# Climate Change Deniers Are Lying



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)

Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
Google Company stops funding ALEC over climate change denial.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2015)

All they have left. Reality is kicking in their teeth. The El Nino this year is going to demonstrate just how stupid the deniars are.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> All they have left. Reality is kicking in their teeth. The El Nino this year is going to demonstrate just how stupid the deniars are.


It's all they ever had.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 8, 2015)

Google is a left wing funded agency of the US government. Googel has been manipulating their systems for years deleting links to science that is troublesome for the liars..

Another EPIC FAIL by the Natural Climate deniers...

What?  You two got your ass handed to you in the last lie thread you needed to try lying again?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

What is it someone is denying?please post your definition!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> Google Company stops funding ALEC over climate change denial.



What do you call it when you post the same wrong stuff over and over again hoping the next post will make it correct?

Oh right, insanity.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 8, 2015)

It's great to see our education system turn out people who simply say

"You are lying."

I have yet to see anything that supports the claim yet.

Me, I am undecided.  

But I get a little sick of people wasting bandwidth with these constant tripe chants.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> All they have left. Reality is kicking in their teeth. The El Nino this year is going to demonstrate just how stupid the deniars are.


El Niño even if it did happen is natural so what?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> It's great to see our education system turn out people who simply say
> 
> "You are lying."
> 
> ...


_The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate._

*The American Institute of Physics is simply the biggest Scientific Society in the world. This site has many links to information and papers concerning the climate. It is not a blog by undegreed people with no credentials, but a site put together by real working scientists.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > All they have left. Reality is kicking in their teeth. The El Nino this year is going to demonstrate just how stupid the deniars are.
> ...


So, we had a record year for heat last year with a neutral El Nino, this years El Nino will far exceed the past record years. And likely establish a new spike, so that when the following years are all in the top ten, but not exceeding it until another strong El Nino develops, you can point and say, 'See, it's cooling" LOL


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > It's great to see our education system turn out people who simply say
> ...


ah, the old sock stupid post.  Been awhile, you must have been having withdrawals.  Dude you're too funny.  Herr Koch 1901.  I love the opportunity everytime to put up my hero's name.  The one you all can't debunk. hahahahahahahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> Google Company stops funding ALEC over climate change denial.



Who denied the climate changes? Where?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Google is a left wing funded agency of the US government. Googel has been manipulating their systems for years deleting links to science that is troublesome for the liars..
> 
> Another EPIC FAIL by the Natural Climate deniers...
> 
> What?  You two got your ass handed to you in the last lie thread you needed to try lying again?



Funny when someone ^^^ makes allegations (left wing, government funded, deleting links to science) sans evidence and examples.  Typical post by a member of the crazy right wing, taken seriously only by other members of the crazy right wing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > All they have left. Reality is kicking in their teeth. The El Nino this year is going to demonstrate just how stupid the deniars are.
> ...



That and the glacier on top of Chicago.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > It's great to see our education system turn out people who simply say
> ...


We can hope that one day climate change deniers will be held accountable as the criminals they are.
Arrest Climate-Change Deniers


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Record year? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Careful, the deniers have more guns than you.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Google is a left wing funded agency of the US government. Googel has been manipulating their systems for years deleting links to science that is troublesome for the liars..
> ...


Seems to be the best they can do.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



We can hope, but the power elite is rife with polluters, as is the congress with biddable members whose life-blood, campaign bribes, helps them keep their job.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2015)

*Oddly enough, I trust NASA to get it right much more than a flap yap on the internet who has made numerous claims that were simply wrong.*

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet The 10 warmest years Not exactly forever ago

Last week NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 topped the list of hottest years ever recorded. Yikes!

What’s worse, the _ten_ warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998. Yikes again!

I fear this news story might turn into a blip that gets tons of attention and is then forgotten after a few days. But it's a topic that deserves sustained attention.

So let’s look back at those years and remember what was going on then. What were we focused on during those record-breaking years? What were we doing? I encourage you to think about what was happening in your life.

Here are some of the top news events from the 10 warmest years on record. Although I did not specifically look for environmental or climate-related events, often the most notable event of that year _did _have a climate connection:


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


My goodness, a glacier on top of Chicago? Funny, I didn't notice that on Google World.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 8, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



But the truth has never been proved from the barrel of a gun.  Those who live by the gun, will die by the gun - a very fitting end.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Oh my, those ancient SUVs must have melted it. Damn you Exxon!


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> Google Company stops funding ALEC over climate change denial.



It's disconcerting that in 1978, the first Superman movie came out featuring leaders of a planet saying much the same things we hear leaders saying now denying climate change. 

"FIRST ELDER
					No.  I'm sorry, Jor-El, but the decision of 
					the Elders is unanimous.

	ON JOR-EL, Handsome, intelligent  man; great intensity about him.

						JOR-EL
				  (leaning forward, passionately)
					But you can't ignore these facts!
				    (gesturing toward the 
					  equations inside the black table)
					It's suicide!  Worse than that, it's genocide.

						FIRST ELDER
					Jor-El, Be warned. This tone of
					yours approaches insolence.

						JOR-EL
				    (a more reasonable tone)			
					My friends, I am not a rash, impulsive person. 
					I'm not given to wild, unsupported 	statements. 
					We must evacuate this planet immediately!

						FIRST ELDER
					You are one of Krypton's greatest 
					scientists Jor-El -

						JOR-EL
					Then -

						FIRST ELDER
					But so is Vond-El

						VOND-EL
					Thank you...
				(to Jor-El)
					And it isn't that we question
					your data. The facts are undeniable.
				    	   (gesturing towards the 
				    figures inside the table)
					It's your conclusions we find
					insupportable

						JOR-EL
				   (excited)
					I tell you this planet will
					explode in thirty days.

						VOND-EL
					And I tell you that Krypton is simply 
					shifting its orbit

						JOR-EL
					You ask me to stand by while every man , 
					woman, and child are destroyed.
"
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/superman_original.txt

Then as expected, Krypton blows up. I just hope that in our case, life doesn't imitate art...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Truth? Was does that have to do with the "Arrest the deniers" assclowns"?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


But gee whiz, how could that be?  How, when deniers all know in their hearts, that a conspiracy of scientists and governments prevents virtuous multi national corporations from getting the real truth out.  Because energy corporations have no interest in trying to shape the narrative.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


I doubt that, deniers are a minority.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Right, minority. How many votes did Kyoto get in the US Senate again?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> ...


exactly, and why I want to know what they're talking about.  I think a fair question.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> ...


again, who is denying climate change?  name someone on here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



CO2 is a pollutant?

What a fucking moron. So you're a polluter


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > It's great to see our education system turn out people who simply say
> ...



All right you lying sack of shit... Provided the data, method, and math which shows how you determined mans contribution and how that contribution has affected the planet.  Hell, Even the IPCC recognizes that 65-75% of the rise is from natural causes and not man made... 

Lets see some real science from you for once.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


he has mountains of it.  I laugh everyday when I read that shit. mountains and thousands of pieces of evidence. EVIDENCE and never ever posts shit. never.  Famous line is I already did and you all boofooed it.  yeah right.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 8, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Don't try to be clever, it doesn't suit you.  The Oceans are warming creating a new normal - droughts and violent storms.  As more glacial ice melts, less solar energy is reflected.  How much of this warming is related to human behavior?  That's the debate.

Deniers have no clue and offer nothing substantive or credible to explain another alternative.  It's obvious that the callous conservatives are allmost to the person deniers.  If someone doesn't give a shit for those alive today, why expect they would care for others yet to be born.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 8, 2015)

Well here's some evidence from NOAA - of course the willfully ignorant and government conspiracy clowns won't read it:

NOAA and climate change evidence - Google Scholar


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



CF, I know you're a partisan hack, why do you continue to prove you're that and dumb as a box of rocks too?

_The very first time you learned about carbon dioxide was probably in grade school: We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Any eight-year-old can rattle off this fact.

It should come as no surprise that, when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, some people angrily proclaim, "Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!"

This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Throughphotosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.

These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.

Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere 

_


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


You're polluting the atmosphere when the CO2 comes from your pie hole.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 8, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Google is a left wing funded agency of the US government. Googel has been manipulating their systems for years deleting links to science that is troublesome for the liars..
> ...



Explain to me how the OP is anything but that.


Liminal said:


> Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> Google Company stops funding ALEC over climate change denial.



This was from his article...making reference to an Inhofe (a moron in his own right):

"a statement that makes my eyes roll back so far in my head that I can see the back of my skull."

Is the author admitting that there is nothing between his eyes and the back of his skull ?

Sure seems like it.  What a pathetic article.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)




----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 8, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



I think that was his point....or did I miss something ?

If you go to arrest them, you'll probably have guns (or someone will get a good laugh).  If they have bigger guns....you'll die by the gun.

A fitting end indeed.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > It's great to see our education system turn out people who simply say
> ...



I am not sure what, if anything, this is supposed to prove.  It simply says people postulated things.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Ohh just for that I'm going to really exhale!!!

Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff. Melt you polar ice caps!  Eat my CO2!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Carbon cycle: We breath in oxygen, we exhale CO2 and then morons call CO2 a pollutant.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


>



OMFG!!! Funniest video ever!  He's using the Ice cores to demonstrate a link between CO2 and temperature and ignoring that CO2 LAGS by 1,000 years!'

http://


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


Climate changes daily, the ocean currents are the same and cyclical, so what, do you have a point? Like I said, the climate changes, who said it doesn't? Name someone. BTW, droughts have always been around due to the ocean currents. The ocean drives climate


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)




----------



## Muhammed (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> Google Company stops funding ALEC over climate change denial.


Having fun with that strawman?

Name one person who denies that the climate changes.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 8, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



There is some truth to what you have said, ocean currents do impact our climate.  Consider the amount of cold fresh water entering the ocean ecosystem everyday.  Then get back to me.

Arctic Ocean freshwater will cause unpredictable changes on climate Environment The Guardian

Climate change and the oceans

Ocean Motion Impact Ocean Conveyor Belt

I have to wonder if the deniers are truly willfully ignorant, the more denial I read the stupider the deniers seem.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


>



Don't forget the Chicago glacier.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 8, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Interesting video, too bad your comment was insipid.  Are you seeking to take over CrusaderFranks chair?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 8, 2015)

Have the climate change deniers called for the arrest of climate change alarmists ?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 8, 2015)

Every denier here has called for that. They all enthusiastically support the attempted prosecution of Dr. Mann and other climate scientists.

In stark contrast, not a single reason-based person here has called for anyone's arrest.

The difference is very clear. Deniers tend to be stalinists who want to jail the opposition, why the reason-based people believe in freedom.

And to deflect from their own documented authoritarian tendencies, various deniers here will try to point to someone that nobody ever heard of as proof of something. Doesn't work. I still just point out that they personally want to jail people, and that their deflection won't make people ignore that.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> ...


Joe down the street.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 8, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Every denier here has called for that. They all enthusiastically support the attempted prosecution of Dr. Mann and other climate scientists.
> 
> In stark contrast, not a single reason-based person here has called for anyone's arrest.
> 
> ...



Missed post #15, did you ?

Let me know how that fits your claim.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 8, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Every denier here has called for that. They all enthusiastically support the attempted prosecution of Dr. Mann and other climate scientists.
> 
> In stark contrast, not a single reason-based person here has called for anyone's arrest.
> 
> ...



I call for federal funding for deprogramming the death worshipping AGWCult


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 8, 2015)

Has this thread provided anything different than the 100 threads before it ?

Can we ask if reading all these threads can be dangerous to your I.Q. ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Why don't you pick one of your favorite "deniers" and challenge to enter the bullring with you.

Make sure you define your debate topic with clarity.

Pick three good judges and let's see what you both have to offer in the way of analysis.

The Bull ring is just you and your opponent.  Until after the debate is closed out.  Then the judges get to weigh in with their vote.

You could even make your "lying" accusation in the bullring.  Of course, you'd have to back it up.

I'd love to see just the data laid out in one thread.

What say ye ?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


That's what I knew. You are full of shit.

Doesn't that embarass you?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 8, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


No.  Does it embarrass you to be an eccentric weirdo?


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2015)

And he's being far nicer than you deserve Muhammad ol' boy


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Frank that's fucking funny


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 8, 2015)

> Carbon cycle: We breath in oxygen, we exhale CO2 and then morons call CO2 a pollutant.



Bingo.  If the jittery Chicken Littles REALLY wanted to help, they would all stop exhaling.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





Liminal said:


>


Who fucking cares it's in the water that doesn't mean a damn thing.  by the way how long has it been floating just curious I'm sure with your stupidity you have no idea do you you're an ignorant idiot who doesn't know anything about what is going on with the planet blind and ignorant


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> ...


He still hasn't


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Frank I told you they wanted us all dead!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Still haven't said who said climate doesn't change come on guy tell us?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


By the way, what do you mean there is some truth it is true that some truth it's true why can you just freaking admit it


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


>


 thumbs down


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2015)

jc456 said:


> By the way, what do you mean there is some truth it is true that some truth it's true why can you just freaking admit it



Don't push it, jc.  He was just being polite.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, what do you mean there is some truth it is true that some truth it's true why can you just freaking admit it
> ...


Who the fuck are you


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2015)

Someone with some good advice


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2015)

Naw


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 8, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



So, I'll take it that we won't expect to see you in the bullring anytime soon.

Too bad.

It would be good to see a real debate on this topic.

Oh well.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 9, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Post evidence proving human beings have zero impact on the climate.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Why are you asking people to back your ridiculous strawman?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



First, I am not sure I believe they don't.  I think I've stated that.

Second, I asked him to take his debate to a venue where just his facts and his single opponents facts could be evaluated.  That way we could see what both sides have to present and what information they feel is the most meaningful.  I grow tired of having certain organizations held up as "the standard".  Or if your doctor tells you he needs to cut off your balls do you just march in and have it done without really trying to understand why (but he is the expert....what could you possibly know).  It's a legitimate suggestion.

Third, your request is silly.  If you had said, prove humans have inconsequential impact on climate or consequential impact, then the question would have turned to a matter of metrics (which is probably where this whole disagreement resides anyway).  After all some "deniers" would claim that volcanos have more impact than humans.  And "alarmists" would argue that "rising ocean levels are a real concern.  What is impact and why be concerned.

Lastly, is there a reason he shouldn't go there.  Or do we continue with the proliferation of meaningless threads (which the OP starts) which all end with the same name calling, appeal to authority riddled, selective data plastered...goop ?


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 9, 2015)

Question for Al Gore's doomsday cult members:

What would happen to humans if they did not warm their environment?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


>



Wow, that CO2 sure is a heat trapper. Why don't they make aluminum foil and baking sheets out of it?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Are you a sock?  Come on now, admitted it, you are in fact CrusaderFrank.  No one but he is capable of posting one-line idiot-grams with such regularity.

For those who aren't aware, and idiot-gram is a post, most always a single sentence, totally void of anything substantive.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

AGWCult: CO2 causes Global Warming

Skeptic: Do you have any experiments linking a wisp of CO2 to warming?

AGWCult: DENIER!!!! The system is far too complicated to replicate in a lab! The Sun is not a digital heat source, there's clouds, cow farts, Chinese soot altering the aldebo, we can't possibly replicate all that in a lab. All we know for certain is that 120PPM of CO2 will destory all life as we know it on planet Earth

Skeptic: Without an experiment how can you know any of that?

AGWCult: DENIER!  FUCKING  DIE!! THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!  WE HAVE CONSENSUS!!  HAVE YOU SEEN MANN'S TREE RING


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 9, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



You criticism is spot on, it is a queston of metrics.  That said, my question was loaded for emphasis, in fact some deniers are simply kooks who don't have any specialized knowledge.  As for the alarmists, their concern isn't based on a fallacy but on data such as this:

NOAA s Ten Signs of a Warming World Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Denier is not a word used by real scientists, it's an AGWCult secret handshake word. That's how they identify each other


----------



## Liminal (Jun 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


That's because 'denier" is a word used in reference to people who aren't really scientists.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


It's a simple question, why are you dodging it?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



No, Honey Boo Boo, Denier, like Consensus, is a Cult word.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Why do you call those who disagree with you "deniers".

Would you call me a "denier" if I disagreed with the theory that the moon is made of cheese? 

Of course you wouldn't. You and your ilk are merely resorting to a logical fallacy because you have no reasonable and logical argument to back up your fear-mongering claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming via CO2 emissions.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Oh really . dummy, you mean like consensus on FOX News.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


What does FOX News have to do with the subject?

You are obviously deflecting.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Luminol makes dried semen stains true blue

True story


----------



## Liminal (Jun 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Is that what your mother told you?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Wait. You didn't know that when you made this sock account?

Maybe you can name your next sock "Trojan"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 9, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...




6 PAGES OF LIES AND DEFLECTIONS FROM THE LEFT WING ZEALOTS AND NOT EVEN A SHRED OF SCIENCE...

This place never changes...  Come on, Show me the Data, math and methods... Post it up! Show me how you determined mans contribution and how you identified what precise changes man contribution has lead too.....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


>



And which one of your Zealots was it that stated the polar ice caps would all be melted and our children wouldn't know what snow is... You fucking moron..


----------



## Liminal (Jun 9, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Uh huh, I wonder why it is then that you simpletons and liars rely so much on a minority of opinions rather than actual evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



A warmer talking about actual evidence. Hilarious!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Ah Yes... The circular Logical Fail of the alarmist.  State that you are superior, state no facts, and again claim superiority without a shred of logical evidence....

In your circle jerk are you the pivot man?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 9, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



I recall comparing you to CrusaderFrank, the archetype of the Idiot-Gram, and you may or may not be a denier.  A denier believes little or no human activity has any effect on the climate, or even if some change is human related the earth is able to repair it self miraculously.

Remember when leaded gas, acid rain, burning rivers and clear cutting forests were a cause for "alarmists"?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Are you saying no scientist is a denier....?

Or that any scientist who denies is now no longer a scientist ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



So still no Bullring...?

Why ?

You seem so confident and I would appreciate seeing your information in consolidated fashion.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Once again....

I am not disputing any of that.

The real question is the quality of analysis that goes into using this data to make statements about what might result.

We can provide good economic data to 10 economists and get 10 different predictions of what it means.

I can give lab results to three different doctors and get three very different recommended courses of action.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 9, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


In much the same way as the deniers claim opposing views are all corrupt and duplicitous; I say that the deniers, the minority of scientists, are all directly or indirectly employed by multi national energy corporations.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 9, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



I can drop a bowling ball off the Golden Gate Bridge and guarantee 99% of people will agree it will fall into the water.  The other 1%?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Quality of analysis?  What analysis? There isn't any! It's altered data and computer models


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



AGWCult "Evidence" = turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE!!!!"


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



For those who don't know CrusaderFrank, he's a member of the 1% who believes said bowling ball dropped off the Golden Gate Bridge won't hit the water.  He'll spin the argument into dropping the ball on the part of the bridge not spanning the bay waters, or suggest a ship will intercept the ball.  All of which miss the point, but make him feel relevant.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Well, it there was a black hole between the drop point and the water, the ball would never hit the water, Freddo


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

The AGWCult can silence the skeptics by showing us in a lab how much of a temperature increase is caused by a 120PPM increase in CO2.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Also, there's a modification of the laws of gravity (MOND) that accounts for the mechanics of galaxies far better than "Dark matter"


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Well, I'd need to see something that says you've got that.

If you appeal to "scientists", I say give me the data, make your case, and I'll make up my mind.

You never did respond to my question: If your doctor wants to cut off your balls, do you just march to the operating room or do you get a second opinion (but why would you need it if he is the expert...and what do you do if he says you should have your balls cut off ?).


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Computer models are not analysis ?

What would they be based on ?

Even if it is altered data....there has to be a translation.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Yes, I've heard this before (and know, in at least a few instances, it isn't totally true).  

But, the fact that many on the alarmist side have some potential motivation of the same kind.....well, I don't hold that against them.

I'd prefer to see what they have to say.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I've asked Liminal...he's not responding...so I'll ask you.

Why don't you issue a challenge in the Bullring to an "alarmist" (like Liminal) and let the rest of us watch you go at it.

You get to pick three judges who'll decide who won.

You interested ?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



It's been the same "Debate" for nearly a decade now. We ask for "Evidence", the post Mann's one tree ring, link to a chart with no temperature axis, call me a DENIER!!!!! then well, call me a DENIER!!! say 97% Consensus and call me a DENIER!! again

It's predictable


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



No, AGW models are not analysis. You keep white noise into them and they spit out the hockey stick


----------



## Liminal (Jun 9, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


And YOU know.   Well, aren't we fortunate to have someone on this forum who really knows.


----------



## westwall (Jun 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









No, we didn't.  If you wish to talk about people lying, then this is exactly what you're doing.  And you know it.  A .01 degree C "record", when the error bars are ten times greater is a LIE.  The warmists, like you and your ilk, do it all the time.  It's all you have left.


----------



## Crick (Jun 9, 2015)

Did you note the conversation between Tom Peterson and Ross McKittrick about error bars?  

Do you deny that 1998 was a very strong El Nino?

How many denier sources, yabbering about "no warming for the last 17 years" make note of that El Nino?

Have the error bars grown?  Are these numbers less certain then the temperatures they are supposed to have exceeded?

What do you think those error bars (assuming you've got the right ones) mean?  Do you think it's been cooling?  Do you think they mean that global warming is over?  Do you think they mean that CO2 doesn't absorb IR?  Do you think it means that atmospheric GHG levels have not been climbing?

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



I think I am, at least, willing to qualify my response.

Your total lack of information or analysis (despite being the OP making a rather acrid statement about those you disagree with) is wearing thin.  You can either put up or shut up.

And posting links does not cut it.  Bring the information from the link you wish to highlite and state why you think it is relevant.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 9, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


You can qualify your responses with all the opinions you want;  try refuting the content of the link with something besides more opinions.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


 
It's not an opinion.

I know scientists, not employed by anyone close to your hit list, who don't agree with your global warming claims.

What link are you making reference to ?

Please don't tell me the link in the OP.  A year old article that essentially says nothing.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 9, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Here's an interesting link for you, an extensive list of prominent global climate change deniers.   Some fascinating connections these people have, looks like some deep pockets.
Global Warming Deniers Database


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> Google Company stops funding ALEC over climate change denial.



Eric Schmidt's opinion is just that:  his opinion.  It has no significance in the larger world.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 9, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



AGW cult members have connections with the biggest pockets of all.  They are connected with the federal government.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The actual data says otherwise:


----------



## Liminal (Jun 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


----------



## Liminal (Jun 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change deniers lie about everything all the time, they can't do anything else.
> ...


Is there a larger world inside your head?


----------



## Crick (Jun 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> The actual data says otherwise:



I assume you realize, Paddie, we could cherrypick other periods and get pretty much whatever trend we desire.  And, just for shits and giggles, what's the significance, the error bar, the standard deviation of that data you've got there?  Doesn't that look as if it wanders away from the faired line quite a bit considering the length of your dataset.  Looks that way to me.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


So question, do you, or have you seen that evidence?  Just curious what it is you working off of.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


much much larger than yours.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The actual data says otherwise:
> ...



When you post a chart, we ask, "Where's the temperature axis?"

2 decades, no warming. Time for a new theory


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


dude, still haven't provided any names on who is denying climate changes.  Or is it you, are you the denier.  Ahhhhhhh, there it is, you are the denier, the big egg in the sand.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


it's been tested and why your statistic would be that high.  Now, again, what evidence is it you've actually seen that adding 120 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


who are you talking to?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


it's a really simple request, and one that hasn't been answered for over a year now for me on this forum.  That is, show me evidence that adding 120 PPM of CO2 increases warming.  It's that simple.  the warmer deniers response, already gave it, thousands of pieces, mountains of evidence, and to date as Frank and others on here will, that evidence has never, never been provided.  I do have one, Herr Koch 1901, proved that it wouldn't.  Ask old rock, he likes to post it up weekly on about every thread, by the way, I think violates the rules here, but I enjoy getting to point to my guy Herr for my counter argument that he or any other have ever been able to counter back.So, get someone on the warmer denier list to supply that evidence. Let's go.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


nope, you're wrong, but that's not unexpected.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Have I seen the evidence of burning rivers?
Google

Have I seen the evidence of leaded gas?
Photo s of Smog LA Basin - Google Search

Love Canal
10 Superfund sites Love Canal New York MNN - Mother Nature Network

Clear cutting, not only mudslides but less trees to eat CO2
Photos of mudslides do to clear cutting of forests - Google Search


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Those who don't know CrusaderFrank.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



He's referring to the climate, numskull.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Tiny Universe that


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


i don't think so, I think you are broadcasting for attention.  Hmmmmmmmm


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Holy crap right?  What's with these agitators.  OMG his response was flippin hilarious and so typical who he represents.  Again providing nothing to the discussion, nothing.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Let's have another look at that list of deniers.  Interesting qualifications and connections these people have.
Global Warming Deniers Database


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Son, when you go to order a hamburger and they ask if you like ketchup, do you give them this response?  I mean, that makes just as much sense as your reply to me.  Now do you have any information regarding my posed statement, yes or no?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Son, we're still waiting on that list of those who deny climate on here, like I said we know you do, but who else?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Whoa son, your list is so full of bunk I smelt it as it opened up.  Whew, you need a new life. That list shows Judith Curry, now sir I respectfully ask you to post one line from her where she ever made a statement that was in that list.  come now big man on campus, where's that tiny thing you work with daily at.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



As I already noted, all the AGW cult priests are on the government payroll, which has bigger pockets than any corporation.  Cult members keep trying to pretend that only private money corrupts.  Those receiving government cash have only the purest of motives.

The funny part is that you think we're all supposed to be as naive as you.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You certainly are a very nasty little man....aren't you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What you are seeing here is the proof that the AGW cult isn't capable of rational thought.  They have a grab bag of canned responses.  No matter what you ask them, you'll get one of those canned responses.  They aren't capable of thinking up anything original.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I treat idiots the way they deserve to be treated, especially the kind that are congenitally incapable of committing logic.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


......so you can then get people to treat you the way you deserve.   I see how it works now.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Yeah, because we all know that you're such a polite respectful forum troll.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Manners and common courtesy wouldn't hurt you.   Personal attacks are always your first option.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Let's look at some predicted consequences:

Southern Ocean acidification A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2

Discovering the Effects of Carbon Dioxide Levels on Marine Life and Global Climate


----------



## Liminal (Jun 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


When it comes to science, I'm not the least bit interested in the original thinking of people who aren't scientists.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


And someone who doesn't even know science behavior or what it actually does.  You go in eyes closed tight.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


So, I know that reading comprehension is last on your list, but still haven't seen anything regarding temperatures and CO2.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



You're both too biased or not bright enough to understand inductive reasoning.  It's all related.  The polluters pollute, the air, the water, the soil, and the sole of those President Lincoln singled out: "...you can fool some of the people, all of the time".


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 10, 2015)

Now, here's a link which proves nothing but provides much food for thought.  

CO2 Exactly HOW does it warm the planet Knowledge Drift The Science of Human Error

Don't expect an answer, that's not how science works.  Clowns like CrusaderFrank and BriPat actually believe they know the truth but never offer any explanation as to how they got there (we know, the Limbaugh Letter).


