TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2904
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Aug 20, 2014 5:50 pm

Here is the video:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The ytube is not working do not know why. However I think I am the problem here. :lol:

Great video.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26433
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 20, 2014 6:49 pm

Shen1986 wrote:Here is the video:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The ytube is not working do not know why. However I think I am the problem here. :lol:

Great video.
If you want to post the video itself, try deleting the "s" from "https", or use the
phpBB [video]
button.

[ytube][/ytube]

Here deleting the "s" worked. :-D
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2904
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by Shen1986 » Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:10 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:Here is the video:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The ytube is not working do not know why. However I think I am the problem here. :lol:

Great video.
If you want to post the video itself, try deleting the "s" from "https", or use the
phpBB [video]
button.

[ytube][/ytube]

Here deleting the "s" worked. :-D
Thanks.. I will do that in the future.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:01 am

Prothero? :lol:

I'll show what kind of {!#%@} Prothero does.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:22 am

Prothero on eSkeptic http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Figure 1. The Moberg et al. (2005) plot (updated from the Mann et al., 1999, plot) of the last 2000 years of earth’s average surface temperature, which shows over 800 years of relative stability followed by the rapid warming of the past two centuries, giving it the shape of a “hockey stick.” The slight warming trend of the Medieval Warm Period can also be seen (data from 900–1200 A.D.) and is nowhere near the magnitude of the warming in the past century. (Click diagrams to enlarge them.)
See?
of the last 2000 years of earth’s average surface temperature,
He can't even get it right when the printing is on the graph he defaced; Northern Hemisphere. Then he put on the red line which is absurd and bogus.

Official agency: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mob ... g2005.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And from Moberg, a better picture http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... Al2005.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Observe the three high spikes on Moberg and then compare to how high the Moberg graph instrumental temperature goes above them, with how high Prothero makes it. Moberg's graph shows about 0.2 degrees.

Prothero's display... shows ? 0.7?
That's Prothero for ya. What kind of scientist does that? What kind of scientist defaces a scientific graph in order to put in phony data essentially tripling the small difference found between high temps of 1000yrs ago and now ?

Shen, here's the real enemy of reason, of scientific endeavor - not spoon bending flakes, but scientists who are willing to bend the truth for political purpose.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by kennyc » Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:02 am

Great stuff. Thanks for posting this Shen!

Love this from his talk:

Image

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2673#comic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by kennyc » Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:10 am

Man, he does need to work on his speaking style, presentation....OKAY....OKAY....OKAY.....
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:01 pm

Donald Prothero also is not above repeating lies:
Richard Lindzen, is a notorious global warming denier who also denies that smoking causes cancer.
What kind of scientist does these kinds of things?
The slight warming trend of the Medieval Warm Period can also be seen (data from 900–1200 A.D.) and is nowhere near the magnitude of the warming in the past century.
He deliberately removed the instrumental data from Moberg 2005 and replaced with data showing over 3x the difference, in order to say the above.

Is it a good thing to present misleading information in order to forward personal political agendas? The Donald seems to think so.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:13 pm

From Moberg 2005 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 03265.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data
Moberg2005 wrote:According to our reconstruction, high temperatures—similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990—occurred around ad 1000 to 1100...
Prothero, on the other hand, takes the honest scientists' work and dishonestly alters it:
Donald Prothero wrote:The slight warming trend of the Medieval Warm Period can also be seen (data from 900–1200 A.D.) and is nowhere near the magnitude of the warming in the past century.



From "high temperatures—similar to those observed" to "slight warming ... nowhere near".
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:45 am

Next we'll take Donald's statement on Vanatu and Maldives
A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves.



Paul Kench
Biography

Research Interests:

As a coastal geomorphologist my principle fields of research interest span, coral reef geomorphology, coastal processes, medium-term coastal change, gravel beach processes and the application of coastal science to support coastal management.

I have an international research programme which focuses on understanding environmental processes in coral reef environments that control reef and reef island development and change. Specific studies have included the evolution of reef islands in The Maldives, Fiji, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and Great Barrier Reef; wave processes on coral reefs; and, reef island morphodynamics. I have worked extensively in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

At the national scale my research interests are focussed on coastal morphodynamics and processes on gravel beach systems, shore platform processes and medium-scale coastal change.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-rese ... ng-3577883" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
An Auckland University researcher has offered new hope to the myriad small island nations in the Pacific which have loudly complained their low-lying atolls will drown as global warming boosts sea levels.

