.net home page
The Sky is Falling
The Sky is Falling
log in

Advanced search

Message boards : climateprediction.net Science : The Sky is Falling

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 7 · Next
Author Message
Paradox
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 17
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56600 - Posted: 30 Jul 2017, 8:09:44 UTC - in response to Message 45793.

Hi Les,

It's my understanding based on following this highly charged political subject that we exist in an ice age (existing in an ICE AGE being highly pertinent) interglacial period that is cyclical. The cycle historically tends to snap back to Ice Age around, um, yesterday. This historical trend is, well, historic and quantified. It stands to reason that natural warming and cooling created the historical cycle we remain in, brought on by the Panama Ismus incident many years ago. There's a peer reviewed paper on it.... yet it's been harder to dig up over the years. It still exists. Fast forward and many opportunists have clammored successfully to procure funds for geoengineering projects to combat 'global warming' in liue of a true understanding of what we're facing. At least it would appear so and not to mention the science funding feeding frenzy to advance... um, a scary idea forwarded as fact.

I thought I had gone to the wrong site. This place seems a mere shell of when I volunteered my company computers many years ago.... before learning how dependent scientists are on supporting a narrative that funds them. They are by virtue of actions of late an extension of government. Much like our media. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in today's environment, science jobs seem to predominantly depend on government grants and most of them are like a carrot for the will of government. Do applicants for research money plead their case for a study they find pertinent to mankind these days or do they simply figure out where easy money is and modify their proposal and integrity to get it? I'm really curious for an answer if only given by a moderator to me. It just seems like we live in a pervasive system of corruption and it should stop.

My question to you is, as a scientist (I assume) and an activist, why deny the general population in mainstream the fact that we exist in an Ice Age interglacial.... the end of one. Why play down the real threat of a breakdown in the THC... in particular the Gulf Steam which would raise sea levels on the Atlantic coast by upwards of a meter and put much of Europe into a Siberian winter until reversed. The Gulf Stream is faltering. Random innunations of Atlantic coastal cities is happening. Really, random? Your types live in a world that gives you a great deal of latitude due to decadal or millennial time-frames while relying on unproven models. And I'm not trying to be combative, just frank. The real world forced your lobby to change your entire narrative from 'global Warming' to ' climate change' for a reason... and not one founded in scientific integrity. In order to blame humanity for everything, you had to. Period. Global warming was lost in the evidence. It still is, no matter how hard you work at rewriting the rules.

So now, I don't even know why I am revisiting this site or wasting my time writing a post that probably won't make the cut. It simply remains my hope that science has not been completely politicized and the free flow of ideas not crushed by the institutions that profess to foster them. If this post makes its way to the fraction of participants that once frequented this forum I'd be glad to discuss my concerns.

Best regards,

Paradox

Jim1348
Send message
Joined: 15 Jan 06
Posts: 174
Credit: 7,286,458
RAC: 8,182
Message 56610 - Posted: 1 Aug 2017, 14:15:25 UTC - in response to Message 56600.

So now, I don't even know why I am revisiting this site or wasting my time writing a post that probably won't make the cut. It simply remains my hope that science has not been completely politicized and the free flow of ideas not crushed by the institutions that profess to foster them. If this post makes its way to the fraction of participants that once frequented this forum I'd be glad to discuss my concerns.

We are always in either a glacial period or an inter-glacial period. I hope that issue does not require much of your further attention either.

Paradox
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 17
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56613 - Posted: 2 Aug 2017, 9:58:49 UTC - in response to Message 56610.

Wow, that was deep. Your side is absolutely whipped. It brings tears of joy to my eyes having battled for truth and integrity for years pro-bono at a site that now 'Realclimate' owns and those years were removed from the record. Such irony. I'm not surprised to learn that the truth was cloaked under a couple levels of pretend integrity... in the end, I accomplished my personal goals related to being focused on truth. While commandeering theenvironmentsite.org and erasing a massive amount (years) of vigorous discussion related to this topic may be ok to your ilk, it serves as a travesty to free thinking. It's censorship that should rise to a level of criminality. But I don't care because the people behind it have reeped what they sowed. I was just speaking my mind and doing so from what seemed CLEARLY a higher ground, one based on science rather than political ambition.

Now Australia cooking the books... face it, your initiative is over. You wasted years of perfectly genuine people's time and conned a lot of money out of it. What your side failed to do is substantiate your rather vociferous claims. It's kinda like the Wall Street assholes that tanked the world economy for profit and are rich and free... not much difference really... the climate charlatans had their run and go free for some reason beyond reason.

