Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Hillsdale College" channel.

Was that speech ALSO from 2014 ?? Trying to be witty and being snarky about "environmentalists" does not neutralize facts. There was NO 18 year pause. - unfortonately. i am pretty sure 2018 will be another record breaking HOTTEST year. And this time it is an El Ninja year - those are supposed to be about 0,4 degree Celsius cooler. The email of The Uni of East Anglia were quoted out of context, of course they wanted to know why the models not not fit completely (heat sink in the oceans - as to be seen in the measurable ! CO2 increase).
3
The credentials of the speakers - who feels "qualified" to challenge allmost all other scientists in THEIR field of expertise: .... In 1980, he earned a BS in business from Lewis and Clark College. He earned a Masters of Arts in government (1984) and a Ph.D. in American Studies (1996) from the Claremont Graduate School ...excerpt from Wikipedia His degreed do not require the use of the scientific method - government studies and American studies or a business degree are social sciences - and while they like to use a lot of statistics to appear more impressive - these are quite fuzzy fields and very subject to bias and the interests of those with power and money. climat research is very complex. the methods are not fuzzy - but the complexity does not allow for simple or definitive answers. They usually operate with likelyhoods and prognostics within a range In recent years the models have been very much improved - to match the former and the current developments and the new insights. A lot of reserach has been done and it was factored in.
3
That mouthpiece for the Republican party and the oil and fracking industry likely would be overwhelmed to interpret or understand the relevant studies or to assess the data of NASA or of the University of East Anglia. The emails from East Anlia were hacked in 2009 - even then it was clear that the warming trend had NOT ended. The British parliament had an investigation and the data and the adjustment of the raw data was also examined by a reputable Harvard professor (then a self declared sceptic). he found no problems. The raw data MUST be adjusted to be relevant - and the way it was done was legitimate and according to scientific standards. Which the speaker should have known if he was talking in good faith. Meanwhile the debate is over - there is a warming trend it it is worse than was predicted by the scientists in 2014. But even in the era between 2009 - 2014 one needed to be very biased and selective to NOT accept the reality of increasing average global temperatures. And there is no natural explanation. The sun - the first of the usual suspects - can be excluded. On the other hadn one would expect the continuous CO2 and methane increase to show an effect - and the effect on temperature can be measured. Then before the last very hot 3 years the deniers took the data from 1998 - in 2009 that was just long enough to be statistically releveant - AND 1998 was an especially hot El Nino year. So making that year the begin of the data series is a statistical trick. With every other year the continuation of the warming trend was within the 95 % likelyhood. Cherrypicking 1998 as the first year in the data series gave the outcome that the likelyhood that there was a trend of warming was JUST shy of the threshhold of 95 % likelyhood which the scientists had set themselves. The years after that which continued to break records settled that. More data, longer periods improve reliability - and the warming trend was of course intact.
2
@linmal2242 Beckwith is good - just detected him - I also recommend the youtube channel of potholer54 - he is a scientist (paleontology), worked as prospector for the oil industry and also as science journalist - and debunks the deniers - and occasionally also the hpye of people who warn, but exaggerate - it is bad enough as is, and being imprecise harms the cause. He likes it FACTUAL and with sources and he READS the studies that are thrown into the discussion. The videos are not too long - 5 - 15 minutes. He reacts when the bloggersphere or the cluesless media come up with another meme. The videos are well understandable for laypersons - but he does it with scientific precision. (citing the studies, going to the sources - it seems many bloggers and journalists doctor graphs of NASA to fit the narrative etc. One person brings it into circulation and then they are uncritically copied. No one goes to the source to check the claims or the accuracy of claims or graphs. By verifying ALL the sources he can debunk that. Reading the studies that allegedly prove this or that does not seem to be the fashion in the denier scene. Facts are overrated is the motto.
1
+ True North I recommend the youtube channel of potholer54 - he is a scientist (paleontology), worked as prospector for the oil industry and also as science journalist - and debunks the deniers - and occasionally also the hpye of people who warn, but exaggerate - it is bad enough as is, and being imprecise harms the cause. He likes it FACTUAL and with sources and he READS the studies that are thrown into the discussion. The videos are not too long - 5 - 15 minutes. He reacts when the bloggersphere or the cluesless media come up with another clickbait story. The videos are well understandable for laypersons - but he does it with scientific precision. (citing the studies, going to the sources - it seems many bloggers and journalists doctor graphs of NASA to fit the narrative etc. One person brings it into circulation and then they are uncritically copied. No one goes to the source to check the claims or the accuracy of claims or graphs. By verifying ALL the sources he can debunk that. Reading the studies that allegedly prove this or that does not seem to be the fashion in the denier scene. Facts are overrated is the motto in the denier sphere
1
49:00 That speech and the baseless (no sources !) claims of Stven Hayward have not aged well (on the other hand the goal is to delay action or to not have any top down government action - which would be necessary in order to contain the warming. It is the same tactic as was used by the tabacco lobby and their mouthpieces: delay, delay ... fast forward to 2018: that agenda of the industry and deniers has been "successful" so far). The person in the audience asking for the base of Hayward's claim that 2014 was not going to be exceptionally hot, was right of course. Hayward gave a flippant answer, no sources, not details. 2014 indeed turned out to be an exceptionally hot year - then the hottest year on record - until 2015 ! The hottest 4 years on record are 2015 - 2017 - all 4 of them but not in that order - 2016 was the hottest so far, 2018 is likely to become the 4th hottest, only 6 - 7 weeks to go. 1) 2016 anomaly 1,69 2) 2015 1,62 3) 2017 1,51 and 4) 2014 1,33 the anomaly is in degree F - that is huge it means the global average temperature incl. the oceans - these huge bodies of water can store a lot of heat The order of the 10 hottest years (global average !!) ever on record 2016, 2015, 2017, 2014, 2010, 2005, 2013, 2009, 1998 *, 2007 * for some time 1998 was very popular with the deniers. They cherrypicked it as start of the dataset to "prove" that the warming had stopped. A warming trend is harder to make out (against statistical noise and fluctuations) if you put an exceptionally hot year at the beginning - and then 1998 was the hottest year on record so far.
1
Denialist that are cavalier with the truth and in search of soundbites to fit their bias, worked with the 1998 data trick and operated as if the narrow miss with that cherry picked scenario would prove that global warming was called off. Then - in 2009 - 1998, 2002 and 2003 had been the warmest years on record - fast forward to the last years who broke these records. It is all fun and game to tease liberals, progressives, and people that do research in the field of the environment. BUT: if the termperatures continue to rise as QUICKLY (with UNPRECEDENTED SPEED in the history of the globe) there will be highly disruptive changes in weather, floodings, draughts, agriculture, high costs for adaption in the wealthy countries Meanwhile the Pentagon plans for Climate Change caused by Global Warming. They will have to relocate many bases - and then there is the very real potential for terrible wars. Plus economic/hunger migration.
1
Exxon Mobile and Chevron have meanwhile recognized the reality of MANMAD climate change (one on the website, the other company before court - early 2018 or 2017.
1