# Why do so many people deny climate change



## loa (Sep 14, 2013)

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue. 

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief.  People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors. 

K.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 14, 2013)

"Denying Climate change?" What a stupid thing to say

We question the hypothesis that an additional wisp of CO2 is melting the polar Ice caps and have asked, repeatedly, for some experimental evidence

We get pooh flinging monkey talking about "Deniers!" in return


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 14, 2013)

You might want to put Frank on your ignore list, Loa.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 14, 2013)

When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.

They also are not addressing why so many planets in our solar system climates are changing also.

It seems to be tied to something that is happening to our Solar System not mankind's pollution.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> You might want to put Frank on your ignore list, Loa.



Boo fucking hoo

Frank is a meany for daring to ask where our experiments are


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

The title of the thread is moot s0n!!


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 14, 2013)

peach174 said:


> *When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's* then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.
> 
> They also are not addressing why so many planets in our solar system climates are changing also.
> 
> It seems to be tied to something that is happening to our Solar System not mankind's pollution.


It was the global warming deniers, who you now believe, who lied to you about a coming Ice Age. The vast majority of scientists were predicting global warming in the 70s.

And the planetary canard has been addressed! Some planets and moons are warming, but other planets and moons are cooling, so it is obviously related to conditions in each location rather than a solar system related cause.


----------



## longknife (Sep 14, 2013)

NOBODY denies that climate change is real!

What the vast majority of us deny is the amount of impact modern civilization has upon it. And, we find it most disturbing that the vast majority of Globull Warming alarmists try to put the blame on the USA and not on the real culprits - China and most 3rd world countries that produce the vast amount of gases and smoke that MIGHT have a small impact on these changes.

Do immissions affect ocean temperatures?

And, why exactly is warming that horrible? Plants react afirmatively to warmer weather and they produce gases. Should we denude the planet of plants?

All living creatures produce such so-called harmful gases. Reduce all such life on earth?

And don't give me this BS that Obumbler's avowed goal of destroying the coal industry is going to save the planet from Globull Warming or Climate Change.  

p.s.,

next post is a WASHINGTON POST editorial on the subject!


----------



## longknife (Sep 14, 2013)

*Lomborg: &#8220;Don&#8217;t blame climate change for extreme weather&#8221;*

Written By : William Teach, September 14, 2013

I&#8217;m shocked that the Washington Post has allowed this op-ed to be published, which blows away so many of the myths of extreme weather and &#8220;climate change&#8221;, many of which have been exposed time and again by many Climate Realists 

Read story with links @ Lomborg: ?Don?t blame climate change for extreme weather? | Right Wing News

And here's his closing comment:



> It is understandable that a lot of well-meaning people, wanting stronger action on global warming, have tried to use the meme of extreme weather to draw attention. But alarmism and panic are rarely the best way to achieve good policies. The argument that global warming generally creates more extreme weather needs to be retired.


----------



## loa (Sep 14, 2013)

*Frank said:
...Denying Climate change?" What a stupid thing to say....We question the hypothesis that an additional wisp of CO2 is melting the polar Ice caps.....Boo fucking hoo....Frank is a meany for daring to ask where our experiments are .....*

Well, Frank - I don't see questioning as much as I see chuckle-headed leaps and spouting of pre-prepared talking points handed out by questionable sources.    It seems that here, and on other message boards where the subject comes up, responses are completely ignored or misunderstood, with a complete circle back to original talking points that don't stand up to the data.    Now, of course, I do not intend to say EVERYONE does this.  I am saying it seems to be the trend. 

You say people think you are mean?   I wouldn't know about that.   All I can say is it appears you leap fast with the tongue-fist.   Maybe that is a case of hyper-argumentitis rather than being mean.   Which ever, you seem VERY sure of your position. 

Peach said:
*When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.  They also are not addressing why so many planets in our solar system climates are changing also.  It seems to be tied to something that is happening to our Solar System not mankind's pollution. *

I'm not sure what you mean by 'lied to'.  You think scientists who study this lied?  Or you read some sort of popular book which sensationalized ideas and then felt lied to?   I'm not sure what you mean.   

Let me ask you something.   Let's assume for the sake of argument that mankind is NOT causing global warming.  Rather, it is the product of some sort of planetary/solar system sort of thing going on.   Even if this is the case, as we KNOW we can slow/change/effect what is occurring by changing our behavior, why not go ahead and do that?

*ADDED NOTE FOR OROGENICMAN*:  Good morning!  I realized I didn't even say hi!   Hope you have a wonderful weekend and even better, get some good shots if you are going to LSA.    Maybe there is a spot here for some photos.   

K.


----------



## Decus (Sep 14, 2013)

I would never deny that climate changes. That would be foolish. Now the Mayan calendar, Y2K, global warming and other doomsday predictions are another thing. By the way, has anyone read the latest UN report? Too funny.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > *When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's* then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.
> ...




It was the media who said ice age and media now who say global warming not global warming deniers.
We did not believe the media back in the 70's, just like we don't believe the media now about warming.
It's about the climates on other planets that are changing, not about them cooling or warming.
This is not being addressed.
Why are storms increasing and becoming stronger on certain planets just like our storms are increasing.
Scientists are still saying they don't have enough complete information to really come to an exact conclusion as to what is really happening.
The left have taken over and have made it political, they did it in the 70's and they are doing it now with global warming.


The Scientists did not address it properly in the 70's and they are doing the same mistake now.
They are not getting out there countering the lies being reported.

I think that the majority agree that our climate is changing, it's the cause that is being questioned.

Once again the left and the media are changing that to false accusations of climate deniers
when its actually about the cause we are arguing about.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 14, 2013)

peach174 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


You don't believe the scientists who didn't lie to you in the 70s, but you believe the Right-wing media who are lying to you now. 

The deniers are claiming that global warming ended 15 years ago and we are "cooling," they are the ice agers all over again. That is not debating the "cause," that is denying the warming. We no longer have cooling cycles, for the last 100 years we get warming cycles and in place of the cooling cycles we get flat cycles followed by new warming picking up where the last warming cycle ended. Something has disrupted the natural pattern of warming and cooling cycles.


----------



## 007 (Sep 14, 2013)

"Climate change."

Translation: Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




What part of Media lied then and Media is lying now are you not getting?
The Scientists did not get out there and get actual data out to counter the Media.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 14, 2013)

loa said:


> *Frank said:
> ...Denying Climate change?" What a stupid thing to say....We question the hypothesis that an additional wisp of CO2 is melting the polar Ice caps.....Boo fucking hoo....Frank is a meany for daring to ask where our experiments are .....*
> 
> Well, Frank - I don't see questioning as much as I see chuckle-headed leaps and spouting of pre-prepared talking points handed out by questionable sources.    It seems that here, and on other message boards where the subject comes up, responses are completely ignored or misunderstood, with a complete circle back to original talking points that don't stand up to the data.    Now, of course, I do not intend to say EVERYONE does this.  I am saying it seems to be the trend.
> ...



^ Old Rocks sock account


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 14, 2013)

Where's the evidence? Where are the repeatable lab experiments?

800ppm CO2 raises temperature 3-8 degrees, let's see it


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 14, 2013)

peach174 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


You did not qualify you claim of being lied to in the 70s until I pointed out that it wasn't the scientists who lied to you. Now you blame the scientists for the media's failure to publicize the position of science as if the scientists control corporate media. 

Admit it, you believe whatever media you agree with and only media you agree with no matter what science says.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

First: HELLO LOA!  Wish you the best of luck, here.  It's a bit of a rough crowd.

The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in labs a multitude of times.  The absorption spectra, determined in vitro, of the various gases involved are available in reference works of all shape and size.  The continued diatribe that it has never been proven in the lab begins to make me nauseous.  Screaming something over and over again does not make it so.

The global temperature trend from 1941 to 1979 could very well convince someone that we were headed for an ice age.  However, that opinion was NEVER widespread among climate scientists.  As you noted, it was THE MEDIA that told you so: media that makes money with scandal and tittilation.  But it is NOT just the media telling you about global warming these days.  Unlike the 1970s ice age nonsense, a significant majority of climate scientists believe that the warming we have experienced over the last 150 years has been primarily caused by human GHG emissions.

It is ridiculous to claim that any particular weather event is the result of global warming.  It is equally ridicuous to claim that global warming will have no effect on our weather.  Our weather is driven - ENTIRELY - by its thermal energy content.  As that content increases, the energy available to drive our weather increases and the average intensity of the weather so driven follows it upward.  Rejecting that is completely unsupportable.

Bjorn Lomborg's training is in political science.  His opinion on any relationship between warming and weather extremes is worthless.  That it should see the light of day in "Right Wing News" only supports my PoV  here.

Loa makes a very good point when she notes that many climate change deniers are driven by a fear of loss or major alterations in the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed.  I'd say a far broader and better supported case could be made for that than for the common charge that AGW is a hoax perpetrated by climate scientists looking to get rich from research grant money.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 14, 2013)

Do you know what happens when the ice & glaciers melts?
It produces more plants.
What does plants breath in? CO2

Seems that the Earth knows what she is doing.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph...



I believe that's me you're talking about.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...rming-over-the-past-20-years.html#post7831617

The information in his graph is meaningless.  No source, no citations, nothing but numbers and lines that ANYONE could have simply made up.

You can accept it as valid, but you'd be taking it on faith.

And that's the problem with AGW:  The science doesn't back it up, so it has to be taken on faith.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 14, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Do you know what happens when the ice & glaciers melts?
> It produces more plants.
> What does plants breath in? CO2
> 
> Seems that the Earth knows what she is doing.


So why is CO2 increasing?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 14, 2013)

Rough crowd: Asking for lab experiments

LOL

That why there's no science in Climate "Science"


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 14, 2013)

Why do so many people think a couple degree increase in temperature will result in death and destruction on a biblical scale?

I don't deny the earth is warming slightly.  I don't deny that people have an affect on the climate.

I just don't buy the predictions of catastrophe.


----------



## boedicca (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> First: HELLO LOA!  Wish you the best of luck, here.  It's a bit of a rough crowd.
> 
> The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in labs a multitude of times.  The absorption spectra, determined in vitro, of the various gases involved are available in reference works of all shape and size.  The continued diatribe that it has never been proven in the lab begins to make me nauseous.  Screaming something over and over again does not make it so.
> 
> ...





Please explain how global warming has caused record gains in sea ice this year.

Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 ? ?Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record? | Climate Depot


----------



## boedicca (Sep 14, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Rough crowd: Asking for lab experiments
> 
> LOL
> 
> That why there's no science in Climate "Science"





But...but...but....OH JUST SHUT UP!


----------



## peach174 (Sep 14, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know what happens when the ice & glaciers melts?
> ...


----------



## numan (Sep 14, 2013)

'
The Denialist dolts are criminally ignorant of science, and they cannot bear to think of their beliefs and way of life being challenged.

They would not recognize a fact if it fell on them ... like an iceberg.

And Global Heating is a fact.

.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 14, 2013)

peach174 said:


> When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.
> 
> They also are not addressing why so many planets in our solar system climates are changing also.
> 
> It seems to be tied to something that is happening to our Solar System not mankind's pollution.



The majority of Earth scientists in the 1970s did not subscribe to the "coming ice age" hypothesis that was promoted by a handful of people. And the suggestion that "so many planets are changing", apparently in lock step with the Earth, is also not true.  And a lot of science has been done since then, so to use that as an excuse to do nothing is just stupid.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

I crack myself up every time I post this gem........


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> The Denialist dolts are criminally ignorant of science, and they cannot bear to think of their beliefs and way of life being challenged.
> 
> They would not recognize a fact if it fell on them ... like an iceberg.
> ...




But who cares s0n?


The answer is?


Nobody.



The whole debate is nothing more than an internet hobby for people with a rather dull life ( sorta like me......although Im in here for a cup of coffee each day only ).....nobo9dy gives a rats ass about consensus or none. In 2013, global warming is on nobodys radar >>>>

Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns



Which means any significant climate change legislation isn't happening.



Which means green energy will continue to be nothing more than a fringe market for energy.



Which means if you're a climate crusader OC>>>>>









[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)




----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 14, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...



No one denies that the climate changes, we deny that you have any compelling evidence that man has caused a run away green house effect. We deny that with in a hundred years we will all be dead if we don't cut our throats now and cripple our industry.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 14, 2013)

peach174 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Large rise in CO2 emissions sounds climate change alarm | Environment | The Guardian

US scientists reporting the second-greatest annual rise in CO2 emissions in 2012.

Carbon dioxide levels measured at at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii jumped by 2.67 parts per million (ppm) in 2012 to 395ppm, said Pieter Tans, who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The record was an increase of 2.93ppm in 1998.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 14, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> The Denialist dolts are criminally ignorant of science, and they cannot bear to think of their beliefs and way of life being challenged.
> 
> They would not recognize a fact if it fell on them ... like an iceberg.
> ...



And a couple degrees here or there won't matter much.

Don't worry we're not all gonna die.


----------



## Politico (Sep 14, 2013)

Short answer....They don't deny it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Do you know what happens when the ice & glaciers melts?
> It produces more plants.
> What does plants breath in? CO2
> 
> Seems that the Earth knows what she is doing.



But you don't.  There is not enough ice covered land on the planet to have any significant effect.  And you seem to assume that exposed land will immediately blossom with mature forests or rainforests.  Not so.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

Do any of you denier sock puppets have anything that works better than this?






No?  That's what I thought.

How about this?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> And a couple degrees here or there won't matter much.



That depends on how fast it gets here.  And where you live.



Skull Pilot said:


> Don't worry we're not all gonna die.



But some will.  And MANY will suffer and ALL will pay the very high cost.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 14, 2013)

Is the climate changing?

Well let's say it's definitely different than it has been in the recent past. 

Because of this we are witnessing the destruction of industries and the annihilation of jobs. 

And to what end? Staving off "global warming"?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Is the climate changing?
> 
> Well let's say it's definitely different than it has been in the recent past.
> 
> ...



Might I ask what point you are trying to make here?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Is the climate changing?
> ...



That there is no compelling evidence for us to ruin our industrial base to stop something we can not even prove is happening. Further if it is we can not significantly effect the supposed changes according to the doomsday cult anyway.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Are you Mr H?  Is that your post?  Unless you're confessing sock puppethood, the answer to both questions is "no".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 14, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> The Denialist dolts are criminally ignorant of science, and they cannot bear to think of their beliefs and way of life being challenged.
> 
> They would not recognize a fact if it fell on them ... like an iceberg.
> ...



Maybe it is a "fact" but unless and until you show us how you've eliminate all variables except for an additional wisp of CO2 you join the rest of the Warmer cult in the STFU club


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Is the climate changing?
> ...



Hydrocarbons are the boogeyman these days. Especially coal. Never mind that coal makes up nearly 50% of our electrical and industrial energy source. Under the guise of stemming global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it - we're being convinced by this administration that coal must simply die. Along with tens of thousands of jobs. Crude oil and natural gas are also squarely in the EPA's crosshairs. 

As was stated earlier, it is the developing nations and emerging markets of the world that pose the greatest "threat". Not the U.S.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



To bad you don't get to decide who posts in threads isn't it? As to my answer those are the facts, your doomsday cult wants us to cut our throats when they ADMIT most results according to them will not stop what they claim is happening.

Which means we need our industrial base and science to come up with another answer. Something that IS happening. New tech is coming on line all the time. And the response from you retards,,, ohh no don't use that that won't force us to go back to the dark ages like we want.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Looks like we've been busted, Gunny.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Do any of you denier sock puppets have anything that works better than this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Vostok ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> The Denialist dolts are criminally ignorant of science, and they cannot bear to think of their beliefs and way of life being challenged.
> 
> They would not recognize a fact if it fell on them ... like an iceberg.
> ...


Criminally ignorant?

What do you propose...fines, jail time, execution?

You wouldn't be the first leftist to propose using government violence to silence dissent.  If you can't get people to agree with you...jail them.  Put them in camps.  Put them in mass graves.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Do any of you denier sock puppets have anything that works better than this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I challenge your source.  I much prefer ImageShack over Tinypic.  

Wait -- you didn't really think we were just going to take your word that these graphs are accurate, did you?

You DID?


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > And a couple degrees here or there won't matter much.
> ...



And if we do like you want, some will die, MANY will suffer, and ALL will pay the very high cost.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Do any of you denier sock puppets have anything that works better than this?
> ...



His graph would, too, if it weren't compressed to represent 300,000 years.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Well... THAT really put me in MY place.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Mankind,  like all life,  adapted to our environment.  But our adaptation rather than being based on evolution and natural selection,  was mostly building things.  Farms where the fertile soil and adequate precipitation was.  Cities where deep water ports could be.  Population near where they could work.  

All of our ambition took great energy,  and we found it cheap,  plentiful,  and in easily available supply. 

It turned out that while the supply was cheap,  disposing of the waste,  CO2, was problematic. It tended to change the climate which meant it altered the weather,  warmer,  which changed the sea level. Ouch.

Fortunately,  science was able to see the subtle changes and launched intense study of the problem. 

Thanks to that,  we have some growing insight into our alternative futures.  

We can continue to use up the gift of millions of years ago,  fossil fuel,  but it will run out.  And it will warm the climate. And we will have to pay trillions to adapt our civilization to a new climate. And when it's gone,  rebuild for sustainable energy. 

Or,  we can leave some in the ground,  reduce the amount of change in the climate and therefore the adaptation costs,  by moving to sustainable energy sooner. 

Science is,  and will continue to,  determine the least expensive path. Great news except that it's a choice between two costly alternatives,  and some big businesses today will be rendered obsolete by the change from fossil fuels.  

That&#8217;s where the denial act comes from.  If we remain ignorant of the problem,  the painful solution will be delayed.  That will make it even more painful,  but pass it on to other people. 

The myth that there is a zero cost option,  has been dangled in front of the people,  and they've been lied to that science will take that away. So,  a small army has been recruited under false pretenses,  to resist the science that's looking for the least expensive path. 

Dumb for most of us.  But profitable for some of us.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> His graph would, too, if it weren't compressed to represent 300,000 years.



I do accept that for most of the Earth's history, increased CO2 has been a result of temperature increase rather than a cause.  However, work last year by Jeremy Shakun (of Marcott and Shakun fame) showed that in many instances during the Holocene, increasing CO2 levels caused substantially MORE warming than the initial effect which triggered their own release.  However, that was not the point.

During the 19th, 20th and 21st century, the correlation between CO2 level and global heat content has been exceptionally tight and through it all, CO2 levels have led.  

The 300,000 year scale has nothing to do with any point I am trying to make.  If you're interested, CO2 levels are now at values they have not reached in over 800,000 years.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> I challenge your source.  I much prefer ImageShack over Tinypic.


Woo-woo, Dave can R E A D.



daveman said:


> Wait -- you didn't really think we were just going to take your word that these graphs are accurate, did you?
> 
> You DID?



You really know no lower bound, do you.  Tell you what: fuck off asshole.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph...
> ...



So, when I give you the source for those data, you're going to admit you were wrong and apologize for being such a top-notch dickhead all this time.  Right?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > His graph would, too, if it weren't compressed to represent 300,000 years.
> ...



The forcing caused by increases in atmospheric GHGs is immediate. The earth's response to that forcing is very slow though due to the mass involved, and all of the systems that are thrown out of balance, rebalancing. 

On top of that, each increment of warming or cooling launches positive or negative feedbacks that can result in huge delays before the system fully stabilizes. 

So, even if we stopped adding GHGs today, we have no idea when stability would be ultimately restored. 

The fact that we are still undecided about when we can stop dumping just adds more uncertainty to what and when our new reality will be. 

We can measure the GHG concentration today. We can measure the current degree of climate change caused by it. Is that 10%, 50%, or 90% of what it will be when fully stabilized is very uncertain.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


It should, but you're not bright enough to recognize it, nor honest enough to acknowledge it.

If AGW is as catastrophic as you all claim, and your proposed "solution" will mitigate only a small part of the effects, then the only thing you're after is political power and government control over individual lives.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



One thing is undeniable for everybody. We will run out of fossil fuels. 

Before that, as various FFs deplete, we have to define and construct a completely new, and sustainable energy infrastructure. I'm thinking that, like the building of our present system, will take 100-200 years. 

What do you think?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 14, 2013)

The difference between today and the height of the little ice age in 1680 is around 1.6c. 

So a couple of degree's is as Biden once said, "a big fucking deal". 

8c is the difference between today AND TWO MILES OF ICE OVER CHICAGO!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





yuk........yuk........








Only internet forum mental cases think they will change the dynamic from a message board!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > His graph would, too, if it weren't compressed to represent 300,000 years.
> ...


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I challenge your source.  I much prefer ImageShack over Tinypic.
> ...


Wow.  I was right.  You really DO expect people to just take your word for it.

Tell you what:  No.  Provide citations, or STFU.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > loa said:
> ...


That depends on the quality of your source, doesn't it?

And no, I will not apologize for being an alleged dickhead, since you're revealed the source of that sore spot for you:

You expect people to believe what you say simply because you say it.

I don't know what prog echo chamber you usually hang out in, but it's done you no favors.  You're woefully unprepared for dissent.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Possibly.  Wind and solar simply can't provide the kind of power we need to replace fossil fuels.  And they're useless for transportation purposes.


----------



## rdean (Sep 14, 2013)

The right wing thinks 75% of scientists have no integrity.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I think that you are agreeing that it will probably or possibly take all the years left of our FF reserves to build a replacement system. Right?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

rdean said:


> The right wing thinks 75% of scientists have no integrity.



And they think that big oil corporations and people like Donald Trump, do.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Actually they are very good sources for transportation seeing as most driving gets done during the day. People don't realize the energy storage capacity of millions of electric cars.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

Dave bro.......you're debating a bonafide mental case here. I thought Chris was as nutty as could be humanly possible but........and shit.....this guy makes Rolling Thunder look like he has his feet on the ground!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

A third of the electric car owners will never buy another - Tokyo Times


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

Why The Electric Car Will Never Become A Widespread Phenomenon - TheStreet


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

Bjorn Lomborg: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret - WSJ.com


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

Stephen Foley: Americans don't want electric cars, even as a gift - Business Comment - Business - The Independent




Most American males wouldn't drive an electric car if you paid them!!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

The Electric Car Fantasy Dies


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

Electric-car push a failure - Philly.com


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

Electric Vehicles: Fantasy or Reality? - MSN Autos


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Who knows?  We have no way of knowing, really, how much remains in the ground.

I'm all for working on alternatives.  Truly.  But government has no business in the alternative business.  Picking winners and losers based on political purity merely flushes tax dollars down the toilet with no return on investment.  Look at Solyndra:  Half a billion dollars gone, all to reward a Dem Party donor.  The US taxpayers got screwed, and there's absolutely nothing to show for it.

Let the market do its job.  Successful technologies WILL emerge -- guaranteed.  Then they can be incorporated into the infrastructure, taking FF sources off-line as they're rendered redundant.

But it's nothing short of insanity to shut down FF sources before practical, scalable, and economical alternatives are in place.  It's short-sighted and foolish, and will only harm the most vulnerable in society -- the poor and working poor.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article30681.html


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/1005294_437232729708878_1258669765_n-1.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The right wing thinks 75% of scientists have no integrity.
> ...



"Big Oil" is essentially non-existent in the U.S. It is the Independents that are the workhorses of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons within our nation. Independent as in non-integrated non-multinational concerns. Calm down, do your homework, and get a grip.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Electric cars don't eliminate pollution; they merely relocate the source.

But have you seen an electric vehicle that can replace these?
















Battery technology will have to improve by several orders of magnitude before these types of vehicles can run off electric motors.

And as far as electric passenger vehicles go, they're simply not practical yet, either.  Limited range, too high a cost.  A Chevy Volt is fine in the city -- out here in rural areas?  Not so much.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Dave bro.......you're debating a bonafide mental case here. I thought Chris was as nutty as could be humanly possible but........and shit.....this guy makes Rolling Thunder look like he has his feet on the ground!!!



PMZ has settled down this evening, and it's enjoyable to talk with him.  I hope he keeps it up.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 14, 2013)

good grief, who the hell is denying climate change?

they act like this is something new that mother earth just started doing...I haven't noticed a huge change in the climate, but so what if it does

man has adapted before and I suppose they will again....

and for sure we don't need a bunch of uneducated politicians who haven't studied in earth science, meteorology, etc leading the way for us on how to adapt..Al bore is a perfect example...His family go their wealth from a ZINC mine they owned...and now he is preaching we must save the earth...and blaming the people in this country for the reason it is happening


----------



## landholder (Sep 14, 2013)

Science for science not science for an agenda!!!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Stephen Foley: Americans don't want electric cars, even as a gift - Business Comment - Business - The Independent
> 
> 
> Most American males wouldn't drive an electric car if you paid them!!!!!



Wait until $10 per gal gas. Even you'll be driving electric. I know that your attitude about Americans is that they're all like you. You're wrong about that. Most are much smarter.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Between then and now they'll run on CNG.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Tell that to Exxon Mobil. They won't agree.


----------



## landholder (Sep 14, 2013)

Is climate change the new "buzz word"? I have a broken clock that is right twice a day!  Climate change could be colder or hotter, wetter or dryer! I have a broken clock that is right twice a day!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The operative word is yet.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You don't know shit, so shut the fuck up troll.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If the government waits for business to welcome the future we'll be stuck here for ever. The future is risky. The present is profitable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...



I deny climate change.
As I admire the mile thick ice covering Chicago today.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Do any of you denier sock puppets have anything that works better than this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Yeah, notice how it gets warm first and _then_ the CO2 levels increase?  No, I didn't think you would.  Kills your little pet "theory" though.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


CNG has far less power than gasoline or diesel.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > His graph would, too, if it weren't compressed to represent 300,000 years.
> ...








Already discredited...do try and keep up.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The operative word is yet.


Indeed.  Yet here, too, the government is trying to pick winners and losers.

And it's failing.

Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.

Give taxpayer money to big party donors, and the taxpayers get screwed.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Cock a leg, trollop.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Exactly!
That's why we never shifted from wood to coal.
From whale oil to petroleum.
From candles to kerosene.
From coal to natural gas.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> If the government waits for business to welcome the future we'll be stuck here for ever. The future is risky. The present is profitable.


What's the government's track record on green energy investment?

Not so hot, actually.  The left points to the Tesla as a successful electric car.  But its $60K price puts it out of reach for most of America.

Industry will lead the way to sustainable energy -- if government gets out of the way.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








CNG has half the efficiency of diesel....I doubt it.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 14, 2013)

daveman said:


> Industry will lead the way to sustainable energy -- if government gets out of the way.



Actually it already has...starting about 20 years ago. 

I can list a dozen profitable private companies selling sustainable energy products - but we both know that you won't support them.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Industry will lead the way to sustainable energy -- if government gets out of the way.
> ...








Then do so.  Please...


----------



## Saigon (Sep 14, 2013)

To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only. 

Certainly literacy is also a factor, and it is clear that some of our sceptics on this board simply cannot read and write well enugh to read science or news concerning science. Most can, however.

If we list the 5 - 10 most commonly cited 'issues' with climate change, they are all political.

They are also arguments which the posters themselves frequently know not to be true, and in that this topic may be unique. Every week we see posters claiming that scientists only do what government wants them to do - and then going strangely quiet when reminded that scientists in most conservative countries also back AGW.

Such arguments are simple non sequitors, tossed out purely as an excuse to justify denying science.

There is a postive side to this in that (on this board) there are probably only one or two posters who genuinely do not understand or believe in AGW. There are simply 20 or so who will not admit to it.


----------



## westwall (Sep 15, 2013)

Still waiting.....


----------



## rdean (Sep 15, 2013)

Ice Melting Faster in Greenland and Antarctica in UN Leak

Ice in Antarctica and Greenland is disappearing faster and may drive sea levels higher than predicted this century, according to leaked United Nations documents. 

Greenlands ice added six times more to sea levels in the decade through 2011 than in the previous 10 years, according to a draft of the UNs most comprehensive study on climate change. Antarctica had a fivefold increase, and the UN is raising its forecast for how much the two ice sheets will add to Earths oceans by 2100. 

The changes in the planets coldest areas are a very good indicator of a warming planet, according to Walt Meier, a research scientist with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

--------------------------------

Scientists aren't smart like Republicans.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 15, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...




what i find intrusting is that the warmers... deny the earth. They deny what the earth has done since the earth was formed. 

_The earth_ has always warned and cooled.  That little fact has nothing to do with politics or humans for that matter. 

anyone with a science background.... knows that little fact about the earth. The earth warms and cools. 

sadly... politicians don't understand it very well at all.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Industry will lead the way to sustainable energy -- if government gets out of the way.
> ...


We do?  Why is that, do you suppose?

Name them, and let's find out, shall we?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

Syrenn - 



> anyone with a science background.... knows that little fact about the earth. The earth warms and cools.



and WHY does it warm and cool?

Because anyone with a science background knows that the earth does not warm or cool simply because it feels like it. There is no "natural cycle". 

If the earths warms, it is because something makes it warm. If it cools, it is because something makes it cool.

You really might want to read a bit more on this topic before you ignore this point.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Syrenn -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the earth warms and cools....


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only.


So it's "settled", huh?

You guys really should stop making such absolute statements.  They always turn around and bite you on the behind.

I don't deny climate change.  I deny that man has had any appreciable impact on climate change.

See?  You even got THAT wrong.


Saigon said:


> Certainly literacy is also a factor, and it is clear that some of our sceptics on this board simply cannot read and write well enugh to read science or news concerning science. Most can, however.


That _faux_ superiority is getting pretty old -- especially from someone who refuses to acknowledge science that counters his dogma.

Note:  For someone claiming to be literate, there sure are a lot of misspellings in your post.


Saigon said:


> If we list the 5 - 10 most commonly cited 'issues' with climate change, they are all political.
> 
> They are also arguments which the posters themselves frequently know not to be true, and in that this topic may be unique. Every week we see posters claiming that scientists only do what government wants them to do - and then going strangely quiet when reminded that scientists in most conservative countries also back AGW.
> 
> ...


That's the problem:  You don't want anyone to understand it -- you want everyone to believe in it.  Accept it.  Endorse it.  Above all, _don't question it_.

Those of us who value science and the scientific method simply can't do that.  We have to speak up when we see science being perverted and bastardized for political ends.

Your problem is NOT that skeptics don't understand.  Your problem is that skeptics understand all too well.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

Dave - 



> So it's "settled", huh?



Try and respond to what I post, and not what you think I might post. 

The details of climate change are far from being settled, and I doubt they ever will be totally settled, because climate is in constant flux. The basic trends, however, are settled, and have been for a decade or more. 

However, on this board the argumentation from sceptical posters is almost entirely political. Those are the arguments we see presented here most often.

btw. Sceptics do not question science, they ignore it. They also tend to swallow whatever they see on blogs and do so without hesitation. THAT is the problem in a nutshell - poor sources of information.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

syrenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Syrenn -
> ...



Jesus wept....and WHY do you think it warms and cools, Syrenn?

Because today is Sunday and the earth likes to cool every Sunday?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Well, how about Siemens? 

Ocean Power - Siemens




> For someone claiming to be literate, there sure are a lot of misspellings in your post.



No there aren't. I make typos like anyone else, and my space bar sticks, so I occasionally post wordstogether but I am more literate in my third language than most sceptics are in their first.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 15, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


The Rockefeller Family are laughing hysterically at you!!!


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 15, 2013)

Ed you're out in left field, as usual.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 15, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Ed you're out in left field, as usual.



Having fallen off the right-hand edge of the world, I'm surprised you can see that.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



I love it when someone posts things that send the message,  

''Look over here! I'm a conservative. Look at what an ass I am.''


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



But we're running out of gasoline and diesel and not natural gas.  

More evidence that the world is not as you wish it was.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*But we're running out of gasoline and diesel *

How much is left?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The operative word is yet.
> ...



I think that one of the things that keeps you out in the weeds is the idea that future energy is a simple problem with one not yet invented solution.  I see no evidence of that.  It's a very complex problem worthy of a global scientific organization,  the best of government and business and responsible private citizens. But,  none of those contributors are perfect.  In fact they're all made up of mere humans.  But we won't be given any breaks by mother nature.  The difficulty of the problem is just what is. 

Your and my choice is simple.  Contribute to either the problem, if that's all you can do,  or to the solution, if you are able.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > If the government waits for business to welcome the future we'll be stuck here for ever. The future is risky. The present is profitable.
> ...



Why would business change if the most profitable path for each individual business is doing nothing? 

Remember the one rule of each business is make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Diesel engines are easily converted to CNG with equal efficiency as with diesel fuel.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only.
> 
> Certainly literacy is also a factor, and it is clear that some of our sceptics on this board simply cannot read and write well enugh to read science or news concerning science. Most can, however.
> 
> ...



Conservatives,  like all revolutionaries,  are media creations.  They only repeat what they are told to.  No thinking,  no education,  no experience required.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Dave -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was speaking of this absolute statement of yours:

"people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only."

You think the matter of skepticism is settled.  You've dictated that it's due to politics only.  You haven't read a single piece of science we've presented that casts doubt on AGW.  

I've made quite clear that my skepticism of AGW is _firmly_ based on science.  My opposition to the solutions proposed to mitigate the effects of AGW is based on reality.

Two separate issues.

Can you see the difference, or would you rather keep arguing against what you think I might post?


Saigon said:


> The details of climate change are far from being settled, and I doubt they ever will be totally settled, because climate is in constant flux. The basic trends, however, are settled, and have been for a decade or more.


For 17 years, there has been no warming.

Is that "settled"?


Saigon said:


> However, on this board the argumentation from sceptical posters is almost entirely political. Those are the arguments we see presented here most often.


Then I submit you're seeing only what you want to see.


Saigon said:


> btw. Sceptics do not question science, they ignore it. They also tend to swallow whatever they see on blogs and do so without hesitation. THAT is the problem in a nutshell - poor sources of information.


From your point of view, that's correct.  Anything that disputes AGW dogma is automatically a "poor source of information".  

That's not very open-minded, is it?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

syrenn said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> ...



When was the previous time that the earth had 7B energy guzzling humans on it?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But we're running out of gasoline and diesel *
> 
> How much is left?



And there you go again....trying to score points by posting things that are obvious to everyone else on the forum except you. I mean....how can you post that and not feel embarassed about how obvious it is?

Maybe leave the point scoring for some of the stronger posters?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> I've made quite clear that my skepticism of AGW is _firmly_ based on science.



*HAHA HA HA Ha ha ha ha hhaaaaaaa...* oh... Jeezus, I can't stop... I can't stop...


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Why would I not support that?  That's a fine idea, and I hope they can make it work efficiently and economically -- WITHOUT government subsidies.

Or are you confusing opposition to subsidies with opposition to the technology itself?


Saigon said:


> > For someone claiming to be literate, there sure are a lot of misspellings in your post.
> 
> 
> 
> No there aren't. I make typos like anyone else, and my space bar sticks, so I occasionally post wordstogether but I am more literate in my third language than most sceptics are in their first.


Uh huh.  Again, you definition of "literacy" differs from mine.  Do you perhaps mean "liturgy"?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

Dave -

Again, please try to respond to what I post, not what you are thinking. 



> For 17 years, there has been no warming.
> 
> Is that "settled"?



I specifically said that the science is not completely settled, and never will be, because of the nature of climate. 

But to answer your question  - yes, the basic forces and trends of climate change are known and proven beyond any reasonable doubt. If you want to call that "settled" then go with that.



> Anything that disputes AGW dogma is automatically a "poor source of information".
> 
> That's not very open-minded, is it?



It's also obviously false. Use reliable sources, and you'll enjoy a better standard of debate. The problem for sceptics is that very, very little real science agrees with you, so there aren't many reliable sources for you to access.




> You think the matter of skepticism is settled. You've dictated that it's due to politics only. You haven't read a single piece of science we've presented that casts doubt on AGW.



Some science...but very little. Most of the "science" presented by sceptics here is just stuff from blogs and newspaper - you know that as well as I do.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only.
> ...



Scientists want everyone capable of contributing to do so.  Conservatives have been taught that everyone is equally capable of contributing to the science.  While that's a a laughable proposition,  conservatives fall for it every time.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


How much is left?


PMZ said:


> More evidence that the world is not as you wish it was.


How about you ASK what I wish the world is, instead of assuming based on your bigotry?  Then we can compare my wishes to reality.

Pffft.  For several hours, you weren't an ass.  I guess all good things come to an end.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only.
> ...



You keep using the word ''settled''.  Some is,  some isn't,  and scientists can tell the difference.  Thats a fundamental truth of science.


----------



## rdean (Sep 15, 2013)

syrenn said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> ...



Sadly, "warms and cools" is as deep as it goes for mindless right wingers.


----------



## rdean (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I don't believe anything is ever "settled" in science.  I remember when no one believed black holes were possible or that the Universe is still expanding.

But evolution and Climate Change are about as close as you can get.  Some minor details may change, some aspects may be debated, but the general premise stays the same.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

Daveman - 



> Why would I not support that? That's a fine idea, and I hope they can make it work efficiently and economically -- WITHOUT government subsidies.



Why....coal never has. (See my sig line).

I don't support ongoing subsidies either - but I have no problem with feed-in tariffs as countries transition from the old to the new. 

btw. There is only one definition for literacy. If you think Skooks or Frank are literate, you need to check a dictionary.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


What keeps me out in the weeds, as you term it, is realism.  


PMZ said:


> ...is the idea that future energy is a simple problem with one not yet invented solution.  I see no evidence of that.


I have never said anything remotely like that.


PMZ said:


> It's a very complex problem worthy of a global scientific organization...


Let me guess:  The IPCC.


PMZ said:


> ...the best of government and business and responsible private citizens. But,  none of those contributors are perfect.  In fact their all made up of mere humans.  But we won't be given any breaks by mother nature.  The difficulty of the problem is just what is.
> 
> Your and my choice is simple.  Contribute to either the problem if that's all you can do,  or to the solution if you are able.


Your attitude is that you see anything that doesn't exactly parallel your proposed solution as being part of the problem.

It's a closed-minded and narrow view.  Your way or the highway.  You're either with us or against us.

I'm guessing you criticized George Bush for that attitude.

Problems can have many solutions.  Just because you don't like some of them based on emotion reasons doesn't mean they're not viable.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Nobody knows.  What we do know is that we took the easy stuff first.  What's left is the most expensive in every respect to harvest and use.  And the demand from third world countries is growing at the same rate that our demand grew when we were developing.  Thats why big oil has instructed you to act the way that you are.  There is nothing more profitable than high demand,  low supply of a hard to produce commodity.  Think diamonds.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

rdean said:


> I don't believe anything is ever "settled" in science.  I remember when no one believed black holes were possible or that the Universe is still expanding.
> 
> But evolution and Climate Change are about as close as you can get.  Some minor details may change, some aspects may be debated, but the general premise stays the same.



That is very well said.

I don't like the word "settled", but I think the overwhelming scientific evidence is fairly clear on most of the major aspects of AGW. There is still one way to go in some aspects, though.(e.g. oceanic pH change).


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Dave -
> ...



Science is not an opinion.  We know right science from non science. The more complex it is,  the more education is required to know the right stuff. 

So you're right. 

Anything that disputes AGW science is automatically a "poor source of information".


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Science is not an opinion.  We know right science from non science. The more complex it is,  the more education is required to know the right stuff.
> 
> So you're right.
> 
> Anything that disputes AGW science is automatically a "poor source of information".



I take your point, but I disagree with this - I think there is some excellent science out there which challenges the details of climate change; just not the basic trends. 

We know human-released CO2 is causing temperatures to rise; but the extent of that rise is still hotly contested and contestable.

Most of our sceptics won't read that material, though, because they will only read the extremist blogs who assure them nothing at all is changing, anyway, ever.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Exxon?s $100m Algae Investment Falls Flat
Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM) is cutting its losses on algae biofuels after investing over $100 million only to find that it couldnt achieve commercial viability.

Earlier this week, Exxon announced that while it wasnt throwing in the towel, it would be forced to restructure its algae research with partner California-based Synthetic Genomics Inc (SGI).

When the two launched their algae-derived biofuels program in 2009, Exxon planned to invest around $600 million with the goal of developing algae fuels within 10 years.​They tried it, and it didn't work out.  

Why would they try it, if all they were interested was black goo from the ground?

Because sometimes, trying different things works:

Chevron Bets on $30 Billion Volcanoes Beneath Rainforest - Bloomberg
Chevron Corp. (CVX) drilled 84 wells to a depth of two miles beneath the Indonesian rainforest to tap steam, not oil and gas, thats trapped in the worlds richest store of volcanic energy.
The oil drillers geothermal plant, set among wild orchids and bamboo trees, uses 315 degree Celsius (600 degree Fahrenheit) heat to spin turbines 24 hours a day, generating electricity for Jakarta, a four-hour drive to the north. Chevron, which pioneered geothermal energy 20 years ago in Southeast Asias biggest economy, is about to see competition.

Companies from General Electric Co. (GE) to Indias Tata Corp. are leading an investment boom in Indonesia that may climb to more than $30 billion, anticipating President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will honor his promise in February to boost clean- energy subsidies. The pledge has spurred the biggest geothermal spending spree in Asia and the largest outside of the U.S.​Chevron Announces Re-Entry into US Geothermal Market
Chevron announced yesterday that the company is re-entering the US geothermal power market after an absence of some years. 

Gregg Rotenberg  Vice President of Strategy and Renewable Energy Investment at Chevron made the announcement during a speech at the Opening Session of the 36th GRC Annual Meeting in Reno, Nevada. 

Gregg said that Chevron has been studying investment opportunities in the U.S. for some time. Chevron now wants to join with partners in projects - not be a sole owner or operator of a project. 

The company is interested in projects of at least 10 MW and could also include co-production. 

Gregg said that Chevron had, in fact begun investing in geothermal power projects in the U.S., and that the company had been a silent partner in financing the EnergySource Hudson I project in the Imperial Valley in California.​
Looky there:  EEEEEvil Big Oil looking to make money off of alternative energy.

I'll bet you didn't know about any of that, did you?


----------



## Sallow (Sep 15, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...



Big oil is a multiple billion industry which has this government jumping to every whim they have. Our congress and state governments are populated with folks in the pocket of big oil. They also can afford to buy scientists that provide dubious research to muddy up the debate.

We are probably at a point where even if what was required was done immediately, the damage is still going to be with us for the next century or so. But something has to be done to assure we aren't going to destroy the biosphere over the long term.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

rdean said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Every advancement in science is built on many things known to be true.  We know empirically and theoretically the capabilities of calculus for example. Nobody has to prove that to use calculus. Science is growing and dynamic.  But the use of the word settled is typically used by people who find the truth of science inconvenient to their politics.  They can use not settled to imply that nothing is really known.  And that's just not correct.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Science is not an opinion.  We know right science from non science. The more complex it is,  the more education is required to know the right stuff.
> ...



It's "excellent" because it is well funded.

By big oil.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 15, 2013)

rdean said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



We still haven't found HOW gravity propagates, or why the Sun's corona is millions of degrees hotter than the surface or what something as large as the Moon is doing in orbit around the Earth, but we know for certain that a test tank filled with 800PPM of CO2 will show an 8 degree higher temperature than a test tank filled with regular air.

Oh no, wait, we don't have ANY experiments on adding CO2 to a test tank.

Sorry


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> Looky there:  EEEEEvil Big Oil looking to make money off of alternative energy.
> 
> I'll bet you didn't know about any of that, did you?



Are you kidding?

There are TV ads from every major oil company telling us how green they are and how algal fuels may be the next big thing etc, etc. 

That doesn't mean they are, or it is.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If you mean that my mind is closed to things provably not true,  then you are correct.  You are against any admission that others know more than you on any topic.  Thats just not true of anyone.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



My opinion is that George B was a hood ornament.  Like Reagan.  They were along for the ride while others did the even light lifting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But we're running out of gasoline and diesel *
> ...



He made a silly claim with no backup.
You can accept it blindly, I choose to question the claim.
Maybe you have some actual numbers for this claim?

Now run along and don't come back without some facts.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

Todd -

I'll try and post this at a level you might be able to follow - is the amount of oil left limitless?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still making that silly claim about coal? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Nobody knows. *

Then you shouldn't make the claim you did.

*There is nothing more profitable than high demand,  low supply of a hard to produce commodity.  Think diamonds.*

You think there's a low supply of diamonds? LOL!


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I'll try and post this at a level you might be able to follow - is the amount of oil left limitless?



It's pretty close.  With new recovery methods the amount of recoverable oil is 6.2 trillion barrels - enough to last hundreds of years.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Science is not an opinion.  We know right science from non science. The more complex it is,  the more education is required to know the right stuff.
> ...



You are correct of course.  There is stuff that we know and stuff still under study. We know that atmospheric GHG increasing concentration causes AGW.  What we don't know is how far even today's will take climate because there are positive feedback tipping points like ice and snow loss that may take 100 years before they restabilize. But science has always been based on knowing stuff reliable enough to count on, vs stuff still being explored.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Diesel engines are easily converted to CNG with equal efficiency as with diesel fuel.



Not really.

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/SpecialReports/NGV_School_Bus_2012.pdf
A Feasibility Study of Natural Gas Vehicle Conversion 
In Wyoming Public School Districts

--

Fuel Economy 
CNG fuel tanks are heavier than their diesel counterparts, adding about 2,500 pounds for a five-tank bus. Increased vehicle weight reduces fuel efficiency. This is important because fuel efficiency must be considered when comparing fuel costs. A diesel gallon equivalent is the amount of CNG required to equal the energy content  expressed as British Thermal Units or BTUs  of one gallon of diesel fuel. However, there are substantial variances in the manner and efficiency with which the different engines convert fuel energy potential. It is commonly acknowledged that a spark ignition natural gas engine is somewhat less fuel efficient (i.e. lower fuel economy) than a compression ignition diesel engine. Based on multiple publications and citations3,4,5, this report assumes an average fuel economy of 7.0 miles per gallon (MPG) for diesel buses, and 6.0 miles per DGE for CNG buses. This equates to a 14.3 percent reduction in efficiency.​
Nor is the conversion cheap or easy.

CNG Engine and Diesel Engine Conversion
Diesel Engine Conversions:

Suggested engine modifications to assure engine reliability, optimized power, low fuel consumption and emissions may include optimizing compression ratio, engine cooling and engine lubrication. A properly modified engine can make the same power as the base diesel engine.

Considerations:
            May need to improve cooling system efficiency
            May need engine oil cooler
            May need new valves, valve seats, guides and seals
            May need new pistons and rings
            Engine compression must be lowered
            Ignition system must be installed
            Cylinder head modifications are needed to install spark plugs


 NOTE:

*          A detailed project evaluation and thorough inspection of the engines is required
prior to purchase order acceptance.

*          Not all diesel engines can be cost effectively converted. Some engines require a great amount of mechanical changes to operate reliably. Some converted engines can not be tuned to the strictest emission standards.​


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So called "feed-in tariffs" are subsidies, dipstick.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > To answer the OP, people deny climate change for political reasons, and political reasons only.
> ...


So now conservatives are "revolutionaries".


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But we're running out of gasoline and diesel *
> ...


You mean everyone knows but us how much is left?

Then you won't have any problem telling us, will you?


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I've made quite clear that my skepticism of AGW is _firmly_ based on science.
> ...



You don't get to dictate what is and isn't science.  

I know that comes as a shock to you.  Take a deep breath.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You assume that you have been given the responsibility,  by God I suppose,  to certify what is reliably known vs under study. Personally,  in the arena of climate science,  I can't imagine a less qualified person to be given that job.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Left-wingers can't decide whether conservatives want to maintain the status quo or whether they are dangerous radicals.  Liberals simply take any word that has negative connotations with the public and apply it to conservatives.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



That is good news - so how many years of oil does the US have left underground, based on current usage and on what can be viably extracted?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You've hit the nail on the head there.  These warmist cult members believe they dictate what constitutes science.  The scary part is the fact that when presented with an obviously flawed experiment that supposedly demonstrated the greenhouse effect, they didn't have a clue.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



several hundred years worth.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I mean that everyone but Todd knows that the US has very limited amounts of domestic oil left. 

It isn't just what oil Venezuela and Iran have left that matters here, is it?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



On other threads,  and on the Internet,  are any number of lab demonstrations of the longwave absorption of CO2. Of course one has to look for them.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Dave -
> 
> Again, please try to respond to what I post, not what you are thinking.


I was responding to what you posted.  You made an absolute statement, that all skepticism is political, so I asked you if that was settled.

Stop trying to run away from your statement.  You made it, it's there for the world to see, and it's silly to pretend you didn't make it.


Saigon said:


> > For 17 years, there has been no warming.
> >
> > Is that "settled"?
> 
> ...


The current trend is no warming.  Can you acknowledge that?


Saigon said:


> > Anything that disputes AGW dogma is automatically a "poor source of information".
> >
> > That's not very open-minded, is it?
> 
> ...


Like I said:  You're not reading what's presented.  

You're suffering from the "consensus" delusion.  You even ignore the studies that show the "consensus" is made up.  

But, hey, it's not like you're open-minded or anything.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Oh, and you think you're qualified?  Are you one of the witless cult members who thought an obviously flawed experiment validated the theory of greenhouse gases?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



However, you have already demonstrated that you aren't capable of differentiating between the valid ones and abracadabra.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Scientists want everyone capable of contributing to do so.  Conservatives have been taught that everyone is equally capable of contributing to the science.  While that's a a laughable proposition,  conservatives fall for it every time.



It would be laughable, if anyone had made it.

But then, your side believes that actors and singers are experts in geopolitics -- if they say things you agree with.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



We have tons of oil left, if the government would allow energy companies to drill for it.  At the urging of environmental numskulls, Obama is moving quickly to place most of our reserves off limits.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


I wouldn't use the word if you guys didn't all the time to try to silence debate.  I keep saying science is NEVER settled.


----------



## Sallow (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



He probably meant to post "reactionary" which is appropriate.

But never let a good "gotcha' go..right?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



By definition the supply is held to much less than demand. It's called business.  Make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I see you bitterly clinging to that discredited notion.

Tax breaks that other companies enjoy as well are not coal subsidies.


Saigon said:


> I don't support ongoing subsidies either - but I have no problem with feed-in tariffs as countries transition from the old to the new.


Feed-in tarrifs ARE subsidies.

Feed-in tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A feed-in tariff (FIT, standard offer contract[1] advanced renewable tariff[2] or renewable energy payments[3]) is a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in renewable energy technologies. It achieves this by offering long-term contracts to renewable energy producers, typically based on the cost of generation of each technology.[1][4]​A horse of a different color would smell as sweet, or something like that.


Saigon said:


> btw. There is only one definition for literacy. If you think Skooks or Frank are literate, you need to check a dictionary.


They have a reasonable command of the English language, and can get their ideas across.

So it looks like I was right:  You mean "liturgy", not "literacy".


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Thats why big oil has instructed you to act the way that you are.


Oh, just stop it.  You don't make yourself look like an independent thinker by parroting your own programming.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

Sallow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So he's illiterate on top of being a scientific ignoramus?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Define recoverable.  When used by big oil it typically means at any cost,  monetarily and environmentally,  and of any quality,  and requiring any degree of refinement,  and from any other source country.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Science is not an opinion.  We know right science from non science. The more complex it is,  the more education is required to know the right stuff.
> 
> So you're right.
> 
> Anything that disputes AGW science is automatically a "poor source of information".


You certainly are _proud_ of being closed-minded, aren't you?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



By definition of what?  According to economics, supply and demand always intersect.  That determines the price.  You do understand the laws of supply and demand, do you not?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Science is not an opinion.  We know right science from non science. The more complex it is,  the more education is required to know the right stuff.
> 
> So you're right.
> 
> Anything that disputes AGW science is automatically a "poor source of information".



*ROFL!*

You kill me!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I'm concerned that that comes as a surprise to you.  When you want to end current government in favor of a drastically different approach that's by definition,  revolutionary.  Democracy,  like we enjoy today,  is by its very nature,  evolutionary.  Look how long it took we,  the people,  to correct the flaws in our original Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



No it doesn't.  It means "economically recoverable."  That means at a price that oil companies can make a profit on.  At an oil price of $100/bbl, there are 6.2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the ground.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



And you are wrong about that.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Science is not an opinion.  We know right science from non science. The more complex it is,  the more education is required to know the right stuff.
> ...



Anyone completely open minded must know nothing.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

> They have a reasonable command of the English language, and can get their ideas across.



Would you mind linking to any post of Skooks that demonstrates this?

And yes, of course feed-in tariffs are forms of subsidies - but are intended as a temporary incentive to allow companies to invest in necessary infrastructure.  It's considerably less than what most countries have allowed coal over the years.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No one thinks we can dispose of democracy overnight.  Just like the way liberals have spent the last 150 years undermining the Constitutional government the Founding Fathers originally setup, we are willing to bide our time.

That makes us liberals, doesn't it?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're scary stupid. 

There is what's true yesterday and today,  and there is planning for the future.  To determine the price that something will be sold for,  businesses consider what the supply and demand possibilities are.  Curves.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Says who?  At what environmental and defense cost?  How many years worth is that giving the rising demand. What does that assume about future energy wasting automobiles?  

So many questions.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> But the use of the word settled is typically used by people who find the truth of science inconvenient to their politics.


You're right.

"The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming," Jackson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "That conclusion is not a partisan one."

"Climategate" aside, here's what we know: a blanket of greenhouse gases is suffocating the earth. The thickness of this blanket is highly correlated with human activity, including deforestation and development. Rising levels of carbon dioxide are acidifying oceans and destroying coral reefs -- the bottom of the food chain. Most scientists strongly believe, but do not know for sure, that temperatures will rise fairly steadily over the next century, throwing human life as we know it into chaos. It is hard to get rid of carbon dioxide, so the natural policy to reverse or stall the warming trend would be to reduce the amount of carbon emitted.  Much of the science is settled, but parts of it, particularly temperature projections, are subject to large margins of error -- though often, this error redounds to the benefit of those scientists whose projections were too conservative.

This is the truth, folks, the science is settled: Global warming is real and humans are causing it.


Yep, a lot of people find truth inconvenient to their politics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*You're scary stupid. *

Says the guy who doesn't know plutonium can be used in reactors.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



From Wikipedia. 

''Oil reserves are the amount of technically and economically recoverable oil. Reserves may be for a well, for a reservoir, for a field, for a nation, or for the world. Different classifications of reserves are related to their degree of certainty.''

''The total estimated amount of oil in an oil reservoir, including both producible and non-producible oil, is called oil in place. However, because of reservoir characteristics and limitations in petroleum extraction technologies, only a fraction of this oil can be brought to the surface, and it is only this producible fraction that is considered to be reserves. The ratio of producible oil reserves to total oil in place for a given field is often referred to as the recovery factor. Recovery factors vary greatly among oil fields. The recovery factor of any particular field may change over time based on operating history and in response to changes in technology and economics. The recovery factor may also rise over time if additional investment is made in enhanced oil recovery techniques such as gas injection, surfactants injection, water-flooding,[1] or microbial enhanced oil recovery.''

''Based on data from OPEC at the beginning of 2011 the highest proved oil reserves including non-conventional oil deposits are in Venezuela (20% of global reserves), Saudi Arabia (18% of global reserves), Canada (13% of global reserves), and Iran (9%).''