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


So again, you're saying humans breathing is polluting the air?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


BTW, you presented nothing again.  How is it we're wrong, when you can't nullify what we said?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No I didn't.  You lose!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


did you not state that CO2 is a pollutant?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 10, 2015)




----------



## Liminal (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Well, you know it's already past mid morning; so most of these guys are probably half in the bag by now.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Now, here's a link which proves nothing but provides much food for thought.
> 
> CO2 Exactly HOW does it warm the planet Knowledge Drift The Science of Human Error
> 
> Don't expect an answer, that's not how science works.  Clowns like CrusaderFrank and BriPat actually believe they know the truth but never offer any explanation as to how they got there (we know, the Limbaugh Letter).



I've post thousands of messages explaining why the claims of the AGW cult are pure horseshit.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I did not.  I posted a comprehensive article on why breathing isn't a pollutant, per se - lies by omission are still lies.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


dude, is CO2 a pollutant or not?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 10, 2015)




----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


>



You whine about people not treating you with the deference you believe you are entitled to, but you call people "deniers," which is clearly an insult.    

Stuff like that is why few liberals deserve to be treated with respect. Liberalism is almost entirely a collection of ad hominem arguments.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



I'm sure you can, but "denier" is intended to be insulting.  Only a lying weasel would deny it.

Furthermore, you just proved that you're a flaming hypocrite.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 10, 2015)

Liminal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Oh, so posting that deniers are all a bunch of self-serving greedy assholes who want to destroy the earth is good manners, but calling you a hypocrite is beyond the pale?

People normally put me on ignore because I nail them to a cross using their own words and they can't handle it.  In other words, it's because they are cowards.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 10, 2015)

*Get back to the topic guys (hint - the topic is not each other)*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



More failed predictions!..  Thanks for exposing them for us. Both of those papers are GARBAGE!..  They have both failed Empirical Evidence review but you know that but you keep posting them hopping no one will check the source and call you out on them..


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 10, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Calling this garbage is easy, name calling always is.  Now, post some substantive comments critical of these "failed predictions" (BTW, how can you determine a prediction into the future has failed?).

Southern Ocean acidification A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2

And this one too:

Discovering the Effects of Carbon Dioxide Levels on Marine Life and Global Climate


----------



## westwall (Jun 10, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...








Which ignores well established evidence that it has no effect.  What's funny is the ENTIRE PETM article in wiki has been rewritten to disappear the evidence that acidification is not a problem.  Lie, lie, lie is all you clowns can do.



"Although the team found that carbon dioxide boosted plate production or 'calcification', other experiments with coccolithophores have shown the opposite trend — a reduction in calcium carbonate production2.

“This is the first time where we actually see increased calcification in response to high CO2,” says Victoria Fabry, a biologist at California State University, San Marcos. "The results here are not consistent, and we need to find out why they're not."

Fabry notes that the work was on only one of roughly 250 species of coccolithophores, and others might respond differently."

Phytoplankton responding to climate change Nature News


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



CO2 is a Green House Gas, dude.


----------



## westwall (Jun 11, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...







Yes, it is.  And it appears to have reached saturation level in our atmosphere.  In other words you can double the amount and nothing will happen.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 11, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> CO2 is a Green House Gas, dude.



Describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as you understand it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 11, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



That doesn't answer the question.  Water vapor is also a green house gas.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 11, 2015)

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



WTF???  Bullshit.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 11, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Now, here's a link which proves nothing but provides much food for thought.
> 
> CO2 Exactly HOW does it warm the planet Knowledge Drift The Science of Human Error
> 
> Don't expect an answer, that's not how science works.  Clowns like CrusaderFrank and BriPat actually believe they know the truth but never offer any explanation as to how they got there (we know, the Limbaugh Letter).





"The truth".............lmao............a hysterical comment given the science behind climate science. All this debate is nothing more than an internet hobby in 2015. The AGW k00ks thump their chests about their monopoly on the truth, but where has it gotten them in the real world? A statement on the truth means exactly what?


It means exactly nothing outside the nether-regions of the internet.


Renewable energy is a joke and will continue to be for decades ( do I need to post up the Obama EIA graph yet again?  ). And in the real world, Americans don't give a fuck about global warming!!! ( post up those polls by request only   ).


"The truth"!!!!



Heres a medal for you guys!!!!


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/medal.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 11, 2015)

These AGW climate crusaders.............

Dollar to a thousand stale donuts we are talking social invalids here. You know the type..........finally gets a girl in the sack and blows his wad in 30 seconds but boasts about his glorious roll!!!. The social landscape has always been a bit scewed. Picked last for the team and took bows!!!. Walked the school halls with the gheyest lunchbox in town and was real proud of it!! Social invalids......taking bows for winning internet pissing contests!!

Phony....boring...........ghey.............and losing!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 11, 2015)

I have to admit.....every time I post up this gem, I laugh my balls off here in front of my PC!!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


that has characteristics logarithmic, which means what?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


do you agree it is logarithmic?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2015)

I think this thread is good place for this debate I found yesterday.  sort of along the same line.

Bill Nye vs Marc Morano via Youtube:


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Do you always ask irrelevant questions?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


is CO2 a pollutant?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


You didn't address my question, I asked is CO2 a pollutant?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


again, is CO2 a pollutant?


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Prove that doubling the global concentration of CO2 will have no effect.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Are you on earth breathing and temperatures are normal.  Proof.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 11, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...





s0n....the only relevant post in the thread is #184!!! All the rest is nothing more than internet pissing contest banter.


The OP is highly misinformed!!!

The title? Laughable.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 11, 2015)

Oh.....and from today on REALCLEAR...........who's not winning?


 Hide the Hiatus How the Climate Alarmists Eliminated the Inconvenient Pause in Global Warming - Breitbart


*OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 11, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Well, let look at Woods Hole OCeianic Instistues new paper for a moment:


> A new study led by scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) found that the coral reefs there seem to be defying the odds, showing none of the predicted responses to low pH except for an increase in bioerosion — the physical breakdown of coral skeletons by boring organisms such as mollusks and worms. The paper is to be published June 5 in the journal Science Advances.



Rather an interesting piece of work.  If you take the time to read the whole paper and do the math you will find that a drop or more neutral pH of the oceans is well within the standard deviations of + / - 0.287 range of the oceans themselves.  

You will also note, if you read the paper, that all of the imagined (modeled) fear has not happened and is not happening globally.

Model = FAILURE
Reality = Causing environmentalist to scream louder without a basis in reality.  

Even this paper has the warmish twist but if you do the math you will find that their alarm is unjustified by their own empirical observations and that has them perplexed. 


Source


----------



## Crick (Jun 13, 2015)

Why did you make no comment about the content of the two papers to which Wry Catcher linked?  You know, the ones you called "garbage".  Couldn't you _explain_ why you believe them to be garbage?  Apparently not.  Instead, you bring up a loosely related paper and then have to stretch it and strain it to get something vaguely supportive of your view on ocean aciidification.  I'm not impressed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> Why did you make no comment about the content of the two papers to which Wry Catcher linked?  You know, the ones you called "garbage".  Couldn't you _explain_ why you believe them to be garbage?  Apparently not.  Instead, you bring up a loosely related paper and then have to stretch it and strain it to get something vaguely supportive of your view on ocean aciidification.  I'm not impressed.



Because both of those papers were alarmist drivel.  If I wanted BS trumped up alarmist crap without a balanced look into the real science of it I could have.  But I choose empirical evidence grounded in real scientific estimates not the drummed up garbage you all present.  

I can think and evaluate what is presented contrary to your "the thinking's been done" mantra, which is crap.


----------



## Crick (Jun 13, 2015)

Then why can't you explain that thinking?  Why were Wry Catcher's two articles "garbage"?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> Then why can't you explain that thinking?  Why were Wry Catcher's two articles "garbage"?


I see you have a reading comprehension problem... Now go back and try again as I explained it once already..


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2015)

You explained nothing.  After classifying his articles as "garbage" and then being asked to explain, you jumped to a different article concerning the effects of high aragonite levels on carbonate fixing organisms and the attempted to draw a conclusion from their work that they, themselves had not found.  This was quite obviously "ducking and dodging" and the result of having difficulty finding any work supporting your claims.

You called those articles garbage.  You are obliged, both out of common courtesy and by the rules of this forum, to explain that charge.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Generally agreed by skeptic and warmer alike, that the CO2 ONLY effect of doubling would cause about a 1degC change at the surface.. Any Atmos physics book is my reference.. WE have yet to see the end of the first doubling since the Industrial Age.. 

Now --- can you answer HIS question?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Calling this garbage is easy, name calling always is.  Now, post some substantive comments critical of these "failed predictions" (BTW, how can you determine a prediction into the future has failed?).
> 
> Southern Ocean acidification A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2
> 
> ...



You wanted a discussion? Let's have it @wrycatcher ...

What does the first paper concern itself with? (your second link is broken and is probably not "a paper"..

It's talking about the magnitude of the seasonal variability of PH and therefore aragonite undersaturation that occurs in the waters off of Antarctica within a couple 100 miles. It shows a rather high NATURAL seasonal variation that for contemporary purposes overwhelms any CURRENT pH changes and tries to predict trends for the next 50 to 100 years. From the paper...



*Oceanic absorption of anthropogenic CO2 has lowered the pH and concentration of carbonate ion (CO32−) substantially since preindustrial times (1–3). These changes, particularly with respect to carbonate ion, strongly vary between ocean basins. Over the 21st century, the carbonate ion levels over most of the surface ocean are expected to remain supersaturated with respect to aragonite (2, 3), the more soluble form of calcium carbonate. Despite this, studies have demonstrated that calcifying organisms depend on variations in aragonite saturation state (3–5). Aragonite saturation in seawater allows marine organisms to adequately secrete and accumulate this carbonate mineral during growth and development. The Southern Ocean (south of 60°S), however, is predicted to begin to experience aragonite undersaturation by the year 2050 if assuming surface ocean CO2 equilibrium with the atmosphere, while most ocean models suggest that mean surface conditions throughout the Southern Ocean will become undersaturated by the year 2100 (3). Aragonite undersaturation both enhances the dissolution of aragonite and reduces formation of aragonite shells of marine organisms (4–7), making the prediction of aragonite undersaturation by the end of this century of particular concern to the Southern Ocean marine ecosystem. Systematic natural seasonal variations of pH and CO32− can either amplify or depress the onset of future ocean acidification and aragonite undersaturation. Although seasonal variability has been suggested to hasten the onset of aragonite undersaturation (3), observational evidence in the Southern Ocean has been lacking.*

Here's the deal. Observational evidence is STILL LACKING after this paper. The paper (2008) uses even earlier (failed) predictions from the IPCC for CO2 and temperature predictions to drive "their models". In addition, the actual biological studies required to CONFIRM these wild ass guess is ALSO still lacking.

Largely because of the general unknowns of the area they are discussing and the fact that scientists routinely get stranded in ice ATTEMPTING to study these waters and creatures.

But also because MOST of what LIVES down there is ALSO "seasonal". And we have yet to determine if the critical plankton would be in formative stage during the higher PH deep winter months.

BTW -- the "threat" comes NOT FROM WARMING, but by deep cold water upwellings with previously TRAPPED CO2 conc. higher than the "average".

Another piece of work with it's science exceeded by the requirement to make outrageous claims in order to qualify for funding under the huge feedbucket of AGW financing...


Go read it. It's really just freshman college science. And get back to me..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Thread topic is "deniers".. Not about "promoters".. 
And how is it that no one on the "promoting" side wants to discuss any science? Go ahead -- I'm one of your deniers -- take a swing at my last couple posts. That's what you and Dottie want out of this -- dontcha?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 17, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Deniers of the world, unite!
Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces Mother Jones


----------



## Kosh (Jun 17, 2015)

Here is something else for the AGW science deniers..


----------



## Liminal (Jun 17, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


I really like this one, a gold mine of information on deniers.
Global Warming Deniers Database


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




Thanks for the brutal honesty, but I don't buy that you can't read simple graphs and follow arguments about what all those pesky "sciency" links actually mean. So you COULD --- but you don't..  

So why are you on threads like this if you can't understand the arguments? If this thread was about stock market "bears vs bulls" it would be meaningless without even CARING about the underlying fundamentals of the market.. 

Not that this particular thread is useless...


----------



## Liminal (Jun 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Well then here's my argument:  No one on this forum has anything like the expertise needed to put the science into any kind of actual context.   Demonstrations of knowledge commonly available on Wikipedia do nothing to argue the contrary.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Well put your hands in the air --- like you just do not care.. Your view of non-participatory debate would make us all victims of any carelessly constructed ruse that govt or industry or actual criminals would foist on you.. 

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Well then here's my argument:  No one on this forum has anything like the expertise needed to put the science into any kind of actual context.   Demonstrations of knowledge commonly available on Wikipedia do nothing to argue the contrary.



Then I also have to ask, why are you here?


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Well then here's my argument:  No one on this forum has anything like the expertise needed to put the science into any kind of actual context.   Demonstrations of knowledge commonly available on Wikipedia do nothing to argue the contrary.
> ...







Wow.....a useful response!  Good job!  And yes, I actually mean that!


----------



## Kosh (Jun 17, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Well then here's my argument: No one on this forum has anything like the expertise needed to put the science into any kind of actual context. Demonstrations of knowledge commonly available on Wikipedia do nothing to argue the contrary.



Most of the AGW cult members are not here for an actual discussion, it is about pushing their religious dogma.

To have an actual debate/discussion the AGW crowd has to prove their stance with actual science, such as datasets and source code that proves CO2 controls climate. None have in the past 40+ years since James Hansen used this to push his Nazi style environmental beliefs..

Science no longer exists in the Climate Change realm, it is all politics and politicians using this to subjugate the masses. Such as carbon taxes on all those mean and rich countries like the US and redistribute that money elsewhere.

Europe even tried a carbon tax on airlines flying in their airspace, even Obama said NO to that..


----------



## Davey T (Jun 17, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


I love the term "denier".  It is very inquisition-like.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 17, 2015)

Davey T said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The resemblance of the epithet "denier!" is so alarmingly like the accusation "heretic!"   The AGW cult doesn't seem to understand the image the give off.


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 17, 2015)

97%

Scientists Climate change is happening


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 17, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> 97%
> 
> Scientists Climate change is happening



Cook Et Al.....

fucking hilarious.... a lie... *DOT.FAIL*


----------



## Crick (Jun 18, 2015)

The results of Cook et al are correct Billy Boy.  You have found no flaw with their methodology.  That their author interview found even higher concurrence than their abstract review throws out the common denier accusation that they grossly misclassified the studies they reviewed.  They line up with a dozen other studies.  I can understand how you might seek desperately to reject them, but you have no grounds.  None.

Tell us something: what percentage of climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe accept the theory that the primary cause of the global warming of the last century is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissionis?  That is, what number do you think Cook et al would have found if the study had been done as you'd have it done (and I'd be curious to hear that described)?

Alternatively, what percentage of climate scienists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe hold basically to YOUR position, whatever that might actually be?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 18, 2015)

Can anyone else show us where 97% of scientists agree on a postulated thesis like this ?

I'd be curious to know.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 18, 2015)

Mr. Sun Devil 92, I do believe that Mr. Crick just did in the last post. 

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

[paste:font size="4"]*Download this video

Transcript of this video

View all Environ. Res. Lett. video abstracts

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
*


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 18, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Can anyone else show us where 97% of scientists agree on a postulated thesis like this ?
> 
> I'd be curious to know.


yeah, we're all ears.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Sun Devil 92, I do believe that Mr. Crick just did in the last post.
> 
> Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
> 
> ...



My post was poorly worded.

My question was if there was another outstanding debate such as this where 97% of scientists lined up on one side ?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Denier is an AGWCult secret handshake word, it's how they identify each other as members


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Sun Devil 92, I do believe that Mr. Crick just did in the last post.
> ...



Yeah. Science is not done by "Consensus"


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 18, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Sun Devil 92, I do believe that Mr. Crick just did in the last post.
> ...



Continental drift.  The 97% turned out to be dead wrong.


----------



## Crick (Jun 18, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Sun Devil 92, I do believe that Mr. Crick just did in the last post.
> ...



General and Special Relativity.  The germ theory of disease. Quantum mechanics.  Newtonian mechanics for non-relativistic domains. The Standard Model of particle physics.  Statistical thermodynamics.  Redox equations. Lorentz Transforms. etc, etc, etc.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 18, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> 97%
> 
> Scientists Climate change is happening






Sun Devil 92 said:


> Can anyone else show us where 97% of scientists agree on a postulated thesis like this ?
> 
> I'd be curious to know.



Well up to a couple weeks the common consensus was that ingested cholesterol was a deadly thing. New studies come out that cast doubt on that. Happens all the time in medicine (see gastro-ulcers)..

We've been over this 97% thingy on this board a dozen times and there is core of fanatics that don't understand the faulty methodology that was used in that in study. It was done by fanatics from SkepticalScience with an agenda to fill and they got caught adding the majority of formal papers that did not offer an opinion into the YES column.. ((Statements like "It has been stated by _____ (footnote) that man is a major factor in this current warming ---   THAT by itself is not an opinion of the author(s). Most papers have several authors and they don't neccessarily all believe the same things. And formal papers are a bad place to try and divine opinion (without asking) anyway. Scientifically, the only ledge you're supposed to go out on is to stick to supportable and testable Hypotheses...

The scientists in that study were never separated as to their beliefs. I'm a skeptic -- If you asked me..

1) Do I believe that the Earth's climate is warming? ---- Yes
2) Do I believe that man has contributed to that warming? ---- Yes

BAMMMMM -- I'm in the 97% claim that morons love to echo.
It's not that easy to assess opinion if you don't ask the right questions. Ask ANY reputable polling firm.. Or ask a disreputable one ...  

HOWEVER -- that's not what the Global Warming Theory actually says.
I reject the parts of the theory that MAGICALLY MULTIPLY the actual warming power of CO2. It states that CO2 is merely the 2 degC trigger where the Earth's climate will descend into a self-sustained cycle of destruction.. The deniers reject all of that.. Including me..

There ARE actual surveys out there. And they show all kinds of skepticism in the Climate Comm. Especially in the area of "hockey stick" proxy studies on ancient temps and the degree to which man is causing any warming. NONE -- to my knowledge ask anything as  specific as

Do you believe the Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly in 2100 will be higher than 3degC over the value in 2000?   So -- it's all pretty meaninless.

The 97% was NOT an opinion survey.. It was a sketchy Ouiji Board game by the faithful..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> The results of Cook et al are correct Billy Boy.  You have found no flaw with their methodology.  That their author interview found even higher concurrence than their abstract review throws out the common denier accusation that they grossly misclassified the studies they reviewed.  They line up with a dozen other studies.  I can understand how you might seek desperately to reject them, but you have no grounds.  None.
> 
> Tell us something: what percentage of climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe accept the theory that the primary cause of the global warming of the last century is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissionis?  That is, what number do you think Cook et al would have found if the study had been done as you'd have it done (and I'd be curious to hear that described)?
> 
> Alternatively, what percentage of climate scienists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe hold basically to YOUR position, whatever that might actually be?



What a load of HORSE SHIT!

Cook misrepresented over 99.5% of everything he touted.. his methods were shoddy at best and fraudulent at worst..Cook is a lying scum bag...  But then i remember he is a liberal socialist which means you will defend his actions to your death bed..


----------



## Davey T (Jun 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The results of Cook et al are correct Billy Boy.  You have found no flaw with their methodology.  That their author interview found even higher concurrence than their abstract review throws out the common denier accusation that they grossly misclassified the studies they reviewed.  They line up with a dozen other studies.  I can understand how you might seek desperately to reject them, but you have no grounds.  None.
> ...


I guess I am a little more basic in this global warming issue.  I want to see verifiable and repeatable experiments that show:
1.  The earth is warming.  Standardize a technique and use it over a several year period.  Don't manipulate the date after you standardize;
2.  If it is warming, is it CO2?  Here, do what good little scientists would do and perform double blind experiments eliminating, the sun, Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, etc.  
3.  If it is CO2, perform another set of double blind experiments that exclude heat increasing CO2 and not CO2 increasing heat.
4.  If it is CO2, is it man made CO2 and not the various other souces.

I have seen none of these.  I've seen: CO2 goes up, the temperature went up, man must be killing earth.  Everyone agree? Let's pass some laws that kills capitalism and destroys economies.  What could go wrong?


----------



## Davey T (Jun 18, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I am sorry.  I forgot to add 5. to the four above.
5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it.  This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> I guess I am a little more basic in this global warming issue.  I want to see verifiable and repeatable experiments that show:
> 1.  The earth is warming.  Standardize a technique and use it over a several year period.  Don't manipulate the date after you standardize;
> 2.  If it is warming, is it CO2?  Here, do what good little scientists would do and perform double blind experiments eliminating, the sun, Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, etc.
> 3.  If it is CO2, perform another set of double blind experiments that exclude heat increasing CO2 and not CO2 increasing heat.
> ...



Then you haven't looked very hard, have you.

Go to www.ipcc.ch and look up WG-I, The Physical Science Basis in the fifth assessment report, AR5.


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> I am sorry.  I forgot to add 5. to the four above.
> 5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it.  This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.



No one ever claimed calling deniers "deniers" was science.  Of course it's an opinion.; it's one based on their behavior.  And, guess what?  We're all entitled to have and express opinions.  

Consensus IS part of science.  It is the parameter by which the acceptance of a theory is measured.  Deniers will frequently try to suggest that only if certain vaguely identified experiments are successful or only if some unspecified predictions come to pass is or should a theory like AGW be "accepted".  Best of all is when they demand there be "proof".  There is no authoritative entity that determines whether or not theories are accepted.  The level of consensus among the experts in a given field is the ONLY way to make such a determination.

 If you don't like that, feel free to suggest a better way.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I am a little more basic in this global warming issue.  I want to see verifiable and repeatable experiments that show:
> ...


again crick there is no experimental evidence at that web page. try again.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > I am sorry.  I forgot to add 5. to the four above.
> ...


show me where consensus is part of science.  link please.


----------



## Davey T (Jun 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > I am sorry.  I forgot to add 5. to the four above.
> ...


Well, the better way is called science.  That is, you propose a theory and conduct experiments that "prove" that theory.  Then, you show your work so that your "proof" is repeatable and the methodology is over-viewed.  Pretty basic stuff.  By the way, so I am not just a denier, I checked on the Work Group 1, AR5 report as suggested above and none of those questions were answered, so far.  Still reading 1500 pages and looking for some semblance of fair play in arriving at CO2 being a causative pollutant vis a vis all of the other potential atmospheric gases and climatic change agents.  Nothing so far.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...


exactly what I told him. he now put me on ignore.

So bottom line is he can't prove his position, he instead runs from the discussion.


----------



## Davey T (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...


By the way, Crick, your entire paragraph about how consensus is part of science could have been taken out of Galileo's trial.  Pope Urban: "Proof? Impossible.  I'm not sailing over the edge of the earth!".


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Let's pass some laws that kills capitalism and destroys economies.  What could go wrong?



It would be better and more effective to discourage the global Left from exhaling.


----------



## Davey T (Jun 19, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Let's pass some laws that kills capitalism and destroys economies.  What could go wrong?
> ...


Crick asked that we look up the WG1 AR5 from the IPCC.  He said my questions about the science would be answered.  I did.  Here are some observations:
1.  The IPCC is mostly made up of politicians and some professors, not the underlying scientists;
2.  The AR5 is nothing more than summaries and assumptions of all underlying work with words like "High confidence", "likely", etc.  So it is meaningless without the underlying studies.
3.  It is impossible to absorb correctly because it is literally chocked full references and graphs, each one a class study in itself.
4. When trying to drill down on one assumption, "level of man made CO2", you realize that these issues are so complicated that these people do not have a clue.  For instance, man made CO2 in US is taken, in part, from fossil fuel production.  Then you realize that their "confidence" in knowing levels of other nations (China, India, etc.) is VERY LOW.  Well that is just the rest of the world.  Their numbers are bogus.  Especially in view of assumptions based on point 4 degrees in 20 years, I would put this in the range of "low confidence".
5. Their solution is cap and trade.  Therefore, the UN would tax all countries, making itself an uber country taxing authority.  That means, these people are NOT third party disinterested observers.  They are asking us to make them taxing over lords.  
Makes you want to go over their assumptions one more time.


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> 5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it.  This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.





Crick said:


> No one ever claimed calling deniers "deniers" was science.  Of course it's an opinion.; it's one based on their behavior.  And, guess what?  We're all entitled to have and express opinions.
> 
> Consensus IS part of science.  It is the parameter by which the acceptance of a theory is measured.  Deniers will frequently try to suggest that only if certain vaguely identified experiments are successful or only if some unspecified predictions come to pass is or should a theory like AGW be "accepted".  Best of all is when they demand there be "proof".  There is no authoritative entity that determines whether or not theories are accepted.  The level of consensus among the experts in a given field is the ONLY way to make such a determination.
> 
> If you don't like that, feel free to suggest a better way.





Davey T said:


> Well, the better way is called science.



Did I suggest something else?



Davey T said:


> That is, you propose a theory and conduct experiments that "prove" that theory.  Then, you show your work so that your "proof" is repeatable and the methodology is over-viewed.  Pretty basic stuff.  By the way, so I am not just a denier, I checked on the Work Group 1, AR5 report as suggested above and none of those questions were answered, so far.  Still reading 1500 pages and looking for some semblance of fair play in arriving at CO2 being a causative pollutant vis a vis all of the other potential atmospheric gases and climatic change agents.  Nothing so far.



I'm curious.  What do you mean when you use the term "proof"?   And what do you mean when you say you're still looking for some semblance of fair play re CO2?  What unfairness have you seen?  What fair play do you believe is lacking?

I rather doubt you've read much of WG-I in the time since I made that suggestion.  But even so, if you haven't found anything pertinent, it's hard to believe you're looking seriously. Let me help:

http:// 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Davey T said:


> By the way, Crick, your entire paragraph about how consensus is part of science could have been taken out of Galileo's trial.  Pope Urban: "Proof? Impossible.  I'm not sailing over the edge of the earth!".



Really?  That brings a couple of quick questions to mind.
1) Let's see the text of the Galileo's trial and you can point out the resemblances
2) When did Urban and priesthood make use of the scientific method as have the thousands of scientists whose work makes up the content of the IPCC's assessment reports?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...



The lead author for AP5 told us that the climate change scam was a ruse to redistribute wealth.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it.  This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.
> ...


There is no radiative forcing so that entire chart is false and frake.  next!


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The lead author for AP5 told us that the climate change scam was a ruse to redistribute wealth.



Of course.  Everything the Left does is a maneuver to gain further control of people and their lives.  The Airstrip One model looks like paradise to them.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...



Well done Dude !!! I would add that it says in their mission statement that the only kind of Climate science they are interested in --- is the kind that where MAN is the chief cause of commotion.. That -- and the "elders" of the IPCC are more less avowed global redistributionists. And every major meeting turns into a whinefest and beggars brawl over who is gonna get a check from us..


----------



## Davey T (Jun 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it.  This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.
> ...


