Sure it is... It's OK man, I gave you the win on this one, you can calm down. I'll nod and smile and pretend you know what you're talking about. No foolin'.
looks like some more settled science has become unsettled http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/feb/01/changes-in-ocean-circulation-could-have-major-cons citing this study: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6426/516 here's a nice summary of the significance: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/climate-change-might-not-slow-ocean-circulation-much-thought Researchers had thought the strength of that circulation, known by the acronym AMOC, was largely influenced by the sinking of cold freshwater in the Labrador Sea, between Greenland and Canada. And climate simulations suggest that the sea’s deepwater formation might slow as the world continues to warm — which also could slow down the entire Atlantic current system and possibly make temperatures on land in the northeastern United States and the United Kingdom plunge. That concept inspired the (otherwise unrealistic) 2004 climate apocalypse film The Day After Tomorrow. But, the data collected over those 21 months show that the Labrador Sea’s influence on the AMOC paled in comparison with that of another North Atlantic ocean region, just east of Greenland. How the intensity of deepwater formation in that area changed with time accounted for 88 percent of the observed variability in the entire AMOC, physical oceanographer Susan Lozier of Duke University and colleagues report in the Feb. 1 Science. and However, many scientists were skeptical of the studies since neither relied on observational evidence. Lozier’s study provides further evidence that climate models may be wrong on more than just temperature rise. “I think that’s one big take-home message from our study, is that these previous papers that have discussed that are almost like barking up the wrong tree,” Bob Pickart, an oceanographer and a co-author of the study, told ScienceNews.
The quintessential right wing meme. How many people were genuinely offended by that song? I'm talking about real life, not some random tweet or radio station out of thousands.
Curry's testimony to Congress this morning: "Based on current assessments of the science, manmade climate change is not an existential threat on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation. However, the perception of a near-term apocalypse and alignment with range of other social objectives has narrowed the policy options that we’re willing to consider." https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/06/hearing-climate-change-the-impacts-and-the-need-to-act/
Climate Change alarmists and their attempt to control industry to shape it as they seem right reeks of other historically bad ideas coming out of a group of people who became slighted post the entrepreneurial boom of the late 1800's when people realized they were full of ****. Loved how Oxford, Harvard and Yale and those thinking they knew best of all people spouted Eugenics as a legitimate science today which sterilized tens of thousands of people under the guise of shaping the population better. Started here by the intelligencia and eventually Hitler thought it was a good idea and took it to an extreme. Those ideas of eugenics and their roots are still prevalent in the liberal intelligencia today if one wonders why they've pushed so aggressively for abortions even now after the baby is born. The normalization and cheering of something that should be a solemn sad moment (that i'm ok with it being legal) and now the ability for a doctor to perform late term abortions reeks of population control and the roots of eugenics. I for one fear when these types of people claim they know all the answers. I prefer individual freedom, liberty and not giving power of government coercion through laws and taxation to these zealots.
Here's something interesting: The opponents of global warming/climate change say: "OMG look at this year's severe winter weather! Clearly there is no global warming!" Leftists reply: "There's a difference between weather and climate you dumb &%$#! You can't just look at what's happening in one short-term weather event!" August/September arrives. Hurricane X causes flooding. Leftists look at single Hurricane X event and say: "there's your proof of global warming/climate change/[whatever the current phrase is]!" Rational citizen asks: "I thought we couldn't base our analysis on one weather event?" Leftists reeeee: "Stop oppressing us with your logic!"
There are quacks fancy degrees from all over the place, but generally trying to learn something from someone who relies on disproven half-baked theories makes thema quack whether or not they have a PHD in theoretical physics.
This is a straw man dopey dude. Climate science statement on hurricanes is only so far that they will be wetter, and that has proven out that nearly every hurricane is wetter than 50 years ago. The was predicted and is proven out. That is not a statement on any single event which you are claiming. Harvey may not have been a result of climate change, but it certainly is made wetter and therefore worse by it. And this winter has been one of the warmest on record. Overall the area is much warmer, and ironically the reason the polar vortex meanders down is because there is less sea ice (which results is less cooling and thus a weakened upper level low over the arctic. That allows the jet to meander and polar vortexes with it. This isn't about rightists or leftists, it's about science. And people need to look at the science to explain the events and not use blanket terms either way.
what guy are you talking about? honestly have NO idea who you're talking about on edit: got it. I thought you were talking about Judy Curry--that's whose testimony I'd posted this morning. I get it, you don't like Lubos Motl. Got the memo.
Lubos Motl - how can you - i looked at some of his arguments over the weekend and it's just the same horseshit arguments you see in right-wing propaganda being repeated.
so his Rutgers Phd in physics and six years at Harvard doing physics makes him a "quack." And you're qualified to pass that judgment because . . . exactly why? how many years did you spend at Harvard with your physics Phd? just curious. in all seriousness though. I don't think you can simply dismiss him because he is open about doing physics "from a conservative viewpoint" (or however he puts it, whatever that means). Otherwise once again it's just another day another data point.
just because you do not LIKE the arguments does not necessarily make them HORSESHIT ARGUMENTS. pretty simple actually.
after all, you have to admit that there's at least a nonzero probability that some of his so-called "horseshit arguments" may actually be correct. He may be like the little conservative Trumper in the well-known Hans Christian Andersen story, "The Emperor's New Clothes": http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
No there are HORSESHIT ARGUMENTS because they are made from HORSESHIT. Doesn't matter if you have 10 degrees from Harvard and Princeton, if you just pull bs from right wing propaganda that has already been dismissed as false - you're a snake oil seller. He's a failed scientist peddling junk to make some money.
Meanwhile, while these numbskulls talk about climate change being a hoax... https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...d-melt-at-least-a-third-of-himalayan-glaciers
although if I didn't know any better, I'd say there's more than just a whiff of ad hominem in the air . . .