''Because the geology of the subsurface cannot be examined directly, indirect techniques must be used to estimate the size and recoverability of the resource. While new technologies have increased the accuracy of these techniques, significant uncertainties still remain. In general, most early estimates of the reserves of an oil field are conservative and tend to grow with time. This phenomenon is called reserves growth.''

''Many oil-producing nations do not reveal their reservoir engineering field data and instead provide unaudited claims for their oil reserves. The numbers disclosed by some national governments are suspected of being manipulated for political reasons.''


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Looky there:  EEEEEvil Big Oil looking to make money off of alternative energy.
> ...


Oddly enough, you removed the articles from my post proving they are.

Do you really believe that by not looking at those articles, you can alter reality?


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> If you mean that my mind is closed to things provably not true,  then you are correct.


How do you know they're provably not true if you don't even look at them?

Oh, yes, that's right.  You've made up your mind, and therefore no further input is required.

That's being closed-minded, Skippy.


PMZ said:


> You are against any admission that others know more than you on any topic.  Thats just not true of anyone.


You keep making stuff up about me, contrary to things I've written.

Why is that?  Why do you need to lie?  Is it because you acknowledge reality doesn't support what you wish to be true?


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Deflection.  I'm 97% certain you've criticized Bush for saying "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Probably because you felt your toes being stepped on.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


You should use a spotter when you're backpedaling.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Oh, no, it's no surprise at all to me.

I'm a conservative Christian gun-owning veteran who supports small government.  This Administration has already declared me a potential domestic terrorist for not embracing Groupthink.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Wow.  Just...wow.

You are _profoundly_ ignorant about science, kid.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


And now you claim closed-mindedness is a virtue!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Liberals took an early flawed governmental concept,  a plutocracy modeled after the European aristocracies of the founders times,  and changed it into an equal rights for everyone democracy. Conservatives have resisted every step in every way possible. 

The bills from the latest attempt at conservative government will still be getting paid off by dozens of future generations. 

The majority of the electorate is now well informed about those limitations in conservatism.  

No Whitehouse for you in any of our lifetimes.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > They have a reasonable command of the English language, and can get their ideas across.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind linking to any post of Skooks that demonstrates this?


He doesn't believe the AGW cult.  He posts links to polls showing the public is increasingly uninterested in your doomsday predictions.

What's so hard for you to understand?


Saigon said:


> And yes, of course feed-in tariffs are forms of subsidies - but are intended as a temporary incentive to allow companies to invest in necessary infrastructure.  It's considerably less than what most countries have allowed coal over the years.


Then why do you keep insisting feed-in tariffs are NOT subsidies?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I like it when the Toddster has to blatantly lie because no truth will serve his politics.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > If you mean that my mind is closed to things provably not true,  then you are correct.
> ...



I don't think like you do.  I accept reality as it becomes known and live my life according to it. I was completely open minded about all AGW possibilities until science determined the truth. Now we know what it makes sense to work on now.  I had a whole career doing this so I'm pretty confident in my abilities. 

Unfortunately I'm no longer in a position to contribute much to the development of solutions,  but I can support the process. Because I know that it works. 

Doing nothing now is completely nonsensical to me.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



What you wish was true about me is no more true than any of your other wishes. 

The perfect loser.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



But you are the poster boy for group think. That's why you are indeed a threat to America and our way of life.  You are the real Archie Bunker.  He was funny to watch but only on TV.  Not so funny in person.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



There was so much important stuff to criticize the Bushman for that I had no time for trivialities.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You don't think at all.


PMZ said:


> I accept reality as it becomes known and live my life according to it. I was completely open minded about all AGW possibilities until science determined the truth.


You were open to all possibilities...except for one:  That it's not happening.

You heard what you liked, and that defined reality for you.  Your mind snapped shut.


PMZ said:


> Now we know what it makes sense to work on now.  I had a whole career doing this so I'm pretty confident in my abilities.
> 
> Unfortunately I'm no longer in a position to contribute much to the development of solutions,  but I can support the process. Because I know that it works.
> 
> Doing nothing now is completely nonsensical to me.


I guess you didn't notice that I've NEVER advocated doing nothing.

More lies.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statement, hypothesis, or theory whereby it could be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". *Science must be falsifiable. The scientific method can not be implemented without the theoretical possibilities of both disproof and verification.*​You deny that AGW can be disproved.  Most on your side do.

That's not science.  It's dogma.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You're not paying attention, kid.  I'm a threat because I don't subscribe to progressive Groupthink.  I hold dangerous an unapproved ideas.

Were you drinking last night when you were reasonable?


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I have no proof, of course, but I'm certain you're lying.


----------



## numan (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> I have no proof, of course, but I'm certain you're lying.


That could be said of everything which you claim. · · 

.


----------



## alan1 (Sep 15, 2013)

loa said:


> Why do so many people deny climate change.



It is more a questioning of whether or not mankind is responsible or can control/alter climate change.  Not climate change itself.
You did a piss-poor job of claiming something exists where it does not.  Very unscientific of you when you attempt to create a scientific post.

Fail.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Pointing out your ignorance is not a lie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"Wouldn't it make sense to reprocess and burn the plutonium in a reactor"

*Do you understand the differences between power plants and bombs? Power plants are controllable. Bombs go boom. Plutonium is for bombs. *
__________________


http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...bal-warming-is-a-religion-30.html#post7815406

Poor PMZ, can't hide from your own posts.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> You deny that AGW can be disproved.  Most on your side do.



If you're not lying, you'll be able to specifically point to these people and where they said such a crazy thing. But I'm guessing you'll just respond with that usual vague handwaving thing where you declare how you magically know what all the dirty liberals _really_ think. 

AGW is disproven if the world starts cooling. That would be the whole world, which would include the oceans. It would also be disproven if the heat balance wasn't a net positive. There are more, but the point is there are specific measurable conditions which could disprove AGW theory.



> That's not science.  It's dogma.



Denialism, on the other hand, is undisprovable pseudoscience. The earth warms? Just scream "Natural cycles!". Heat balance positive? Yell "Cosmic rays are changing the clouds!". And so on. Every sign of warming has a convenient excuse to be handwaved away.

Feel free to prove me incorrect. Simply list some things could disprove denialism. Be specific and realistic.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You have been completely unable to offer any evidence,  any science,  that demonstrates even the possibility that atmospheric GHGs do not cause global warming.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You are a big oil robot.  Bought and paid for.  So much that you don't even care that there is zero evidence of what you've been taught to want is real.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you're saying that nuclear bombs don't use plutonium.  Thats the point.  Remember?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

alan1 said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > Why do so many people deny climate change.
> ...



Who denies that we can stop making it worse?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well,  it turns out that it is no matter what you feel entitled to.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 15, 2013)

Global warming/ Climate change is so 2001. I'm just amazed by the parallels of people who write a post about non christians going to hell and a post about Earth burning to a cinder if the climate change "deniers" don't jump on board with a morally and intellectually "superior" religion... oops.. I mean "scientific" mandate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Bombs can use plutonium and uranium 235.
So can reactors.
First time you've heard this?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's your job to prove that it does, not our job to prove that it doesn't.  I also don't have to prove that Big Foot doesn't exist.   See, that's how the scientific method works.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You deny that AGW can be disproved.  Most on your side do.
> ...


Look, I really don't think I can teach you logical thinking in one post, but let's see what happens.

Anyone who declares the science is settled, the debate is over -- they're denying that AGW can be disproved.

Get it now, or is you skull too full of unmerited arrogance to allow any logic in?


mamooth said:


> AGW is disproven if the world starts cooling. That would be the whole world, which would include the oceans. It would also be disproven if the heat balance wasn't a net positive. There are more, but the point is there are specific measurable conditions which could disprove AGW theory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How about science?  How about proving that the AGW cult has NOT proved their case?

Naturally, you won't accept anything like that, will you?

I've presented enough studies the past few days to give a reasonable person something to think about.

But since most AGW cultists are not reasonable, nor do they think, what I've presented has no effect.

Thank you for illustrating this so excellently.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Oooh, great job, Captain Strawman!

Probably because I've never claimed that.  I really DO wish you'd stop lying about what I've said.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Or were you sober last night for the first time since you joined here?

Yes, I think that's much more likely.


----------



## alan1 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > loa said:
> ...



What proves that we are making it worse?

I find it almost hysterical that your post title claims that people deny climate change when that really isn't the slightest bit of truth.  As I said, it is more a questioning of whether mankind is responsible or can control it.
I'm kinda leaning towards the "no, we can't".  Sorta like we can't stop climate altering volcanoes like this or this


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 15, 2013)

alan1 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



A few things Alan:

The close correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures since 1870

The isotopic analysis that shows 100% of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The fact that no climate model that ignores AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years.

The simple bookkeeping summation of fossil fuels burned and the simple chemical calculation of how much CO2 they would produce.

The calculation from first principles of the radiative forcing factor created by adding 130 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere over a 150 year period.

And, uhhh.. Alan, are you one of those folks that think volcanos are the dominant source of GHGs?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*The fact that no climate model that ignores AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years.*

Which models that assume AGW can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No.  We deny that anyone has shown any evidence that increased GHG concentration will not lead to AGW.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



How come nobody has shown any evidence or any theory even that explains how increased atmospheric GHG concentrations do not lead to AGW.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You betray your ignorance yet again.

It's up to the people making the claim that more GHG will lead to AGW to prove it.

So far, they haven't.


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Because we don't have to.  It's up to you to prove they do.

You may THINK they've proven it, but that's only because you _want_ to believe it.

Wishful thinking is not a rational basis for science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Global warming/ Climate change is so 2001. I'm just amazed by the parallels of people who write a post about non christians going to hell and a post about Earth burning to a cinder if the climate change "deniers" don't jump on board with a morally and intellectually "superior" religion... oops.. I mean "scientific" mandate.



GHG caused AGW is an absolute certainty.  There is no other possibility.  That does not change if the science is denied.  So the choices are: accept the science,  or,  deny the science.  No matter what choice you or any other denier makes,  the science and nature stays the same.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's what I said.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



We have proved it.  You saying that you don't understand the proof does not change it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No. You said plutonium was for bombs, when you were claiming I was wrong to say it should be burned in reactors, to reduce proliferation worries.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming/ Climate change is so 2001. I'm just amazed by the parallels of people who write a post about non christians going to hell and a post about Earth burning to a cinder if the climate change "deniers" don't jump on board with a morally and intellectually "superior" religion... oops.. I mean "scientific" mandate.
> ...



 You do realize that you sound like a religious fanatic, right?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



What nobody has ever given here is what could possibly prevent GHGs from absorbing long wave from Earth,  then immediately re-radiating it in all directions thus preventing half of the outgoing emmissions from Earth,  and requiring AGW to rebalance outgoing with incoming radiation. 

To prove any other result you would have to prove that CO2 is not a GHG.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You've never denied AGW? That is the most bizarre thing that I 'very heard.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

alan1 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



Burning fossil fuels always adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. 

Carbon dioxide is always a GHG. 

The rise in atmospheric GHG concentrations in the last 150 years correlates with the fossil fuel use since we have been using them. 

What other possibility than AGW follows that evidence?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



Simple energy balance calculations.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



They have.  You are denying science.  But offering no other explanation for the data.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No, that one is from my "look over here, I've spent the last 36 years of my life in the petroleum industry". 

Walk in my boots or lick my boots, you fuck.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 15, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...



Yeah sure, climate changes. That's why they call it climate. It changed back in Lincoln's time just like it changes today. Lately the slick climate extortionists have been leaving out the words "man-made" from climate change. In 1919 it was a year without summer. In 1888 the US experienced the worst winter in history and it wasn't caused by gas guzzling cars. The radical extortionists have the argument surrounded. If it's cold it's really warming and if it's nice out the radicals hate it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



This is as bizarre an argument as I've ever seen.  You worked in the petroleum business for 36 years, therefore we have to consider you an expert in climate science. 

Now if you said that you've been studying in a climate science education program for 36 years and have a PhD,  that might rate a little credibility. 

But,  pumping gas is really not a qualification. 

Dumb fuck.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

whitehall said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> ...



You need to learn the difference between climate and weather.  Also the difference between variability that's random and variability from assignable cause.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > loa said:
> ...



So is the flooding in Colorado an example of climate or weather?


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



At least I don't live in my parent's basement, you fucking loser. 

Go pop some more pimples and suck on your sugar sticks. It'll make you feel better.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



I love it when conservatives show us what they're made of.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Deniers,  supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following. 

The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.

CO2 is a GHG.  

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased since mankind has been burning fossil fuels,  and at a rate of increase that closely tracks the rate of consumption of fossil fuels. 

GHGs are defined as gasses that absorb and re-emit long wave emissions  from Earth. 

The action of atmospheric GHGs prevents half of the radiation that they absorb from leaving our atmosphere. 

For all passive heavenly bodies energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is stable.  If in is greater than out warming will occur.  If in is less than out,  cooling will occur. 

For AGW to not occur,  one of those statements must be proven false. 

Have at it.


----------



## westwall (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Simple huh?  Show them to us....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



This should be good.


----------



## westwall (Sep 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








I'm sure not holding my breath.....


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> I'm sure not holding my breath.



That is a shame.






See the little blue snippet at the extreme left end of the Gaussian curve?  That's like the 'evidence' supporting your side of the argument.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What nobody has ever given here is what could possibly prevent GHGs from absorbing long wave from Earth,  then immediately re-radiating it in all directions thus preventing half of the outgoing emmissions from Earth,  and requiring AGW to rebalance outgoing with incoming radiation.
> 
> To prove any other result you would have to prove that CO2 is not a GHG.



One more time for the progressivism-impaired:

We don't have to prove AGW is false.  YOU have to prove it's REAL.  

And no, stamping your feet and shouting is not a compelling argument.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What are you, stupid?

Rhetorical question.  Don't bother answering.

I've never claimed that greenhouse gases cause global warming.

I dispute the claim that man's small amount of greenhouse gases are responsible for any appreciable warming, and that there will be catastrophic consequences.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Your "data" is manipulated, skewed, distorted, and invented.

That's because you morons started off with your conclusion, then massaged the data to fit it.

That's simply bad science.  Stop it.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You're a pimply-faced 17-year-old kid, therefore we have to consider you an expert in climate science?

Oh, and don't forget, you're also an expert in psychology and primatology, too.

Do you know any reason I shouldn't laugh in your pimply face?

Me, neither.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure not holding my breath.
> ...



Did PMS ASK you for your help or is it just that you see him floundering?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



When is some science going to show up in your denying?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> [
> 
> To prove any other result you would have to prove that CO2 is not a GHG.



Actually first, you must prove your assumption that molecules radiate in every direction.  Got any observable experiment that proves such a thing or are you working from a mathematical model which you happen to believe.....then you must prove that the warmer object then absorbs the radiation from the cooler object...again, any observable experiment or are you once more operating from an unproven mathematical model?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Simple?

Then what is (within 1 degree) the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2.  If they are simple, then you should be able to provide a sensitivity to within a fraction of a degree, but lets work with whole numbers...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You need to learn the difference between climate and weather.  Also the difference between variability that's random and variability from assignable cause.



According to the scientific method, corelation is not justification to assign a cause....it is a place to start looking, but not reason to assign cause.  What observable experiment proves that increasing CO2 by 100 parts per million will result in the warming we have seen in the past 100 years?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Demanding that skeptics prove your Chicken Little theories aren't true is the sign of a scientific ignoramus.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The answers to all of your questions are known and accepted as standard quantum physics by virtually every qualified scientist on the planet. You chose to reman ignorant of that science.  Your choice,  but nobody owes you a thing in response to your choices. 

Among the many learning opportunities that you've been offered here out of pity for your condition is the series of UChicago lectures recently posted by Joe Normal.  All of your questions were answered,  but you think by ignoring that, by refusing to learn,  the answers can be avoided. 

Why conservatives think that if they profess ignorance,  their dreams of power will be answered,  is beyond me.  Out of ignorance only comes more ignorance.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I only demand that chicken little skeptics prove their wannabe theories.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I have no theories about climate.  I simply question the validity of yours.  Your demands are the indication of a scientific ignoramus.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



So did we until it was proven.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Statements like that are the sure sign of a scientific ignoramus.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The existence of positive feedbacks,  and the fact that we have not agreed to a path forward relative to ongoing use of FFs, makes that answer unknowable with certainty. 

The best climate minds in the country have estimated the range of possibilities to be 3 to 12 degrees C.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 16, 2013)

I deny that man is affecting the climate either way. The reasons I do are many and scientifically and empirically based.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*The existence of positive feedbacks,*

What about the negative feedbacks?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What I said is that I had an open mind until proof was at hand.  What you said is that makes me a scientific ignoramus.  

WTF?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Which one do you have in mind?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

PredFan said:


> I deny that man is affecting the climate either way. The reasons I do are many and scientifically and empirically based.



Deny away.  You're welcome to your opinion. 

However due to your lack of credibility we will not act on your opinion but rather the high credibility of IPCC science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



People who know have answers. People who don't, have only questions PMZ.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...



In 4.6 billion years. there has been only one constant to the climate of planet Earth, that constant is change.

What rational people do, is realize that the Gaea cult are moronic fuctards, and that anthropogenic global warming is the purvey of primitive apes attempting to convince others that the idiotic horseshit you peddle has some relation to legitimate science. Michael Mann is a fraud, guided by his idiotic religion, rather than by the results of scientific inquiry. Such is the case of the AGW crowd in general, who are really just a bunch of New Age nutjobs engaged in primitive animist worship.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> You might want to put Frank on your ignore list, Loa.



Gaea cultists, never to be hampered by fact or evidence. And you have the nerve to attack creationists....


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I deny that man is affecting the climate either way. The reasons I do are many and scientifically and empirically based.
> ...



The IPCC has been wrong on so many issues that they have no credibility whatsoever.  Their biggest faux pax was their support of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, which has been proven to be fraudulent.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

One of the sources of denier ignorance is that they have been instructed to avoid studying the IPCC documentation just like a few years ago they were instructed to avoid Wikipedia,  both for the same reason.  To maintain ignorance. 

Here's,  therefore,  the ultimate exposure for them,  the IPCC AR4 summarized by Wikipedia. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

Of course it was the state of climate science then (2007), and is about to be superceded by AR5, the state of climate science now. 

There can be no doubt that they'll want to burn AR5 too.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Show us that proof.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> ...



The usual name for a belief for which there is no supporting evidence is a myth.  Myths are very important in primitive cultures to explain things that are unexplained by the tribes knowledge.  

We still have primitive sub cultures among us that employ myths to explain what they can't. 

The post above is a good example of a myth of the primitive conservative subculture.  It is a mythological explanation that's the basis for their worship of the god,  Ignorance,  who they believe rewards them with political power.


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Ithought you used the IPCC reports as a bible? Where did you get 3-12C from? AR5 is back to 1.5-4.5C isn't it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The usual name for a belief for which there is no supporting evidence is a myth.



Ergo the myth of anthropogenic global warming....

Alas though, in this too you are wrong. The term "myth" is a cultural tale to explain that which confronts a society. Since fanciful deities such as Zeus or Gaea are present, you ignorantly assumed that the fact or fiction have a bearing on myth, it does not.



> Myths are very important in primitive cultures to explain things that are unexplained by the tribes knowledge.



Few cultures in human history have been as ignorant or primitive as the modern left. The presentation of myth with the demand that said myth is science demonstrates the extremity of the cultural devolution of the modern left.



> We still have primitive sub cultures among us that employ myths to explain what they can't.



Such as those who attribute the natural change of climate to the "carbon sins" of humans.

There is both arrogance and ignorance in this; the arrogance of the cultist that they have such great power that their actions can alter the very fabric of reality, Of course this is supported by astounding ignorance and a great deal of fraud, as we see from the IPCC and most of the religion's leaders. 



> The post above is a good example of a myth of the primitive conservative subculture.  It is a mythological explanation that's the basis for their worship of the god,  Ignorance,  who they believe rewards them with political power.



Ah, so the real sophistication is the belief in a sentient planet that is so fragile that the "carbon sins" of man will destroy all reality - unless we give lots of money to Aljazeera Gore and His Assholiness, Michael Mann....

ROFL, y'all are barely sentient apes, flinging shit and imagining yourselves clever, while led by the same shaman using the same tales as every doomsday cult in history.

Go sacrifice monkey, you must appease the volcano god.....


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The answers to all of your questions are known and accepted as standard quantum physics by virtually every qualified scientist on the planet. You chose to reman ignorant of that science.  Your choice,  but nobody owes you a thing in response to your choices.



Quantum physics?  That branch of physics that is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies?  That branch of physics that has to fabricate an ad hoc "fix" to even explain the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom?  Right.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So you admit that you lied when you claimed that it was just a matter of simple energy balance calculations.  Any observable experiments that prove any of those feedbacks?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The fact of AGW is a simple calculation. The dynamics are not,  nor is predicting the future behavior of mankind. 

The fact of ice and snow melting is certainly observable.  Where and when it will stop,  nobody knows,  but could be the difference between an affordable and an unaffordable adaptation by mankind.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

IanC said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Neither you nor I have seen AR5. 

However,  I'll have to see if I erred.  As I think about it now,  it might be 3-12 degrees Fahrenheit.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The answers to all of your questions are known and accepted as standard quantum physics by virtually every qualified scientist on the planet. You chose to reman ignorant of that science.  Your choice,  but nobody owes you a thing in response to your choices.
> ...



That branch of physics of which you are woefully ignorant.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The usual name for a belief for which there is no supporting evidence is a myth.
> ...



''Ah, so the real sophistication is the belief in a sentient planet that is so fragile that the "carbon sins" of man will destro all reality - unless we give lots of money to Aljazeera Gore and His Assholiness, Michael Mann....''

This is the paragraph that cost you all credibility.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I asked for proof.  You responded with just another opinion.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I've presented lots of science.  Your willful ignorance does not alter that reality.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

Hey '' It looks like Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann, the scientist most clearly identified with the iconic climate change hockey stick research, may get his day in court that he has requested.

A superior court judge for the District of Columbias Civil Division denied a motion by National Review, Inc., to set aside Manns court challenge claiming he was defamed by an article in the magazine that he feels equated him to convicted pedophile and former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky.

Pointing to the legal definition of defamation, Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene wrote that The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff [Mann] is likely to succeed on the merits. The court ruled that the magazines description of Mann as the man behind the fraudulent climate change hockey stick graph was essentially an allegation of fraud. For a scholar, the judge wrote, it is obvious that allegations of fraud could lead to the demise of [Mann's] profession and tarnish his character and standing in the community.

From

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.or...ichael-mann-can-proceed-with-defamation-suit/


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ''Ah, so the real sophistication is the belief in a sentient planet that is so fragile that the "carbon sins" of man will destro all reality - unless we give lots of money to Aljazeera Gore and His Assholiness, Michael Mann....''
> 
> This is the paragraph that cost you all credibility.



ROFL, from you? Who cares? 

Seriously, y'all are mindless monkeys, screaming with great rage, whilst conveying nothing at all. 

I used to be baffled by the idiocy of AGW fools, but then I figured out that you're all frauds, just a bunch of New Age monkey's clothing your idiotic and primitive cult in an mockery of science.

{Cray recently delivered the final 26 cabinets of *the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations Gaea climate research supercomputer,* which is housed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The newly arrived cabinets are loaded with the new AMD 16-core Interlagos processors. According to Jeff Nichols, an associate lab director at ORNL who heads the computational science directorate, the Gaea system is still in two pieces. The first piece is the original 14-cabinet system with a peak capability of 260 teraflops, Nichols said. The second piece is the new 26-cabinet system with a capability of 720 teraflops, he said.}

Friday Funny ? New NOAA supercomputer ?Gaea? revealed | Watts Up With That?

Yeah, in case anyone failed to grasp that y'all are a bunch of Gaea cult dumbfucks....

{Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden? }

Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion > Hawaii Free Press


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I deny that man is affecting the climate either way. The reasons I do are many and scientifically and empirically based.
> ...



Progressives sure do loves them some authority figures, don't they?

If you could make your own decisions, you wouldn't need others to make them for you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Conservatives sure do hate people more educated than they.  Which is most everyone.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One of the sources of denier ignorance is that they have been instructed to avoid studying the IPCC documentation just like a few years ago they were instructed to avoid Wikipedia,  both for the same reason.  To maintain ignorance.
> 
> Here's,  therefore,  the ultimate exposure for them,  the IPCC AR4 summarized by Wikipedia.
> 
> ...


If AR5 doesn't acknowledge the pause in warming, it'll be good only for wrapping fish.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > loa said:
> ...


...says the guy who worships the IPCC.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Wrong.  The paper McIntyre and McKitrick wrote dissected Mann's Hockey Stick hoax and utterly destroyed it.  For example, McIntyre demonstrated that if you pump pure noise through Mann's computer program that the result you get is still a hockey stick.

Mann is a fraud.  You can't just cover your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears every time you're confronted with the evidence that your god is bogus.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Like most progressives, you make the mistake of confusing "educated" and "intelligent".  

There is no particular intelligence required to regurgitate a professor's own opinions back at him and getting a good grade for it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 16, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Is that your understanding of how PhDs are earned?

You didn't go to college, did you Dave.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Conservatives sure do hate people more educated than they.  Which is most everyone.



Who are you more educated than?

Seriously?


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Oh, look:  Another prog who confuses "educated" with "intelligent".

George Bush was educated.  Do you think he's intelligent?


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives sure do hate people more educated than they.  Which is most everyone.
> ...


High school freshmen -- by two years.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 16, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



People don't earn PhDs by parroting back their professor's words.  It requires original research defended in front of a board.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The fact of AGW is a simple calculation. The dynamics are not,  nor is predicting the future behavior of mankind.



Really?  A simple calculation that can not be demonstrated in any real world experiment.  My but you are gullible.



PMZ said:


> fact of ice and snow melting is certainly observable.  Where and when it will stop,  nobody knows,  but could be the difference between an affordable and an unaffordable adaptation by mankind.



Melting ice and snow is evidence of warming, and certain other weather related phenomena...it is in no way evidence that our activites bear any responsibility.  There isn't the first bit of hard evidence to prove that man is driving the global climate.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Doesn't nine degrees strike you as a large spread for a simple calculation?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If you are unaware of the fact that QM is chock full of inconsistencies and contradictions to the point that it can't even adequately explain the periodic table, then I am afraid that it is you who is woefully ignorant.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Interesting that you think a paper published in a reputable journal is an opinion.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It's irrelevant, as has been pointed out numerous times.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Stated numerous times...proven zero times..


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 16, 2013)

longknife said:


> *Lomborg: Dont blame climate change for extreme weather*
> 
> Written By : William Teach, September 14, 2013
> 
> ...



Yep. Rightwingnut news. Who the hell else would publish Lomborg?

Real scientists writing on the site of the largest Scientific Society in the world, the American Institute of Physics. 

Causes;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Effects;

Insurance Industry Sees Risk of Climate Fueled Extremes | Climate Denial Crock of the Week


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You are so gullible it's scary.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The fact that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph is a fraud is irrelevant?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > *Lomborg: &#8220;Don&#8217;t blame climate change for extreme weather&#8221;*
> ...



If you looked up "mindless drone" in the dictionary, you can see your picture there.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



This should be interesting.

In what way is it a fraud?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



McIntyre proved that Mann manipulated the data to produce the desired outcome.  When you pump random white noise through Mann's algorithms, the result is still a hockey stick.  If that isn't proof of scientific fraud, then perpetual motion machines and cold fusion are feasible.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > One of the sources of denier ignorance is that they have been instructed to avoid studying the IPCC documentation just like a few years ago they were instructed to avoid Wikipedia,  both for the same reason.  To maintain ignorance.
> ...



There has been no pause in warming.  There's been a pause in the growth of surface temperatures.  No surprise.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

daveman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The continuation of Dave's unbroken string of lies.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



ROFL!  For 20 years now the priesthood of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been saying the two are one and the same.  It has only been since it became obvious to everyone that global temperatures have not been increasing that this theory of disappearing heat was contrived.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



There are many uneducated but intelligent.  They don't know science but can do a good job solving ordinary problems. There are many unintelligent and uneducated. There are only a few unintelligent and educated.  The can do lab work but not original research. There are a few intelligent and educated.  In the field of climate science,  they're the ones involved with the IPCC.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives sure do hate people more educated than they.  Which is most everyone.
> ...



70 percent of Americans older than 29. Much more in the field of science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I think we're close to finding out why Dave hates high achievers.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Once Mann gets the political assassins in court the truth will be known.  Not before.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Science and scientists. The people and process of the IPCC.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Mann doesn't have the slightest chance of winning his suit.  This case is an obvious SLAPP suit.  You can look that up if you don't know what it means.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Why would anyone accept your judgement on that issue?  Your credibility is zero.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Is that why you thought plutonium was for bombs, not reactors,
because of your education?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I can't wait.
The court won't excuse his lies like his fans do.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Mann will win. Scientific evidence for his graph;

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?


Hockey stick is broken
 In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense.  They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index. (John McLaughlin)

What the science says...

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. 


The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Thats not what the judge said after reviewing Mann's case.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Thats not up to you,  is it.  You're an ordinary control freak and most people know exactly how to handle your kind.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Plutonium is used in bombs and power plants.  What does that have to do with your denying science?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Excellent! I'm glad I could dispel just a tiny bit of your ignorance.


----------



## kiwina (Sep 16, 2013)

loa said:


> *Frank said:
> ...Denying Climate change?" What a stupid thing to say....We question the hypothesis that an additional wisp of CO2 is melting the polar Ice caps.....Boo fucking hoo....Frank is a meany for daring to ask where our experiments are .....*
> 
> Well, Frank - I don't see questioning as much as I see chuckle-headed leaps and spouting of pre-prepared talking points handed out by questionable sources.    It seems that here, and on other message boards where the subject comes up, responses are completely ignored or misunderstood, with a complete circle back to original talking points that don't stand up to the data.    Now, of course, I do not intend to say EVERYONE does this.  I am saying it seems to be the trend.
> ...


 do I think that sciencetist lie, yes!! Ithink that they are just people like every one else and are offten so arrogent that they think that every one has to do exactly what the scientest say. Over my life time I have been told in an alrming way that the earth is doomed by meaters, the Sun exploding, Califorina sliding into the seas (won, be missed by a lot of us) wails going extint. You get the picture. The reality is that all of these are based on one false assumison "if things cuntuine the way they are going." No one can preduict the future when we talk about some thing so masive as the universe. To judge planet tempture only by the amount of C02 that may have been present is called too small example. There are many things that effect climate and all of them need to be studied. 
There is something called the serenity prayer. It goes like this: God give me the curage to change what I can not change, and the wisdom to know the difference. When a person tries to change what he can not it will drive him nuts and  and that is what these people who insist on all these things to control climate, and thay are driving the rest of us nuts with them. I sugested to Abe that if having solar enerigy was so important to hiim he could buy the panels and put them on his own house. 
What is realy happing is that this issue is one of many verry low priorties that we fight about and insist that every one think as we do. The hope of the common people of 1776 was that they could have a country where they could think as they please. It is that verry freedom that has put us on top. Becuse we were free the Wright brothers could fly,


----------



## kiwina (Sep 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



are we talking science or religon here?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The fact of AGW is a simple calculation. The dynamics are not,  nor is predicting the future behavior of mankind.
> ...



Most people don't require lab proof of simple calculations.  They've learned to trust even things at the edge of your education like long division.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I think that it's remarkably small considering that it takes a multi year weather forecast to define the dynamics.  

As I said and you ignored,  the fact of AGW is easy to demonstrate,  the dynamics of the change are extremely complex.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Wrong.  They either don't confirm the hockey stick conclusion, or the suffer from severe methodological errors .  At his site ClimateAudit.com MxIntyre has investigated all these reconstructions and pointed out the flaws in their methodology.



Old Rocks said:


> The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.



Mann relied entirely on tree ring records for temperature proxies.  His results are as bogus as a three dollar bill.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I'm sure that you can provide some evidence of '' For 20 years now the priesthood of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been saying the two are one and the same.''

Right?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



This is why we have civil courts.  So decisions get made based on evidence rather than politics. 

How great is that!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

kiwina said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Most of us,  science.  Some of us,  politics.  Conservatives,  have no idea.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The evidence is........?????? 

What you want to be true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2013)

kiwina said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm only interested in his scientific ignorance.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

​


Toddsterpatriot said:


> kiwina said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why?


----------



## westwall (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









It's already begun silly boy!

*Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong *
*Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007 *

*Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated' *


Read more: Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Apocalypse Later



*THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007*.  

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





Oh, you lose. You think that your scientific limitations are everyones. Not true.

Real scientists always knew that, while AGW's existence is indisputable, the dynamics of how the climate changes dynamically, is a tough question. That it will warm is a given. How it will warm requires long term weather forecasts which are probably years away. 

It will continue to warm for several years based on the current CO2 load. We will add even more CO2 because we don't know yet how to not to. 

But, we are learning our choices from the IPCC. 

Let's choose the minimum cost one.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 16, 2013)

> Why do so many people deny climate change



For conservatives, it pushes almost every delusional, paranoid rightwing button.   

Among the rights unfounded, irrational fears concerning addressing climate change:

It will lead to a one world government

Youll be forced to give up your car 

It will cause higher fuel prices

Youll be forced to give up your air conditioning

Youll be forced to live in a cramped, multi-family dwelling

It will cause unemployment

In essence, as with most everything else, conservative opposition to addressing climate change is predicated on fear, ignorance, and greed.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The function of courts is not to determine what scientific ideas are valid and which ideas are invalid, and that is exactly what Mann is attempting to have the courts do by filing this lawsuit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You aren't familiar with Mann's work at all, are you?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



One doesn't even need to go into mann's shoddy technique or questionable data to prove his work is a fraud...the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient.  Man disappeared the MWP but there are literally hundreds of peer reviewed, published papers which indicate that the MWP was warmer than the present and global.  Here are links to some of the more recent published papers:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the tropical Pacific

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in England

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Atlantic Ocean

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet; temperatures during the Little Ice Age warmer than in 2000

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Siberia; temperatures 'not unprecedented'

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Pacific Ocean; cooling over past 7,000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Sweden

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in South China Sea

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Mediterranean Sea

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Bolivia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Arctic Siberia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Peru

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-finds-another-non-hockey_22.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-finds-another-non-hockey_28.html

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Iceland, 12C decrease in temperature over past 8,000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds tree-ring proxy temperature data is 'seriously compromised'

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tasmania

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Antarctica, temperature decline over past 2000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Alps, late 20th century temperatures were low to normal in comparison to past 9000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Iceland

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Sweden, cooling over past 7000 years

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Patagonia

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Another day, another non-hockey-stick

And this is only some of the most recent peer reviewed papers published in respected journals and they represent only a small fraction of the hundreds of papers published that find that the MWP was both warmer than the present and was global in stark contrast to mann's paper which claims that it did not exist.

The question for you is why, considering the overwhelming body of peer reviewed published work stating unequivocally that mann's work is in error which have not been called into question, do you continue to believe a single paper by one man using methodology which has been called into question by numerous sources?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Why do so many people deny climate change
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, about half of your "delusional paranoid buttons" have already come to pass.

There is no doubt that regulation aimed at climate change has caused increased fuel prices.

The great "die off" a few years back in france over a minor heat wave was due to people in an industrial nation not being able to afford air conditioning due to very high energy taxes

It has caused unemployment

High fuel prices will inevetably lead to the less well to do having to move closer to where they work....result, crowding.

And while we haven't had to give up our cars so far, there is no doubt that regulation aimed at climate change has made cars less safe.

So to those of us who are paying attention, it seems that there is nothing paranoid or delusional about your so called "buttons".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 17, 2013)

I fully support federally funded deprogramming of AGWCult members

If they refuse deprogramming they can receive a one way ticket to anyplace with a zero "carbon footprint"


----------



## PredFan (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I deny that man is affecting the climate either way. The reasons I do are many and scientifically and empirically based.
> ...



Oh, I'm sorry. You have me mistaken for someone who cares about your opinion of me.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No one in the general public thinks Mann's reconstruction looks like a hockey stick because its MWP bump is smaller than others.  They think it looks like a hockey stick because of the unprecedentedly fast temperature rise of the 20th century.  

The current rise and the MWP do NOT have common causes.  The MWP is irrelevant to a discussion of the current warming.  Even if the MWP were to have gotten as warm as the present (and that is quite iffy) the rate at which temperatures have increased during our lifetimes distinguishes the current situation quite clearly from the MWP.

Data showing rapid temperature increases in the 20th century are common because it is what the temperatures did.  That's what makes a hockey stick.  That you should fall back on the missing MWP only indicates you don't really have a relevant argument.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 17, 2013)

The Warmers are done, stick a hockey stick in 'em


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

daveman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



ROFL


Unfortunately....

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to daveman again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 17, 2013)

Why is the IPCC denying the horrific effects of manmade CO2?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> No one in the general public thinks Mann's reconstruction looks like a hockey stick because its MWP bump is smaller than others.  They think it looks like a hockey stick because of the unprecedentedly fast temperature rise of the 20th century.
> 
> The current rise and the MWP do NOT have common causes.  The MWP is irrelevant to a discussion of the current warming.  Even if the MWP were to have gotten as warm as the present (and that is quite iffy) the rate at which temperatures have increased during our lifetimes distinguishes the current situation quite clearly from the MWP.
> 
> Data showing rapid temperature increases in the 20th century are common because it is what the temperatures did.  That's what makes a hockey stick.  That you should fall back on the missing MWP only indicates you don't really have a relevant argument.



McInyre also showed Mann's latest version of the Hockey stick is still a fraud.  That's why the MWP bump is smaller than current temperatures.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> People don't earn PhDs by parroting back their professor's words.  It requires original research defended in front of a board.



Yes and no. The "research" must comply with dogma. Since the only value of a Phd. is securing a position in academia, it is vital that the process ensure that candidates faithfully ape the doctrines of academia. Review boards know that the candidate will wind up working with them, the last thing they want are independent thinkers who will question established dogma. The PhD. process is carefully designed to weed out any who might question the status quo.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> This should be interesting.
> 
> In what way is it a fraud?



In the same way the shroud of Turin is a fraud - but religious nut jobs cling to their idiotic superstitions in defiance of fact, sparky.

Now trot along and say your prayers to Gaea, or sacrifice a goat, or whatever the fuck you New Age fucktards do...


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > This should be interesting.
> ...



The warmist nutburgers are so sure Mann's work is valid and that McIntyre's criticism is bogus, but none of the have ever even read the later.   I gave them a link to McIntyre's paper, but here they are asking me how the Hockey Stick is a fraud.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Why do so many people deny climate change
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well said.  They are taught daily by their political entertainer propaganda moguls that government is the source of all evil.  Why?  Because government is the only force to limit businesses one rule.  Every corporation make more money regardless of the cost to others. And business owns the media. 

They are good little sheep.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



How else can it be decided if he was slandered?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There are many uneducated but intelligent.  They don't know science but can do a good job solving ordinary problems. There are many unintelligent and uneducated. There are only a few unintelligent and educated.  The can do lab work but not original research. There are a few intelligent and educated.  In the field of climate science,  they're the ones involved with the IPCC.



ROFLMAO

Right corky....

Whilst I earned my MBA, I figured out that there were many who just rode the wave. They met the basic requirements, but in discussions you could tell they were dolts, on teams they were dead weight. There were more of them, than there were of us, the smart people.

The ratio of stupid to smart amongst the educated is roughly the same as the ratio among the uneducated. Want a Masters or PhD.?  Pay the money - that is the main thing. Then, regurgitate what your professors say, keep independent thought to a minimum, and do your assignments - on time.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> 70 percent of Americans older than 29. Much more in the field of science.



What is it that makes you more educated? Where is this demonstrated?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Once Mann gets the political assassins in court the truth will be known.  Not before.



Mann is a fraud.

That you have his dick in your mouth is evidence that you have no relationship with the scientific method.

You're driven by your stupid-fuck religion. Mann is an adherent and promoter of the New Age idiocy you follow, so you mindlessly support the fraud.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I leave climate science up to those experts,  the IPCC,  and civil justice up to those experts,  the civil courts.  I'm not an expert in either field and neither are you.  Your involvement is merely a control freak thing.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Because the case against him comes from people like you who have earned zero credibility in the field of climate science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Why do so many people deny climate change
> ...



But still,  doing the nothing that you wish was the best answer, is the most expensive one. 

Mankind is not entitled to ''home free''. Even conservatives aren't.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

kiwina said:


> are we talking science or religon here?



AGW is a religion, it has nothing to do with science. The Gaea cultists are the most anti-science cadre since the Inquisition of Galileo. Michael Mann is to science as the Pope was to a heliocentric solar system.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I fully support federally funded deprogramming of AGWCult members
> 
> If they refuse deprogramming they can receive a one way ticket to anyplace with a zero "carbon footprint"



This would be funded by the conservative cult's ''Stamp Out Knowledge'' outreach program.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Does the National Academy of Sciences have credibility in the field of climate science?  They admitted that McIntyre's criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick graph were legitimate and accurate.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > People don't earn PhDs by parroting back their professor's words.  It requires original research defended in front of a board.
> ...



Wow, what's it like to be that ignorant?  This sounds like the mantra of a support group for uneducated dumbshits.  Does it make you feel better?  

I work with some PhDs (in addition to knowing a whole bunch of them when I was in college) and I can tell you from personal experience that I've never known a group of people who are as creative, meticulous or who have higher integrity than they do.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

PredFan said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I don't care anything about you.  I do care about the objective,  open minded,  cognitively functional people who might mistake what you want to be true for what is true.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> Wow, what's it like to be that ignorant?  This sounds like the mantra of a support group for uneducated dumbshits.  Does it make you feel better?



Brilliant retort, sporky....

One small issue, you failed in any way to point out so much as a minute flaw in my analysis.



> I work with some PhDs (in addition to knowing a whole bunch of them when I was in college) and I can tell you from personal experience that I've never known a group of people who are as creative, meticulous or who have higher integrity than they do.



Sure kinky, bet it takes a lot to impress the fuck out of you.....


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why is the IPCC denying the horrific effects of manmade CO2?



The IPCC is doing what they have the expertise to do,  and were given the responsibility to do.  

You are doing what the Fox News boobs and boobies are well paid to make you do.  Obfuscating and denying the inconvenient to business truth.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, what's it like to be that ignorant?  This sounds like the mantra of a support group for uneducated dumbshits.  Does it make you feel better?
> ...



It's obvious that you've had zero exposure to actual scientists.  In fact you'd probably cross over to the other side of the street if one was walking toward you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > People don't earn PhDs by parroting back their professor's words.  It requires original research defended in front of a board.
> ...



Their research must advance science.  Dogma is a political and religious concept.  It has no meaning in science.  Science is truth.  Dogma is the mythological basis of primitive cultures,  like organized religion and politics who are fundamentally cults. They are based on what their self serving leaders want to become true.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> It's obvious that you've had zero exposure to actual scientists.



BWAHAHAHAHA

Uh yeah, kracky..



> In fact you'd probably cross over to the other side of the street if one was walking toward you.



Oooh, what a clever burn. Bet all the other kids on the short bus think you're super kewl.....

Another uneducated moron, blindly following the moronic AGW cult.......


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








What unprecedented rise?  There has been no "unprecedented rise" save in the fictional computer models, the real world has been zero growth for the last 16 years.  And according to the historical and paleo record even THAT rise is unprecedented....

You're like Vizzini from The Princess Bride...you don't know what the words you're speaking mean...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]You keep using that word. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I fully support federally funded deprogramming of AGWCult members
> ...








Say's the asshat who wants to prevent all research into his theory....  Shit, a Hollywood screenwriter couldn't make this crap up!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You are a classic example why cognitively capable people protect their credibility.  Here you are,  having destroyed all of yours,  wishing that someone,  anyone,  would believe you that there's a fox in the hen house. 

The courts will decide.  Not you.  Even if you had a valid opinion,  your self destroyed credibility has nobody believing you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There are many uneducated but intelligent.  They don't know science but can do a good job solving ordinary problems. There are many unintelligent and uneducated. There are only a few unintelligent and educated.  The can do lab work but not original research. There are a few intelligent and educated.  In the field of climate science,  they're the ones involved with the IPCC.
> ...



Only the ignorant have to tell people that they're smart.  It's obvious in smart people.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > 70 percent of Americans older than 29. Much more in the field of science.
> ...



Those are the statistics on those with Bachelor Degrees. I don't know for your case the statistics on GSE.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Their research must advance science.



Particularly if the PhD. is in Literature...



> Dogma is a political and religious concept.



ROFL

Politics is 99% of academia, even the legitimate disciplines. 



> It has no meaning in science.  Science is truth.



Bwahahahahaha

"Science is Truth."

ROFL

NOW I know you're in Jr. High.

No stupid, science is not "truth." Science is a tool, a methodology for discovery. When properly applied, it reveals facts; properties and processes that allow humans to better understand things. As with any tool, science can be misapplied, and the observations misinterpreted. This is particularly true when there is an agenda involved.



> Dogma is the mythological basis of primitive cultures,  like organized religion and politics who are fundamentally cults. They are based on what their self serving leaders want to become true.



I see the AGW morons and your Gaea cult as a return to the primitive. Y'all are a bunch of mindless apes.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Once Mann gets the political assassins in court the truth will be known.  Not before.
> ...



I think that this is revealing rhetoric about the anti science crowd.  A primitive cult and culture out to impose what they wish was true on the rest of the world.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> kiwina said:
> 
> 
> > are we talking science or religon here?
> ...



AGW is science.  Denier dogma is politics,  pure and simple. Here's what I wish was true,  accept it or else.  That giant flushing sound is your movement circling the bowl.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Only the ignorant have to tell people that they're smart.  It's obvious in smart people.



Indeed.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



They certainly have less credibility than climate scientists. But a lot more than you.  Post their opinion.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








And this is what Feynman had to say about the plethora of other PhD's who aren't.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0]Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



It's difficult to find a conservative with only minor cognitive limitations.  Most are breathtakingly ignorant and incontrovertible proof of Dunning-Kruger.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Those are the statistics on those with Bachelor Degrees. I don't know for your case the statistics on GSE.



The rise in the number of people earning a Bachelor's is meteoric. At this point, a four year program is roughly equal to a high school diploma in 1950.

{"As more and more people get a bachelor's degree, it becomes more commonplace," says Linda Serra Hagedorn, immediate past president of the Association for the Study of Higher Education and associate dean and professor at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa.

And, she adds, "not all bachelor's are equal." In many communities around the country, the bachelor's is not enough to make you stand out. " 'A bachelor's in what?' that's the question," Professor Hagedorn says.}

Reference:

Lawrence, L. (n.d.). Retrieved from Bachelor's degree: Has it lost its edge and its value? - CSMonitor.com


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, what's it like to be that ignorant?  This sounds like the mantra of a support group for uneducated dumbshits.  Does it make you feel better?
> ...



In this display case we have an early third millennium Neanderthal.  Notice the sloped forehead and the road burned knuckles. Their primitive campsites were mostly found in the south of North America and on the northern plains of America.  They went extinct around 2020 demonstrating natural selection's penalty for not adapting to environmental change.  Interestingly enough,  even in the throes of extinction,  they denied evolution.  (As well as most science)


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It would be interesting to know what this is about.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Their research must advance science.
> ...



Why didn't you go on to high school?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I think that this is revealing rhetoric about the anti science crowd.  A primitive cult and culture out to impose what they wish was true on the rest of the world.



I think it is as well - and I'm glad that you acknowledge that you New Age Gaea Cultists are indeed "anti-science."

You fear that legitimate research will be conducted, for when it is, we find:

{Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating matters (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)}

Hey, your religion needs fraud - science refutes it...

McIntyre finds the Marcott ?trick? ? How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? | Watts Up With That?

Oh, and you mindless fucktards try to pretend that what you have isn't a religion....

{And the thing is that these are externalities that everyone can see. You can deny global warming (and* may you be punished in the afterlife* for doing so  this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin)} - Paul Krugman - a fraud in his own right - in my field of specialty.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/everyday-externalities/?_r=0

Wait a minute - is it SCIENCE demanding the heretics burn in hell? 

ROFL

You fucking apes and your stupid religion...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Those are the statistics on those with Bachelor Degrees. I don't know for your case the statistics on GSE.
> ...



I agree with her.  As technology has expanded exponentially,  a BS in engineering or the sciences is table stakes for a productive life.  Unfortunately that requires half a life of education if it also included civilizing studies like philosophy and anthropology and literature and art.  Or,  the real solution,  life long learning.  Unfortunately most folks spend that time watching drivel on TV that makes them more ignorant. 

Perhaps democracies epitaph will point to the impossibility of maintaining an informed electorate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> AGW is science.



Oh thanks, YWC - good of you to demand that your faith is the true science.

Let's refresh everyone's memory on what you mindless fucks were predicting a few years back...







WHY do your priests and prophets (profits) NEVER, EVER, get anything right? Carbongeddon never quite comes along.

Just like the JW's predicting the return of Jesus, you chattering monkeys make lots of claims, and chatter louder when time and again you are proven wrong..



> Denier dogma is politics,



Ah, so questioning dogma and the process of falsification is politics, blind faith is "science!"

You Gaea cultists sure are smart...



> pure and simple. Here's what I wish was true,  accept it or else.  That giant flushing sound is your movement circling the bowl.



Of course - you wish your could kill or imprison all the vile heretics who dare question your faith.

We know this.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> In this display case we have an early third millennium Neanderthal.



Who doesn't even accept the worship of Gaea...

Good work, YWC.



> Notice the sloped forehead and the road burned knuckles. Their primitive campsites were mostly found in the south of North America and on the northern plains of America.  They went extinct around 2020 demonstrating natural selection's penalty for not adapting to environmental change.  Interestingly enough,  even in the throes of extinction,  they denied evolution.  (As well as most science)



I see devolution. You Gaea cultists have devolved into mindless apes.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Why didn't you go on to high school?



When are you slated to finish middle school?


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > It's obvious that you've had zero exposure to actual scientists.
> ...



Revel in your ignorance!  Do one thing and do it better than anybody.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > AGW is science.
> ...



One source of your ignorance is the wish that AGW immediately follows GHG atmospheric concentrations.  Doesn't work that way.  If GHG concentrations were held constant today,  a stable new climate could be still decades away.  Not only does the increased absorbed energy have to be passed among all of earth's systems,  water,  land,  ice,  atmosphere,  but the use of that energy to melt snow and ice has to go to completion.  So,  an eight degree warming from current concentrations is still one of the possibilities.  Simple thermodynamics and meteorology. In other words,  science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

One of the most prophetic icons of climatology was the title of the movie,  ''An Inconvenient Truth''. The inconvenience is driving the what's in it for me crowd crazy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

Difference between Creationists and the AGW cult.

One believes that man is sinful by nature and fallen from grace, through sin, humans have offended a sentient deity who will punish mankind and destroy the world. That the words of leaders can never be questioned and that any attempt to investigate the established dogma is heresy and must be stopped.

The other believes that a cosmic goat herder created everything in 6 days....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One source of your ignorance is the wish that AGW immediately follows GHG atmospheric concentrations.  Doesn't work that way.  If GHG concentrations were held constant today,  a stable new climate could be still decades away.  Not only does the increased absorbed energy have to be passed among all of earth's systems,  water,  land,  ice,  atmosphere,  but the use of that energy to melt snow and ice has to go to completion.  So,  an eight degree warming from current concentrations is still one of the possibilities.  Simple thermodynamics and meteorology. In other words,  science.



Thanks YWC - you creationists - er, Gaea cultists, have lots of excuses when your predictions fail, over and over.

Of course the graph shows predicted TEMPERATURE CHANGE, not greenhouse gas - and you're just lying - buyt hey, you have your faith to protect, you can't let integrity get in the way.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > One source of your ignorance is the wish that AGW immediately follows GHG atmospheric concentrations.  Doesn't work that way.  If GHG concentrations were held constant today,  a stable new climate could be still decades away.  Not only does the increased absorbed energy have to be passed among all of earth's systems,  water,  land,  ice,  atmosphere,  but the use of that energy to melt snow and ice has to go to completion.  So,  an eight degree warming from current concentrations is still one of the possibilities.  Simple thermodynamics and meteorology. In other words,  science.
> ...



Look at your graph.  The red and the blue.  The time scale.  Who plotted it and when. 

You know,  do the math and science or ask for help from someone who can. 

You're telling us what you wish it said.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Difference between Creationists and the AGW cult.
> 
> One believes that man is sinful by nature and fallen from grace, through sin, humans have offended a sentient deity who will punish mankind and destroy the world. That the words of leaders can never be questioned and that any attempt to investigate the established dogma is heresy and must be stopped.
> 
> The other believes that a cosmic goat herder created everything in 6 days....



This is the AGW thread.  This is about science.  This is about the search for truth,  not about your politics or religon.  Try to stay on topic. 

Oh that's right.  You get embarrassed every time that you do.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Look at your graph.  The red and the blue.  The time scale.  Who plotted it and when.
> 
> You know,  do the math and science or ask for help from someone who can.
> 
> You're telling us what you wish it said.




Seriously YWC, you're as inept with the internet as you are with science... (the source was in the title, shitferbrains.)


{Temperature change over past 11,300 years (in blue, via Science, 2013) plus projected warming this century on humanitys current emissions path (in red, via recent literature). }

Bombshell: Recent Warming Is 'Amazing And Atypical' And Poised To Destroy Stable Climate That Enabled Civilization | ThinkProgress

THIS is why you're a creationist, er, AGW cultist....


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > *When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's* then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.
> ...




Imagine that... All the articles I've listed below --- and YET --- I ME get blamed for misinformation.. And of course --- ALL these articles were prompted by some small handful of cultish denier scientists.. 

1970  Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age  Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970  Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970  Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970  Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971  U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971  New Ice Age Coming  Its Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972  British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972  Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972  Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973  Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974  Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974  2 Scientists Think Little Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974  Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975  Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975  Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975  B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975  The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975  The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975  Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975  In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976  Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976  The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977  The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977  The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1978  Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978  The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of  TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, May 1978)
1979  New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

It's all pre-internet -- but I've checked out 5 or 6 successfully.. Sorry -- that turd don't fly.

(you can pretty much check out the Time links, the books and CSMonitor references in a couple minutes) 

The moral of this message -- don't trust the LA Times, the NY Times, or the Chicago Tribune for your climate news...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure not holding my breath.
> ...



That's merely the IPCC doing what they were TOLD to do.. Which is to explore ONLY those causes of warming attributed to MAN.. The TSI number is completely fudged as we have previously discussed and you will notice NONE of the CURRENT EXCUSES for the reduction in warming due to NATURAL causes --- like AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO and others are even MENTIONED as forcing functions on temperatures..


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> This is the AGW thread.



I noticed that.



> This is about science.



I thought you said this is the AGW thread?

Make up your mind.



> This is about the search for truth,  not about your politics or religon.



You fucknut cultists are little more than primitive Apes. 

{It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.}

McIntyre finds the Marcott ?trick? ? How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? | Watts Up With That?

Ooooppps...

You Shamans caught with their dick in the dog, yet again...

Your cult is a fraud, you simpering moron.


----------



## Peterf (Sep 17, 2013)

The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.