This is rather tedious, but allow me to try to respond to the above graph.
1.  Who produced it.  
2. What were the methodologies behind the myriad of assumptions made like:  How do you distinguish between anthropogenic CO2 and naturally occurring CO2? 
3. What is the comparative difference between Radiative forcing of a CO2 number of 1.60 compared to O2 of .6 when O2 is 360 times the concentration of CO2.  Wouldn't that be 360 times .6 or 216 compared with just 1.6 for CO2.  WHAT THE HELL IS A RADIATIVE FORCING OF 1.6 MEAN AND HOW DID YOU GET THESE NUMBERS?
More questions for a good scientist than answers here.


----------



## Davey T (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...


By the way Crick.  You asked what was the resemblance to the Galileo trial.  It was implied not stated but would start with the word "consensus".  Also, I have to compliment you in that I have never had a reasoned debate with a true believer before.  It usually ends with name calling.


----------



## Davey T (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Also, Crick asked about what is the definition of scientific "proof".  You would get the above graph and study each assumption and try to poke holes in every method.  After you have come to the conclusion that methods were sound, the assumptions correct and you can repeat the experiment over and over and get the same results, you raise your hand and say "I give".  Scientific proof is being beaten over the head by empirical knowledge to the point of submission.  Not before and certainly not because someone produced a bunch of numbers with a pretty multi-colored bar graph.  You're up Crick.


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Crick asked that we look up the WG1 AR5 from the IPCC.  He said my questions about the science would be answered.  I did.  Here are some observations:
> 1.  The IPCC is mostly made up of politicians and some professors, not the underlying scientists;



The IPCC was created by the governments of the member nations of the UN.  Call them politicians if you like.  It is not staffed by politicians.  It's chartered function is to produce reports in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  Those report are required to cover "the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."  If you think those are tasks that politicians would take on for themselves, I think you need to reexamine YOUR assumptions.  Can you tell us what source told you that they are staffed primarily by politicians?

That they are not staffed by the "underlying" scientists doing the research (and never have been) is no surprise to anyone even basically familiar with the IPCC.  The IPCC neither conducts nor funds the conduct of research.  They simply collect and assess the research being conducted in the field by qualified scientists and published in peer reviewed literature.  Those assessments undergo intense and thorough technical review.  The draft reports are subject to approval by the governments which sponsor this work.  That is their right.  But the assessment reports are not researched nor composed by politicians.



Davey T said:


> 2.  The AR5 is nothing more than summaries and assumptions of all underlying work with words like "High confidence", "likely", etc.  So it is meaningless without the underlying studies.



The conclusions of peer reviewed studies are not "assumptions".  The studies on which these assessments are based are all clearly footnoted and all are available.  To say the report is meaningless because - what - they didn't include the text of the entire studies - because you're apparently incapable of looking something up?  Was this really the first time you'd ever read any of AR5?  The first time you'd read any of the IPCC's assessment reports?  But you think you know better?  You think you know what they did wrong?  Good fucking grief.



Davey T said:


> 3.  It is impossible to absorb correctly because it is literally chocked full references and graphs, each one a class study in itself.



Too much information?  I can see your denier buddies cringing... even the not-very-bright ones.



Davey T said:


> 4. When trying to drill down on one assumption, "level of man made CO2", you realize that these issues are so complicated that these people do not have a clue.



Davey, Davey, Davey... someone around here truly does not have a clue, but it is not the authors of AR5.



Davey T said:


> For instance, man made CO2 in US is taken, in part, from fossil fuel production.



Almost.  It is taken from fossil fuel consumption.



Davey T said:


> Then you realize that their "confidence" in knowing levels of other nations (China, India, etc.) is VERY LOW.  Well that is just the rest of the world.  Their numbers are bogus.



Their numbers for the estimated amount of GHG's humans have put into the atmosphere (and the ocean and the ground) is quite good.   There are two basic methods: measure the isotopic characteristics of the CO2 and do the bookkeeping estimate to which you refer.  CO2 from fossil fuels has a different isotopic mix than does CO2 from the ongoing carbon dioxide cycle.  The numbers from the two methods agree very well.  Humans are responsible for almost every single bit of the 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750.  Their numbers are not "bogus".



Davey T said:


> Especially in view of assumptions based on point 4 degrees in 20 years



What assumptions are you talking about and what do they have to do with determining human GHG emissions?



Davey T said:


> , I would put this in the range of "low confidence".



You would, would you?  That is distressing.  Did you let them know?



Davey T said:


> 5. Their solution is cap and trade.



It is?  And this was the view of the First Working Group?  Where did you get that Dave?



Davey T said:


> Therefore, the UN would tax all countries, making itself an uber country taxing authority.



That's uber-nonsense Dave.



Davey T said:


> That means, these people are NOT third party disinterested observers.  They are asking us to make them taxing over lords.
> Makes you want to go over their assumptions one more time.



Oi VEY!

Given that we all live on the same planet, drink the same water and breathe the same air, they were always interested in this topic.  It's why the UN formed the IPCC: concern.  But if you want to suggest that the UN taxing the world is a motive for the IPCC to lie about AGW, you're going to have to take a number to get in line with the rest of disconnected whack-jobs who think the world's climate scientists are making it all up to get rich on research grants.  Although, tell your fellow whack-jobbers your idea.  They might give you head of line privileges.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it.  This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.
> ...




Explained to you TWICE CrickHam how the IPCC invented their own version of "solar radiative forcing" to make the phoney chart comply to their mission statement of finding MAN-MADE Global Warming --- instead of doing any real objective climate science. You are hopelessly worshipping the wrong "experts"...


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Also, Crick asked about what is the definition of scientific "proof".



I really wasn't.  I was being rhetorical.  I was hinting at the fact that proof almost never appears in studies in the natural sciences.  


Davey T said:


> You would get the above graph and study each assumption and try to poke holes in every method.



I think what you're hunting for here is Karl Popper's idea of falsification.  Theories must be expressed in manners which may be falsified.  As long as no one can falsify a theory, it stands.  As soon as the first person CAN falsify it, the theory is done.



Davey T said:


> After you have come to the conclusion that methods were sound, the assumptions correct and you can repeat the experiment over and over and get the same results, you raise your hand and say "I give".



All theories are always provisional.  That is understood.  You're not telling anyone anything new.



Davey T said:


> Scientific proof is being beaten over the head by empirical knowledge to the point of submission.



No, it is not.  Empirical evidence is great stuff, but it does not PROVE ANYTHING.



Davey T said:


> Not before and certainly not because someone produced a bunch of numbers with a pretty multi-colored bar graph.  You're up Crick.



You seem to have very close to no experience with science.


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Explained to you TWICE CrickHam how the IPCC invented their own version of "solar radiative forcing" to make the phoney chart comply to their mission statement of finding MAN-MADE Global Warming --- instead of doing any real objective climate science. You are hopelessly worshipping the wrong "experts"...



Have you got something better?


----------



## Davey T (Jun 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Crick asked that we look up the WG1 AR5 from the IPCC.  He said my questions about the science would be answered.  I did.  Here are some observations:
> ...


You are jumping around just a tad.  I never said the scientists are lying. Just that someone must go through each study and check the validity of each assumption and the methodologies supporting them.  That is truly voluminous and no one person can do this. And most studies have major methodological problems.  A lot of people believe the UN is the perfect group for this job.  I am much more skeptical.  If you do not believe that cap and trade is the ultimate solution offered by virtually everybody in governments world wide, then you are not being honest.  And if you do not believe that the UN would be in some kind of control of this world wide taxation, then you are not following the bouncing ball.  And that is what makes me extremely skeptical to place the IPCC, who are not the actual scientists involved in the core research, in charge of telling us what it all means.  They will have too much to gain if true.  That may make me cynical but not a denier.  In fact, I am still open.  By the way, I will follow up on your CO2 isotopic info.  Want to know more.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 19, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I have posted this data many times.  Empirical evidence shows that CO2 induced anything is not happening. The problem comes when those entrusted to be true to science become dependent on the government teet and in order to keep receiving their hand outs they become whores and prostitutes.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or *is the Natural Variational rate.*

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

By empirical observation, the earth has shown their scam a lie. Now they have full on resorted to making shit up... FORWARD!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Stop saying any sentence with "Denier" or "conensus" in it.  This is not science, this is opinion which we have been saying all along.
> ...



Where you are mistaken is that they don't use the scientific method.  The arrive at a conclusion and then manufacture the evidence to support it.


----------



## Davey T (Jun 20, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Where did you get this?  Would like to learn more.


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2015)

[QUOTE="Billy_Bob, post: 11631479, member: 50952"
What a load of HORSE SHIT!

Cook misrepresented over 99.5% of everything he touted.. his methods were shoddy at best and fraudulent at worst..Cook is a lying scum bag...  But then i remember he is a liberal socialist which means you will defend his actions to your death bed..[/QUOTE]

Show us Billy.  
1) How did Cook et al misrepresent over 99/5% of his claims?
2) In what way were his methods shoddy?
3) In what way were his methods fraudulent?
4) What lies has Cook told?
5) If his reviews were shoddy, fraudulent lies, how do you explain the results of the author surveys?  I've brought this up a few times - and I'd think it was a pretty obvious issue with claims that his reviews are bad.  But I've yet to see a response.  Maybe I missed it.  So, give this one top priority if you would Billy - in light of your accusations, how do you explain the results of the author review?


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Where you are mistaken is that they don't use the scientific method.  The arrive at a conclusion and then manufacture the evidence to support it.



All of them?  And they all submit these manufactured data and falsified methodologies to peer reviewed journals where their co-conspirators just give them the old wink and nod and pass it on for public consumption?  And at their many conferences, do they have these huge backroom meetings where they can all get their stories straight so they don't suffer any embarrassing conflicts?  Is that right Paddie?  Is that what you believe is actually taking place?

G.A.Y.S.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Well then here's my argument:  No one on this forum has anything like the expertise needed to put the science into any kind of actual context.   Demonstrations of knowledge commonly available on Wikipedia do nothing to argue the contrary.
> ...


I don't understand the question.  I'll tell you what I'm not doing here......pretending to be a scientist.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jun 22, 2015)

Every Global Warming denier is saying in essence, "I don't believe 97% of the PH.D's on Earth know what they are talking about, I DO."

In one of the most recent peer review studies, out of close to 11,000 peer review papers all but 2 of them stated Global Warming is real and there is no debate any more.

Deniers throw in with the 2.

Scene at the doctor's office: "Hi Joe, it looks like you have cancer. We've consulted with about 11,000 other doctors and they all agree except 2."  "WELL THEN, I'm going with the 2 because the rest of you are full of shit."

This is what the denier cult rests on.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 22, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Every Global Warming denier is saying in essence, "I don't believe 97% of the PH.D's on Earth know what they are talking about, I DO."
> 
> In one of the most recent peer review studies, out of close to 11,000 peer review papers all but 2 of them stated Global Warming is real and there is no debate any more.
> 
> ...


Evidently we are supposed to believe that the 11,000 are all corrupt and dishonest, while those other two are virtuous crusaders for truth and justice.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 23, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...



This is called basic empirical evidence science.   The IPCC AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5 are all full of predictions and assumptions made by political people trying to fit natural variation into a scheme to deprive people of their freedoms.

The above time line was taken from AR3-AR4 and all we did is look empirically at the evidence to see if it is infact true.  What we found was a whole host of fallacies.

Several other people have done the same observations and documentation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > What a load of HORSE SHIT!
> ...



Cook Et Al manufactured and misrepresented the papers and their authors conclusions.. You dont get much more slimy and shoddy than that..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 23, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Every Global Warming denier is saying in essence, "I don't believe 97% of the PH.D's on Earth know what they are talking about, I DO."
> 
> In one of the most recent peer review studies, out of close to 11,000 peer review papers all but 2 of them stated Global Warming is real and there is no debate any more.
> 
> ...



One:   What is it I deny?

Two:   Why do you believe the lies by John Cook and his misrepresentation of other scientists works?

Three: How about you present real facts on both subjects?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Every Global Warming denier is saying in essence, "I don't believe 97% of the PH.D's on Earth know what they are talking about, I DO."
> ...



There are over 36,000 scientists who do not agree with your measly 11,000 fools..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 23, 2015)

Why do these flat earthers whom the pope agrees with , continue to debate when they declared the debate over?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 23, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Why do these flat earthers whom the pope agrees with , continue to debate when they declared the debate over?



The fact that one religion has now asked another religion for it blessing should tell you they have lost the battle and are now trying very hard to remain out side of jails.. their deception is crumbling down around them and they dont understand why...


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jun 23, 2015)

Again, ignore the deniers and talk to scientists near you.

People who are invested in denying reality will construct elaborate scaffolding to support their myths. Their goal is to confuse the issue, much like Faux News trying to claim the killings in South Carolina were not about race but about 'kristians'.

Dishonesty tries to be clever but, really, it isn't.

The science is in and is settled for 97% of the world's PH.D's. Global Warming is real and accelerating.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 23, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Again, ignore the deniers and talk to scientists near you.
> 
> People who are invested in denying reality will construct elaborate scaffolding to support their myths. Their goal is to confuse the issue, much like Faux News trying to claim the killings in South Carolina were not about race but about 'kristians'.
> 
> ...


 still clinging to that debunked 97% myth?  

Yes and the hockey stick graph is your "crucifix"


----------



## Crick (Jun 23, 2015)

Still clinging to that myth that the consensus is a myth?  Educate yourself.  Read something that doesn't have an agenda tied around the RNC or the fossil fuel industry.

The hockey stick isn't a graph.  It's what the Earth's temperatures have done.  As such, it ain't gonna go away.


----------



## cnm (Jun 23, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))


Science issues are decided by how many are on a particular side, not who, a consensus. Justice is decided the same way, a jury or a panel. HTH.


----------



## cnm (Jun 23, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Scientific proof is being beaten over the head by empirical knowledge to the point of submission.


Science does not do 'proof', it does evidence.


----------



## cnm (Jun 23, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> This is called basic empirical evidence science.


No, that is called cherry pickings cut short to avoid embarrassment and with no source. This is evidence.





Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> Still clinging to that myth that the consensus is a myth?  Educate yourself.  Read something that doesn't have an agenda tied around the RNC or the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> The hockey stick isn't a graph.  It's what the Earth's temperatures have done.  As such, it ain't gonna go away.


 it's a myth on the consensus, it was researching papers by over zealous man made climate change cult members, they never asked them personally, quit lying, the ones in question didn't even know they were part of the survey.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 23, 2015)

And the hockey stick no way resembles what the earth done, no FUCKING accurate temperture readings prior to the 90s quit trying to bull shit if you know the difference between how we measure temperture today compared to even the 1960s


----------



## cnm (Jun 23, 2015)

bear513 said:


> it's a myth on the consensus,


Most of the prestigious American scientific associations disagree with you. But what would they know, amIright?
_
*Scientific Consensus on Global Warming*

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming 

American Meteorological Society
  American Physical Society
  American Geophysical Union
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  Geological Society of America
  American Chemical Society

  U.S. National Academy of Sciences_​


----------



## Liminal (Jun 23, 2015)

I wonder why deniers have to lie about everything all the time?
Climate-Change Deniers Must Stop Distorting the Evidence IPCC Report


----------



## cnm (Jun 23, 2015)

Well otherwise they'd have to stop denying. I thought everyone knew that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))
> ...





cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))
> ...



We would LIKE justice to work that way. But unfortunately "authority" figures like a crooked coroner or a desperate D.A can arrange to infect the jury with flawed evidence. 

And in science, it's not voting that determines truth, it's debate and ability to defend your hypotheses against qualified challenges. If there is a sense that there ARE NO qualified challenges, it stops becoming science. But the media/politicians/Pope are complicit in serving that impression.. And the vast sums of money tagged for "MAN-MADE" Climate Change (not good generic Climate Studies") also gives the false impression of "consensus". AND stifles workers in the field from attempting debate and dissent.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 23, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


By contrast, what kind of impressions do you suppose multi national energy corporations are complicit in creating?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



They don't need to create impressions for the large part. They are too busy keeping the lights on and serving customers. They DEFEND themselves when attacked or the stupidity level grows to the point where CO2 is a pollutant more dangerous than radioactive coal ash.

 If they evaluate renewables and think it's actually the better way -- -- they often invest and try to become a market factor. "Bout 15 years ago --- BP was the largest systems integrator of solar power on the planet. Billions in research sunk into biofuels, creating and using carbon credits, etc...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2015)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > it's a myth on the consensus,
> ...



Membership of those societies were never polled about the content or conclusions of those statement. Was never submitted for debate for the most part. The front office wrote those statements. 

The Australia Geophysical Society DID put it up to the membership when they last wanted to revise "their statement". It was wrapped in such turmoil and debate that they abandoned the update.. 

I'll wager the same would happen if those statements actually represented the general membership..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2015)

For those of you who are deluded about this "settled science" issue -- you haven't been working hard enough to see how complex this "denier" bashing can be.. You NEED to start seeing this campaign unravel..

Cookies must be enabled. The Australian


*AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.*
_
After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.
_
Certainly NOT an embarrassment. It's an unraveling of the well orchestrated soci-political-economic campaign that has been infesting science and misrepresenting it to the public. These guys/gals ARE doing their job and upholding their profession


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2015)

*This is a portion of the statement of the Geological Society of America, of which I am a member, and I totally endorse it.*

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

*Climate Change*
_Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013; April 2015_

*Position Statement*
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

_*Purpose*_
This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2015)

*The American Geophysical Union, the scientific society with the most climatologists in it, also has released an unequivocal statement concerning AGW.*

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human    activities    are    changing    Earth’s    climate.    At    the    global    level,    atmospheric    concentrations    of    carbon    dioxide    and    other    heat‐trapping    greenhouse    gases    have    increased   
sharply    since    the    Industrial    Revolution.    Fossil    fuel    burning    dominates    this    increase.    Human‐caused    increases    in    greenhouse    gases    are    responsible    for    most    of    the    observed    global    average    surface    warming    of    roughly    0.8°C    (1.5°F)    over    the    past    140    years.    Because    natural    processes    cannot    quickly    remove    some    of    these    gases    (notably    carbon    dioxide)    from    the    atmosphere,    our    past,    present,    and    future    emissions    will    influence    the    climate   
system    for    millennia.       

Extensive,    independent    observations    confirm    the    reality    of    global    warming.    These    observations    show    large‐scale    increases    in    air    and    sea    temperatures,    sea    level,    and    atmospheric    water    vapor;    they    document    decreases    in    the    extent    of    mountain    glaciers,    snow    cover,    permafrost,    and    Arctic    sea    ice.    These    changes    are    broadly    consistent    with    long‐understood    physics    and    predictions    of    how    the    climate    system    is    expected    to    respond    to   
human‐caused    increases    in    greenhouse    gases.    The    changes    are    inconsistent    with    explanations    of    climate    change    that    rely    on    known    natural    influences.       

Climate    models    predict    that    global    temperatures    will    continue    to    rise,    with    the    amount    of    warming    primarily    determined    by    the    level    of    emissions.    Higher    emissions    of    greenhouse    gases    will    lead    to    larger    warming,    and    greater    risks    to    society    and    ecosystems.    Some  additional    warming    is    unavoidable    due    to    past    emissions.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 23, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Of course, with billions of dollars in profits at stake, why would they waste any time trying to shape the narrative.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2015)

Had the energy corporations something real to say, their scientists would be publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals. Instead, they have hired exactly the same people used by the tobacco companies to spread doubt as to the scientific finding concerning tobacco. Remember the 7 top CEO's of the tobacco testifying in front of Congress, and claiming that nicotine was in no way addictive? What we have here is exactly the same kind of denial on the part of the energy corporations.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2015)

Wow.. GoldiRocks. Did you VOTE on that statement? Was it ever up for comment by the membership? Glad YOU like it..

Tell ya what dude --- You get the GSA to vote the membership on that statement and I'll pay attention...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2015)

The officers of the Society are up for vote. And, as we saw with the AAPG, members can, indeed, change the positions of the society.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The officers of the Society are up for vote. And, as we saw with the AAPG, members can, indeed, change the positions of the society.



There ya go..  However the discounts on rentals are probably more important than some activists getting elected huh? 

Seriously man -- wanna really convince folks? Put it up for a vote. And let me know how you voted.. Or better yet -- UPDATE IT -- start from scratch and let the membership choose and comment. 

Otherwise -- all ya really got is the equivalent of a HallMark card..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 23, 2015)

In other words, no real reply at all. Talking to the professors of science at the university that I attend, I have yet to hear one state that AGW is not real.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jun 23, 2015)

Ignore these people that deny Global Warming. Their agenda is one that works against the best interest of the human race. They aren't interested in fact, they are interested in mud. Muddying the waters to make it appear there is 'a debate'.

There is no debate. The debate on whether Global Warming is real ended in the scientific community 15 years ago.

In the 15 years since then the fossil fuel industry and others have poured a billion dollars into a massive disinformation campaign to present the false 'well there's a debate' lie.

There is no debate.

Ignore the deniers and go talk to someone at your local University. Global Warming is rather easy to explain and once explained you will understand just how low these people are that are acting against humanity's best interests for money.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 23, 2015)

cnm said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Scientific proof is being beaten over the head by empirical knowledge to the point of submission.
> ...


What's the difference?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 23, 2015)

cnm said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > This is called basic empirical evidence science.
> ...


You no those grass are falsified data right? Can you say for sure it is all raw data?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 23, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Still clinging to that myth that the consensus is a myth?  Educate yourself.  Read something that doesn't have an agenda tied around the RNC or the fossil fuel industry.
> ...


So the consensus was does the earth warm yes or no and does Man contribute CO2 to the atmosphere yes or no. What would you say to those two questions when you agree


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 23, 2015)

cnm said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > This is called basic empirical evidence science.
> ...



Data that has been put through the GISS black box... Twisted, Homogenized, And Data infilled....

ITS ADJUSTED CRAP!

And they hide WHY they make the adjustments, fighting FOIA requests for all of their Data, Methods, Computer Modeling, and JUSTIFICATION.  

No ethical scientist will do what these people are doing.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 23, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> In other words, no real reply at all. Talking to the professors of science at the university that I attend, I have yet to hear one state that AGW is not real.



BWHAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa   

Over 50% of staff where I am employed question it or outright laugh at 100% of all the bull shit predictions.  You probably attend a place which is heavily federally funded. Failure to toe the line will result in libs loosing their jobs.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 23, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Ignore these people that deny Global Warming. Their agenda is one that works against the best interest of the human race. They aren't interested in fact, they are interested in mud. Muddying the waters to make it appear there is 'a debate'.
> 
> There is no debate. The debate on whether Global Warming is real ended in the scientific community 15 years ago.
> 
> ...



Ignore fools like this one.. ^^^^^^^^^

They think that science is over and they have all the answers before any of the real questions have been answered.  And they deny empirical evidence showing their fallacy is a lie.


----------



## Crick (Jun 23, 2015)

Billy Boy, scientists are the ones telling us that, among scientists, there is no longer any debate.  That is not the same as saying "that science is over".

Billy, do you think the science is settled on gross human anatomy?  How about heat transfer?  Fluid dynamics?  The physical characteristics of the Solar System?  The Carnot Cycle?  Plant transpiration?  The diet of chimpanzees?  Animal husbandry?  Is there any topic of the natural sciences that you'd agree lacks significant debate among the cognoscenti?  I have to assume the answer to that question is "yes".  So... please explain why, with a 97% consensus, you think any significant debate still exists regarding AGW.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jun 23, 2015)

The argument of a flat Earth was settled centuries ago, yet there is a Flat Earth society today that has PH.D's among its members. This is who Global Warming deniers are, they are the modern day flat earthers, except their claims are purely for financial gain at the expenxe of humanity.

Ignore the deniers and get real information from scientists at your local University.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> In other words, no real reply at all. Talking to the professors of science at the university that I attend, I have yet to hear one state that AGW is not real.



How real do they think it is?  Are they 2 or 8 degree-ers by 2100? What percentage of the warming from 1800 do they attribute to man.  Or arent you allowed to ask those questions at your consensus school?  Maybe you should transfer to Georgia Tech.  Because I am certain that judith curry would answer them...


----------



## Liminal (Jun 23, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, no real reply at all. Talking to the professors of science at the university that I attend, I have yet to hear one state that AGW is not real.
> ...


I'd say you're allowed to ask all the out of context questions taken in isolation that you want.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Ignore these people that deny Global Warming. Their agenda is one that works against the best interest of the human race. They aren't interested in fact, they are interested in mud. Muddying the waters to make it appear there is 'a debate'.
> 
> There is no debate. The debate on whether Global Warming is real ended in the scientific community 15 years ago.
> 
> ...



How many times do you "there is no debate" will be required before you start to turn blue?


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> And in science, it's not voting that determines truth, it's debate and ability to defend your hypotheses against qualified challenges.


And when sufficient scientists determine there are no qualified challenges a consensus is formed. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this. Serves some ideology I guess.


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Membership of those societies were never polled about the content or conclusions of those statement. Was never submitted for debate for the most part. The front office wrote those statements.
> 
> The Australia Geophysical Society DID put it up to the membership when they last wanted to revise "their statement". It was wrapped in such turmoil and debate that they abandoned the update..
> 
> I'll wager the same would happen if those statements actually represented the general membership..


Ignore your scientific associations all you want. You won't ignore them about anything else. Flat earther deniers are no skin off my nose.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 24, 2015)




----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

In Australia the coal industry is very important. Likewise the petroleum engineers/geologists are/were holdouts in the US. It's no surprise those involved with fossil fuels are wary of information that may impact their livelihood.

If you think they have less of an agenda than some scientists in a university some where let me tell you about this bridge I have.


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Science does not do 'proof', it does evidence.
> ...


Fucking hell.

Scientific theories such as the theories of gravity, evolution, AGW are the current best explanations of the available evidence.

If different/more/contradictory evidence appears that requires a different explanation then that different theory will become the best explanation after it achieves consensus, until more evidence comes along that requires it to be changed again.

So it stands to reason that scientific theories are not 'proven', otherwise they couldn't be changed to fit available evidence.

Again, they are by scientific consensus the best explanations for the available evidence.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2015)

cnm said:


> In Australia the coal industry is very important. Likewise the petroleum engineers/geologists are/were holdouts in the US. It's no surprise those involved with fossil fuels are wary of information that may impact their livelihood.
> 
> If you think they have less of an agenda than some scientists in a university some where let me tell you about this bridge I have.


 News Flash Australia got rid of it's carbon tax, that should tell you something.


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

Absolutely. It has a rightard as Prime Minister who dismisses global warming because selling coal to China and using it to generate electricity domestically is too important to the Australian economy.


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

Note the rightard Canadian Prime Minister dismisses it because of the Alberta deposits. Same as Saudi with its FF deposits. 

That ought to tell you something when people are on the same side as Saudi in a scientific debate against everyone else.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 24, 2015)

bear513 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > In Australia the coal industry is very important. Likewise the petroleum engineers/geologists are/were holdouts in the US. It's no surprise those involved with fossil fuels are wary of information that may impact their livelihood.
> ...


Feel free to tell everyone what that something is.   I'm on the edge of my seat with anticipation.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Membership of those societies were never polled about the content or conclusions of those statement. Was never submitted for debate for the most part. The front office wrote those statements.
> ...



