California drought has ended, climate change nuts.

[RickWA]

That is because a warming CLIMATE causes more extreme WEATHER.

That means more extreme droughts events and more extreme rain events. It includes more extreme heat and more extreme cold snaps.

It isn't that confusing for people who understand the difference between climate and weather.

And it is not "psychology" it is established science.

It is debated science. And, as noted several times now, it is the AGW alarmists who CONFLATE weather and climate...asserting causation at every turn. I just covered that...several times.

Then, those same folks seek to chide others for conflating weather and climate.

That is not science. Quite the opposite. I am a chemist. I have a fine grasp of proper scientific method, thank you.

 

[RickWA]

It is scientists whose position on global warming is relevant. If you want to criticize media misrepresentations of the science, feel free, but be aware the grossest misrepresentations are those, like yours, that act as if the science is controversial, it doesn’t have an excellent track record of accurate, bold predictions, or it doesn’t say unequivocally that human activity is almost certainly the major cause of the current warming and that that warming poses a very serious threat to our civilization.

Actually, as demonstrated, it is not merely scientists whose positions on global warming are relevant. Sensationalist, conclusion-jumping media are relevant. They influence and control the narrative. Grandstanding politicians are relevant. They make laws, regulations, and policy. Rank and file citizens with an ideological axe to grind are relevant. They create groundswell and elicit responses.

You post so many untrue things that it isn’t worth countering.

 

[FakeName]

read the top post, I told you I got it from the top post...

copy/paste from the top post:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/c...fficially-over-after-more-seven-years-n983461
California drought officially over after more than seven years
The state experienced some form of drought for 376 consecutive weeks, the National Drought Mitigation Center said.

... you want to call the National Drought Mitigation Center a liar, have at it. This was their claim, not mine.

Where does it say it has rained at least once a week for seven years?

 

[EatTheRich]

translation: It isn't statistical method, that's only part of it...

It is more than just part of it, it is the premise and foundation for the whole theory. All the non-science methods of heat creation were dreamed up to make the statistics real world. Bottom line: it is statistical method, it is NOT real world, and every attempt to make it real world employs physics that completely contradict real world physics. That's how you ended up saying heat doesn't rise. The theory is nonsensical and it isn't happening in the real world and I've proven that to you a dozen times over and you just stick with it CUZ you are pushing politics, not science.

False. The dramatic heating was predicted based on the physical theory before it was observed. The only politics has come from folks like you objecting to the science for political reasons.

 

[EatTheRich]

It is debated science. And, as noted several times now, it is the AGW alarmists who CONFLATE weather and climate...asserting causation at every turn. I just covered that...several times.

Then, those same folks seek to chide others for conflating weather and climate.

That is not science. Quite the opposite. I am a chemist. I have a fine grasp of proper scientific method, thank you.

The basics of the theory aren’t debated for scientific reasons. Only for political reasons.

 

[EatTheRich]

Actually, as demonstrated, it is not merely scientists whose positions on global warming are relevant. Sensationalist, conclusion-jumping media are relevant. They influence and control the narrative. Grandstanding politicians are relevant. They make laws, regulations, and policy. Rank and file citizens with an ideological axe to grind are relevant. They create groundswell and elicit responses.

You post so many untrue things that it isn’t worth countering.

Nothing would please me more than for all of us to agree that the robust consensus of the relevant experts should be put starting point for discussing the threat.

 

[Drumcollie]

I have lived in California most all of my life and droughts are getting more common and longer in duration. Not a prediction but truth.

I agree. More rainmeans more drought...These fools thought facts matter. Pffft.

 

[RickWA]

The basics of the theory aren’t debated for scientific reasons. Only for political reasons.

The basics of the theory - whether debated or not - have little to do with the declared attributions of all eventualities to AGW.

That was what I wrote about, remember?

It is not at all “scientific” to attribute with certainty specific weather events to AGW causation. And our media, pols, and AGW activists all do this with great frequency.

 

[Drumcollie]

The basics of the theory aren’t debated for scientific reasons. Only for political reasons.

No real scientists will bet their careers on Global Warming. Why is Al Gore not relevant?

 

[RickWA]

Nothing would please me more than for all of us to agree that the robust consensus of the relevant experts should be put starting point for discussing the threat.

Discussion is great. Irrational conclusion-jumping, not so much. AGW is being used as a huge, internationalist cudgel versus capitalism. I’ll not be down with that.

 

[EatTheRich]

The basics of the theory - whether debated or not - have little to do with the declared attributions of all eventualities to AGW.

That was what I wrote about, remember?

It is not at all “scientific” to attribute with certainty specific weather events to AGW causation. And our media, pols, and AGW activists all do this with great frequency.