Many 'deny' AGW because they are immune to hysterical propaganda.  Some - me for example - have a world view based on science and are revolted by its perversion.  Many more are worldly wise and can recognise charlatans on the make.

Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished .  Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 17, 2013)

Peterf said:


> Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished .  Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.



Your only say that because your retard political cult deems it PC to spout such idiot conspiracy theories. Like every other denialist here, you're dogshit-ignorant of the actual science. All you'll ever be capable of doing is parroting your cult's retard propaganda. Like you just did.

You want to impress us? Talk about the science, instead of just chanting your mantras. Think you're capable of it? I don't. I'm guessing that all you'll be able to do is scream that all the data is fraudulent, and that a great worldwide socialist conspiracy is afoot. You know, like all the other 'tards here do.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 17, 2013)

Oops, dupe.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Oops, dupe.



yes u r...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Peterf said:


> The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.
> 
> Many 'deny' AGW because they are immune to hysterical propaganda.  Some - me for example - have a world view based on science and are revolted by its perversion.  Many more are worldly wise and can recognise charlatans on the make.
> 
> Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished .  Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.



Let's see.  We have a global organization with unfettered access to the best climate science in the world vs Fox News bought and paid for by those heavily profiting from the status quo. 

You're hooked on the Fox News story because they agree with what you wish was true. 

Thats a pretty easy and obvious choice for me.  And the reason why you spend so much time trashing science. 

Science always trumps politics.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > This is the AGW thread.
> ...



People like you are made to be ignored.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Trust big oil on Fox News.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished .  Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.
> ...









Poor admiral....stuck your dick in it and now it's going to get cut off!

This paper shows the models are up to 100% off...great record there dipshit...

"Abstract. Aerosolcloud interaction effects are a major source of uncertainty in climate models so it is important to quantify the sources of uncertainty and thereby direct research efforts. However, the computational expense of global aerosol models has prevented a full statistical analysis of their outputs. Here we perform a variance-based analysis of a global 3-D aerosol microphysics model to quantify the magnitude and leading causes of parametric uncertainty in model-estimated present-day concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Twenty-eight model parameters covering essentially all important aerosol processes, emissions and representation of aerosol size distributions were defined based on expert elicitation. An uncertainty analysis was then performed based on a Monte Carlo-type sampling of an emulator built for each model grid cell. *The standard deviation around the mean CCN varies globally between about ±30% over some marine regions to ±40100% over most land areas and high latitudes, implying that aerosol processes and emissions are likely to be a significant source of uncertainty in model simulations of aerosolcloud effects on climate. *Among the most important contributors to CCN uncertainty are the sizes of emitted primary particles, including carbonaceous combustion particles from wildfires, biomass burning and fossil fuel use, as well as sulfate particles formed on sub-grid scales. Emissions of carbonaceous combustion particles affect CCN uncertainty more than sulfur emissions. Aerosol emission-related parameters dominate the uncertainty close to sources, while uncertainty in aerosol microphysical processes becomes increasingly important in remote regions, being dominated by deposition and aerosol sulfate formation during cloud-processing. The results lead to several recommendations for research that would result in improved modelling of cloudactive aerosol on a global scale."

ACP - Abstract - The magnitude and causes of uncertainty in global model simulations of cloud condensation nuclei


"This study presents the dependency of the simulation results from a global atmospheric numerical model on machines with different hardware and software systems. The global model program (GMP) of the Global/Regional Integrated Model system (GRIMs) is tested on 10 different computer systems having different central processing unit (CPU) architectures or compilers. There exist differences in the results for different compilers, parallel libraries, and optimization levels, primarily due to the treatment of rounding errors by the different software systems. The system dependency, which is the standard deviation of the 500-hPa geopotential height averaged over the globe, increases with time. However, its fractional tendency, which is the change of the standard deviation relative to the value itself, remains nearly zero with time. In a seasonal prediction framework, the ensemble spread due to the differences in software system is comparable to the ensemble spread due to the differences in initial conditions that is used for the traditional ensemble forecasting."

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.
> ...








Annnd their accuracy rate is 0.00%.  GREAT JOB!  A well known charlatan is at least able to guess 75% of the time!  You asshats can't even do that well!


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > No one in the general public thinks Mann's reconstruction looks like a hockey stick because its MWP bump is smaller than others.  They think it looks like a hockey stick because of the unprecedentedly fast temperature rise of the 20th century.
> ...



It appears that you failed to read what I wrote.  Why don't you try that one more time.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Does the National Academy of Sciences have credibility in the field of climate science?  They admitted that McIntyre's criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick graph were legitimate and accurate.



But it made NO DIFFERENCE to his conclusion. So... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I think that this is revealing rhetoric about the anti science crowd.  A primitive cult and culture out to impose what they wish was true on the rest of the world.
> ...



Your vocabulary is really impressive.

Here, try this:

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

From which we find:

Technical Questions and Answers:

Q. Why did you revise the age models of many of the published records that were used in your study?

A. The majority of the published records used in our study (93%) based their ages on radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon is a naturally occurring isotope that is produced mainly in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. This form of carbon is then distributed around the world and incorporated into living things. Dating is based on the amount of this carbon left after radioactive decay. It has been known for several decades that radiocarbon years differ from true calendar years because the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere changes over time, as does the rate that carbon is exchanged between the ocean, atmosphere, and biosphere. This yields a bias in radiocarbon dates that must be corrected. Scientists have been able to determine the correction between radiocarbon years and true calendar year by dating samples of known age (such as tree samples dated by counting annual rings) and comparing the apparent radiocarbon age to the true age. Through many careful measurements of this sort, they have demonstrated that, in general, radiocarbon years become progressively younger than calendar years as one goes back through time. For example, the ring of a tree known to have grown 5700 years ago will have a radiocarbon age of ~5000 years, whereas one known to have grown 12,800 years ago will have a radiocarbon age of ~11,000 years.

For our paleotemperature study, all radiocarbon ages needed to be converted (or calibrated) to calendar ages in a consistent manner. Calibration methods have been improved and refined over the past few decades. Because our compilation included data published many years ago, some of the original publications used radiocarbon calibration systems that are now obsolete. To provide a consistent chronology based on the best current information, we thus recalibrated all published radiocarbon ages with Calib 6.0.1 software (using the databases INTCAL09 for land samples or MARINE09 for ocean samples) and its state-of-the-art protocol for site-specific locations and materials. This software is freely available for online use at CALIB 14C Calibration Program.

By convention, radiocarbon dates are recorded as years before present (BP). BP is universally defined as years before 1950 CE, because after that time the Earths atmosphere became contaminated with artificial radiocarbon produced as a bi-product of nuclear bomb tests. As a result, radiocarbon dates on intervals younger than 1950 are not useful for providing chronologic control in our study.

After recalibrating all radiocarbon control points to make them internally consistent and in compliance with the scientific state-of-the-art understanding, we constructed age models for each sediment core based on the depth of each of the calibrated radiocarbon ages, assuming linear interpolation between dated levels in the core, and statistical analysis that quantifies the uncertainty of ages between the dated levels. In geologic studies it is quite common that the youngest surface of a sediment core is not dated by radiocarbon, either because the top is disturbed by living organisms or during the coring process. Moreover, within the past hundred years before 1950 CE, radiocarbon dates are not very precise chronometers, because changes in radiocarbon production rate have by coincidence roughly compensated for fixed decay rates. For these reasons, and unless otherwise indicated, we followed the common practice of assuming an age of 0 BP for the marine core tops.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

Real Climate..........


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 17, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...



Dear LOA:
My question remains:
If more people AGREE on issues of reducing and preventing pollution,
conserving and restoring endangered wilderness and wildlife,
and that pursuing these ends would have the SAME EFFECT as
addressing environmental issues of conservation that "global warming" addresses

THEN WHY ARGUE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Why not focus on similar or related points of AGREEMENT that solve the same problems?

Could it be
A. that politicians and media BENEFIT FROM CONTROVERSY AND CONFLICT
so instead of promoting existing solutions that ALL SIDES AGREE ON
these parties focus deliberately on issue of conflict to use as bait to get votes or ratings?

B. connections between politicians and politicized groups with corporate interests
have SOLD OUT the true green/environmental movement for things that make MONEY
1. carbon credits
2. contracts with "environmental" R&D such as the whole Solyndra scandal
3. whitewashing media and govt with PR $$$ from corporations such as BP
WITHOUT solving the problems as long as the right money exchanges with the right hands

could it be that THESE FACTORS have HURT the credibility of the REAL
environmental preservationists and anti-pollution movements?

And THAT BAD REPUTATION is why no one believes the global warming push?

???


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...



Live by the sword.  Die by the sword.   Abraham and PMZ's slavish devotion to the IPCC means they will go down with the ship when they IPCC is finally laughed off the world stage.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Does the National Academy of Sciences have credibility in the field of climate science?  They admitted that McIntyre's criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick graph were legitimate and accurate.
> ...



True, Mann continue to perpetrate his fraudulent results.  Like a lot of warmist cult members, Mann is totally shameless.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Your vocabulary is really impressive.
> 
> Here, try this:
> 
> ...



ROFL

They got caught balls deep in the pooch, the protestation that they aren't fucking the dog rings just a tad hollow....


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 17, 2013)

[MENTION][/MENTION]





westwall said:


> Real Climate..........



Are you doubting that the quoted text (and the rest of the article) was written by Marcott and Shakun?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Your vocabulary is really impressive.
> ...



What brilliant repartee.  

You didn't read their explanation, did you.  How come?  What was the problem?  What prevented you?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> [MENTION][/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm perfectly willing to believe they are a couple of hacks responsible for maintaining their propaganda vehicle.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Live by the sword.  Die by the sword.   Abraham and PMZ's slavish devotion to the IPCC means they will go down with the ship when they IPCC is finally laughed off the world stage.



That day is coming fast.  Some warmers are saying that this latest IPCC release will be the death knell for the IPCC itself.  No credibility left.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure that you don't read your copy and pastes. I'm positive you don't understand them.  The reason that climate science is the most rapidly growing field of science is that there are so many scientists working on perfecting it. Papers like this offering advice to advance the science come out every day.  The IPCC has the responsibility to evaluate which ones are a step forward and which head backward.  

Did you hear your name in that loop?  There's a good reason why not.  You don't even have credibility here much less globally. 

Educated people laugh at your bumbling attempts to kill science with politics. 

We know how much you want what you want to be true.  It simply isn't.  Science has proof that it isn't. 

You can beat your head against that wall all day.  There's almost no risk of getting dumber from doing that.  And even smaller odds of getting smarter.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...



What's the accuracy rate of your science?  Oh,  wait a minute.  You have none. 

OK then what's the success rate of your politics? 

Ooooppps,  sorry.  Didn't mean to embarrass you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 17, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> My question remains:
> If more people AGREE on issues of reducing and preventing pollution,
> conserving and restoring endangered wilderness and wildlife,
> and that pursuing these ends would have the SAME EFFECT as
> ...



Because they do not produce the same effect as directly addressing global warming.  I fully support reducing and preventing pollution, conserving and restoring endangered wilderness and wildlife.  Who doesn't?  But that doesn't get us anywhere NEAR where we need to be.  We need to move transportation and power generation away from fossil fuels.  That's is THE most effective manner by which we can reduce our GHG emissions.  Doing so will also dramatically reduce pollution and I am glad that is the case.  But we need to directly address GHG emissions - not try to sneak it in with a green front.



emilynghiem said:


> Why not focus on similar or related points of AGREEMENT that solve the same problems?



Always a good idea when you can find such a situation.



emilynghiem said:


> Could it be
> A. that politicians and media BENEFIT FROM CONTROVERSY AND CONFLICT
> so instead of promoting existing solutions that ALL SIDES AGREE ON
> these parties focus deliberately on issue of conflict to use as bait to get votes or ratings?



No.  Among climate scientists and the greater part of those with sufficient technical education to understand the issues at play, *there is no conflict*.  This conflict, just like the conflict about evolution and the conflict about tobacco's link to lung cancer, is a complete and utter fraud.



emilynghiem said:


> B. connections between politicians and politicized groups with corporate interests
> have SOLD OUT the true green/environmental movement for things that make MONEY



If you think money is the root of this problem, why do you pay so little (if any) attention to the oil industry?  From Wikipedia's article on it: "The production, distribution, refining, and retailing of petroleum taken as a whole represents the world's largest industry in terms of dollar value."  The industry's current gross profits are $240 - $300 billion per year.  Is that not enough to motivate folks to exceed their ethical limits? 



emilynghiem said:


> 1. carbon credits



Carbon credits weren't a sell out and they weren't intended to make money.  Carbon credits are a paragon of capitalistic social engineering.  The intention was to get business and industry to reduce their GHG emissions via the profit motive.  It's no different than a tax, save that the tax collector is not with the government, he's another business that's done a better job than you at cleaning up his act.  He didn't get to that position for free, though.  He had to spend some money first to get into a position that he had credits to sell.  And, of course, some folks will look for loopholes and shortcuts.  And the statutory infrastructure was a whole new concept.  So there were bound to be some rough patches as the system gets rolling and there will be people who successfully, but unethically, make some money off the system's weaknesses.  Are there not people who do that with the US tax code, even today?  Does that mean taxes don't work at funding the government?  No.  Carbon credits need work but they are still an excellent means of coercing the world's industries to clean up their acts.



emilynghiem said:


> 2. contracts with "environmental" R&D such as the whole Solyndra scandal



Solyndra wasn't doing any environmental R&D.  They had a very promising idea for a photovoltaics design.  They looked to be a very successful player.  But then the Chinese got into the picture and were able to make use of several technological innovations that, since they were starting from scratch, required no retooling.  They took over the market.  It wasn't just Solyndra.  Several major US and European PV manufacturers went under at the same time.



emilynghiem said:


> 3. whitewashing media and govt with PR $$$ from corporations such as BP
> WITHOUT solving the problems as long as the right money exchanges with the right hands



I'm uncertain to what you refer here.  The Deepwater Horizon spill?



emilynghiem said:


> could it be that THESE FACTORS have HURT the credibility of the REAL environmental preservationists and anti-pollution movements? And THAT BAD REPUTATION is why no one believes the global warming push?



If their reputation has been harmed - and I would include anti-warming activists in your clique and I do not disagree with you - it is a success on the part of a disinformation movement founded and funded by several segments of the fossil fuel industry and heartily befriended by a goodly part of the Republican party.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The deniers realized a long time ago that they had been proven completely wrong on all significant AGW issues.  And that there is simply no science that refutes the IPCC.  None. 

That's when they decided that all that was left was their political dirty tricks,  one being to never engage in meaningful debate but rather keep all conversations about trivia that could,  among the ignorant,  create some shred of doubt.  Innuendo,  personal attacks,  mumbo jumbo,  anything that people like them would fall for, like they did. 

As they say,  oldest political trick in the book.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> [MENTION][/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> ...








I could care less what they wrote.  Real Climate and all the fraudsters have zero credibility based on the proven falsification of data they have been caught doing.  *You* too have zero credibility...you are just another in a long line of sock puppets spewing your propaganda.  

Shakun et al has been proven false just like Mann's BS paper.  Anytime you can plug any number into an equation and get the same result you have a problem.  Unethical asshats like you and they don't care because scientific enquiry isn't your goal....political power and the theft of wealth is....


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Real Climate..........




  Westwall..........


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



*The deniers realized a long time ago that they had been proven completely wrong on all significant AGW issues. And that there is simply no science that refutes the IPCC. None. *

Which is why Kyoto and Cap & Trade are laws of the land. LOL!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> ...



Cleary you are informed,  a thinker,  and a responsible person.  Clearly you prioritize environmental issues as do some of us here. 

However,  a couple of points. 

While there is often very crude debate in forums like this,  they are not very representative of the real world.  In the real world the scientists and engineers and builders of things and doers and investors and responsible politicians are listening to the science,  from the IPCC,  and trying to negotiate rough waters in trying times.  Why?  Well, opportunity for one thing.  Necessity for another. 

Nobody in a position of responsibility believes that doing nothing is an affordable option.  The consequences of that would be not only an environmental disaster,  but also a business and political disaster. 

Energy is the most pervasive ingredient in progress. Most of the world's population is looking to catch up to where we've been for decades. China and India at this moment are learning the price of dumping fossil fuel wastes into the atmosphere. And realizing that unbreathable air isn't the worst part. Weather patterns different than what man built civilization around will be much more consequential. 

Despite what is posted here,  there is no real evidence that the IPCC has not been right on track in their evaluation of the threat.  Political resistance,  which is not at all unexpected,  but no contrary science. 

The project to move to sustainable energy will be the most ambitious undertaking mankind has ever attempted.  It will take in my estimation,  and I tend to be optimistic,  100 -  200 years.  Long for people who can't sit through half hour TV shows,  but the blink of an eye in terms of life on the planet. 

There are simply no alternatives.  

When WWII was looming,  many Americans were dead set against our involvement.  But when we were forced to get involved,  everyone did what was necessary. We were united as never before or since. 

I predict the same will happen for energy.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That giant flushing sound you hear is the entire conservative movement swirling the bowl.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Disagreeing with you is shameful?  I look at it as a sacred duty after 8 years of conservative incompetence to be recovered from.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Anytime you can plug any number into an equation and get the same result you have a problem.



You didn't look at this issue hard enough.  I'm not going to tell you what reality might be.  You go out and have another look.  Get the info from trustworthy OBJECTIVE sources.  Find out whether or not this claim of yours is correct.  Discover the truth.  You owe it to yourself.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Come on.  Conservatives are only allowed to read approved Internet material certified to be free from science,  math,  economics,  and truth.  For their own good their ''leaders'' tell them.  It's just better to avoid learning.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Live by the sword.  Die by the sword.   Abraham and PMZ's slavish devotion to the IPCC means they will go down with the ship when they IPCC is finally laughed off the world stage.
> ...



I think that history will judge the IPCC as the leading cause of the death of the conservative movement.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You make it sound like there's a connection.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > [MENTION][/MENTION]
> ...



The gospel according to Fox. Read today by Westwall.  Certified free of independent thought and science but cognitive nutrition by big oil. 

You make it so easy to be a conservative media entertainer.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Poor admiral....stuck your dick in it and now it's going to get cut off!



Some helpful advice for you: Don't drink and post.



> This paper shows the models are up to 100% off...great record there dipshit...



Drunk, bitter and fudging is no way to go through life, son. It's why your cult is considered a joke by the whole planet. That really must wear on the ol' sanity, knowing that the entire globe considers you to be a laughingstock.

But then, the whole planet must obviously be in on the vast socialist conspiracy. Good work on ferreting that out, all you little denialist Nancy Drews.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> I could care less what they wrote.



That this is the case doesn't surprise me.  That you'd admit it in public does.



westwall said:


> Real Climate and all the fraudsters have zero credibility based on the proven falsification of data they have been caught doing.



I'm afraid that's complete bullshit.  The truth is that you're afraid of debating the facts of the matter - of putting McIntyre's "analysis" up against Marcott et al's explanations.  You're afraid because you know you don't actually have the facts on your side.  Marcott's statements regarding carbon isotope dating are verifiably correct.  His statement's make sense.  McIntyre's requires a cornucopia of dishonesty and a large scale conspiracy.  Occam says go with Marcott and Shakun.



westwall said:


> You too have zero credibility.



Are you accusing me of lying?  If so, put it up here and prove it.  Otherwise shove it up your ass and jump.



westwall said:


> ..you are just another in a long line of sock puppets spewing your propaganda.



Again, whose puppet do you believe I am?  I want some names.  Is this something else you're actually afraid to get into?  Maybe one day you'll learn to stop sticking your neck out like this.



westwall said:


> Shakun et al has been proven false just like Mann's BS paper.



Show us some PROOF.  Not just some other asshole badmouthing his betters.  You said "proven".  You're supposed to be a professor.  You KNOW what that word means.  Let's see it.



westwall said:


> Unethical asshats like you and they don't care because scientific enquiry isn't your goal....political power and the theft of wealth is....



My goal is protecting the future in which my CHILDREN and THEIR CHILDREN and THEIR CHILDREN will have to live.  I couldn't care less about wealth and power.  I view you as a direct threat to their well being.  You are threatening my children, you stupid asshole.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The warmers have proven their case, beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Everyone believes them. That's why we voted to cripple our economy to reduce CO2.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 17, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...



Considering meteorologists can't give an accurate 5 day forecast, why oh why would I believe that some scientist somewhere can predict a 50 year forecast?

I've already lived thru some of the most dire predictions by scientists that never came to fruition.

What did happen to that ice age? MMMMMM............let's see, the rain forest being cut down would mean the end of civilization as we know it..............that other one that Ted Danson was on about. I think it involved the death of the oceans and everything in it. 

There have been so many. 

And I'm still alive and kicking and bitching at my weatherman who still can't get it freaking right.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 17, 2013)

E tu, IPCC? Then fall Warmers!

Komrades, Warmers, Progressives, lend me your Carbon Footprints. I come to bury the decline, not to hide it. The Warming that Carbon does is oft interred in the ocean


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Nobody ever said that science needs everyone to agree about anything.  You have the world's permission to set new ignorance records if that's what floats your boat.  The vast majority of science developed in the last few decades is absolutely beyond the average man on the street. Always will be.  In fact the delta in terms of understanding between experts in every topic and the average person has been increasing for hundreds of years. 

Anthropologists tell us that specialization is the foundation of civilization.  

Conservatives will tell us that they are entitled to know everything without learning. 

That's why civilization is leaving conservatism behind.  It's old baggage.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> ...



No doubt,  you must be the smartest person in the world by far if nobody knows anything more or better than you.  

At least that's one possibility.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 17, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> E tu, IPCC? Then fall Warmers!
> 
> Komrades, Warmers, Progressives, lend me your Carbon Footprints. I come to bury the decline, not to hide it. The Warming that Carbon does is oft interred in the ocean



I see we have another couple of snotty pseudo scientists on the board. From what I have read they are the new watermelons. 

(for those that might not know what a watermelon re: climate fanatics; the definition is 
 "green on the outside and commie red on the inside")

These two fit the bill it seems.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I could care less what they wrote.
> ...



Most conservatives believe that if our children and theirs know no more than the average conservative knows,  that's good enough. Education beyond theirs is a waste of money.  

The ultimate Dunning-Kruger mindset.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > loa said:
> ...



Aren't you the little wanker? ! I never made that claim.

I simply answered the OP's question.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > My question remains:
> ...








A "paragon"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]You keep using that word. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > E tu, IPCC? Then fall Warmers!
> ...



The ultimate conservative monster in the closet. 

The monster is old and proven toothless but still scares those who feel rather than think.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I could care less what they wrote.
> ...








Done repeatedly.  Your inability to do a simple google search is duly noted.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








What a loon!  AGW proponents *DEMAND THAT THERE BE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION YOU LYING PRICK!*


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are welcome to discuss with others whatever you want to.  Scientists the same.  

However you have no credibility when addressing science as you have no education in science.  

Simple concept.  Perhaps you have your own expertise.  Perhaps not. If you do it's because you invested in it. 

You're looking for a free ride by having credibility without education. 

That shit died centuries ago.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Science should lean neither left or right. There is no room for politics in the search for understanding and answers in the world of science.

You give yourself away with your political rhetoric. You have no love for science; you seek no truth. 

You are an alarmist. 

And alarmism has become the zealot's religion. Of that there is no doubt. 

I just finished reading an excellent article by Dr. Richard Lindzen.

This quote from his essay captures the essence of the climate alarmism perfectly.

*&#8220;Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly.

 It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions.

 How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?&#8221;*


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



No matter how you try to portray it it ends up science vs politics.  The world policy makers have decided to invest in science to guide their decision making. Good for them.  Others are  betting  on ignorance. Let's do nothing and hope for the best.  And let's do it by denying science.  Let's do it by letting lying politicians duke it out. 

There are no examples where acting out of ignorance bested acting from a position of knowledge.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 17, 2013)

Just an FYI for those interested. 

Great review at Watts Up With That .

* Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Posted on August 29, 2013	by Anthony Watts 

TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 &#8212; /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ &#8211; Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

 He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.

Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.

In consequence, he writes, &#8220;A profound dumbing down of the discussion&#8230;interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.&#8221; Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic.

 &#8220;Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,&#8221; Lindzen adds.*

Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons | Watts Up With That?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Actually,  you did.  When you do it here you will get called on it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Perhaps there's a basis for this rant.  Perhaps not.  We'll never know because it's apparently a secret.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Strong,  logical argument.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



World policy makers and politicians have discovered a cash cow called climate science to bleed the populace of advanced nations dry all in the name of "saving the planet".

And to trust politicians to "save the planet" is sheer lunacy considering they can't fix a damn thing including fixing pot holes.



Sadly true environmental issues have fallen by the wayside because they just don't have the allure, the rock star power of climate alarmism. 

Pity.

 I've been a serious conservationist all my life, specifically water purity and preservation and I find this climate garbage aka AGW that has been foisted on the planet by the likes of Al Gore absolutely appalling.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



True environmentalists know that their power to change the world for the better comes from science and government.  

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm a conservationist. Not an environmentalist. 

I no longer trust scientists who have their hand in the cookie jar called "research funds" given by governments or large foundations who have agendas all their own.

There are far too many who fit that category these days. Sold their souls and bend for their masters.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


*If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.*

Al Gore earned $5,247 (some say $6,000 currently) per minute for his 2007 speech. An hour of Al Gore's environmental speech would cost you a minimum of $314,820 at his 2007 rate. (based on a British £ is equivalent to approximately $1.59 US Dollars currently.)Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300-per-minute green speech | Mail Online

Educators in a number of countries refused free videos of his speech due to 9 inaccuracies (not cited in article), which is against educational principles universally, plus his use of exaggeration and omission is considered misleading by many scientists, not to mention honest journalists. Some of his work is accurate, but his use of political negativity against rivals was another reason cited by some countries' educational societies that would harm their children by poisoning the well of their minds in future decision-making.

Before accusing conservatives and conservationists of littering the landscape with discarded beer bottles, many of us have never done such a thing in our whole lives, and many of us turn off lights and fans when we leave a room and have done so for a lifetime.

Forcing societies to bankrupt their governments so unproved theories can be exercised can result in a lot of human misery. In my book, that is unnecessary, unwise, foolhardy.

So if profit is bad for conservatives, why are three thousand speeches by Al Gore that netted him half a billion dollars okay? Do tell.

Edit: Also, some of us are not amused that wind turbines kill millions of birds per year across the planet; because of them, the osprey count in the bird count surveys has declined as have other birds whose migratory paths fall where windfarms have arisen. Who speaks for them? The green community is mute on death by windfarm for birds and death by tidal turbines on aquatic mammals and fish and other sea species.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It is obvious by now that you don't think at all.  You believe and in turn act on faith.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.



The fact that you are here 24/7 makes it obvious that you don't work.  You are either an unemployed loser or a kid still living with your parents....so what the hell would you know about business?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



A Google search?  What's duly noted is your complete failure to make an appropriate response.  

1) Show us that you're not afraid to put McIntyre up against Marcott and Shakun.
2) Show us where you believe I've lied with the PROOF I did so.
3) Identify the poster of whom you believe me a puppet
4) Show us Shakun being PROVEN false - and Mann as well while you're at it.
5) Show us why I should not treat you as the threat to my children's well being that you actually, recklessly, ignorantly are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it.  Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.

I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Someone else unfamiliar with the term "prove".  McIntyre showed no such thing.



bripat9643 said:


> I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.



Then probably best if we don't knowingly enter the same room.  Feel free to leave.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Here's the word from Wikipedia on the slugfest between businessman McIntyre and climate scientist Mann. 

'' The North Report was a 2006 report evaluating reconstructions of the temperature record of the past two millennia, providing an overview of the state of the science and the implications for understanding of global warming. It was produced by a National Research Council committee, chaired by Gerald North, at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science.''

''These reconstructions had been dubbed "hockey stick graphs" after the 1999 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH99), which used the methodology of their 1998 reconstruction covering 600 years (MBH98). A graph based on MBH99 was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), and became a focus of the global warming controversy over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It was disputed by various contrarians, and in the politicisation of this hockey stick controversy the New York Times of 14 February 2005 hailed a paper by businessman Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick (MM05) as undermining the scientific consensus behind the Kyoto agreement. On 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, with Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, wrote joint letters referring to issues raised by the Wall Street Journal article, and demanding that Mann, Bradley and Hughes provide full records on their data and methods, finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results.[1][2] Boehlert said this was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and in November 2005 after Barton dismissed the offer of an independent investigation organised by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Boehlert requested the review which became the North Report.[3]''

''The North Report went through a rigorous review process,[4] and was published on 22 June 2006.[5] It concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries", justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600".[6] It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[7] Principal component analysis methodology which had been contested by McIntyre and McKitrick had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[8][9]''

If I was a betting man,  my money would be on Mann having a field day in court.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



What are you trying to conserve if not the earth?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



I can't tell.  Are you saying that business is not each and every business following make more money regardless of the cost to others?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.
> ...



Try retired after a long and successful engineering career. 

Sounds to me like you've completely run out if anti science arguments.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Is this the best of your anti science?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



What's your stance on the extinction rate caused by a different climate? What's the record from previous climate change events?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Mann should show them his Nobel Prize!


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









That's because you are a religious fanatic.  It is impossible to cure fanaticism.... just look at all the chuckleheads seeking their 72 virgins....  You are the same as them....


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Apparently the difference between knowledge and faith eludes you. 

When people have appropriate knowledge they'd be foolish not to trust it.  When people are hoping that what they wish was true,  was really true,  that's faith. 

They can look outwardly the same,  but  responses to certain questions often are very revealing about who knows and who wishes. 

MDs know the science of Medicine.  Shamans know faith.  Sometimes illness or injury is cured while a shaman is present.  That doesn't make them MDs.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...




Only a gullible moron would accept Wikipedia as a valid source on any issue that is remotely political.  Leftwingers have gone through every entering related to global warming and edited them to reflect the warmist dogma.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 18, 2013)

Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Yes he did, beyond all reasonable doubt.  Of course, nothing can be proved to a programmed drone like yourself who is only able to regurgitate what the priesthood tells you to regurgitate.



Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.
> ...



I'll feel free to take whatever measures I deem appropriate.


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









Considering that Mann is flirting with contempt of court in Canada now, because of his refusal to release documents in Discovery, and his well known propensity for shooting his mouth off in inappropriate manner, I will take your bet.

Mann is going to lose, and lose big.  The question is how many of the rats are going to go down with his little ship of fools...


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








No, *I'M* retired after a long environmental geology career....and I am on here a third of the time you are.  You either have no life, or you are being paid to spew here.


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









What extinction rate?  Last time I checked there were thousands of new species being discovered yearly...


Top 10 New Species - 2012 | International Institute for Species Exploration

http://species.asu.edu/files/SOS2010.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.



It's easier when the 90% is a made up number.


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.







If it was indeed 90% of the worlds scientists I_ might_ agree with you, but, as that number is entirely fictitious, I am confident that the cult of AGW is on its way out.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> What brilliant repartee.
> 
> You didn't read their explanation, did you.  How come?  What was the problem?  What prevented you?



Oh I read it alright, and it read like the excuse of a 14 year old who just got busted mounting the family dog. These two knew they got caught, and were throwing out excuses.

The AGW cult is a fraud, and cannot survive the light of day. Like cockroaches, your priests and prophets scurry any time the light of legitimate research is shined on them.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What brilliant repartee.
> ...



So what other fruitcake conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.



It takes more faith, and a fair amount of gullibility to believe that 90% of the world's scientists are onboard the AGW crazy train.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> So what other fruitcake conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?





So then, you took a dose of LSD this morning, then?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> What extinction rate?  Last time I checked there were thousands of new species being discovered yearly...
> 
> 
> Top 10 New Species - 2012 | International Institute for Species Exploration
> ...



Funny how they bring up the extinction rate.  I have asked numerous times for one of them to name a species whose demise could be linked directly to climate change.  Zero so far.

Raptors, bats, and miagratory birds may be among the first because I suppose extinction due to windmills could be laid at the feed of climate change...or warmist wackos at least.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Funny how they bring up the extinction rate.  I have asked numerous times for one of them to name a species whose demise could be linked directly to climate change.  Zero so far.
> 
> Raptors, bats, and miagratory birds may be among the first because I suppose extinction due to windmills could be laid at the feed of climate change...or warmist wackos at least.



The Wind Farm in Cabazon, along the 10 freeway on the way to Palm Springs, his virtually eradicated the Red Tail Hawk from the region.

Raptor choppers. Migratory birds are mostly spared, as they fly at an altitude above the windmills, but the raptors fly low to hunt prey.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Certainly the people in charge of recruiting and training the conservative army know that exposure to knowledge is counter productive to their mission. 

They have had historically a two prong attack on the knowledge threat.  Wikipedia and IPCC denial.  

Personally I think that their plan failed.  Promoting ignorance most always does. 

Now the conservative army is widely regarded as a mob of ignorant yahoos,  and has been rendered irrelevant. 

Ultimately,  in a democracy,   political groups have to be electable to impose the wants of the movement on others. 

Now even the GOP wants to disassociate itself from the yahoo army. 

The end is in sight.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.
> ...



You continue to believe that what you want to be true,  has power.  

It doesn't.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.
> ...



It is.  A more exact number is 97 percent.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



What does that have to do with extinction rate? Is there some limit to the number of species that can live here?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That was a very weak attempt to defend obvious Wikipedia and IPCC propaganda.  

In this debate you have three main arguments:


Appeal to authority
Begging the question
Circular logic
I find it truly scary that someone who claims to have been an engineer could have a mind that is so obviously incapable of rational thought.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



How many believe CO2 is to blame for Katrina?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I would do it paid or for free because it's helping to destroy a threat to my country. 

Can you tell me where to apply for getting paid?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



98.3% of all made up statistics have an impossibly high level of precision.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Let's see,  a businessman vs a scientist in a suit based on science. 


Who do you suppose is paying for McIntyre's legal bills?  What organization.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



100 percent of people who don't know statistics,  get fooled by them.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What legal bills?  His website is funded purely by donations.

Who is paying Michael Mann's legal bills?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



As you have demonstrated in spades.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Only climate scientists have an informed opinion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'll add ignorance of the lawsuit to your list.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You're the expert on their opinions. 

Is our CO2 to blame for Katrina and the rains in Colorado?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I see that you have passed the yahoo army ignorance test. Congratulations.  

I'm afraid that I,  personally,  am addicted to learning and confident enough in my ability to separate the fly shit from the pepper to resent others telling me what I can or can't,  should or shouldn't, look at.  That's why I'm a liberal.  

It's obvious that you fall for a lot of bad information and that you are following Fox News orders.  If you're OK with that,  have at it.  It makes it much easier to argue you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Appeal to Authority.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Appeal to experts.  Those who know.  The alternative being following those who don't know. Where's that going to get you? Thats the process that makes conservatives.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



''His website is funded purely by donations.''

Why do you suppose people would pay a business man for running his mouth about science?

It must be good business for him.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



As I demonstrated earlier, an appeal to "experts" is still an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy.  As history shows so abundantly, the experts can be dead wrong, especially government experts.

The alternative is to way the evidence presented.  That's something any well educated person is capable of.  Only a servile drone allows the government to tell him what to think.  The bottom line is that a free country cannot survive populated with servile brainwashed toadies like you.  Your kind are what allow men like Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt to come to power.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Increased atmospheric instability is caused by excess global energy. 

Do you really think that it's possible to identify which storms would have occurred in our old climate and which only in our new climate? 

Lots of luck with that science.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



McIntyre is a mathematician.  He's an expert with statistics.  That makes him eminently more qualified to determine the validity of Michael Mann's statistical algorithms than you or Michael Mann himself.  The National Science Foundation confirmed McIntyre's analysis of Mann's Hockey Stick fraud.

I thought you believed in consulting experts.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Only you would try to get away with paying attention to experts is a logical fallacy. 

That is about as fundamental ignorance as I can imagine.  But it does clarify your condition.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I read about the National Science Foundation's opinion.  You are almost completely misrepresenting it.


----------



## Peterf (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.
> ...



I have never seen or heard 'Fox News'.    I have a good layman's understanding of scientific method.   I am a rationalist and science is the light I live by.   Which is, of course, why I am so dismayed by the perversion of science by warmist charlatans.  They have over decades cherry-picked data and when that proved insufficient simply invented it.   It is they who spread alarmism for political reason.    You say "Science always trumps politics".   Let us hope that that turns out to be the case.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Increased atmospheric instability is caused by excess global energy. *

Is that why we've had record hurricanes every year for the last 5 years?

*Do you really think that it's possible to identify which storms would have occurred in our old climate and which only in our new climate?*

That's why I laugh when idiot warmers do that very thing.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Have I?

Here are some excerpts from the report:

_The debate over Dr. Mann&#8217;s principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann&#8217;s RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been &#8216;discredited&#8217;. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were &#8216;unfounded&#8217;. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre&#8217;s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North&#8217;s NRC panel have done.

While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.

&#8220;Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the &#8216;centering&#8217; issue off the table. [Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics &#8230;. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn&#8217;t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.

It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.

We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.

*Overall, our committee believes that Mann&#8217;s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.*

[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper&#8217;s visibility. ,,,The &#8220; &#8216;hockey stick&#8217; reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics&#8217; prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.

We have been to Michael Mann&#8217;s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick

Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99.

Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus &#8216;&#8220;independent studies&#8217; may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.

Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann's work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.&#8221;

&#8220;We note that the American Meteorological Society has a Committee on Probability and Statistics. I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent Ph. D. with an assistant professor appointment in a medical school. The American Meteorological Association recently held the 18th Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences.. Of the 62 presenters at a conference with a focus on statistics and probability, only 8 &#8230; are members of the American Statistical Association. I believe that these two communities should be more engaged and if nothing else our report should highlight to both communities a need for additional cross-disciplinary ties."

Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.&#8221;​_


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I'm not sure I can give you the answer you want, but I found a source that reinforces all I knew about my fellow small businesses in which I am sole proprietor since 1987, basically that half of businesses begun don't make it through the initiation years, and here's the skinny on too many small businesses:



> The U.S. Small Business Administration has seen lots of small businesses come and, unfortunately, go. According to the SBA, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first five years. Why? What goes wrong?
> 
> In his book Small Business Management, Michael Ames gives the following reasons for small business failure:
> 1. Lack of experience
> ...


 Why Small Businesses Fail: SBA

Instituting government rules and regulations is often necessary in order that people will not be sold weight-loss pills that contain tapeworm segments!

But instituting big-business enforcements against small businesses is doom because

A small business owner starting up may not be able to afford a certified public accountant, bookkeeper, consultation attorney, or other luxuries large businesses take for granted based on their success.

Not everybody can run a small business, because they may not have customer relations trainings, understand legal/ethical problems other businesses in their field have had, or even the slightest grasp of economics. They also may lack the backbone to go to a state employment board and face down an employee seeking unemployment benefits who said they worked over a year for you when actually they worked less than two full working days and you had to call them when they didn't show up.
Since state employment boards in small areas tend to recall repeat businesses that are reported by employees seeking unemployment benefits, you are made specifically aware that your business account is charged for benefits the state gives out in some states by law. Why should you let a quitter of 12 hours of employment stick you for a full 2 years of paying their breakfast, dinner, lunch, rent, utilities and other luxuries paid for by unemployment taxes leveled against your business.

If that small business doesn't make muster for 12 years due to startup costs, the pressure of paying for a handful of cheaters to get money out of your business they neglected, nobody would stay in business. Our system works in a system that has ethics. When ethics break down, starvation is the alternative bedfellow.

That's my perspective on business. I hope that gives you an idea of where a business owner might have problems with dealing with providing fifty thousand dollars worth of medical benefits per employee when the yearly receipts are ninety-eight thousand after 5 years of 60- to 80-hour weeks of hard work for which you received zero salary and zero profits, and stark idiots walk up to you and say something to the effect: "Wow! You must really love this business and be making money hand over fist to be celebrating your fifth anniversary!" 

And I'm supposed to finance unproved energy businesses that have a history of failure?


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Really?  Post it in its entirety, then so we can all see it.  Don't leave anything out now....


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



PMS didn't even read it, or he's just plain lying about it.  You can never take anything these warmist cult members say at face value.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



A couple of points.

There is a lot of sadness in life and nobody is exempt. In the grand scheme of things, having your business not succeed is a pretty minor bump compared to early cancer, poverty, being born to bad parents or handicapped, which are big sadnesses. Having to get a job is pretty minor. 

The environmrnt in the US is very friendly to both large and small business but those who fail rely on government to be a convenient scapegoat as it's easier on the ego than the truth. Most businesses that fail do so because they are poorly run or never had a viable business plan.

So business success is not an entitlement. 

We are each invested in business one way or another and are also consumers. As a consumer, I hate to be taken advantage by business, be it by poor products, lousy service, dumping waste that pollutes, putting customers at safety risks, misleading advertising, low quality or disguised price gouging. 

One huge error made by conservatives is the belief in the completely mythological perfect market. Perhaps once long, long ago that myth might have been viable but now regulated markets are the only protection consumers have.

The most iconic mark of our times in this country is our completely dysfunctional wealth distribution. The rich are getting much richer, the middle class is becoming poor, the poor are dismally so. So don't expect a lot of sympathy from anyone on high taxes that the wealthy don't even notice. 

We had it right in the 70s after fixing civil rights. A few Republican administrations rewarded their constituents with half taxes on income from wealth and took the shortfall out on taxing income from work.

How bright is that? Reward being wealthy, punish working which creates wealth.

Now the latest GOP boondoggle. Health care as an entitlement for wealth. Maintaining the most expensive health care system by far in the world and only covering the wealthy half of the nation. It would be tough to find a less efficient, less effective non system.

So your pitiful whining that you shouldn't have to work hard, but are entitled to wealth, is falling on increasingly deaf ears based on real data about this country. 

If you think that you have it hard now, try poverty.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Peterf said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...



If you were anything like you claim to be, you'd be demanding science and evidence based action in the face of completely unaffordable consequences of doing nothing about energy.

You say you don't even have the excuse of being misled by Fox. Does that imply that you are a self made moron? 

Like most deniers you look around and notice that your grass is green today so, what's the problem?

What you're really doing is hoping that someone else will take care of you as the problem unfolds and solutions get put in place. Unfortunately, as almost always happens, the problem solvers will take care of the problem creators. If mankind could fix that there would be a lot fewer problem creators and a lot more problem solvers.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Obviously, you are comfortable continuing to follow those who don't know what they're doing. Feel free to carry on.

Me, I'm going to continue to live in the highly specialized 21st century culture, whereby we take advantage of the people who know best how to solve particular problems.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I read about the National Science Foundation's opinion.  You are almost completely misrepresenting it.



Typically uninformed regarding your priest:

The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

The NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Manns data set does not have enough information to verify its skill at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or strip-bark records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th  century warmth is not robustin other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Manns results are strongly dependent on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.

A subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the hockey stick and ripped apart Manns methodology as bad mathematics. When Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims vindicated him  was asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegmans harsh criticisms, he said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegmans report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: *No, we dont. We dont disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.*

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Statistics is one tool that's useful with all data. Applying good statistics to bad data results in misinformation. I go with the content experts rather than the generic tool jockeys. It's much more likely that Mann knows adequate statistics, most scientists do, than McIntyre knowing adequate climate science.


----------



## Peterf (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



There is never any point in engaging in discussion with people who think that they advance their case by calling those who with whom they disagree "morons".  I'm new here so it is useful to be able to start a list of those who's posts may be safely ignored.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Here's what Wikipedia says.

In the hockey stick controversy, the data and methods used in reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years have been disputed by those opposed to action on global warming. Reconstructions have consistently shown that the rise in the instrumental temperature record of the past 150 years is not matched in earlier centuries, and the name "hockey stick graph" was coined for figures showing a long term decline followed by an abrupt rise in temperatures. These graphs were publicised to explain the scientific findings of climatology, and in addition to scientific debate over the reconstructions, they have been the topic of political dispute. The issue is part of the global warming controversy and has been one focus of political responses to reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Arguments over the reconstructions have been taken up by fossil fuel industry funded lobbying groups attempting to cast doubt on climate science.[1]
The use of proxy indicators to get quantitative estimates of the temperature record of past centuries was developed from the 1990s onwards, and found indications that recent warming was exceptional. The Bradley & Jones 1993 reconstruction introduced the "Composite Plus Scaling" (CPS) method used by most later large scale reconstructions,[2][3] and its findings were disputed by Pat Michaels at the United States House Committee on Science.
In 1998 Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes developed new statistical techniques to produce Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98), the first eigenvector-based climate field reconstruction (CFR). This showed global patterns of annual surface temperature, and included a graph of average hemispheric temperatures back to 1400.[4] In Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 (MBH99) the methodology was extended back to 1000.[5][6] The term hockey stick was coined by the climatologist Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern this showed, envisaging a graph that is relatively flat to 1900 as forming an Ice hockey stick's "shaft", followed by a sharp increase corresponding to the "blade".[7][8] A version of this graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), along with four other reconstructions supporting the same conclusion.[6] The graph was publicised, and became a focus of dispute for those opposed to the strengthening scientific consensus that late 20th century warmth was exceptional.[9]
Those disputing the graph included Pat Michaels, the fossil fuel funded George C. Marshall Institute and Fred Singer. A paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas claiming greater medieval warmth was used by the Bush administration chief of staff Philip Cooney to justify altering the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment The paper was quickly dismissed by scientists in the Soon and Baliunas controversy, but on July 28, Republican Jim Inhofe spoke in the Senate speech citing it to claim "that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".[10]
Later in 2003, a paper by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick disputing the data used in MBH98 paper was publicised by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In 2004 Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small.[11] In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. Their analysis in was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology. In June 2005 Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert's request a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12] Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick's view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect. They also produced an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism. Arguments against the MBH studies were reintroduced as part of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, but dismissed by eight independent investigations.
More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



In other words, you'll continue to spout logical fallacies.

You're a pathetic brainwashed drone.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's what Wikipedia says.



wikipedia???  Haaaaaaahaaaaaaaa   ho ho ho ho....snort haaaaaa haaaaaaa

Spoken like a true f'ing idiot.  He just provided you with excerpts from the actual reports and you respond with "Here's what Wikipedia says."  

Bwwwwaaaaaahhhhhaaahhhaaahhaaaa...snort snort...chuckle chuckle......hhhhaaaaahhhh


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Only a brainwashed troll would believe what Wikipedia says.  I quoted excerpts from the report.  Those excerpts clash decidedly with the way Wikipedia describes them.  Everyone with a brain knows that AGW cult members have edited all the entries in Wikipedia related to AGW to conform with warmist dogma.

You obviously prefer to consult dogma rather than go to original sources and learn the facts for yourself.  Why don't you quote from the original report the material that backs up Wikipedias account of the issue?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You are wrong.. Climate studies doesn't have a very rigorous math requirement in UnderGrad work.. And not much else is MANDATED for a graduate degree.. To wit.. 

From Ohio State... 

Curriculum for Geography Majors that selected the Climatic Studies Specialization AFTER Spring 2010:

Climatic Studies (BS)

Required Prerequisites or Supplements to the Major:

1. Calculus I (Math 1151)
2. Calculus II (Math 1152)
3. Introduction to Calculus-based Physics I (Physics 1250)
4. Introduction to Calculus-based Physics II (Physics 1251)
5.* Introduction to Statistical Analysis (STAT 2450)*

I know H.S. graduates with more math than that.. 

For the atmos science version of the degree --- they add one course in differential equations.

What's MISSING? Any mainstream APPLICATIONS oriented course in math such as Linear Systems, NonLinear Systems, or Stochastic Systems... Or APPLIED statistics.. All missing.

Hopefully --- as "Climate Science" matures and licks it's self-inflicted wounds --- this will change..


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what Wikipedia says.
> ...



I just love these two quotes from the report:

While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.

Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the centering issue off the table. [Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics . I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesnt matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

That sums up PMS perfectly:  Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No, you'll continue to follow people who don't know what they are doing.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



According to the NAS that's exactly what you're doing.  Allow me to quote them:

"While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."

In other words, the Hockey Stick is a fraud.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Peterf said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...



Perhaps my assessment would change if you could explain why any who believe as you claim would not support the pure climate science of the IPCC. The only science applicable to AGW. Do you have a source of alternative science that you forgot to mention?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


 
Talk about logical fallacies. 

"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."

Does not lead to 

"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"

The fact that you thought so is evidence of how easy you are to fool.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yes it does lead to that.  McIntyre pretty much stated the Hockey Stick is a fraud.  Although he doesn't outright accuse Mann of deliberately doctoring his results.  He does point out all the flaws in the process, most of which would have to be done deliberately to determine the desired result.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> McIntyre is a mathematician.  He's an expert with statistics.



Then why does he suck so badly at statistics? Why does he so often do a face plant into a cow patty?

Bri, of course, is a card-carrying member of the CultOfMcIntyre, so he has no idea that DearLeaderMcIntyre sucks at statistics. TheCult never told him that. As TheCult forbids the cultists from looking at any non-cult sources, Bri's purity of thought will remain forever unsullied. He'll be cut-and-pasting McIntyre's big whoppers from Climate Audit and WUWT for years to come. Poor Bri has no clue about what he's pasting, but he knows his masters have told him it's perfect and true, and he knows that only some dirty liberal would fail to have absolute faith in his DearLeaderMcIntyre. And since dirty liberals are always wrong, the fact that they laugh at DearLeader is further proof of how DearLeader must be correct.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Just the process of piecing together sketchy, undersampled historical proxy data with accurate oversampled modern era instrumentation is a red flashing alarm.. The proxy data is not good enough for that purpose.. 

If Mann had reviewed the statistics of that process and some of the bad proxy data he was handed, ---- he might not be so embarrassed today.. 

He is BTW the SAME guy who defended his Hockey Stick by IGNORING 30 or 40 proxy studies of historical worldwide data to declare the MWPeriod to be "a local event".


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

mamooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > McIntyre is a mathematician.  He's an expert with statistics.
> ...



He doesn't.  The NAS confirmed that his criticism of the Hockey Stick graph were valid.  Why do you so often just plain lie?



mamooth said:


> Bri, of course, is a card-carrying member of the CultOfMcIntyre, so he has no idea that DearLeaderMcIntyre sucks at statistics. TheCult never told him that. As TheCult forbids the cultists from looking at any non-cult sources, Bri's purity of thought will remain forever unsullied. He'll be cut-and-pasting McIntyre's big whoppers from Climate Audit and WUWT for years to come. Poor Bri has no clue about what he's pasting, but he knows his masters have told him it's perfect and true, and he knows that only some dirty liberal would fail to have absolute faith in his DearLeaderMcIntyre. And since dirty liberals are always wrong, the fact that they laugh at DearLeader is further proof of how DearLeader must be correct.



Well, if _ad hominems _ were valid arguments, you would be the debate champ of this forum, and if I won the lottery I would be living in Mexico right now.  The reality is that you're just another brainwashed drone who regurgitates the propaganda he's told to regurgitate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 18, 2013)

Why is IPCC denying Mann's hockey stick


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 18, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why is IPCC denying Mann's hockey stick



Why don't you just show us.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



McIntyre has a masters degree in statistics.  However, until he took up and pro-global warming cause, I don't believe he had ever been employed as a statistician.  He worked for a mining company.  I'm sure he used some math at his job there, but he's not the world's greatest statistician and he has made mistakes.  Besides that, on a personal level, he's a jerk.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> ..
> 
> He is BTW the SAME guy who defended his Hockey Stick by IGNORING 30 or 40 proxy studies of historical worldwide data to declare the MWPeriod to be "a local event".



30or40?  The number of published papers proving he MWP was warmer than the present and global is far larger than that.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You are the one that made the logical fallacy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What's the fallacy?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I don't think that you understand how science works.  Everything is built on previous work.  Mann was an early pioneer.  One of the first to reconstruct a long term global temperature history.  He advanced that science. It has continued to be advanced from his work by others.  Not by McIntyre et al.  They are well paid to drag red herrings across the path of progress instead of advancing it.  Mann is a climate scientist.  McIntyre is an anti science politician.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


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



So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All

    Published: October 1st, 2012


Michael D. LemonickBy Michael D. Lemonick

The so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a 400-year span from about 950 to 1220 A.D. when the Vikings colonized Greenland, was relatively balmy by the standards of the past 2,000 years, leading some to argue that the global warming were now experiencing isnt that big a deal. But a new report in the journal Geology argues that the MWP wasnt all that warm after all  and certainly not as warm as the climate is today.

According to William DAndrea of Columbia Universitys Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and his co-authors, summer temperatures in the Svalbard Archipelago, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean about 400 miles north of Norway, have been between 3.6°F and 4.5°F higher over the past 25 years, on average, than the summers the Vikings enjoyed.

View of the area around Ny-Ålesund, located on Svalbard, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of mainland Europe. 
Credit: United Nations Photo/flickr

As more research has come in over the past decade, DAndrea said, its becoming clear that this medieval period was not uniformly warm, and we can see that for sure in this one location. 

The question isnt just academic. Climate scientists are convinced that rising temperatures during the 20th century, and especially over the past 50 years, are largely due to heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gases generated by the burning of coal, oil and other carbon-based fuels. If theyre going to project how fast and how high temperatures will rise in the future  to know where were going  its important to know where weve been.

What complicates the matter is that global temperatures can also change for purely natural reasons  and if they spiked dramatically during the MWP, it might suggest that nature has a significant role in todays warming.

We need to disentangle natural variability from the changes we humans are provoking, DAndrea said, and the best way to do that is to look to a time before humans began burning fossil-fuels in earnest.

The problem, of course, is that the Vikings didnt have thermometers. We know from their records and those of others that the MWP was warm, but not precisely how warm. So like all scientists who want to understand ancient temperatures, DAndrea and his colleagues relied on proxies  natural processes that change with temperature.

The bow of a Viking ship located in the Viking Ship Museum, Oslo, Norway.
Credit: zement/flickr.

In this case, they looked at lipids, or fat molecules created as a biological by-product by algae in Kongressvatnet, a lake on the island of Spitzbergen. When the lake water is colder, the algae tend to churn out unsaturated fats; when its warmer, the fats tend to be saturated. Then, when the algae die, their fat-containing corpses drift to the lake bottom, where theyre buried deeper and deeper each year by new layers of algae and other debris.

DAndrea and his co-workers extracted about 1,800 years worth of layers from the lake bottom, measured the relative amounts of saturated and unsaturated fats in each one, and came up with a detailed temperature profile of the lake water going back 18 centuries (these were summer temperatures only: in winter, the lake is frozen). 

In order to keep their lake-bottom thermometer honest, the scientists compared the most recent hundred years worth of fat levels with records from actual thermometers located on Spitzbergen. It turns out, DAndrea said, that the lipid levels really do a very accurate job of recording temperature.

That, DAndrea said, gave them the confidence that they really could say something meaningful about temperatures back to the Medieval Warm Period and beyond. We can say that summer temperatures at this location have been warmer in the recent past than they have over the past 1,800 years.

One possible criticism of the study is that its based on just one location. Maybe this lake, or this region, was significantly cooler during the MPW for some reason than the rest of the world. For that reason DAndrea and his scientific collaborators are doing the same sort of research in other lakes  in Greenland, Alaska, and the Ural Mountains of Russia; and on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian High Arctic.