Say CNM --- Since the science is settled -- Can you find me the latest projection for the Mean Annual Surface Temperature Anomaly for 2050?  Need a number accurate enough to plan defenses against Climate Change. 

Something as simple as that ought to be simple to find if there is no more science to be done..


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 24, 2015)

Star children on the black road to salvation;
You've got to care for the needs of your planet;
Children of the forest and child of the Woodstock nation


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2015)

cnm said:


> Absolutely. It has a rightard as Prime Minister who dismisses global warming because selling coal to China and using it to generate electricity domestically is too important to the Australian economy.



For a poster who is sure this is all about science -- you seem overly zealous to discuss the socio-economic-political aspects of the AGWarming campaign..  That's what it's REALLY about --- is it not?

That's why there is a campaign to confuse pollution with AGWarming and confuse carbon with carbon dioxide.. Not very rigid is it? But it works for people who can't or won't LEARN anything about the science debate..    Fact is -- folks are being "confused" on purpose.. 

Is something that exists in your lungs at concentrations 3 to 5 times greater than in clean air --- a pollutant??


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 24, 2015)

On one side we have 

NASA
UK Meteorological Hadley Center Climate Research Unit
NOAA National Climate Center 
Japanese Meteorological Agency
The Pope
Leaders of other Large Religious Organization
The Pentagon 

All agreeing that Global Climate change is real

On the other side 
Kock brothers
Rush Limbaugh
some dude named "flacaltenn'

Gee tough choice


----------



## Liminal (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely. It has a rightard as Prime Minister who dismisses global warming because selling coal to China and using it to generate electricity domestically is too important to the Australian economy.
> ...



Is it the word "pollutant" that has you confused? How about if we change that to " too much shit in the atmosphere to sustain life on Earth."
Would that work better for you?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



That's a bit too scientific and specific for me..
And it's deceptive to enroll the public in that campaign of misinformation to make the "ends justify the means"..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> On one side we have
> 
> NASA
> UK Meteorological Hadley Center Climate Research Unit
> ...



So you think 0.65degC since 1880 is cause to panic? Can't find anything like that in the entire history of the earth? How about (in your own words) you tell me exactly what all  those people said about the temperature anomaly projected for 2050.. And at what date they predicted that.

Because the reason we're here and you are calling me names is that there's been a LOT of panicked projections of 6 or 8 degrees by 2100 that ALREADY are failing to track just 15 yrs after those predictions were made.

Does the Pope care about what the projected magnitude of the warming is? I doubt it.
He apparently doesn't understand the difference between pollution and CO2 ---- OR --- God forbid --- he DOES and he's telling little white lies for your own good..


----------



## Bugler (Jun 24, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Google is a left wing funded agency of the US government. Googel has been manipulating their systems for years deleting links to science that is troublesome for the liars..
> 
> Another EPIC FAIL by the Natural Climate deniers...
> 
> What?  You two got your ass handed to you in the last lie thread you needed to try lying again?



Nice try.  Google was created by two very young graduate students at Stanford University.  I was online the first day it went online.







*Scary government agents controlling your searches.*​


----------



## IanC (Jun 24, 2015)

As someone who has read the pros and cons about both sides of the issue, I find I agree with flac's generally lukewarmer attitude. If people contrasted the sane AGW-lite version of climate science with the catastrophic version of the warmers, I think many others would also agree. Unfortunately it has become an us vs them situation where most argue against straw man versions of what the other is saying.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Does the Pope care about what the projected magnitude of the warming is? I doubt it.


*Only you have the intellect the integrity and the knowledge base  to know the truth and if anyone doubts it all they have to do is ask you...........*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 24, 2015)

Bugler said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Google is a left wing funded agency of the US government. Googel has been manipulating their systems for years deleting links to science that is troublesome for the liars..
> ...



Google meets with Obama White House on a weekly basis


----------



## Liminal (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What description would meet with your approval and satisfy the conditions of your exacting standards of specificity?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




What I'd like is ALMOST what you would like -- I'll wagerr.

I'd like to drop this farce of blaming 0.5deg of Global Warming for EVERY environmental issue that we face. Seriously, the warmers have stretched this meme so thin, no one is buying...

And I'd like to go after REAL CARBON POLLUTION, just like we used to without all the lying and deception. I'd like to clean up the miles wide garbage pits in the ocean and work for conservation.

But this AGW farce just SUCKS THE AIR out of every other enviro issue...


----------



## Liminal (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



That may be your personal view, however the denier narrative seems to attract all kinds of anti environmentalist elements, as well as an odd assortment of conspiracy theorists.   The actual scientists who support the denier view all seem to be directly or indirectly connected with energy corporations.    Not a very honest or honorable group of people.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



You'd be better off not marginalizing scientific dissent and debate with the easy ruse of they all work for energy corporations.

I've spent PAGES on USMB facing some radical "deniers" down when they are wrong on the science.

So --- when are you gonna OFFER PROOF of your Opening Post here? That "deniers are liars"?? Or are you done with that? Did you EVER offer examples?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> All they have left. Reality is kicking in their teeth. The El Nino this year is going to demonstrate just how stupid the deniars are.



How does a natural re-occurring event kick in ANYONE'S teeth? 

Statement makes no sense..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy Boy, scientists are the ones telling us that, among scientists, there is no longer any debate.  That is not the same as saying "that science is over".
> 
> Billy, do you think the science is settled on gross human anatomy?  How about heat transfer?  Fluid dynamics?  The physical characteristics of the Solar System?  The Carnot Cycle?  Plant transpiration?  The diet of chimpanzees?  Animal husbandry?  Is there any topic of the natural sciences that you'd agree lacks significant debate among the cognoscenti?  I have to assume the answer to that question is "yes".  So... please explain why, with a 97% consensus, you think any significant debate still exists regarding AGW.



Your so full of shit its coming out your mouth... Your 97% is a lie as is your so called consensus..

There is significant debate needed because you all haven't even scratched the surface of real science.. Until you remove your political blinders you will continue destroying science..  The alarmists and their enablers are truly as anti-science as it gets.. Your side of liars has controlled journals so that only your agenda is heard killing the real science. Killed Colleges from teaching cognitive thinking skills and indoctrinated those who attend with your agenda.

The IPCC and the CAGW agenda are killing both people  and science...


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Say CNM --- Since the science is settled -- Can you find me the latest projection for the Mean Annual Surface Temperature Anomaly for 2050?  Need a number accurate enough to plan defenses against Climate Change.
> 
> Something as simple as that ought to be simple to find if there is no more science to be done..


What science is settled? Global cooling?


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

IanC said:


> If people contrasted the sane AGW-lite version of climate science with the catastrophic version of the warmers, I think many others would also agree.


Which climate scientists are 'catastrophic warmers'?


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your side of liars has controlled journals so that only your agenda is heard killing the real science.


The vast world wide conspiracy. One has to admire the scope and range of it to take in every government apart from a few, not to mention every US government agency. 

Could only be done by some dude stroking a white cat and living on an island shaped like a skull.


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> For a poster who is sure this is all about science -- you seem overly zealous to discuss the socio-economic-political aspects of the AGWarming campaign..  That's what it's REALLY about --- is it not?


That is absolutely what the opposition to the scientific consensus is all about.


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> That's why there is a campaign to confuse pollution with AGWarming and confuse carbon with carbon dioxide.. Not very rigid is it? But it works for people who can't or won't LEARN anything about the science debate..    Fact is -- folks are being "confused" on purpose..


First I've heard of it. Which climate scientists are doing that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Say CNM --- Since the science is settled -- Can you find me the latest projection for the Mean Annual Surface Temperature Anomaly for 2050?  Need a number accurate enough to plan defenses against Climate Change.
> ...



I figured you were bashing climate skeptics because "the science is settled". If you are so certain there is no point to further debate, skepticism or even Heaven forbid more sweaty studies, you could tell me what the science says about the temperature in 2050.. 

Don't you need some certainty on that before we go trying to engineer solutions? 

And help me out here.. Exactly WHAT are climate skeptics "lying about" as this thread implies?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's why there is a campaign to confuse pollution with AGWarming and confuse carbon with carbon dioxide.. Not very rigid is it? But it works for people who can't or won't LEARN anything about the science debate..    Fact is -- folks are being "confused" on purpose..
> ...



Obviously a lot of scientists at the EPA don't know the diff. Don't think the Vatican scientists know the difference. And even the cult leadership at UN IPCC are now confused about the difference between REAL pollution and CO2.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > For a poster who is sure this is all about science -- you seem overly zealous to discuss the socio-economic-political aspects of the AGWarming campaign..  That's what it's REALLY about --- is it not?
> ...



Not really. You confuse the rejection of your leftists plans for "alternative energy" as some kind of conspiracy. It's not.  The shit just aint an alternative. I can reel off a whole bunch of prominent scientist skeptics that just make sense. That DESTROY some of the weaker AGW claims that have everyone's panties in wad. 

I am anti-socialist.. But it's got nothing to do with the analysis of who is right and who is wrong. In science, that's pretty much all that matters. You can bitch about who fund it. But if it can't stand up to scrutiny --  you wasted your bucks..


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

The 'settled science' is the consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change.


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Not really.


Yes really. I've seen no 'leftist plans' from climate scientists. 'Leftist plans' are the delusions of deniers.


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Exactly WHAT are climate skeptics "lying about" as this thread implies?


Leftist plans by climate scientists for one thing.


----------



## cnm (Jun 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Obviously a lot of scientists at the EPA don't know the diff.


So, no names eh?

Oh well.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 24, 2015)

At this point, 'leftist plans' are all they have now. Most of the leaders of the Christian Denominations are behind the push the reduce emissions and mitigate the effects of the present GHG load. Most of the world leaders now publically recognize that the changes we are seeing in the climate are the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere. What they can do about it is dependent on the support they can get from their citizens. 

In the meantime, the very wealthy corperations are seeing their money tree dry up, and are using the same tactics as the tobacco companies. Remember the 7 CEO's of the tobacco companies sitting in front of Congress and swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive? That is the morality of the mega-corporations.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously a lot of scientists at the EPA don't know the diff.
> ...



Do I need names???? The EPA has spoken.. I would assume on the advice of their scientists. Or maybe ----- they are just blowing smoke out their asses..

I don't think the EPA has a whole stable of world-reknown scientists. Could be wrong.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly WHAT are climate skeptics "lying about" as this thread implies?
> ...



_Because I don't know you well and you get the benefit of the doubt that you actually giveashit... 

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program 

Maurice Strong - Wikiquote

If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.
Maurice Strong, September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine
What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
Maurice Strong, Interview 1992, concerning the plot of a book he would like to write[1]
It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.
Maurice Strong, 1992 essay entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation[specific citation needed]
"Our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions." [2]_

Is that a good start? Want another???


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly WHAT are climate skeptics "lying about" as this thread implies?
> ...



Here's another.. I leave it to you to go read the link and see who Edenhofer is... 

Climate Talks or Wealth Redistribution Talks 

_NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole._


Still fuzzy on the concept? It's not a conspiracy theory or a lie.. It's right in your face..


----------



## WelfareQueen (Jun 25, 2015)

cnm said:


> The 'settled science' is the consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change.




Climate change is caused by many things.  The variables are nearly endless.  To suggest CO2 is the primary driver of daily changes in climate is ridiculous.   

Climate changes  due to changes in atmospheric pressure....or due to changes in ocean currents as two specific examples.


----------



## cnm (Jun 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Do I need names????


Yes. You imply climate scientists are taking part in a _campaign to confuse pollution with AGWarming and confuse carbon with carbon dioxide_. So who are they?


----------



## cnm (Jun 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Is that a good start? Want another???


It's complete crap, Maurice Strong is not a climate scientist.


----------



## cnm (Jun 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Still fuzzy on the concept? It's not a conspiracy theory or a lie.. It's right in your face..


Edenhofer is an economist, not a climate scientist.


----------



## cnm (Jun 25, 2015)

WelfareQueen said:


> Climate change is caused by many things.  The variables are nearly endless.  To suggest CO2 is the primary driver of daily changes in climate is ridiculous.  .


'_Human activity emitted greenhouse gases_'. Yes, we know you deny the scientific consensus, you are a flat earther denier who cannot be told by the scientists you believe and use for every other category.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2015)

Interesting the club of Rome...


The Political Agenda Behind Man-Made Global Warming

s.*Taxing CO2 production on a worldwide scale, and the establishment of a new, privately owned international bank to handle these taxes, seems to be one of the major tools they plan to use in order to achieve this goal of global financial and political control*.

[The global governance plan that the Club of Rome promotes, the plan that is currently being promoted by the UN, is mainly in the interests of the top several hundred or a few thousand of the wealthiest people on earth.


----------



## cnm (Jun 25, 2015)

Any climate scientists there?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2015)

More.....






*David de Rothschild*

We see that a junior member of the Rothschild clan and one of the heirs to the vast Rothschild banking and investment fortune, David de Rothschild is *very active*in promoting the cause of "man-made climate change", as well as having several investments that are intended to profit from this movement. An internet search will find many articles about his connection to the movement. For example, he was very much involved with the mass propaganda event, the *Live Earth Concert *of 2007 and wrote "The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook".
The following short video clip shows him at the time of the 2009 Copenhagen Conference mentioning the difficulty of instituting the "*global governance agenda*" relating to a worldwide CO2taxation scheme at Copenhagen:**.

Below is a four-part video showing David de Rothschild giving a talk at a company called *Climate Change Capital*.

**
**
**
**


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2015)

cnm said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > If people contrasted the sane AGW-lite version of climate science with the catastrophic version of the warmers, I think many others would also agree.
> ...




James Hansen, former head of GISS, who was an integral part of transforming global temperature datasets into the distortions of the present, for one. When he wasn't out protesting global warming and collecting cash prizes and awards from environmental groups.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Still fuzzy on the concept? It's not a conspiracy theory or a lie.. It's right in your face..
> ...



Edenhofer is a lead author with the UN IPCC -- The whole IPCC show is managed and driven by non-climate-scientists. Without the socio-economic leaders of the IPCC there would be NO UN Climate Change program. The scientists are hired help and SELECTED to support the UN mission of studying ONLY the MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming --- look it up.. 

The prez chief science advisor CONTINUOUSLY mangles carbon and CO2 because that's what he's been to do.. look it up.. 

I'm sure the Chief Tribal Witchdoctor James Hansen has CONTINUOUSLY on purpose confused Carbon with CO2.. Same with Michael Mann. Know who these scientists are????


----------



## hadit (Jun 25, 2015)

Who denies climate change?  Now, if you want to talk about man caused global warming, that's the real issue.  This "climate change" malarkey is just a bunch of hot air (see what I did there?).


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2015)

IanC said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Exactly ---- CNM needs to understand how the politcians and eco-frauds leading the movement are given cover by complicit "superstar" scientists. 

Here's a prime example. With WitchDoctor Hansen putting his name as lead author.. 

PLOS ONE Assessing Dangerous Climate Change Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People Future Generations and Nature

_Abstract

We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate data, and simple representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on today’s young people, future generations, and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of ~500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted. Cumulative emissions of ~1000 GtC, sometimes associated with 2°C global warming, would spur “slow” feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4°C with disastrous consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon emissions that would preclude emissions from most remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels.
_
Note the conversion of CO2 molecular weight to a CARBON weight. Done ON PURPOSE to allow the warmists to confuse Carbon emissions to CO2 emissions. 

That's all the "scientific" justification they need to intentionally confuse the public. Now Carbon emissions is the same thing as CO2... It's well orchestrated propaganda with the lead star scientists giving cover to the lies..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2015)

bear513 said:


> More.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Big money driving the AGWCult


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 25, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Still fuzzy on the concept? It's not a conspiracy theory or a lie.. It's right in your face..
> ...



Yea, not even Crick tries that one anymore


----------



## cnm (Jun 25, 2015)

IanC said:


> James Hansen, former head of GISS, who was an integral part of transforming global temperature datasets into the distortions of the present, for one. When he wasn't out protesting global warming and collecting cash prizes and awards from environmental groups.


Where are his predictions of catastrophic warming?


----------



## cnm (Jun 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Edenhofer is a lead author with the UN IPCC


He's not a climate scientist.

Carbon emissions take into account many greenhouse gases emitted by human activity that are the primary driver of climate change, not exclusively CO₂. You're showing the true state of denial by complaining of that term.


----------



## cnm (Jun 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> The prez chief science advisor CONTINUOUSLY mangles carbon and CO2 because that's what he's been to do.. look it up..
> 
> I'm sure the Chief Tribal Witchdoctor James Hansen has CONTINUOUSLY on purpose confused Carbon with CO2.. Same with Michael Mann. Know who these scientists are????


Ludicrous. Many greenhouse gases have a carbon component, CO₂ is not the only greenhouse gas.


----------



## IanC (Jun 25, 2015)

cnm said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > James Hansen, former head of GISS, who was an integral part of transforming global temperature datasets into the distortions of the present, for one. When he wasn't out protesting global warming and collecting cash prizes and awards from environmental groups.
> ...




Are you kidding me?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2015)

No, we're not kidding. The people screaming "catastrophe!" are almost always deniers. You ought to either justify that constant hysteria, or stop using that tactic.

As a whole, what do you hope to accomplish with the Hansen Derangement Syndrome? We get that it's standard cult policy to rally the faithful against some convenient demon-figure. Is there any other purpose to it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> Still clinging to that myth that the consensus is a myth?  Educate yourself.  Read something that doesn't have an agenda tied around the RNC or the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> The hockey stick isn't a graph.  It's what the Earth's temperatures have done.  As such, it ain't gonna go away.



The hockey stick is a fraud.  Anyone who uses it to defend global warming is a hosebag.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 25, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))
> ...



Scientific truths are not established by majority vote.  The fact that believe they are show what an ignoramus you are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> I wonder why deniers have to lie about everything all the time?
> Climate-Change Deniers Must Stop Distorting the Evidence IPCC Report


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> I wonder why deniers have to lie about everything all the time?
> Climate-Change Deniers Must Stop Distorting the Evidence IPCC Report


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2015)

mamooth said:


> No, we're not kidding. The people screaming "catastrophe!" are almost always deniers. You ought to either justify that constant hysteria, or stop using that tactic.
> 
> As a whole, what do you hope to accomplish with the Hansen Derangement Syndrome? We get that it's standard cult policy to rally the faithful against some convenient demon-figure. Is there any other purpose to it?



I would also like to see some major names in mainstream science predicting catastrophe.  CAGW was an invention of he fossil fuel disinformation campaign (FFDC).


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > No, we're not kidding. The people screaming "catastrophe!" are almost always deniers. You ought to either justify that constant hysteria, or stop using that tactic.
> ...



Alarmists and communists own the disinformation campaign. So you are well versed in it.  Projecting your own failures on others is really below the belt.. But you keep your pin up of James Hansen the liar any way... 

Main stream climate science deniers like James Hansen and Michale Mann are nothing more than well paid liars.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> I wonder why deniers have to lie about everything all the time?
> Climate-Change Deniers Must Stop Distorting the Evidence IPCC Report



Couldn't stop laughing for a full 10 minutes at this..

*On the other hand, serial climate disinformer Judith Curry, in a commentary for the same outlet five days later, announced, "Consensus distorts the climate picture."*

And that's where I stopped your "link".. Let's see. Who is Judith Curry?

_JUDITH A. CURRY School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology
curryja@eas.gatech.edu Judith Curry s Home Page

GENERAL INFORMATION Education 1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences 1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography Professional Experience 2002- Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology 2002-2014 Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology 1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Environmental Studies Program 1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State 1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University 1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Dept of Meteorology,

University of Wisconsin-Madison Awards/Honors 2011 Graetzinger Moving School Forward Award, Georgia Tech 2007 Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science 2006 Best Faculty Paper Award, Georgia Tech Sigma Xi 2004 Fellow, American Geophysical Union 2002 NASA Group Achievement Award for CAMEX-4 2002 Green Faculty Award, University of Colorado 1997 Elected Councilor, American Meteorological Society 1995 Fellow, American Meteorological Society 1992 Henry G. Houghton Award, the American Meteorological Society 1988 Presidential Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation_

Recent Professional Activities ---- World Meteorological Organization / International Council of Scientific Unions / International Ocean Commission / World Climate Research Programme • Global Energy and Water Experiment (GEWEX) Radiation Panel (1994-2004) • GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) Science Steering Group (1998-2004) • Chair, GCSS Working Group on Polar Clouds (1998-2004) • Chair, GEWEX Radiation Panel SEAFLUX Project (1999-2004)

*So this whole thread is to smear people like that as LIARS? And post trash that labels folks like Judith Curry "a serial climate disinformer"??? *

Now you are officially outed as a troll who has ADMITTED having no interest in the science or the details. This entire thread is an exercersize in baiting.. 

/UNSUBSCRIBE


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > No, we're not kidding. The people screaming "catastrophe!" are almost always deniers. You ought to either justify that constant hysteria, or stop using that tactic.
> ...



So when Hansen described the progression of Global Warming including the "boiling of the oceans" -- that was not catastrophic enough for you. When projections are made to put NYC and Miami underwater in the next 60 years -- that's not catastrophic enough for you? When Obama tells the Coast Guard grads that their most important missions include Global Warming -- that's not -- over the edge hysterical? 

You've got no common sense or sense of proportion..


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Scientific truths are not established by majority vote.  The fact that believe they are show what an ignoramus you are.


Scientific theories are.


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> So when Hansen described the progression of Global Warming including the "boiling of the oceans" -- that was not catastrophic enough for you.


Where are these predictions? Do you not understand the question?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So when Hansen described the progression of Global Warming including the "boiling of the oceans" -- that was not catastrophic enough for you.
> ...



The question I replied to (from Crick -- not you) was exactly --

I would also like to see some major names in mainstream science predicting catastrophe.

I did just that. If you can't Google "james hansen" boil ocean, I'll type it for you. Also read my footer. I'm not lying and usually give folks the assumption that they are not either. HOWEVER, i am a pretty good judge of internet character.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 26, 2015)

cnm said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientific truths are not established by majority vote.  The fact that believe they are show what an ignoramus you are.
> ...



Wrong moron.  I'll bet you think you understand science and believe in it.


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> The question I replied to (from Crick -- not you) was exactly --
> 
> I would also like to see some major names in mainstream science predicting catastrophe.
> 
> I did just that. If you can't Google "james hansen" boil ocean,


No, you didn't do just that. You gave one name without his predictions nor a link to it.

Then you bloviated on with some politicians or whoever. But I understand why you have difficulty answering the question.


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong moron.  I'll bet you think you understand science and believe in it.


Well I did do a bit of work as a lab technician measuring pollution. I believe in evidence, something in very short supply around here.

You probably think 'consensus' is a population survey.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The question I replied to (from Crick -- not you) was exactly --
> ...



n his book _Storms of my Grandchildren_, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "_f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.

Will Earth s Ocean Boil Away _


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why deniers have to lie about everything all the time?
> ...



Did you happen to notice the Title of this thread?


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Are you suggesting (since you don't seem man enough to actually answer the question outright) that Mann and Hansen have predicted catastrophic AGW?  Can you provide a link to such predictions?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The question I replied to (from Crick -- not you) was exactly --
> ...



Sorry man... I'm not your Siri... I gave you the Goggle search so you could READ what you want to.. Rather than what I might choose to retrieve.. 

If you have NO CLUE as to who Dr. James Hansen is -- or his role in the AGW hierarchy, you've got some learning to do BEFORE you shoot off about the deniers that you think are lying..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Yes I did.. It's a baiting and trolling title isn't it? But Liminal managed to find one pajama blogger that would attempt to make that case.. 

Oooops.. Forgot I unsubscribed...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2015)

bear513 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



That about nails Crick's ignorance of the term Catastrophic Global Warming right? But being the denier that he is.. He will claim next week again that he's completely unaware of any scary exaggerated statements from ANY Climate Scientists. He can't remember shit if it hurts his head to ponder it... He's been shown this same stuff for damn near 6 yrs now.  Maybe my new footer will add the Hansen quote above just to remind him..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




And -- he obviously has a hard time reading thru threads...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 26, 2015)

In other words, Flac couldn't show any actual such predictions, and is frantically trying some bluster to deflect away from his phony claim.

Flac, there's a way to avoid being humiliated like this in the future. Stop fabricating kook claims.

I also suggest you don't deliberately dig deeper into the dishonest hole by pretending a hypothetical supposition of an impossible situation (that every bit of fossil fuel on earth be burned, a physical and economic impossibility) was a prediction of catastrophe. While that type of attempted deception will certainly pass muster with your fellow cultists, it won't fly with honest people.

So, back to the point. Only the deniers here make endless predictions of catastrophe, and they constantly project their own hysteria on to rational people. That's why nobody listens to anything they say. Their hysteria is just boring.


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



His complaint is a reasonable one.  But let's have a look.  Let's try that Google search.

How about this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=0

Is that apocolyptic enough for you?  Do you think Hansen's predictions here are so out of line that they invalidate AGW?  Do you believe they ARE out of line?  What do you think of his statements in this article?


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Sorry man


If you don't want to back up your assertions I quite understand. After all what is the point of lying if one discredits one's own lie?


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

bear513 said:


> n his book _Storms of my Grandchildren_, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "_f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty._


So is that what is meant by climate scientists promoting CAGW?

Saying there's a 'substantial chance' a tipping point will be reached when certain difficult conditions are achieved?

Oh well, if that's the definition of CAGW, I'll agree some climate scientists are guilty. So what?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



That NYTimes hysteria validates everything I've said about the principle Global Warming scientists "giving cover"  for politicians and media to  abuse and FURTHER misinterpret the science. Could's and Might's turn into Will's.

And although the hairball Mooth doesn't think that Hansen's comments are harmful --- The NY TIMES IN THAT FUCKING ARTICLE LEAPS to conclusion that if CANADA develops THEIR tar sands. ...

*"If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate."*

Their you have it in a nutshell. Schematic for CATASTROPHIC GW hysteria and the ANATOMY of how global warming "authorities" ALLOW themselves to be abused for the cause.. 

LIES, FEAR, and more LIES --- that's what the movement is built on.. Now Crick  -- forget you ever saw Dr Hansen feeding lies to the media and letting them stand uncorrected.. He KNEW when he said those things --  EXACTLY what would happen.


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> That about nails Crick's ignorance of the term Catastrophic Global Warming right? But being the denier that he is.. He will claim next week again that he's completely unaware of any scary exaggerated statements from ANY Climate Scientists.


But where is the scary exaggerated statement from a climate scientist?


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> That NYTimes hysteria validates everything I've said about the principle Global Warming scientists "giving cover"  for politicians and media to  abuse and FURTHER misinterpret the science.


But you have trouble giving climate scientists who are 'catastrophic warmers' and their claims so you revert to media. Well, why lie otherwise?

From crick's link.

_Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. 

If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. 

That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk._​So is that your definition of a 'catastrophic warmer'? Do you disagree with his comments? Are you saying he's lying?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 26, 2015)

cnm said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong moron.  I'll bet you think you understand science and believe in it.
> ...