No, what is scientific is to point out when detailed, precise predictions have been confirmed by the actual weather (often), or when specific observed weather patterns are calculated with a high degree of statistical confidence to have been far more likely to have occurred with AGW than without (also often).

 

[EatTheRich]

No real scientists will bet their careers on Global Warming. Why is Al Gore not relevant?

Betting on global warming is about as safe as betting on the sun coming up in the morning.

 

[EatTheRich]

Discussion is great. Irrational conclusion-jumping, not so much. AGW is being used as a huge, internationalist cudgel versus capitalism. I’ll not be down with that.

AGW poses a genuine crisis that capitalism is manifestly unable to solve. Your feelings about capitalism do not change the facts.

 

[Nostra]

Betting on global warming is about as safe as betting on the sun coming up in the morning.

10 Times you woulda lost, and the sun wouldn't come up in the morning.

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now.119622/

 

[RickWA]

No, what is scientific is to point out when detailed, precise predictions have been confirmed by the actual weather (often), or when specific observed weather patterns are calculated with a high degree of statistical confidence to have been far more likely to have occurred with AGW than without (also often).

False. All you are doing is declaring the freedom for AGW activists to cite weather as data point in SUPPORT of AGW while assuring that others CANNOT cite weather that doesn’t align to the predetermined conclusion.

No scientist operates by such method.

 

[RickWA]

AGW poses a genuine crisis that capitalism is manifestly unable to solve. Your feelings about capitalism do not change the facts.

False. Economic systems are irrelevant unless your purpose is to weaponize your theory.

Only stupid people fall for this stuff.

Frankly, capitalism sparks greater innovation and invention than any other system. If address of AGW were truly the purpose...and if that address were truly urgent, folks would drop the Commie Cudgel.

No sale.

 

[EatTheRich]

10 Times you woulda lost, and the sune wouldn't come up in the morning.

https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now.119622/

I’ll address the “best ones” selected by the poster.

1. Global warming wasn’t adequately addressed by 2000, and it is inevitable that nations will be wiped off the map as a result. That prediction was correct.
2. That “best-selling book” was not written by experts nor did it have the broad expert consensus in favor that global warming has. In fact, widespread famine has continued, but that has more to do with capitalism than population.
3. Yes, the minority of experts who believed that anthropogenic cooling forcings would outweigh anthropogenic warming forcings were wrong. And they changed their minds when the evidence became clear, creating the modern robust consensus favoring AGW theory.
4. It is dishonest to compare a prediction in degrees Fahrenheit to an observation in degrees Celsius. The 0.6 degree Celsius temperature rise (compared with one of the hottest years on record prior to 2000) is within the 1-7 degree Fahrenheit range projected.
6. Al Gore is not an expert on climate change. But he was right. We have passed several points of no return and locked in the inevitable titanic climate shifts that we have just seen the beginnings of. His personal behavior has no bearing on that reality.
8. Very unlikely the director was accurately quoted. Obviously if anyone said that they were wrong. But again, let’s step back and discuss specifically what I said scientists were safe betting on. Global warming. Not anthropogenic global warming, around which there is a robust evidence-based consensus. Not catastrophic results from global warming, which is widely held by scientists. Just the fact of warming. Even if one expert said something very wrong about a completely unrelated matter, that’s very different from decades of the best scientists in the world all agreeing that the measured higher temperatures, shifts in growing seasons and plant and animal habitats, melting ice, and other data all indicate a genuine warming trend with a very strong degree of certainty.

 

[EatTheRich]

False. All you are doing is declaring the freedom for AGW activists to cite weather as data point in SUPPORT of AGW while assuring that others CANNOT cite weather that doesn’t align to the predetermined conclusion.

No scientist operates by such method.

Nope, the reason opponents of AGW theory cannot (responsibly, using statistical methods) cite weather that supports their conclusion is because the weather has not cooperated.

 

[EatTheRich]

False. Economic systems are irrelevant unless your purpose is to weaponize your theory.

Only stupid people fall for this stuff.

Frankly, capitalism sparks greater innovation and invention than any other system. If address of AGW were truly the purpose...and if that address were truly urgent, folks would drop the Commie Cudgel.

No sale.

You say as you post using satellite technology developed by the USSR ... also the country to introduce peaceful use of nuclear fission.

Capitalism requires that private profit take priority over human need which makes it unable to address this sort of “tragedy of the commons” situation.

 

[RickWA]

Nope, the reason opponents of AGW theory cannot (responsibly, using statistical methods) cite weather that supports their conclusion is because the weather has not cooperated.

Incorrect, of course. Citing specific local weather as conclusively attributable to AGW is anti-scientific.