Those results havent been published yet, but, DAndrea said, the more work we do, the more this finding seems to hold up.

The research is important, not just because it reinforces the conclusion that humans are now putting their own imprint on the climate, but also, DAndrea said, because it can help scientists predict where the climate is going from here.

If we can understand how the climate system reacted to natural forces in the past, he said, well have a better understanding of how it will respond to the changes were imposing on it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




"the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid"

Does not lead to 

"the Hockey Stick is a fraud"


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

From Howstuffworks

If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?

by Marshall Brain
307

Antarctica accounts for about 90 percent of the world's ice. 

You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years (see How do they measure sea level?).

*This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg. Submarines use this principle to rise and sink in the water, too.

But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice mo*re likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte*d.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> From Howstuffworks
> 
> If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?
> 
> ...



*At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.*

How can this be? You said melting Arctic Ocean ice has flooded our coasts, many times.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > From Howstuffworks
> ...



I said AGW in the Arctic would flood our coasts. 

Why? 

Greenland glaciers melting. 

Thermal expansion of water. 

Read the article again and tell us what those two things would do to sea level.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Ohhh, so when you said Arctic Ocean ice melting, you meant Greenland.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



In what ocean is Greenland located?  It seems like you've been overwhelmed by important points that you have been wrong about.  You'd like to compensate by bringing up unimportant points that you'd like to claim to be not as wrong about. 

Feel free.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Don't forget. 

Read the article again and tell us what those two things would do to sea level.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*In what ocean is Greenland located?*

Ummmmmm....Greenland ice isn't in the Arctic Ocean.

I'm overwhelmed by the important points you have been wrong about.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why can't you answer a simple question? 

The important points that you want to be true,  simply aren't.  I know that that sucks for you.  Two choices.  Continue to deny,  or join those of us in the real world.  I know that denial is your preference because of your insatiable ego.  But,  you're not the first person in the world to screw up.  Man up and admit it.  Because the other choice,  defending the indefensible,  sucks,  big time. 

Growing up and taking responsibility for yourself is tough. The only thing worse is trying to avoid it.  

But,  acting like a grownup has its own set of advantages.  

You can do it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yes it does, because that is exactly what McIntryre's criticism says, doofus.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> From Howstuffworks
> 
> If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?
> 
> ...



Your chances of winning the lottery are 1000 times better than the chance of Antarctica melting.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I don't think that you understand how science works.  Everything is built on previous work.  Mann was an early pioneer.  One of the first to reconstruct a long term global temperature history.



Everything being built on previous work is fine and well if that work is substantiated, proven, and sound.  If that isn't the case, then you have described precisely how an error cascade can destroy an entire field of research.  A single bit of foundational research is wrong and then is, in turn, used by others and amplified with each reference.  mann's work has become part of the foundation of climate science, but he really wasn't a pioneer.  There were many long term global temperature histories made before him (dozens) across the globe and the vast majority of them identified the Roman and Medieval warm periods as being both warmer than the present and global in nature.  Today, literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers dispute mann's findings that the MWP was about the same temperature as the present and was not global in nature.

Literally hundreds of papers peer reviewed and published in respectable journals and yet, mann's findings, even though his methodology, and data source itself, has been called into question and been found wanting by no less than the National Academy of Science form the basis for climate science insofar as climate history is concerned.

With the vast body of evidence pointing to multiple warm periods in the not so distant past that were both warmer than the present and global in nature, why do you suppose mann's work is the benchmark?

His work is accepted by all climate scientists after him as sound and used, without checking, in their own research....taken as a given...and the error is amplified with each additional use as that paper will then become part of the reference data set.  That means that every bit of research that has used mann's findings and accepted them as sound is a flawed paper.  Hundreds, perhaps thousands of them by now. 

The medical research community is, at present, reeling from just such an error cascade, and the medical research community is, as a whole, better educated and more tightly controlled than the climate science community.  If it can happen in medicine, it can happen anywhere.



PMZ said:


> He advanced that science. It has continued to be advanced from his work by others.



He has been instrumental in destroying the credibility of a whole field of science.  Why would an individual's work which goes against the findings of literally hundreds of published, peer reviewed papers, and whose methodology and data sources themselves have been called into question and in some areas found wanting become the benchmark? 

Paper after paper has been published since mann, finding that the MWP and RWP were both warmer than the present and global in nature.  Why then does mann's work remain the benchmark.  How exactly is that a sign of a healthy branch of scientific research?  Neither the findings, nor the methodology, nor the data sources of these hundreds of papers has been called into question and found wanting and yet, mann's paper which goes against them remains the benchmark.  Does that sound like good science to you?  Really?

To me it sounds like the few papers whose findings were that smoking wasn't bad for your health against the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.  Climate science has become the equivalent of tobacco company research and it will pay dearly for putting politics ahead of scientific integrity.




PMZ said:


> Not by McIntyre et al.  They are well paid to drag red herrings across the path of progress instead of advancing it.  Mann is a climate scientist.  McIntyre is an anti science politician.



The National Academy of Science found mann's work wanting and it doesn't matter who or why the work was called into question.  The fact is that his work was found to be substandard.  The national academy said about mann's work:

 the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Manns data set does not have enough information to verify its skill at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

 M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or strip-bark records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th  century warmth is not robustin other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Manns results are strongly dependent on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.

A subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the hockey stick and devastatingly ripped apart Manns methodology as bad mathematics. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims vindicated him  was asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegmans harsh criticisms, he said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegmans report?

.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

The hard fact is that mann's work was found wanting and yet remains the benchmark in a field of science whose political aspirations have replaced the scientific method.  

Explain, as concisely as possible why you think mann's work, which has been questioned remains the benchmark while literally hundreds of papers, which have not been called into question, and dispute his findings, are ignored by the field.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All



God buy you are stupid.  One paper looking at one small chain of islands overturns hundreds of papers that find that the MWP was warmer and global in your mind?

Africa:
Level 1 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 2 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 3 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science


Antarctica
Level 2 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Level 3 Studies:
CO2 Science


Asia
Level 1 Studies:
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science

Should I continue?  I can if you like.  Study after study after study in every region of the globe finding that the MWP was warmer than the present and global in nature.  How many peer reviewed papers published in respected journals would it take to make you believe that mann missed the mark and was incorrect in his findings.  Name a number.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Because someone being paid to deny science,  does,  you conclude that it must be logical. 

No wonder you're so easily fooled.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



He's not being paid to do anything, doofus.  He's retired.  Apparently he just despises fraud, so he exposes it when he sees it.

Do you believe everything the priests of the cult tell you to believe?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All
> ...



You have one source and I have one source.  You like your source because what they say you want to be true.  

As far as I can tell,  the MWP is over.  Whatever happened then will be understood some day.  Just as what's happening now is understood.  The two things are unrelated unless you believe that there were 7B Vikings all burning fossil fuels. 

People who want to pursue scientifically that period are certainly welcome to.  Maybe,  when we get all of the urgent energy problems solve,  someone will fund a MWP IPCC just out of curiosity. 

I'm for all of the knowledge that we can uncover.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You have one source and I have one source.  You like your source because what they say you want to be true.



Obviously, you didn't click on a single link.  Each one of those links goes to a different study.  The "one source" as you call it acts as a clearing house for hundreds of studies.  So you had one study while I provided 45 studies and can continue to provide more and more.


Answer the question.....how many peer reviewed studies, published in respected journals would it take to make you believe that mann's paper was flawed and he was mistaken in his findings?  Name a number.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > You have one source and I have one source.  You like your source because what they say you want to be true.
> ...



Obviously you would like to drag all AGW conversations from what is useful to what is irrelevant.  

Both of these topics are irrelevant. 
Everything done by man is flawed.  Mann's work was a pioneering effort whose main point was not the MWP at all.  It is the consequences of putting the pre-carboniferous GHGs back into the atmosphere. He made his point.  Has and will his work be advanced?  Absolutely.  Thats the nature of science. 

McIntyre was hired to refute his inconvenient truth. The up coming civil suit will resolve the issue in terms of science vs politics. 

The point of Mann's work has been solidly and irrefutably proven.  McIntyre is a not innocent bystander to the science.  He has not advanced the science defining the current problem one bit.  He is what he was paid to be.  A distraction. A court jester.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

Answer the question.  How many peer reviewed studies published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann's work is flawed and not worth the paper it took to produce it?

mann was not a pioneer and your claims regarding his work hinge on whether his findings were correct or not.   His study wasn't the first....not even the 100th.  The vast bulk of papers in that field say he is wrong.

As to his work being proven, think again.  If there were only 5 papers disputing his work, then his results would be be beyond question...there are hundreds with different findings so his work is not irrefutably proven.  Answer the question.

How many to convince you he was wrong?  Name a number.  Is there any number that would convince you he was wrong?  Why are you afraid to answer such a simple question?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Answer the question.  How many peer reviewed studies published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann's work is flawed and not worth the paper it took to produce it?
> 
> mann was not a pioneer and your claims regarding his work hinge on whether his findings were correct or not.   His study wasn't the first....not even the 100th.  The vast bulk of papers in that field say he is wrong.
> 
> ...



Be specific about what you claim that he was wrong about.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Be specific about what you claim that he was wrong about.



The hockey stick and all that it has led to.

His paper is in a very very small minority that claim the MWP wasn't warmer than the present and global in nature.

Answer the question you f'ing coward.....how many peer reviewed papers published in respected journals would it take to convince you that the work that led to the hockey stick was wrong?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Be specific about what you claim that he was wrong about.
> ...



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain 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. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
    Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
    "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
    "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
    "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

Wiki?  So you are saying that you would believe wiki over any number of peer reviewed papers published in any number of resepected journals with regard to mann's work that led to the hockey stick.

Interesting.  Maybe we should start a separate thread where this revalation could get the recognition it warrants.  How far gone must one be to accept wiki over peer reviewed papers published in respected journals?  What does that say about your views?  Does it suggest an open scientific mind or a mind slavishly devoted to a particular dogma and unwilling to change for any reason?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Wiki?  So you are saying that you would believe wiki over any number of peer reviewed papers published in any number of resepected journals with regard to mann's work that led to the hockey stick.
> 
> Interesting.  Maybe we should start a separate thread where this revalation could get the recognition it warrants.  How far gone must one be to accept wiki over peer reviewed papers published in respected journals?  What does that say about your views?  Does it suggest an open scientific mind or a mind slavishly devoted to a particular dogma and unwilling to change for any reason?



You didn't even read it.  It's a compilation of other opinions.  But,  I know that Wiki is on your forbidden reading list.  There's danger of learning. 

Here's more knowledge for you to avoid. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

From  http://davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/

The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the worldincluding extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers and rising sea levelsall point to the fact that climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.

The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, involving more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 nations, as well as those of China, India and Brazil.
Who are the climate change deniers?
Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directlyfor example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.

Not surprisingly, the deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connections with public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to, in the words of one leaked memo, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."

Over the years, the deniers have employed a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change, some of which contradict each other. For example, they have claimed that:
 Climate change is not occurring
 The global climate is actually getting colder
 The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
 The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
 The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response

After 15 years of increasingly definitive scientific studies attesting to the reality and significance of global climate change, the deniers' tactics have shifted. Many deniers no longer deny that climate change is happening, but instead argue that the cost of taking action is too highor even worse, that it is too late to take action. All of these arguments are false and are rejected by the scientific community at large.

To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, one study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is human-induced.

These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the deniers.

This discrepancy is largely due to the media's drive for "balance" in reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue, and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides with roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, this "balance" does not always correspond with the actual prevalence of each view within society, and can result in unintended bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and as a result, many people believe that the reality of climate change is still being debated by scientists when it is not.

While some level of debate is useful when looking at major social problems, society must eventually move on and actually address the issue. To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous consequences in the climate system


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You didn't even read it.  It's a compilation of other opinions.  But,  I know that Wiki is on your forbidden reading list.  There's danger of learning.



I read it...probably more carefully than you did.  You were right about mann insofar as he has been a pioneer of sorts in the field.  A great deal of the opinion expressed in that wiki article can trace its lineage right back to mann and the work that produced the hockey stick.

Which brings us back to the point at hand.  If mann was wrong, then everything that has followed from that foundational work is corrupted by that work.  Error cascade....remember?  

If his work was incorrect regarding the MWP then chances are it is wrong on other points and the conclusions reached are also incorrect and that opinion piece from wiki is based on flawed science.

So again, how many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann's work which led to the hockey stick was wrong?  

Name a number.





PMZ said:


> url]http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus[/url]



I read that as well and again, most of that consensus thought can trace its heritage right back to mann's work and all of the papers which came after building upon it....taking it at face value without checking.  If mann was wrong, then that imaginary consensus you believe so strongly in loses its support and comes crashing down around your ears.

AGAIN....HOW MANY PEER REVIEWED PAPERS PUBLISHED IN RESPECTABLE JOURNALS WOULD IT TAKE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT MANN WAS WRONG?  IS THERE A NUMBER OUR WOULD YOU REJECT ANY NUMBER OF PAPERS CONTRADICTING MANN IN ORDER TO HOLD TO YOUR BELIEF?

The more we talk, the more I believe this needs a thread of its own.  Imagine, stating in public that no amount of peer reviewed, published research would overturn your belief in mann's work.  What would that do to your already abysmal reputation?  Can reps to into negative numbers?  Does it bother you to think of being exposed as a dogmatic acolyte with no interest in the scientific method?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> He doesn't. The NAS confirmed that his criticism of the Hockey Stick graph were valid.



I'm sure the CultOfMcIntyre told you that, and thus you believe it with all your heart. It's what cultists do. However, your cult lied to you. Let's check out what actually happened, as opposed to denialist cult revisionist history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html?_r=0
---
The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.
---

Now, if you had any self-respect, you'd call your cult leaders to the carpet, and demand to know why they lied to you. After all, now you're left humiliated and twisting in the wind. You should be angry about that. Alas, I don't think you have the fortitude to demand honesty. Instead, you're going to crawl back to your cult and demand more lies. 

And SSDD? Why did you lie and say the NAS refuted Mann, when the exact opposite happened? You got some 'splainin to do as well. Were you just a dupe like Bri, or were you being deliberately dishonest?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

Peterf said:


> There is never any point in engaging in discussion with people who think that they advance their case by calling those who with whom they disagree "morons".  I'm new here so it is useful to be able to start a list of those who's posts may be safely ignored.



You are new here, and far be it from me to defend PMZ, but in this case I will.

His post is just the culture of this board. We are a rough and tumble group, his post was actually pretty mild in USMB terms. If you stick around, you WILL be called far worse.

Now CONTENT wise, please do eviscerate him.....


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You didn't even read it.  It's a compilation of other opinions.  But,  I know that Wiki is on your forbidden reading list.  There's danger of learning.
> 
> Here's more knowledge for you to avoid.
> 
> Climate Change: Consensus




Nope, there's no danger of learning anything from any Wiki article about global warming.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Which brings us back to the point at hand.  If mann was wrong, then everything that has followed from that foundational work is corrupted by that work.  Error cascade....remember?



So you actually think every bit of AGW science since Mann's one paper used the same data and techniques?

That's ... really stupid and delusional. It's another illustration of how the inability to understand basic logic is a defining characteristic of denialists.



> So again, how many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann's work which led to the hockey stick was wrong?



When do you plan to post one?

Yes, I realize you _say_ you've done so. But you tend to be full of shit in that regard, being as you rely so much on cherrypicking, bad logic and misrepresentations. And it really annoys you when people recognize your propaganda tricks.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > He doesn't. The NAS confirmed that his criticism of the Hockey Stick graph were valid.
> ...



You are the liar around here and everyone knows it.  

The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (*p. 107*).

2. NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Manns data set does not have enough information to verify its skill at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (*p. 91*). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (*p. 110*).

3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or strip-bark records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th  century warmth is not robustin other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Manns results are strongly dependent on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (*p. 50*).

4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.

A subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the hockey stick.

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegmans report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we dont. We dont disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

The IPCC on the MWP, from AR4. 

6.6 The Last 2,000 Years - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate

They also say it's warmer now than during the MWP. But then, the cult can fall back on the vast global socialist conspiracy to fake the data, their all-purpose excuse. It's what makes it so obvious that denialism is unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Don't like the data? Just say it's all forged!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You are the liar around here and everyone knows it.



So instead of looking at the whole report and the conclusions, you're still cherrypicking snippets and ignoring the parts that directly contradict you. Because it's all you can ever do.

Good luck with that. You've certainly convinced the rest of the choir. If you keep shouting the same things over and over, maybe you can convince someone outside the cult. But probably not.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Which brings us back to the point at hand.  If mann was wrong, then everything that has followed from that foundational work is corrupted by that work.  Error cascade....remember?
> ...



No I don't, but as I said, any paper that has referenced mann et al and taken his findings to be sound has been corrupted by that work.  You don't seem to be able to grasp what an error cascade is or how it gets initiated, or how terribly it can damage an entire field of study.  

When do you plan to post one?



mamooth said:


> , I realize you _say_ you've done so. But you tend to be full of shit in that regard, being as you rely so much on cherrypicking, bad logic and misrepresentations. And it really annoys you when people recognize your propaganda tricks.



Since you are clearly to stupid to follow the links I have provided to the 45 papers in this conversation alone, I guess you will just have to take my word for it.  ......idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You are the liar around here and everyone knows it.
> ...



When a report says that his methods were biased and flawed, and his data comes from inappropriate sources, and that the skill of the method to predict was not signifigantly different from zero, what else do you need?  It is you who is cherry picking around the pertinent facts of the report and that is that his work was wrong.


----------



## Peterf (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You flatter yourself if you think I give a fig for your 'assessment'.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

Thanks for saving me the trouble of doing that.



SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> No I don't, but as I said, any paper that has referenced mann et al and taken his findings to be sound has been corrupted by that work.  You don't seem to be able to grasp what an error cascade is or how it gets initiated, or how terribly it can damage an entire field of study.



Oh, please tell us about the error cascade. This ought to be informatve, as far as revealing your thought processes, the way you imagine that the science works.



> Since you are clearly to stupid to follow the links I have provided to the 45 papers in this conversation alone, I guess you will just have to take my word for it.  ......idiot.



No, you copied a cherrypicked list of 45 papers, many of which didn't even say that the MWP in that spot was warmer than current conditions.

Honest people don't cherrypick only the spots that support them and then call it the truth. Honest people would use the global averages. And you won't do that, solely because the results aren't to your liking.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Of course, most of the members of the NAS are sympathetic to Mann and they provided plenty of sugar coating to make it appear they weren't giving Mann a giant spanking.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

You two cultists have fun, now. You've definitely convinced each other. Your cult non-reality bubble remains intact.

Say, you two should offer your expert testimony in the Mann case! One wonders why the defense isn't using the "attack Mann" tactic, if it's so valid.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Only a brainwashed troll would believe what Wikipedia says.  I quoted excerpts from the report.  Those excerpts clash decidedly with the way Wikipedia describes them.  Everyone with a brain knows that AGW cult members have edited all the entries in Wikipedia related to AGW to conform with warmist dogma.
> 
> You obviously prefer to consult dogma rather than go to original sources and learn the facts for yourself.  Why don't you quote from the original report the material that backs up Wikipedias account of the issue?



I all fairness, I find Wikipedia to be about 99% accurate. BUT the bias of the author does influence the post.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Google ''science climate change position''. There are nearly endless publications pointing out that your position is unsupported. 

I would expect that virtually every scientific paper over a year or so old has been upgraded by more advanced work. Thats the nature of science.  The denier strategy,  which is a purely political maneuver, is to take bodies of work like Mann's,  find some detail for which they can either manufacture or imply is somehow questionable,  then impune all of his work as either questionable,  or unsound.  

So your role in the big oil funded denier army is as a character assassin.  Typical politics,  but completely unacceptable science. 

The good news for you,  which is the bad news for the world,  is that you have cost them about 15 years of progress. The bad news for you,  which is the good news for the world,  is that your effort has been completely exposed and discredited.  
You thought that you could kill science but the opposite happened.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> No, you copied a cherrypicked list of 45 papers, many of which didn't even say that the MWP in that spot was warmer than current conditions.



OK.  You name a region in the world and I will provide you with published, peer reviewed papers finding that the MWP was as warm or warmer than the present.  The only reason I didn't post 100 instead of 45 was that I knew that pmz wouldn't look at any.  Clearly, you didn't either.


Go go ahead and name a region.  And you can answer the question as well....how many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> When a report says that his methods were biased and flawed, and his data comes from inappropriate sources, and that the skill of the method to predict was not signifigantly different from zero, what else do you need?  It is you who is cherry picking around the pertinent facts of the report and that is that his work was wrong.



Google ''science climate change position''. There are nearly endless publications pointing out that your position is unsupported. 

I would expect that virtually every scientific paper over a year or so old has been upgraded by more advanced work. Thats the nature of science.  The denier strategy,  which is a purely political maneuver, is to take bodies of work like Mann's,  find some detail for which they can either manufacture or imply about that is somehow questionable,  then impune all of his work as either questionable,  or unsound.  

So your role in the big oil funded denier army is as a character assassin.  Typical politics,  but completely unacceptable science. 

The good news for you,  which is the bad news for the world,  is that you have cost them about 15 years of progress. The bad news for you,  which is the good news for the world,  is that your effort has been completely exposed and discredited.  
You thought that you could kill science but the opposite happened.[/QUOTE]

How many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong?  Name a number.

Do you think you could manage a number in a separate thread just for this question?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > No, you copied a cherrypicked list of 45 papers, many of which didn't even say that the MWP in that spot was warmer than current conditions.
> ...



The MWP is over.  It had and has not a thing to do with today's problem. If you have time and energy to spare, invest it usefully in solving our problems,  not the Vikings. 

Your political assassination work is over as the world understands what motivates it.  

Call 1 800 big oil and ask for a new job.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> McIntyre has a masters degree in statistics.  However, until he took up and pro-global warming cause,



Don't you mean "the anti-fraud cause?"

Because that's what this is. AGW has many facets, the primitive religious aspect that is the darling of the mindless left. But the greed issue is also huge. There is BIG money in the AGW fraud - the opulent life of scumbags like Michael Mann depends on the anthropogenic element to the changes in climate we saw a couple of decades past.

Government loves the global warming fraud, as a vehicle to curtail civil rights and impose authoritarian controls on the hoi polloi. And there are many looters more than willing to create any answer the customer wants - which defines most of the voodoo practitioners of climatology.  



> I don't believe he had ever been employed as a statistician.  He worked for a mining company.  I'm sure he used some math at his job there, but he's not the world's greatest statistician and he has made mistakes.  Besides that, on a personal level, he's a jerk.



Everyone makes mistakes. The issue is that those on the voodoo side are engaged in deliberate fraud. Mann is paid to produce a particular result set. He is not a scientist, he is a whore, paid to falsify result sets for a paying customer.

I assume you have your fingers in the pie as well, right? Legitimate research would shut off the stream of grant monies, so the result sets are whatever keeps the cash flowing. AND that, is the truth about climate fraud - and every last one of us here, knows it.

Why do the public not believe you? Because they aren't as stupid as you assume them to be, in your arrogance - they see through you. Your fraud isn't even clever; it's the same one every two bit shaman has used for that last 3 millennium.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Toto, ignore that man behind the curtain!


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The MWP is over.  It had and has not a thing to do with today's problem. If you have time and energy to spare, invest it usefully in solving our problems,  not the Vikings.



But mann's research found that it was confined to a small region and not aw warm as the present.  If he was wrong on that count, then all of the research that has come after which used his work as reference has been corrupted.  

So again, how many peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong?  State a number.  Or should we take this to a new thread and show the whole board what a coward you are?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> The IPCC on the MWP, from AR4.
> 
> 6.6 The Last 2,000 Years - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate
> 
> They also say it's warmer now than during the MWP. But then, the cult can fall back on the vast global socialist conspiracy to fake the data, their all-purpose excuse. It's what makes it so obvious that denialism is unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Don't like the data? Just say it's all forged!



Take a desired conclusion, then nudge the data until it kinda, sorta, somewhat fits..

That thar be wutz the IPCC calls "science."

You are too arrogant in your fraud. You are not different than the Catholic Church at the time of Luther - you rub the noses of the public in your outrageous fraud and corruption.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > McIntyre has a masters degree in statistics.  However, until he took up and pro-global warming cause,
> ...



We should have a climate change politics thread for you while we discuss climate change science here. 

The science world had the temerity to uncover truth unfavorable to big oil.  Big oil,  in search of the last dollar of profit from their obsolete and toxic product,  has invested heavily in purely political character assassination.  Conservatives love that work so were easily recruited.

Here's the score. 

Science.  Has advanced by leaps and bounds mankind's understanding of climate science. 

Big oil.  Has delayed necessary action by 15 years. 

Conservatives.  Have been routed and have given up virtually all political relevance and credibility.  

Liberals.  Have reinforced their long standing reputation as problem solvers for humanity. 

Government.  Have been given the basis for sound policy.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> The IPCC on the MWP, from AR4.
> 
> 6.6 The Last 2,000 Years - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate
> 
> They also say it's warmer now than during the MWP. But then, the cult can fall back on the vast global socialist conspiracy to fake the data, their all-purpose excuse. It's what makes it so obvious that denialism is unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Don't like the data? Just say it's all forged!



That was not always the IPCC's position on the MWP.  Here is how it has changed as a result of mann's work:






So again, how many published, peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong regarding the MWP?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We should have a climate change politics thread for you while we discuss climate change science here.
> 
> The science world had the temerity to uncover truth unfavorable to big oil.  Big oil,  in search of the last dollar of profit from their obsolete and toxic product,  has invested heavily in purely political character assassination.  Conservatives love that work so were easily recruited.
> 
> ...



You're totally delusional, PMZ.  You know that, don't you?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> You two cultists have fun, now. You've definitely convinced each other. Your cult non-reality bubble remains intact.
> 
> Say, you two should offer your expert testimony in the Mann case! One wonders why the defense isn't using the "attack Mann" tactic, if it's so valid.



Are you going to run home to momma crying now?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The IPCC on the MWP, from AR4.
> ...



Another bought and paid for soldier in the Army of Big Oil.  

Ignorance leaves individuals defenseless against manipulation.  

In fact,  unlike sex whores ,  they enjoy  their work.  

Of course they are blind to the ultimate cost. 

That giant flushing sound is their movement swirling in the bowl.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The MWP is over.  It had and has not a thing to do with today's problem. If you have time and energy to spare, invest it usefully in solving our problems,  not the Vikings.
> ...



''But mann's research found that it was confined to a small region and not aw warm as the present.  If he was wrong on that count,''

Does not in any way lead to

''then all of the research that has come after which used his work as reference has been corrupted.''

Not that you have any way of knowing that.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Another bought and paid for soldier in the Army of Big Oil.



You are the one who is bought and paid for.  I keep asking how many peer reviewed papers published in respected journals finding that mann was wrong re: the MWP and you keep dodging the question because you are a f'ing coward who is afraid to admit that you are more interested in politics than the scientific method.

Tell me what would the scientific method say regarding a paper or two who find a slight MPW restricted to a small region vs hundreds that find otherwise.  What does the scientific method suggest in such a circumstance?


How many peer reviewed papers published in respected journals would it take to convince you that mann was wrong?  Name a number.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We should have a climate change politics thread for you while we discuss climate change science here.
> ...



What I know is that you have yet to make your first valid point.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ''But mann's research found that it was confined to a small region and not aw warm as the present.  If he was wrong on that count,''
> 
> Does not in any way lead to
> 
> ...



If his findings were wrong due to flawed methodology and unacceptable data then all of the work that has been built upon those findings is also wrong.  Sorry you aren't bright enough to grasp the concept of error cascade.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We should have a climate change politics thread for you while we discuss climate change science here.



That is an oxymoron. What the AGW cult engages in is voodoo - it has nothing to do with science.



> The science world had the temerity to uncover truth unfavorable to big oil.



The grant whore world has uncovered a steady stream of revenue - all for selling off their integrity.



> Big oil,  in search of the last dollar of profit from their obsolete and toxic product,  has invested heavily in purely political character assassination.  Conservatives love that work so were easily recruited.



Obsolete, huh?

Get off that computer, because all of the plastics in it are from oil. You morons don't have a hint of a clue what you spew about. You are led about like mindless sheep - which is what you are.




> Here's the score.
> 
> Science.  Has advanced by leaps and bounds mankind's understanding of climate science.
> 
> Big oil.  Has delayed necessary action by 15 years.




Ohhh.

So what your saying is we are all going to die, and only by sacrificing to you and submitting to your rule can the volcano god be appeased?

IF we do not obey you, without question, then not only will we die, but the entire village (world) will also be destroyed?

Dayum, such a unique tale you have - no one every heard that before. Guess we better sacrifice....



> Conservatives.  Have been routed and have given up virtually all political relevance and credibility.
> 
> Liberals.  Have reinforced their long standing reputation as problem solvers for humanity.
> 
> Government.  Have been given the basis for sound policy.



Yeah, you're winning hearts and minds...

{Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change.}

Steep Decline In Americans' Belief In Global Warming

Woohoo - your priests and bishops can sell indulgences (carbon credits) and take their places as absolute rulers of the unwashed!


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I only wish I was "bought and paid for."  When do I get my check?

On the other hand, we all know that con artists like Michael Mann are getting a check from Big Momma government.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ''But mann's research found that it was confined to a small region and not aw warm as the present.  If he was wrong on that count,''
> ...



His methodology was designed to produce the findings desired by his customer.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ''But mann's research found that it was confined to a small region and not aw warm as the present.  If he was wrong on that count,''
> ...



I'm bright enough to know that this not the MWP.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No I don't, but as I said, any paper that has referenced mann et al and taken his findings to be sound has been corrupted by that work.  You don't seem to be able to grasp what an error cascade is or how it gets initiated, or how terribly it can damage an entire field of study.
> ...








There are multiple DOZENS of proxy studies from CHILE, from JAPAN, from NEW ZEALAND, --- ALL stating that MWP was a Global event. MOST of them estimating higher temps than today.. 

You just LOSE... Badly..... Because you BELIEVE a proven fabricator and manipulator of the facts like Mann...... 

Do you ever tire of defending scientists that either incompetent or corrupt or BOTH??? 
I couldn't stand it...

BTW: You're a moron. It's EASY to prove the "cascade of errors".. Last time I checked that POS Mann paper was referenced over 200 times in subsequent work.. Work that DEPENDED on the falsified results of the hockey stick work... 
He KILLED Climate Science in it's infantcy by INFECTING IT with shoddy, biased political hackery.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Let's say Michael Mann was never born.  

Is it your contention that AGW would then not exist? 

If so,  I have a whole new appreciation for your condition.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

One thing that conservatives are well known for is their political reliance on character assassination.  Of course that's to be expected from parties that can't find qualified candidates.  

In the case of their use of the same dirty politics in their services for big oil,  it's because they have no qualified science or scientists.  

So they have no scientific resources and therefore are left with only Fox News and the Internet to formulate their attacks. For non scientist politicians to organize the talking points that recruit other cognitively challenged soldiers into the cult. 

Unfortunately,  that's all pretty transparent and has led to the political exposure that continues their downfall.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Can't wait to see the evidence on that!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We should have a climate change politics thread for you while we discuss climate change science here.
> ...



The people who need to understand AGW and sustainable energy in order to solve the problems that we're facing are small in number.  Scientists,  engineers,  builders, business leaders, some politicians and some investors. 

That train has left the station. 

That work is underway on a global scale. 

The people left at the station  are the ignorant,  the apathetic,  those perfectly comfortable with others solving problems,  and the big oil army actively pursuing derailing the train for profit. 

To their shame they have delayed the train by 15 years or so,  a delay that will cost everybody dearly.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



As with most work, you have to actually accomplish something in order to get paid.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You said I was "bought and paid for" - past tense.  If that's the case I should have received some checks.  Where are those checks?

If I haven't accomplished anything, then what are you doing in this forum disputing what I say?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Begging the question - your second favorite logical fallacy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Are you claiming Mann doesn't get paid a salary for devising cons like the Hockey Stick graph?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Nobody has to dispute anything that you post because you never post anything non-trivial,  but only childish insults.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You really have difficulties with this logic crap, don't you?

Ya know, it's sad that you're too stupid to realize that you're getting your ass handed to you in this debate.   However, I have to admire your determination to carry on despite the insurmountable odds against you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Another bought and paid for soldier in the Army of Big Oil.
> 
> Ignorance leaves individuals defenseless against manipulation.
> 
> ...



As with the Catholics before you, your arrogance and greed creates nothing but contempt for you among the public at large.

Aljazeera Gore - in it for the cash?

{
RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article
Al Gore cashes in on Current TV

By Bronwyn on January 4, 2013 at 3:00 PM in Current Affairs

Al Gore sold Current TV to Al Jazeera for $500 million. I dont about you, but I have never seen that channel and dont know a single person who ever has. Guess what: Al gets $100 million out of this deal.}

?Al Gore cashes in on Current TV? : NO QUARTER USA NET

ALL the AGW priests and profits are in it for the cash.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Apparently you're not bright enough to know why the MWP is important and why Michael Mann set out to discredit it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The people who need to understand AGW and sustainable energy in order to solve the problems that we're facing are small in number.



The people need to FEAR the volcano god, so that they sacrifice their virgin daughters to the priests, give up their cars and move to communal domiciles where they can be closely monitored by the rulers, lest Gaea become angry and destroy the world..

Yours is a timeless tale, one spun by every fraud since cavemen gazed upon a smoking mountain.



> Scientists,  engineers,  builders, business leaders, some politicians and some investors.



That which makes sense will be adopted by free people. Your cult is not adopted, because it makes no sense.



> That train has left the station.
> 
> That work is underway on a global scale.
> 
> ...



Every day, fewer believe in your pathetic cult.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Are you claiming Mann doesn't get paid a salary for devising cons like the Hockey Stick graph?



Mann has a net worth of between $30 and $70 million. Not bad for a college professor.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Do you or do you not contend that?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I know that the MWP is unrelated to AGW.  If you disagree,  prove me wrong.  Golden opportunity for you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you claiming Mann doesn't get paid a salary for devising cons like the Hockey Stick graph?
> ...



Astounding.

Where did all the money come from?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You see, I know you didn't understand the significance of the MWP.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When have I ever posted anything that even remotely resembles what you claim?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Astounding.
> 
> Where did all the money come from?



He had a stake in "An Inconvenient Truth" and made residuals from Current TV.

It's ALL about the money. Every fraud is.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Astounding.
> ...



Yes, but we're the ones who are "bought and paid for."  These turds just keep repeating their mantras over and over until they come to believe them.  I could make a mint off of all these gullible boobs if I was totally shameless and willing to spout their dogma.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Yes, but we're the ones who are "bought and paid for."  These turds just keep repeating their mantras over and over until they come to believe them.  I could make a mint off of all these gullible boobs if I was totally shameless and willing to spout their dogma.



Yeah, Gore sells to the fucking OIL SHEIKS and these mindless morons STILL can't grasp what is in front of them....


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You aren't now going to claim that you didn't post that Mann had misled the entire IPCC into believing in AGW,  are you? 

Sounds really stupid looked at this way,  right?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but we're the ones who are "bought and paid for."  These turds just keep repeating their mantras over and over until they come to believe them.  I could make a mint off of all these gullible boobs if I was totally shameless and willing to spout their dogma.
> ...



What does that have to do with AGW and sustainable energy?  

You're way off track.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You guys have nothing to support what you want to be true.  Nada. ZERO.  

All you got is playground name calling.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

The end of every day is the same.  After a whole  day of selling apples from an empty barrel,  the big oil army is angry,  embarrassed,  ashamed and left with nothing but trash talking.  

But tomorrow,  they'll be just as stupid as this morning trying to defend the indefensible.  What a pathetic life.  And the net result is political irrelevance.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



This is the proof of what you wish was true?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Not from the federal government. But you knew that.  You just don't like that inconvenient truth either.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 19, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "Denying Climate change?" What a stupid thing to say
> 
> We question the hypothesis that an additional wisp of CO2 is melting the polar Ice caps and have asked, repeatedly, for some experimental evidence
> 
> We get pooh flinging monkey talking about "Deniers!" in return



*"... many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue."*

Exactly..... a lack of science background leads to " have asked, repeatedly, for some experimental evidence" non-sense.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you claiming Mann doesn't get paid a salary for devising cons like the Hockey Stick graph?
> ...



He sure didn't make it teaching.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



mann, by nearly eliminating the MWP created the basis for the idea of unprecedented warming....when one looks at the MWP as it was as opposed to how mann represented it, then the present warming appears positively meager.  The MWP came on faster than the present warming, temperatures increased faster, and were higher.....globally.

If climate science couldn't misrepresent the MWP, then it would have never got any traction because compared to the MWP the present warming period could insight nothing more than yawns.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What does that have to do with AGW and sustainable energy?
> 
> You're way off track.



It is a response to your claim that somehow we are bought and paid for by big oil when one only need look in the news to see who is in bed with big oil you f'ing idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If you really don't understand the importance of the MWP as it is applied to the present fear mongering, then you are far far far more stupid than I had originally thought.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What does that have to do with AGW and sustainable energy?
> 
> You're way off track.



You're too stupid to grasp that it's all about money.

The rest of us aren't.

I figure Abraham has his grubby hands in the pie - but you lack the brains, so you're just a useful idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What does that have to do with AGW and sustainable energy?
> ...



*so you're just a useful idiot.*

When it comes to PMZ, this is half right.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When you've got a point, you've got a point....


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You are unable to see the essential point. Whatever happened during the MWP and AGW are in no way connected.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What does that have to do with AGW and sustainable energy?
> ...



"Bought and paid for" is an idiomatic phrase meaning the you are in the control of. It has nothing to do with money. They don't need to pay you, you willingly follow like a little puppy. Why? They offer you a chance to do what you love. Whining. Hating. Dissing your country. Dissing accomplished people. Pretending that your failures aren't your fault. Feeling entitled. Trash talking. Pretending that your inability to get educated doesn't matter. Pretending that absorbing media is an accomplishment.

All in all a pathetic life for you and a threat to civilization.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

```

```



Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What does that have to do with AGW and sustainable energy?
> ...



I certainly grasp that it's all about money.

Big oil profits good to the last drop. 

Conservatives wanting others, including future generations, to pay for cleaning up the mess left by our country and our generation. 

Clearly about money.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> There are multiple DOZENS of proxy studies from CHILE, from JAPAN, from NEW ZEALAND, --- ALL stating that MWP was a Global event. MOST of them estimating higher temps than today..



If you repeat your nonsense often enough, it will make it true. Really it will. Cherrypicking will become fact.



> You just LOSE... Badly..... Because you BELIEVE a proven fabricator and manipulator of the facts like Mann......



When your 'tard conspiracy theory postulates the entire planet is in on a vast conspiracy, and that only you and a select few of the morally pure know the RealTruth, that indicates how it is, in fact, a 'tard conspiracy theory. The Chemtrails people and 9/11 Truthers look rational compared to you CultOfMcIntyre acolytes.

Given that your cult has only a couple years of life left, how are you planning for the future? It's never to early to plan your excuses. I suggest you figure something out that will allow you to lie and claim that you were never associated with the denialist 'tard cult.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I certainly grasp that it's all about money.
> 
> Big oil profits good to the last drop.



That's what Al Gore, high priest of the AGW cult says.

But you don't grasp the irony...

Of course, you're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag...



> Conservatives wanting others, including future generations, to pay for cleaning up the mess left by our country and our generation.
> 
> Clearly about money.



You assume the Volcano god actually demands sacrifice - and that it's not just a con by the scumbags you worship.

But then, you're about as bright as a black hole.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > There are multiple DOZENS of proxy studies from CHILE, from JAPAN, from NEW ZEALAND, --- ALL stating that MWP was a Global event. MOST of them estimating higher temps than today..
> ...



You keep saying that as if it means something.  Lets see this overwhelming body of research that says that the MWP was restricted to a small region and was no warmer than the present from which we are supposedly picking cherries.  I have provided 45 studies so far in this conversation and am prepared to provide more.  Since you claim we are picking cherries, you should have no problem providing......say....80 or 100 studies that confirm mann's claims with regard to the MWP.

See now, you have yammered yourself into a corner that you can't get out of because we both know that you can't even provide 25 papers that confirm mann's findings on the MWP.  When the rubber meets the road, it is you who is picking cherries trying to make your puny case.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> That was not always the IPCC's position on the MWP.  Here is how it has changed as a result of mann's work:



OMG! DR. MANN IS CLEARLY THE SECRET DICTATOR OF THE WORLD! HE COMMANDS ALL!

Cause there's a red, under my bed
And there's a little yellow man in my head
And there's a true blue inside of me
That keeps stoppin me, touchin ya, watchin ya, lovin ya

Paranoia, the destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

Think what the country would have been like in 2008 if the Supreme Court had gone with the popular vote and Gore/Lieberman in 2000 rather than paying their debt to the old Bushman by giving his son more responsibility than he could handle. 

Gore undoubtedly would have continued Clinton's paying down the debt policy rather than the Bushman's gift to friends and family,  tax cuts for the rich.  According to the CBO the country would have been debt free by 2006. We'd probably have a big surplus by now to invest in sustainable energy. 

And we wouldn't have every Muslim in the world trying to terrorize us.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Tell me what would the scientific method say regarding a paper or two who find a slight MPW restricted to a small region vs hundreds that find otherwise.  What does the scientific method suggest in such a circumstance?



That you're lying about such a thing happening. Okay, not lying. You're just being a total 'effin 'tard.

You denialist website (a group funded by the fossil fuel industry) doesn't show any actual papers. It only shows their own spin on various papers. The actual papers are nowhere to be found. They don't ever link to the original paper. Not once in any of your 45 or whatever links did they show where the original paper could be found.

Funny, eh? I mean, if the papers actually said what they claimed, you think they'd definitely want to link to or show the original paper. But they don't. Not ever. They only show their own creative interpretation, and they hide the actual paper. They appear to be making crap up, then working to hide their fudging. They even try to make their fudging look like the paper's abstract, as part of their attempt to deceive.

Fooled you, of course. You were played. And you'll go back for more.

So, you currently have zero papers refuting anything. Keep trying.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

Like all history,  there are a few very important cultural lessons to be learned from these times. 

How effective business has become in brand marketing. 

Big oil has surreptitiously created the denier brand.  They have manipulated a few million people into becoming fans of a virtual product,  science denial. They did it,  not by advertising,  but spreading money to support propaganda outlets.  And feeding people without science just enough pseudoscience to send them off on the attack. 

It,  to me,  is much scarier than 1984, because it's not about power,  just business.  

When business can be successful at that level of manipulation,  power comes not in its typical military uniform,  but freedom of independent thought becomes just as threatened.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If that's the case, then why was Michael Mann trying so hard to make the MWP disappear - even to the point of jeopardizing his reputation by publishing doctored data?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




You really are the forum's biggest retard, ya know it?  I think you even beat out Fakey for being a kind sized douche.  You can't win any points on their merits, so now your settling into true form and spewing an endless stream of _ad hominems_.  You don't even try to respond to the points put to you.  It's obvious you're losing your kool because SSDD is whipping your ass.  I'll be he's had you on the verge of tears.

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Oh, so now "bought and paid for" doesn't mean "bought and paid for?"  Do you notice how much back peddling you do?

The above describes you and the rest of the warmist cult far better than anyone else in this forum.  Your pretensions of intellectual superiority have the rest of us in stitches.  I knew it was only a matter of time until the fangs were bared and he claws were out.  Thanks for living up to classic warmist cult form.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That was not always the IPCC's position on the MWP.  Here is how it has changed as a result of mann's work:
> ...



Like all idiots. You never know what you are talking about.  Do just a bit of research....or don't.... And see who the ipcc references for their historical temperature.   3 guesses...and the first letter of his last name is m.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You're
> The rest of us aren't. [too stupid to grasp that it's all about money]
> 
> I figure Abraham has his grubby hands in the pie



On what do you base that charge?  Why do you think my hands "grubby" and what pie are the grubby things in?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me what would the scientific method say regarding a paper or two who find a slight MPW restricted to a small region vs hundreds that find otherwise.  What does the scientific method suggest in such a circumstance?
> ...



To stupid to raed the titles and authors of the studies?   Each and every one lists the title of the study, the authors, and the journal in which it was punished and the date or issue number.  

Why do you lie about everything?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 19, 2013)

How can you look at the two periods in question (the MWP and the present), note the different slope each period sports, and suggest in any way, shape or form that the MWP is a precedent for this last century's global warming?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He wasn't.  Simple enough answer.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I'm borrowing a reference from Mamooth from another thread. 

Here's the story of how McIntyre led you by the nose to the land of ignorance. 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...tford-delusion/comment-page-4/#comment-181895


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> How can you look at the two periods in question (the MWP and the present), note the different slope each period sports, and suggest in any way, shape or form that the MWP is a precedent for this last century's global warming?



The MWP could not have been related to human activity,  AGW could not come from any other cause.  It's clear to me that the whole issue McIntyre tried to sell is a complete fabrication on his part.  What reason other than money would he do it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Simple answers from simpletons.  He was.  Prior to Mann's hockey stick, the IPPC graph of world temperatures showed a WMP that was considerably warmer than current temperatures.  That kind of picture does not inspire terror in the minds of the voters.  Only a fool would believe that Mann didn't intend to eliminate the evidence of prior warm climate.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Anyone providing a straight forward reference would have provided a link.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> How can you look at the two periods in question (the MWP and the present), note the different slope each period sports, and suggest in any way, shape or form that the MWP is a precedent for this last century's global warming?




Where did that gem get flushed from??? There are 100s of proxy studies.. you can graph anything you like.. If you IGNORE ENOUGH OF THEM --- you can get results like that.. 

Problem is --- Reconstructing a GLOBAL AVERAGE from proxy studies that IGNORE 70% of the earth's surface is a FOOLISH ASS thing to do.. 

*Better to look at the 100s of studies and REALIZE that most of them post temp results HIGHER than the common era and distributed world-wide.. *
Without the theatrical effort to produce a STONE STUPID "Global Average" for the 1200s.

If you wait a month --- the next IPCC will also correct itself and you on this persistent lie.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Mammoth has a large list of problems. ONe is -- he's only interested in impeaching the source -- not working to disprove the source.. 

I've successfully traced back 6 or 8 of those studies listed.. They all checked out.. Minimal effort.. 

For example.. 



> Reference
> Black, D. E., Thunell, R. C., Kaplan, A., Peterson, L. C. and Tappa, E. J. 2004. A 2000-year record of Caribbean and tropical North Atlantic hydrographic variability. Paleoceanography 19, PA2022, doi:10.1029/2003PA000982.
> Description
> High-resolution d18O records generated from seasonally representative planktic foraminifera were obtained from two ocean sediment cores extracted from the Cariaco Basin *off the coast of Venezuela *(~ 10.65°N, 64.66°W) to produce a temperature/salinity reconstruction in this region of the Caribbean/tropical North Atlantic over the last 2000 years. Results indicate a general trend toward cooler and perhaps more saline waters over the length of the record. Because of this trend, the authors describe discussion of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age as "complicated," but they nonetheless acknowledge *their record reveals "an interval of warmer [sea surface temperatures] prior to ~ A.D. 1600-1900" where the d18O data "correctly sequence the relative temperature change between the so-called MWP and LIA." *In viewing the authors' graph of G. bulloides d18O (25-year mean, reproduced below), and their stated relationship that a *d18O change of 1.0 is equivalent to a 4.2°C change in temperature, we calculate the difference in peak warmth between the MWP and CWP to be 1.05°C, with the MWP being the warmer of the two periods.*



How many more can't you trace back Mamooth??


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



But what did the paper say?  Not what the Web site said that it said.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No.  Only a conspiracy theorist would make up a plot with zero evidence.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > How can you look at the two periods in question (the MWP and the present), note the different slope each period sports, and suggest in any way, shape or form that the MWP is a precedent for this last century's global warming?
> ...



Thats funny.  You telling climate scientists how to do what they are educated for and you are not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Think what the country would have been like in 2008 if the Supreme Court had gone with the popular vote and Gore/Lieberman in 2000 rather than paying their debt to the old Bushman by giving his son more responsibility than he could handle.
> 
> Gore undoubtedly would have continued Clinton's paying down the debt policy rather than the Bushman's gift to friends and family,  tax cuts for the rich.  According to the CBO the country would have been debt free by 2006. We'd probably have a big surplus by now to invest in sustainable energy.
> 
> And we wouldn't have every Muslim in the world trying to terrorize us.



Why would the Supreme Court go with the popular vote, you silly idiot.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Each and every one lists the title of the study, the authors, and the journal in which it was punished and the date or issue number.



Then it should have been trivial for them to show or link to the actual study. They deliberately did not do that. Instead, they wrote up fake abstracts and tried to pass them off as the actual abstracts.

It's not complicated. Ethical people don't write up fake abstracts and then try to pass them off as the real abstracts. Ethical people will show the actual abstract of the paper, and not make up a fake one. They will make every effort to show or link to the actual paper, instead of conveniently forgetting to do so and then telling everyone what it really said.

Your heroes are bald-face liars, and you fully approve. 'Nuff said. For your cult, the ends always justify the means.

(And Flac, declaring you did the research and then copying a faked abstract from the website isn't doing wonders for your credibility either.)


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > How can you look at the two periods in question (the MWP and the present), note the different slope each period sports, and suggest in any way, shape or form that the MWP is a precedent for this last century's global warming?
> ...



I believe this graph is called MBH99 on McIntyre's site.  The original Hockey Stick graph is called MBH98.  This newer version suffers from all the errors that the earlier one suffered.  McIntyre tears it to shreds on his site.  One piece of chicanery you will note is the black line at the end.  That represents global average temperatures supposedly derived from actual recorded temperatures.  So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures.  Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate.  

This maneuver is how Mann performed the "trick" known as "hide the decline."  If you examine the proxy graphs you'll not that they all show a downturn towards the end.  That doesn't look very menacing when you're trying to scare taxpayers into coughing up $73 trillion dollars.  So what Mann does is overlay the graph of averaged recorded temperatures on top of the graphs of the proxies.  That's how he "hides the decline."

This graph is proof that Michael Mann is a con artist who is deliberate publishing bogus data.  Anyone who falls for this stuff is terminally gullible.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures.



We got a live one here! A TrueBeliever of the CultOfMcIntyre. DearLeader has spoken, and that settles it. If DearLeaderMcIntyre said it, Bri believes it with all his cultist heart and soul. And as Bri is a pure and devoted acolyte, you will never see him tempted by any data from heretical sources. If the HolyWrit (Climate Audit) was good enough for Jesus, it's all Bri needs.

Now, Bri has no idea of what any of it means, but that's okay. DearLeader told him what it all means, namely that DearLeader is always right, and the rest of the world is engaging in a vast socialist conspiracy to forge all the data. And that doesn't make Bri look crazy and paranoid at all. Oh wait, it does. Oh well.



> Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate.



Anyone knowledgeable in statistics knows that McIntyre fails a lot at statistics. And then screams "fraud!" at anyone who doesn't fail.

So Bri, please report your koolaid consumption. Feel free to round to the nearest hundred gallons.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset?  What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset?  What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?



You don't.  If you display them on the same chart, then you damn well better put that information on the chart.  Failure to do so is deliberate deception.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Only a fool would follow an obviously well paid big oil hit man.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Think what the country would have been like in 2008 if the Supreme Court had gone with the popular vote and Gore/Lieberman in 2000 rather than paying their debt to the old Bushman by giving his son more responsibility than he could handle.
> ...



Why would anybody have voted for who turned out to be the worst President in American history?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset?  What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?
> ...



In other words,  you avoid science.  You maintain ignorance so you can avoid solving the problem.

Good for conservatives but a failure for those building a better future.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I don't know why anybody voted for Obama.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Demonstrably one of the best Presidents we've had.  

What you are demonstrating is why conservatives need to be,  and are being,  and will continue to be,  persona non grata in Washington.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP? 

Tough sell to scientists.  Easy to politicians like McIntyre.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



They keep coming out with new meds that could help with those issues you have.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



*Are you still trying to sell the BS that there is some relationship between AGW and MWP?*

If there is no relationship, why did Mann lie about the MWP?


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 I knew someday they'd put sodium pentothal into pill form!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



He didn't.  Your belief that he did is demonstrable of your low resistance to being misled.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



He did.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Usually you don't display your toxic personality until the end of the day.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Whose paying him, dipstick?  You keep trying to avoid answering that question.  Of course, we know whose paying Michael Mann.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You're a pathetic brainwashed drone.  labeling everything you believe "science" doesn't make it so.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Your failure to understand the significance of the MWP to the AGW con only demonstrates that you're an ignoramus.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Show us the science that demonstrates their relationship.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Who?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I don't define science,  it defines me.  I don't call it science unless I know it is.  You are unequipped to make that call.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



A dolt with a 5th grade education could understand it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The state and federal government.  He's also getting money from "Earth in the balance" and from the sale of CurrentTV.  In other words, he's making a fortune off the anthropogenic global warming scam.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You prove otherwise.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The evidence is?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Here's what Wikipedia says about Current. 

Current TV was an American television channel from August 1, 2005 to August 20, 2013. Al Gore, Joel Hyatt, and Ronald Burkle each held a sizable stake in Current, and Comcast and DirecTV each held a smaller stake.[1]

On January 2, 2013, it was announced that Current was sold by Gore and Hyatt to Qatar-based broadcaster Al Jazeera Media Network,[2][3][1] which stated that it planned on shutting down the Current TV channel, retaining its off-air staff and launching a new New York-based channel called Al Jazeera America using Current's distribution network.[4] It also planned on scrapping the channel's programming lineup and brand.[5]

No mention of Mann.  He gets paid by the state because he works for the state.  He gets paid for his book because he wrote it. 

No mention anywhere of getting paid by the federal government.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Although you are indeed "_a dolt with a 5th grade education_, you manage to misunderstand everything. You have no actual 'evidence' to support your specious braindead claims, you have only your retarded denier cult myths. Because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you are literally too frigging stupid to be able to recognize just how clueless you actually are.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 20, 2013)

"The mean relative temperature history of the earth (blue, cool; red, warm) over the past two millennia - adapted from Loehle and McCulloch (2008) - highlighting the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA), together with a concomitant history of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration (green)."

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N10/EDIT.php


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 20, 2013)

"So what Mann is doing is combing proxy temperatures with actual temperatures. Anyone knowledgeable in statistics would tell you that such a procedure is totally illegitimate."

Well, I am knowledgeble in statistics.

So explain how it is illegitimate?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset?  What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?
> ...








"Millennial temperature reconstruction. (top) NH reconstruction (solid) and raw data (dotted) from AD 1000 1998. Smoother version of NH series (thick solid), linear trend from AD 1000-1850 (dot dashed) and two standard error limits (shaded) are also shown."

I see two seperate data sets, "instrumental" and "reconstruction".

Paleo Pubs - Mann et al, 1999


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All
> ...