Geographer Associate Professor Paul Kench has measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm - an average of 2mm a year - over the past 60 years, and found that just four had diminished in size.

Working with Arthur Webb at the Fiji-based South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, Kench used historical aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land area of the islands.

They found that the remaining 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in a scientific journal, Global and Planetary Change.

"It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown," Prof Kench told the New Scientist. "But they won't.

"The sea level will go up and the island will start responding.

One of the highest profile islands - in a political sense - was Tuvalu, where politicians and climate change campaigners have repeatedly predicted it will be drowned by rising seas, as its highest point is 4.5 metres above sea level. But the researchers found seven islands had spread by more than 3 percent on average since the 1950s.

One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 hectares or nearly 30 percent of its previous area.

And the research showed similar trends in the Republic of Kiribati, where the three main urbanised islands also "grew" - Betio by 30 percent (36ha), Bairiki by 16.3 percent (5.8ha) and Nanikai by 12.5 percent (0.8ha).

Webb, an expert on coastal processes, told the New Scientist the trend was explained by the fact the islands mostly comprised coral debris eroded from encircling reefs and pushed up onto the islands by winds and waves.

The process was continuous, because the corals were alive, he said.

In effect the islands respond to changes in weather patterns and climate - Cyclone Bebe deposited 140ha of sediment on the eastern reef of Tuvalu in 1972, increasing the main island's area by 10 percent.

But the two men warned that while the islands were coping for now, any acceleration in the rate of sea level rise could re-instate the earlier gloomy predictions.

No one knows how fast the islands can grow, and calculating sea level rise is an inexact science.

The photos and measurements say no, but Donald tells you that they are already sinking...no...."vanishing" (i.e. it's not a prediction, but a statement of supposed fact) beneath the sea. Instead, the islanders are quite busy - building airports, golf courses, and hotels.

That's Donald Prothero.
President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik today said though Maldives faces the dangers of climate change, the country would not be submerged in the Indian Ocean.

Speaking to Sri Lankan businessmen this morning during his current visit to Sri Lanka, President stressed that Maldives can be sustained through efforts to avert the dangers of climate change.

"First of all, I want give you a bit of good news. The good news is that the Maldives is not about to disappear," President Waheed said countering the claims by his predecessor that the Maldives would be be completely submerged in the near future.

He added that foreign investors were concerned with the talks of a submerged Maldives.
Just like Deniers have been saying. As Darwin noted, the rings of atoll islands are coral reef islands once ringing a volcano - which is now submerged. The piles of floating rubble that are coral islands remain visible when the original volcanic islands have disappeared, because sea level rise allowed them to rise higher than the volcanic island that once was.
Beaked fish grind coral into sand, which is deposited.
If the islanders continue to kill and capture the fish and use large amounts of coral as building material, though...well, they can always sue
Pacific islanders bid to stop Czech coal plant
http://ict.sopac.org/VirLib/MR0407.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Coasts in the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are used for a variety of purposes, ranging from social
and recreational to industrial activities. The relatively large ocean and maritime space in each of the
PICs makes development impossible without some influence (positive or negative) on the coast and
shorefront. For this reason, shorefront and coastline development must be pursued in a carefully
planned manner, so as to minimise negative impact of development activities.
One of the main uses of coasts in PICs and in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) is coral
reef dredging and mining of marine aggregate. This includes a mixture of carbonate sand, gravel,
cobble and boulder, which comprise dead coral skeletons, live coral heads and massive coral skeleton, e.g.
Montstrea spp .
Coral reef mining has for many years, been the main source of construction aggregate for the building industry in PICs. Reef carbonates are used in four major activities. These are, for fill and land reclamation in wetl ands; housing and tourism development; construction of coastal protection structures (like seawalls, groynes, revetments, breakwaters, gabion baskets and bio-engineering protection), promenades and infrastructure facilities (like coastal roads); and construction of industrial facilities and construction of residential buildings.
In coral reef and atoll environments, like those in FSM, mining of reef carbonates and extraction
from storm ridge deposits, carbonate sandbanks, coral heads, reef rubble and reef sands and gravel
is a multi-million dollar economic activity.
Prothero wrote:A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves.
And Vanuatu?
Highest elevation
Tabwemasana 1,877 m


What was Donald's evidence? Oh, he didn't give any?