"Consensus" is the way they did science in the dark ages.  Now we use things called "logic" and "facts" and "experiments,"  none of which the AGW cult has on it's side.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Good thing we can count on people like you to provide a good example for the others.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


Rather childish, the way you like to personalize your alleged arguments.   People often resort to that when they lack any actual argument.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 26, 2015)

The fact that these people have to personalize is a good indication that they don't have much confidence in their arguments, which apparently don't stand on their own merits.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 26, 2015)

Liminal said:


> The fact that these people have to personalize is a good indication that they don't have much confidence in their arguments, which apparently don't stand on their own merits.



What is it when you call people insulting names like "denier?"


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2015)

Liminal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That about nails Crick's ignorance of the term Catastrophic Global Warming right? But being the denier that he is.. He will claim next week again that he's completely unaware of any scary exaggerated statements from ANY Climate Scientists. He can't remember shit if it hurts his head to ponder it... He's been shown this same stuff for damn near 6 yrs now.  Maybe my new footer will add the Hansen quote above just to remind him..
> ...



You know what's REALLY childish? 

You post a link from some pajama blogger that slimes one of America's most accomplished climate scientists as a "serial climate misinformer".   I post her credentials and bio to give you a clue as to what an unlimited ass you really are -- and you REPLY to that post with her bio in it with attacks on me.. 

You got NOTHING but childish.. We're done.


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2015)

And you wonder why your treatment of Mann and Hansen makes us less than giddy.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2015)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > n his book _Storms of my Grandchildren_, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "_f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty._
> ...



So what? =what does it matter=Gruber= Harry Reid little lies don't matter

You guys make me want to puke. 

You know it's a scam, we know it's a scam , so why the charades ?


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> "Consensus" is the way they did science in the dark ages.  Now we use things called "logic" and "facts" and "experiments,"  none of which the AGW cult has on it's side.


And then the majority of scientists agree on what is the meaning of those experiments and logic and facts and a consensus is formed.

Next you'll be talking about 'scientific proof' just to demonstrate you really don't have a clue.


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> What is it when you call people insulting names like "denier?"


Accuracy.


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

bear513 said:


> So what?


What part of his comments do you disagree with?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2015)

cnm said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > "Consensus" is the way they did science in the dark ages.  Now we use things called "logic" and "facts" and "experiments,"  none of which the AGW cult has on it's side.
> ...


 be specific, the majority of scientist agree on what? And if you go to that over zealous researching papers.... You lost all credibility.


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> You know what's REALLY childish?
> 
> You post a link from some pajama blogger that slimes one of America's most accomplished climate scientists as a "serial climate misinformer".   I post her credentials and bio to give you a clue as to what an unlimited ass you really are -- and you REPLY to that post with her bio in it with attacks on me..
> 
> You got NOTHING but childish.. We're done.


So if you cite her how come you don't agree, along with her, on the scientific opinion on climate change?

_*Judith Curry*

Judith Curry - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change,[15] she has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change._​


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

bear513 said:


> be specific, the majority of scientist agree on what? And if you go to that over zealous researching papers.... You lost all credibility.


They agree on the meaning of those experiments and logic and facts bripat talked about in order to arrive at a consensus. In this case

Human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change.​
Dude. Losing credibility with you is an affirmation.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2015)

Jesus Christ, on what proof?

Just because?


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Jesus Christ, on what proof?
> 
> Just because?


Experiments and logic and fact.

What are you talking about?


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

Anyway, you didn't say with what part of Hansen's comments you disagreed. Are you going to?


----------



## cnm (Jun 26, 2015)

Oh, here's the scientific opinion Judith Curry agrees with.

_The *scientific opinion on climate change* is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels._​


----------



## Liminal (Jun 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Done?  And after I spent all that money on an engagement ring.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2015)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus Christ, on what proof?
> ...


 What experiments? European computer models that the Rothschilds going to get rich off of? 

Or do you have a super secrete clone planet of earth where in the year 2015 no humans are on it? 

Your theory goes just like this

We have a bunch of people on the planet , driving cars, using A/C

So it must be stopped.

A blue whale jumping out off the ocean can be detected now around the world.

You ever hear of any balance? You can not disrupt feeding people that are hungry today, you can not screw with people today that want good jobs

Just to perseve the planet the way it was 500 years ago. 

All you are telling me is you have yours and screw everyone else, just to preserve the planet


----------



## cnm (Jun 27, 2015)

So again that's an economic denial of a scientific theory. With what part of Hansen's comments do you disagree?


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You know what's REALLY childish?
> ...




a quote from your link-



> The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100...



it has been interesting to watch Curry over the last decade as she has walked farther and farther away from consensus, and given particularly good reasons for doing so.


----------



## cnm (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm not the one talking about CAGW. Nor has anyone provided a cite of a climate scientist doing so. The only mention of it I see comes from deniers.

As far as I can see, Curry has been forced to come closer to the consensus from her original position of temperature change not being detectable.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> I'm not the one talking about CAGW. Nor has anyone provided a cite of a climate scientist doing so. The only mention of it I see comes from deniers.
> 
> As far as I can see, Curry has been forced to come closer to the consensus from her original position of temperature change not being detectable.




hahahahaha. why do I get the feeling you have no idea on what Curry's position on anything is?


----------



## cnm (Jun 27, 2015)

Why do I get the feeling you don't know what Curry's position was?


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> Why do I get the feeling you don't know what Curry's position was?




what year, what subject? I started reading her blog in 2010 and I think I have a pretty good idea of many of her positions since then.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> So again that's an economic denial of a scientific theory. With what part of Hansen's comments do you disagree?


 it reminds me of some scientist fear of setting off an atomic bomb in the 1940s and breaking the earths core.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2015)

bear513 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > So again that's an economic denial of a scientific theory. With what part of Hansen's comments do you disagree?
> ...




didnt they worry about the Cern super collider causing a black hole that would swallow up the earth when it was turned on?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> Why do I get the feeling you don't know what Curry's position was?


 I will give you some credit, you have yet to try to throw her under the buss. At least you know who she is now.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 27, 2015)

IanC said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


 lmao, good point forgot about that.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Interesting the club of Rome...
> 
> 
> The Political Agenda Behind Man-Made Global Warming
> ...


Anyone ever answer the question how does paying for carbon tax stop CO2 from being mean old climate change?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > James Hansen, former head of GISS, who was an integral part of transforming global temperature datasets into the distortions of the present, for one. When he wasn't out protesting global warming and collecting cash prizes and awards from environmental groups.
> ...


So there will be no extreme weather events considered due to CO2 is that what you're saying? so there's no catastrophes no longer well I agree. By the way there never was.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You know what's REALLY childish?
> ...


I agree with her


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus Christ, on what proof?
> ...


Probably talking about those things that scientist are supposed to do when they're checking a hypothesis out


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > be specific, the majority of scientist agree on what? And if you go to that over zealous researching papers.... You lost all credibility.
> ...


Can you post up what those experiments? wHere can we see those please thank you


----------



## PredFan (Jun 27, 2015)

We aren't lying, we really do deny it.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2015)

IanC said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Like she doesn't need the funding from the government anymore. If I recall, I read that in one of her write ups how people getting paid with government money will not speak out!!


----------



## cnm (Jun 27, 2015)

bear513 said:


> it reminds me of some scientist fear of setting off an atomic bomb in the 1940s and breaking the earths core.


With what part of Hansen's comments do you disagree?


----------



## cnm (Jun 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Can you post up what those experiments? wHere can we see those please thank you


I see you ignore logic and fact.


----------



## cnm (Jun 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> I agree with her


So do I.


----------



## cnm (Jun 27, 2015)

IanC said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I get the feeling you don't know what Curry's position was?
> ...


For gods' sakes. She says it herself in her own blog.

_In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change.  Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe.  This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born.  During this period I would say that many if not most researchers, including myself, were skeptical that global warming was detectable in the temperature record and that it would have dire consequences. _
Source​


----------



## cnm (Jun 27, 2015)

bear513 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I get the feeling you don't know what Curry's position was?
> ...


Hilarious. As though you can even understand her.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you post up what those experiments? wHere can we see those please thank you
> ...


No I request experiments that provide evidence to prove the hypothesis. Unless you have one, then the hypothesis has not been proven and a model is not an experiment!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2015)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with her
> ...


Still today?


----------



## LibertarianPatriot (Jun 27, 2015)

Al Gore claimed that scientists had proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the arctic glaciers would not exist by 2013. 

Not only are they still there, but they are the biggest they have been since we could record them with satellites.

Not to mention the fact that glaciers on mars have increased and decreased exactly the same amount at the same time as glaciers on earth. Its called the SUN.

And nobody ever denied the climate changes; we call that weather.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2015)

LibertarianPatriot said:


> Al Gore claimed that scientists had proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the arctic glaciers would not exist by 2013



No he didn't. Where do you come up with this nonsense?

And why do you care about Gore? We don't care about Gore. He's a politician, not a scientist. People who can talk about the science talk about the science. Those who fail at the science, they make up stories about whatever politician their cult told them to demonize.



> Not to mention the fact that glaciers on mars have increased and decreased exactly the same amount at the same time as glaciers on earth.



Totally wrong. There has been no warming on Mars. That's a denier urban legend that won't die.



> Its called the SUN.



Which has been cooling, yet earth keeps warming. So much for your theory.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2015)

mamooth said:


> LibertarianPatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Al Gore claimed that scientists had proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the arctic glaciers would not exist by 2013
> ...


Uh, could it be that he had influence know what that word is influence? He's a politician the money is government money politician government money that seem to make sense to you?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2015)

That makes no sense to anyone.

And Gore never predicted or said the Arctic would be ice free by now. That's a denier zombie lie that just won't die.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2015)

mamooth said:


> That makes no sense to anyone.
> 
> And Gore never predicted or said the Arctic would be ice free by now. That's a denier zombie lie that just won't die.



Well I'm sure that if y'all get out your ClintonSpeak parsers, there will be a win to spin this based on the meaning of the word "is"... 

*The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.*


Read more: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Now -- he IS irrelevent.. I'll give you that. But he has done MONSTROUS damage to the credibility of your religion and the Nobel Prix


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2015)

And ---- as long as resolving quotes here. This has been sitting on my desktop.. No ideological designs behind the AGW movement you say??  NO scientist is saying those kinds of things you say???

How about the Prez's Chief Science Advisor.. Hand selected to be a general of his socialist revolution for hope and change...


WH Science Czar Says He Would Use Free Market to De-Develop the United States 


_*"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the "recommendations" concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

"De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation," Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.

"Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries," Holdren and his co-authors wrote. "This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being."*_



Read more: WH Science Czar Says He Would Use Free Market to De-Develop the United States 


_*CNSNews.com asked Holdren about this passage on Tuesday after he participated in an Environmental Protection Agency forum celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Clean Air Act.

CNSNews.com asked: "You wrote ‘a massive campaign must be launched to restore a high quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States' in your book Human Ecology. Could you explain what you meant by de-develop the United States?"

Holdren responded: "What we meant by that was stopping the kinds of activities that are destroying the environment and replacing them with activities that would produce both prosperity and environmental quality. Thanks a lot."

CNSNews.com then asked: "And how do you plan on implementing that?"

"Through the free market economy," Holdren said.

CNSNews.com also asked Holdren to comment on the declaration he made in 1995 along with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of Stanford University that mankind needed to "face up" to "a world of zero net physical growth" that would require reductions in consumption.*_

Yup.. The religion of CAGW ain't about ideology or politics. There is no conspiracy theory behind the science of Global Warming. You're right.. It's all out in the open where anyone who wants to see it --- can..


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2015)

Yes! Flac gave us the faked quote! I knew somebody would. After all, fact checking isn't in the denier DNA. If anyone makes a habit of fact-checking, it's not possible for them to be a denier. Therefore, I knew one of them would run to repeat Rose's forgery. It was just a matter of who'd jump first.

The actual Gore quote, as opposed to the faked quote that Flac copied from forger David Rose.

---
Last September 21st, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar ice cap is, in their words, “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.
---

So, Gore made no such prediction. David Rose simply faked the Gore quote in his article. And Flac fell for it.

Flac, one of your cult leaders lied to you and played you for a patsy. Now go defend him. Your side always does, no matter how many times you're left twisting in the wind. I await to see your creative excuse as to why you being taken in by a fraud is really my fault.

You can listen to the Gore quote itself right here. It comes at around 4:35. I did. I fact check, hence I'm not a denier.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> How about the Prez's Chief Science Advisor.. Hand selected to be a general of his socialist revolution for hope and change...



Obama-is-a-socialist rants conclusively identify a person as a political cultist. Cultists will say or do anything in the name of their cult, like using faked quotes, so everything they say is assumed to be "adjusted". There's a price in credibility to be paid for strange political rants.

I especially liked this part.
---
"Through the free market economy," Holdren said.
---

The free market! Horrors! Sounds like pure socialism! Well, at least deniers see it that way. Don't ask me why. I think it's part of their adjusting of reality, that the free market is really socialism.



> Yup.. The religion of CAGW ain't about ideology or politics.



As I've mentioned before, never use the term CAGW, as it instantly identifies the speaker as a WUWT drone.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Yes! Flac gave us the faked quote! I knew somebody would. After all, fact checking isn't in the denier DNA. If anyone makes a habit of fact-checking, it's not possible for them to be a denier. Therefore, I knew one of them would run to repeat Rose's forgery. It was just a matter of who'd jump first.
> 
> The actual Gore quote, as opposed to the faked quote that Flac copied from forger David Rose.
> 
> ...




This is just a reading comprehension problem on your part. He quoted a study stating the seven year projection.  THE LATEST AND GREATEST study yet to be released.
AND he REPEATED the seven year figure.

I guess if you're desperate enough and cant cope with the cognitive dissonance this causes your tiny little feline brain to ache, You WOULD drag out the Clinton Thesaurus and Word Parser and attempt to correct the record as it clearly stands.

And you in particular --- seem pretty damn desperate..


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 27, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > That makes no sense to anyone.
> ...




So he said it "could", not that it "will" or "would"? 

So he didn't say it "would be free of ice" then?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2015)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > How about the Prez's Chief Science Advisor.. Hand selected to be a general of his socialist revolution for hope and change...
> ...



What excuse did you expect him to dig up to preserve any dignity of the position he was given?? I read a lot of Ehrlich in the 70s, and their LACK of respect for free markets and economic freedom is what turned me from a long-haired, maggot infested, dope smoking hippy -- into the normal person I am today..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Glad you caught that. Because all these dire predictions of floods, drought, storms, and wars and every imaginable crisis of CATASTROPHIC GW claim can be traced back to scientists who also used the COULD's and MIGHT's as qualified. So when Hansen says that if we burn all the shale and tar fields that WILL turn this planet into Venus --- that gives the NYTimes the greenlight to quote him as saying "if Canada develops their shale and tar fields, this planet is toast"   Now SEE --- that's the anatomy of lie designed to scare folks into submission.. Clever orchestration.. Good job..


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> This is just a reading comprehension problem on your part. He quoted a study stating the seven year projection.  THE LATEST AND GREATEST study yet to be released. AND he REPEATED the seven year figure.
> 
> I guess if you're desperate enough and cant cope with the cognitive dissonance this causes your tiny little feline brain to ache, You WOULD drag out the Clinton Thesaurus and Word Parser and attempt to correct the record as it clearly stands.



I parsed no words. Stop being so dishonest. You got caught making a very bad mistake. Take it like a grownup, instead of flinging dishonest accusations.



> And you in particular --- seem pretty damn desperate..



You repeated a faked quote that changed Gore's meaning. That's your fault, not mine.

Here's a thought. Grow up and take responsibility for repeating a faked quote. Ask yourself why you were so eager to be fooled. Then ask yourself why you're blaming me for pointing out you were duped, instead of blaming Rose for feeding you the big lie. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2015)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > This is just a reading comprehension problem on your part. He quoted a study stating the seven year projection.  THE LATEST AND GREATEST study yet to be released. AND he REPEATED the seven year figure.
> ...



People will judge the evidence for themselves. He brought up the Seven year study. Presented it at his Prize acceptance speech.. THat;s all true..  I don't need to club you about it.. Like you  do to me. As tho your bluster matters a whit..  RIGHT NOW -- you are almost "out-denying" me..


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 27, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




So, he said something about 7 years, you've twisted it but kept the "seven years" part and are now passing it off as something else.

Well done.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > That makes no sense to anyone.
> ...


Exactly


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2015)

cnm said:


> Anyway, you didn't say with what part of Hansen's comments you disagreed. Are you going to?



Both Hansen and Mann falsified their work.. Game Over!

This seems to be an approved thing is alarmist science.. John cook and many others falsifying or lying about others works to support their lies.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



This is why the left is so set on demonizing her. She gives well thought out and sound reasoning for her position.  Curry cites work and does her own critical thinking and is not afraid to question others questionable work.

Curry has greater internal fortitude than all alarmists combined.  It is really to bad that so many scientists have lost all credibility bowing to the money men of the environmental wacko movement.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Gore made a prediction. It failed to materialize. He made that prediction on the world stage in front of the UN who agreed with him. They are all in the same boat sinking. And you want to ignore the holes in the bottom of the boat.... Classic!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


No, no he didn't he stated what was said by Al gore in his speech he said 22 years and he said seven years now which part of that is your contention? By the way the speech was to alert the masses that extreme conditions were present so using words like Might and could or whatever insinuates that as his basic belief is they are.   just by his mere speech it's perceived as it will! Perceived ever hear of it?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 28, 2015)

Here's a good example of a well known liar and climate change science denier.
The People Have Spoken This Is The Most Brazen Lie Of 2014 ThinkProgress


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Gore made a prediction. It failed to materialize. He made that prediction on the world stage in front of the UN who agreed with him. They are all in the same boat sinking. And you want to ignore the holes in the bottom of the boat.... Classic!



Gore made a prediction. You know it was a prediction and most other people know it was a prediction. You also know he didn't say it would happen but that it could happen. It's not hard to make predictions of what could happen. People do it all the time. Using "could" suggested that it also might not happen. It's why he used those words.

So, it didn't happen. 

The UN agreed with him that it was possible that this could happen? Okay, and... what? They agreed that something could happen, but it didn't happen. Wow. 

The problem here seems to be that you take such a prediction of a possible as fixed, and then use it as proof there isn't man made climate change or something weird like that.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 28, 2015)

Interesting Facebook page.
Climate Change LIES Facebook


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Here's a good example of a well known liar and climate change science denier.
> The People Have Spoken This Is The Most Brazen Lie Of 2014 ThinkProgress



LOL

A think progress piece of propaganda..  Note that did not provide any basis for their assumptions.  just a fly over dropping adhom bombs... Their projection of others lying when it is themselves is funny as hell.  And yes the average citizen can see through their lies.. One day soon they will find out they no longer have any credibility..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Gore made a prediction. It failed to materialize. He made that prediction on the world stage in front of the UN who agreed with him. They are all in the same boat sinking. And you want to ignore the holes in the bottom of the boat.... Classic!
> ...



Just like any one of the 139 models that fail with 100 percent certainty Gore and his lies did as well... 

IF you cant predict a dam thing correctly how do you know that CAGW is real?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Interesting Facebook page.
> Climate Change LIES Facebook



SKS and Hotwhooper...... Any more slimy web sites you wana use for proof?   And not one shred of evidence that is reproducible science.. just fly over adhom bombs...

When are you fools going to get some decent material..  The projection of lies is astounding coming from the left.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting Facebook page.
> ...


Shows how good you pay attention.  That Facebook page is for deniers and liars, maybe you should log on.


----------



## Gen0 (Jun 28, 2015)

I believe corporations are behind the confusion. the public is fed lies through media,government and in data to keep things the way they are - under control.Confusing the general public through deceitful information, wasted time in pointing occurs and nothing gets done.

If i see animals going extinct every single year does that raise a red flag? if i notice the polar ice caps melting does that raise a red flag? If i notice coral reef dieing off or wild salmon dieing off, should i say it? does this make sense to deny any of this is happening? We are killing our home, earth. Why do we keep insisting its bob or Joe or whoever is responsible?

The time we realize as a whole society to use our common sense, we - humans will continue being greedy, seeking profits over life.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2015)

Gen0 said:


> I believe corporations are behind the confusion. the public is fed lies through media,government and data in order to keep things the way they under - under control. By confusing the general public through deceitful data, wasted time pointing fingers is wasted instead of focusing on what makes sense.
> 
> If i see animals going extinct every single year does that raise a red flag? if i notice the polar ice caps melting does that raise a red flag? If i notice coral reef dieing off or wild salmon dieing off, should i say it? does this make sense to deny any of this is happening? We are killing our home, earth. Why do we keep insisting its bob or Joe or whoever is responsible?
> 
> The time we realize as a whole society to use our common sense, we - humans will continue being greedy, seeking profits over life.


All of that and you have no evidence to support any of what you claim, because you don't know if that's an expected outcome of nature or not. do you have something that you can compare against to prove anything?


----------



## Gen0 (Jun 28, 2015)

Evidence for corporate control/influence goes all the way back when federal reserve was created back in 1913. The goal of banks is for power by giving out loans, loans are a form of debt which enslaves the one whose taking out the loan into replaying that dept. OH! and lets not forget interest in which the government creates the money out of nothing, but we must repay the banks back with an additional price tag.

Let me ask you a question, do you understand how money is created?


----------



## cnm (Jun 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> No I request experiments that provide evidence to prove the hypothesis. Unless you have one, then the hypothesis has not been proven and a model is not an experiment!


You are mangling terms. Science does not do proof. I don't know how many times I've told you that and you still can't get it.

I responded to bripart's post in bripart's words. bripart's post was in general terms.

You're the only one to connect models with experiments.

If you wish to insist that CO₂ does not absorb more energy from infra red than from visible light that is your privilege. You might find it hard to achieve a consensus on that one.


----------



## cnm (Jun 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Still today?


I agree with what Judith Curry says here about the scientific consensus, which idea of scientists agreeing she uses when she wishes. She seems to disagree with you about the property of CO₂ and whether a hypothesis has been 'proven'.

_So, what do climate scientists agree on? Scientists agree that _

_Surface temperatures have increased since 1880_
_Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere_
_Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet_
_NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change Climate Etc._​


----------



## cnm (Jun 28, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> So he said it "could", not that it "will" or "would"?
> 
> So he didn't say it "would be free of ice" then?


Let's not pretend words have meaning...


----------



## cnm (Jun 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, you didn't say with what part of Hansen's comments you disagreed. Are you going to?
> ...


So you won't address Hansen's comments either. I'm shocked, shocked.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2015)

cnm said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


Hansen is a proven liar.  All of his work is questionable. Hansen's comments are based on his work. Which means his comments mean squat!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Exactly what was twisted??  He quoted some 22 year projections, then launched in the BRAND NEW STUDY that projected seven years. And for EMPHASIS -- *He dramatically repeated seven years..*

Are you that biased that you can't fathom the facts??

P.S. We should probably be a bit ashamed of whatever Navy Research Agency that issued that 7 yr prediction came. And leave Al Gore to choke on all his "carbon credit" investment schemes.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Here's a good example of a well known liar and climate change science denier.
> The People Have Spoken This Is The Most Brazen Lie Of 2014 ThinkProgress



So we're off off scientists and doing politicians now? Make up your mind...
And you're really getting to bottom of calling millions of science oriented folk like me liars if you're scouring FaceBook for material.. 

I got some doozies from the Prez...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Seriously you need to use punctuation. I don't understand your point.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 28, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Exactly what was twisted??  He quoted some 22 year projections, then launched in the BRAND NEW STUDY that projected seven years. And for EMPHASIS -- *He dramatically repeated seven years..*
> 
> Are you that biased that you can't fathom the facts??
> 
> P.S. We should probably be a bit ashamed of whatever Navy Research Agency that issued that 7 yr prediction came. And leave Al Gore to choke on all his "carbon credit" investment schemes.



Again, he said it MIGHT.

If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain. 

This is simple English. 

If you pretend he said "will" when he did not say "will" then you are twisting. 

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf

"The main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence, but with some of the main points needing updating, correction, or qualification."

"Most of the major elements of the scientific argument presented in AIT are consistent, in whole or in part, with the existing scientific consensus."

But this is science. We don't really understand perfectly the impact of global warming, either natural or man made. Man made is difficult in that it's not happened before.
So, Al Gore used scientific data, presented a POSSIBILITY of the immediate future. So, many people who deny that man is causing major problems, generally because they believe the advertising of the oil companies and others who have an interest in ignoring man made climate change. 

What we knew back in 2005=2007 has changed. More data is available. 

What is weird is that even though the Earth is warming up........






The US is warming up. Many people suggest that dips in warming are proof that warming isn't happening, but you have dips and you have rises. ANd the overall trend is a rise as you can see. However many people take US warming or cooling as evidence of GLOBAL cooling. But the US never has been the whole world.

Here are the global temperatures






We can see there is a rise in temperatures. 


What is weird is that even though the world is warming up....... ice caps aren't melting as was previously predicted. 

We just don't understand what they're doing. So predictions are made which are generally quite simplistic.

This doesn't mean there isn't a problem with man made global warming. It means it's worse. It means we can't predict what will happen with man made global warming, we know it's not going to be very nice though.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 28, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a good example of a well known liar and climate change science denier.
> ...


Make up my mind?  Politics or science?  You go first.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what was twisted??  He quoted some 22 year projections, then launched in the BRAND NEW STUDY that projected seven years. And for EMPHASIS -- *He dramatically repeated seven years..*
> ...



None of those graphs you posted are scary enough to warrant panic. THe PANIC is because of all the MIGHT's, COULD's that have been stated by "climate science".. That gives politicians and the media cover to MISINTERPRET those MIGHTS and COULDS into a catastrophic vision of the future. NO agenda is going to happen because of the warming that we have seen. ALL of the urgency is based on MIGHTS and COULDS..

MIGHTS and COULDs are not legally or scientifically valid --- but they are basis for the socio-economic movement we know as Global Warming or Climate Change.

He DID IT.. Just as he did when he got his Academy Award. He has a famous speech against his political enemy the Repubs where he says --- "THEY PLAYED ON YOUR FEARS".. That's the same projection and tactic that this thread is all about..

Biggest deniers on the planet are folks that can't hold leaders responsible for spooking the herd..


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 28, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> None of those graphs you posted are scary enough to warrant panic. THe PANIC is because of all the MIGHT's, COULD's that have been stated by "climate science".. That gives politicians and the media cover to MISINTERPRET those MIGHTS and COULDS into a catastrophic vision of the future. NO agenda is going to happen because of the warming that we have seen. ALL of that is based on MIGHTS and COULDS..
> 
> MIGHTS and COULDs are not legally or scientifically valid --- but they are basis for the socio-economic movement we know as Global Warming or Climate Change.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry if you wanted a horror story. I'm also sorry that you'll take everything out of context to avoid seeing the bigger picture.

If people understood what "might" means, then there wouldn't have been any panic. Was there any panic? No. So..... what? 

We're dealing with the future and we're dealing with unknowns. Does this mean we don't prepare for the future?

You take an exam, you don't know what the question will be. Does this mean you don't study for the exam?

We know a lot. What we do know is that the world is warming up. We know that CO2 levels are going through the roof. We know that the ice caps are melting. We also know there are fluctuations. That one year the ice cap might cover more of a space than the previous year. We also know that historically temperatures work on fluctuations. That even with global cooling some years will be hotter than before, and with global warming some years will be cooler than before. 