CO2 Science

"Description
 D'Arrigo et al. (2006) assembled mostly tree-ring width (but some density) data from living and subfossil wood of coniferous tree species found at 66 high-elevation and latitudinal treeline North American and Eurasian sites, after which they analyzed the data via the Regional Curve Standardization detrending technique to reconstruct a history of annual temperature for the Northern Hemisphere between 20 and 90°N for the period AD 713-1995. In comparing the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, 950-1100 A.D.) with those of the Current Warm Period (CWP), based on the six longest chronologies they analyzed, they concluded that "the recent period does not look particularly warmer compared to the MWP." However, the mean of the six series did depict a warmer CWP; but they describe this relationship as "a bias/artifact in the full RCS reconstruction where the MWP, because it is expressed at different times in the six long records, is 'averaged out' (i.e., flattened) compared to the recent period which shows a much more globally consistent signal." *Nevertheless, the data are what they are; and for the period covered only by the proxy data (so that "apples and oranges" are not compared), they found that peak twentieth century warmth (which occurred between 1937 and 1946) exceeded peak MWP warmth by 0.29°C."*


CO2 Science

 "Description
 The authors present a temperature history of the Northern Hemisphere that spans the past two millennia. It was produced from two different sources of paleoclimatic data: tree-rings, which capture very high frequency climate variations, and lake and ocean sediments, which Moberg et al. say "provide climate information at multicentennial timescales that may not be captured by tree-ring data." Using data provided by the authors, we have produced a graph of average decadal temperature anomalies, shown below, in which the Medieval Warm Period peaks just prior to AD 900 and is strongly expressed between about AD 650 and 1250. Peak temperatures during this time period are about 0.22°C higher than those at the end of the Moberg et al. record. Instrumental data suggest significant subsequent warming; but the directly-measured temperatures cannot be validly compared with the reconstructed ones. Hence, it is not possible to determine if current temperatures have eclipsed those of a thousand years ago or whether they still fall below them; *and the fairest thing to do, in our estimation, is to tentatively conclude (for this data set only) that the peak temperatures of both periods are approximately equivalent*

What to think...what to think....hmmm.....


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

"Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years"

Statement of

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Chairman, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Division on Earth and Life Studies
National Research Council /National Academy of Sciences
The National Academies
and
Distinguished Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University
before the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives

July 19, 2006

"Let me summarize five key conclusions we reached after reviewing the evidence: 

1. The instrumentally measured warming of about 1°F during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.

2. Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the Medieval Warm Period) and a relatively cold period (or Little Ice Age) centered around 1700. 

3. It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies. 

4. Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

5. Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900."

The link to the actual paper is broken.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Be specific about what you claim that he was wrong about.
> ...



It's impossible to take you seriouly while you still present

"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth"

as if it means something.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



science defines you to be a low grade moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



He's a professor at a public university.  Where do you think his salary comes from?  As for the other two things, you'll have to ask uncensored about that.  He submitted the information.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



They aren't going to list every shareholder, numbnuts.  The state is government.  Furthermore, many students pay their tuition with student aid - which are mostly state and federal programs.  Furthermore, Mann gets research grants from the federal government.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Each and every one lists the title of the study, the authors, and the journal in which it was punished and the date or issue number.
> ...



Nope sorry.. Your misconception stems from the fact that you do not comprehend the realities of doing 2000 yr proxy temp. studies.. You don't write papers on that topic just to win a bet on the MWPeriod. Thus the paper ABSTRACTS would not provide the relevent information for the MetaStudy we are discussing. 

What the authors did is to SUMMARIZE the content of the papers with only the parts RELEVENT to the MWperiod.. This is CLEARLY indicated as the summary says "DESCRIPTION" --- not "ABSTRACT".. 

As I said --- I have tracked 6 or 8 of them.. 
1) They all exist.
2) The "descriptions" were very accurate.
3) I have institutional access to some of the paywalls and have read the papers.

Why not supply the links? 
Because of Capitalism.. 85% of those papers are behind paywalls. The one I cited can be found thru the Wiley on-line library.. Costs $35 for stupid people to retrieve. 

There is no direct OPEN SOURCE links for most of them.
You've got nothing but whining.. Go pay some money and find me ONE or TWO "Descriptions" that are wrong.. I have yet to find that.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset?  What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?



To begin with, the current instrumented data set would take precidence over the proxy data.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "The mean relative temperature history of the earth (blue, cool; red, warm) over the past two millennia - adapted from Loehle and McCulloch (2008) - highlighting the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA), together with a concomitant history of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration (green)."
> 
> CO2 Science



Here's the problem chief.... Nobody in their right mind should be reconstructing GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES from a smattering of temp. proxies in the 11th Century. That would be comedy central.. To have ONE or TWO readings from Argentina? To have virtually NO COVERAGE of the ocean surface which is 70% of the Globe surface? 

ARE YOU NUTS??? You're gonna shove a Global Average in my face (which BTW consists of nothing but tree rings, snail shells, ice cores, mud isotopes, and mollusk bore holes == not thermometers!!!!) from  poorly sampled and VARIANT sources of proxy and expect me to eat that?? 

On top of that --- you want me to accept that ON PARITY with the modern day temp. record with no remaining biases, errors, or uncertainties stated?? 

Best we can do --- is to sum up the HUNDREDS of proxy studies done around the world and read the results for the period in question.. When you do that --- you find out how much actual evidence of a MWP Global Event had to be ignored to make the Mann stick up his ass. They are what they are.. Trying to PRETEND you can divine a "global average" from them --- is just comical..


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "The mean relative temperature history of the earth (blue, cool; red, warm) over the past two millennia - adapted from Loehle and McCulloch (2008) - highlighting the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA), together with a concomitant history of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration (green)."
> ...




"Nobody in their right mind should be reconstructing GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURES from a smattering of temp. proxies in the 11th Century."

Your science and statistics education is from what university?

Really, here is a problem with your reasoning.  There are no instrumental records for MWP, only proxy data.  So, given that you have nothing to say.  You can't say anything about the temp record before the current period because you have no data that you consider valid.  So why are you posting your opinion about a subject for which you have to data upon which to base an opinion?  Is that your thing, having opinions based on nothing?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Three different universities actually... 

I didn't say we have NOTHING.. I SAID --- we don't have nearly enough COHERENT data to form a "Global Average".. THat act is just performed for the peons.. 

You can look at the pile of various wood, mud, bugs, and shit and SEE that there IS evidence for a GLOBAL event in the 10th 11th centuries...  And make some educated guesses about LOCAL TEMPERATURES taken at the sight of the proxies. 

But don't make me laugh with a "global average" graph that includes the common era.. Especially not on a graph graduated in TENTHS of a degree...

I give you my word.. If there is ever a "problem with my reasoning" --- I will apply for disability the next day...


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

If you don't want to accept that graph, don't accept that graph.  There was no MWP.  There was no LIA.  Climate changes didn't begin till the invention and widespread use of the thermometer.  Whatever temperature the first thermometer read was the constant temperature of the Earth for the prior 4.5 billion years.

Right?

Right.

Did you notice the CO2 line running in parallel with IfItzMe's graphic?  Neither the MWP nor the LIA were associated with any dramatic changes in CO2, either as cause or effect.  Yet these days we have a monstrous increase.  Do you still think these periods have anything in common?


----------



## westwall (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> If you don't want to accept that graph, don't accept that graph.  There was no MWP.  There was no LIA.  Climate changes didn't begin till the invention and widespread use of the thermometer.  Whatever temperature the first thermometer read was the constant temperature of the Earth for the prior 4.5 billion years.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...







Quick look at the Vostock Ice core data.  See that lag in time (400 to 800 years) between the onset of warming and the rise in CO2, yes, that one right there.  How long ago was the MWP?  Oh yeah, it ended about 800 years ago.  Funny that.  Looks like another cause of the current CO2 rise is the MWP of 800 years ago.  The Vostock ice core data supports that theory...Not yours though


----------



## IanC (Sep 20, 2013)

Some temp proxies, especially ones used by Mann and Briffa, show that temps dropped in the second half of the 20th century. Those climate scientists decided to truncate the series so that it would not spoil the effect, hence 'hide the decline'.

Chosing and manipulating proxies for the express purpose of supporting a preformed conclusion is not science, not good science anyways.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Where do you see that noted on this graph?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick, given that you're an expert on these matters, how would you join a proxy dataset of with an instrumented dataset?  What's the proper technique that those knowledgeable in statistics would agree was legitimate?
> ...



It's two difference kind of data. For example, the instrumental data has a resolution of one day, at the highest.  The proxy data has a resolution of one year, at the lowest, and it's probably not even that low.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 20, 2013)

An interesting thing about that supposed way-hotter-than-it-was-now MWP is how it had no significant effect on sea levels, ice sheet levels or sea ice levels. Remarkable, how all that planetwide blazing heat over a span of centuries was unable to melt any ice. I await the theory as to how such a thing was possible.

Also interesting how nobody supporting such a theory will submit a paper on it for peer review. That's compared to the dozen or so major studies, all peer-reviewed, using thousands of the best proxies, without a cherrypick in sight. They all said the MWP was not as warm as the modern era.

But then, if you've convinced yourself all the data is a socialist conspiracy, and that there's an active plot to suppress the real data, you'll have no trouble reconciling such pesky facts with your religious beliefs. Just retreat into your conspiracy theory, and all will be well.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

mamooth said:


> An interesting thing about that supposed way-hotter-than-it-was-now MWP is how it had no significant effect on sea levels, ice sheet levels or sea ice levels. Remarkable, how all that planetwide blazing heat over a span of centuries was unable to melt any ice. I await the theory as to how such a thing was possible.
> 
> Also interesting how nobody supporting such a theory will submit a paper on it for peer review. That's compared to the dozen or so major studies, all peer-reviewed, using thousands of the best proxies, without a cherrypick in sight. They all said the MWP was not as warm as the modern era.
> 
> But then, if you've convinced yourself all the data is a socialist conspiracy, and that there's an active plot to suppress the real data, you'll have no trouble reconciling such pesky facts with your religious beliefs. Just retreat into your conspiracy theory, and all will be well.



The graph showing a very warm MWP was in the 1990 IPCC report, you fucking moron.







And the reason there was no significant change in sea level is the same reason there is no significant change in sea level now.  If the entire arctic ice cap melted, it wouldn't raise sea level 6 inches.  The ice in the arctic is already floating, which means it won't change sea level if it melts.  Only ice on land melting can change sea level, and it would take much higher temperatures to make the Greenland and antarctic ice sheets melt.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting thing about that supposed way-hotter-than-it-was-now MWP is how it had no significant effect on sea levels, ice sheet levels or sea ice levels. Remarkable, how all that planetwide blazing heat over a span of centuries was unable to melt any ice. I await the theory as to how such a thing was possible.
> ...



Nope.  All it takes is warm ocean water (like we're building now at a record pace) to knock out the coastal ice shelves and free (and lube) the ice sheets so they can slide right off into the ocean.  And how about the bedrock of West Antarctica?  Due to the weight of all that ice sitting on it for a gazillion years, it's below sea level save near the coasts.  It won't take much more rise to put the whole kit and caboodle at risk of sub-glacial flooding that'll put several FEET worth of ice into the sea virtually overnight.  

It will probably flood my own property, but I'd give my right testicle to see your faces when that happens.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



That's more AGW abracadabra.  The water around Antarctica will always be 32 degrees F - even if the average temperature of the Earth increases by 10 degrees.



Abraham3 said:


> And how about the bedrock of West Antarctica?  Due to the weight of all that ice sitting on it for a gazillion years, it's below sea level save near the coasts.  It won't take much more rise to put the whole kit and caboodle at risk of sub-glacial flooding that'll put several FEET worth of ice into the sea virtually overnight.



Sea level isn't going to rise more than 1 foot over the next century according to the IPCC.  These scary scenarios are absurd. 



Abraham3 said:


> It will probably flood my own property, but I'd give my right testicle to see your faces when that happens.



Your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandson won't be able to enjoy the pleasure of seeing that on my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandson's face.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 20, 2013)

No warming since 1998.

nuff said.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I say we give all the future generations swimming lessons and fuck the wind farms that are killing raptors at an alarming rate.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Where's the evidence that Mann was a shareholder?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't want to accept that graph, don't accept that graph.  There was no MWP.  There was no LIA.  Climate changes didn't begin till the invention and widespread use of the thermometer.  Whatever temperature the first thermometer read was the constant temperature of the Earth for the prior 4.5 billion years.
> ...



Why would anyone assume that GHGs are the sole cause of global warming?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



That's the bottom line. I don't want my grandchildren swimming for their lives so that you can drive an unnecessary pick up truck.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> No cooling since 1998.
> 
> nuff said.



Simpleton.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



How much would the coastline of FL change with a one ft change in sea level?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> If you don't want to accept that graph, don't accept that graph.  There was no MWP.  There was no LIA.  Climate changes didn't begin till the invention and widespread use of the thermometer.  Whatever temperature the first thermometer read was the constant temperature of the Earth for the prior 4.5 billion years.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...



You talking to yourself here?


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 20, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> No *cooling* since 1998.
> 
> nuff said.


No cooling for 100 years!


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



"Swimming for their lives?" You have to be joking. They'll have to move the lifeguard stands 6 feet closer inland, and that is it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



It wouldn't even be noticeable.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Then you haven't seen an elevation map of the state.  And your physical oceanography is more than a little weak.  Tell me, how far from the polar ice does this magical 32F region extend?  And why isn't the entire sum of the world's water trapped there?


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 21, 2013)

loa said:


> After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.



Um, because it's not true.

That's why

-Geaux


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I live in the state of Florida.



Abraham3 said:


> Tell me, how far from the polar ice does this magical 32F region extend?  And why isn't the entire sum of the world's water trapped there?



It extends quite a ways.  Keep in mind that the circumpolar current surrounds Antarctica.  It keeps warm water from penetrating to the Continent.  This current is what cause Antarctica to freeze over in the first place.

There's nothing "magical" about it.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > No warming since 1998.
> ...



It's the truth. You have politicians panicking globally because they aren't able to justify their heavy taxation for a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Here's how it's likely to come down.  The combination of rising sea levels,  and millions of conservatives with their heads stuck in the sand,  will be self correcting. 

When the water comes,  they will treat it as they treat all problems,  by ignoring it,  and the lemming effect will be their timely end.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Interesting documentary showing footage of various areas that are already affected showed Vienna, New York City, parts of Florida and others. 

People can't see past their own back yard and some will hold on to their ignorance right up until they drown.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> The graph showing a very warm MWP was in the 1990



When someone uses obsolete data when better data is available, that's a sign you're looking at someone embracing pseudoscience. Naturally, denialists use obsolete data whenever possible. That particular chart they cling to is based on the 1965 Lamb paper.



> IPCC report, you fucking moron.



Non-tards, of course, understand both that:
1. Temps have risen a lot since 1965.
2. Proxy measurements have gotten a much better and more exhaustive since 1965, thus allowing much more accurate measurements of historical temperatures. Hence the changes, because the data got better.

Now, if someone is a political cultist, they'll wave their hands around and declare all the more recent data has to be forged, because it disagrees with their cult's teachings. Normal people laugh at such cultists.



> Only ice on land melting can change sea level, and it would take much higher temperatures to make the Greenland and antarctic ice sheets melt.



Glaciers exist all around the world, and 70% of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion, not melt. Thus your theory fails. Massive heating spanning the whole globe would have had to cause a big increase in the rate of sea level rise, like it's doing now. It didn't back then. Therefore, there was no massive heating covering the whole globe during the MWP.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The graph showing a very warm MWP was in the 1990
> ...



*When someone uses obsolete data when better data is available, that's a sign you're looking at someone embracing pseudoscience.*

Mann found better data on the MWP? LOL! That's funny.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's how it's likely to come down.  The combination of rising sea levels,  and millions of conservatives with their heads stuck in the sand,  will be self correcting.
> 
> When the water comes,  they will treat it as they treat all problems,  by ignoring it,  and the lemming effect will be their timely end.



Yeah, that "flood" of sea level increasing by 12 inches every century is going to kill millions!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2013)

So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?

Now, more on that figure. It was in IPCC 1990, but gone by 1992, replaced by better figures. Denialists should probably adjust their 'tard conspiracy. Do they now claim the conspiracy extends back to 1992? Understand that Dr. Mann didn't get involved with IPCC until around 1996, so they'll have to find another personality to demonize as Satan incarnate. Denialists, exactly who forged the data in 1992?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?
> 
> Now, more on that figure. It was in IPCC 1990, but gone by 1992, replaced by better figures. Denialists should probably adjust their 'tard conspiracy. Do they now claim the conspiracy extends back to 1992? Understand that Dr. Mann didn't get involved with IPCC until around 1996, so they'll have to find another personality to demonize as Satan incarnate. Denialists, exactly who forged the data in 1992?



I'm laughing at the idea that Mann found better data. Did he really?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?
> ...



The data was certainly "better" from the viewpoint of AGW con-artists.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's how it's likely to come down.  The combination of rising sea levels,  and millions of conservatives with their heads stuck in the sand,  will be self correcting.
> 
> When the water comes,  they will treat it as they treat all problems,  by ignoring it,  and the lemming effect will be their timely end.



How about something really simple?

Don't build on a shoreline. Learn how to swim. Buy a freaking boat. Move inland.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?
> ...



Who had better data before him?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's how it's likely to come down.  The combination of rising sea levels,  and millions of conservatives with their heads stuck in the sand,  will be self correcting.
> ...



Those would all been great ideas 250 years ago.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?
> 
> Now, more on that figure. It was in IPCC 1990, but gone by 1992, replaced by better figures. Denialists should probably adjust their 'tard conspiracy. Do they now claim the conspiracy extends back to 1992? Understand that Dr. Mann didn't get involved with IPCC until around 1996, so they'll have to find another personality to demonize as Satan incarnate. Denialists, exactly who forged the data in 1992?



The debate between science and politics is fun for us,  miserable for them,  but,  in the end,  unresolvable.  There are no truths in politics.  There are no lies in science.  The two ''sides'' talk past each other. 

But,  it's necessary at times to keep the polluted water of politics out of the pristine landscape of science because we are completely dependent on science for solutions.  There is no option especially from the political world.

The ultimate inconvenient truth for politics.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And still applicable today.

There is no global warming. Not since 1998. And climate change is natural. 

Instead of spending all our resources trying to "fix the climate" brought to you by the same politicians who can't "fix a pot hole" or can't "fix an economy" I'd like to invest in science that can and will help us deal with our issues in the here and now but also in the future with realistic predictions on how the changing climate will affect us locally and also globally. 

And take a pro active stance on doing something instead of predicting the end of the world as we know ad nauseaum and milking the crap out of the tax paying populace of the planet in a money grabbing scheme called "save the earth give me your money now".


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Honest data is always better than fake data.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So Toddster is actually claiming that there wasn't any new data since 1965. His mindless cult allegiance has turned him into a retard. Is he capable of understanding that, or is he too much of a retard now to understand it?
> ...



You are so naive it's unbelievable.  Ever heard of Piltdown Man?  Why do you think you never see him mentioned in the scientific literature?  The appalling fact is that fraud is endemic in science.  There are scores of people pushing perpetual motion machines on the web at this very instant.  Some of their ads have appeared in this forum.



PMZ said:


> But,  it's necessary at times to keep the polluted water of politics out of the pristine landscape of science because we are completely dependent on science for solutions.  There is no option especially from the political world.
> 
> The ultimate inconvenient truth for politics.



Yes, that's why politicians should quit funding these AGW magicians.  They are corrupting science.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm laughing at the idea that Mann found better data. Did he really?



As I don't speak 'tard, I have no idea what you're babbling about. Best I can tell, your 'tard conspiracy theory declares that Mann, who wasn't working with the IPCC until 1996, was forging a new graph in 1992. 

Anyways, don't blame yourselves too much. All the denialists here have fallen for that stupid scam, given that the CultOfMcIntyre basically requires its acolytes to recite it 6 times a day as they bow and face WUWT on the computer screen. For example, a few here have shown us this sacred cult icon:






So why is it bogus? 

First, because the graph they label as "1990-2001" was actually discarded by the IPCC by 1992. Whoever fudged the labels on that plot made up fake dates so they could lie about how the IPCC supposedly kept the 1965 image around as gospel truth through several editions until 2001. They didn't. In the first report in 1990, that was the only research around, so the IPCC used it. By the next edition, the 1992 supplementary report, the IPCC knew it was wildly inaccurate and hopelessly out of date, so they worked hard to replace it with good data. If someone thinks that's a conspiracy, then they're too much of a cult rube to ever be taken seriously.

Second, that 1965 graph is also for northern europe only, but the denialists say it's for the whole world.

This appears to be the origin of the scam graph, the fine scammers at WUWT. Given that the correct labels and explanations are on the wiki page they copied the original from, they can't use ignorance as an excuse. They just lied.

When the IPCC ?disappeared? the Medieval Warm Period | Watts Up With That?

So, if you ever posted that image, or if you fell for it, you should be asking yourself some tough questions. Your leaders have been lying their asses off to you, and as a result you lied about honest scientists. You can either admit your errors, or you can go full blown cultist and double down on the big lie, which would make you from now on an active participant in outright lying. Ignorance could excuse you all before, but not any longer.

(SSDD, I'm talking about you. You fell for the scam, posted the bogus graph, pushed it hard, and insulted anyone who didn't fall for it. You got some splainin' to do.)


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



If you knew science you'd know that science has found no alternative to AGW at the GHG concentrations we measure today.  Politics has.  Do nothing and push the consequences off on the future.  Good for us,  bad for everyone else. Potholes and the economy pale in comparison.  Not to mention that it was conservative politics that gave us the economy that caused the need to recover. 

So what you're selling is to be irresponsible.  We received the benefit of fossil fuels.  Let's dump the cost on others. 

That's not the America that we've always been proud to be a part of.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm laughing at the idea that Mann found better data. Did he really?
> ...



Why don't you post a link to the original so we can determine the facts for ourselves?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



''So we can determine the facts for ourselves'' requires science.  You have none.  Thats what the world has given the IPCC the responsibility for.  They are discovering the necessary science.  Your politics are no help at all to them or us.  

Don't worry.  They won't leave you behind.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm married to a man who graduated from the University of Toronto with degrees in biology and chemistry.

He's my go to guy. Well apart from other things.

I've also gone completely primitive in my lifetime. Nothing but a woodstove, fireplace, kerosene lamps and battery operated radio. Oh and having to pump water. 

And you can type on any board for a million posts talking about the evil of fossil fuels, but unless you can tell me in the here and now that you are posting depending on a windmill or solar you are a hypocrite. 

Unless you can tell me you are going to cook on a wood stove tonight or heat your home that way, you are a hypocrite.

Sorry as I can be, but if you are right now using the same fossil fuels that you love to hate, you are a hypocrite. 

Get off the grid for a couple of years and get back to me on how evil fossil fuels are. Use only solar or wind. 

I'll be waiting.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Why don't you post a link to the original so we can determine the facts for ourselves?



No problem.

Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original:





The altered:





And from the wiki page, dating back prior to the 2010 scam graph:
---
The graph had no clear source (but can be traced to publications by Hubert Lamb representing the Central England Temperature; those publications have no explicit calibration against instrumental data, [and are] just Lambs qualitative judgement and interpretation of what he refers to as the evidence [1]), and disappeared from the 1992 supplementary report.
---


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



The guys who didn't lie to fabricate a hockey stick.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> And you can type on any board for a million posts talking about the evil of fossil fuels, but unless you can tell me in the here and now that you are posting depending on a windmill or solar you are a hypocrite.



That's retarded. It's idiot logic, and makes it tough to take anything you say seriously.

If someone had said, "all must stop using electricity now", you'd have a point. But since no one said that, you're just babbling crap so you have an excuse to call people hypocrites and thus ignore what they say.

In summary, you being stupid and dishonest does not make us hypocrites. If you're incapable of addressing the actual issues, just say so, instead of pulling sleaze like that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you post a link to the original so we can determine the facts for ourselves?
> ...



And where can I find the "2010 scam graph?"


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> And where can I find the "2010 scam graph?"



Again, here.

When the IPCC ?disappeared? the Medieval Warm Period | Watts Up With That?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The guys who didn't lie to fabricate a hockey stick.



Much like Muslims chanting "Allahu Akbar!" loudly in public, denialists also have some sacred lines they repeatedly chant at maximum volume. The purpose of them is not to convince others, since no one outside the cult is dumb enough to fall for it. The purpose is a display of group solidarity, to identify themselves to others of their own religion, and to show how loyal to that religion they are.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



I don't know if your go to guy read your post or not.  If he did,  he probably told you that it's nonsensical. 

Our economy,  thanks to the Industrial Revolution, is fueled by energy.  No going back to the earlier times that you like to emulate.  I do too, when backpacking and camping. 

We've discovered threats to our ongoing economic success.  We are moving giga tons of carbon from underground, to the atmosphere, recreating the pre Carboniferous climate, replacing the one that we built our present civilization around.  And in roughly the time that it would take to change to sustainable energy,  we will have used up all of the underground carbon anyway. 

If we put all of the  carbon back from whence it came,  in the atmosphere,  we will maximise the necessary costs to civilization of adapting to a new climate.  Trillions on top of the trillions it will unavoidably cost to convert to sustainable  energy. 

Science can help us find the least expensive path forward.  Politics will not.  

Because we have no models that can predict long term weather,  the details of the cost of adapting civilization to a new climate are unknowable.  They could be smaller or much greater than anyone's guess. 

Anyone in the risk management field would advise that the riskiest alternative now is to do nothing.  The safest,  pay for better information. Both for the risk of climate change and it's attendant mitigation costs,  and for the sustainable energy technology. 

Exactly the path that we are on and you are obfuscating.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 21, 2013)

There has been no warming since 1998. Climate change is normal. It's not the end of the world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The guys who didn't lie to fabricate a hockey stick.
> ...



I know I shouldn't mock Mann, he is, after all, a Nobel prize recipient.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf (page 3)


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> There has been no warming since 1998. Climate change is normal. It's not the end of the world.



'' There has been no warming since 1998.''

Just not true.  The rate of warming has slowed.  That's been studied and determined to be due to how the world warms,  the current status being warmer deep ocean temperatures.  That is temporary as the only physical resolution to higher GHG concentrations are higher surface temperatures. 

''Climate change is normal.''

Cancer is normal too.  Merely undesirable.  And caused by different things.  Fortunately the condition that burning fossil fuels is recreating has been here before and has been studied.  The pre Carboniferous climate.  So we know in general what the climate will do.  We can predict only generally what the weather will do. The new climate will require civilization to adapt. 

''It's not the end of the world.''

Probably.  Humanity,  if we react quickly enough, is still in control. We broke it,  we can fix it. Probably.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > There has been no warming since 1998. Climate change is normal. It's not the end of the world.
> ...



*the current status being warmer deep ocean temperatures.*

How much warmer? How deep?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > There has been no warming since 1998. Climate change is normal. It's not the end of the world.
> ...



You mean the AGW magicians invented some new excuses for their predictions being dead wrong.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



We're dealing with a topic here out of your reach.  

Facts. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Use your science.  Oh,  excuse me.  You have none. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*BWAHAHAHAHAHA!*

Your pretensions of superior knowledge are hysterical!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Run away from your silly claims, again.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's been an advantage for Al Gore.

Let me know when you find how much warmer and how deep.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I know learning is hard for you but here's a start.  Maybe if you lay down some of the pain will be alleviated. 

From    http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/deep-oceans-warming-at-alarming-rate-130711.htm

Despite mixed signals from warming ocean surface waters, a new re-analysis of data from the depths suggests dramatic warming of the deep sea is underway because of anthropogenic climate change. The scientists report that the deep seas are taking in more heat than expected, which is taking some of the warming off the Earths surface, but it will not do so forever.

"Some of the heat (from human-caused global warming) is going into melting sea ice and heating the surface, but the bulk is going into the oceans, said climate researcher Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a coauthor on a new research paper reporting on the deep ocean warming in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
How Global Warming Will Change Your Life

The study involved the bringing together of a diverse suite of data, ranging from satellite measurements of the surface waters to ship observations at all depths, instruments mounted on elephant seals, ARGO profilers (a large collection of small, drifting-robotic probes deployed worldwide), and data-gathering instruments moored in place. The data includes temperature, salinity, depth, and altimetry of the ocean surface, going back decades.
Ocean heat content from zero to 300 meters deep (grey), 700 meters deep (blue), and total depth (violet). The vertical colored bars indicate a two year interval following volcanic eruptions with a six month and the 19971998 El Niño event. On lower right, the linear slopes for a set of global heating rates is given.


Piecing together different kinds of data from different times and sometimes from sparse data sets was the key challenge, Trenberth explains, but that is the specialty of his coauthors at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts in the U.K

They have one of the most sophisticated data assimilation systems, Trenberth said. That has allowed for a new view of not only how the deep sea is heating up, but how winds and El Niño events play into it all.

Winds blowing on the oceans can drive water into the deep ocean as well as cause upwelling of deep waters, which can release massive amounts of heat. The 1998 El Niño year, for instance, was the hottest on record because the oceans were releasing a lot of heat from the ocean into the atmosphere, Trenberth explained to DNews.
Think the Planet Isn't Warming? Check the Ocean: Analysis

The new re-analysis of ocean data is not the last word on what's happening in the deep seas, but the best estimate of what is happening.

It's more than speculation and suggestion, agrees climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and it's probably right to a reasonable degree. The fact of the matter is we'll never be able to get data from below 400 meters in the middle of the Pacific Ocean because there is not enough money invested in ocean sensors to cover such places. So we have to use physics to fill in the gaps.

The bottom line, says Trenberth is that the heat of global warming is going to different places. So global warming is continuing even though its not always manifested as a strong surface temperature increase. Its just manifesting itself in different ways.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 21, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> *There is no global warming. Not since 1998.* And climate change is natural. .


And the mindless drones parrot their programming. It's amazing how many fools will repeat any bullshit they are fed by GOP hate media without even bothering to fact check it!! 

So please explain how the decade following 1998 was the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement if warming STOPPED in 1998??????

Past decade hottest on record, marked by extremes: UN | Fox News

 The first decade of the 21st century was the hottest on record, marked by unprecedented climate and weather extremes that killed more than 370,000 people, the United Nations weather agency said Wednesday.
The period from 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade for both hemispheres since records began in 1850, was the second-wettest since 1901 and saw the most tropical cyclones since 1855, the World Meteorological Organization said in a new report.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I took your advice, but the pain of your ignorance remains unchanged.

Thanks for the awesome link. There was one tiny thing missing, temperature.
Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The guys who didn't lie to fabricate a hockey stick.
> ...





tinydancer said:


> *There has been no warming since 1998.* Climate change is normal. It's not the end of the world.


TD gives us the current meme the mindless drones are parroting!!!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you want to take the oceans temperature,  first build a very long thermometer. 

What science will do,  as they do every day in every field,  is to deduce proxies for things that can't be measured directly. 

You are still suffering from the delusion that if you don't know something,  nobody does.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

More stuff that Toddster doesn't know and can't imagine others kmow

New analyses find evidence of human-caused climate change in half of the 12 extreme weather and climate events analyzed from 2012

September 5, 2013


The "Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective" report was published today by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. (Full report).


Human influences are having an impact on some extreme weather and climate events, according to the report Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective released today by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Overall, 18 different research teams from around the world contributed to the peer-reviewed report that examined the causes of 12 extreme events that occurred on five continents and in the Arctic during 2012. Scientists from NOAA served as three of the four lead editors on the report.

The report shows that the effects of natural weather and climate fluctuations played a key role in the intensity and evolution of the 2012 extreme events. However, in some events, the analyses revealed compelling evidence that human-caused climate change, through the emission of heat-trapping gases, also contributed to the extreme event.

This report adds to a growing ability of climate science to untangle the complexities of understanding natural and human-induced factors contributing to specific extreme weather and climate events, said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D, director of NOAAs National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Nonetheless, determining the causes of extreme events remains challenging.

In addition to investigating the causes of these extreme events, the multiple analyses of four of the events  the warm temperatures in the United States, the record-low levels of Arctic sea ice, and the heavy rain in both northern Europe and eastern Australia  allowed the scientists to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of their various methods of analysis. Despite their different strategies, there was considerable agreement between the assessments of the same events.

Thomas Peterson, Ph.D., principal scientist at NOAAs NCDC and one of the lead editors on the report, said, Scientists around the world assessed a wide variety of potential contributing factors to these major extreme events that, in many cases, had large impacts on society. Understanding the range of influences on extreme events helps us to better understand how and why extremes are changing."

Key findings include:

Location and type of events analyzed in the Paper.

Location and type of events analyzed in the Paper.

Heat Wave and Drought in United States:

    Human-induced climate change had little impact on the lack of precipitation in the central United States in 2012.
    The 2012 spring and summer heat waves in the U.S. can be mainly explained by natural atmospheric dynamics, however, human-induced climate change was found to be a factor in the magnitude of warmth and was found to have affected the likelihood of such heat waves.  For example:
        High temperatures, such as those experienced in the U.S. in 2012 are now likely to occur four times as frequently due to human-induced climate change.
        Approximately 35 percent of the extreme warmth experienced in the eastern U.S. between March and May 2012 can be attributed to human-induced climate change.  

Hurricane Sandy Inundation Probability:

    The record-setting impacts of Sandy were largely attributable to the massive storm surge and resulting inundation from the onshore-directed storm path coincident with high tide. However, climate-change related increases in sea level have nearly doubled todays annual probability of a Sandy-level flood recurrence as compared to 1950. Ongoing natural and human-induced forcing of sea level ensures that Sandy-level inundation events will occur more frequently in the future from storms with less intensity and lower storm surge than Sandy. 

Arctic Sea Ice:

    The extremely low Arctic sea ice extent in summer 2012 resulted primarily from the melting of younger, thin ice from a warmed atmosphere and ocean. This event cannot be explained by natural variability alone. Summer Arctic sea ice extent will continue to decrease in the future, and is expected to be largely absent by mid-century.  

Global Rainfall Events:

    The unusually high amount of summer rainfall in the United Kingdom in 2012 was largely the result of natural variability. However, there is evidence that rainfall totals are influenced by increases in sea surface temperature and atmospheric moisture which may be linked to human influences on climate.
    The magnitude of the extreme rainfall experienced over southeastern Australia between October 2011 and March 2012 was mainly associated with La Niña conditions. However, the likelihood of above-average precipitation during March was found to have increased by 5 percent to 15 percent because of human influences on the climate.
    Extreme rainfall events such as the December 2011 two-day rainfall in Golden Bay, New Zealand, are more likely to occur due to a 1 percent to 5 percent increase in available moisture resulting from increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
    The July 2012 extreme rainfall events in North China and southwestern Japan were mainly due to natural variability. 

The report was edited by Peterson, along with Martin P. Hoerling, NOAAs Earth System Research Laboratory; Peter A. Stott, UK Met Office Hadley Centre and Stephanie C. Herring of NCDC and written by 78 scientists from 11 countries. View the full report online.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




"The fact is that we can&#8217;t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can&#8217;t."

[Trenberth in Climategate1, 2009]



You'll have to forgive us if we don't place much stock in what Kevin Trenberth has to say.







You can read more of Trenberth's faux pas here:

Kevin Trenberth struggles mightily to explain the lack of global warming | Watts Up With That?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > *There is no global warming. Not since 1998.* And climate change is natural. .
> ...



Obviously, you're too stupid to understand the fact that both claims can be true.  Only the locally impaired believe you claim invalidates the prior claim.  Those who post this nonsense only unmask themselves as propagandists.

However, having said that, it's not even true that the last decade was the warmest on record.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> More stuff that Toddster doesn't know and can't imagine others kmow
> 
> New analyses find evidence of human-caused climate change in half of the 12 extreme weather and climate events analyzed from 2012
> 
> ...



Of course, the article doesn't even discuss the basis these "researchers" used for reaching their conclusions.  PMS will tell us the hoi polloi are too ignorant to understand the reasons.  That is so typical of the AGW priesthood:  make sinister proclamations and then keep the information used to generate the so-called "science" a secret.  That's exactly how the high priests of the Aztecs operated right before they demanded more human sacrifices to slake the thirsts of Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*If you want to take the oceans temperature, first build a very long thermometer. *

You should do that.

*What science will do,  as they do every day in every field,  is to deduce proxies for things that can't be measured directly. *

Sounds like an opportunity for mischief.

*You are still suffering from the delusion that if you don't know something,  nobody does.*

Let me know when you, or anyone, knows the temperatures you claim are warming.....and how deep.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Use your science.  Oh,  excuse me.  You have none.
> ...



The fact is, there is virtually no record of the temperature of the deep ocean.  There are measurements that were taken sporadically in a sprinkling of locations, and that's it.  NOAA has just recently completed launching 1250 drifting buoys to measure the surface temperature.  What do you supposed the odds are that any nation has any significant number of buoys the record temperatures in the deep ocean?

Any claims about heating of the oceans is pure bovine excrement.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



"You'll have to forgive us if we don't place much stock in what Kevin Trenberth has to say"

What you put stock in is meaningless. He's a renown climate scientist and you have clearly demonstrated no literacy in that topic. So we'll pay attention to his expertise in the field of climate science and your expertise when we find it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> More stuff that Toddster doesn't know and can't imagine others kmow
> 
> New analyses find evidence of human-caused climate change in half of the 12 extreme weather and climate events analyzed from 2012
> 
> ...



Wow, very convincing.

I guess we're to blame for the record number of hurricanes every year for the last 5 years?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Trenberth is a con-artist.  He made his unhappiness about the fact of flat global temperatures quite plain.  Then, wadda ya know, he comes up with an explanation for it!
Only a congenital fool would believe anything this weasel has to say.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wow, very convincing.
> 
> I guess we're to blame for the record number of hurricanes every year for the last 5 years?



How do you suppose they determined that global warming caused extreme weather event 'A' but not extreme weather event 'B?'


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What do you disagree with here?

[Trenberth] Warming really means heating, and so it can be manifested in many ways. Rising surface temperatures are just one manifestation. Melting Arctic sea ice is another. So is melting of glaciers and other land ice that contribute to rising sea levels. Increasing the water cycle and invigorating storms is yet anotherAnother prominent source of natural variability in the Earths energy imbalance is changes in the sun itself, seen most clearly as the sunspot cycle. From 2005 to 2010 the sun went into a quiet phase and the warming energy imbalance is estimated to have dropped by about 10 to 15%.

"Human induced global warming really kicked in during the 1970s, and warming has been pretty steady since thenFocusing on the wiggles and ignoring the bigger picture of unabated warming is foolhardy, but one promoted by climate change deniers. Global sea level keeps marching up at a rate of over 30 cm per century since 1992 (when global measurements via altimetry on satellites were made possible), and that is perhaps a better indicator that global warming continues unabated."


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Trenberth even admits that the sun has a massive impact on our climate.  On that I agree with him.  However, even if you accept everything he claims as true, it still doesn't prove that humans are responsible.  The Earth has been warming for 10,000 years.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Or here?

[Q:] I know this kind of extreme weather is part of the territory in the middle of the country, but is climate change going to make such extreme weather more likely or more powerful?

[A: Trenberth] Of course, tornadoes are very much a weather phenomenon. They come from certain thunderstorms, usually supercell thunderstorms that are in a wind shear environment that promotes rotation. That environment is most common in spring across the U.S. when the storm track is just the right distance from the Gulf [of Mexico] and other sources of moisture.

The main climate change connection is via the basic instability of the low-level air that creates the convection and thunderstorms in the first place. Warmer and moister conditions are the key for unstable air. The oceans are warmer because of climate change.

The climate change effect is probably only a 5 to 10 percent effect in terms of the instability and subsequent rainfall, but it translates into up to a 33 percent effect in terms of damage. (It is highly nonlinear, for 10 percent it is 1.1 to the power of three = 1.33.) So there is a chain of events, and climate change mainly affects the first link: the basic buoyancy of the air is increased. Whether that translates into a supercell storm and one with a tornado is largely chance weather.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Or here?
> 
> [Q:] I know this kind of extreme weather is part of the territory in the middle of the country, but is climate change going to make such extreme weather more likely or more powerful?
> 
> ...



What about it?  None of those claims are proven.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You keep finding new ways go say the same thing.

You don't understand climate science. How do climate scientists?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Or here?
> ...



None of the proof of those claims is known by you. Why would you expect it to be?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, very convincing.
> ...



They dusted for prints.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Show us some chemistry or physics or even alchemy that suggests that GHGs do not absorb OLR.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If you got the proof, then post it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Trenberth even admits that the sun has a massive impact on our climate.  On that I agree with him.  However, even if you accept everything he claims as true, it still doesn't prove that humans are responsible.  The Earth has been warming for 10,000 years.
> ...



When have I ever claimed they didn't?

I certainly wouldn't post that ridiculous parlor trick that you claimed demonstrated the greenhouse effect.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Here's the difference between him and you. He has qualified science behind his opinions. You have absolutely and precisely nothing except for political posturing. The only possible reason for anybody to accept your opinion over his would be political.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



There is no way that it is possible that the OLR absorption of GHGs does not produce global warming. The simplest of physics. 

If you disagree, show us the science. 

What are the primary products of combustion from fossil fuels?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



"Trenberth even admits that the sun has a massive impact on our climate."

Our climate would not exist without the sun. Nor would we. Nor would earth.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If you want to take the oceans temperature, first build a very long thermometer. *
> 
> You should do that.



Been done. The ARGO floats dip down to 2000m.

Did your cult leaders not inform you of that? Of course they didn't. 

As Bri and Todd have been working so hard to show, people deny because their cult tells them to. Only a cultist could get as bitter and obsessive and cranky as the denialists here do. They'll run out of steam soon, go off on a week-long bender, and so a new crank will step up to be the obsessive one. It's like the denialist circle of life.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...


They don't call these idiots "deniers" for nothing!

If warming stopped in 1998 then the decade that followed 1998 could not be the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement, which even FOX admits!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *If you want to take the oceans temperature, first build a very long thermometer. *
> ...



That is awesome.
So what was the huge increase in temperature that they measured?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *If you want to take the oceans temperature, first build a very long thermometer. *
> ...



What's the average temperature of the oceans? (LOL)


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



ARGO has only been in place since 2007.  How many observations are there for temperatures at all depths of the ocean that go back at least until 1965?  The answer is virtually none.  The data is extremely thin.




PMZ said:


> *Piecing together different kinds of data from different times and sometimes from sparse data sets was the key challenge, Trenberth* explains, but that is the specialty of his coauthors at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts in the U.K



No kidding?  But somehow the AGW magicians managed to do it, and their results are infallible, of course.



PMZ said:


> &#8220;It's more than speculation and suggestion,&#8221; agrees climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, &#8220;and it's probably right to a reasonable degree. *The fact of the matter is we'll never be able to get data from below 400 meters in the middle of the Pacific Ocean&#8221;* because there is not enough money invested in ocean sensors to cover such places. &#8220;So we have to use physics to fill in the gaps.&#8221;



In other words, they don't have any data for about 90% of the water in the ocean.  Yeah, we can trust their conclusions with a data set like that.



PMZ said:


> The bottom line, says Trenberth is that the heat of global warming is going to different places. &#8220;So global warming is continuing even though it&#8217;s not always manifested as a strong surface temperature increase. It&#8217;s just manifesting itself in different ways.&#8221;



The bottom line is that Trenberth is con man.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *If you want to take the oceans temperature, first build a very long thermometer. *
> ...



The ARGO floats have only been in place since 2007.  How does a 5 year temperature record show the oceans have been absorbing the excess warming for the last 15 years?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes it could.  I can draw you a picture to show you, but I have no idea how to make it appear in a post.

The people who work for FOX are journalists.  They aren't scientists, so what they claim doesn't really matter.  Furthermore, I don't believe I've ever witnessed anyone on FOX stating what you claim.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



See,  I don't care at all if you understand anything that you're not educated in.  If you are curious,  learn.  If you don't know and aren't curious,  stay ignorant. Whether or not you understand anything,  is your issue,  not mine. You are irrelevant to any solution,  so you are irrelevant to me.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *If you want to take the oceans temperature, first build a very long thermometer. *
> ...



They are nothing but political. Their choice.  Our job is merely to keep them from mucking up the science. Their job is to keep us from mucking up their politics. 

I,  personally,  am committed to exposing their politics to the light of day so that others can choose.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What does the word proxy mean to you?


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Our job?

By all means tell us who you are.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you want to learn science,  look it up.  I personally can't think of any thing more trivial.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why do you think that they measured temperature?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes it could when you consider avgs..... 

If the 1990's started around .2c cooler then the end of the decade and you add them out. This would give you a avg lower then the 2000's that remained the same. 

Of course we have seen some warming but this argument doesn't prove anything.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


The perpetual dumb act again.

The link I provided is to FOX!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You said, "the current status being warmer deep ocean *temperatures*"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...eople-deny-climate-change-53.html#post7867115

Were you lying?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Proxies.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I'm a liberal.  That means that I take responsibility for things that concern me and my family and all my communities. 

I don't think that you'd understand.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Temperatures are imputed from other data.  Didn't you read what I  posted?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It's not an act.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2013)

IPCC joins the deniers


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IPCC joins the deniers



In your dreams.  Imagine,  science on your side.  Dream on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What were the old and new imputed temperatures?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

It all boils down to this.  Who knows more about climate and weather.  Climate scientists or conservative politicians. 

Thats pretty easy. 

Who is more likely to create solution scenarios.  

Thats pretty easy too. 

Who's more likely to be objective.  Those who are paid for their scientific work or those who are paid to maintain the status quo. 

Pretty easy choice.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Trenberth doesn't mention proxies, so your claim is bullshit on its face.  the fact is he has no evidence to support his claim.  It's pure moonshine.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It all boils down to this.  Who knows more about climate and weather.  Climate scientists or conservative politicians.
> 
> Thats pretty easy.
> 
> ...



_Appeal to authority._  Either you have evidence, or you don't.  Claiming that the AGW magicians have some kind of special knowledge that us mere mortals couldn't hope to comprehend is the work of a con man.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



THey have no ARGO temperatures older than 2007, and all their other sources are so thin they aren't worth mentioning.  Sensors attached to elephant seals?  Yeah, I'll bet that covers a huge percentage of the ocean.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Then you'll have no trouble producing a quote of FOX personnel saying what you claim.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Or here?
> ...



Patrick's mechanic explains to him how cars work and what is wrong with his.  He replies, "What about it?  None of those claims are proven.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It all boils down to this.  Who knows more about climate and weather.  Climate scientists or conservative politicians.
> 
> Thats pretty easy.
> 
> ...



Does this mean you were lying about imputed temperatures? 

Frankly, I'm shocked. Someone with your science background spreading lies.
Are you Michael Mann? Don't sue me. 
Love your Nobel Prize.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



That FOX News article simply quoted what some tool at the UN weather agency said, moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



ROFL!  When you aren't spewing logical fallacies, you're spewing _ad hominems._

You're hardly in a position to be calling any of your critics "stupid."


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Trenberth doesn't know how the climate works, moron.  Equating his knowledge of climate with a mechanics knowledge of the workings of a car is begging the question.   neither you nor any other AGW nitwit has demonstrated that anything he says is true.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



If only you were right.  Unfortunately,  you're just plain wrong about most everything.  Too bad.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Of course, you have absolutely no evidence to prove I am wrong.  That is so typical for you.  We are just supposed to believe the all-knowing mighty Trenberth knows because he's a "climate scientist."

Excuse my while a wretch.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


ARGO sensors were first deployed in 2000. 100% deployment was achieved in 2007.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 You're correct, Toddsterpatriot. Not one temperature was stated in his link, and it too had a "link" which also had not one temperature stated.

Anyone can postulate. Good information is validated with the facts or it could be a misrepresentation, given the nature of those who signed on to agree to omit climatic data to procure foundation and government money demands made by those unworthy of telling the truth or obfuscating it.

You're right to request proof, and thank you for drawing that out in this discussion, although if you are heeded, of course your opponents will become better debaters.  I just gave away the USMB secret for getting at the truth. *sigh* ~ my bad.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They still have no measurements from before the date when global temperatures stopped increasing, so they have nothing to compare to.


----------



## edthecynic (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Global temperature has not stopped increasing. You've been had!


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes they have.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Only true for positions that have no science or scientific resources.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Clearly you're one of the dupped who believes that you are entitled to knowledge without the investment of education. 

Something for nothing. 

Scientists know so much more than you ever will because they earned it. 

Invest nothing,  get nothing. 

It's hard to be free from the yoke of ignorance.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It all boils down to this.  Who knows more about climate and weather.  Climate scientists or conservative politicians.
> ...



Either you have education to understand or you don't. 

Your pitiful whining that you are entitled to know more than you've earned by education is like saying you could kick LeBron's ass in one on one. 

To say that it lacks credibility is the world's biggest understatement


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Show is your data.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It all boils down to this.  Who knows more about climate and weather.  Climate scientists or conservative politicians.
> ...



Show me your evidence of my lies.  Your case is weaker than McIntyre's defense.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



''Trenberth doesn't know how the climate works''

Another classic for the museum of conservative claptrap.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The evidence in Trenberth's favor is extensive.  The evidence in your favor is,  well,  nonexistent.  It's what you wish was true. 

Conservatives are defined by entitlement. ''We are owed credibility because we want it''. 

Let's hear a big ''BULLSHIT'' for that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Use that education of yours and post the before and after "imputed temperatures" from deep below the ocean. Thanks!

Unless you're a big fat liar?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There is no data, numskull.  That's precisely the point.  You and the con man Trenberth claim all this heat went into the deep ocean, but neither of you can cough up any numbers.

Do you know how to spell "hoax?"


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




What "evidence" is there in Trenberth's favor?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I guess we can assume he knows how the climate works because of all his highly accurate predictions about the climate. . . . . . 

*WHOOPS!*

All his  predictions have been wrong!

No banana!


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That has got to be the weakest, most infantile argument ever posted in this forum.

"You're stupid" is not a valid argument.  That's the kind of thing 2nd graders yell at each other on the playground.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What the hell is that supposed to mean?  If they have the data, then you should be able to produce it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Trenberth's paper took existing data from many data bases from many sources and analyzed them,  using climate science,  to impute the increasing energy going into the deep ocean for the last decades.  

You have no science,  no data,  no resources,  no theories,  no applicable education,  no computing capability,  no statistics,  but claim that what you want to be true is more likely than what he calculated. 

WTF????


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Here's Trenberth's analysis.  If you have alternative scientific evidence that improves on his,  be specific about what basis for his analysis you can improve on,  and why you believe so. 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?embe...s-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Show us the data.  Trenberth has very scanty data on deep ocean temperatures prior to 2007 - almost none, actually.  He obviously just made it up.  How many ships in how many locations, do you suppose,  measured the temperature of the deep ocean prior to 2007? Commercial vessels certain don't take such measurements, so how much data is there?  I'm dying to see it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Show me your contrary data.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



BTW,  I did post his paper including his data.  I personally doubt if you can understand a word of it.  Of course,  I also doubt if you read any of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So post his "imputed temperatures" already.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's Trenberth's analysis.  If you have alternative scientific evidence that improves on his,  be specific about what basis for his analysis you can improve on,  and why you believe so.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?embe...s-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf



The only section that refers to the data used is this:



> 2. The Ocean Reanalysis[6] ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis &#64258;uxes and quality controlled ocean observations. These consist of temperature and salinity (T/S) pro&#64257;les from the Hadley Centre&#8217;s EN3 data collection [Ingleby and Huddleston, 2007], which include expendable bathythermographs (T only, with depth corrections from Table 1 of Wijffels et al. [2008]), conductivity-temperature-depth sensors (T/S), TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings (T/S), Argo pro&#64257;lers (T/S), and autonomous pinniped bathythermograph (or elephant seals, T/S). Altimeter-derived along track sea level anomalies from AVISO are also assimilated. Gridded



Note:  The three sources of data are:


ARGO, which only goes back to the year 2000.
Elephant seals (we have no idea what the dates are for this data, nor do we know the coverage of this data.  The range of elephant seals is not that large.
Hadley Centre&#8217;s EN3 data collection.  We have no idea of the dates or the coverage of this data.  Furthermore, Hadley has already been caught doctoring its land based data.

Note also that it mentions the use of a "model."  That means the data has been massaged by a computer program.  What do you suppose are the odds that the program wasn't tweaked to produce the desired results?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



After you post yours and the basis for them.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's Trenberth's analysis.  If you have alternative scientific evidence that improves on his,  be specific about what basis for his analysis you can improve on,  and why you believe so.
> ...



What is the basis for your estimates that are contrary to his?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's Trenberth's analysis.  If you have alternative scientific evidence that improves on his,  be specific about what basis for his analysis you can improve on,  and why you believe so.
> ...



I told you that you wouldn't understand a word of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I never claimed to have deep ocean temps, you claimed Trenberth had them.

Were you lying again? Or just plain wrong?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

The Toddbot is apparently under the impression that the ocean is all one temperature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The Toddbot is apparently under the impression that the ocean is all one temperature.



I'm under the impression you lied, again.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 22, 2013)

Pardon me, but have you folks forgotten the expendable bathythermograph?  The Sippican T-5 XBT takes data to 6,000 feet.  They have been in widespread use by every major navy on the planet since the late 60s.  Vessels with sonar systems drop them at least twice a day.  Vessels without sonar systems drop them less often.  Oceanographic research vessels drop them as often as hourly.  The Navy's Met office has an enormous library of these data and it has all been computerized.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Obviously Abbott and Costello here are trying hard to avoid the point that has been true from the beginning of the conservative AGW obfuscation movement that there is absolutely no scientific basis behind their claims.  It is 100 percent a dirty politics character assassination effort as they're famous for.  

Hoping that dirty politics will trump science in the minds of those who don't know science.  

What the electorate has figured out though,  whether or not they understand science,  is the big picture.  

Conservative politics has been an immense failure in practice in the US.  Even now Republicans are campaigning by demonstrating that they are completely unable to govern and the best that they can do is shut down Congress.  I think that even Boehner may change parties soon.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Hundreds of naval vessels have taken hundreds of thousands of XBT drops on a more than daily basis, worldwide, since the late 60s.  The standard probe is the Sippican T-5 which takes data to 6,000 feet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Obviously Abbott and Costello here are trying hard to avoid the point that has been true from the beginning of the conservative AGW obfuscation movement that there is absolutely no scientific basis behind their claims.  It is 100 percent a dirty politics character assassination effort as they're famous for.
> 
> Hoping that dirty politics will trump science in the minds of those who don't know science.
> 
> ...



My claim is you're a liar.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Here ya go, bonehead:

Below is a map show the range of elephant seals.  That's a great coverage area for drawing conclusions about the entire ocean, don't ya thing?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Conservatives believe,  because they've been told to,  that AGW is a myth.  They have zero basis for that belief,  except that they'd like it to be true because it might grant them some political relevance.  

Climate scientists know that AGW is a natural and unavoidable consequence of increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations which are a natural and unavoidable and largely permanent consequence of burning fossil fuels. 

Under those circumstances,  conservatives are acting in a completely predictable way. 

Denying truth.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Based on the webpage at the NOAA website, it appears the bulk of the XBT data only goes back to the year 2000.  There is one data set covering the Gulf Stream that goes back to the mid 60s.

Physical Oceanography Division - XBT Network - Global XBT Deployments


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Obviously, you are wrong here. It is the range of SOME, not all.

This may be a good example that highlights your cognitive issues.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Show the range of the others.  Furthermore, it's obvious that elephant seals don't get far from land, and there is no record of them diving deeper than 900 meters.  The ocean goes down to 5000 meters for much of its extent.   