How strange. That's just the way he rolls.
Last edited by SweetPea on Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:30 am, edited 4 times in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:21 am

Donald Prothero wrote:There were numerous small fluctuations of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years of the Holocene. But in the case of the Mediaeval Warm Period (about 950–1250 A.D.), the temperatures increased by only 1°C, much less than we have seen in the current episode of global warming (see Figure 1).
We've already seen what Donald did to figure 1. He said it was global when it said northern hemisphere, and he defaced Moberg 2005 to add a fake higher instrumental temperature.

So let's see about his claim that recent warming is much more than the 1 °C. Not to nitpick :) when there are serious untruths being told, but first, what is Donald's field of specialization?
wiki
...geologist, and author...His research has been in the field of magnetostratigraphy, a technique to date rock layers of the Cenozoic era and its use to date the climate changes which occurred 30-40 million years ago. He is currently the author or editor of more than 30 books and over 250 scientific papers, including five geology textbooks.
OK, then he should know how to denote degrees.
wiki
The general rule of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) is that the numerical value always precedes the unit, and a space is always used to separate the unit from the number, e.g. "30.2 °C" (not "30.2°C" or "30.2° C"). Thus the value of the quantity is the product of the number and the unit, the space being regarded as a multiplication sign (just as a space between units implies multiplication). The only exceptions to this rule are for the unit symbols for degree, minute, and second for plane angle (°, ′, and ″, respectively), for which no space is left between the numerical value and the unit symbol.[22
Maybe not.
Donald wrote: only 1°C

Now on to his claim:
But in the case of the Mediaeval Warm Period (about 950–1250 A.D.), the temperatures increased by only 1°C, much less than we have seen in the current episode of global warming (see Figure 1)
Much more than 1 °C?
HadCRUtemp

Where? That's right! You too now have Denier lying eyeballs.

How about NASA GISS?


Does Donald Prothero tell the truth about anything ?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34496
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by Gord » Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:38 pm

I like Prothero's ability to dumb things down enough while keeping it close enough to the facts so that even Sweetpea can misunderstand it on purpose.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:12 am

The Global Average is a Chimera of many different dynamics. Proxy evidence shows the Pacific Warm Pool was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period.

Most of the current increase in temperatures has been driven by warmer Arctic temperatures that are largely due to escaping heat!

NASA’s map below illustrates how various regions have warmed and cooled during 2000–2009 relative to 1951-1980. On average the recent decade was 0.6°C warmer, but this difference is disproportionately driven by the Arctic that was about 2°C warmer. That unusual extreme warming is called Arctic Amplification that CO2 driven models suggest is the result of absorbing more heat because lost sea ice allows darker ocean waters to absorb more heat. But that explanation is contradicted by a recent evaluation of Arctic Ocean heat content (Wunsch and Heimbach 2014 discussed here) which reveals the upper 700 meters of the Arctic Ocean have been cooling. (read more here http://landscapesandcycles.net/cooling-deep-oceans.html) That cooling suggests unusually warm Arctic air temperatures are instead caused by increased ventilation of heat that had been stored decades ago.



The consensus agreed a shifting Arctic Oscillation altered the direction of subfreezing winter winds from Siberia, anomalously pushing sea ice away from the coast and generating more open water “polynya” and “leads. “Those same winds also pushed previously trapped thick multiyear ice into the warmer Atlantic. 1 Before the winds shifted, measurements of air temperatures in the 80s and 90s reported a slight cooling trend that contradicted global warming theory.2

Compared to old sea ice that is 3 meters thick, open water ventilates 70 times more heat. During the winter when that open water re-freezes it releases additional latent heat. After a week, new ice thickens to 0.4 meters, but still ventilates 8 times more heat. New ice will thicken to 1 meter in about a month but still ventilates 3 times as much heat as thick multi?year ice. Researchers concluded “it can be inferred that at least part of the warming that has been observed is due to the heat released during the increased production of new ice, and the increased flux of heat to the atmosphere through the larger area of thin ice.” 1

Whole essay and literature cited are here http://landscapesandcycles.net/the-glob ... imera.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:32 am

Prothero wrote:But in the case of the Mediaeval Warm Period (about 950–1250 A.D.), the temperatures increased by only 1°C, much less than we have seen in the current episode of global warming (see Figure 1).
NASA global temperatures


Donald is not being truthful. That's the main problem. No instrumental data set shows 1 °C is much less "than we have seen in the current episode of global warming" - no data set says it.