Yeah, so, it's nice that you understand we're in an ice age and this is an interglacial period. Question, would you rather us cool and return to the ice-age condition we're due for? Damn, what am I talking to, four people?

How you doing Les? I remember you. Beating that dead horse, like always.

Regards,

Paradox

Paradox
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 17
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56614 - Posted: 2 Aug 2017, 10:58:52 UTC - in response to Message 56610.

Jim,

You clipped the last paragraph of a rather thorough post about many ideas related to this subject. I appreciate your futile attempt at being condescending, but why not simply address the points I made? Reiterating the obvious may qualify as a 'step' for you, but actually exploring the real causes of our civilizations experiences rather than proliferating fantasy, would be a major step in the direction of progress. Would it not?

Wow, how many people do you know that feel like they woke up one day in a nightmare?

Cheers,

Paradox

Jim1348
Send message
Joined: 15 Jan 06
Posts: 174
Credit: 7,286,458
RAC: 8,182
Message 56615 - Posted: 2 Aug 2017, 11:41:46 UTC - in response to Message 56614.

As I read it, you merely stated that you don't believe all the research on climate science and are condescending to all the researchers. That is not a scientific argument, or even an argument at all, merely a point of view that you claim to be informed. I don't see the information.

Profile Iain Inglis
Volunteer moderator
Send message
Joined: 16 Jan 10
Posts: 877
Credit: 100,083
RAC: 3,242
Message 56616 - Posted: 2 Aug 2017, 12:26:46 UTC

This is a new thread to hold those comments from new user Paradox, which are not relevant to the original thread "Climate change in the News".

Waiting until your second post before using obscene language may represent great restraint on your terms but it is not acceptable here. Any more of that kind of violation of good manners and your posts will be deleted.

ed2353
Send message
Joined: 15 Feb 06
Posts: 120
Credit: 26,513,223
RAC: 21,463
Message 56622 - Posted: 2 Aug 2017, 23:52:44 UTC - in response to Message 56614.

A thorough post?

I agree with Jim, you seem to be expressing an opinion, but are not offering evidence.

Frankly, I'm still not exactly sure what your opinion is, since the whole rant was so long and confusing. If you were writing about psychology, then it would look like psychobabble to me.

Perhaps you could try stating your case clearly in (say) two sentences, then I might understand what you are trying to say.

It would also help me if you could state your qualifications and background, so that I know where your opinion is coming from.

Profile mo.v
Volunteer moderator
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 04
Posts: 2363
Credit: 10,773,446
RAC: 2,347
Message 56623 - Posted: 3 Aug 2017, 9:31:19 UTC

Paradox, my understanding of the situation is that the original phrase 'global warming' was generally replaced by 'climate change' when it became clear that warming would lead to associated phenomena such as changes in rainfall amount and distribution. For example, the attribution study models we have been crunching for CPDN are typically designed to work out whether specific weather phenomena are probably caused by the climate change we are experiencing.

I don't think this change in phraseology was forced upon the scientific community by anyone.
____________
Cpdn news

Profile Iain Inglis
Volunteer moderator
Send message
Joined: 16 Jan 10
Posts: 877
Credit: 100,083
RAC: 3,242
Message 56650 - Posted: 9 Aug 2017, 9:04:22 UTC

The most recent post from Paradox has been deleted on the grounds of obscene language.

Paradox
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 17
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56651 - Posted: 9 Aug 2017, 9:20:29 UTC - in response to Message 56615.

As I read it, you merely stated that you don't believe all the research on climate science and are condescending to all the researchers. That is not a scientific argument, or even an argument at all, merely a point of view that you claim to be informed. I don't see the information.


Jim,

If that's what you gathered from my post, it unfortunate. Truth be told I let my emotions get the better of me but just a nostalgic knee-jerk reaction to a formidable government sponsored group of charlatans that once dominated thought via all avenues ... yet fell short and by virtue. There is no so-called global warming and 'climate change' is always happening... always has and always will I imagine. Attributing such changes to mankind is simply a futile (although it worked for a while) attempt to garner more money for the sciences while fueling a political agenda that had merit aside from the fraudulent foundation upon which the whole scheme was based. Corruption is a pervasive problem in many areas of society. I was once a champion for the cause of Global Warming but when I learned the entire .... ENTIRE ... organizations behind it (government, academia, science, corporations, special interests etc) were not interested in truth but rather forwarding a false narrative at all costs I rebelled.