What numskulls like you prove is that cult members are obviously willing to accept whatever their AGW magicians dish out to them without question.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

"Lumbering elephant seals in Antarctica seem to be taking the heat from global warming, as scientists have found the mammals must dive to deeper than normal depths in warmer seas to snag food. The deeper dives may also mean less time to get food, the researchers say."

Global Warming Makes Elephant Seals Dive Deeper, Study Suggests | Diving Marine Mammals | Southern Ocean & Antarctic Wildlife | LiveScience


Someone sucks at doing research.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You suck at research and independent learning.

Clearly, your statements are just BS with no basis.  Obviously there is a record of them diving and providing deep ocean temperatures, dipwad.  You just make shit up.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



There are two main populations of Elephant seals:  the Northern Elephant seal inhabits the West coast of North America and the Southern Elephant seal inhabits the region immediately surrounding Antarctica - not a huge percentage of the World's oceans.  The species was almost entire wiped out by the end of the 19th century.  There were only about 100 know examples at that time.  All modern elephant seals are descended from those 100 individuals.

Elephant Seals - Earthguide

BTW, elephant seal depth and temperature records only go back to the mid 1990s


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You obviously lied, presenting only the habitat for Norther Elephant Seals and claiming them to represent all elephant seals.

Why should anyone believe anything you have to say?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Not deeper than 900 meters, asshole.  The records only go back to the mid 1990s.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



BTW, like I said, you suck at research.  You present biased and incomplete informtion that supports only you biased predisposition. 


You screwed the pooch. Can't be trusted.  Lied.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



ROFL!  so you found some better data.  They dive down to 2000 meters in Antarctica.  The bottom line is that the data is very limited.  It only goes back to the mid 1990s, and only covers a small fraction of the world's oceans.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



So you say,  But then, you lied about elephant seal habitats from the start.  You are not to be trusted to present accurate info.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You believe Trenberth and Michal Mann.  That means you'll believe virtually anything.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The bottom line is you were wrong about the habitats of elephant seals, presenting only Northern seals.  

I have no idea how far they dive.  Obviously you don't either.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



There you go again, making shit up.

What I asked is why should anyone believe you?  Obviously, you make shit up.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The website you posted says 2000 meters.  Can't you even read your own material?

I posted the information I had.  You had access to more information.  Big whoop.  How does that prove Trenberth has the data to backup his claims?  Short answer:  it doesn't.

You're attempting the age-old liberal propaganda technique of finding one minute error and blowing it up to mean all the information is wrong.  However, there are holes in the information of the AGW magicians that you could drive a semi through.  Trenberth's claims are based on virtually no data.  That's the bottom line.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Unlike Trenberth and Michael Mann, I haven't made up a thing.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The Toddbot is apparently under the impression that the ocean is all one temperature.
> ...



I said Trenberth imputed deep ocean heat buildup.  You reasoned that the only way to do that was to measure temperature.  That's because of your limited education.  We don't owe you anything because you chose not to get educated.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously Abbott and Costello here are trying hard to avoid the point that has been true from the beginning of the conservative AGW obfuscation movement that there is absolutely no scientific basis behind their claims.  It is 100 percent a dirty politics character assassination effort as they're famous for.
> ...



Why?  With your credibility here everyone will know the truth is almost always opposite of what you claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*I said Trenberth imputed deep ocean heat buildup. *

You said he imputed temperature. Liar.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



There is nothing more important to conservatives trying to obfuscate AGW and it's consequences than keeping the conversation off of AGW and it's consequences as they don't have one shred of evidence to support their delusion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Imputed temps? LOL!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



This is how the day always ends for the Toddbot. Left with his toxic personality and zero knowledge of science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2013)

This is how the day always ends for PMS.

Caught in another lie.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



So, you are really that delusional?  Anyone with half a brain gets that you have misrepresented elephant seal habitats.  You lied.  You have lied about having knowledge, lied about yhe habitats, lied about the migration patterns, lied about everything.  You can't open your mouth or write a post without lying.  You pathelogical.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Here ya go, bonehead:
> 
> Below is a map show the range of elephant seals. *That's a great coverage area for drawing conclusions about the entire ocean, don't ya thing?



Well, obviously it isn't.

It is a map of the habitat for Northern Elephant seals. *It isn't their "range".

Obviously there are Elephant Seals in the Antarctic and they migrate to forage for food.

That, your post, would be obviously bullshit.

So why should anyone believe you?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



By claiming conservatives "don't have one shred of evidence" you only prove that your just another libtard scientific ignoramus.  AGW skeptics don't need to provide a single shred of evidence.  The burden of proof is on the brethren of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.  So far, the evidence is far, far, far from convincing.  Your magicians have all been defrocked and shown to be the frauds they are.  Your cult is crumbling.   You shot your wad, but the public is no longer fooled.  They are waking up to the con you have tried to put over on them.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You need to stop worrying about what others are doing and focus on the fact that you are a habitual liar.  You presented complete BS about Elephant Seal habitats, claiming that Northern Seals are ALL seals.

You are not ready to evaluate scientific research.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Here ya go, bonehead:
> ...



Here's a map from National Geographic that shows there "range:"






Note:  It's still a small percentage of the area of the oceans.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I found that for you, moron. And it doesn't change the fact that you posted bullshit to begin with.

It is the habitat, not the migration range.



You need to learn how to research.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 22, 2013)

The gadgets they've been mounting on elephant seals include GPS units.  The location of their data is known.  And the advantage of elephants seals is not their range - though that's extensive on a latitudinal basis.  It's their depth.  Elephant seals routinely dive to more than 1,550 meters.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...




All you're proving is that you're a desperate asshole.  You damn well know Trenberth doesn't have the evidence to support his claims, so you're attacking me.

I never claimed to be an expert on elephant seals.  Did I get a few details wrong?  Yeah, so what.  You haven't provided any corrections that alters the essential fact that Elephant seal data is a drop in the bucket.  You can attack me all you like, but that won't alter the fact that your magicians have been exposed for the charlatans they are.

Attacking me won't improve the credibility of your tarnished hero one iota.

Suck on it, asshole.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The gadgets they've been mounting on elephant seals include GPS units.  The location of their data is known.  And the advantage of elephants seals is not their range - though that's extensive on a latitudinal basis.  It's their depth.  Elephant seals routinely dive to more than 1,550 meters.



Wikipedia says the Northern Elephant seal dives mainly in the 300 - 600 meter ranges.  

You have to be joking if you think range isn't important.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You didn't find it for me, asshole.  It's on the National Geographic website, and the label on the map says it's "range." That's why I quote it, your moronic weasel.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You aren't capable of knowing what proof is.  

You claimed that Northern Elephant seal habitat is representative of all elephant seals.

Did you get a few details wrong?  Uh, you got all of the details wrong except one, the northern elephant seal habitat.  That is all you got right.  Nothing else.

I'm just pointing out that you post complete bullshit and your postings can't be trusted.

You have no credibility with anyone that has an education or intelligence.  Your only credibility is with your own deluded mind.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm focusing in the fact that you're an asshole desperate to salvage the reputations of your AGW magicians.  Attacking me is just a way to divert attention from the fact that priesthood of your church is a gang of con artists.  Trenberth is making claims about ocean warming when he has almost no data to base it on.  No broadside of ad hominems against his critics is going to change a con man into saint.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of science whatsoever, numbnuts.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I never claimed any.  

On the other hand, you claim that Northern Elephant Seal habitat is representative of all elephant seals.  That is a real and specific claim you made.  And it is demonstrably bullshit.  So you call other people liars, then lie.  You are the liar and your are your own proof that there are liars.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



''AGW skeptics don't need to provide a single shred of evidence.''

Any questions anyone? 

Deniers have absolutely no evidence to support what they wish was true and they say that's OK. They are entitled to be right.  

They are entitled.  They don't need education,  they don't need evidence,  they don't need to work, they are entitled to what accomplished people work their entire lives for. 

Is that an asshole way to look at life or what?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Your making shit up again.  It isn't an ad hominem to say your make up bull shit when you are demonstrated to make up bullshit. You can't get around your own made up bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Attacking me isn't going to support the case for your religion in the slightest.  I never claimed to be an expert on Elephant Seals.  I simply posted some info I found on the internet.  You can't defend Trenberth, so attacking me is a sleazy substitute.

You're not fooling anyone, shit-for-brains.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You're a lying asshole.  That's the bottom line.  You got no case, so you attack me.  What else can you do?  Certainly you can't defend your con artist heroes.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The fact that you question my statement only proves that you're a scientific ignoramus.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Why should anyone believe you regarding Trenberth's claims, seeing as you post bullshit about Elephant Seals, claiming the Northern Elephant Seal habitat is representative of all elephant seals?

You need to learn how to focus on the details, do good research, and not get distracted like a dog chasing a squirrel.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



All your statements are questionable bullshit.  You have already demonstrated that by claiming that the Northern Elephant Seal habitat is representative of all elephant seals.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I haven't lied about anything.  You can't present anything I have lied about.

On the other hand, you lied when you claimed that the Northern Elephant Seal habitat is representative of the range of all elephant seals.

That is demonstrated and proven.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Your making up bullshit again.  

You not only posted some info you found, you presented it as definitive.  That is called "bullshit" and "lying".

I'm not supporting any case except that you call other's a liar yet are proven to have lied about the range of elephant seals.

I haven't once said anything about Trenberth.  All I've pointed out is that your full of shit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



What evidence have you posted that supports Trenberth's claims?  Short answer:  none.  As for focusing on the details, you made a few mistakes yourself, shithead.  Several times you called the map I posted the "range" of the Northern Elephant seal.

It must suck to be such a sanctimonious imbecile.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I posted it simply as a reference I found, asshole.  You've only succeeded in pointing out that you're a sanctimonious asshole with no way to defend your con artist heroes.

We know you haven't posted anything about Trenberth because that's a case you don't want to defend.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

Here, I bumped your bs up for your review.



bripat9643 said:


> Here ya go, bonehead:
> 
> Below is a map show the range of elephant seals.  That's a great coverage area for drawing conclusions about the entire ocean, don't ya thing?



See!!  Bullshit post presenting the Northern Elephant Seal habitat as being representative of all elephant seals and the coverage for ocean temperatures.

You lied. Or your just stupid.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So one wrong claim means everything you say after that is bullshit?  Is that really what you're claiming?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I don't know anything about Trenberth, so why would it be a case I would want to defend?

All I'm pointing out is that you post complete bullshit while claiming others are liars.  That's the only case I am about.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Here, I bumped your bs up for your review.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, that really is a cardinal sin.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yes, one wrong claim from you and your full of bullshit.  Absolutely, because it isn't one wrong claim. It is your pattern of behavior.  It represents your best effort at research.

You have all the time in the world to get it right, and you can't.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Here, I bumped your bs up for your review.
> ...



I don't believe in the bible. But, I know that you call others liars, then lie.

That's all I care about, the fact that nothing you say can be taken as anything but bullshit. You can't live up to your own standards.  So your not worth much.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



We know you don't want to get into the business of defending Trenberth's bullshit.  All you know how to do is fling shit against the wall to see what sticks.  You blizzard of ad homimems is only convincing the lurkers that you're an asshole.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So is PMZ a liar because he claimed the video of that ridiculous experiment demonstrated the greenhouse effect?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yes, moron, it's your standard.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Then all your fellow AGW cult members in here are liars.  You're also a liar.  

Of course, we already know that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Really?  Where did I claim that was my standard?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I have no idea who the "AWG cult members" are.  Your making up bs again.

You present a lie, about elephant seals, as "proof" that someone else is lying.

Your a moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Of course you don't know.  You're one of them, obviously.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You used it when you claimed that the temperature measurements weren't representative of the ocean by posting the habitat for Northern Elephant Seals as representative of all elephant seals and the ocean temperature readings.

Your lie, your standard.

Or are you going to say that it's okay that someone lied once about ocean temperatures?  I guess it's okay, seeing as it is okay that you lie, everyone can lie.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What I am is someone who actually researches the information, like finding all the habitats for elephant seals before making claims regarding it.  There are, easily found, elephant seals in the Antarctic.  And, the migrate while feeding.

On the other hand, you take the first piece of info you run across, that fit's your biased position, and post it as being representative.

Your an idiot.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I don't know, I haven't read any such post.  I'm reading yours.  

You, on the other hand, are in no position to determine if someone else is lying or to evaluate scientific information.

Your a pathological liar, can't tell your own lies from reality. 

Like I said, you need to stop concerning yourself with what other people do and focus on getting your own shit straightened out.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Wrong, asshole.  You're inference is totally unjustified.  You just lied, so we can assume everything you say is bullshit.



itfitzme said:


> Or are you going to say that it's okay that someone lied once about ocean temperatures?  I guess it's okay, seeing as it is okay that you lie, everyone can lie.



#1.  I didn't "lie."  I simply posted incorrect information.

#2.  According to your own standard you're a liar and everything you say is bullshit.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Pointing out that you presented the habitat for the Northern Elephant Seal as representative of all elephant seals, showing that there are Elephant Seals in the Antarctic, and showing that the range of migration for foraging for food isn't the same as their habitat isn't ad hominem, it's fact that demonstrates that your full of shit.

If you lie, and someone points out that you have lied, then it is a fact.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yeah, you lied, presenting the Norther Elephant Seal habitat as being representative of all elephant seal migration patterns.  

Yeah, you lied.  Posting incorrect information when you can just as well have gone and done the proper research is a form of lying.  Intentional is lying, negligent is lying, leaving out info in order to imply something that is incorrect is a form of lying.

It's totally justified to call you a liar. You wish to claim that the ocean temperature readings are wrong because Northern Elephant Seals have a small habitat.  Your a liar.

You can bs yourself to the end of time, but you can't bs any one with intelligence.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



ROLF!  Well, according to your standard, PMZ is a liar and everything he says is bullshit.



itfitzme said:


> You, on the other hand, are in no position to determine if someone else is lying or to evaluate scientific information.



Sure I am.



itfitzme said:


> Your a pathological liar, can't tell your own lies from reality.




ROLF!  SO no making one wrong statement of a trivial nature makes you a pathological liar?  I think you need to look up the definition of "pathological liar."  By the way, according to the standard you just enunciated, you're a pathogical liar.  

You're also a congenital asshole.



itfitzme said:


> Like I said, you need to stop concerning yourself with what other people do and focus on getting your own shit straightened out.



Your obsession with me is a bit strange, don't you think?  You appear to be some kind of neurotic personality.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I don't have a standard except that you lied when you presented the Northern Elephant Seal habitat as being representative of all elephant seal migration patters.

It isn't about me or PMZ.  It's about that your are a chronic and pathological liar.

It is about that you aren't capable of evaluating scientific research because your full of shit, posting bullshit as if it were fact.

There is no "standard" except that you lie. It's about you lie, you do so intentionally, then you try to pass it off as "a mistake".

Your full of shit.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I'm not anymore obsessed with you than you are with anyone else.  I'm just enjoying pointing out that your full of shit when you present the Northern Elephant Seal habitat as representative of all elephant seal migration patterns.

I'm just enjoying pointing out that your not capable of evaluating scientific research.

So far, you haven't presented any reason why anyone should take anything you say seriously seeing as you do sloppy research, are negligent, and lie.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What I am doesn't change that you are a chronic liar that presented the Northern Elephant Seal habitat as representative of all elephant seal migration.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

Oh, look at this.

Global Warming Makes Elephant Seals Dive Deeper, Study Suggests | Diving Marine Mammals | Southern Ocean & Antarctic Wildlife | LiveScience

"The southern elephant seals from Marion Island in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica are some of the most extreme divers, spending 65 percent of their time deeper than about 330 feet (100 meters), with a maximum diving depth of 6,560 feet (2,000 meters). Southern elephant seals are also the largest of the seals, with males reaching up to 22 feet (6.7 m) long and weighing some 11,000 pounds.

Their dive depth, it seems, depends on the prey the elephant seals are searching for. And as their watery world warms, the researchers found, the squid and fish that are usually in waters above 3,280 feet (1,000 m) are forced to deeper waters"

It wasn't hard to find more than just the Northern Elephant Seal.

According to this article, they have a maximum diving depth of 6,560 feet or 2,000 meters.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

Oh, look at this.

"Northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) dive deep, routinely to 1,800 feet (600 meters), sometimes to 4,650 feet (1,550 meters). "

Elephant Seals | TOPP

So Northern seals are reported to go to 1550 meters.

That is just how deep they have been found to go, not how deep they never go.  Only an elephant seal knows that for sure.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

Here is some more about elephant seals, the Southern ones, and Narwhales.

Battle of the living instrument platforms: Elephant Seals vs Narwhals | Deep Sea News

"These two creatures are some of the brave and the few that are specially selected to be living instrument platforms. In other words, we stick fancy oceanographic instrumentation like miniaturized CTDs onto them. These creatures can go deeper and farther than our human-engineered deep diving contraptions (suck it James Cameron!)."

"Both of these badasses have been observed diving over one mile deep (1800m).

"Seals swim around for up to 80 minutes underwater, while Narwhals can only hold their breath for up to 25 minutes. In addition, seals make over 40 dives a day, spending more than 90% of their day underwater and traveling up to 4000 m vertically."


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No, your a pathological liar.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)




----------



## itfitzme (Sep 22, 2013)

McIntyre, T., de Bruyn, P. J., Ansorge, I. J., Bester, M. N., Bornemann, H., Plötz, J., & Tosh, C. A. (2010). A lifetime at depth: vertical distribution of southern elephant seals in the water column. Polar biology, 33(8), 1037-1048

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/19039496/627079339/name/McIntyre+et+al_2010_SES+diving.pdf


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oh, look at this.
> 
> Global Warming Makes Elephant Seals Dive Deeper, Study Suggests | Diving Marine Mammals | Southern Ocean & Antarctic Wildlife | LiveScience
> 
> ...




?....... and ur defense of diving skills for seals tells us WHAT about the GLOBAL averages and historical record of deep  ocean heating?? Do we need more diving seals? Or just more data and better science?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, look at this.
> ...



Why? Do you have some more data and better science to offer?


----------



## westwall (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Considering all you offer is science fiction, I think anyone else's ideas will have more merit.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> Considering all you offer is science fiction, I think anyone else's ideas will have more merit.



Just saying it doesn't make it so.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Feel free to offer real science beyond the IPCC. 

I can't wait.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Oh, look at this.
> 
> Global Warming Makes Elephant Seals Dive Deeper, Study Suggests | Diving Marine Mammals | Southern Ocean & Antarctic Wildlife | LiveScience
> 
> ...



I've already posted that information, moron.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 23, 2013)

Big camp: The science tells us A

Little camp: That's only a theory, therefore A must be false

Big camp:  Where did you learn to be that stupid?

Little camp:  Your mother eats hot dogs.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 23, 2013)

mamooth said:


> OMG! DR. MANN IS CLEARLY THE SECRET DICTATOR OF THE WORLD! HE COMMANDS ALL!



No, he's just a two bit fraud, pulling one of the oldest cons in the book.

He depends on stupid people. like you, to buy into the tribal bullshit of an angry volcano god.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Just saying it doesn't make it so.



I suspect you will say anything to keep lining your pockets with grant monies - won't you?

PMZ is just stupid - but you....

How cheaply did you sell your integrity?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 23, 2013)

A conservative asking a liberal ''what's the price of your integrity'' is priceless! 

I suppose though one way to look at it is that conservative integrity is free.  They give it away to the nearest entertainer for a pat on the head. 

I guess that's why they look at the epithet ''Dittohead'' as a high honor.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> A conservative asking a liberal ''what's the price of your integrity'' is priceless!




I'm asking someone who I suspect lines his pockets from the fraud you stupidly follow, how cheaply he sold his integrity.

You think the volcano god is real, so you are too dense to grasp the conversation.



> I suppose though one way to look at it is that conservative integrity is free.  They give it away to the nearest entertainer for a pat on the head.
> 
> I guess that's why they look at the epithet ''Dittohead'' as a high honor.



Derp, derp, derp indeed. PMZ....


----------



## PMZ (Sep 23, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > A conservative asking a liberal ''what's the price of your integrity'' is priceless!
> ...



That big flushing sound that you hear is your movement swirling the bowl.  

That's the magic of democracy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> That big flushing sound that you hear is your movement swirling the bowl.



ROFL

What movement is that? You mean "normality?"

{Public concern about environmental issues including climate change has slumped to a 20-year low since the financial crisis, a global study reveals.

Fewer people now consider issues such as CO2 emissions, air and water pollution, animal species loss, and water shortages to be &#8220;very serious&#8221; than at any time in the last two decades, according to the poll of 22,812 people in 22 countries including Britain and the US.}

Faith in Global Warming Hits 20 Year Low | FrontPage Magazine

{In a survey of 800 Ohio adults, 70 percent responded that they believe global warming is happening and 49 percent responded that they believed global warming is being caused mostly by human activities.}

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...ns-unsure-about-climate-change?nclick_check=1



> That's the magic of democracy.



The magic of intellect is that people don't believe your shamans anymore.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, look at this.
> ...



There you go, making up shit.  Nowhere have I touched the topic of the temp record.  Your not ready for anything requiring scientific depth.

Clearly, I am pointing out that BI-PISSER is full of shit when he presents the habitat info of Northern Elephant Seals as representative of all elephant seal migration patterns.

You inability to stay focused makes it abundantl clear that you are not capable of evaluating scientific research either.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 23, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > That big flushing sound that you hear is your movement swirling the bowl.
> ...



The magic of media is that people who have nothing better to invest their time in can be easily told what to think.  Those without sufficient education to know better fall for that every time. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 23, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, look at this.
> ...



Well there you go then, making it perfectly clear that your posting of the Northern Seal habitats wasn't a "mistake" but just you being a biased misleading asshole that has no business evaluating scientific ressarch.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The magic of media is that people who have nothing better to invest their time in can be easily told what to think.  Those without sufficient education to know better fall for that every time.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2



PMZ duz sighense..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Your unique ability to steer into *every* dead end alleyway --- makes you an exceptionally bad candidate for any science topic.. Hey look ---- a squirrel !!!!!!

You wouldn't know focus if both your eyes were pointed in the same direction.....


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Yeah, right.....  So what was the topic?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 23, 2013)

The initial topic is why people deny climate change.

The reason is exemplified by Bi-Brat who knowingly posts misleading comments, specifically, presenting the habitat of the Northern Elephant Seal as being representative of the migration patterns for all elephant seals, particularly for the Southern Elephant Seal, the one used in deep ocean temperature measurements.

Bibrat acknowledged that, in fact, he was aware of the Southern Elephant Seal, having posted the very information.

Bibrat stands as evidence of the mind set of some people.  It simply doesn't matter whether climate change is a fact or not.  What matters is that, initially and fundamentally, we expect of others to do what we know our self to do.

Liars know that everyone else lies.  Alcoholics and drug addicts know that everyone drinks constantly and does drugs, they just hide it.  Parents that abuse their children know that all parents&#8217; abuse their kids, "it just isn't PC to talk about". (That's a quote.)

Bi-pisser stands as a perfect example.  He knows that scientists lie; after all he is his best example.  Ergo, climate change is a lie, after all, scientists are lying.  Of course, as everyone lies, he feels completely justified in doing so. It really doesn't matter if climate change is scientifically correct or not.  Climate science is just a vehicle for him to express his world view, that everyone lies, and if not for climate science, he would find something else.

That is it, really.

And this is his post



bripat9643 said:


> Here ya go, bonehead:
> Below is a map show the range of elephant seals.  That's a great coverage area for drawing conclusions about the entire ocean, don't ya thing?



And;


bripat9643 said:


> Show the range of the others. Furthermore, it's obvious that elephant seals don't get far from land, and there is no record of them diving deeper than 900 meters. The ocean goes down to 5000 meters for much of its extent.


Followed by;


bripat9643 said:


> I posted the information I had. You had access to more information. Big whoop.


Then;


bripat9643 said:


> So one wrong claim means everything you say after that is bullshit?  Is that really what you're claiming?


And presented with;


itfitzme said:


> Global Warming Makes Elephant Seals Dive Deeper, Study Suggests | Diving Marine Mammals | Southern Ocean & Antarctic Wildlife | LiveScience
> &#8230;
> It wasn't hard to find more than just the Northern Elephant Seal.
> According to this article, they have a maximum diving depth of 6,560 feet or 2,000 meters.


He admits he already was aware with;


bripat9643 said:


> I've already posted that information, moron.



He goes from presenting the Northern Seal habitat as representative of all elephant seals&#8230;to claiming it was all the info he had&#8230;  to saying it was just a mistake&#8230; to saying that he had the very info about Southern Seals. 

Given his penchance for obfuscation;  my question was simple, why should I believe anything he posts?

The forum question is why do people &#8220;deny&#8221; climate change.  It is simple&#8230; they lie and need to prove that everyone does to justify their behavior.  Climate science, a difficult topic, is simply a vehicle to play out this behavior, their world view.

And flatulance is simply to stupid to know what the topic is.  It is *why people deny climate change* and why anyone should believe Bi-brats bullshit (or his, for that matter).

So there is not just why people deny climate change, but how they deny it.  By lying, distracting from the topic, creating straw men arguments... basically every manner of obfustation.  It isn't so much intelligently contrived, but rather it is that they themselves are confused by their own emotions.  They simply aren't capable on sticking to an intelligent and logical discussion of the objective facts.  They are to distracted by their own emotional need to justify themselves.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 23, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The forum title is " Why do so many people deny climate change"...

You obviously don't know what the topic is.  And you demonstrated that clearly.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Nice

Sippican, Inc. - Expendable Probes

"Expendable Probes
Lockheed Martin Sippican's expendable probes collect data on physical properties of the ocean such as temperature, sound velocity, conductivity, and current velocity. The probes can be launched from a variety of platforms including aircraft, surface ships, and submarines"






The Temperature and Depth Accuracy of Sippican T-5 XBTs
7 April 1992 and 30 July 1992
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262322.pdf
It seems that the expendable bathythermograph has been the predominant device since 1965.  The depth seems to be at 1800m max.  

Argo and Southern Elephant Seals then are simply and improved platform.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 23, 2013)

Here is another fine example where Bi-Brat posts;


bripat9643 said:


> *THey have no ARGO temperatures older than 2007*, and all their other sources are so thin they aren't worth mentioning.  Sensors attached to elephant seals?  Yeah, I'll bet that covers a huge percentage of the ocean.



Then comes up with;


bripat9643 said:


> Note: The three sources of data are:
> 
> 1.	*ARGO, which only goes back to the year 2000.*
> 2.	Elephant seals (we have no idea what the dates are for this data, nor do we know the coverage of this data. The range of elephant seals is not that large.
> 3.	Hadley Centres EN3 data collection. We have no idea of the dates or the coverage of this data. Furthermore, Hadley has already been caught doctoring its land based data.


Talk about a moving target..
So, again, why should anyone believe him?

Oh, yeah, it was the only info he had at the time........


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



The "proxy" term is interesting. In fact, there is no direct measure of temperature. What is measured is the effect of temperature on something else.  A mercury thermometer presents the change in volume of a mercury column under standard pressure conditions.

A lot of measurements are this way.  We don't measure time. What we measure is a cyclical change in distance of some object.

We don't measure weight or force.  What we measure is the elongation of a spring, typically.  

In all three cases; temperature, time and weight, we are really measuring a change in distance.

Distance is more directly measured, when we correlate a standard distance, like a ruler, to some distance in question.

Older methods of measuring weight were like this, in the case of balance we correlate one object with some volume of some other standard object.  Still, the balance is struck when the distance between some reference and each object are the same.

When we get down to the details, all measures are proxies for the quality in question.  Some are just less removed and therefore have greater precision and accuracy than others.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 23, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> what do you suppose are the odds that the program *wasn't tweaked* to produce the desired results?



99.9%

After some more reading, it appears that Bibrat9643 simply blurts shit out.  He isn't actually reflecting on what he wants to say.  What we are looking at is him just blurting out (or typing, as the case may be), whatever come to mind.  This is why it is often flacious and contradictory.


----------



## westwall (Sep 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









Unfortunately for you, no one here on the sceptic side denies climate change.  We KNOW the climate changes, has changed, will change, and is ALWAYS CHANGING.....it is ignorant twerps like you who think you can halt Mother Nature.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Since everyone here knows precisely what is meant by "deny climate change", what has actually been demonstrated is your severe reticence to discuss the real issue - a reticence likely developed from the multiple instances of severe pwnage you've suffered whenever facts and science actually get discussed.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Unfortunately for you, no one here on the sceptic side denies climate change.


Another of your braindead lies, walleyed. The Eartg's climate patterns are changing right now and many of the bewildered duped morons in your little cult of reality denial do indeed deny that this is happening, in spite of the massive amounts of clear evidence worldwide. A number of these idiots post their denial of the current rapidly changing climate patterns right here on this forum.







westwall said:


> We KNOW the climate changes, has changed, will change, and is ALWAYS CHANGING.....it is ignorant twerps like you who think you can halt Mother Nature.


Thanks to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you denier cult cretins imagine that you "_KNOW_" many things that are actually complete bullshit. One of your more ignorant denier cult myths is this 'the climate is "_ALWAYS CHANGING_" nonsense. Climate means the reoccurring average weather conditions of a certain region, including temperature, rainfall, and wind, averaged over many years. 

There have actually been many periods of relatively stable world climate patterns that remained stable for thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years. Here's an example of an 80,000 year long period of relative worldwide climate stability. 

*Climate stability during the Pliocene warm period*
Paleoceanography
Volume 18, Issue 4, December 2003
Amy E. Draut1, Maureen E. Raymo2, Jerry F. McManus3, Delia W. Oppo3
Article first published online: 7 OCT 2003
DOI: 10.1029/2003PA000889
*ABSTRACT
We present a high-resolution climate record from a sediment core spanning an 80-kyr interval of time during the mid-Pliocene epoch, when warmer conditions and lower global ice volume prevailed worldwide. Oxygen and carbon isotope analyses were made on benthic and planktonic foraminifera from ODP Site 981 in the North Atlantic. The amplitude and approximate recurrence interval of suborbital variations in these records are comparable to those of Holocene and marine isotope stage 11 (MIS 11) records from the North Atlantic. We conclude that the mid-Pliocene warm interval was a time of relative climatic stability.*


******


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 23, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately for you, no one here on the sceptic side denies climate change.
> ...



Wow tinkerbelle 70, 000 years eh.   Whats the temporal resolution of fossilized plankton? 100 years?  400hears?  Not much climare can vary at those sampli ng intervals   right?


----------



## westwall (Sep 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








You asshats couldn't pwn yourselves, much less me.  I have handed you your hats so many times I've lost count.  But that's OK, one has to be self aware to understand when they are crushed and all of you are so blissfully unaware it is obvious that no amount of scientific evidence will ever sway you from your religious fanaticism.

Those Westboro clowns could learn a thing or two from you...


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 24, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You don't know and yet you spin your ignorance into a sneer at what these scientists are calling "_a high-resolution climate record_" in order to preserve your idiotic belief in your cult's myths. You're pathetic.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And how many minds have you changed?

What is your position now?  You accept climate change but deny human responsibility?  Are you with FCT in the solar camp?  Do you blame cosmic rays effecting our cloud cover?  Just what DO you believe responsible for the last century's warming?  You'd think that if you'd handed me my hat as often as you claim, I'd know this stuff.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Here's a dramatic fantasy. Conservative porn.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2013)

The AGWCult is truly a cult. Their godhead IPCC backtracked on their predictions to line up more closely with the Decline Hiders but the Cult continues as if nothing happened


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2013)

When you have no science, call your opponents "deniers"


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 24, 2013)




----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 24, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> When you have no science, call your opponents "deniers"



We don't need to believe in vaccines. They are not based on faith and don't rely on believe. We don't need to believe in diodes, or lasers, or liquid crystals. 

Real science doesn't depend on belief, it depends on fact, observable and repeatable. That which relies on faith is religion, not science. People like Michael Mann and Abraham are Shamans, not scientists.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 24, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > When you have no science, call your opponents "deniers"
> ...



As a scientist,  you must have solid evidence of what you claim. 

What is it?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The AGWCult is truly a cult. Their godhead IPCC backtracked on their predictions to line up more closely with the Decline Hiders but the Cult continues as if nothing happened



There is not such thing as an AGW Cult.  You are simply incapable of independent thinking, subscribe to talking points of your denialist buddies, and mistake actual understanding of science as the only thing your capable of imagining, your personal cult like behavior.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

Another reason that many deny climate change is a lack of understanding of what science actually is.  They are limited to some belief that they have absolute certainty of things.  It is a symptom of an overactive amygdala.  I don't know if its congenital or the result of being abused as children, but the addiction to adrenaline and the lack of any real thinking is obvious.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > OMG! DR. MANN IS CLEARLY THE SECRET DICTATOR OF THE WORLD! HE COMMANDS ALL!
> ...



The only stupid people I've seen on this board are you and other denialist buddies. Your in the solid company of the likes of; Slackstack, who doesn't know what photosynthesis is and SSaDhD who things that there is a "force" that makes energy flow.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



As has been pointed out, your comment is obvious bullshit as you and everyone else is perfectly aware of what climate change and AWG means. 

Your denial behavior is so ingrained, your even denying that your deny climate change.

You are simply showing your ridiculous bullshit that you spew, creating strawman arguments and pretending ignorance of the intent and context of the conversation.  What you demonstrate is passive aggressive behavior, pretending "I don't know what you mean..." like you did when you were ten.  Grow up, dude.  Your not ten, that bullshit doesn't mean anything in an adult world, didn't work last time you got arrested, and no one here is your mommy or daddy.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So your premise is that it varied markedly over 50 year intervals, first swinging wildly one way then returning back to it's stable point, thus presenting the illusion that it didn't change at all over the 70,000 years?

You have some evidence to back up that scenario?

Or are you just imagining shit again and believing it's reality?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

What amazes me is the marked difference between the scientifically literate and the deniers.  I can simply pay attention to the wealth of information presented by Mamooth, Abraham, and a few others and be kept busy learning.  To the contrary, the likes of Slacksack, Walleyed, SSaDhD, Crusty Frank, Unscented, and others drone on with endless posts that lack any significant information.  And when they do, perchance, post something that contains specific content, it is quickly demonstrated as erroneous bs.

The other obvious pattern of behavior is how quickly Slacksack, Walleyed, SSaDhD, Crusty Frank, Unscented fall to insults, whining endlessly when insulted back.  The appear completely oblivious to the fact that they demonstrably and consistently are the first to go to insults.  In their mind, I am sure, they actually believe they were insulted first.  It is, as I have come to realize, a perception where the identical behavior is separated by "When I was an asshole, I had a good reason" and "When he was mean, it hurt my feelings".


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You are delusional.

Here is you handing someone their hat...


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








Since you and your cast of clones arrived on this board?  Fifteen.  They were on the fence but thanks to your inept presentation, and my concise destruction of your horse poo, they have come over to the sceptic side.

THANKS!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 24, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> When you have no science, call your opponents "deniers"



No, CrazyFruitcake, as usual you have everything ass-backwards. When our opponents (like you) have no science to back their dimwitted denial of the facts, we correctly call them "deniers". Or "clueless bamboozled retards", either one is appropriate and accurate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The only stupid people I've seen on this board are you and other denialist buddies.



Of course, your Shaman is wise and true, the infidels are stupid.



> Your in the solid company of the likes of; Slackstack, who doesn't know what photosynthesis is and SSaDhD who things that there is a "force" that makes energy flow.



Well thanks corky. Now run along and sacrifice to Gaea, lest she become angry and destroy the world.







Michael Mann - calculating a new hockey stick chart


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...







Funny how you clowns haven't been able to come up with anything other than "the oceans ate my heat but I can't show it to you!" 

*UNTESTABLE HYPOTHESIS=PSEUDO-SCIENCE*.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



What do you scientists and their data and models say? Where is it published? I've been asking forever! 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



I asked a SERIOUS scientific question.. What is the TEMPORAL RESOLUTION of fossilized plankton as a temp. proxy? 

If you want to present this as evidence of CLIMATE STABILITY -- we all ought to know how fine-tuned the proxy is... Do you not have any curiousity as to whether they can devine a decade,, a century, or a millenium? 

Of course not --- you eat this shit up raw....


----------



## PMZ (Sep 24, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



If you were a legitimate climate scientist,  you'd know the answer to your question. If you're not,  you'd probably not be able to understand it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2013)

AGWCult needs to be deprogrammed


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 24, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The temporal resolution of fossilized plankton as a temperature proxy is dependent on the dating method used to determine the age of the sediments in which the fossils are deposited.  For sediments less than 50,000 years in age, the radiocarbon method is most commonly used.  This method is usually good to about plus or minus 90 years for sediments younger than 10,000 years, which is the time period about which most of us are concerned.  This method is often used in conjunction with counting sedimentary varves and other rhythmites, which give a high resolution as to date of particular sediments.  So unless you are arguing that radio isotopic methods are not valid, what is your point here?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 24, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AGWCult needs to be deprogrammed



Frank needs to finish primary school.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2013)

Why isn't there one single experiment showing how 800PM of CO2 raises temperature?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Funny how you clowns haven't been able to come up with anything other than "the oceans ate my heat but I can't show it to you!"



WTF is this you numbskull?


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








We don't DO science fiction.  That's what the climatologists do.  Funny how you asshats are trying to rewrite the axioms of the scientific method to reverse the null hypothesis system.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you clowns haven't been able to come up with anything other than "the oceans ate my heat but I can't show it to you!"
> ...








Unrequited bullshit is what I call it.  The ARGO sensors aren't capable of measuring that accurately you moron, thus any numbers your precious fraudsters use are made up out of whole cloth.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 24, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why isn't there one single experiment showing how 800PM of CO2 raises temperature?



If a single experiment is the limits of your ability to understand,  then about 98 percent of science is beyond you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how you clowns haven't been able to come up with anything other than "the oceans ate my heat but I can't show it to you!"
> ...



Wow! That's huge!!!

What is that, 10 or 15 degrees Celsius? I'm convinced.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



This is funny as all get out given your sig: you don't know what a joule is, do you.  And keep in mind that the point I was refuting was the numbskull westwall's claim that we couldn't show it to him.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddbot's science is limited to his five senses. Very crude.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I do know what a joule is. So how many degrees increase was it? Show it to me.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Where does this attitude come from that everybody owes you an explanation or data or education? 

Are you helpless?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



No one owes me an explanation.

If you can't convert Joules into degrees and grams of water, I'll understand.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Supply the volumes of water at various depths and I'll calculate it for you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're the one asking the stupid questions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Excellent! PMZ is the Trenberth expert, I'm sure he has that info.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2013)

Yeah, the Ocean ate the AGW that the IPCC just cut in half

That sounds about right


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You're right,  you're the science and Trenberth expert, and I'm just a denier, why would you have any info?

Silly of me to ask.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Unless I'm mistaken, nobody on this site does climate prediction for a living.  Why would he have that information?  Do you want to know the temperature because you dispute the heat graph?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



I want to know how he came up with such a large number.
If the temperature of a volume of water rises 0.1 degree, you can calculate the energy involved.
He gave the energy, I want to know the volume of water and the temperature. 
Should be pretty easy, unless Trenberth pulled the number out of his ass.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He's a scientist.  You're a dumbass.  Who's likely to be be making up stuff?  He's capable of learning about the real world and modeling it.  You are not.  

You questioning what climate science knows is the laughing stock of the third millennium. No wonder that conservative nonsense is losing ground every day.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Ah, come on Todd, I know your not this stupid.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Here's an estimate as a sanity check.

Volume of the oceans: 1.3 * 10^9 km^3
Specific gravity of water: 1 kg/dm^3

This converts to 1.3 * 10^21 kg

Specific heat of water: deg C = 4.186 Joules / gram

Using an approximation of 10 * 10^22 Joules rise since 2000, this converts to a 0.32 deg C rise.  That's easily measurable.  In fact, the resolution of a thermometer that's specifically designed for this is probably 100 times that.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

From another thread. 


There is no question that economics is what will ultimately be the death of fossil fuels.  Thats why big oil is so committed to kill alternatives.  They want to ride reduced supply and increased global demand to the last BTU.  That can't happen if consumers have choices. 

The way that we can hasten the end of all of the known and hidden costs of fossil fuels is to raise their prices and lower sustainable prices. 

Making investments in wind and solar capability advantageous, leverages public and private resources and prepares us for the inevitable day when electricity is the majority fuel on roads and tracks.  

After all,  sustainable energy is almost all capital investment,  and fossil fuel creates high capital and operating and waste disposal costs,  but the capital equipment is largely in place.  Our goal ought to be to make the transition from fossil to electric transportation without spending another nickle on fossil fueled capital,  while steadily reducing the percent every year of new cars and trucks and trains that demand it. 

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom.  We need gentle but relentless pressure,  to increase our progress.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Me too... I'm SHOCKED that any heat energy gets stored in the oceans.. 
Why didn't Trenberth KNOW that the FIRST TIME he engraved an energy budget?? 

Note the little gidgy in the bottom right. The energy is equivalent to something like a source of 0.3 or 0.4W/m2... That's 1/4 of the increased forcing (they say) from CO2. So they've found 25% of the missing warming that didn't heat the Earth's surface.. I say they should keep looking... 

AND --- they need to keep an eye on THIS toxic warming --- least it multiplies or goes to hide somewhere else..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



*He's a scientist.*

Then why can't you use his results to back into temperature and volume of water?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Thanks. It is rather shocking that such a large increase over the entire volume of our oceans wasn't discovered until so recently.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



"The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.005°C and depths are accurate to ± 5m."

www.argo.ucsd.edu/FAQ.html*

Well, actually 64 times.  Just to be precise.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Not really.  The ocean is huge and setting up a system of accurate and precise measurement isn't as simple as setting up a system of land based measures.

As I am sure I've said before, your confusion doesn't translate to anyone else not knowing.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You are still completely confused about the difference between climate and weather. 

Trenberth's energy budget is the big picture for the earth,  in total, based on average conditions over the long term. There probably isn't any specific sq meter on earth that experiences those exact conditions except for very briefly.  Given that,  plus the fact that the energy budget must be maintained as the long term,  overall average, is accomplished by weather.  

Weather is constantly moving energy between land and life,  oceans and ice,  and atmosphere searching to satisfy the only stable condition there can be,  energy in = energy out.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



According to your signature, the math should be easiery for you.  Why is it that someone else managed to complete it before you?



> Here's an estimate as a sanity check.
> 
> Volume of the oceans: 1.3 * 10^9 km^3
> Specific gravity of water: 1 kg/dm^3
> ...



See why just asking dumb questions and saying your smart doesn't make it so?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



1st cut? OK.. Now take sea water specifically. and add the pressure effects.. Good luck with the "more than 700m" description from this "letter".. 

Part of the problem here -- is to my knowledge --- a PAPER on this topic has never been written giving the details for review.. It was published as a TWO PAGE "letter". 

Rather hard -- even IF you're in the field -- to critique something this SWEEPING from "a letter".. Wonder why these details are not worth sharing with the general science audience?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why?  He's pretty much buried you with basic calculations that you aren't capable of.  

Prove him wrong.  You take sea water specifically, add pressure effects.....

Good luck with that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



" buried me with basic calculations"??? Hardly.. If I didn't understand the problem, I wouldn't have asked for the corrections.. 

There isn't enough information in that tweet of a "paper" to make the proper calculations..


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You still haven't said anything.  Why?  Obviously because your not capable of doing it yourself.  Talk is cheap.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



"Argo is an international ocean-observing program with the goal of deploying 3,000 drifting floats that gather temperature and salinity profiles in the upper 2,000 meters of the world&#8217;s oceans. "






"Prior to Argo, knowledge about the interior of the ocean came primarily from measurements taken by research ships, moored buoys, and commercial vessels.  But, the immensity of the ocean and the limited area where these vessels and platforms took measurements left large data-sparse areas such as the southern oceans.  Observations outside tropical waters were often restricted to periods of favorable weather. And, data collected were often limited to water temperatures in the upper 750 meters of the ocean, with depth inferred from elapsed time and a fall-rate equation used in conjunction with instruments &#8220;free-falling&#8221; through the ocean.  The Argo program initiated an era of global oceanographic monitoring with quality-controlled, real-time data availability to improve knowledge of the world&#8217;s oceans."

Obviously, regardless of your take on AWG, measuring the temperature of the entire oceans is not simple.

You know, Todd, your constant pretending to be stupid had actually made you stupid.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



And you don't just PRETEND to be stupid.. What is the HISTORICAL data based on? 
Without looking at THAT SAMPLING and ACCURACY --- even a moron knows --- you can't prove an "increase".. 

The calculations are based on VOLUMES.. The measured heat prior to Argo did not survey the ENTIRE VOLUME or SPACE of the oceans down to 2000m did it? So primitive calculations like these are meaningless. It's a VOLUME problem --- the 1st cut approx that Joe did is on the right track --- but far from an accurate estimate of the problem.. 

Keep talking man.. Makes you cheaper....  I HAVE told you valuable things here. Primarily that there IS NO STUDY.. At least not one explained in a full blown paper that others can confirm.. Why is THAT --- not important to you? Don't you think that a major PR assertion like this one --- deserves more than a couple pages of explanation?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2013)

BTW:  Don't be surprised when the FULL STUDY comes out after the hype of the latest IPCC comes out.
Wouldn't be surprised if the results are toned WAAAAY the fuck down.. 

And then y'all can tell us how this wasn't a fabricated talking point to take the sting out of the latest IPCC debacle..


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Here's the problem right here. 

'' is to my knowledge''

Your knowledge is woefully inadequate to understand,  much less contribute to,  climate science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



It would only be "woefully inadequate" if THERE WAS a REAL PAPER describing all the details of this assertion.. If ya got one --- give it to me.. If you don't --- STFU... 

It's a travesty of science to have assertions like "the ocean ate my warming"  get this much attention without the authors actually describing their work in enough detail for others to validate and replicate the results.. 

HAS THAT HAPPENED??? I don't think so...

Especially since Trenberth has cited "increase ocean winds" as the mechanism for the abrupt mixing of the heat diving to the depths and NOT affecting surface temperature.. THAT --- hasn't happened either. So these clowns have no EXPLANATION for finding the missing warmth at depth..


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...







The same can be said of the climatologists.   The level of their understanding is so painfully low that they can't even recreate experiments they ran themselves...

Interestingly enough, last year they asked for immunity from prosecution for their efforts.
Why oh why would anyone ask for that if they were legit?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/interactive/2012/06/11/kyoto-protocol-review-1312317180/


----------



## P@triot (Sep 25, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...



*The real question is [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:*

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



If you have some science that proves Trenberth wrong, step up to the plate. 

If you are throwing the world's biggest cliche at us, you're not "comfortable" with climate science, tough shit. Go back to school. Read a book. Perform an experiment. Research the web. There is nobody who believes that you're more credible at climate science than the IPCC. That's major insanity.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> ...



Another Dunning Kruger poster boy. Big oil has you completely wrapped around their little finger and you have no idea yet that you're being played like fiddle.


----------



## loa (Sep 25, 2013)

For Rottweiler:

*You said:
The real question is  [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:*

My reply:
Well, interestingly enough? The other day I listened to a fairly long show on NPR which featured a Navy guy (an oceanographer) who spoke on the 'scandals' and also on ocean warming and several other climate directed topics.  He was very easy to understand, backed up all he said and made complete sense to me.   

My suggestion would be to hit the NPR website and listen to it.  It was worthwhile.

In the meantime?  In a very real sense, I don't really have much more to say on climate in this thread.  Many people here are absolutely convinced they are correct in that there is no reason to worry and I doubt anything I say is going to change that.   In fact, it sort of takes my breath away and I'm not willing to waste much time on all the nonsense.

Abe, PMZ and a few others get my sincere kudos in that they have been patiently explaining the science DESPITE Their ill treatment.   I wouldn't be so quick to toss their words. 

K.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2013)

loa said:


> For Rottweiler:
> 
> *You said:
> The real question is  [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:*
> ...










Here's a dose of reality for you.  Highest Antarctic sea ice extent ever recorded......  In a supposedly warming world I would like to hear anyone explain that....especially as all that heat is supposedly in the deep oceans...  How would a physicist explain that little conundrum I wonder?


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > For Rottweiler:
> ...


 It serves the warmers right for snowing the world with errors of omission in order manipulate results with the target of procuring fat grants for themselves. That snow has come back to chill them.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 25, 2013)

More heat within the oceans= more moisture within the climate system.

Truthfully, Antarctica is a desert...So a little more warmth=more moisture within the atmosphere over it = more snow. 

The problem with the arctic this year is more clouds(storm systems). We just didn't see the arctic dipole develop as we do normally. More clouds = less solar energy making it to the surface to warm the arctic oceans. Truth be told 1 or 2 degree's means a lot when you consider sea ice extent...

You may say that a warmer ocean = less sea ice. BUT the forces behind reality is more then just temperature but also precipitation rate. REMEMBER during the winter *there's little solar energy* one way or the other, so the precipitation is so far out powering the slightly warmer oceans for the Antarctic that it allows it to grow.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 25, 2013)

loa said:


> For Rottweiler:
> 
> *You said:
> The real question is  [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:*
> ...



So no comment on the link? How do you explain that?


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2013)

Matthew said:


> More heat within the oceans= more moisture within the climate system.
> 
> Truthfully, Antarctica is a desert...So a little more warmth=more moisture within the atmosphere over it = more snow.
> 
> ...









Except the "missing heat" is supposedly so deep in the oceans it can't be found.  Thus, logically, it can't affect the air above it, now can it?  Further the RT of water vapor is 9 days.  That means that after you have frozen the moisture out of the air in the first 10 days (I'm giving you extra time) you still have 160 odd days where that no longer applies.

Add to that the simple fact that the air over almost all of Antarctica is exceptionally dry and your argument holds no water.  You'll have to try harder Matthew....


----------



## P@triot (Sep 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > loa said:
> ...



The link is there my friend. READ it. How do you explain that?

Seems to me [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] big "green energy" corporations have _you_ wrapped around their little finger and _you_ have no idea yet that you're being played like a fiddle. Al Gore is laughing all the way to his multi-billion dollar bank account... 

This is the Y2K scare tactic all over again. Al Gore knew that liberals never learn from history...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

loa said:


> For Rottweiler:
> 
> *You said:
> The real question is  [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:*
> ...



One has to wonder why people who pretend interest in science are able  to ignore all of the climate science uncovered by the IPCC in the last 25 years and try to discredit them and the science itself by chasing red herrings of the trivial sort.  What do you suppose is the common  source of these trivialities like antarctic ice which nobody expects is in any way connected to AGW? 

Some common source is feeding the misinformation to the cult and they are lapping it up like it made sense. 

Ignore science and embrace pseudoscience.  How bizarre.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 26, 2013)

I 





Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



The most compelling science the denialists can come up with is that Al Gore is rich and Antarctica is cold. Both evidence and explanation of the ease of misleading them.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 26, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> ...



Hey Rott, where ya been buddy?  It's been a while since I've seen you put your 80 point IQ on full display.  You know, if you want to participate, there's a whole thread devoted to the Ice Cap thing.  Of course, it's been fully thrashed but I'm sure that won't stop you from stepping in it.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 26, 2013)

loa said:


> For Rottweiler:
> 
> *You said:
> The real question is  [MENTION=45151]loa[/MENTION] - why in the hell would anyone believe the farce known as "climate change"?!? Besides two rounds of "climate gate" scandals in which scientists were found falsifying their findings, we have this hilarious humiliation for the global warming flat earther's:*
> ...



Rottweiler and NPR?  As well intentioned as this suggestion is, I'm sure he thinks they're a bunch of intellectually elite communists.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 26, 2013)

From Wikipedia on Antarctica. 

''The lowest reliably measured temperature on Earth of &#8722;89.2 °C (&#8722;128.6 °F) was in Vostok on 21 July 1983 at Vostok Station.[2][3] For comparison, this is 11 °C colder than subliming dry ice (at sea level pressure). The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 14.6°C (58.3°F) in two places, Hope Bay and Vanda Station, on 5 January 1974.[4] The mean annual temperature of the interior is &#8722;57°C (&#8722;70°F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from &#8722;28°C (&#8722;18.4°F) in August to &#8722;3°C (26.6°F) in January.[citation needed] At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was &#8722;12.3°C (9.9°F) on 25 December 2011.[5] Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15°C (59°F) have been recorded, though the summer temperature is usually around 2°C (36°F). Severe low temperatures vary with latitude, elevation, and distance from the ocean. East Antarctica is colder than West Antarctica because of its higher elevation. The Antarctic Peninsula has the most moderate climate. Higher temperatures occur in January along the coast and average slightly below freezing.''

Denialists have been instructed to express surprise that the ice and snow are not melting there. 

Surely there must be a 12 step program for entertainment media addiction.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah - and people like you said Antarctica would be melted by now... 

By the way, don't forget TWO rounds of "Climate Gate" in which "scientists" (and I use that term loosely) were caught in emails talking about how they *LIE* and falsify data to dupe weak-minded lap-dogs like [MENTION=37583]JoeNormal[/MENTION]...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 26, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > loa said:
> ...



Hey JN - how've you been? You surviving the post-apocalyptic Y2K crisis ok? You haven't lost your tinfoil hat I hope? After all, tinfoil is no longer available now that we no longer have stores or computers. And how in the hell would you keep up with all of the fear mongering conspiracies like Y2K and climate "change" without it?


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > For Rottweiler:
> ...










  A grander example of D-K effect would be hard to find.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> From Wikipedia on Antarctica.
> 
> ''The lowest reliably measured temperature on Earth of &#8722;89.2 °C (&#8722;128.6 °F) was in Vostok on 21 July 1983 at Vostok Station.[2][3] For comparison, this is 11 °C colder than subliming dry ice (at sea level pressure). The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 14.6°C (58.3°F) in two places, Hope Bay and Vanda Station, on 5 January 1974.[4] The mean annual temperature of the interior is &#8722;57°C (&#8722;70°F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from &#8722;28°C (&#8722;18.4°F) in August to &#8722;3°C (26.6°F) in January.[citation needed] At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was &#8722;12.3°C (9.9°F) on 25 December 2011.[5] Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15°C (59°F) have been recorded, though the summer temperature is usually around 2°C (36°F). Severe low temperatures vary with latitude, elevation, and distance from the ocean. East Antarctica is colder than West Antarctica because of its higher elevation. The Antarctic Peninsula has the most moderate climate. Higher temperatures occur in January along the coast and average slightly below freezing.''
> 
> ...










Sure thing D-K poster boy.....This is what you global warmers have to say...  Interestingly enough their observations don't seem to jibe with reality.... yet again.


West Antarctic Glacier Rapidly Melting - Science News - redOrbit

Global warming is melting Greenland and Antarctic ice and contributing to sea level rise

Summer Ice Melt In Antarctica Is At The Highest Point In 1,000 Years, Researchers Say


----------



## PMZ (Sep 26, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...



''Yeah - and people like you said Antarctica would be melted by now.''

Screams for evidence.  Alas,  there is none.  Merely one more thing that you wish was true.  Unfortunately for conservatives,  telling lies does not make them true regardless of what Rush told you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And FlaCalTenn steps up to the plate.. Trenberth's FIRST energy budget, ((( You know the one with a BILLION graphic mirrors on the web))) IS IN THE WRONG UNITS !!!!!!!