He's playing on fears which are well founded. The Earth's temperatures are changing. They're not just changing in a natural way either. They're changing in a manner which suggests that man is having an impact on these.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2015)

Frigid -- You said.. 

_*If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain. *_

So Frigid -- If the science is truly settled, --- how is it that the :"consensus" that you fanatics keep quoting is nothing BUT MIGHTs and COULDs????

Find me a RECENT projection of what the temperature anomaly in 2050* will be *--- according to this "settled science"...

Your comment is CORRECT -- these CChange projections are full of doubt and coated with a hefty dose of BullShit. How do you get 97% consensus on doubt???


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 28, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Frigid -- You said..
> 
> _*If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it will rain", and it doesn't rain, I am wrong.
> If I make a prediction and say "Tomorrow it might rain", and it doesn't rain, then what? Sure, my prediction was wrong, however I also expressed that there was doubt about what I said. I suggested that it might not rain. *_
> ...



Science isn't "truly settled" and I even said this in a previous post. So you're trying to basically hit me with what you're comfortable with, not with what I said.

Again, we're talking about the future where there are unpredictable elements.

Again, the ice sheets are melting. Not consistently, but they're melting. 
Again, global temperatures are rising, not consistently, but they're rising.
Again, CO2 levels are rising, consistently. 
Again, things are going wrong. 

What your argument appears to be is A) we can't predict the future totally accurately, so we shouldn't even try, and we shouldn't heed any warnings about the future and B) if you can't predict the future, shut up. 

Can you predict that there WON'T be any problems in the future? 

Science says something bad is coming. Weather is becoming more erratic. Hurricanes are becoming stronger, tornadoes are becoming more frequent, it's becoming warmer in the summer etc etc. 







Yet you ignore all scientific data to stick your head up your ass. Why?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Frigid -- You said..
> ...



Where do you get this bull shit?

Cyclonic energy is way down (50 year low)
Tornado energy is way down (60 year low)
Hurricane energy is at a (75 year low)
Sever storms globally are at 100 year lows.






The only ones with their heads up their  asses is you (and few other alarmists).  You have taken the lies hook, line, and sinker.. It is truly amazing that you folks cant even check your facts before posting and take the lies you spew as gospel truth.


----------



## IanC (Jun 29, 2015)

cnm said:


> _In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change.  Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe.  This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born.  During this period I would say that many if not most researchers, including myself, were skeptical that global warming was detectable in the temperature record and that it would have dire consequences. _
> Source​



thanks for an outstanding link. On the Credibility of Climate Research Part II TowardsRebuilding Trust

I encourage everyone to read it. cnm, I am not sure what your quote from her is supposed to represent? that Schneider flipped from ice age scare to runaway warming scare? Hansen and the environmental groups  invented CAGW alarmism? that most climate scientists were skeptical that a CO2 signal could be teased out of the global temp dataset?

other quotes from the link



> Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust.  While scientists persist in thinking that they should be trusted because of their expertise, climategate has made it clear that expertise itself is not a sufficient basis for public trust.  The fallout from climategate is much broader than the allegations of misconduct by scientists at two universities.  Of greatest importance is the reduced credibility of the IPCC assessment reports, which are providing the scientific basis for international policies on climate change.  Recent disclosures about the IPCC have brought up a host of concerns about the IPCC that had been festering in the background: involvement of IPCC scientists in explicit climate policy advocacy; tribalism that excluded skeptics; hubris of scientists with regards to a noble (Nobel) cause; alarmism; and inadequate attention to the statistics of uncertainty and the complexity of alternative interpretations.





> So who are the climate auditors?  They are technically educated people, mostly outside of academia.  Several individuals have developed substantial expertise in aspects of climate science, although they mainly audit rather than produce original scientific research. They tend to be watchdogs rather than deniers; many of them classify themselves as “lukewarmers”. They are independent of oil industry influence.  They have found a collective voice in the blogosphere and their posts are often picked up by the mainstream media. They are demanding greater accountability and transparency of climate research and assessment reports.





> The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public that is referred to as “unscientific America” by Chris Mooney.  Efforts are made to “dumb down” the message and to frame the message to respond to issues that are salient to the audience.  People have heard the alarm, but they remain unconvinced because of a perceived political agenda and lack of trust of the message and the messengers. At the same time, there is a large group of educated and evidence driven people (e.g. the libertarians, people that read the technical skeptic blogs, not to mention policy makers) who want to understand the risk and uncertainties associated with climate change, without being told what kinds of policies they should be supporting. More effective communication strategies can be devised by recognizing that there are two groups with different levels of base knowledge about the topic.  But building trust through public communication on this topic requires that uncertainty be acknowledged





( as an aside- the Chris Mooney mentioned above is a non scientist that was arbitrarily put on the AGU board of directors by the president. I hear lots of complaints about so-and-so only having a BA in (x) but I didnt hear anyone here complain that Mooney was under qualified to speak for the AGU. or that his rabid anticonservative position was anything but a positive attribute.)


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Where do you get this bull shit?
> 
> Cyclonic energy is way down (50 year low)
> Tornado energy is way down (60 year low)
> ...




This "bullshit" as you put it? 

First, you've presented Accumulated Cyclone Energy and nothing else. The largest ACE for a hurricane was in 2006 at a level of 86 for Hurricane Loke, a cyclone in the Pacific. 

Also, we're talking about weather being more erratic. This included massive hurricane seasons followed by extremely quiet hurricane seasons, that's the definition of erratic, you don't know what's going to happen. 

Hmm, let's see some other stuff. From the same source as your chart






The number of tropical storms has increased. Some years there are less, like 2009 which would have been an average year in the 1970s. 






Again, North Atlantic energy has also increased over time.






Here is a global tropical cyclone power dissipation index showing highs in the 1990s and 2000s.

There's a lot of data out there. A lot of it points to more erratic behavior from the weather. However it's not all up up up.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 29, 2015)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Still today?
> ...


And nothing blaming human kind for warming. Yep agree with her


----------



## jc456 (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what was twisted??  He quoted some 22 year projections, then launched in the BRAND NEW STUDY that projected seven years. And for EMPHASIS -- *He dramatically repeated seven years..*
> ...


Again, it was the context of the speech and the doom and gloom to it. He was wrong, right?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2015)

mamooth said:


> That makes no sense to anyone.
> 
> And Gore never predicted or said the Arctic would be ice free by now. That's a denier zombie lie that just won't die.






Bubble dwelling liars are ghey >>>



f'ing dUh



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burnout.gif.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2015)

These k00k progressives put it on a tee for you ALL the time!!! Like a big old pumpkin and you got the bat!!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Frigid -- You said..
> ...



Sorry if I hit you with an allegation that doesn't fit.. ADMIRE that you actually want to discuss evidence.. Can't do it all in tainted thread like this..   Some of those "RAW" numbers on tornadoes and hurricanes just come from better and advanced detection tools. A LOT of tropical storms are now "hurricanes" for a day  or an hour because of pro-active data gathering. Same with tornadoes.  EF0 touchdowns are much detectable and verifiable than they were 20 years ago. AND (since I live in tornado country and helped design a part of the NextRad Weather system) they are declaring MORE tornadoes because a single storm track can now produce multiple touchdowns ---- all declared as separate events..

As for list of "warnings" ----

_Again, the ice sheets are melting. Not consistently, but they're melting.
Again, global temperatures are rising, not consistently, but they're rising.
Again, CO2 levels are rising, consistently.
Again, things are going wrong._

This is all true. But not inconsistent with a recovery from a Little Ice Age in the 1700s. Even the more reliable proxy records like ice cores show that previous "warm periods" in the past 0.5mil years are not flat. And nobody should suspect that a complex system like the earth climate is free of "ringing" transients and unsettled movement to new equilibriums. Besides --- I'd rather suffer a 0.5degC rise in my lifetime and see some ice melting, than worry about a climate where the ice is growing.. Ice is a very non-linear thermometer and that's part of why I don't fuss over the yearly changes.

I understand that CO2 has some limited warming power. But Climate Science has in the past gone BEYOND the Physics approximation of 1degC/ doubling of CO2 to give CO2 magical SUPERPOWERS that multiply this ability to warm by ridiculous factors 4 to 8 times the actual warming power of CO2. When actually -- what we have OBSERVED since man started to contribute to CO2 loading in the atmos is WAAAAY closer to the Physics approximation and no where NEAR the failed modeling attempts to make it stronger..

The whole GW theory states that CO2 is only the trigger event for a 2degC (or so) change that cause the earth to self-destruct.. It's THAT part of the theory that is under attack and why I'm a skeptic..

You have MANY prominent scientists -- just in the past couple years, including ones formerly involved in the UN IPCC process and the BEST study -- who have stated that natural variations have been underestimated and the hysterical part of warming powers for CO2. have been overestimated. Pretty much what makes them all "deniers"...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Again, it was the context of the speech and the doom and gloom to it. He was wrong, right?



Was he wrong? No, I don't think so. 

The world is changing. We're not in control of what goes on. At this level of change, within 30 or 40 years we're going to have major problems. What will they be? Hard to predict to an exact science, however we'd be looking at a warmer climate. 

Could this make the equatorial areas uninhabitable at sea level? Perhaps, which would cause no end of immigration issues. 

China has estimated its CO2 output will stabilise by about 2030. It's already pumping out too much for its own people, let alone for the rest of the world, and it's not even the worst. New Delhi is apparently the worst city right now. 

Doom and gloom there is. We need to seriously start cutting back on CO2 emissions before we start killing ourselves and other animals.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2015)

Thanks everyone for bringing up Gore again in a thread about lying.. My Gore file hadn't gotten any new additions in AGES.. Now this is news to me...

Copenhagen climate summit Al Gore condemned over Arctic ice melting prediction - Telegraph

Copenhagen Conference was in Dec 2009.

_*Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, has become embroiled in a climate change spin row after claiming that the Arctic could be completely ice-free within five years.

Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.
ADVERTISING
However, he faced embarrassment last night after Dr Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims.
Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told The Times: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at.
“I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Alluding to Dr Maslowski’s work, he said: “These figures are fresh, I just got them yesterday.
"Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.
*_
So it progresses from MIGHTs and COULDs to a phony claim of 75% certain... Except that the guy doing the work never GAVE a probability.. What else do you need to know about Climate Change and Liars?

Gore knows he will skate because only 1% of the people that heard his mangled prediction would ever hear the response from Maslowski.. Damage done.. Walk away...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




You talk about what is consistent from ending a little ice age. However we're not ending a little ice age, in theory, as far as I can tell, we should be ending a peak in high temperatures. 






We've gone through a large rise in temperatures as has happened three times in the past according to what we understand of Antarctic ice core data. This data suggests a higher rise, lesser rise, higher rise, could we predict a lesser rise as happened 200,000 years ago? 
Then we should have expected a drop in temperatures.

I'd say this is consistent with what we're seeing. We ARE seeing a drop in NATURAL temperatures. 

Scientists have been predicting a rise in temperatures because of man made stuff. We're seeing this too. A drop and a rise have seen slight rises in temperatures, or a levelling out of temperatures. 

So, if we're seeing data that you say is consistent with a time we shouldn't be seeing for a while, then that would be a little worrying, right? Rather than data that is consistent with where we would expect to be. 

Scientists often look at things from a certain perspective. It's hard to understand why a scientist says something one way or another.
Funding could be a big thing. Some give data which is pro-Apocalypse because they're paid to. Others are paid to give no change, no worries messages. 

What I'm seeing with the evidence that seems to be available, is that we're warming up. 

When I was a kid we had snow, lots of snow. Then the snow stopped. It came back a little but no where near as much as before. Natural? Well I'd suggest again that we should be getting colder. But what I'm seeing with my eyes, and what I'm seeing with a lot of the evidence available, is that we're just not going in that direction.

We're getting warmer in a manner that is inconsistent with how we think the temperatures should be going. Now, if CO2 is rising and rising and rising, this could mean a continuing rise of what? You're suggesting only a few degrees then the effects wear off. Perhaps. What is more worrying is that, say, in China where cancer rates are increasing. Partly due to a population that is stable for the first time in a long time, but also due to massive amounts of pollution in the air. 

PubMed Central Table 2 Cancer Biol Med. 2012 Jun 9 2 128 132. doi 10.3969 j.issn.2095-3941.2012.02.009

Chinese lung cancer rates are 14.3% among women and 14.5% among American women.

Seeing as you don't see many women smoking in China, it's mostly a male thing that is changing, yet rates are about the same in women, is perhaps due to the amount of pollution in big and small cities in China.

PubMed Central Table 1 Cancer Biol Med. 2012 Jun 9 2 128 132. doi 10.3969 j.issn.2095-3941.2012.02.009

In Chinese men it's 21.7% and US men 15.4%. 

There's a lot of information here about what this could mean, but simply said the Chinese lung cancer rate is higher. More smokers in China than the US? Possibly. 2/3rds of men smoke in China (compared to 4% of women) compared to 18% of men in the USA. 

However I'd also suggest that a lot of smokers are older men, who may never get tested for cancer in China. You get ill and your family can't afford to pay to go to hospital, you don't get found out as a victim of cancer. 

The mother of some Chinese girl I knew had cancer and she couldn't afford it, she died while being told that traditional chinese medicine could cure her. 

So, I'd suggest that lung cancer rates in China are sky high, and it's to do with pollution. China will grow, if it becomes the level of the US in terms of economic and comfort levels for most people, then pollution levels with triple, quadruple in the next 15 years of growth in pollution that is estimated. 

On top of this we have the uncontrollable and unknown effects this could have on weather, we should probably be scared.

Then imagine India gets up to Chinese levels. That's be an extra 1.5 billion, 1/5 of the world's population alone, that would be pumping out pollution at US levels. Things are going to get nasty.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Thanks everyone for bringing up Gore again in a thread about lying.. My Gore file hadn't gotten any new additions in AGES.. Now this is news to me...
> 
> Copenhagen climate summit Al Gore condemned over Arctic ice melting prediction - Telegraph
> 
> ...



It's kind of funny. Gore said a lot of stuff. He used a lot of scientific data to back up his argument. 

One thing he said was used in terms of "it could happen". 

He was using science to predict what would happen in the future. If someone got the science wrong, or slightly out, then Gore is going to get some things wrong.

Many of the things he has said are not being attacked on here. What is being attacked is one thing which didn't happen.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2015)

Frigid --- Not MAJOR Ice Age --- Little Ice Age --- 

About Environmental History Resources

*Little Ice Age*
_*The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between about AD 1300 and 1850. The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1350 and 1850. The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold. There were two phases of the Little Ice Age, the first beginning around 1290 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. After 1600, there are indications that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present.

There is substantial historical evidence for the Little Ice Age. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did many of the rivers and lakes in Europe. Pack ice expanded far south into the Atlantic making shipping to Iceland and Greenland impossible for months on end. Winters were bitterly cold and summers were often cool and wet. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and population decline. The tree line and snowline dropped and glaciers advanced, overrunning towns and farms in the process. There was a lot of social unrest as large portions of the population were reduced to starvation and poverty.

The period between 1600 and 1800 marks the height of the Little Ice Age and is characterized by cold and long winters as well as well as some unusual warmth during the summer. Climate variability in Northern Europe became more pronounced than before. The period was also characterized by the expansion of European trade and the formation of European sea born Empires. This was directly linked to advances in technology harnessing more of nature's power and towards the end of the period of fossil-fuelled power. The 17th and 18th centuries also saw the specialization of agricultural regions, which produced specific products for local and international markets.
*_
Now THERE is some immediate warnings about the climate changing. This dinky 0.5degC rise in your lifetime is NOT a headline. Storms don't care a whit if the cold layers and warm layers are all 0.5degC warmer. They feed off of DIFFERENTIALS -- not ABSOLUTES... Differences in temperature, differences in humidity, differences in pressure, differences in wind patterns... ALL those things intensify weather..  If it's hot at the surface AND aloft -- not much happens.. 

Don't want to live in a climate where glaciers are growing.. 

And I'd love to discuss REAL pollution with you and how we should be actually focusing on that. But it has nothing to do with Climate Change...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks everyone for bringing up Gore again in a thread about lying.. My Gore file hadn't gotten any new additions in AGES.. Now this is news to me...
> ...



You haven't been around long enough.. Gore has been shredded on DOZENS of stupid and misleading statements.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> You haven't been around long enough.. Gore has been shredded on DOZENS of stupid and misleading statements.



Right..... just like you're "shredding" him now.

He made a predication. He didn't say it would come true. He said it could happen. It didn't. Okay, so the prediction was wrong. It wasn't Gore's prediction, it was someone else's. Yet people come on here and call him a liar as if he just made something up knowing it wouldn't happen. 

Arctic sea ice to melt by 2015 - Telegraph

Here is someone making a similar claim which would concern this summer. 

"
*Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015"

"Could melt", not "will melt". *

Arctic ice melting to a record low scientists warn - Science - News - The Independent

"
Arctic sea ice partially melts each summer and reforms again in the winter, but over the past 35 years of satellite readings the summer retreat has been getting significantly greater, with a record summer minimum recorded in September 2007.

However, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, said that this summer's melt season in the Arctic has been so rapid and extensive that 2012 will almost certainly see sea ice coverage reach a new low."

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

"GREENBELT, Md. -- A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap."






So, we can see a decline. 2015 looks way to early, we'd be looking at about another 17 years or so before that blue line its 3 million square kilometers, with some summers being far below this 3 million square kilometers and some summers being higher.






What is a fact is that the Arctic is losing ice at a high rate. This wouldn't be a problem if we expected the temperatures to be getting hotter. However we'd expect temperatures to be getting COLDER, based on a 100,000 year cycle.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Frigid --- Not MAJOR Ice Age --- Little Ice Age ---
> 
> About Environmental History Resources
> 
> ...



I know the difference between a major and minor ice age. The reality is we were not in either. So, again, it's a little worrying that you think we're seeing signs of leaving an ice age, however large or small, when we're not experiencing one, isn't it?


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2015)

They're also currently arguing that we are moving right back in to ANOTHER ice age.  The interglacial period was, what, 17 years long?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.

How can that be? I thought CO2_ drives_ temperature


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.
> 
> How can that be? I thought CO2_ drives_ temperature



You thought? Or you think this is a nice little safe topic for you to suddenly put in because.... because you don't want to respond to what I wrote. 

However, to answer your 90 degree turn question.....

Here's the thing. 

With natural temperature rise and fall these charts suggest that this is the case. Why? I'm not sure, there are various possibilities. 

With man made input of CO2 then what happens? 

What we're seeing is that man made CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, as we have right now, appears to be keeping temperature levels higher than we expected them to be. 

So.... what's your point?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> They're also currently arguing that we are moving right back in to ANOTHER ice age.  The interglacial period was, what, 17 years long?



We should be headed towards another ice age.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.
> ...



So you're saying man-made CO2 is different?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You haven't been around long enough.. Gore has been shredded on DOZENS of stupid and misleading statements.
> ...


Dude, 'could' or 'might' a prediction that doesn't come true is one that was wrong.  wow, you can't even make that comment objectively.  spin after spin to somehow show he was right.  only makes folks like you hacks.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You chart shows CO2 LAGGING temperature on both the increase and decline.
> ...


in other words, the science doesn't know because the science is settled correct?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No.

I'm saying man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases are an extra that can change the way things work. 

If temperatures rise, then CO2 rises, and then at some point temperatures drop and CO2 drops. What happens when CO2 rises without rising temperatures?

It's called a spanner in the works. Something that could tip the balance to something that we simply can't control if it all goes balls up.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



We don't know what the weather will be like tomorrow. Does that mean we don't bother predicting the weather? Does it also mean no one bothers to do anything about potential problems? "Oh, a hurricane's coming." "can you prove 100% it's coming?" "No" "Then I'm not doing anything until it's 100% certain". 

The sort of attitude where people don't look at educated predictions and then prepare for potential possibilities is the sort of attitude that goes down well with simple people.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I'm not saying he didn't get the prediction wrong. 

What I'm saying is A) he's not a liar. It was a prediction based on some scientific data. and B) there is a big problem with melting ice in the Arctic, so it's not scaremongering. He just simply didn't hit the right number of years. However it potentially could have happened had we had one of those years where it got drastically hot and caused the ice to melt loads. That didn't happen. The temperatures of the Earth fluctuate, ice melt happens differently every year.

Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. 

If I buy a lottery ticket I could win. However I didn't. Does that mean I lied when I said I could win the lottery the next day? No.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


We are evil


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 30, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Frigid --- Not MAJOR Ice Age --- Little Ice Age ---
> ...



Climate change time scales are on the orders of decades and centuries. It's a fallacy of AGW that we should expect to see meaningful changes over a decade or so.. So YES -- the LAST meaningful climatic change was a cold spell until the early 19th century.. 

I just don't DO ice.. It's not a meaningful indicator of Global Climate.. Only takes one day a year above 32degF to melt it.. Otherwise it's happy and stable.. Since it's been melting for the past 10,000 years, it's not exciting to me.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 30, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



He was also caught EMBELLISHING the science with things that were never said -- to make it sound even scarier to the public and the media..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 30, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



OH MAYBE -- I agree with you that IN THIS CASE -- Al Gore was the victim of serial LYING scientists at the Naval Postgraduate School.. ...   But he EMBELLISHED the lie -- so he's an accomplice to lie.. 

Even better for the contention that the scientists KNOWINGLY give cover to politicians and media so they can blast the public with SCARY GW propaganda... Doesn't matter that Maslowski chided him for messing up his lie. Nobody heard that part of the deception.. Maslowski BTW has a string of almost YEARLY -- now failed predictions about Arctic Ice dissappearing. 

He has as much chance of getting that right -- as you do with your lottery ticket...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


This.

As I pointed out before.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


question, almost every year there is a threat of hurricanes correct? Does that mean then all coastal home  owners board up their houses and leave?

BTW, the ice in the arctic has melted in the summer months every year I have been alive and then some.  So making a prediction like Gore's statement, could have been made every year in your little world.  that's just funny.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



That's not what your chart shows


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Climate change time scales are on the orders of decades and centuries. It's a fallacy of AGW that we should expect to see meaningful changes over a decade or so.. So YES -- the LAST meaningful climatic change was a cold spell until the early 19th century..
> 
> I just don't DO ice.. It's not a meaningful indicator of Global Climate.. Only takes one day a year above 32degF to melt it.. Otherwise it's happy and stable.. Since it's been melting for the past 10,000 years, it's not exciting to me.



You don't do ice. So what do you do?  Ice is the most stable way of assessing climate over a very long period. It's been shown to be quite stable in recent years when they've used it in comparison with other techniques.

So what do you have? Nothing. Fine, then you're going to need what we do have. It's not perfect, no one is saying it is. However are you suggesting that in the space of 400,000 years, there were long periods of one day o a year above 32 degrees which melted it to make it look like something else?

You don't scientists haven't taken this into account? 

Ice has been melting. What we believe is it should have been melting up until a little while ago/now, and it should be getting colder. We seem to be having weather trying to get colder but not.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> He was also caught EMBELLISHING the science with things that were never said -- to make it sound even scarier to the public and the media..



Okay, but in general most of what he has said has been backed up by the majority of the scientific community. Most non-scientists will probably try and do something similar. It's how you get heard. He's a politician, it's what you do, you sell, which involves "lying" to people, but keeping enough in the truth that no one can call you out properly. 

Did you expect anything different from any politicians?

Does this mean that because Al Gore said "X" that man made global warming isn't going to be a massive problem in the future?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

jc456 said:


> question, almost every year there is a threat of hurricanes correct? Does that mean then all coastal home  owners board up their houses and leave?
> 
> BTW, the ice in the arctic has melted in the summer months every year I have been alive and then some.  So making a prediction like Gore's statement, could have been made every year in your little world.  that's just funny.



Hurricanes exist. No one is suggesting that they don't exist and don't happen every year. They're a natural phenomenon of our Earth's weather system. What seems to be being said is that weather is becoming more erratic. ie the number of hurricanes could be much higher or much lower than previous years, or it could not. We're less likely to know. The most powerful cyclone happened in 2006, for example. 

Ice has been melting for a long time. Hardly surprising seeing as we've been in a period of natural global warming for a few hundred years or more. However we'd be expecting to be in a period of global cooling around now. 

Also, as for your example. Well, we've been pumping out CO2 in large quantities since the industrial revolution which started BEFORE you were born. (I saw a think about three ladies born in 1899, and they're like 115 or 116 years old, and they weren't born before the industrial revolution and they're some of the oldest people in the world).


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I get the feeling you're trying to make a point. Spit it out then.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 30, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > He was also caught EMBELLISHING the science with things that were never said -- to make it sound even scarier to the public and the media..
> ...



No way those Arctic projections Gore quoted were backed by a majority of the scientific community. Not even the Climate Science community. In fact, I'll wager the ACTUAL PAPERS gave a range of time and Gore just selected the scariest SHORTEST TIME that appeared.. That in itself is devious and dishonest.

Look -- I don't do sea ice because i was involved in the early LandSat programs and know how iffy some of these "sea ice" estimates actually are. They aren't counting pristine ice -- they are counting any ocean area that has 30% or more  "ice cubes" floating in it. That definition is so weak and fleeting that it is BOUND to vary a whole lot from season to season. Makes for a lot of cheerleading on both sides. Like I said, ice melts at 32degF -- so 300 days of the year it sits there and maybe grows.* You can melt the same amount of ice with 1 degree over freezing for 10 days --- or 0.1degF over freezing for 100 days.*. Tells you NOTHING specific about the pattern of warming and whether it was weather related or Climate related. I DO follow most everything else.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> No way those Arctic projections Gore quoted were backed by a majority of the scientific community. Not even the Climate Science community. In fact, I'll wager the ACTUAL PAPERS gave a range of time and Gore just selected the scariest SHORTEST TIME that appeared.. That in itself is devious and dishonest.
> 
> Look -- I don't do sea ice because i was involved in the early LandSat programs and know how iffy some of these "sea ice" estimates actually are. They aren't counting pristine ice -- they are counting any ocean area that has 30% or more  "ice cubes" floating in it. That definition is so weak and fleeting that it is BOUND to vary a whole lot from season to season. Makes for a lot of cheerleading on both sides. Like I said, ice melts at 32degF -- so 300 days of the year it sits there and maybe grows.* You can melt the same amount of ice with 1 degree over freezing for 10 days --- or 0.1degF over freezing for 100 days.*. Tells you NOTHING specific about the pattern of warming and whether it was weather related or Climate related. I DO follow most everything else.



Usually they're not counting sea ice at all. They're counting ice which sits on top of ice which sits on top of ice. No sea crystals at all.

No way they were backed by a majority huh? How many people from the scientific community backed him then?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 30, 2015)

Fig.3 Monthly Sea Ice Volume from PIOMAS for April and Sep.

Polar Science Center PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Well, looks like ol' Al is closer to correct than the shills flappin' yap about nothing happening at all.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > No way those Arctic projections Gore quoted were backed by a majority of the scientific community. Not even the Climate Science community. In fact, I'll wager the ACTUAL PAPERS gave a range of time and Gore just selected the scariest SHORTEST TIME that appeared.. That in itself is devious and dishonest.
> ...