Look at Donald's instrumental rise from 1950( figure 1), below. It's false.


Now look at NASA since 1950, below. Prothero tripled the difference between highs of the Medieval period and the temps of the modern period.


Here's NASA again yearly this time


Is Donald really unaware of this? With his credentials and speeches on climate? Very very doubtful that he doesn't know the truth. Why else would he deface Moberg with false figures?

Below figure 1 we see another version of the claim from Prothero:
The slight warming trend of the Medieval Warm Period can also be seen (data from 900–1200 A.D.) and is nowhere near the magnitude of the warming in the past century
wiki on temperature
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that the temperature rise over the 100 year period from 1906–2005 was 0.74 °C [0.56 to 0.92 °C] with a 90% confidence interval.[19]
IPCC
The updated 100-year trend (1906–2005) of 0.74°C

Neither in the past century nor since 1950 is 1 °C "much less than we have seen in the current episode of global warming". Donald's statements are untrue. He employs the tricks he tries to put on skeptics, because he is the true science denier, the most anti-science kind of drone imaginable.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:23 pm

Gord wrote:I like Prothero's ability to dumb things down enough while keeping it close enough to the facts so that even Sweetpea can misunderstand it on purpose.
I don't know what kind of kielbasa you've been smoking, Gordie, but here we can show you that even Michael Mann is telling you that the globe has warmed less than 1 °C, and that contradicts Prothero's claim.

@2:10
[ytube][/ytube]
Prothero had to phony up figure 1 as he did in order to make the difference between the medieval high temps and modern high temps 3x bigger than it is.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11393
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by TJrandom » Fri Jan 02, 2015 10:33 pm

Gord wrote:I like Prothero's ability to dumb things down enough while keeping it close enough to the facts so that even Sweetpea can misunderstand it on purpose.
Spot on IMO.

On Vanuatu – while the highest elevation peaks are indeed not in danger of sinking below the waves of the rising seas – with only 2% of the land arable and either near the coasts or on smaller and thus lower islands, the rising sea level will indeed likely make Vanuatu uninhabitable. And if not entirely uninhabitable, at least incapable of supporting their current population.

It doesn`t take a lot of brain power to see thru SweetPea`s BS.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:19 am

TJrandom wrote:
Gord wrote:I like Prothero's ability to dumb things down enough while keeping it close enough to the facts so that even Sweetpea can misunderstand it on purpose.
No misunderstanding here, TJrandom. Prothero's claim
A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves.
which is untrue for both Vanuatu and for Maldives. It's not just that Vanuatu is neither "barely poking out", nor "vanishing beneath the waves"; Prothero made a false claim about both islands.
of the rising seas – with only 2% of the land arable and either near the coasts or on smaller and thus lower islands, the rising sea level will indeed likely make Vanuatu uninhabitable. And if not entirely uninhabitable, at least incapable of supporting their current population.
So you say, but provide zero evidence.
It doesn`t take a lot of brain power to see thru SweetPea`s BS.
Bran power is something you demonstrate for us, TJrandom, through your deposit of such excrement piles.
Brain power, you don't boast a lot of, but even you know that each and every one of my criticisms of Prothero's false claims is valid. You thought to introduce a strawman by pretending that I only rely on Vanuatu's elevations to disprove Prothero's false claim, but I don't rely on that single item to show Prothero's falsehood up. "Rising sea level" does not translate literally to sinking islands, and here's why:
Actual measurements show that the strong majority of the islands studied show either stability or gain in area. The large majority of the coral islands have seen growth of area during higher seas through new deposits of small rubble and sand.
Geographer Associate Professor Paul Kench has measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm - an average of 2mm a year - over the past 60 years, and found that just four had diminished in size.

Working with Arthur Webb at the Fiji-based South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, Kench used historical aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land area of the islands.

They found that the remaining 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in a scientific journal, Global and Planetary Change.

"It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown," Prof Kench told the New Scientist. "But they won't.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11393
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by TJrandom » Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:41 am

You are still either ignorant, or willfully disingenuous.