ENERGY is not measured in Watts/M2.. POWER is is.. I KNOW he got razzed by every Engineering Professor in his lunchroom.. NOW --- he discovers the diff between power and energy and HIDES the magnitude of deep ocean temperatures in a GIGANTIC GLOBAL number of Joules. Without presenting the considerations made in making that leap.. 

Difference between power and energy is the TIME DIMENSION.. And it IMPLIES energy STORAGE --- something COMPLETELY MISSING from Trenberth's "first sanctimonious effort to find 1.6 W/m2 out of 1000s of W/m2.. Any scientist familiar with linear, nonlinear and/or stochastic systems analysis would know this.. A climate scientist??? Maybe not.

These guys are not perfect. In fact, Climate Science is SOOOO immature that 40% of the participants rate the field as "not mature".. 

*TELL ME WHY THIS "WARMING HIDING IN THE OCEANS" doesn't have a FULL Scientific paper behind it. One with enough detail and data to BE VALIDATED and repeated by others?? *

You -- being the Progressive dolt that you are --- are cursed to be without a sense of self-preservation.. That is my analysis of leftists that they cannot identify REAL THREATS to their persons and livelihoods, just IMAGINED threats that they focus on.. So YOU are basing your wholehearted ENDORSEMENT of all this primitive pseudo-science on WHAT EXACTLY??? 

Are YOU claiming the scientific chops to VALIDATE all this shit?? Of course not. NOT POSSIBLE.

YET --- I've explained to you that the way science works --- is that NO ONE is required to offer ALTERNATE explanations in order to hack a theory a death. In fact, the process is USUALLY that YOU as a scientist hack SEVERAL of your OWN pet theories to death before you find a keeper.. 

But you don't get this.. You think that ole FlaCalTenn is not allowed to critique or validate any part of the technical discussion ---- Unless I'm ready to publish the FlaCalTenn theory of Climate Change. Doesn't work that way son. Never has. 

And you are prime "useful idiot" material to be USED and ABUSED by folks hiding in sheepskins looking for leftist policy changes..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > For Rottweiler:
> ...



Silly goose.. NOBODY needs to do the job of discrediting the IPCC.. They are doing a SUPERB job of that themselves.. 



> What do you suppose is the common  source of these trivialities like antarctic ice which nobody expects is in any way connected to AGW?



Really?? "Trivialities of Antarctic ice" ??? Are you that desperate to hang on to your religious beliefs?? "Not connected in ANY WAY" ??? How about a link for that??


----------



## PMZ (Sep 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Power always includes time.  It's the rate of doing work.  Watts are units of energy.  Watts per meter*2 is energy flux,  not power.  

You critiquing a scientist when you don't even understand basic units is hilarious.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > loa said:
> ...



If global warming ever gets enough to melt significant Antarctic ice,  the rest of the world would be cooked.  Everybody understands that except you who merely follow a script.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



''TELL ME WHY THIS "WARMING HIDING IN THE OCEANS" doesn't have a FULL Scientific paper behind it. One with enough detail and data to BE VALIDATED and repeated by others??''

Tell us why nothing that you believe has any science behind it,  not to mention ''full scientific paper''(whatever that's supposed to mean),  not to mention theory,  data,  experimental evidence,  resources.  Absolutely nothing but what a talking fat head told you to believe.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'd quit before you lose any last ounce of integrity.. But you won't.. 

Watt-hours or Watt-seconds would be ENERGY. When you DIVIDE by time as in d(energy)/d(time) you get watts --- a unit of POWER... 

You are Flat wrong -- dumbass. 

A lightbulb power is in Watts --- It's energy consumption is in W-hrs. A Joule (energy) is a Watt-sec. Or Joule/sec requires a watt of power.  

Before you go back on ignore for your ignore--ance. Let's get something else straight.  Why do you think academics chose the phrase "defending your thesis" to describe the rite of passage to an advanced degree? 

Do you think that panel of lazy overpaid academics passing judgement on you is REQUIRED to have BETTER ANSWER to that esoteric problem you've been thrashing on for years? 

NO --- they are NOT REQUIRED to have a better answer. They are only required to MAKE YOU DEFEND your work and tear it to shreds when possible to appear interested in your work. So you show your ignorance of the process by suggesting that skeptics NEED to pony up alternate explanations before they destroy the current fad theory. 

Don't know where you got your "science" background. But I'd get a refund...


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Oh, looky...pms is moving the goalposts yet again...  How unsurprising.  The reality D-K boy is you asshats have claimed that the Arctic and Antarctic are the "cannaries in the coal mine" which means D-K boy that they will melt first!  Thus giving you that warning so you can escape the mine.


Of course you have to go back to the past posts that you idiots made because now you are feverishly rewriting the tripe you posted back then so you don't look like complete fools but as usual you forget that once it's out there...you can't bury it...

Jackasses...
Bob McKerrow - Wayfarer: Ice is the canary in the coal mine for global warming

Polar bears focus of Senate hearing - US news - Environment | NBC News

http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/opens...tic_Peninsula_Canary_in_a_coal_mine_OER_4.pdf

"Canary in the Coal Mine" Pointing to Warming - Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums


I can go on and on and on...but what's the point.  You dumbasses will just cover your eyes and ears and go "lalalalalala" so that you aren't exposed to facts.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...







He got it from the back of the cereal box his mom tossed down into the basement for him...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Try not to hurt yourself learning. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget


----------



## PMZ (Sep 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



It is an interesting point. I could not find anyone calling it earth's power budget. Everyone calls it earth's energy budget. 

Here's why I think that's true. 

By definition, a budget is an accounting of something for a period of time. Most often for financials the period might be a year or a month. 

Also, because we expect the sun to shine on earth for billions of years, there really is no sense, ever, in talking about the total energy the earth has or will receive from the sun. It's the rate that is important. And that is power. 

So, we could, and maybe should, say that the power incident on the earth from the sun at the TOA is 1,360 watts per sq meter, for those sq meters that are perpendicular to the sun's rays. If our budget is defined as each second, then we can say the same thing, in another way, that for each budget period the incoming solar energy is 1,360 joules per sq meter. Or, sometimes we say that if we consider the fact that the poles get less direct rays, and it takes 24 hours to illuminate the whole earth, and a year to run through all of the seasons, than over a year the average sq meter has 260 watts per sq meter of power incident upon it, or 260 joules of energy per sec. 

So somehow science decided to call it an energy budget but express it in units of power, the rate of energy change. Not, I don't believe, because scientists don't understand units as you would like to believe. But to use terms that the average man in the street has a chance to understand.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 27, 2013)

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.  
  W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy.  If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind.  But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
> W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy.  If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind.  But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)



The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant.  As such, in budjet terms,  1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s  which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of  A=B,  both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent.  Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped.  $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J.  The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand.  In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation. 

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing.  Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists.  He just doesn't know whats going on.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
> W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy.  If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind.  But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)



You trying to redefine BASIC SCIENCE terms?? Watts or W/m2 IS NEVER "an energy" measurement. It's a Forcing Function, a POTENTIAL to do work, or the analogy to Voltage in a circuit.

Go retrieve the famous Trenberth ENERGY BUDGET and look for yourself.. 

To understand the "energy imbalance" of radiative heating of the Earth -- YOU DO need an energy budget.. TrenBerth didn't produce it. BECAUSE you need to account for ENERGY STORED in the oceans, and ENERGY inputs that are temporally variant over the seasons and sections of the earth.. 

Those massive numbers of JOULES "hiding somewhere in the ocean" ??? They are just Watt-seconds. Each of them represents 1 second of exposure to 1 Watt of incident POWER. When you deal with ENERGY UNITS -- it becomes important to consider and treat and TIME EXPOSURE to power fluxes.. A lot more difficult than a stupid Power budget.. 

By loosely interchanging these units --- a POOR scientist or scientist or engineer can miss a lot of truth..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
> ...



Nope.. Pick another forum for your impersonation act..


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
> ...



Actually, no.  It is done all the time in every field odf science.  You just don't have the experience to know that you've found nothing.  All you have found is commom practice that has no bearing on anything.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
> ...



It really doesn't matter because it's all made-up bullshit.  Trenberth has almost no data before the mid 1990s.  That means most of his chart is pure fantasy.

However, believing in fantasies is what the AGW con is all about.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



In other words, I have demonstrated how and why, shown the units, and shown how the calculations for a budget work.  I've even given it a name "abuse of notation".  That's pretty fin good, so you have to resort to ad hominum bullshit.

You have nothing, I'm right, and you know it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
> ...



''BECAUSE you need to account for ENERGY STORED in the oceans,''

Energy storage has no impact on the fact of AGW which depends only on energy in vs energy out.  

Storage only matters in the transition time between puturbation and stability restored. 

That's why the IPCC has always studied it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You're the one with zero on the scoreboard.  No data,  no theories,  no science at all.  Only slavish devotion to corrupt self serving politics.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Clearly denialists have no science to support what they wish was true. 

This is the desperate result.  Trying to build a case on trivia. 

I don't see a chance in hell of you getting away with it here.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Nope.. Please continue to destroy your impersonation act...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Compelling evidence of the conservative creed.  You can wish things into reality. 

I suppose that's a pretty easy sell to stupid people.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Good come back.

Care to try something more scientific?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Only a true scientific ignoramus would believe that made up data is better than no data.

Here's my theory:  The warmist cult members are all a bunch of communists who latched onto the AGW theory as a means of justifying mass plunder and socialist slavery.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Oh, so when your wrong, it suddenly doesn't matter.

Good one.  You should publish a scientific paper with "It doesn't matter...."


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Sure, now were down to the "conspiracy" and "It's all made up."

Sure...  The CPI is made up, the unemployment numbers are made up.  The GDP is made up.  The temperature readings are made up.  It's all made up.

You really need to take your medication.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Prove I'm wrong, idiot.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Your wrong, idiot.   Prove your not.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The temperature numbers are made up.  The global warming magicians have been caught red-handed numerous times doing exactly that.

A yapping physcho Chihuahua like you is telling me to take my medicine? 

That's a real hoot.

BTW, I didn't say it was a conspiracy.  I said that a bunch of servile statist toadies, all with the same agenda, discovered a means to impose that agenda on the rest of us.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Your just demonstrating that your an uneducated moron.  No such thing has happened except in your own mind.  AWG has been carefully examined by a staunch denier and shown to be factual.  Just saying "it's all a lie" doesn't make it so.

Showing that posting a map of the Northern Elephant Seal is bullshit given that the Southern Elephant Seal is used to do deep ocean measures demonstrated you to be a bullshitter.

Proof done.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



That's the quality of proof we expect from warmist brown-shirts like you.

Those making the claim need to provide the proof.   That's how science works.  I'm shocked that someone so scientifically literate doesn't know that.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



There is only one way to discredit IPCC data.  Produce better data with a scientific explanation as to why it's more credible.  

You have nothing.  No exaggeration,  nothing.  You're parroting what people who profit from the status quo instructed you to say. You fell for their line ignoring the obvious lack of any evidence because you wanted it to be true. 

Realists don't fall for crap like that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Look, the psycho Chihauhau won't let go of my pant leg.  

You still haven't provided a shred of evidence that Trenberth has any data prior to the mid 1990s.  No amount of personal attacks is going to divert anyone's attention from that irrefutable fact.  Neither will harping on trivial idiocies like whether there are two populations of Elephant seals.  The Elephant seal data is a joke.



itfitzme said:


> Proof done.



As usual, you have only proved that you're mentally unstable.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yeah, that's right, keep replying to my posts and then claim your not obsessed.

I never said Trenberth has data prior to 1990.  I don't even know who Trenberth is.

There are no irrefutable facts to draw attention from, you have none.

You don't know how science works and haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary.  In fact, you continue to avoid doing so.

Basically, your just a troll.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The IPCC data has already been discredited.  For example, Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph was torn to shreds and demonstrated to be pure fiction.  The IPCC has discredited much of its own data.  They have admitted the previous pronunciations were incorrect or unfounded.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Here is my hypothesis.  You were abused as a child, have an IQ less than 100, barely graduated high school, if at all, and have no formal college education.  

The only way for you to make yourself feel important is to insult others.  The problem is, you have no education so you can't actually attack science on it's own grounds.  Instead, you have to say, "the data is made up."


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Only in your mind.  At least Flatulance knows what a watt is.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yeah -- I don't have time to argue with clown impersonators who don't have a clue.. 
You are a fraud.. Want me to prove that?

Make it worth my while..


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Sure, you prove that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You're proving it yourself without anyone's help.  You lash out like a psycho Chihuahua, calling everyone you disagree with all manner of foul names, and then you provide nothing to support your claims.

You're so beautifully liberal!


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








No, you're not.  Go get a CRC and do some real research you phony.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Troll. Keep jerking yourself off it public....


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









We don't have to.  Every time you open your trap you prove it for us.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Oh, good comeback. What I'd expect from you.  "doo doo head:"


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Coming from the guy that misrepresents the Northern Elephant Seal as being representative of all Elephant Seals, specifically the Southern Elephant Seal used in ocean temperature measurements.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The Freudian witch doctors call your symptoms "transference."  That's where you attribute to others all the qualities you see in yourself.

Let's see how many minutes it takes before you start whining about your critics resorting to personal attacks.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Even if that were true, how does it prove that Trenberth has data to support his magic chart of ocean energy?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No, I really don't like you personally because you misrepresented the Elephant Seal migration patterns. That isn't transference, it is specific disdain for you personally.

Nice to see you have been to therapy, though.

Come on.  Explain what the central limit theorem is.  What is analysis of variance? What is correlation and how is it calculated?  What is the formula for the standard deviation, both the normal formulation and the formulation that works best for calculators?

How about the integral of e^(-1/x)?

How about the conjugate physical quantities in quantum physics?  How does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle affect the line width of a laser?

Anything except your jerking off...


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

Ten minutes and not one actual demonstration of scientific prowness.  No definition of the central limit theorem.  No ANOVA.  No integrals....  Nothing.  Easy stuff too.

For some reason, when it comes down to something real, they got nothing.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Still waiting...


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Ten minutes and not one actual demonstration of scientific prowness.  No definition of the central limit theorem.  No ANOVA.  No integrals....  Nothing.  Easy stuff too.
> 
> For some reason, when it comes down to something real, they got nothing.



"Something real" would be actual temperatures from the ocean at all depths from before the mid 1990s.  

Just admit you haven't got shit and that your arch Bishop of global warming magic, Kevin Trenberth, is a fraud.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Ten minutes and not one actual demonstration of scientific prowness.  No definition of the central limit theorem.  No ANOVA.  No integrals....  Nothing.  Easy stuff too.
> ...



I never claimed anything. You have.

I've demonstrated that your science illiterate.

You've demonstrated nothing.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 27, 2013)

The central limit theorem is foundation to statistics.  It shows that the sample of means has a variance that is far less than the variance of the sample itself.   The variance of the sample of means is S/sqrt(n).  where S is the variance of the total population.  Because of the central limit theorem, sample data can be reliably used to determine the variance and mean of the underlying population.

Global temperature data is, by it's nature, a sampling of the underlying population of global temperature.  Because of the central limit theorem, the global temperature record can be accurately assessed.

The central limit theorem is responsible for the IPCC use of terms "likely" and "highly likely".  These terms have numerical values attached to them that are specific to the p-value of the statistical tests.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The central limit theorem is foundation to statistics.  It shows that the sample of means has a variance that is far less than the variance of the sample itself.   The variance of the sample of means is S/sqrt(n).  where S is the variance of the total population.  Because of the central limit theorem, sample data can be reliably used to determine the variance and mean of the underlying population.
> 
> Global temperature data is, by it's nature, a sampling of the underlying population of global temperature.  Because of the central limit theorem, the global temperature record can be accurately assessed.
> 
> The central limit theorem is responsible for the IPCC use of terms "likely" and "highly likely".  These terms have numerical values attached to them that are specific to the p-value of the statistical tests.



You have  no fin idea whatyou are talking about. The sqrt  redduction in vars applies to multple observation vectors of the  SAME process. Not a simple funct of time observed New every time. You  have no shame      do u poser?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The central limit theorem is foundation to statistics.  It shows that the sample of means has a variance that is far less than the variance of the sample itself.   The variance of the sample of means is S/sqrt(n).  where S is the variance of the total population.  Because of the central limit theorem, sample data can be reliably used to determine the variance and mean of the underlying population.
> ...



Well, according to his own standards, he's a liar, a pathological liar, a psychotic,  a chronic masturbator, a fraud, a scientific ignoramus and he's socially inept.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



That would be "YOU'RE science illiterate," not "your science illiterate."

When you go around accusing others of being illiterate, you should make damn sure your post is grammatically correct.  Otherwise you will look like a damn fool.

Whoops!  Too late!


----------



## Vox (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



you diatribe is a perfect example of ignoramus being cornered by simple  questions, to which you have no answers 

Bravo, SSDD !


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



He explained in his paper that I posted what data he used.  

Closing your eyes does not make things go away.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Ten minutes and not one actual demonstration of scientific prowness.  No definition of the central limit theorem.  No ANOVA.  No integrals....  Nothing.  Easy stuff too.
> ...



Something real would be some scrap of science from you.  Some piece of data.  Some hypothesis.  But what we get is media bullshit with absolutely nothing behind it.  

Do you really think that people fall for that like you did?.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

Vox said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I wouldn't have thought it possible but you guys get dumber each day. 

One lies and the other swears to it.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 27, 2013)

*This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:*

Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that "95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic". *Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true*. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: And your reference is? Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering Your reference? Your reference? Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.

So the climate scam-artist uses the made up (not to mention tired) 95% stat but when asked to provide a source for his number, he can't but falsely claims "everyone knows it's true". 

He then alters that number (after claiming everyone knew it was "true") and makes up a new number of 92% but again cannot back that up with a research source. Fed up with having his feet held to the flame for facts, he sits down flustered. But wait, it gets better:

Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UNs climate panel. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about global warming, they would care to tell him  to two places of decimals and one standard deviation  the UNs central estimate of the global warming that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. *An Hon. Member interrupted: And your reference is? Lord Monckton replied: IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.* [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of global warming, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.

When the conservative is asked for his source of information, he cites the exact study, with the exact year, with the exact chapter, and the exact section.

Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union | Watts Up With That?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



 Holy shit [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION] - that idiot [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] did the same _exact_ thing in this thread *HERE*


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



He listed his data sources, and we have discussed them _ad nauseum_ in this thread.  Before the year 2000, he basically has nothing.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Hilarious.  Did he accuse you of being a chronic masturbator as well?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> *This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:*
> 
> Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that "95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic". *Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true*. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: And your reference is? Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering Your reference? Your reference? Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.
> 
> ...





Rottweiler said:


> *This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:*
> 
> Fell out of my chair on this one.  I think that what he meant to say was political based conservatives and science based liberals.
> 
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > *This really illustrates the difference between the fact-based conservatives and the propaganda-based liberals:*
> ...



You just can't seem to get your head around the fact that we don't have to come up with alternative evidence to show that yours is bogus.

Warmists have the epistemology as Bible thumpers.  They argue that since science can't explain how life began that God must be the explanation.  The AGW Bible thumpers are just as idiotic.  The fact that I don't have an explanation for something isn't proof that yours is true.  Yours is still complete idiocy.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> You just can't seem to get your head around the fact that we don't have to come up with alternative evidence to show that yours is bogus.
> 
> Warmists have the epistemology as Bible thumpers. They argue that since science can't explain how life began that God must be the explanation. The AGW Bible thumpers are just as idiotic. The fact that I don't have an explanation for something isn't proof that yours is true. Yours is still complete idiocy.


 
That you, with virtually NO science education, believe the conclusions of thousands of actively researching PhD scientists, working on the same issue for 25 years now, to be "idiocy", only tells us that your opinion on the matter is utterly, and to be honest, contemptibly, lacking worth.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > You just can't seem to get your head around the fact that we don't have to come up with alternative evidence to show that yours is bogus.
> ...



The logical fallacy you just committed is known as the _Appeal to Authority_.  It seems to be the favorite of warmist cult members.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 28, 2013)

BriPat- 

You really do need to try and understand what 'appeal to authority' means. 

It does not mean that the side with no scientific backing wins.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



As compared to the conservative position which is based on having nothing before,  during and after,  2000.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The logical fallacy that conservatism is based on is called blind obedience,  cultism,  or worship of massive media mythology.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



''The fact that I don't have an explanation for something isn't proof that yours is true''

It's science that you have nothing of.  No ability to contribute to solving the problem.  It's not proof, but evidence of ignorance. 

Our proof is in climate science.  The fact that your eyes and mind are closed to it only speaks of you.  It has nothing at all to do with climate science. 

I imagine that the few primitive tribes left on earth also don't believe climate science and for the same reason you don't


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat-
> 
> You really do need to try and understand what 'appeal to authority' means.
> 
> It does not mean that the side with no scientific backing wins.



It means that saying something is true because some authority says so is invalid.  That's what you just did.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That doesn't change the fact that Trenberth has nothing before the year 2000.  Yet, he conjures up a magical chart that goes all the back to 1960.

That, my friend, is what intelligent people call obvious bullshit.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 28, 2013)

BriPat - 


> It means that saying something is true because some authority says so is invalid. That's what you just did.



Actually, no that is patently not what a fallacious appeal to authority is. 

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

 -  cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
 -  cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
 -  any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

In this case, both the IIPC and the wider scientific community are very clearly legitimate authorities on this topic. 

You are not.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 28, 2013)

Bri is the appeal-to-authority expert, being his only tactic is parroting the bogus claims of his DearLeaderMcIntyre. McIntyre is not a subject matter expert, as demonstrated in the way he gets everything wrong. But the cult tells Bri that DearLeaderMcIntyre is always correct, and so Bri believes, and to heck with what the rest of the planet says. The world attacks DearLeader, so the world must be evil.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You have described liberalism, not conservatism.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Bri is the appeal-to-authority expert, being his only tactic is parroting the bogus claims of his DearLeaderMcIntyre. McIntyre is not a subject matter expert, as demonstrated in the way he gets everything wrong. But the cult tells Bri that DearLeaderMcIntyre is always correct, and so Bri believes, and to heck with what the rest of the planet says. The world attacks DearLeader, so the world must be evil.



What has McIntyre gotten wrong?  You keep attacking him, but you haven't provided a single fact to support your neurotic hostility towards the man.

The _ad hominem_ is a logical fallacy also.  So far, that seems to be your personal favorite.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> > It means that saying something is true because some authority says so is invalid. That's what you just did.
> ...



There is no such thing as a "legitimate" appeal to authority.

You just proved you are unable to commit logic.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 28, 2013)

A friend calls it AAS, Artificial Authority Syndrome.  They want to claim some artificial authority that they simply don't have.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I certainly agree that making assertions on the basis of zero evidence is obvious bullshit.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 28, 2013)

The thinking process is that of connecting objects based on some emotional connection, rather than the actual structure of the objects.  "I like it" and "I don't like it" is the typical connection. "I like this authority" and "I like this idea" becomes the connection.  It is pretty meaningless.

It's funny how, when their appeal to authority gets trounced, they get all upset.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What "assertion" have I made without evidence?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The thinking process is that of connecting objects based on some emotional connection, rather than the actual structure of the objects.  "I like it" and "I don't like it" is the typical connection. "I like this authority" and "I like this idea" becomes the connection.  It is pretty meaningless.
> 
> It's funny how, when their appeal to authority gets trounced, they get all upset.



What "appeal to authority" of ours are you referring to?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



That the IPCC is not the expert source of climate science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The thinking process is that of connecting objects based on some emotional connection, rather than the actual structure of the objects.  "I like it" and "I don't like it" is the typical connection. "I like this authority" and "I like this idea" becomes the connection.  It is pretty meaningless.
> ...



The depth of insertion of your nose in the ass of conservative media entertainers is certainly a clue.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 28, 2013)

The mean is the sum of the data divided by the number of data points.

The variance is the average square distance of each data point from the mean.

The standard deviation is the square root of the variance. 

Depending on if we are discussing the estimate or the population, the degrees of freedom is important.

The likes of BiBrat are actually quite boring.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat-
> 
> You really do need to try and understand what 'appeal to authority' means.
> 
> It does not mean that the side with no scientific backing wins.



Ah, because true science is based on consensus....







AGW "scientists" reach a consensus on a new hockey stick graph


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > BriPat-
> ...



No, Unhinged, as usual you have everything upside down and backwards.

Actually, the consensus is based on the true science. 

Ah, science - something you know nothing about. Too bad you're such an ignorant brainwashed retard.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



ROFL!  I claimed that saying AGW is true because the IPCC says it's true is a logical fallacy.  In other words, you're trying to claim that pointing out your appeal to authority is an appeal to authority.

You're a buffoon, PMS.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



In other words, nothing.  I have never claimed anything is true simply because Rush Limbaugh says it's true.  The appeal to authority is your stock in trade, not mine.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The mean is the sum of the data divided by the number of data points.
> 
> The variance is the average square distance of each data point from the mean.
> 
> ...



Was your post supposed to be a response to something I said?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



How do we know it's "true science?"  Because all the "climate scientists" sucking on the government tit say so.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The thinking process is that of connecting objects based on some emotional connection, rather than the actual structure of the objects.  "I like it" and "I don't like it" is the typical connection. "I like this authority" and "I like this idea" becomes the connection.  It is pretty meaningless.
> 
> It's funny how, when their appeal to authority gets trounced, they get all upset.



You have described the liberal thinking process beautifully.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 30, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > BriPat-
> ...



Science has reached more than a consensus among those who are qualified to understand climate science.  The IPCC. 

Politics has reached a consensus among media conservatives.  The only way to dump the consequences of energy glutiny on others is to deny the science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What exactly is Rush Limbaugh an authority on?  I can't think of a single topic.  He's an uneducated irrational blowhard.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



True science is what educated scientists are skilled in.  It has nothing to do with conservative politics.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Who ever said he was an authority on anything?  You still don't get this "appeal to authority" thing do you?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Who determined the IPCC was qualified to rule on who was qualified to understand climate science?  Why, the IPCC, of course.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 30, 2013)

I feel sorry for people that don't believe in climate charge  I'll pray for you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



The good thing about education is that people are certified in terms where they stand in terms of education.  Those certificates are called degrees.  You don't have any so you are not qualified.  

The IPCC didn't create the IPCC.  They have no obligation to you.  You are not educated enough to even understand what they do.


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I feel sorry for people that don't believe in climate charge  I'll pray for you.








Who ever said we don't "believe" in climate change?  We most certainly do.  We also understand that it is ever changing.  It is only in the fevered imaginations of the religious fanatic that climate is ever "stable".  A more absurd assertion would be hard to fathom.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 30, 2013)

That's probably why no one has ever suggested such a thing


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So what does that mean, that only those with degrees and determine who has a degree?  What makes you qualified to determine anything about climate?  Did you Electrical Engineering degree make you an "authority" on climate?  The guy who runs the IPCC is a railroad engineer.  According to your epistemology, that makes him unqualified to determine anything about climate, doesn't it?

BTW, I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, numskull.



PMZ said:


> The IPCC didn't create the IPCC.  They have no obligation to you.  You are not educated enough to even understand what they do.



Does the IPCC have any obligations of any kind?  How about to tell the truth?

I'm educated enough to know a con when I see one.  Changing your story every time the facts change is the sure sign of a con, and following such cons is the sure sign of a sucker.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> That's probably why no one has ever suggested such a thing



Mathew just did.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I feel sorry for people that don't believe in climate charge  I'll pray for you.


 Pray to who?  Gaia?

None of us skeptics deny that the climate is changing...it is always changing.  What we want to see is actual proof that man is responsible for the change...proof that doesn't exist in any form outside of a computer model which is no proof at all.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I feel sorry for people that don't believe in climate charge  I'll pray for you.
> ...



We have no choice but to accept what nature decides but we have the responsibility and power to decide what humanity does.  We are in control of the consequences of our actions.  

That is except for conservatives who have never met a problem that they couldn't ignore.  Regardless of the cost of that ignor-ance.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I feel sorry for people that don't believe in climate charge  I'll pray for you.
> ...



The truth that you find so inconvenient that you need to deny it is Agw.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



There is simply no way someone with your limited cognitive ability could make it through an  engineering education.  Either you lie or were dropped on your head since.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2013)

Mankind must counteract AGW by pushing Earth farther from the Sun. At noon today please hop up an down on Earth to push it further from the Sun.

When people ask you what you're doing you can tell them you're doing your part to change the climate


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



If you understood science,  an ability that you so obviously lack,  you'd know that the scientific process is a never ending series of questions and answers.  Conservatives love questions but find many answers oh so inconvenient.  You accept what the media entertainers told you,  that you are entitled to whatever truth you want.  

In fact,  you are only entitled to what the rest of us are.  The truth.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I feel sorry for people that don't believe in climate charge  I'll pray for you.
> ...



Who's Gaia? 

The proof is abundant and compelling and certain.  Denying it is merely conservative denial of what they find inconvenient.  Being held accountable for their energy glutiny.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mankind must counteract AGW by pushing Earth farther from the Sun. At noon today please hop up an down on Earth to push it further from the Sun.
> 
> When people ask you what you're doing you can tell them you're doing your part to change the climate



Ahhh,  the first conservative solution.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What exactly is Rush Limbaugh an authority on?  I can't think of a single topic.  He's an uneducated irrational blowhard.



So are you.

But I fail to see the relevance to the topic at hand. No one has presented Rush Limbaugh as a source.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Who's Gaia?
> 
> The proof is abundant and compelling and certain.  Denying it is merely conservative denial of what they find inconvenient.  Being held accountable for their energy glutiny.



Bummer you didn't finish high school.

Gaia Theory | Model and Metaphor for the 21st Century


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2013)

Most conservatives now embrace a variant of the Gaia Theory. They say natural cycles occur, and that since the earth always corrects for them eventually, nobody needs to worry.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Most conservatives now embrace a variant of the Gaia Theory. They say natural cycles occur, and that since the earth always corrects for them eventually, nobody needs to worry.



WHO says that? And what can* YOU *do about falling into another Ice Age other than bitch about it? ---- Oh maybe ------ if we burn enough fossil fuel ---- we'll avoid glaciers a mile thick over Pittsburgh.. Yeah -- that'll work..


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> That's probably why no one has ever suggested such a thing










  Gosh, you idiots make it so easy...  What does it say at the top of that graph there....








New IPCC Report: Climatologists More Certain Global Warming Is Caused By Humans, Impacts Are Speeding Up | ThinkProgress


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









You, mammy, saggy and oltrakartrollingblunderfraud are among the most scientifically illiterate individuals I have ever seen.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Most conservatives now embrace a variant of the Gaia Theory. They say natural cycles occur, and that since the earth always corrects for them eventually, nobody needs to worry.









  You can't make this up!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Most conservatives now embrace a variant of the Gaia Theory. They say natural cycles occur, and that since the earth always corrects for them eventually, nobody needs to worry.



You should smoke less crack.

True story.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 1, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Most conservatives now embrace a variant of the Gaia Theory. They say natural cycles occur, and that since the earth always corrects for them eventually, nobody needs to worry.
> ...



No one.

Mamooth is like the two year old yelling "NUNH UNH - YOOOO."

Clearly he has the intellect and maturity of the average toddler.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > That's probably why no one has ever suggested such a thing
> ...



Gotta give you props man.. That StinkProgress "news coverage" is a classic piece of work.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Most conservatives now embrace a variant of the Gaia Theory. They say natural cycles occur, and that since the earth always corrects for them eventually, nobody needs to worry.



That isn't what they say, numskull.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2013)

I see our resident Gaians -- the denialists -- are upset about having their NewAge beliefs highlighted. But sadly for them, I don't care if I've injured their pwecious feewings. If they're going to keep spouting touchy-feely "The earth always has these natural cycles!" malarkey, I'm going to keep laughing at them for it.

(Don't worry, denialists. You can go hug a crystal now for some healing chakras.)


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I see our resident Gaians -- the denialists -- are upset about having their NewAge beliefs highlighted. But sadly for them, I don't care if I've injured their pwecious feewings. If they're going to keep spouting touchy-feely "The earth always has these natural cycles!" malarkey, I'm going to keep laughing at them for it.
> 
> (Don't worry, denialists. You can go hug a crystal now for some healing chakras.)



tThe phrase "the earth always has natural cycles" doesn't even mean anything.  It's nonsensical. 

If it wasn't for made up positions for your critics, turds like you wouldn't have anything at all to attack, now would you?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2013)

So are all the denailists now going to flipflop as well and pretend they haven't constantly invoked magical natural cycles?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So are all the denailists now going to flipflop as well and pretend they haven't constantly invoked magical natural cycles?



Nothing magical about natural cycles...the only invocation of magic has been from you guys with your magical trace gas supposedly controlling the climate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So are all the denailists now going to flipflop as well and pretend they haven't constantly invoked magical natural cycles?



There are no natural cycles, that's why there is still a mile on ice on top of Chicago.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So are all the denailists now going to flipflop as well and pretend they haven't constantly invoked magical natural cycles?
> ...



Hah!  Speaking of magic:



			
				SSDD talking about radiative heat transfer said:
			
		

> Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So are all the denailists now going to flipflop as well and pretend they haven't constantly invoked magical natural cycles?
> ...



Change and cycles are not synonymous Todd.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> I see our resident Gaians -- the denialists -- are upset about having their NewAge beliefs highlighted. But sadly for them, I don't care if I've injured their pwecious feewings. If they're going to keep spouting touchy-feely "The earth always has these natural cycles!" malarkey, I'm going to keep laughing at them for it.
> 
> (Don't worry, denialists. You can go hug a crystal now for some healing chakras.)









  You're not too good at improvisational comedy either, mammy old gurl....
I suggest you go back to sacrificing the critters on your personal pagan altar...


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So are all the denailists now going to flipflop as well and pretend they haven't constantly invoked magical natural cycles?










We never backtrack on anything silly person.  That falls to you globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruptionbiodiversity ignoramouses, who rebrand everything in 5 year increments because the climate just won't DO WHAT YOU SAY IT WILL!

Here's the wiki (because that is the limit of your reading comprehension it seems) entry into climate oscillations... what you would call a *climate cycle*

Many oscillations on different time-scales are hypothesized, although the causes may be unknown. They include:
the Ice ages
the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
the El Niño Southern Oscillation
the Pacific decadal oscillation
the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
the Arctic oscillation
the North Atlantic Oscillation
the North Pacific Oscillation
the Hale cycle (may be discernable in climate records; see solar variation)
the 60-year climate cycle recorded in many ancient calendars, as per Scafetta (2010)

Climate oscillation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gosh but you're dumb..  There's a Monty Python song that works quite well for you I think...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqrLgKdrAAI]16-Dennis Moore Song (Robin Hood Theme) (Part 4) (Monty Python's Previous Record Subtitulado) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...










I notice you're avoiding this post like the plague...what's the matter cat got your tongue?








New IPCC Report: Climatologists More Certain Global Warming Is Caused By Humans, Impacts Are Speeding Up | ThinkProgress


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

Begging the question,  why focus on what we cannot change and ignore what we can?  Conservative answer.  Because action is inconvenient.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Begging the question,  why focus on what we cannot change and ignore what we can?  Conservative answer.  Because action is inconvenient.










Inconvenient?  No, stupid beyond belief.  Trillions squandered in the vain hope that the global temp will be lower by one degree in 100 years is idiocy personified.  You're just so desperate for it to happen so you can sit back and suck the life out of the people like the succubus you are.

So sad for you that the Earth changed to cold before you could get your fraud implemented.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Begging the question,  why focus on what we cannot change and ignore what we can?  Conservative answer.  Because action is inconvenient.
> ...



Let's see.  Fossil fuels are in limited supply,  so we have to switch to sources in unlimited supply.  The only question is when.  So,  no additional cost for that. 

We are already spending billions of dollars and hundreds of lost lives every year due to more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW. I assume that we will continue those recoveries and try to mitigate the causes where we can.  

In addition, the limited supply and rising global demand and competition for that supply will make FF ever more expensive in cash and environmental damage which translates to more cash.  Ask the Gulf states. 

So where is this economic boogeyman that lives in your closet?


----------



## JoeNormal (Oct 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What do you want us to say about it?  That it has no tick marks?  That the scale is too compressed to determine whether or not it reflects what still hasn't happened?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW. *

The scientifically certain AGW was supposed to give us record hurricanes the last 5 years. 
What happened?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Do you really belive that humanity can forecast weather five years away? 

That's decades away.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










So far fossil fuels can power us for the next century without a problem.  In that time the technological level will increase dramatically unless people like you prevent it as you have prevented legitimate scientific debate on the theory of global warming.

Your groups ethics and competency are dubious at best, and you clearly don't care about the environment, nor mankind.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









Ohhh, c'mon Joe.... Are you really that dense?  Go back and read the thread so you can try and figure out what it's all about them come back and play with the adults when you are up to speed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So the warmers were wrong with their predictions?
That's interesting.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The oceans ate that Warming

Buoy, oh buoy

AGW, it's just not science


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't know.  Who made what prediction specifically?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Actually it is just science.  Just as denial is just politics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



All of them. Including you.

*more extreme weather that can only be explained by scientifically certain AGW. *

Unless AGW went away over the last 5 years?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I said extreme weather generally. You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.  

Thats the claim that you have to support.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

You still seem unclear of the certain scientific connection between fossil fuel consumption,  atmospheric GHG concentrations,  and AGW. 

It's not that hard to understand.  Only the transitory dynamics are. Which we call weather.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*I said extreme weather generally.*

Hurricanes aren't extreme weather generally?

*You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.  *

Long range? It was 1-5 years later. And it was wrong. Why?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Because nobody is able to make long term weather forecasts,  just like I said.  Especially those people with zero understanding of science.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



"All of them. Including you." over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality, Todd.  Intelligent understanding of the world isn't grounded in abstractions and generalizations.  It is grounded in specific details.

I haven't seen any actual link to back up this claim that hurricanes were predicted to be more extreme. So, I did a search on the IPCC 2007 report. The page is

10.3.6.3 Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes) - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections


The reason, it seems, the the UN convened the IPCC is to have an official clearinghouse for  climate science relative to global warming.  To pick some individual, out of some 7 billion people, and apply their statement to being indicative of climate science is simple stupidity.

On the other hand, we can turn to an official source

It says;



> *Earlier studies assessed in the TAR showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. More recent modelling experiments have addressed possible changes in tropical cyclones in a warmer climate and generally confirmed those earlier results.* These studies fall into two categories: those with model grid resolutions that only roughly represent some aspects of individual tropical cyclones, and those with model grids of sufficient resolution to reasonably simulate individual tropical cyclones.





> A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution *models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones,* with results dependent on the model, although those models do show a consistent increase in precipitation intensity in future storms. Higher-resolution models that more credibly simulate tropical cyclones project some consistent increase in peak wind intensities, but a more consistent projected increase in mean and peak precipitation intensities in future tropical cyclones. There is also a less certain possibility of a decrease in the number of relatively weak tropical cyclones, increased numbers of intense tropical cyclones and a global decrease in total numbers of tropical cyclones.



So, it appears that as of 2007, the word is "Earlier studies ... showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe.... "   "A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones,"

That all says that, at best, some indicate higher severity would be LIKELY.  Specifically, "likely" equals "> 66% probability".  That is, a 2 in 3 probability.  Not great odds, but better than 50:50.    At worse, a synthesis of models few consistent changes.  Taken together, that is a very weak prediction, if any, of an increase in storm intensity.

Taking a look at NOAA, we find

* Due to the Federal government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable.*  crap!!!

Additionally, we find 








> "But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.
> 
> And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite &#8211; that there will be fewer storms in the future."



What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?






This is just a sampling of the wealth of info about global warming and hurricanes.  It includes ocean area, storm strength, frequency, and precipitation.

All in all, I find no reason to conclude that there was a strong consensus on predicting future increases in intensity or frequency.  This in light of the data that tends to show increased frequency and intensity without claiming statistical significance, depending on the type of measure considered.

I think we would better serve our understanding if we first detail the number of measures before going off and making some general claim that "All of them."


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

Here is an interesting pub by the IPCC.

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/srex/downloads/SREX-Chap3_FINAL.pdf

Changes in Climate Extremes and their Impacts on the Natural Physical Environment

"There is generally *low confidence* in projections of changes in extreme winds because of the relatively few
studies of projected extreme winds, and shortcomings in the simulation of these events. An exception is
mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed, which is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean
basins. It is* likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.*
There is low confidence in projections of small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes because competing physical
processes may affect future trends and because climate models do not simulate such phenomena. There is medium
confidence that there will be a reduction in the number of mid-latitude cyclones averaged over each hemisphere due
to future anthropogenic climate change. There is* low confidence* in the detailed geographical projections of mid-latitude
cyclone activity. There is medium confidence in a projected poleward shift of mid-latitude storm tracks due to future
anthropogenic forcings. "

"Uncertainty in projections of changes in large-scale patterns of natural climate *variability remains large*.
There is * low confidence* in projections of changes in monsoons (rainfall, circulation), because there is little consensus
in climate models regarding the sign of future change in the monsoons. Model projections of changes in El NiñoSouthern Oscillation variability and the frequency of El Niño episodes as a consequence of increased greenhouse g...."

I am just not seeing the "everyone predicted increased hurricanes."  I am just finding what I'm finding.  I am not trying to find anything in particular.  Indeed, I was really hoping to find both a prediction of and data showing increases percipitations, storm size or frequency.  I am not finding it.

I fact, I am finding the complete opposite, very low confidence here with even expectation of decrease.  Not sure of the date.

What is it that some people are reading that has them believing things that turn out to be just not so?  Wouldn't it be the IPCC, primarily, that one would go to for these kinds of statements?  If not them, who is "everybody"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




*Because nobody is able to make long term weather forecasts*

You'd better tell your warmer buddies, they keep predicting more numerous, more powerful hurricanes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



* over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality*

That's why I don't fall for the over generalizations of the warmers. I prefer reality.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Like I posted, details. 

 You haven't presented any over generalizations attributed to warmers. All you have presented is your own.

Your claim is entirely refuted.  I looked.  It isn't there.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.


[/QUOTE]

So describe the mechanism by which the force of gravity operates.  Prove that I was wrong when I stated that we don't understand everything.  Tell us the precise nature of the force of gravity...or you could admit that you thought you had something there but it turned out that you had nothing but your own dick in your hand....


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.



So describe the mechanism by which the force of gravity operates.  Prove that I was wrong when I stated that we don't understand everything.  Tell us the precise nature of the force of gravity...or you could admit that you thought you had something there but it turned out that you had nothing but your own dick in your hand....[/QUOTE]

The presence of mass curves space time.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 2, 2013)

It's been pointed out to SSDD before that gravity operates consistently, unlike his PC physics where all kinds of special exceptions pop up solely because his 'tard political theory demands them.

But anyways, his 'tard theory that  posits magical special exceptions and which contradicts the past century of physics clearly must be correct, simply because we can't give him a one-paragraph explanation of the Grand Unified Field Theory. So, he also fails logic hard, as well as physics.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

^^^ The big problem is that he simply does not know exactly what is being measured and how the measurements are related.  This puts him in a conceptual position of having to create his own flawed perception of what "force", "mass", "charge", "acceleration", "energy", "heat", "entropy", "current", "gravitational force", "electric force", "photon", etc. are.

The issue is in his statement;



> I was wrong when I stated that* we* don't understand everything.



He mistakes that HE doesn't understand with others.  It is an issue of being unable to separate his concept of self from that of the world around him.  It's like infants don't know that their mommy is a unique and separate individual.

He doesn't get that he's the only one that doesn't know.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



How?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There is no "how", grasshopper.   First, you must realize that there is no spoon.

You are still living in the dark ages.  We have known how to do science since Newton, and describe it.  The "how" is by curving space time with the presence of mass.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



In other words, you don't know.

Who do you think you're fooling, asshole?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



In other words, you don't know the right questions.  Slacknuts....

E=mc^2.   Light has no mass and always travels in a straight line.  Mass, with a rest mass of E=mc^2 curves space time.  The result is that light follows a geodesic, the straightest line between two points, so that it "appears" to curve from an outside point of observations.

This is a direct consequence of the geometry of space and the constant nature of the speed of light.  Maxwell demonstrated that all electromagnetic waves move at the same speed, dependent only upon the permitivity and permeability of free space.  Einstein set this as a postulate, the constancy of properties in inertial reference frames, known as relativity.

If we then observe a clock made of a beam of light bouncing between two mirrors that are in a plane perpendicular to the motion, the distance traveled by an outside observer is seen at   (vt)^2+l^2=(ct)^2.  When rearranges, the euclidean geometry of the right triangle requires that the distance in the direction of motion be shortened and the time as experienced within the reference frame be slower.

When this is taken as the starting point in Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, along with that there is no distinguishable difference between being in a gravitational field or being in an accelerating reference frame, the consequence is that the geometry of space is curved.

So, what you are really asking is why does space have three dimensions which have the particular shape that it does?

The answer to that question is no different than asking the question of "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"  The answer, for all that know, is that the sound of one hand clapping is the sound of one hand clapping.  Similarly, space just does.

Why are you so confused about this?  It's like asking "what is outside the universe?"  

All you are demonstrating is that you simply don't get it.

It is why the answer to gravity is that the Earth sucks.

In other words, it is a dumb fucking question, moron.  Until you accept that, you are lost.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



All you've said is that the mass curves space.  You haven't explained how.  Einstein didn't explain how either.  He simply explained that it does.



itfitzme said:


> Why are you so confused about this?  It's like asking "what is outside the universe?"



If you had been reading about the theory of 'branes' then you would know that question might have an answer.



itfitzme said:


> All you are demonstrating is that you simply don't get it.
> 
> It is why the answer to gravity is that the Earth sucks.
> 
> In other words, it is a dumb fucking question, moron.  Until you accept that, you are lost.



Wrong, the correct answer is that we just don't know, and you obviously don't have a clue.

You made a statement similar to saying "rocks are hard," and I asked "why are they hard."  

Your answer was that they're hard because they're rocks.

And you think that demonstrates your brilliance.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 2, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Dude, you just refuse to get it.

Space is curved.

Why does 1+1=2?  What is the force, the mechanism that makes 1=1=2?  I have one rock, I have another rock.  They are the same as those other two rocks.

What is the mechanism?

You just refuse to get it because you are a turd.

And, you don't know anything.  Just stop being an idiot.   Just stop.  Why are you a moron?  Because you are..... It is just that simple.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



''I prefer reality.''

Talk about something for which there is an absence of evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



We have evidence that CAFE standards kill several thousand each year, you ignore that reality.
Typical.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yep, and rocks are hard.  



itfitzme said:


> Why does 1+1=2?  What is the force, the mechanism that makes 1=1=2?



1+1 = 2 because that is how we define 2.  We invented a word to designate the result of 1+1.  We called it 2.



itfitzme said:


> I have one rock, I have another rock.  They are the same as those other two rocks.
> 
> What is the mechanism?



Now you're just babbling incoherently.



itfitzme said:


> You just refuse to get it because you are a turd.
> 
> And, you don't know anything.  Just stop being an idiot.   Just stop.  Why are you a moron?  Because you are..... It is just that simple.



What I refuse to do is accept idiocy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 2, 2013)

Stilll slumming at skepticalscience eh fitzme?? That graph of "NAMED" storms is pure bunk and has NOTHING AT ALL to do with frequencies OR strength of hurricanes OR Global Warming OR CO2. 

They are naming storms now if the winds exceed trop depression status for 10 minutes.. 

No one in the 80s GAVE A SHIT about that. THATS all that fabricated toxic shit from skep science is... 


We just saw them PROMOTE a nothing storm into a hurricane in the Atlantic because of POLITICS.. Had it gone ONE MORE DAY without a hurricane -- it would have been a record.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Stilll slumming at skepticalscience eh fitzme?? That graph of "NAMED" storms is pure bunk and has NOTHING AT ALL to do with frequencies OR strength of hurricanes OR Global Warming OR CO2.
> 
> They are naming storms now if the winds exceed trop depression status for 10 minutes..
> 
> ...



''They are naming storms now if the winds exceed trop depression status for 10 minutes..''

Have you ever been in 75 mph winds?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How many lives do they save?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



''What I refuse to do is accept idiocy''

You not only accept it,  you produce it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your claims are bullshit.

Hurricanes and Deception by the Global Warming Alarmists ? Hurricanes at a 33 Year Low | Thetruthpeddler's Blog



> ccording to data from the Florida State University Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS), global tropical cyclone activity, which has been unusually inactive for the past three years, is now at its lowest level in at least 33 years. (2)
> 
> Current Year-to-Date analysis of Northern Hemisphere and Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) and Power Dissipation Index (PDI) has fallen even further than during the previous 3-years, reports COAPS hurricane scientist Ryan Maue. The global activity is at 33-year lows and at a historical record low where Typhoons form in the Western Pacific.
> 
> While the North Atlantic has seen 15 tropical storms/hurricanes of various intensity and duration, the Pacific basin as a whole is at historical lows! Maue explains. In the Western North Pacific stretching from Guam to Japan and the Philippines and China, the current ACE value of 48 is the lowest seen since reliable records became available (1945) and is 78% below normal.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



From the referenced blog. 

''The report also found that the increase in tropical storm activity the planet has seen since 1995 is part of a natural cycle completely unrelated to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.''

So an unreferenced report claims that there is more hurricane activity but someone unnamed thinks that they are unrelated to AGW.  

People who fall for bullshit like this deserve all of the ridicule that we can heap on them.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



It's pretty easy to make the determination for yourself.  Does the graph below correlate with your favorite abracadabra graph of world temperature?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 2, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > BriPat-
> ...



How did we get from hurricanes to an unidentified graph of unidentified data from an unidentified source?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Stilll slumming at skepticalscience eh fitzme?? That graph of "NAMED" storms is pure bunk and has NOTHING AT ALL to do with frequencies OR strength of hurricanes OR Global Warming OR CO2.
> ...



You really are not situationally aware if you ask that question of a guy using the handle "FLAcaltenn".. Get it?? 
Even in TENN, we get 75mph gust fronts coming thru seasonally.. SOME LAST LONGER than recent "named storms".

And what does that have to do with the shit coming out of skepticalscience??


----------



## PMZ (Oct 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What is the evidence that skepticalscience . com is not a perfectly reliable source?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You have absolutely no explanation of anything, yet you just "know".  Simply refusing to accept reality isn't knowledge.

The fact is, you don't know.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



My claim is that the IPCC published something or that Ryan Maue said something or that the skeptical science presents.....

It is simply a reporting of what is presented.

So you are claiming that it isn't on their website?  Is that what you are saying, that what is on their website isn't on their website?

You are really retarded


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Stilll slumming at skepticalscience eh fitzme?? That graph of "NAMED" storms is pure bunk and has NOTHING AT ALL to do with frequencies OR strength of hurricanes OR Global Warming OR CO2.
> 
> They are naming storms now if the winds exceed trop depression status for 10 minutes..
> 
> ...



You are really stupid.  You want to claim that the Skeptical Science website and the IPCC made claims.   

I present what the IPCC and the Skeptical Science website says.

I see your problem, you don't actually get your evidence from where it comes from. To make a claim that the IPCC said something, you have to get it from the IPCC.  You simply make it up.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The Skeptical Science is a reliable source for what the Skeptical Science says.  The IPCC is a reliable source of what the IPCC says.

It is really important, when quoting someone, to get the quote from the person that is making it.   

This is a really simple idea that he doesn't seem to get.  He doesn't understand what a quote is.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You really are out of touch with reality.  The Skeptical Science is the source for what the Skeptical Science says.  If you wan't to know what they say, you don't quote someone else.

What part of that are you having difficulty with?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Apparently, they don't understand the concept of "quoting a source".

The shear magnitude and breadth of the idiocy is unfathomable.  With every passing day, the demonstrate more and more specific instances of a complete disconnect with reality.

I am finding it difficult to grasp, but that is the reality and I do accept it.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...








I love it how these idiots who have no real world experience, I base the assumption based on their asinine questions, try and lecture us who do.  Here in my bailiwick 100mph winds are common.  Over the ridge lines it is even higher than that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Are you having a stroke ----- or are you ALWAYS this scattered brain and incoherent???
The evidence suggests the latter.. Every chart they PRODUCE is a half-truth, a full lie or propaganda --- deal with it... 

There is NO EVIDENCE of increased cyclonic activity in the past couple decades that exceeds historical variance. NOTHING AT ALL that looks like that crappile from skepticalscience.. To you and THEM --- EVERYTHING SHAPED like a hockey stick is proof. Even a stick you found in the woods.. YOU WORSHIP hockey stick shapes..  


U want to roll in their crap?? Great --- just be prepared to be mocked and have people cross the street to avoid the stench...


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



What part of, there was "no consistent prediction of increased cyclonic activity" do you not get? 

The problem you are having is you have no clue what anyone says or what the data says.

You present bullshit, then you say it is bullshit.  We know what you present is bullshit, that goes without saying.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



How come nothing that you claim comes with any evidence?  Do you really think that you have that much credibility here? 

Most people who've read your posts here just assume that you're a typical politician saying whatever it takes to create the impression that what you think is best for you is best for everyone. 

That just isn't going to fly any further than the other media 'bots singing from the same hymnal. 

If you want credibility post evidence and let others decide for themselves what's  real and what's unpaid political advertising.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Do you live in the jetstream?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



1) Then why did you fling this poo at us from skepticalscience??? 






................and what do YOU THINK IT MEANS?


2) What is this  "CONSISTENT prediction" weasel shit? CLEARLY --- there were MANY OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS of increased cyclonic activity.. In fact -- you jerkoff --- I just posted HANSEN saying that not an HOUR AGO in a youtube clip.. 

Face reality dude..


----------



## PMZ (Oct 3, 2013)

Still waiting for the evidence that skepticalscience.com  is not a reliable source of climate science.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I am and constantly search for information from all basic sources.  Then I present it, like the predictions by the IPCC from 2007 and the predictions presented on the Skeptical Science.  After all, you claim they made predictions.  You haven't presented any evidence of a prediction, just your claim.

And, it turns out, that your claim is pure bullshit.  There were no claims that you say their were.  I can't find then, you don't present them.

Nothing, you present nothing.  You prove nothing. You don't know basic science.  You can't present any evidence of these supposed claims.

On and on you post bullshit.



> ................and what do YOU THINK IT MEANS?



It isn't a prediction.  But it does seem to be a counting of actual activity.

Here is the same chart on Climate.org






http://www.climate.org/topics/extreme-weather/


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

2011: North Atlantic Tropical Storm Frequency Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Projections and Sources of Uncertainty.

"whether the number of North Atlantic tropical storms will increase or decrease in a warmer climate is still heavily debated and a consensus has yet to be reached."

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

So, no prediction of increased activity there.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

Frequency of Atlantic Hurricanes Doubled Over Last Century; Climate Change Suspected - News Release

Frequency of Atlantic Hurricanes Doubled Over Last Century; Climate Change Suspected






A new climate study indicates that hurricanes and tropical storms became more frequent in the Atlantic Ocean during three distinct periods over the last century, as shown in this graphic.

So, there is an accounting.  What I find, consistently, is no prediction of increased activity combined with actual evidence (counting) of increased activity.