Don't know if you checked -- but there is no land-based ice in the Arctic Ocean. And how I described the count to you is VERY MUCH how it's done.. Ice CUBES floating in open water are counted as sea surface FULLY ICED.. (with that 30%, IIRC -- qualifier) Go check me after you read the quote in my footer...

Look -- no offense-- enjoyed your conversation -- respect that you are one of few that WANT to discuss Global Warming. But I get ill every time I bump this thread because of the title and the trolling nature of it.

So PLEASE join us (and me) in other threads and PLEASE keep posing those good questions. But I'm not bumping this troll thread ever again....


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2015)

I don't think he was talking about land-based ice.  I _think_ he was talking about multi-year ice.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> I don't think he was talking about land-based ice.  I _think_ he was talking about multi-year ice.



Crick is the USA part of the globe or not and does your answer depend on if the pre-altered date shows the US temperature to be cooling


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> And you wonder why your treatment of Mann and Hansen makes us less than giddy.



They are both a couple of con-artists.  Both are guilty of fraud.  They belong in prison.


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2015)

They are both good scientists who have suffered absurd and undeserved persecution at the direction of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.  The people who selected them for this treatment are the ones who should go to prison.

What crime, Paddie, do you believe Hansen and Mann have committed?


----------



## IanC (Jul 2, 2015)

This is a graph that has been posted many times here. Is it a warmers' misrepresentation or an honest prediction?






Does this type of graph give a more realistic impression of what's happening?

Death spiral or downward trend? Of course the last couple of years has thrown a monkey wrench into the doomsday scenarios but was this reasonable reporting at the time? A different version of the first graph had a prediction of an ice free Arctic in December by 2020. Did anyone actually believe that or was it just scaremongering?


----------



## Crick (Jul 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> Of course the last couple of years has thrown a monkey wrench into the doomsday scenarios



No, the last couple of years have not thrown any monkey wrenches into Arctic ice extent projections.



IanC said:


> but was this reasonable reporting at the time? A different version of the first graph had a prediction of an ice free Arctic in December by 2020. Did anyone actually believe that or was it just scaremongering?



The appropriate question is whether or not you believe that data support that projection.  What you do not do not believe was the motivation of the person presenting the data is irrelevant.  That PIOMAS data is valid and it shows a trend approaching zero in the foreseeable future.  Do you disagree?


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2015)

Well.....first off let's not get too uppity over PIOMAS 'data'. After all it's only a computer program spitting out 'reanalysis'. 

Have we gone through a whole cycle of Arctic ice wax and wane? Were the big drops in ice extent caused by temperature or prevailing weather patterns and storms blowing ice out into warmer waters?

There have been a whole lot of assumptions and predictions made on very little actual measurements. And then there is the case of Antarctica being opposite to expectations.

And I'm not sure what the big deal is with low ice levels is anyway. A proxy for global temps? Obviously not albedo changes because no one is making a fuss over Antarctic increased ice at a much more effective latitude.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 3, 2015)

It's simple...


----------



## Crick (Jul 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> Well.....first off let's not get too uppity over PIOMAS 'data'. After all it's only a computer program spitting out 'reanalysis'.



That's a really stupid comment.  It's a computer program taking ice area data and ice thickness data and calculating ice volume.



IanC said:


> Have we gone through a whole cycle of Arctic ice wax and wane?



Do you have any reason to believe such cycles exist?  If what we have witnessed just since the beginning of the satellite era were a portion of a sinusoidal cycle, the Arctic would have been ice free repeatedly during human culture, yet such a thing has never been witnessed and no evidence suggests it has been ice free in millions of years.



IanC said:


> Were the big drops in ice extent caused by temperature or prevailing weather patterns and storms blowing ice out into warmer waters?



Did the Arctic undergo a significant weather pattern change coincident with the beginning of satellite observation?  Has such a pattern as you describe been dominant for the last 40 years?  No and no.



IanC said:


> There have been a whole lot of assumptions and predictions made on very little actual measurements.



You don't think the petabytes of data from 40 years of satellite observations are sufficient data?  The bogus assumption being made here is the denier strategy that attempts to say anything short of perfect knowledge is no knowledge at all.  You and yours here frequently attempt to suggest that given only partial knowledge, a conclusion directly opposed by the evidence collected is just as likely as one supported by it.  Sorry, dude, but that is complete and utter hogwash.



IanC said:


> And then there is the case of Antarctica being opposite to expectations.



And then there is the case of false denier statements regarding Antarctica.  The expectation from 30 years back had always been that increased temperatures would bring increased precipitation and since temperatures are still well below freezing, that means more ice.  Warmed ocean waters have caused MORE melt than was ever predicted and temperatures in WAIS have been consistently up.



IanC said:


> And I'm not sure what the big deal is with low ice levels is anyway. A proxy for global temps? Obviously not albedo changes because no one is making a fuss over Antarctic increased ice at a much more effective latitude.



1) The growth of ice surrounding Antarctic is certainly not from colder temperatures.  Antarctic temperatures, on land and in the surrounding oceans, have gone nowhere but up.
2) The area of increased ice surrounding Antarctica is a small fraction of the lost ice at the opposite pole.  And, of course, the entire continent will remain ice bound for many years, putting a lower limit on albedo that the Arctic has already passed.
3) The increase of ice in Antarctica is strongly tied to the dramatic and likely unstoppable loss of land ice on the continent.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 3, 2015)

You have to remember that the AGW faith is based solely on computer models:


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2015)

You and I have been alive for about the same amount of time. I have learned that new science papers, like new fads, need to pass the test of time. You believe in every new proxy reconstruction and theirs stated certainty, I look at the individual proxies and see that the timing and magnitude and often even the direction is at odds with the final graph.

I understand your willingness to believe every new sensational result. But I have learned the hard way that most of them are crap. The first IPCC report had most of the basic information but because it was not fully politicized at that time most of the catastrophic predictions were missing. Since then the IPCC has acted more like an overzealous prosecuting attorney than an evenhanded arbitrator of the truth.

You have chosen who you want to believe and that is your right. I don't particularly believe anyone. I especially am Leary of conclusions based on equivocal data. You have read that Antarctica is warming up. Is it? West Antarctica and the Peninsula are but the main continent isn't. The Southern Ocean SSTs are trending down, apparently, so why is it a surprise that there is more sea ice?






Have you been putting too much stock in the latest doomsday scenarios built on few or no data points?

I am a big believer in serendipity. Evidence for something that comes from a source with no dog in the fight may still be wrong but at least it won't be purposely biased. Historical writings of the MWP give strong evidence that it was real, Mann's use of the upsidedown Tiljander cores doesn't make it go away.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 3, 2015)

Goddard's fudged graph again? It's kind of insulting that Kosh won't even expend the energy to repeat some new frauds.

Arctic sea ice extent going back to 1900. Note:

1. No oscillations.
2. No "ongoing melt from the little ice age", as 1900-1950 extent is fairly constant.
3. 1979, the start of the satellite measurements and most sea ice graphs, is part of the downward trend, and is not an especially high year. That shoots down the "you cherrypicked the high year of 1979!" denier claims.






http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008


----------



## mamooth (Jul 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> I am a big believer in serendipity. Evidence for something that comes from a source with no dog in the fight may still be wrong but at least it won't be purposely biased



Given that every single denier is a membe of a right-wing extremist political group, you've just declare all denier arguments are biased and untrustworthy.



> Historical writings of the MWP give strong evidence that it was real,



And local to northern Europe. It takes some epic level cherrypicking to claim otherwise.



> Mann's use of the upsidedown Tiljander cores doesn't make it go away.



Stoat pretty much buries that CultOfMcIntyre babbling here.

Tiljander Stoat


----------



## Crick (Jul 3, 2015)

That was beautiful.  For those who don't follow links, allow me to post the text of MBH's response to McIntyre & McKittrick found at Mamooth's last link.  

*Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust*

Michael E. Mann1,
Raymond S. Bradley and
Malcolm K. Hughes

McIntyre and McKitrick (1) raise no valid issues regarding our paper. We specifically discussed divergence of “composite plus scale” (CPS) and “error-in-variables” (EIV) reconstructions before A.D. 1000 [ref. 2 and supporting information (SI) therein] and demonstrated (in the SI) that the EIV reconstruction is the more reliable where they diverge. The method of uncertainty estimation (use of calibration/validation residuals) is conventional (3, 4) and was described explicitly in ref. 2 (also in ref. 5), and Matlab code is available atwww.meteo.psu.edu/∼mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/code/codeveri/calc_error.m.

McIntyre and McKitrick's claim that the common procedure (6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions) generates “hockey sticks” is unsupported in peer-reviewed literature and reflects an unfamiliarity with the concept of screening regression/validation.

As clearly explained in ref. 2, proxies incorporating instrumental information were eliminated for validation and thus did not enter into skill assessment.

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

Finally, McIntyre and McKitrick misrepresent both the National Research Council report and the issues in that report that we claimed to address (see abstract in ref. 2). They ignore subsequent findings (4) concerning “strip bark” records and fail to note that we required significance of both reduction of error and coefficient of efficiency statistics relative to a standard red noise hypothesis to define a skillful reconstruction. In summary, their criticisms have no merit.


That was full and total PWNAGE of the Nth Degree.  In the face of that sort of take down, to maintain that Steven McIntyre is a significant statistician is simply bald-faced lying.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> That was beautiful.  For those who don't follow links, allow me to post the text of MBH's response to McIntyre & McKittrick found at Mamooth's last link.
> 
> *Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust*
> 
> ...


Nice. All that garbledy goo says absolutely nothing. I will wait on McIntyre to reply.


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2015)

Perhaps you can get a grownup to read it to you and sound out all the big words.  And that same grownup could read you the fucking date from the piece.  That response was written in October of 2009.  McIntyre has had nigh on six years to get back on those points.  Running a little late, isn't he?

BTW, when McIntyre and McKittrick work on something together, it's McKittrick that's in charge.  He's the one with the real education - though I know you can't tell from this.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 4, 2015)

IanC said:


> Well.....first off let's not get too uppity over PIOMAS 'data'. After all it's only a computer program spitting out 'reanalysis'.
> 
> Have we gone through a whole cycle of Arctic ice wax and wane? Were the big drops in ice extent caused by temperature or prevailing weather patterns and storms blowing ice out into warmer waters?
> 
> ...


The increased ice in the Antarctic is there when there is little to no sun. The decrease in the Arctic is there when there is the most sunlight. Now which do you think has the most affect on albedo? Come on, Ian, you are beginning to sound like Billy Bob and Crusader Frank.


----------



## IanC (Jul 4, 2015)

> The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto underheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.
> 
> In August, 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations.
> 
> ...



An old report from 1922. After I read it I looked to find it in ice extent records. It wasn't there. Not in temp records either. I looked in a lot of places when I first read that article. Perhaps it is in the Pooh flinging monkey's graph.


----------



## IanC (Jul 4, 2015)

Should I respond to mamooth and crick on Tiljander? I have said it all before. The cores were used upsidedown, opposite to Tiljander's interpretation, and instead of removing the contaminated end portion Mann used it as a hockey stick. 

If I get around to it perhaps I will post up the Mann08 proxies from his SI.


----------



## Liminal (Jul 4, 2015)

And yet ocean temperatures continue to rise.
Earth warms as ocean temperatures continue to rise - University World News


----------



## IanC (Jul 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> And yet ocean temperatures continue to rise.
> Earth warms as ocean temperatures continue to rise - University World News




What is the 'right' temp for the oceans? I only ask because a lot of the proxy reconstructions of OHC have higher values in the past compared to now.


----------



## Liminal (Jul 4, 2015)

IanC said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > And yet ocean temperatures continue to rise.
> ...


I don't know.  What's the right temperature?  I wonder who we could ask?  Maybe one of these other internet scholars can give us another impressive display of Wikipedia level knowledge.


----------



## IanC (Jul 4, 2015)

Here is a graph from a year ago. The paper made news because it said OHC was rising faster than 'evah before'. Funny thing, this graph never made it into the press releases. I wonder why?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 4, 2015)

Crick said:


> They are both good scientists who have suffered absurd and undeserved persecution at the direction of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.  The people who selected them for this treatment are the ones who should go to prison.
> 
> What crime, Paddie, do you believe Hansen and Mann have committed?



They are a couple of con-artists who have perpetrated massive frauds and deserve to be locked up.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 4, 2015)

Crick said:


> Perhaps you can get a grownup to read it to you and sound out all the big words.  And that same grownup could read you the fucking date from the piece.  That response was written in October of 2009.  McIntyre has had nigh on six years to get back on those points.  Running a little late, isn't he?
> 
> BTW, when McIntyre and McKittrick work on something together, it's McKittrick that's in charge.  He's the one with the real education - though I know you can't tell from this.


Grownups are overrated! Ask today's computer geniuses


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 4, 2015)

Crick said:


> They are both good scientists who have suffered absurd and undeserved persecution at the direction of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.  The people who selected them for this treatment are the ones who should go to prison.
> 
> What crime, Paddie, do you believe Hansen and Mann have committed?



You are hopeless fucktard. You constantly use and appeal to authority and then maligning fossil fuels when you dont have  shred of evidence to support your position.

Why dont you lead by example... Turn of that evil computer which is made from fossil fuels and use energy to operate it also derived from fossil fuels. Leave that house your in as it was build by fossil fuels and is heated and cooled by fossil fuels..  Don't take any food with you as they were delivered, made, and grown with fossil fuels.. 

Go find yourself a nice cave that wont require wood for cooking or heat. You lead by example! Crick why dont you quite being hypocrite and do as your instructing others to do.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 4, 2015)

IanC said:


> Here is a graph from a year ago. The paper made news because it said OHC was rising faster than 'evah before'. Funny thing, this graph never made it into the press releases. I wonder why?



The reason it did not make the final cut is simple, it shows all of their fear mongering a lie.  The rise and falls of the past dwarf today's 0.6 deg C rise over 100 years. Putting something, that would devastate the CAGW movement into print would have been a grant removing thing.  Something about having to eat is a powerful motivator..


----------



## Liminal (Jul 4, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > They are both good scientists who have suffered absurd and undeserved persecution at the direction of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.  The people who selected them for this treatment are the ones who should go to prison.
> ...


What does that make you?  A hopeful fucktard?  I think you've put your finger on the real problem though.....fossil fuels.   A whole economy based on fossil fuels.   I wonder what could go wrong there?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> And yet ocean temperatures continue to rise.
> Earth warms as ocean temperatures continue to rise - University World News



Lolz

The Return of the Blob


----------



## IanC (Jul 4, 2015)

Liminal said:


> I don't know.  What's the right temperature?  I wonder who we could ask?  Maybe one of these other internet scholars can give us another impressive display of Wikipedia level knowledge.




I couldn't help but notice that you didn't reply to my comment with the OHC graph. 

Did you not understand it? Perhaps you just don't like the implications. Do you think it was fair to make a big deal over high resolution recent data when even low resolution historical data is much higher? 

Did you think the graph had catastrophic implications? I must admit I found the generally continuous decline to be ominous, though not in my lifetime.


----------



## Liminal (Jul 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know.  What's the right temperature?  I wonder who we could ask?  Maybe one of these other internet scholars can give us another impressive display of Wikipedia level knowledge.
> ...


What I really like is how you pretend to understand what it means.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You, like Crick are hopeless fucktards.

You deny that the earth has natural cycles and variations. You jump on the Blame America First of the IPCC, the EPA, and every left wing sycophant fool without a shred of evidence to support your assumptions. You fools blame America and Capitalism for an imaginary problem.  America broke the bonds of socialism over 238 years ago and you and your ilk are trying like hell to put us back in chains. Every thing you do is aimed at killing America and killing the poor along with the middle class.

It has always been about control of people and taking of wealth from America to serve your wet dreams.  You and your Ilk need to be shipped over to Europe where its already fucked up beyond repair.. Funny thing is, Germany is waking the hell up and they are telling your Ilk to get F'cked.  Even those countries who have embraced socialism and its new power play of eviro-wackoism are now running scared..


----------



## Liminal (Jul 5, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Your history is a little fucked up there professor.  Socialism didn't exist 238 years ago.


----------



## IanC (Jul 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...




At least my opinions are based on evidence from both sides of the issue. Your opinions seem to be based on other people's opinions, and only from one side of the story.


----------



## Liminal (Jul 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Fortunately for everyone on this forum, you have the knowledge and expertise necessary to put the science into a context.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 5, 2015)

As Alaska burns Anchorage sets new records for heat and lack of snow - The Washington Post

*Ian, no amount of handwaving is going to make this kind of information go away. This is not models or infilling, this is what is happening right now. And, in addition, we have this;

U.S. Drought Monitor



U.S. Drought Monitor U.S. Drought Portal
*
We are now very close to a blowup fire season in Oregon and Washington. That is the reality of a warming climate.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Fossil fuel is great stuff. I have eight great grand children because of it


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> As Alaska burns Anchorage sets new records for heat and lack of snow - The Washington Post
> 
> *Ian, no amount of handwaving is going to make this kind of information go away. This is not models or infilling, this is what is happening right now. And, in addition, we have this;
> 
> ...


All natural unless you have proof of something different.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 5, 2015)

LOL


----------



## IanC (Jul 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Lucky you! I'd settle for a few grandchildren.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > As Alaska burns Anchorage sets new records for heat and lack of snow - The Washington Post
> ...



Who would have thought it could be 80 in Anchorage in the middle of June?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...





Old Rocks said:


> As Alaska burns Anchorage sets new records for heat and lack of snow - The Washington Post
> 
> *Ian, no amount of handwaving is going to make this kind of information go away. This is not models or infilling, this is what is happening right now. And, in addition, we have this;
> 
> ...



Check with Crick, he said the USA doesn't count -- because of the decade long cooling trend


----------



## jc456 (Jul 6, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


when it isn't even that in Chicago.  hmmmmm, weather pattern maybe? LOL.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 6, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Last time I looked, Alaska was the USA?  So he's a hypocrite then?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



It only counts when it's warming -- AGWCult science


----------



## Liminal (Jul 6, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



As if any of you guys knew anything about any kind of science.....hilarious.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Says the one that claims they know nothing about science..


----------



## Liminal (Jul 6, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You don't have to be a scientist to know when people are completely full of shit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



DENIER!! =/= Science


----------



## Kosh (Jul 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Yes and we anyone that is not a cult member knows that their is no real science to back up the AGW propaganda..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2015)

E = mc^2 + .5C, after adjustment


----------



## Liminal (Jul 6, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


And obviously you know because of all your extensive research and scientific expertise.......not because you just heard it somewhere.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



And you have one tree ring.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 6, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


That must be one flipping big tree ring to encompass the globe!  I'm just sayin!


----------



## Kosh (Jul 6, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Yep! Even James Hansen himself can not produce the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate..

Zero scientific evidence exists to prove this..


----------



## prison/con.net (Jul 6, 2015)

you can't stop it. it's the 3rd world always using more coal and wood as fuel, paving over cropland and slash/burning/logging jungle that's mostly at fault and they will NOT stop having too many kids.  So, if mankind IS at fault, so what? you're not going to stop it and we AINT paying for what others are doing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2015)

prison/con.net said:


> you can't stop it. it's the 3rd world always using more coal and wood as fuel, paving over cropland and slash/burning/logging jungle that's mostly at fault and they will NOT stop having too many kids.  So, if mankind IS at fault, so what? you're not going to stop it and we AINT paying for what others are doing.


I don't know who 'we' is, but we are all going to pay for it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2015)

This is from the 2009 American Geophysical Union Convention in 2009, from one of the world's leading glaciologists, Dr. Richard Alley;


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> As Alaska burns Anchorage sets new records for heat and lack of snow - The Washington Post
> 
> *Ian, no amount of handwaving is going to make this kind of information go away. This is not models or infilling, this is what is happening right now. And, in addition, we have this;
> 
> ...



Now only Oregon and Washington matter... BECAUSE THERE HOT AND DRY.. nothing else in the US matters..  Idiot!   The rest of the US is way below normal any your crying like a little baby.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> This is from the 2009 American Geophysical Union Convention in 2009, from one of the world's leading glaciologists, Dr. Richard Alley;



You dont read your articles, You dont read the papers you post, so your opinion is that of a rock. They all read MAY OR MIGHT not one of them is definitive in any aspect. Not one of them is repeatable or verifiable as the authors refuse to release their methods or data. Everything your posting has been debunked or shown incorrect on many different levels.  You have been shown over and over that they are crap but you insist on posting them. 

Insanity: Doing same thing over and over again, which fails every time, expecting a different outcome.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > As Alaska burns Anchorage sets new records for heat and lack of snow - The Washington Post
> ...


LOL. Mr. BillyBob, you are once again being very silly. The upper map is Alaska, about half the size of the lower 48, and having a very hot year and in drought. Also in drought, are Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and major parts of Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> > you can't stop it. it's the 3rd world always using more coal and wood as fuel, paving over cropland and slash/burning/logging jungle that's mostly at fault and they will NOT stop having too many kids.  So, if mankind IS at fault, so what? you're not going to stop it and we AINT paying for what others are doing.
> ...


No we aren't and the reason for folks like me


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2015)

LOL


----------



## jc456 (Jul 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


I Already posted why that is why don't you read?


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2015)

Billy, jc, how is it that you think this doesn't matter, but cooler temps across the lower 48 do?  

The planet as a whole continues to get warmer.  THAT is what matters.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy, jc, how is it that you think this doesn't matter, but cooler temps across the lower 48 do?
> 
> The planet as a whole continues to get warmer.  THAT is what matters.


Because it's balanced that's why. Has nothing to do with weather and everything about jet streams.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 7, 2015)

Everything to do with the jet stream? OK, let us discuss that;


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Everything to do with the jet stream? OK, let us discuss that;


No need, I know what it is and how it works


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Everything to do with the jet stream? OK, let us discuss that;
> ...


BTW, has nothing to do with weather


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy, jc, how is it that you think this doesn't matter, but cooler temps across the lower 48 do?
> 
> The planet as a whole continues to get warmer.  THAT is what matters.



You adjust the temps up at every turn.. and you dont think the data manipulations matter?  the globe has been cooling for ten years while your side has falsified data and manufactured crap.


----------



## Crick (Jul 8, 2015)

As has been pointed out to you, the overall adjustment has been down.

In not one single instance have you thrown the slightest doubt on the justifications given for the adjustments made.


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2015)

from Icelandic Met Office. already QC'ed and homogenized.






GHCN adds their adjustments, cooling pre-1975 numbers.






GISS, circa late 2012






GISS today



requests for fuller explanations of the adjustments were met with initial promises of action, which faded away as the weeks months and years passed. Iceland documented all the necessary corrections made, GHCN added some more, GISS 'improved' the data even more. I will let people judge for themselves whether "In not one single instance have you thrown the slightest doubt on the justifications given for the adjustments made." is a reasonable or true statement.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2015)

IanC said:


> from Icelandic Met Office. already QC'ed and homogenized.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lowering the past while increasing the present, who would notice this kind of deception?  ME and about several million others on this planet.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 8, 2015)

Again, the overall adjustments make the warming look smaller. By constantly deflecting from that fact with their cherrypicks, Billy and Ian are deliberately pushing a dishonest conspiracy theory.

At this point, anyone who isn't dishonest has abandoned the denier cult, as it's no longer possible  to be honest and to be a denier. Deniers have given up caring about the facts, and now only care about getting revenge on their perceived enemies. If they have to fabricate everything in pursuit of that goal, they will, and do.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 8, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Again, the overall adjustments make the warming look smaller. By constantly deflecting from that fact with their cherrypicks, Billy and Ian are deliberately pushing a dishonest conspiracy theory.
> 
> At this point, anyone who isn't dishonest has abandoned the denier cult, as it's no longer possible  to be honest and to be a denier. Deniers have given up caring about the facts, and now only care about getting revenge on their perceived enemies. If they have to fabricate everything in pursuit of that goal, they will, and do.


 just a question?

Who is paying you to post?

Big wind? Big solar? Big ethanol?

Just asking you this because I am a normal 50 year old guy and my aviator is real with me and my blue pit biscuit


So what's your stake to defend?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 8, 2015)

My stake is truth.

Your mistake, one that most deniers make. is assuming that everyone is like yourself. Your side will say anything for a buck, so you assume the other side must be like that too. You need to understand that we are not like you.

Few scientists will lie for a buck. Those that do get hired by the deniers. Any ethical scientist could get much richer by lying for the deniers, but they don't. The ethical scientists choose to take a pay cut for telling the truth. That gives them more credibility, the fact that they're turning down denier bribes so they can do good science.


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Again, the overall adjustments make the warming look smaller. By constantly deflecting from that fact with their cherrypicks, Billy and Ian are deliberately pushing a dishonest conspiracy theory.
> 
> At this point, anyone who isn't dishonest has abandoned the denier cult, as it's no longer possible  to be honest and to be a denier. Deniers have given up caring about the facts, and now only care about getting revenge on their perceived enemies. If they have to fabricate everything in pursuit of that goal, they will, and do.




the pooh flinging monkey wants to put all corrections and adjustments into a single bucket and add up the total. he does not want to look at individual adjustments and test their merit. informed skeptics know that many corrections need to be made, but we often question the actual methodology for doing so. eg a station that has been moved to a different altitude needs that height change to be factored in. a switch from using wooden (naturally insulated) buckets to canvas (uninsulated) buckets also need conversion values added in. these types of corrections are explainable, even if the actual correction seems implausible such as UHI effect being zero (negative with BEST).

the adjustments that many skeptics and others have a problem with are those that have no obvious origin, arbitrarily inserted for no other reason but that the actual numbers are inconvenient. above, I gave the example of Reykjavic Iceland. its history is consistent with other stations close to it, and with the other Icelandic stations. but massive adjustments have been made. why? they wont give the particular reasons why. "trust us, and besides it doesnt make any difference to the global temp".

I could go on and on giving examples, and have done so in the past. the point is that there are adjustments made for concrete reasons, eg TOBS or instrument change, and adjustments made for hypothetical reasons, eg computer flagged as "not meeting expectation' even though there is no physical reason such as station move or instrument change. the Australian BOM has admitted that it would be impossible to recreate their results because of arbitrary 'expert' discretionary decisions being made. I do not know whether other agencies such as GISS or BEST are fully automated when it comes to making adjustments or whether they have a substantial human impact on decisions that are made. Either way, the methodology should be made transparent because at this point a significant fraction of the public is not going to take 'trust us' for an answer.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2015)

Mr. Ian, you are the one peddling shit. The primary older scientists that were and are playing the role of 'skeptics' are Lindzen and Singer. And both testified before Congress as to the harmlessness of cigarettes. They are whores, willing to prostitute their credentials to the highest bidder. The scientists that are presenting the evidence of the warming and its cause have not prostituted their credentials to either the tobacco companies or the energy corporations. 

There is a very sharp divide in morality here for all to see.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 9, 2015)

bear513 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the overall adjustments make the warming look smaller. By constantly deflecting from that fact with their cherrypicks, Billy and Ian are deliberately pushing a dishonest conspiracy theory.
> ...