2mm a year (roughly 1/16th of an inch) in sand and rubble growth at the edge of small islands is not going to offset the rising seas from global warming. Vanuatu is an island chain, with one high mountain that isn`t going to protect the low level surrounding islands. That you stand on an absurdity in interpretation tells a lot about you. Yes you can say that you are factually true, just so long as the highest peak does not sink below the rising seas, but to what purpose? Ridiculous really, don`t you think?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:22 am

TJrandom wrote:You are still either ignorant, or willfully disingenuous.

2mm a year (roughly 1/16th of an inch) in sand and rubble growth at the edge of small islands is not going to offset the rising seas from global warming.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong and denying the physical measurements that show the opposite. During the high rate of warming, the great majority of the islands grew or remained stable.

You state wrongly what the 2mm per year is, because you are into denial of the facts. The 2mm is the averaged sea level rise. The islands grew a commensurate amount - or more.
... local sea levels have risen 120mm - an average of 2mm a year - over the past 60 years,
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11393
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by TJrandom » Sat Jan 03, 2015 9:52 am

SweetPea wrote:
TJrandom wrote:You are still either ignorant, or willfully disingenuous.

2mm a year (roughly 1/16th of an inch) in sand and rubble growth at the edge of small islands is not going to offset the rising seas from global warming.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong and denying the physical measurements that show the opposite. During the high rate of warming, the great majority of the islands grew or remained stable.

You state wrongly what the 2mm per year is, because you are into denial of the facts. The 2mm is the averaged sea level rise. The islands grew a commensurate amount - or more.
... local sea levels have risen 120mm - an average of 2mm a year - over the past 60 years,
A commensurate amount of rubble and sand equates to the 2mm of sea rise, so no, I did not misunderstand what you presented. If the sea level rise increases to 4, 5mm or more per year - will increases in sand and rubble still protect the low laying islands?

More importantly, are you saying that global warming will not cause the seas to rise to levels that will cause significant damage? And if so, based upon what data?

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by robinson » Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:02 am

SweetPea wrote:Prothero's display... shows ? 0.7?
That's Prothero for ya. What kind of scientist does that? What kind of scientist defaces a scientific graph in order to put in phony data essentially tripling the small difference found between high temps of 1000yrs ago and now ?
The kind that is worried about a disaster, and feels bending the truth, fudging the numbers, is a small price to pay for motivating the world to do something to stop the disaster.
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:32 pm

TJrandom wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
TJrandom wrote:You are still either ignorant, or willfully disingenuous.

2mm a year (roughly 1/16th of an inch) in sand and rubble growth at the edge of small islands is not going to offset the rising seas from global warming.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong and denying the physical measurements that show the opposite. During the high rate of warming, the great majority of the islands grew or remained stable.

You state wrongly what the 2mm per year is, because you are into denial of the facts. The 2mm is the averaged sea level rise. The islands grew a commensurate amount - or more.
... local sea levels have risen 120mm - an average of 2mm a year - over the past 60 years,
A commensurate amount of rubble and sand equates to the 2mm of sea rise, so no, I did not misunderstand what you presented.
I didn't say you misunderstood. I said you wrongly stated. You misrepresent what the study author stated. You misrepresent what I stated. You're dishonest about it. It's what you do. Some saw commensurate growth, some saw greater than that. Do you need it repeated another time? How many times? You lose. 'Cause you lie. You stupidly lie.
If the sea level rise increases to 4, 5mm or more per year - will increases in sand and rubble still protect the low laying islands?
It's not increasing that much, so that's only your fantasy. Your question. Stop misrepresenting actual facts and what was actually said, that's key Otherwise, there's no reason to even entertain your fantasy. We have to expose your lies on every post ! First things first.
More importantly, are you saying that global warming will not cause the seas to rise to levels that will cause significant damage? And if so, based upon what data?
I'm not into prognosticating, that's for loooooosers like you to get deep into to try to cover your past dishonest approach and wrong predictions..
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:38 pm

robinson wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Prothero's display... shows ? 0.7?
That's Prothero for ya. What kind of scientist does that? What kind of scientist defaces a scientific graph in order to put in phony data essentially tripling the small difference found between high temps of 1000yrs ago and now ?
The kind that is worried about a disaster, and feels bending the truth, fudging the numbers, is a small price to pay for motivating the world to do something to stop the disaster.
Check! Noble cause corruption or corrupt Nobel cause?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sat Jan 03, 2015 2:16 pm

Regarding the lies of TJrandom, I think it might be of benefit to further point something out.