These posting are more like an obituary or post mordum 'I told you so' than anything else. Surprised my posts are allowed but I started here as a volunteer, was attacked when I started asking pertinent questions, left and participated for years (and vigorously at another venue) in pursuit of truth. Only to realize that there exists entities that want to create their own truth and are paid (or rather pay) to do so relentlessly. Figuring they would ultimately fail on the merits of their argument and since I wasn't getting paid I stopped running in the hamster wheel. I think my forum topic had 1.5 million views before it was scrapped and the entire forum scrapped and reinvented. There were some great 'scientific' arguments there but all that thought and work is not worth repeating for you given the dramatic shift in public opinion.

What's the point of devoting time to public discourse and scientific discussion if people don't like what I have to say and censor years of discussion with impunity?

I'm just here to let everyone know how happy I am that truth is prevaling. How's the environment for climate change funding these days ?

Regards,

Paradox

Paradox
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 17
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56655 - Posted: 9 Aug 2017, 10:04:26 UTC - in response to Message 56623.

Mo,

The phrase 'climate change' replaced the phrase 'global warming' because it allowed for a great deal more latitude. While shady, the leaders of the failed 'global warming' scare are far from stupid.

Paradox

Profile Iain Inglis
Volunteer moderator
Send message
Joined: 16 Jan 10
Posts: 877
Credit: 100,083
RAC: 3,242
Message 56656 - Posted: 9 Aug 2017, 10:05:35 UTC

The most recent post from Paradox has been deleted on the grounds of obscene language.

Paradox: Ask yourself whether it is necessary to your argument to insult the people with whom you presumably want to have a discussion and to use obscene language. If those additions are irrelevant to the argument, which I suggest they are, then ask yourself why you choose to include them and what effect they might have on whether people are likely to be persuaded by your argument.

Paradox
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 17
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56657 - Posted: 9 Aug 2017, 10:19:13 UTC - in response to Message 56610.

Jim,

Maybe this version will pass muster.

Since we remain in a volotile interglacial period, it would stand to reason that 'global Warming' should be the least of our worries and a return to a full blown ice-age a legitimate concern. Statistically, we're past due to snap back into a full-blown ice age. Why you try to obfuscate the relevance of us being in an ice age while (I assume) being a global warming/climate change/whatever the new flavor political term is supporter is beyond me. Especially given the outcome of almost a decade of vitriolic support for your cause from every source possible that could forward an opinion as fact and sell it to the world. Face it. Your side completely failed with every means possible and then some and with a hurricane wind at your back to boot. It speaks volumes for the lack of compelling evidence (key word being compelling) your side brought to the table. I'm just glad to see your side where they stand. It's more than deserved.



Regards,



Paradox

Paradox
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 17
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56658 - Posted: 9 Aug 2017, 10:37:18 UTC

Iain,

I'm not here to debate the merits of global warming with anyone. As I stated, I started my search for truth here and was forced elsewhere where years of vigorous, enlightening and insightful discussion was ERASED. I have a great deal of understanding of how the industry operates and this is simply me dropping in to complete my circle of discovery. I feel vindicated...and the relentless months... years of vitriolic attacks lacking substance have been substantiated as being just that. Keep up the fight but know that there was a better way. Creating a narrative that lacks truth and shoving it down the throats of everyone doesn't work and corrupts everything. Props to those who made some money and travelled the world while leaving humanity in a much more vulnerable position... and after billions of dollars.

Brilliant!

Paradox

Profile Iain Inglis
Volunteer moderator
Send message
Joined: 16 Jan 10
Posts: 877
Credit: 100,083
RAC: 3,242
Message 56660 - Posted: 9 Aug 2017, 11:30:23 UTC - in response to Message 56658.
Last modified: 9 Aug 2017, 12:21:15 UTC

[Paradox wrote:]I'm not here to debate the merits of global warming with anyone. ...I feel vindicated...

That's plain for all to see - it appears we are invited to admire the magnificent statue of Paradox Vindicated and listen with rapt attention to a valediction.

The real world abides, and if climate scientists have failed in their duty as scientists to give a truthful description of that world then that will in time become apparent to everyone; you need not trouble yourself on that account. Thus far, however, every question asked of climate science - the models, the data, the science - has been answered. The description of the world provided by climate science has been rigorously tested and not found wanting.

Your statue is not magnificent at all: it is not enduring marble but is simply a cloud of smoke that has for one short moment assumed the shape of a person and which will in another short moment be gone. Believe what you want about yourself - it will make no difference to climate science or to me.