The AGWCult is mostly paid by either David Rothschild or Soros through his Media Matters front organization. I think Crick once admitted he was a paid poster


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Proof?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



So you are a paid poster


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 9, 2015)

reminds me of my fave denier comic 

Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Yes he did.


----------



## Davey T (Jul 9, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> reminds me of my fave denier comic
> 
> Who is this? 57Frank? SSDD? FlaCalTenn?, etc...


This cartoon is a perfect distillation of the AGW debate.  How do you "create" a better world with:  More taxation; higher energy costs; more environmental laws restricting liberty; destruction of capitalism (which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system); not only more government but more international government; destruction of businesses world-wide, and all for admittedly very little change in actual climate temperatures, if any.  Then, every item in the list is a complete different debate to make the overall point a lie.  For instance, how to get "energy independence" by shutting down energy plants.  Certainly not with "renewables" like wind farms.  This is especially true since people like the author want to shut down nuclear plants and destroy dams. And finally, quit using the political term of "denier".  It is reminiscent of the Galileo trial.  You sound like a 15th century pope.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 9, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > reminds me of my fave denier comic
> ...


capitalism is wonderful. Especially when you let the kochs/adelsons of the world purchase politicians


----------



## Davey T (Jul 9, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...





Dot Com said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


Businesses only sell things to people who voluntarily buy them.  They "buy" politicians only when the government gets so big and that politicians can change markets and "force" people to buy things against their will.  Think "Obamacare" or "squiggly light bulbs".  Both of these items, and many many more, were the result of collusion between government and business and a bastardization of the marketplace.  For less collusion between government and business along with the concomitant corruption, government must do less, not more.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 9, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...


and 2008 Wall St is an example of "letting the markets regulate themselves" 

FAIL!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 9, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Remember when Bush eliminated all banking regulations?

Yeah, me neither


----------



## Davey T (Jul 9, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


You obviously do not understand what happened with the 2008 collapse.  And, one would think we are getting far afield from the global warming debate but this is really at its core.  That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.  This is at its heart since all of its proposed solutions are anti-capitalistic and most of its proponents are anti capitalists, as you are proving.  Therefore, the many of the socialists, with nowhere to go after the collapse of the Soviet Union, went to environmental movements.  As they say, they old red is the new green.  Now, the 2008 collapse.  

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act which forced (yes, forced) banks to lend mortgages to primarily minority and primarily poor risk investors.  If they didn't, they were labeled racist.   This was started under Carter and expanded under Clifton.  It got to the point that the only way to effect lending was to eliminate down payments, altogether. (please google Barnie Frank and Fannie Mae where Bush tried to reign in Fannie Mae and Frank said it would be racist to do so)  That is when people all over the country were buying homes that they couldn't afford.  It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government.  Period.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2015)

Davey T said:


> You obviously do not understand



Oh, we understand very clearly. You don't have any science on your side, so you go with political conspiracy theories instead. The rational people here are talking about the science. The irrational cultists are raving about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.



> It started with the Community Reinvestment Act



Bzzzzzt. Myth alert. The CRA affected a tiny portion of the real estate market, and CRA loans didn't fail at a rate any higher than other loans. Most of the failed banks weren't covered by the CRA at all. The CRA wasn't involved in commercial real estate, yet that crashed just as hard as residential. And Fannie and Freddie didn't start the housing bubble, they just chased the tail end of it and got burned.



> It is a little more complicated with the elimination of the Glass Steagle Act under Clinton which allowed banks to bundle loans and sell them word-wide thereby "hiding" portfolios of bad loans, but the bottom line is this was a perversion of the lending marketplace by government.  Period.



So obviously it was the removal of government regulation that caused the problem, as it allowed private lenders to pervert the lending marketplace. You almost were willing to state that historical fact, but I think the fear of being cast out of your political cult stopped you short.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 9, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...


its called letting his executive agencies, such as Labor, HUD, EPA, SEC, etc..., be "permanently out to lunch.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 9, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > You obviously do not understand
> ...


^ that

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims not culprits - BusinessWeek

FactWatch Fannie and Freddie were followers not leaders in mortgage frenzy Center for Public Integrity


Now. Where were we? Oh Yes!!!-- deniers keeping their heads in the sand


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...


Fannie and Freddie along with every son of a bitch that created that bubble (Clinton and Democrats) should be in jail.  

As for you anti-science left wing fools... I'm sure your new religious leader in the Catholic church will help you with your religion..


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2015)

Oi-vey...


----------



## Davey T (Jul 9, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...


It is very telling how the AGW believers always come back to politics even while they say they believe in the science, not politics.  Let's start from the beginning.

Is it warming?  Maybe, maybe not.  For 4.5 billions years there has never been a time when the temperature of earth was static.  That is why the true believers went from global cooling in the 70s to global warming and now schucks, it's just climate change.

Is it greenhouse gases?  Who knows.  Certainly not the clowns that give us nothing but computer models that don't work.  Although here, one should treat this like any other experiment and do double blind experiments that eliminate other factors like, I don't know, the sun? Cloud cover?  Ocean currents?  Show me these, and many others, being eliminated through scientific experiments.

If greenhouse gases, is it CO2?  Show me the double blind studies eliminating nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water among others.  And at .04% of the atmosphere, why do you guys cling bitterly to CO2?

If CO2, is it man made?  Show me the experiments.  And your still calling people deniers.  Not too scientific.  In fact, rather political.


----------



## Crick (Jul 10, 2015)

Davey T said:


> It is very telling how the AGW believers always come back to politics even while they say they believe in the science, not politics.  Let's start from the beginning.
> 
> Is it warming?  Maybe, maybe not.



There is no question about it.  For the last 150 years, the world has been getting warmer.  No one doubts that, even on your side of the argument.



Davey T said:


> For 4.5 billions years there has never been a time when the temperature of earth was static.



Human civilization hasn't been around for 4.5 billion years.  We've been around for about 12,000.  During that period, temperatures HAVE been quite stable.  Civilization developed under those conditions.  We have built an enormous infrastructure under those conditions.  Now those conditions are changing and at an unnaturally rapid rate.



Davey T said:


> That is why the true believers went from global cooling in the 70s to global warming and now schucks, it's just climate change.



Meaningless nonsense.  A minority of experts were concerned about possible cooling in the 1970s.  They were never a majority and the majority of the experts even then were concerned about warming from human GHG emissions.  Reviews of the literature showing precisely that have been posted here repeatedly.  Global warming and climate change are different terms with different meanings.  If that's what you've got as an argument, you've got nothing.



Davey T said:


> Is it greenhouse gases?  Who knows.  Certainly not the clowns that give us nothing but computer models that don't work.



Is what a greenhouse gas?  CO2?  That's been accepted science for well over a century and their were no computer models a century ago.  The GCMs of today work far better than the misinformation you've apparently received and if you think assumptions of anthropogenic greenhouse warming make them inaccurate, try to remember that NO ONE has produced a functioning GCM that stays within miles of reality WITHOUT assuming anthropogenic global warming.  No one.



Davey T said:


> Although here, one should treat this like any other experiment and do double blind experiments that eliminate other factors like, I don't know, the sun? Cloud cover?  Ocean currents?  Show me these, and many others, being eliminated through scientific experiments.



Show me another Earth to use as a control.



Davey T said:


> If greenhouse gases, is it CO2?  Show me the double blind studies eliminating nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water among others.  And at .04% of the atmosphere, why do you guys cling bitterly to CO2?



Why do you cling bitterly to such nonsense?  The greenhouse warming from all the other constituents of the atmosphere have been heavily studied for over a century.  For starters, nitrogen, oxygen and argon are not greenhouse gases, as has been amply demonstrated in numerous laboratory experiments.  Water, of course, is one.  The greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and the chlorofluorocarbon group.  They exhibit the defining property of greenhouse gases: they absorb infrared radiation within the frequency band radiated by the Earth - a property easily tested in the lab.  Despite what may seem the small proportion that CO2 makes up in the Earth's atmosphere, it has been well demonstrated to be capable of doing precisely that with which it is credited.  The human emission of methane has also had a warming effect, though methane does not have the lifetime of CO2.  Water vapor levels are controlled almost entirely by temperatures, so as the Earth's temperature rises, water vapor will enhance the warming effect our CO2 emissions produce.  Water vapor has an atmospheric lifetime measured in single digits of days while CO2 will last 30-95 years.  There is also the point that the final release of IR radiation to space takes place in the uppermost layers of the atmosphere, an area almost devoid of water vapor.

THAT is why scientists "cling bitterly" to CO2 as the primary causation of the global warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.



Davey T said:


> If CO2, is it man made?



Yes.



Davey T said:


> Show me the experiments.



isotopic analysis of carbon dioxide - Google Scholar

Enjoy yourself



Davey T said:


> And your still calling people deniers.  Not too scientific.  In fact, rather political.



It isn't the least bit political.  You claimed that your observations showed we had nothing but political motivations for a belief in mainstream climate science, yet you showed not a single iota of evidence supporting that charge.  What you did show was a abysmal weakness in science and a small collection of out-of-date denier memes.

I call people "deniers" when they deny an argument without valid cause.  Mountains of evidence and the opinions of the vast majority of the experts tell us that the primary cause of the warming we've experience over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation.  If you deny that, I would call you a denier.  Simple enough. And no politics involved.


----------



## IanC (Jul 10, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




the newcomer has the obvious quality of common sense.


----------



## IanC (Jul 10, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...




the US govt, and that includes Bush not just Clinton, caused the 2008 meltdown that cost us all a lot of money (and Im not even American). conforming to political correctness at the expense of ignoring reality never works out well.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 10, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


go read the Herr Koch experiment in 1901.  He shoves their shit in their face quite well with that one.  To date, no one has disproved it.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 10, 2015)

IanC said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


I like him, reminds me of me.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > It is very telling how the AGW believers always come back to politics even while they say they believe in the science, not politics.  Let's start from the beginning.
> ...


still no evidence of back radiation.  so greenhouse gas is a really still in question. Oh wait, you have proof? oh dear lord, let's see this one.  Don't go back to the other thousand you tried which do nothing to support or validate your position.  Just one of them friend.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 10, 2015)

IanC said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


neither does lax enforcement by Executive Agencies. In this case the SEC


----------



## jc456 (Jul 10, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...


credit boston.com for this link:

Frank haunted by stance on Fannie Freddie - The Boston Globe

Barney Frank, key person responsible for failed housing markets.


----------



## Crick (Jul 10, 2015)

Davey T said:


> That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.



What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?


----------



## Davey T (Jul 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.
> ...


Cap and trade policies are nothing more than taxing and controlling the production of energy and development.  Proponents even admit that cap and trade will not reduce greenhouse gases other than marginally and affect temperatures even less so.  So it is all about taxing and control.

Further, it is common knowledge that organizations and governments hire people to flood the blogoshere and advocate in their sttead.  This is true only for climate change.  There are no hired guns in the blogoshere for string theory or water on Mars.  Only climate change.  I wonder why. I debate here as a private citizen concerned about our nation.  Who do you work for?


----------



## Crick (Jul 10, 2015)

My children asshole.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.
> ...



The whole AGW scam is socialist

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC


----------



## jc456 (Jul 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.
> ...


You have no proof! I thought I've told you over and over


----------



## Crick (Jul 10, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The whole AGW scam is socialist
> 
> "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC




Redistributing the world's wealth - even were that what climate policy intends to accomplish, is not socialism.  I suggest you go do some reading.


----------



## Crick (Jul 10, 2015)

Davey T said:


> That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.





Crick said:


> What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?





jc456 said:


> You have no proof! I thought I've told you over and over



You appear to be babbling jc.  Who has no proof of what?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2015)

Davey T said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Davey T said:
> ...


Cap and trade did a pretty good job of reducing the pollution from the coal fired generators.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The whole AGW scam is socialist
> ...



Paid poster sez wha?

It's not Socialism? LOL

It's a fraud


----------



## Davey T (Jul 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> My children asshole.


Does you boss, Mr. Soros, know you are using these big words?

Like I said, AGW proponents try to malign their opponents, use slander, vilification and cuss words.  All in the name of science, of course.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2015)

But worst of all, we use publications from peer reviewed scientific journals, rather than the rants of obese junkies on the AM Radio, and bonkers fake British Lords.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> But worst of all, we use publications from peer reviewed scientific journals, rather than the rants of obese junkies on the AM Radio, and bonkers fake British Lords.



Peer review = other people paid to agree with the AGW models


----------



## Crick (Jul 10, 2015)

Davey T said:


> That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.





Crick said:


> What is socialistic about policies to reduce GHG emissions?





Davey T said:


> Cap and trade policies are nothing more than taxing and controlling the production of energy and development.



That is incorrect.  Cap and trade policies are intended to provide an incentive to reduce carbon emissions.  Utilities are free to completely ignore them should they so choose.  Under socialism, the government would be taking ownership of the utilities and their revenues.  Cap and trade creates a competition to reduce emissions at the lowest possible price.  It is, in that sense, a capitalist strategy.



Davey T said:


> Proponents even admit that cap and trade will not reduce greenhouse gases other than marginally and affect temperatures even less so.



What proponents?



Davey T said:


> So it is all about taxing and control.



No it is not.  And even if it were, that would not be socialist.

From Wikipedia
"*Emissions trading* or *cap and trade* ("cap" meaning _a legal limit on the quantity of a certain type of chemical an economy can emit each year_)[1] is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economicincentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.[2] Various countries, groups of companies, and states have adopted emission trading systems as one of the strategies for mitigating climate-change by addressing international greenhouse-gas emission.[3]"

References

"Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change"(PDF). _Cap and Trade_. January 2011.
Stavins, Robert N. (November 2001). "Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments" (PDF). _Discussion Paper 01-58_ (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future). Retrieved 2010-05-20. Market-based instruments are regulations that encourage behavior through market signals rather than through explicit directives regarding pollution control levels or methods
"Tax Treaty Issues Related to Emissions Permits/Credits" (PDF). _OECD_. Retrieved25 Oct 2014.



Davey T said:


> Further, it is common knowledge that organizations and governments hire people to flood the blogoshere and advocate in their sttead.



"Common knowledge" or Argumentum ad Populum, is a logical fallacy.  Millions of people publish their opinions on the web.  Even were this practice common - which I reject, the odds of you actually running into such a person, particularly on a site a poorly visited as this one, would be microscopic.



Davey T said:


> This is true only for climate change.



That is a completely unsubstantiated assertion and nonsense  in every other regard.  The fossil fuel industry has been shown to have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to lobbyists, journalists, pseudo scientists, bloggers and pundits in an attempt to discredit AGW.

From Climate change denial - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.[18] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States.[19][14][20][21][22][23][24][25] Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated, some by conservative billionaires via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.[26] In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.[27]

and from http://www.fossilfreemit.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FossilFreeMIT-Lobbying-Disinformation.pdf

Lobbying and Political Donations by the Fossil Fuel Industry The fossil fuel industry continues to lobby against climate change legislation on a scale that dwarfs even that of Big Tobacco at its peak7,8 . In 2012 alone, individuals and political action committees associated with the oil and gas sector donated $70 million to US candidates and political parties, in addition to funding over 800 lobbyists at a cost of more than $149 million7,9 . The coal-mining sector spent another $13 million in donations and $18 million in lobbying7,9 . All told, the fossil fuel industry spends an order of magnitude more than those advocating alternative energy sources, who spent $2.5 million on donations and $28 million on lobbying in 20129 . This spending disparity appears to have profoundly impacted the climate change debate in Washington, as discussed below.



Davey T said:


> There are no hired guns in the blogoshere for string theory or water on Mars.  Only climate change.



There are "hired guns" on the web advocating the prevention of forest fires, the use of seat belts, the conservation of energy and water, not drinking and driving, not leaving infants in hot cars, getting our pets neutered and spayed and so forth.  I find these causes have a great deal more in common with mitigating AGW than water on Mars.

And, as we can see, there are a plethora of "hired guns" working for the fossil fuel industry to sell precisely the position you yourself appear to hold. 



Davey T said:


> I wonder why. I debate here as a private citizen concerned about our nation.



Because you don't have to meet any intellectual requirements to post here.



Davey T said:


> Who do you work for?



You implication that no one would argue as I have without doing so mercenarily is offensive.  I suppose I should be flattered that you think I do this well enough that someone would pay me for it, but that doesn't come near offsetting the offense.  I accept the expertise of mainstream science on this issue.  The vast majority of the world's scientists accept that the greenhouse effect, acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which threatens our future.  I have children.  I argue with you because I believe you and your denier compatriots directly threaten the welfare of my chlidren and their children and their children - and everyone else on this planet of course.  I think you argue out of ignorance and an antipathy towards science.  I think it likely that you believe there is a political facet to this argument and that as a conservative, you need to oppose it.  You have been fed a great deal of misinformation designed to fit with your knowledge and mindset and you have sucked it all up, apparently unexamined.  That is who I work for.  Asshole.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> My children asshole.


My children and grandchildren


----------



## jc456 (Jul 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > That is, AGW proponents call for the institution of socialistic policies and the corruption of capitalism.
> ...


Reduce carbon emissions or pay for the emissions?


----------



## Crick (Jul 11, 2015)

Basically.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> Basically.


Which one?


----------



## Crick (Jul 11, 2015)

Do you know NOTHING about cap and trade?  Both.

Here, just read the intro section.

Emissions trading - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And while we're here, where's the quote you claim to have seen of me admitting I get paid to post here?


----------



## Davey T (Jul 13, 2015)

Cap and trade has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.  It is the sale and control, out of whole cloth, of a ubiquitous molecule that is a requirement for life on earth.  You may as well sell oxygen to those who need it and call that capitalism.  In your own words it "creates" a "legal" marketplace.  This means laws to create more taxation and spending only on an international scale.  What could go wrong there.  Not since Chaucer the Pardoner selling papal indulgences has something so ludicrous been foisted on a populace.  With regard to climate change, here are some indisputable facts:
1. In the past, earth temperatures have been much warmer and much cooler.  This is nothing new;
2.  In the past, CO2 atmospheric concentrations have been much higher and much lower.  This is nothing new;
3.  Regardless of how much true believers wish it so, there is no body of evidence proving a correlative or causative connection between the two.  And if you find the first, it doesn't prove the second and calling people names like a spoiled child doesn't make it so;
4.  If you cannot find in your theories a reason for the pause in the warming over the last 17 years that witnessed a concomitant increase in CO2, you have to come up with a new theory. 
5.  The IPCC is not a disinterested third party to tell us what the science says.  If there is no AGW, there is no reason for the IPCC. They were chartered to be the policy makers with the "assumption" that it was true.  No AGW, no IPCC.  That is when they decided to arrogate to themselves the job of "checking the facts".

These are the facts.   They are indisputable.

This thread started with calling the "deniers" "liars" when, in fact, there is empirical evidence that the true believers lied, not the other way around.  From Climategate, to the hockey stick, true believers have treated this subject more like a religion than science.  From a pope (Al Gore) to dealing with non-believers (deniers, liars) and apostates (Bjorn Lomborg), sins and indulgences (cap and trade), prophesies and salvation (the end is nigh, give me money and I'll fix it), the true believers have acted like scorned prophets when in fact, they are scorned profits.


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2015)

Your "facts" are not facts.



Davey T said:


> Cap and trade has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.



It requires a free market to operate.  It has as much to do with capitalism as any other form of competition.



Davey T said:


> It is the sale and control, out of whole cloth, of a ubiquitous molecule that is a requirement for life on earth.



No, it is not.  It is the sale of government-mandated permits to emit that molecule into the planet's shared atmosphere.



Davey T said:


> You may as well sell oxygen to those who need it and call that capitalism.



Your misunderstanding is profound.  No one is selling CO2.



Davey T said:


> In your own words it "creates" a "legal" marketplace.



Yes, the heart of any capitalist system.



Davey T said:


> This means laws to create more taxation and spending only on an international scale.



Cap and Trade requires NO taxation and the only government spending required is a pittance for administration.  It might cause the cost of energy to rise in the near term, but not a fraction as much as the cost of NOT restricting emissions.  Look at all the safety items added to your car.  They all caused its price to go up.  Did it destroy the auto industry?  Did it prevent Joe and Jane Average from owning a car?  No and No.  Did it make it safer to drive a car?  Yes.



Davey T said:


> What could go wrong there.  Not since Chaucer the Pardoner selling papal indulgences has something so ludicrous been foisted on a populace.



Chaucer the Pardoner?  Chaucer wrote a story about a Pardoner, but he wasn't one himself.

There is nothing ludicrous about cap and trade.  It may not be the best method for restricting emissions and it may not be the system that we will have fifty years from now, but it's _something_.  That, of course, is your problem.  You wante NOTHING in the way of you and the burning of your master's fuel.



Davey T said:


> With regard to climate change, here are some indisputable facts:
> 1. In the past, earth temperatures have been much warmer and much cooler.  This is nothing new;



It IS new in the history of human civilization.  And the RATE at which it is changing is VERY novel.



Davey T said:


> 2.  In the past, CO2 atmospheric concentrations have been much higher and much lower.  This is nothing new;



It is the highest in tens of millions of years.  And the rate at which it is rising is the highest since the Chicxulub Impact.



Davey T said:


> 3.  Regardless of how much true believers wish it so, there is no body of evidence proving a correlative or causative connection between the two.



There is most assuredly a "body of evidence" - a massive one.  However, there never will be proof because we're talking about the natural sciences where "proof" simply does not exist.  There IS, however, a MOUNTAIN of evidence which has been enough to convince an almost unanimous majority of the world's experts.



Davey T said:


> And if you find the first, it doesn't prove the second and calling people names like a spoiled child doesn't make it so;



Like "scientific illiterate"?  Why?  It's accurate.  It's descriptive.  It might convince someone who needs it to improve their education even the first thing doing so will accomplish will be to show them how wrong they've been.



Davey T said:


> 4.  If you cannot find in your theories a reason for the pause in the warming over the last 17 years that witnessed a concomitant increase in CO2, you have to come up with a new theory.



Are you not up with the latest research?  There's been no pause.



Davey T said:


> 5.  The IPCC is not a disinterested third party to tell us what the science says.  If there is no AGW, there is no reason for the IPCC. They were chartered to be the policy makers with the "assumption" that it was true.  No AGW, no IPCC.  That is when they decided to arrogate to themselves the job of "checking the facts".



So I guess crime is a fantasy of the world's police forces.  Fires are set by firemen.  And if it weren't for the word's educational systems, there'd be no ignorance.



Davey T said:


> These are the facts.   They are indisputable.



Wow... that's pathetic.



Davey T said:


> This thread started with calling the "deniers" "liars"



A charge you've supported here with several falsehoods.



Davey T said:


> when, in fact, there is empirical evidence that the true believers lied



What empirical evidence would that be?  You've certainly presented none.  Telling us it exists is not quite the same as presenting it to us.  And if you're thinking you can turn that around on me, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change if you'd like to see the mountains of empirical evidence on which my opinions (and those of the world's experts) are based.



Davey T said:


> not the other way around.



There you go with another falsehood.



Davey T said:


> From Climategate, to the hockey stick, true believers have treated this subject more like a religion than science.



No more than the world's literate treat relativity, the germ theory of disease or the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. This religion charge is one of the more nonsensical idea your fossil fuel overlords have come up with.  Does it examine any of the evidence?  No.  Does it examine any of the science?  No.  What does it do?  It let's deniers pretend they know better without forcing them to make the unpleasant effort of actually demonstrating anything at all.



Davey T said:


> From a pope (Al Gore) to dealing with non-believers (deniers, liars) and apostates (Bjorn Lomborg), sins and indulgences (cap and trade), prophesies and salvation (the end is nigh, give me money and I'll fix it), the true believers have acted like scorned prophets when in fact, they are scorned profits.



The world is getting warmer.  The seas are rising.  The ice is melting.  No one is making any significant progress on reducing CO2 emissions.  But you just keep on denying it.  When the truth - that we could have done something but because of our fears, our inertia, our inability to commit (none of which we will want to remember) and the tempting whine of people like you (who we will)  whispering false comforts in our ears; assuring us we can safely ignore reality; telling us what you only want to believe as if it were cold hard facts, we did nothing and we will watch our children and their children and their children beyond suffer for YOUR ignorance - well, I wouldn't want to be one of you.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> Your "facts" are not facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey do you think your facts are facts? Hahahaha


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2015)

If I put something out as a fact, I can guaran-goddamn-tee you it's more likely to BE a fact than the nonsense we get from the lot of you.

The incessant demand for "proof" and the mislabeling of opinions as "facts" are two most obvious clues that a lot of folks here have a very low level of science literacy (or logic, for that matter).

Poster Davey T, like a lot of folks here, claims to have proof of his opinions.  He then does a lot of spouting on the topic, but even a cursory examination will show that he gave no proof of anything and that most of his claims are easily falsified.

There are a few facts in this argument - things that can be demonstrated in a lab and are mandated by known physical laws: CO2 absorbs infrared and (though it's hard to believe anyone would argue this, you have) absorbing infrared causes matter's temperature to increase.  The relationship between pressure, temperature and volume (or density) for an ideal gas is a fact.  That pushing energy into a closed system will raise its equilibrium temperature is a fact.  Of course, the trouble is we have neither ideal gases nor a closed system anywhere near equilibrium.  So, figuring out what it's done in the past, what it's doing now and what it's going to do in the future is going to require shitloads of evidence and the application of informed thinking.  So far, the result of the evidence scientists have gathered and the informed thinking they've done is that the primary cause of the warming experienced over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation.  On that I base my views.


----------



## Davey T (Jul 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> If I put something out as a fact, I can guaran-goddamn-tee you it's more likely to BE a fact than the nonsense we get from the lot of you.
> 
> The incessant demand for "proof" and the mislabeling of opinions as "facts" are two most obvious clues that a lot of folks here have a very low level of science literacy (or logic, for that matter).
> 
> ...


This is so tedious but I'll give it one more try.

Restating physics 101 does nothing for your argument.  The believers must exclude water vapor, cloud cover and solar activity from their data to find the minuscule concentration of CO2 (.038%) to be controlling.  This is stupid and no teacher would except this in a beginning science class.  Further, I gave you the liars club award for Climategate and the hockey stick which everyone knows were loaded with lies even though you said I gave no examples of lies.  Finally, you said that the newest research shows there was no hiatus or pause which is another lie.  If you are talking about the Karl paper, he had to cherry pick the years and exclude the Argo array and satellite data to arrive at his conclusion.  This conclusion from one thinly researched paper was immediately picked up and lied about, as you have done here, with all believers stating, in unison, "there was no pause".  They finally hid the hiatus through trickery.  I'm bored with this and done here.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> If I put something out as a fact, I can guaran-goddamn-tee you it's more likely to BE a fact than the nonsense we get from the lot of you.
> 
> The incessant demand for "proof" and the mislabeling of opinions as "facts" are two most obvious clues that a lot of folks here have a very low level of science literacy (or logic, for that matter).
> 
> ...


then where is your experiment with the evidence you claim that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate or temperatures?  come on bubba, you been posting up the CO2 thing forever in here, and not just myself but several others have consistently requested your data.  The material you have posted is not fact no matter how hard you wish to believe it.  Herr Koch is the only experiment and that is fact.  And it is I who pointed to it.  so what is it, are you now blatantly going to lie on how you post on here?  well, that's just a lie.


----------