After coming in with his claim about my critique of Donald's fakery, and coming up empty of evidence for his claim, he's now trying to draw the discussion into what may or may not happen with sea level.

That redirection is not going to happen unless he admits the dishonesty of his previous remarks
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11393
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by TJrandom » Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:26 pm

SweetPea wrote:Regarding the lies of TJrandom, I think it might be of benefit to further point something out.

After coming in with his claim about my critique of Donald's fakery, and coming up empty of evidence for his claim, he's now trying to draw the discussion into what may or may not happen with sea level.

That redirection is not going to happen unless he admits the dishonesty of his previous remarks
SweetPea – you brought up Vanuatu – post 10. No redirection on my part, and no dishonesty (except by you...).

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:50 am

I brought up Vanuatu in relation to the truth or falsity of Prothero's claim, that of "barely poke out above the ocean now" and "are already vanishing beneath the waves".


You introduced the speculative - the fantasy - "If the sea level rise increases to 4, 5mm or more per year"...and that, TJrandom, that attempt at redirection, will not be indulged. ;)
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11393
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by TJrandom » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:00 am

SweetPea wrote:I brought up Vanuatu in relation to the truth or falsity of Prothero's claim, that of "barely poke out above the ocean now" and "are already vanishing beneath the waves".
Oh, so you finally admit to having lied.

You introduced the speculative - the fantasy - "If the sea level rise increases to 4, 5mm or more per year"...and that, TJrandom, that attempt at redirection, will not be indulged. ;)
That range is well within the IPCC projections - which you should have already known.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_21st.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please do try to keep up there SweetPea. :oops:

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:23 am

TJrandom wrote:
SweetPea wrote:I brought up Vanuatu in relation to the truth or falsity of Prothero's claim, that of "barely poke out above the ocean now" and "are already vanishing beneath the waves".
Oh, so you finally admit to having lied.
You're full of {!#%@}, you finally do admit.

You introduced the speculative - the fantasy - "If the sea level rise increases to 4, 5mm or more per year"...and that, TJrandom, that attempt at redirection, will not be indulged. ;)
That range is well within the IPCC projections - which you should have already known.
This is what your link says:
It should be noted that there is no firm theoretical or observational basis for this scaled-up ice sheetdischarge.
No firm basis.

Never mind how much, too much or too little - it is, as I said, your redirection away from discussion of the quote from Prothero, and is done, presumably, because you cannot show evidence for what you claimed originally.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11393
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by TJrandom » Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:31 am

SweetPea wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
SweetPea wrote:I brought up Vanuatu in relation to the truth or falsity of Prothero's claim, that of "barely poke out above the ocean now" and "are already vanishing beneath the waves".
Oh, so you finally admit to having lied.
You're full of {!#%@}, you finally do admit.

You introduced the speculative - the fantasy - "If the sea level rise increases to 4, 5mm or more per year"...and that, TJrandom, that attempt at redirection, will not be indulged. ;)
That range is well within the IPCC projections - which you should have already known.
This is what your link says:
It should be noted that there is no firm theoretical or observational basis for this scaled-up ice sheetdischarge.
No firm basis.

Never mind how much, too much or too little - it is, as I said, your redirection away from discussion of the quote from Prothero, and is done, presumably, because you cannot show evidence for what you claimed originally.
Wait... SweetPea, can you really be that disingenuous? To suggest that the scaled-up ice sheet discharge is all that is at play in the rising ocean level? You do know don`t you, that even if the ice sheet is left out of the calculation, that the range I suggested is still well within the IPCC projection?

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by clarsct » Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:56 am

Oh for the love of all things holy and unholy alike.

Can the friendly moderator please split the climate change discussion off into the proper forum? Please and Thank you.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34496
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by Gord » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:11 pm

TJrandom wrote:Oh, so you finally admit to having lied.
He's admitted it before, he just doesn't realize it's what he's said.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:46 pm

TJrandom wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
SweetPea wrote:I brought up Vanuatu in relation to the truth or falsity of Prothero's claim, that of "barely poke out above the ocean now" and "are already vanishing beneath the waves".
Oh, so you finally admit to having lied.
You're full of {!#%@}, you finally do admit.