Dave Roberts
Send message
Joined: 15 Jan 11
Posts: 129
Credit: 3,233,100
RAC: 5,152
Message 56662 - Posted: 9 Aug 2017, 14:44:33 UTC

Hi All,
I very nearly wasted a lot of brain power to provide a logical, fact based, evidence supplied, rebuttal of the first post by 'paradox'. Then having seen its latest contributions, I was going to suggest deleting this thread completely, owing to its complete uselessness in contributing to human knowledge.
However, I realised that this is a public forum and even incoherent babblers are allowed to post and censoring even this is unethical.
The only sensible option is to completely ignore such specious nonsense, leaving the post free for paradox to vent (his/its) (can't be a 'her') verbal flatulence.
It could be amusing to see how far 'fake news' could be stretched.
David

Paradox
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 17
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56665 - Posted: 10 Aug 2017, 5:30:06 UTC - in response to Message 56662.

Hi David,

I'm in agreement with you actually. I second your motion to erase this thread and I give you my word that I will never post on this site again. I wouldn't view it as censorship because, as you can see, my disdain for your kind rises beyond that of 'normal' people. At the end of the day, the Goliath of global warming activism has proven futile and with their hundreds of billions of dollars no less. I'd call that a loss... a failed campaign to the fifth power. I don't have anything more to prove and have requested my account deleted.

You've given me a perfect opportunity to bow out. I wish everyone who has scientific integrity and sees this post good fortunes and success in life. For the others that I find rather counterproductive to the goals of mankind may you reap what you've sown.

Warm regards and farewells,

Paradox

Paradox
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 17
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56666 - Posted: 10 Aug 2017, 5:48:38 UTC - in response to Message 56660.

[Paradox wrote:]I'm not here to debate the merits of global warming with anyone. ...I feel vindicated...

That's plain for all to see - it appears we are invited to admire the magnificent statue of Paradox Vindicated and listen with rapt attention to a valediction.

The real world abides, and if climate scientists have failed in their duty as scientists to give a truthful description of that world then that will in time become apparent to everyone; you need not trouble yourself on that account. Thus far, however, every question asked of climate science - the models, the data, the science - has been answered. The description of the world provided by climate science has been rigorously tested and not found wanting.

Your statue is not magnificent at all: it is not enduring marble but is simply a cloud of smoke that has for one short moment assumed the shape of a person and which will in another short moment be gone. Believe what you want about yourself - it will make no difference to climate science or to me.



Iain,

That was beautifully written. It brought a tear to my eye. Rigorously tested and not found wanting? Come on man, weathermen are found 'wanting' for missing it for the week. You live in a delusional world if you think climate models are anywhere close to guiding us forward. It's a ruse... we're not even close. YOU'RE not even close. Call a spade a spade. It doesn't mean we shouldn't press on past the infancy your science is in.

Oops missed that beautifully written piece before I dismissed myself. Peace.

Paradox

Paradox
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 17
Posts: 99
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56667 - Posted: 10 Aug 2017, 7:11:55 UTC - in response to Message 56660.
Last modified: 10 Aug 2017, 7:48:26 UTC



Your statue is not magnificent at all: it is not enduring marble but is simply a cloud of smoke that has for one short moment assumed the shape of a person and which will in another short moment be gone. Believe what you want about yourself - it will make no difference to climate science or to me.


Wow! A poet and a scholar.... attacking someone while maintaining a higher ground is an art and you take it to the next level. Bravo!

While I can appreciate articulate and perfectly delivered prose, it doesn't make you right. I loved the cloud of smoke bit. Glad to inspire the best-selling author in you. Maybe you should pursue that endeavor... it pays way more with much less drama.

Cheers,

Paradox

Ps. Disproportionately addressing solar forcings and the influence of Cosmic Rays as an influence on cloud formation (among many other factors) 'smoked' the models.

ed2353
Send message
Joined: 15 Feb 06
Posts: 120
Credit: 26,513,223
RAC: 21,463
Message 56668 - Posted: 10 Aug 2017, 9:04:22 UTC - in response to Message 56665.

As I suspected, just a rant by someone who has no ability to debate scientific research. Notice that he never answered my question about his qualifications.

It kind of reminds me of declarations made by a certain president whose name rhymes with a British/English word - chump.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 7 · Next

Message boards : climateprediction.net Science : The Sky is Falling


Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2017 climateprediction.net