You introduced the speculative - the fantasy - "If the sea level rise increases to 4, 5mm or more per year"...and that, TJrandom, that attempt at redirection, will not be indulged. ;)
That range is well within the IPCC projections - which you should have already known.
This is what your link says:
It should be noted that there is no firm theoretical or observational basis for this scaled-up ice sheetdischarge.
No firm basis.

Never mind how much, too much or too little - it is, as I said, your redirection away from discussion of the quote from Prothero, and is done, presumably, because you cannot show evidence for what you claimed originally.
Wait... SweetPea, can you really be that disingenuous? To suggest that the scaled-up ice sheet discharge is all that is at play in the rising ocean level? You do know don`t you, that even if the ice sheet is left out of the calculation, that the range I suggested is still well within the IPCC projection?
It doesn't matter if your fantasy is within the IPCC range or not - because that is not what you were to show. You cannot show what you originally claimed, so you are attempting a misdirection. Prothero defaced the Moberg graph and made the difference between Medieval high temps and modern high temps 3x larger.
You cannot support your original statements, so your attempt is to direct attention away from what Prothero did and from what you originally claimed..
No mystery about why that is !
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:40 pm

clarsct wrote:Oh for the love of all things holy and unholy alike.

Can the friendly moderator please split the climate change discussion off into the proper forum? Please and Thank you.
clarsct, the climate discussion is on Prothero's topic, both in the narrow sense and the broad sense. He's talking about what people believe, and how they can be deceived, how they maintain conflicting beliefs, etc ...and he talks about climate science denial.

It's quite appropriate and on topic to take his stuff apart and show how he is able to present obviously false information to accepting, motivated audiences. He doesn't get heckled off the stage. It's very interesting and part of the topic.

He can take the Moberg results "high temperatures—similar to those observed" and change that to "slight warming ... nowhere near" and nobody notices. That's very interesting and precisely on topic in the broader sense of his presentation topic.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9825
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:04 pm

Hmm. I may move the whole thread.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by clarsct » Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:05 am

Pyrrho wrote:Hmm. I may move the whole thread.
I respect any decision you make.

*tip of the hat*

Prothero at TAM and Prothero vis a vis climate change are different things,
IMNSHO
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9825
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by Pyrrho » Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:42 am

Moved.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26433
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:25 am

Happy perihelion. :-P
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11393
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by TJrandom » Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:50 am

SweetPea wrote:...You cannot support your original statements,
Nope... what I claimed is this:
It doesn`t take a lot of brain power to see thru SweetPea`s BS.
You already categorically agreed with me when you wrote...
Brain power, you don't boast a lot of...
So it seems to me that you have lied once more since I can support my original statements.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by SweetPea » Mon Jan 05, 2015 2:05 am

You have not shown anything that I BS'd on. Not any item.

Here is an original claim that you made
On Vanuatu – while the highest elevation peaks are indeed not in danger of sinking below the waves of the rising seas – with only 2% of the land arable and either near the coasts or on smaller and thus lower islands, the rising sea level will indeed likely make Vanuatu uninhabitable. And if not entirely uninhabitable, at least incapable of supporting their current population.

It doesn`t take a lot of brain power to see thru SweetPea`s BS.
the rising sea level will indeed likely make Vanuatu uninhabitable. And if not entirely uninhabitable, at least incapable of supporting their current population.
And you've given zero evidence to support that claim.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11393
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: TAM2014 - Donald Prothero

Post by TJrandom » Mon Jan 05, 2015 2:26 am

SweetPea wrote:You have not shown anything that I BS'd on. Not any item.

Here is an original claim that you made
On Vanuatu – while the highest elevation peaks are indeed not in danger of sinking below the waves of the rising seas – with only 2% of the land arable and either near the coasts or on smaller and thus lower islands, the rising sea level will indeed likely make Vanuatu uninhabitable. And if not entirely uninhabitable, at least incapable of supporting their current population.

It doesn`t take a lot of brain power to see thru SweetPea`s BS.
the rising sea level will indeed likely make Vanuatu uninhabitable. And if not entirely uninhabitable, at least incapable of supporting their current population.
That claim doesn`t require evidence. Likely – remember? Also you ignore the fragility of their environment, as you do for environments and the climate in general – remember the 2% arable statistic I provided?

Your BS started with your claim that I attempted a misdirection – after you raised the topic.