So, it seems that the deniers are wrong on two counts, not only didn't anyone predict increased activity, but it actually has appeared to increase without quite enough data to draw a strong conclusion of statistical significance.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

Oh, here is something

Hurricanes and Global Warming FAQs | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

The Climate Prediction Center expected significantly greater activity for 2005 than occurred in 2004, predicting 18-21 tropical storms and 9-11 hurricanes, 5-7 of which were expected to reach category 3 or greater. The actual activity significantly exceeded these expectations, as well as all previously recorded activity for a single season. The following activity occurred during the 2005 season:

Actually, the 2006 North Atlantic hurricane season had a normal level of activity.

The Climate Prediction Center predicted much above normal hurricane activity for 2007:
13-16 named tropical storms
7-9 hurricanes
3-5 major hurricanes (category 3 or higher)
In all, the North Atlantic experienced the following activity:
15 named tropical storms
5 total hurricanes
2 major hurricanes (both category 5)
This activity fits the description of being much above normal. The total number of named storms was predicted accurately, whereas the number of hurricanes was overestimated.

How active was the 2008 hurricane season?
The Climate Prediction Center predicted much above normal hurricane activity for 2008:
14-18 named tropical storms
7-10 hurricanes
3-6 major hurricanes (category 3 or higher)
December 5 update: There were 18 named tropical storms so far this year. With the traditional hurricane season now officially over (see below), the number of storms to date has met or exceeded the predictions listed above. 2008 storms to date:

18 named storms
8 hurricanes       
5 major hurricanes   (Bertha-category 3, Gustav-cat. 4, Ike-cat. 4; Omar-cat.3; Paloma-cat.4)
There have also been a large number of landfalling tropical storms in the Atlantic this year, with ten storms making landfall overall. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center: "For the first time on record, six consecutive tropical cyclones made landfall on the U.S. mainland and a record three major hurricanes struck Cuba.  

So we have some predictions of increased activity, on a specific yearly basis, a bit bold if you ask me.  And they have have some success just not as consistent as I'd like to see, with the actual activity being either normal or above normal.  I'm just doing a scan of it.  Perhaps one of the wack nuts should do a chart for practice.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Frequency of Atlantic Hurricanes Doubled Over Last Century; Climate Change Suspected - News Release
> 
> Frequency of Atlantic Hurricanes Doubled Over Last Century; Climate Change Suspected
> 
> ...



Do you have eyes?? Can you read?? I just said that I posted a screed by Hansen himself not an hour ago STATING categorically, that cyclonic activity is GONNA INCREASE.. 

If you were worth the effort --- you'd be losing an argument in about 2 posts or 4 minutes --- whichever came first... But I've got real work to do for awhile....


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

Now, where is a prediction regarding the 2008 season (historical info)






As one would expect, like weather forecasts, it is presented as an 85% chance.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Frequency of Atlantic Hurricanes Doubled Over Last Century; Climate Change Suspected - News Release
> ...



And what does that chart show?

And, no, I haven't seen your supposed clip of Hansen, because you have not posted any such thing in this thread.  I just went back and looked at all your posts in this thread.  No clip that I can find.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Frequency of Atlantic Hurricanes Doubled Over Last Century; Climate Change Suspected - News Release
> ...



Are you not following the conversation?  The original comment I responded to was

""All of them. Including you.""

Hansen, himself, by definition isn't "All of them."

It turns out that there were some predictions, not all of them.   Many were of the form of "next year there is an x% chance of increase."

And, as it turns out, there actually was an increase.

Are you incapable of actual research?

So, no matter how you cut it, you are full of shit.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

This is the NOAA chart.  It is yearly and the variability doesn't give a precise sense of the trend.  It does seem to suggest and upward trend.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Frequency of Atlantic Hurricanes Doubled Over Last Century; Climate Change Suspected - News Release
> ...



Well, no dude, you haven't won anything. You are just living in the land of denial in believing that you have.

Why?  Because, apparently, and I am as surprised as you, activity did increase. 

Contrary to one claim, EVERYONE didn't predict it.  It took a while to find some definitive predictions and they are of the form "85%" chance and on a yearly basis.  

Contrary to your claim, they have increased. The increase is buried within some rather large variability so it seems to be a ten year running average to tweeze it out.

So far, then, we have your claim that Hansen predicted it.  Year by year predictions by weather forecasts.  And, lastly, they did increase.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

Hurricane Frequency Is Up But Not Their Strength, Say Researchers

"Hurricane Frequency Is Up But Not Their Strength, Say Researchers"

So, frequency but not strength.  That seems to be the general trend.

Did anyone make a definitive prediction on strength?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

Here is a nice article

2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season Could Be Extremely Active, NOAA Predicts

"In 2012, the preseason forecast called for between nine and 15 named storms, well below the 19 that eventually formed. By August, with the season half over, the number had increased to 12-17. Overall, August through October sees the largest number of storms."

So there was a point prediction.

And last years prediction was;

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts that the 2013 hurricane season, which begins on June 1, is likely to be somewhere between active and extremely active, with between 13 and 20 named storms &#8211; those with sustained winds above 39 m.p.h."


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 3, 2013)

The closest I can come to "Hansen predicted" is

A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen ? that failed will likely fail badly | Watts Up With That?

from a google search of https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#q=hansen+prediction+hurricane

I cannot find "hurricane intensity" or "hurricane" anything there, just "extreme weather" and sea level.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The closest I can come to "Hansen predicted" is
> 
> A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen ? that failed will likely fail badly | Watts Up With That?
> 
> ...








Here's a few for you....


*Climate Change Could Make Hurricanes Strongerand More Frequent*

Read more: Hurricanes Could Be Stronger and More Frequent Thanks to Climate | TIME.com

Add one more environmental disaster to the list of potential dire consequences of the greenhouse effect. A general warming of the earth because of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere might not only melt the polar ice caps and drastically alter weather patterns but cause more ferocious storms. Writing in Nature, M.I.T. Meteorologist Kerry Emanuel warned that a warmer climate could result in hurricanes packing up to 50% more destructive power. This could happen, he suggests, within 40 to 80 years, when some scientists think CO2 levels will have doubled and ocean temperatures will have increased... 

Environment: More Violent Hurricanes? - TIME


About the future
*"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. *There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones.  The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period." 


*WHY GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES VIOLENT HURRICANES *

Why Global Warming Causes Violent Hurricanes


That enough for you?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 3, 2013)

Absolutely.  Just one more compelling reason not to equivocate. We must act now to avoid expensive consequences later.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The closest I can come to "Hansen predicted" is
> ...



Okay, they COULD.  And they did make them more frequent.

What is your point? And where is the quote from Hansen that you claim.  Meteorologist Kerry Emanuel isn't Hansen, now is he?  That was your claim.

This is another example of your inability to distinguish between people.  Emanuel isn't Hansen.  You can tell because one starts with the letter "E" and one with an "H".

You are unable to focus on details.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Absolutely.  Just one more compelling reason not to equivocate. We must act now to avoid expensive consequences later.



There are no expensive consequences, nimrod.  Even if there were, the cure is worse than the disease.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



And you can't follow directions.. Told you I posted a Vid of Hansen making EVERY SORT of outrageous claims to promote hysteria.. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1uxfiuKB_R8]JamesHansen: The Runaway Greenhouse Effect - YouTube[/ame][/quote]

Do hang in there until he winds up to preacher strength and foretells the BOILING OF THE OCEANS... (not funny, he's sick)

Media MISINTERPRETATIONS AND PURPOSEFUL misuse of this kind of hysteria is YOUR responsibility. Because you support this unprofessional vague fortune telling.. 

Not my fault you only "research" stuff that supports your preconceived agenda.. Do your own work...


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Do hang in there until he winds up to preacher strength and foretells the BOILING OF THE OCEANS... (not funny, he's sick)

Media MISINTERPRETATIONS AND PURPOSEFUL misuse of this kind of hysteria is YOUR responsibility. Because you support this unprofessional vague fortune telling.. 

Not my fault you only "research" stuff that supports your preconceived agenda.. Do your own work... 

[/QUOTE]

Actually, you did't post it. Not here.

I don't "support" anything. I have no "agenda" except what I can find as actual facts. 

What I do know is that every time I examine something you post, it turns out you have completely misinterpreted and misrepresented it.  I learn quite a bit from your constant mistakes.

And, it became very clear how out of touch with reality you are when you posted image after image that completely trashes your own position.  The shear depth of your insanity is hard to accept.  But, then, reality is what it is.  The reality is that  you are patently insane.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely.  Just one more compelling reason not to equivocate. We must act now to avoid expensive consequences later.
> ...



We're still waiting for some evidence that supports what you wish was true. 

We've been waiting for lots of years now.  Still nothing.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Do hang in there until he winds up to preacher strength and foretells the BOILING OF THE OCEANS... (not funny, he's sick)

Media MISINTERPRETATIONS AND PURPOSEFUL misuse of this kind of hysteria is YOUR responsibility. Because you support this unprofessional vague fortune telling.. 

Not my fault you only "research" stuff that supports your preconceived agenda.. Do your own work... 

[/QUOTE]

It's clear that you wish that what he says is an extreme possibility won't happen.  He offers a scenario that could lead to the end of life.  Your point is only that you don't like that ending.  

Nobody is arguing that that's a desirable ending.  The argument is that even if it's a remote possibility,  let's make it as remote as possible.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Not my fault you only "research" stuff that supports your preconceived agenda.. Do your own work...



Well, no, Walleyed was kind enough to present tons of graphs, along with quotes from articles, that completely obliterate your position. Surely you saw them on the sea ice thread?

All I do is look up what you post and find that what you post is bullshit.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...







They did?  Where?  Hurricane activity is HALF what it was in the 1950's.  There hasn't been a hurricane strike on the US in years now.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Actually, you did't post it. Not here.

I don't "support" anything. I have no "agenda" except what I can find as actual facts. 

What I do know is that every time I examine something you post, it turns out you have completely misinterpreted and misrepresented it.  I learn quite a bit from your constant mistakes.

And, it became very clear how out of touch with reality you are when you posted image after image that completely trashes your own position.  The shear depth of your insanity is hard to accept.  But, then, reality is what it is.  The reality is that  you are patently insane.[/QUOTE]






Bull puckey, you and your fellow clones are propaganda spewing drones working, in all probability, for Mann and his cronies based on how stupid you all are.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Not my fault you only "research" stuff that supports your preconceived agenda.. Do your own work...
> ...









Actually, they refuted YOUR assertions.  But you guys are good at ignoring, or for that matter outright falsifying, data.l


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Apparently it isn't.  Go read the studies.  I already posted the data. You can check with the NOAA.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...








Bull puckey, you and your fellow clones are propaganda spewing drones working, in all probability, for Mann and his cronies based on how stupid you all are.[/QUOTE]

Yet, you managed to completely invalidate your entire position in the sea ice thread by posting graphic after graphic that demonstrated the exact opposite of what you want to believe.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Dude, not at all.  The refuted nothing I said and nothing we discussed that the IPCC said.  It refutes nothing that Accuweather says.  It refutes nothing that the NOAA says.

I notice that you have gotten more and more desperate lately.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



All I have to do is present and interpret the actual facts.  Anyone with half a brain can make up their own mind.  And, seeing as you constantly present nothing of any real value, we know which way that will go.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...










  Sure thing mr. clone.  I am happy to see you were looking in the mirror when you posted that drivel.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo]What A Maroon! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...








Bull puckey, you and your fellow clones are propaganda spewing drones working, in all probability, for Mann and his cronies based on how stupid you all are.[/QUOTE]

''I don't "support" anything.''

Absolutely true. 

''I have no "agenda"''

You can't possibly believe this. 


''except what I can find as actual facts.''

You say that you like facts but deny science.  And that makes sense to you.  That is so bizarre as to be inexplicable.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I think that the corner the cult has been backed into is awfully tight and uncomfortable. They really have no place to turn.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Facts are tough on the conservative ego.  Every one is like a slap on the face.  You'd think that they'd learn.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...









Yes, unlike you we DO learn.  We have learned many things about how you clowns alter data to fit your pre-conceived ideas.  How you block papers that refute your "theories".  How you threaten editors who don't bow down to the climate mafia... yes, we have learned a lot.  And we are winning the argument because of it.

Face it.  We enjoy debate and welcome opposing viewpoints  You don't.  It's as simple as that.  *YOU'RE* the *LUDDITES *here.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



We are Luddites (according to you, at least)  but you deny science.  

I would have said that Luddites deny science.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I find them unfathomable.  I still can fully accept the otherwise obvious fact that they are, somehow, completely out of touch with reality.  Are the stupid? Insane? Disingenuous?  There isn't enough info to say for sure.  Emotionally, we are designed to want to know "why".  Science, Newton, taught us to stick to "how".

The craziest thing is all of the data comes from organizations like the NOAA, NASA, USGS, and other sources.  Without that data, data that they continuously reject as invalid, they cannot have an opinion.  All they can have is "I don't know".  Yet, they will reject the data as fabricated one one day then present it as proof of something the next.

The how is clear... the why?... I don't believe even they know.

I have to conclude that insanity, stupidity, ignorance, dismissiveness, and disingenuousness are all part of the same mentality.  The "how" seems to be by rejecting info that they cannot reconcile.

That is the stupidity and insanity... Lacking the ability to figure it out, the ignore information.  I can tell you this, I have seen personally, observed some people that consistently rearranged the order of events, left out important details, and fabricated others so they could "remember" it the way it suited their feeling.  It is contrived "stupanity", a practiced ability to be crazy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 5, 2013)

AGW climate crusader sea ice hoax fAiL >>>>>







[/URL][/IMG]








[/URL][/IMG]















[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 5, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> AGW climate crusader sea ice hoax fAiL >>>>>



It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.






And 1980






This is the average extent for.






You are doing the same moronic cherry picking presentation.  As if last year is significant.

Clearly you have decided to be ignorant and ignore variability.
















Oh, look, 2013 isn't shit compared to 2006 and before.






And in terms of the complete record of the extent, it is well below the average.






It would be nice if the 2013 rebound meant something long term.  

Unfortunately, surface melting has it as a summer lake






And simple extent is really not the whole story.  Thickness is all so important. Nasa and the NOAA are closed.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Show us something you have learned.


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








What does "The Science is Settled" mean to you?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It means that 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW as a valid theory.  They hold that the primary cause of the last 150 years' global warming has been human GHG emissions.  They (the one's with the real PhDs doing real research for a living) reject what you claim to believe and accept what you claim to reject.

Where does that put you?


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








I have learned that PmsMZ is not conversant with the historical record of this planet.  He seems to think that there was no life on this planet 500 million years ago.


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









With the other 4.5 BILLION years of Earths history when the warming and cooling that occurred was somehow accomplished without mans paltry little CO2 addition.  I have yet to see one iota of empirical data to support those 74 "scientists" and their particular viewpoint.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So, as usual, you can't actually present and science on anything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > AGW climate crusader sea ice hoax fAiL >>>>>
> ...



*It use to go nearly all the way to Alaska.*

It used to go half across Illinois.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...




Wiki, PMZ's favorite source, says he's wrong.

In its 4.6 billion years circling the sun, the Earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms:
* for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
 for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
 for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
 for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
 for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
 for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;*
 for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
 for the last 475 million years, land plants;
 for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
 for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
 for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
 for the last 200 million years, mammals;
 for the last 150 million years, birds;
 for the last 130 million years, flowers;
 for the last 60 million years, the primates,
 for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
 for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors);
 for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.

Periodic extinctions have temporarily reduced diversity, eliminating:
 2.4 billion years ago, many obligate anaerobes, in the oxygen catastrophe;
 252 million years ago, the trilobites, in the PermianTriassic extinction event;
 66 million years ago, the pterosaurs and nonavian dinosaurs, in the CretaceousPaleogene extinction event.

Dates are approximate.

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



That would be warming.  And since 1910, it has been warming even more, faster than ever, faster than the natural rate.  That's the point.

So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?


----------



## kiwina (Oct 5, 2013)

There are two or three reasons why people "do not accept" climiate change. First what they reject is the concet that it is man coused and man can stop it. Give your brain a chance, woud you, for a change?  
secound, many people live in a real world and not the make believe world of half baked science and academic arrogance . People, like farmers, fishermen, can see with their own two eyes that some years are wormer then others and some are colder then others and the same is true with decades, and centuries. The see the cycles of time and weather. They relize that the system is a lot biger then their little lab and a lot of things effect weather. 
third. they reconize Tom Foolery when they hear it and see no reason to incurage fools and fat headed idots.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yes, it warmed. Somehow we survived. 

Faster than the natural rate?
How much faster than the "natural rate"?

*So, what was the last time the Arctic Ice Cap melted?*

The last time CO2 made the oceans boil.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's right, CO2 has never been this high.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure CO2 has been higher before.

How much faster than the "natural rate"?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 5, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...



All of which may be true, but the amount of money put into discrediting climate change from special interests (i.e. the coal industry in particular) has brain washed even those of average intelligence  and they believe for some unknown reason climate change data is faked as part of a liberal conspiracy.

Lincoln was correct, you can fool some of the people all of the time.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Todd,

CO2 may have been higher at some point in the past, but if it was, it was more than 800,000 years ago and long, long, long before the first hint of human civilization.  it was likely before the appearance of homo sapiens and probably neanderthal as well.

Additionally, as I think PMZ was trying to elicit from you, such changes in the past have come on with glacial slowness, over tens of thousands of years.  The really unprecedented feature of the current situation is the rate at which CO2 and temperatures have risen.  The world has not seen such a change since the KT boundary event (and that was 65 million years ago).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*Additionally, as I think PMZ was trying to elicit from you, such changes in the past have come on with glacial slowness*

You've got your warmers mixed up.

Help itfitzme out, how much faster than the "natural rate"?


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...










Aaaaaaannnnnnnd, the point is you can't prove one bit of it.  The global temp today is the same as it was in 1995 I think it was.  Can't access the NOAA site as they are having a hissy fit.


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> ...








The climate fraudsters have received ORDERS of magnitude more money than the sceptic side so that argument is simply ridiculous.  Plus they have had free reign with the media who actively support them.  For years it was impossible to hear a sceptic talk in the MSM.  As usual wry is full of shit.


The reason why the sceptics are winning is because the science is on OUR side and not yours.  If it were on yours there would be no need to squelch papers from dissenters, there would be no need to threaten to imprison and murder sceptics.

No, you are losing because you are lying through your teeth and the public knows it now.


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









Peer reviewed studies show the rate of change during the MWP and RWP were just as dramatic.  Newer research is showing the HTM was likewise rapid so once again your assertions are untrue...



Medieval Warm Period thesis contradicts the unprecedented warming

However, one must mention that, already the first half of the statement, that about the unprecedented warming, elicits significant question marks in many climate scientists and even at many historians. Wasnt there something like the medieval warm period? And in the opinion of many scientists, wasnt it warmer during this period than today?

The idea of a medieval warm period  was formulated for the first time in 1965 by the English climatologist Hubert H. Lamb [1].  Lamb, who founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971, saw the peak of the warming period from 1000 to 1300, i.e. in the High Middle Ages. He estimated that temperatures then were 1-2 ° C above the normal period of  1931-1960. In the high North, it was even up to 4 degrees warmer. The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost.

Glaciers were smaller than today

Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between about 900 to 1300 [2] speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today [3].

Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in  Regensburg this year [4].

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The treeline in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels are [5]. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland, and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today [6]. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated[4]. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that were never reached again later.



Google Übersetzer


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2013)

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > loa said:
> ...



Come on, the science is over, Al Gore said so.

Just give up your freedoms and your trillions, we know best.
We'll take it from here.


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 5, 2013)

*Game ... Set ... Match*

"Dear Members of the Harvard Community,"

"Climate change represents one of the worlds most consequential challenges.  I very much respect the concern and commitment shown by the many members of our community who are working to confront this problem.  I, as well as members of our Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility, have benefited from a number of conversations in recent months with students who advocate divestment from fossil fuel companies.  While I share their belief in the importance of addressing climate change, I do not believe, nor do my colleagues on the Corporation, that university divestment from the fossil fuel industry is warranted or wise."


Fossil Fuel Divestment Statement | Harvard University


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 5, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You're only looking at a series of ice ages there.. Not typical of the 500Mill yrs of life on this planet PRECEEDING those ice ages. And what happens when the earth is a frozen ball of ICE??? CO2 gets locked up under MILES of glacial ice.. You're a moron for not understanding that and relying on the internet phoneys to put words in your mouth.. Go pull a CO2 chart that goes back to the dinosaurs ---- if you can handle the truth... 



You're very annoying --- but somehow, for some reason, I still can suffer your act. Must be because you're really an actor just studying for the role of a scientist..   You're like the Jack Nicholas of science phoneys. So awful in character -- you just gotta love him..


----------



## PMZ (Oct 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



I believe,  that you believe,  that if you deny the science,  something changes.  

Nothing changes.  It has nothing to do with ''freedom'',  it has nothing to do with ''trillions'',  it has to do with reality.  Which is not in any way affected by your words.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> You're only looking at a series of ice ages there.. Not typical of the 500Mill yrs of life on this planet PRECEEDING those ice ages. And what happens when the earth is a frozen ball of ICE??? CO2 gets locked up under MILES of glacial ice.. You're a moron for not understanding that and relying on the internet phoneys to put words in your mouth.. Go pull a CO2 chart that goes back to the dinosaurs ---- if you can handle the truth...



500 million years of human life?  Human culture?  Human infrastructure? CO2 rising 30%/century?  No, no, no and no.  So what exactly is the relevance?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 6, 2013)

westwall said:


> Peer reviewed studies show the rate of change during the MWP and RWP were just as dramatic.  Newer research is showing the HTM was likewise rapid so once again your assertions are untrue...



Have you got something that looks very different from the graph below, because your quoted text does not support any contention concerning RATES of change during the MWP or the LIA.  And I have to ask (and will undoubtedly regret having done so) what is HTM?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2013)

Hall of Scientific Frauds

Piltdown Man






Peppered moth






Mann Hockey Schtick


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 6, 2013)

Here's a hoax:

You claim the scientists on the right are correct.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Peer reviewed studies show the rate of change during the MWP and RWP were just as dramatic.  Newer research is showing the HTM was likewise rapid so once again your assertions are untrue...
> ...



That chart is called MGH99.  It's another variation of the Hockey stick graph, and just as bogus.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Here's a hoax:
> 
> You claim the scientists on the right are correct.








"Hey, wait a minute. If science is done by consensus why you have to kill so many of us with those lab experiments? What the fuck. You'll hear from my attorney"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*I believe, that you believe, that if you deny the science, something changes. *

I think you should do all the science you want. I also think you should stop trying to deny publication to those who disagree. And you should stop lying about your data. And stop hiding data that disagrees with your theory.

* It has nothing to do with ''freedom''*

When you try to shut down coal plants, force smaller cars on people, force consumers to pay more for "green energy", force taxpayers to subsidize "green energy", it is about freedom.

*it has nothing to do with ''trillions'', *


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




When you ignore a hoax nothing happens other than that you don't waste trillions of dollars by pouring them down a rat hole, and you don't give government vast new powers to control you.  

Treating hoaxes as if they were reality is where the danger lies.  Con artists such as you should be rounded up and imprisoned.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 6, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You should be rounded up and imprisoned.  At worst we are trying to convince the government to spend more money cleaning up the environment than it might otherwise do.  You are the one putting humanity, irretrievably, in harms way.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What you are doing is perpetrating a hoax to con people out of trillions of dollars.  Fraud is a criminal offense.  When the entire world finally understands that AGW is nothing but a con, all the major perpetrators were be tried and imprisoned.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 6, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



How is anything I am doing about AGW putting money in MY pocket?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Cleaning up the environment is a good thing.
Wasting trillions treating CO2 as a pollutant is a joke.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



It's putting money in the pockets of the ringleaders of the scam, and a large majority of the weasels who support it.  They're all sucking on the government tit, and this scam will shovel vast new piles of plunder into the government's insatiable maw.

If your just one of the chumps being used in this con, you can only blame yourself for being such a pathetic dupe.


----------



## Desperado (Oct 6, 2013)

because of articles like this:
Unprecedented July Cold - Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Except it isn't a hoax or a fraud.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



How much faster than the "natural rate"?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Good question, why don't you figure it out?

Work from here






You may be able to find one that goes to 2013.  The actual data may be available.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 6, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Conservatives favorite trick. Accuse everyone else of their agenda. 

As big oil's propaganda team,  they work endlessly on behalf of wealth redistribution,  their way. Move the cost of their life style to their kids. Forward the bills for their cheap energy to the next generation. Deny science so everyone but them has to deal with the waste from their lives.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

Here is the thing that has to be addressed.






The blue dotted line is the monthly average for 1979 to 2006.  The grey bar that surround it is the +/- standard deviation of the monthly average.  

The 2007 to 2013 minimums are far beyond three standard deviations which is beyond the 95% confidence that they are the result of simply random variability.

In fact, the 2012 minimum is beyond the six sigma range, statistically impossible for random variability.

That really is the thing.  The fact that 2013 happens to be of greater extent than 2012 is meaningless.  It is particularly meaningless if we consider that this is all new ice.   The extent doesn't do justice to the volume.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You made the claim, you don't know?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It is obvious from examining the graph provided.  The exercise would be good for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The "natural rate" is obvious? Prove it.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I am busy working on something else.  If you wish to be in denial, that is just fine by me. Anyone with half a brain recognizes the obvious.  As they say, you can lead Toddster to the science, but you can't make him think.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The obvious "natural rate"? LOL!


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 6, 2013)

From my read of the graph provided:

Warming  rate leading in to the MWP: +0.045C/century

Warming rate from 1900 till 2000:       +0.9C/century

*RATIO*:                                           *20:1*

Still waiting for the research from Westwall that shows the warming rates were similar.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Todd, if you can't see it, just looking at the chart, then you're obviously being ignorant.  Sticking your head up your ass is a personal problem.

Nobody wants to hold your hand while you pull your head out of your ass.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> From my read of the graph provided:
> 
> Warming  rate leading in to the MWP: +0.045C/century
> 
> ...



Really?  That much? 

The issue I have with it is that the the change has occurred within the boundaries of what are otherwise just high frequency natural variation. Instead of dropping, it just continued up.  Yeah, I'll buy into your 20:1.   I just haven't decided how to deal with it quantitatively except it is obviously far beyond what has been normal.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 6, 2013)

There is nothing to deny.

Climate changes constantly and people surely have an effect.

What's not to be believed is that the world will end if the temps are a few degrees warmer.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> There is nothing to deny.
> 
> Climate changes constantly and people surely have an effect.
> 
> What's not to be believed is that the world will end if the temps are a few degrees warmer.



Where did you get the idea that the world would end?  Perhaps you are prone to catastophizing.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing to deny.
> ...



All you have to do is listen to the warming wackos.

"Millions will die." " We have to "save the planet" Floods, drought "extreme" weather yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



*"the world will end"*

That is your statement.

The population of the planet is 7 Billion.  Millions is 1000 times less than a Billion.  So, if millions die, that isn't the end of the world.

Flood and extreme drought are also not "the end of the world".

You can count beyond four, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*Millions is 1000 times less than a Billion*

500 million is 50% less than a billion.
50 million is 95% less than a billion.
5 million is 99.5% less than a billion.
500 thousand is 99.95% less than a billion.
50 thousand is 99.995% less than a billion.
5 thousand is 99.9995% less than a billion.
500 is 99.99995% less than a billion.
50 is 99.999995% less than a billion.
5 is 99.9999995% less than a billion.
1 is 99.9999999% less than a billion.
0 is 100% less than a billion.
What number is 1000 times (100000%) less than a billion?
I'm pretty sure it's not 1,000,000


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



1,000                      one thousand
1,000,000                one million
1,000,000,000          one billion.

1 million is 1000 times less than 1 billion.  (unless your in the UK, I don't know how they do things there.)

1 billion divided by 1000 is one million.

10^3  Thousand
10^6  Million
10^9  Billion

So what's your point, that I didn't bother with the "s" at the end of millions?

Thinking by finding stupid shit to whine about may be why you are having a hard time at science.

It seems like a form of catastophizing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*1 million is 1000 times less than 1 billion.*

Nope. 0 is "1 times less" than 1 billion.

1 million is one/thousandth of 1 billion.

Sorry, your stupid shit make me laugh, not whine.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What the f are you talking about?  Do you have any idea?  Cuz no one else does


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I'm considering using that brilliant and compassionate assertion in my footer.. How do you want your name to appear. All lower case??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Unless you're talking about a negative number, nothing is more than 1 times less than. Idiot.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> From my read of the graph provided:
> 
> Warming  rate leading in to the MWP: +0.045C/century
> 
> ...



You really are brainwashed or math challenged or both.. 

Your 0.045degC/century implies that the warming for MWP was only on the order of 0.1degC... That's ludicrous.... And nobody with an investment in the fight is gonna buy that.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > From my read of the graph provided:
> ...



From the graph that's been floating around here it looks to me as if the rise time of the MWP was 550 years in length and that over that period temperatures rose 0.25C.  If you've got different data, let's see it.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Right around the warming from 1980 to 2000!


----------



## PMZ (Oct 6, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Of course you must have scientific evidence to the contrary.  Where is it?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



It is comforting to know that we aren't talking about the end of all life.  Just some of it. 

No sense in solving such a minor problem.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 6, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I'lll take 500 yrs due to uncertainty in the record and give you 200 yrs UP and 200 yrs DOWN... So the rate you quoted does indeed stink and claims about 0.1degC at the peak... It's a fantasy.. I need at least 0.6degC for a peak --- and personally believe it to be LOCALLY IN PLACES as much as 1.5degC... 

Even with your assumptions --- you are waaaaaay the hell off..


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



He doesn't have to produce any contrary evidence, numskull.   Why do I have to keep explaining to you that people who make extraordinary claims have to provide extraordinary evidence to support those claims?  You know that guy you always see in cartoons carrying the sign that says "the end is near?"  You think any of the people walking past him feel obligated to provide evidence that the end is not near?  No, they just ignore him and go about their business.  Until you and your cult and produce convincing evidence that the end is indeed near, then you deserve the same treatment.

You and your fellow cult members are just a gang of kooks walking around in a daze mumbling "The end is near.  The end is near!"  Everyone with a brain just ignores you and goes about their business.


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 6, 2013)

The U.S. has gone the extra mile in mitigating carbon effluent. 

It's time for the rest of the world to pony up. Fuck the EPA, private enterprise in this country has affected the lowest C02 emissions in 20 years. 

Where's the International Carbon Credit Program? The rest of the world owes us fucking dividends.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Compare the graph "that's been floating around here" to the graph that the IPCC used prior to mann's fraud.  This graph reflects the actual published literature rather than the discredited claims of one man and the resulting papers that are based and dependent upon his work being right.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



One only need look back to the MWP, or the RWP to see that under the warming you claim will kill us all mankind actually flourished.  History tells us exactly what to expect.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Excuse the fuck out of me Mr Literal.

BTW those that live by literals shouldn't be questioning the intelligence of anyone.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You have yet to prove that millions will die if the earth is a couple degrees warmer.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



At this point he hasn't even proven that 1 will die over a temperature increase.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Compare the graph "that's been floating around here" to the graph that the IPCC used prior to mann's fraud.



It's been pointed out to you before how you're spouting a crazy falsehood there. Meaning you can't use ignorance as an excuse. You're deliberately lying now.

Nobody except members of the RightWingDingDong cult try to claim anymore that the MWP was warmer than today, because it's such a crazy claim, one so overwhelmingly disproved by the data. If you see someone make such a claim, it's a red flag that you're dealing with a person who regards loyalty to a political cult as being more important than honesty.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Compare the graph "that's been floating around here" to the graph that the IPCC used prior to mann's fraud.
> ...



Good point.  The ignorant excuse has been removed from the table. Day after day after day.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are playing stupid, ignorant word games.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Well, you are exaggerating someone else's statements.  If you want to be figurative, and claim that the "world is going to end", that's fine.  I think we can follow it.  But you are not being figurative, you are representing someone else's statements.  You are claiming that someone else said "the end of the world".

You are creating a strawman, attributing it to someone else, then arguing against it.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Another example of creating a strawman and presenting things out of context.

It is exactly what makes you a disingenuous asshole.  Everyone knows that the conversation is with regard to Spiderman's misrepresentation, exaggerating and catastrophizing by claiming someone said, "the end of the world."

It becomes pretty obvious who lies, misrepresents, and exaggerates.  

That would be you.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



To what someone did I attribute any statements?

I used a vague group of people, the warming wackos.  That alone should have been a clue that I was not being literal.  If I wanted to quote someone I would not have used such an inclusive and therefore ambiguous term.

As I said those who live by literals should not be questioning the intelligence of others


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You still haven't figured out that the second law of thermo is a statistical property?

You have absolutely no credibility as long as you keep presenting this ignorance.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



If you don't know who you were attributing it to the you have some real serious issues.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Why don't you tell me who I attributed it to then. Other than a very vague and amorphous group of wackos that is.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Exactly, a vauge group that you call "wackos".  A strawman group, a strawman argument.

If you are going to talk about science, you need to learn to be specific, precise and accurate.  This is what science is about, counting physical attributes and attending to them with precision and accuracy.  Science is all about literals.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Compare the graph "that's been floating around here" to the graph that the IPCC used prior to mann's fraud.
> ...



Is lying just your mode of communication  I have provided no less than 45 or50 published papers showing that the mwp was warmer than the present and global.  You guys have produced one.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Where was I "Talking science" ?

I did not cite any sources.

If you can't tell the difference between using a group's well known hyperbole as a starting point for an opposing opinion and someone presenting scientific fact then that's your deficiency.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Droughts:

China: 1876  1879 (Also known as the Great Famine). This drought caused rivers to run dry and * LITERALLY* killed 9 million people.

Africa: 1981  1984. During the crisis, an astounding 20 nations of Africa were under severe drought. Entire rivers and lakes completely dried up. Up to 20,000 people *LITERALLY* starved to death each month. Although the total number of people who perished is not completely known, it is estimated that over 1 million people * LITERALLY* died as a direct result of the drought.

1988
Summer, central and eastern U.S.: a severe drought and heat wave * LITERALLY * killed an estimated 5,00010,000 people, including heat stress-related deaths. Damages reached $40 billion.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Last I looked, climate change is a topic of science as is environment.

You are welcome to post all the bullshit you like, but don't be so surprise when I point out that it is* literally * bullshit.  Because, the is no group and no opinion that the world will come to an end.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> You are playing stupid, ignorant word games.



You're ignorant and uneducated; you really can't blame people for mocking you.....


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > You are playing stupid, ignorant word games.
> ...



Your proof being what?

That one million isn't 1000 times less than one billion?

Present anything except your uneducated and vague opinion.

Because, on a point by point basis, I am sure that my education far exceeds yours.

And, that you don't like something has never been a qualification for objective evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



"A is x Times Less Than B"


 Nonsense. 

Or x times fewer than something, or x times smaller than something, x times shorter / slower / cheaper / thinner / weaker  All nonsense!

 Think about it: 
"times" is a multiplier, as in:   3 times 2 is 6.
"smaller than", "less than" etc. indicate subtraction, as in:   2 less than 10 is 8. 

With that in mind, let's look at a few examples:


John worked 200 hours last month. Bill was on vacation most of that time, so he worked 10 times less than John.

 If Bill worked 1 hour less than John, he would have worked 200 - 1 = 199 hours.

But Bill worked "10 times" less than John. What is "10 times" in hours? Ten times the amount of John's work is 10 x 200 = 2,000 hours. 

Great! Now let's use that:
 Bill worked 2,000 hours less than John. In other words Bill worked 200 - 2,000 = -1,800 hours. 

Huh ??? 

Bill worked a negative 1,800 hours last month? I think not. See now how this is nonsense?


Times Less Than


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So the drought of 1876 was caused by man made global warming?

As I said climate changes all the time.  The only constant is change. Do people affect climate?  Certainly.  Will a slight rise in temperature cause millions of deaths in addition to those that already happen because of weather or natural disaster?

I highly doubt it.

Can you tell me how many people will die in addition to those that already would have if the average temp of the earth rises 2 degrees C?

No you can't.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



No just that millions will die blah blah blah

It's all hyperbole since no one can predict how much warmer the earth will actually get no one can predict that millions of people will die that wouldn't already die in droughts floods or what have you.

As i said I do not refute that the earth is slightly warmer or that it will be slightly more warm than it is today.  I do not refute that people and their actions especially on the scale we have now affect climate.

I am not falling for the dire predictions.

If you're dumb enough to that's your problem.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



No, idiot.  I made no such statement here or anywhere else.

I am just presenting some numbers of people that can *LITERALLY* die due to drought.

There-in lies your problem, and inability to grasp the concepts of "literal", "specific", "accurate", and "precise".

Clearly, as I pointed it out in bold, a number of times, I am *literally* showing you what *literal* means.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



People can and do die from all kinds of things.

But can you tell me that a 2 degree C rise in temp will cause more people to die than already would have?

NO

So all the dire predictions of the disasters coming due to warming are bullshit.
But that you can't seem to understand my posts isn't your fault it's mine.  I'm not used to conversing with people who can't think beyond the words on a page.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Your proof being what?
> 
> That one million isn't 1000 times less than one billion?
> 
> ...



On the interwebz, you're an academic star!


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



What is the evidence that causes your doubt? 

That,  like the cause that science attributes AGW to,  the effect either has never happened before,  or the effect has,  but due to other causes? 

That the science predicted effects are inconvenient? 

That you have a plan to mitigate the cause before the effect gets as destructive as the prediction. 

That,  as you won't be attending the future,  it doesn't matter to you? 

That you plan to be here in the future but your plan is to enjoy now at the expense of your future? 
That you don't believe that evidence is a more likely predictor of effects than random guesses? 

Fill us in.


----------



## Politico (Oct 7, 2013)

OMG it started raining. Why is my climate changing?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Politico said:


> OMG it started raining. Why is my climate changing?



Your climate isn't changing.  Your weather is.


----------



## Politico (Oct 7, 2013)

Shit you mean I just bought that bunker for nothing?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

AGW and sustainable energy will enrich many capitalists.  And impoverish others.  And kill still others.  On the average, humanity,  less the people killed,  will continue with less. 

There is no alternative to any of this.  It's underway and will continue for quite awhile to worsen. 

Science,  and other agents of change are formulating evidence based plans to minimize the average cost to humanity. 

Conservatives are trying to minimize their personal costs at the expense of the average.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The fact that political machinations are part of the game not just the science.


> That,  like the cause that science attributes AGW to,  the effect either has never happened before,  or the effect has,  but due to other causes?



There are too many unknowns to make predictions that can be believable.  No one know how warm the earth will get.  No one knows if there will be a desensitization to additional CO2.




> That the science predicted effects are inconvenient?



No it's that questionable predictions are presented as inevitable



> That you have a plan to mitigate the cause before the effect gets as destructive as the prediction


. 

We have already cut emissions in this country significantly.  How you are going to get other major developing countries to do the same is the real question now isn't it?



> That,  as you won't be attending the future,  it doesn't matter to you?



It really won't matter to anyone who is alive today as not too many of us will be around in a century to see if the predictions will be true or false.  I'll bet on false.



> That you plan to be here in the future but your plan is to enjoy now at the expense of your future?


 You seem to think that I alone, one man can have such an effect as to threaten the future.

I daresay I probably have a smaller footprint than most of you as far as GH emissions are concerned.  I do it because that's how I want to live but I refuse to tell others how they should live.



> That you don't believe that evidence is a more likely predictor of effects than random guesses?
> 
> Fill us in.



Predictions of disaster have one goal; to instill fear in the public so as to control them.

That's how politics works and you cannot divorce politics from the science here.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Yeah, that is it.  Mind control, black helicoptors and the CIA beaming microwaves into your room at night.

I met a guy at McDonald's, yesterday, just like you.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Your proof being what?
> ...



Still the same old bullshit.  Nothing of actual intelligence to add.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yes try to marginalize everything I said because I mention that political machinations are an integral part of the climate debate. And I never mentioned mind control black helicopters or the CIA.  If you think government doesn't attempt to control behavior via propaganda then you sir are a moron.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Nor have you presented any evidence of this political driven science.

I couldn't care less about your political machinations.

The evidence of science is not open to political debate and is presented in terms of the statistical probability of likelihood.  It always has been and always will.

What I have seen, repeatedly, is an constant, emotionally driven, drone of vague accusations and insinuations that the climate science is presented with political bias.  I have consistently found that the information presented by deniers is demonstrably wrong. And, if anything might be taken as politically biased, it would be this.

I am surprised that no one has presented the fact that climate scientists exhale CO2 as proof that they are politically biased.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> Give me 3 good reasons why I should care that the climate is changing.



You shouldn't, unless you have children and you actually like them.  Then you might care.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



The science says what the IPCC. says it does.  The politicians of the world will,  as agreed,  have that input. 

The political world will be split among many different alternative actions (as is true 100 percent of the time).  As is true today,  those against the actions recommended by the science will deny the science. 

In the end what will result is doing less than what the science will recommend as minimum cost,  followed by the consequences,  followed by trying to hurry,  resulting in a higher average cost to humanity,  and blame for the politicians. 

And science struggling not to say that we told you so.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> > Give me 3 good reasons why I should care that the climate is changing.
> ...



Non answer......typical.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



All the dire "predictions of the disasters coming due" is not "bullshit".  Depending on what those predictions are, they are simply a matter of time.  The timing is, of course, everything.

I can tell you that more people will die than would have if no one wore seat belts.  I can tell you that more people will die than would have if everyone smoked cigarettes.   Of course a 2 degree C rise in temp will cause more people to die than already would have.   How many, I don't know, hopefully it will be you and not someone else that actually gives a shit.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.24.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.55.6, 6.2, 13.2}

Beyond this, it becomes an exercise in morbid curiosity.  

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.24.7}

This is probably the most significant issue;

"Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8). {12.4, 14.3} "

"Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8} "

*"It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase.* It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and duration. Occasional cold winter extremes will continue to occur (see Table SPM.1). {12.4}"

If you are looking for a sudden catastrophic event, you will be sorely disappointed, because it isn't some single and sudden catastrophic event.  If I am to understand it appropriately, we can expect a significant shift in the climate with an increase in drought magnitude and duration in already drought susceptible regions along with an increase in precipitation events in precipitation susceptible regions.

Simply put, whatever the worse weather is that an area gets, it will be more of it.

That is in our lifetime.  Unabated, global warming and climate change isn't going to impact us, individually, beyond that.  Prices may take a hit, as crops fail more often.  Unabated, it will get worse over the span of a century.  You will be dead and gone by then, so you don't have to worry about it.  You can go watch reruns on TV.

But, why would we intentionally fuck things up for ourselves and everyone else?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...



That is a very specific answer.  It won't matter much to you, personally. But then, you are still living in la la land where thermodynamics is deterministic.

And, seeing as you can't think beyond next month, I'm sure that you really don't give a crap about next decade or next century.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No scientist can accurately predict how warm the temp will get.  No scientist can accurately predict the results of any temperature rise.

Saying that the dire doom and gloom predictions are inevitable is not science.

That is politics.

The reality is that there will most likely be winners and losers because of the changing climate.  The entire human race will not all be affected deleteriously.

Why is it that no one ever talks about the possible positive effects of climate change?

Certainly areas too cold for sustainable agriculture will experience a lengthened growing season.  Would these positives not offset some of the negatives?


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The IPCC is a political organization.

Sorry but you cannot with any certainty prove anything you say will happen for a fact.

There are potentially many benefits to a slightly warmer climate.

Why do you ignore what is such a simple idea in favor of your catastrophic mind set?

It's not for the scientists to do anything but dispassionately present their findings with the caveat that their predictions might be completely wrong.

But they don't do that they like you are predicting inevitable catastrophes 

That alone is reason not to get too worked up about it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> The IPCC is a political organization.



I don't know what you mean by that.  I don't think you do either.  The IPCC is funded by and manned with scientists from the UN member nations.  The reports it has put out have all been affected by political pressures.  Invariably, for every single report, the political pressure has pushed the scientists to minimize the hazards they see, to tone their projections downward, to tell the world it has more time.  And with the exception of the recent hiatus, in every case, what the scientists wanted to say was more accurate, and more alarming, than what the politicians made them say.



Spiderman said:


> Sorry but you cannot with any certainty prove anything you say will happen for a fact.



Sorry, but you've proven yourself - WITH CERTAINTY - to have no familiarity with the scientific method or the natural sciences.  Did you actually consider that a worthwhile retort?  The best climate scientists on the planet just told you what they believe will happen, why it will happen and gave a numerical measure to their certainty.  And you respond with THAT?  Good grief Charlie Brown. 



Spiderman said:


> There are potentially many benefits to a slightly warmer climate.



The Arctic will turn into a huge fertile farmland that will feed the world.  The Himalayas will melt and people will be able to walk across them with much less trouble than before.  The oceans will get warm enough that the deprived children of Maine and Washington State can go to the beach and take a dip while the people in the Bahamas can use the seas to make delicious soft boiled eggs.

Give us a break, will you?  That "beneficial" crap has sailed.



Spiderman said:


> Why do you ignore what is such a simple idea in favor of your catastrophic mind set?



I haven't the faintest idea what simple idea you're talking about, but I strongly suspect that it's being ignored because that's precisely what it deserves.



Spiderman said:


> It's not for the scientists to do anything but dispassionately present their findings with the caveat that their predictions might be completely wrong.



Yo, Whizbrain, that's exactly what they just did.  It's what they've always done.  The problem isn't their research or their conclusions or their reports - it's your unjustified prejudice and your apparently willful scientific incompetence.



Spiderman said:


> But they don't do that they like you are predicting inevitable catastrophes
> That alone is reason not to get too worked up about it.



You demonstrating your failure to grasp even the basics is reason to get upset.  You've got a vote, for god's sake.  You need an education before you hurt someone.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> That is a very specific answer.  It won't matter much to you, personally. But then, you are still living in la la land where thermodynamics is deterministic.
> 
> And, seeing as you can't think beyond next month, I'm sure that you really don't give a crap about next decade or next century.



Don't you think...well, I am off the mark there because it is clear that you don't think, but wouldn't you suppose that if the second law of thermodynamics was about statistics, that the f'ing statement of the law might say something about statistics?

It doesn't.  The second law is an absolute statement made in absolute terms.  No wiggle room, no backradiation...no energy in any amount moving from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.  

I am afraid that it is you who is in la la land.  The statement of the second law supports my position since my position happens to be the statement of the second law.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



You have no science behind what you wish to be true.  You are pretending that your wishes are equally likely as IPCC science which is,  of course,  typical political opinion. 

The problem that we face is that adaptation to a changed climate will be very expensive,  will,  as you pointed out,  create winners and losers,  and the resulting tension and friction will have their own consequences. And it will occur in the midst of mankind's largest project ever,  the inevitable move to permanent energy supplies. 

The world seems to not be able to avoid trouble and chaos in good times,  no telling how we'll do in bad times.  

I believe that hoping for only inconveniences is just like counting on a miracle. 

My experience is that miracles seldom,  maybe never,  occur.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



There is zero evidence that the IPCC is anything but what their mission states.  You are counting on a politically motivated conspiracy theory to be true.  Trying to avoid that is what inspired the UN to create the IPCC. 

The forces of politics are relentless.  It is not in the least bit unusual for politicians to employ all manner of truth bending to get their way.  On the other hand,  it's extremely unusual in legitimate science.  Maybe even unprecedented. 

People who side with politics and deny science are politicians.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > That is a very specific answer.  It won't matter much to you, personally. But then, you are still living in la la land where thermodynamics is deterministic.
> ...



This is not about what the second law says,  it's about what you think and say it says. You have demonstrated that you are unequipped to define the law.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> This is not about what the second law says,  it's about what you think and say it says. You have demonstrated that you are unequipped to define the law.



Unlike you, I don't interpret things in an attempt to make them say what I wished they said.  But by all means, if you think you can bring forward an accepted statement of the second law that says it is all about statistical probabilities, then do it.  Unless it says it is about probabilities, then it is not about probabilities.  You do demonstrate quite effectively, however, what is wrong with post modern science.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

Here's the 2ond Law from Wikipedia. 

''The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibriumthe state of maximum entropy.''

'' Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.''

''The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because thermodynamic equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve towards such thermodynamic equilibrium.''

''It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium''

''The second law may be expressed in many specific ways, but the first formulation is credited to the French scientist Sadi Carnot in 1824 (see Timeline of thermodynamics). Strictly speaking, the early statements of the Second Law are only correct in a horizontal plane in a gravitational field.''

''The second law has been shown to be equivalent to the internal energy U being a weakly convex function, when written as a function of extensive properties (mass, volume, entropy, ...).[1][2]''


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's the 2ond Law from Wikipedia.
> 
> ''The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibriumthe state of maximum entropy.''
> 
> ...



wiki?  I am laughing in your stupid face.

I provide you with a statement of the second law from the physics department at Georgia State University...one of the most respected physics programs in the country and you respond with wiki.....really?

Once more....I am laughing out loud in your stupid face.


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








What happened during the Holocene Thermal Maximum when temps were warmer than today?


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the 2ond Law from Wikipedia.
> ...








Stupid and lazy.  Only lazy dumbasses use wiki.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the 2ond Law from Wikipedia.
> ...



I keep forgetting.  Conservatives are not permitted to learn from sources not approved by cult media propaganda. 

OK with me.  The more ignorant conservatives are the faster the movement will flush.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



What happened to who?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 7, 2013)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



We all died.


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 7, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> Give me 3 good reasons why I should care that the climate is changing.


 
1) Ka-ching! 







So Al Gore can continue to collect millions of dollars in speaking infotainment engagements every week.

2) So Climategate Professor, Phil Jones, can continue to feel good about himself. 






Prof. Jones has admitted sending 'some pretty awful' emails refusing to send information on to other scientists.

3) So you can plan what to wear:






or






​​​


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL. I do really believe that you are that fucking dumb.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Maybe you can tell me the last time CO2 made the oceans boil?


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Every living thing.


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







More wiki crap?  Find a better source.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



More unjustified Wikipedia cop-out?  Find a real argument or just admit the truth.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I keep forgetting.  Conservatives are not permitted to learn from sources not approved by cult media propaganda.
> 
> OK with me.  The more ignorant conservatives are the faster the movement will flush.



Are you even remotely aware of the problems wiki has had with information relating to climate change science, among other things?  Asking wiki about any controversial issue is like asking tobacco companies about the dangers of tobacco.  Only an idiot would refer to wiki on any topic related to climate science.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We know it didn't happen at 7000ppm


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Wiki is custom tailored for his sort of mind set....all dogma all the time.....talking points in easily digestible chunks.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 8, 2013)

Go to this link and locate for us "climate change", global warming" or "agw"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues

Yeah, amazing command of the facts you've got there Sid.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Go to this link and locate for us "climate change", global warming" or "agw"
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues
> 
> Yeah, amazing command of the facts you've got there Sid.



I don't go to wiki....ever.  It is pointless to go to questionable sources and people who use them become questionable.

If you can't find an edit of the second law that suits you outside of wiki then the discussion is over because compared to the University of Georgia Physics Department, wiki doesn't even rise to the level of toilet paper.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> OK with me. The more ignorant conservatives are the faster the movement will flush.


 
I have to disagree with you here P.  The more ignorance in the world, the more conservatives.  I mean, look at some of the examples around here.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Go to this link and locate for us "climate change", global warming" or "agw"
> ...


 
I've got a decent explanation in my old Thermo textbook, but, GUESS WHAT?  It says the same thing Wiki says and I don't have to transcribe it from the paper to the screen.

EVERYBODY knows that when people - almost universally conservatives - argue that Wikipedia is a bad source, the real cause of their objection is that they've been caught with their pants down.  Wikipedia has been found to be more accurate than the Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Good enough for me.  If they say that your understanding of thermodynamics is complete bullshit (and they do) I believe 'em.  Of course, they're only confirming the conclusion at which I'd already arrived.  But that's what happens when you're right about something.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I have never denied the science.

The earth is warming slightly

People have an effect on climate.

I am of the mind that the predictions are overblown and exaggerated and is the result of politicizing the science.

Sorry but to say that a couple degree rise in temperature will be disastrous for the entire planet is just as bad as saying the climate is not changing.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 8, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



There is no reliable prediction as to how much sea levels will rise.

Your inevitable doom scenario is best taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 8, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



What is reliable is that there is no evidence or prediction that sea levels will remain constant or drop over the time period in question.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...



You must realize that a rise of 1 foot is no where near as devastating as a rise of 10 feet.

So to assume that sea levels will rise enough to displace billions of people is a bit Chicken Little-ish.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I keep forgetting.  Conservatives are not permitted to learn from sources not approved by cult media propaganda.
> ...



I have yet to find an error or non-objective presentation.  You object because they don't report denialists lies.  They shouldn't.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



How do you decide which IPCC findings are convenient enough to accept and which are too inconvenient?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*It's disastrous for people who live near the coast, that's 2 billion or so peeps who are moving inland*

After we waste...err...invest trillions on inefficient, less reliable energy sources, how much cooler will it be in 2080 than otherwise?
How many fewer people will have to move?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > OK with me. The more ignorant conservatives are the faster the movement will flush.
> ...



Good point.  However,  now that more and more people understand that the foundation of contemporary conservatism is misinformation willing accepted by self interest,  and delivered through paid media by wannabe plutocrats,  the movement is seen as temporary and on its way out.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Predictions aren't "findings".


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > OK with me. The more ignorant conservatives are the faster the movement will flush.
> ...



ROFL!

You hardly serve as a good case example of the intellectual superiority of liberals.  Neither you, PMS, or itdiotme are good examples.


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








wiki isn't allowed by any college professor I know, you dimwit.  It's not a copout because wiki is unreliable.  End of story.  There are plenty of good sources out there, go find them, wiki is for lazy jackasses who don't wish to do any decent work.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



A good rule of thumb is to ignore everything coming from a proven gang of discredited con artists.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



it's hardly disasterous.  In the next 100 years, people will have to move inland approximately 6 feet.  I think society can manage that change.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...



In other words, no one has a clue about what will happen with sea levels.


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Go to this link and locate for us "climate change", global warming" or "agw"
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues
> 
> Yeah, amazing command of the facts you've got there Sid.







As I said, more wiki BS.  Here is just one example of the shenanigans that go's on at wiki.  I won't even touch on the guy who personally altered over 5000 global warming entries to do away with any of the skeptical arguments, so yes, wiki is unreliable and biased.

"The accuracy of Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, came into question again when a long-standing article on 'NPA personality theory' was confirmed to be a hoax. Not only had the article survived at Wikipedia for the better part of a year, but it had even been listed as a 'Good Article,' supposedly placing it in the top 0.2-0.3% of all Wikipedia articles  despite being almost entirely written by the creator of the theory himself."



Long-Term Wikipedia Vandalism Exposed - Slashdot


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You have already demonstrated your inability to detect any errors in the dogma of the Chicken Little Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Go to this link and locate for us "climate change", global warming" or "agw"
> ...



You can't really argue with zealots and warmers are clearly zealots...so removed from reality as to have entirely lost touch.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Only the most deluded nutburger warmist cult member believes the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are going to melt.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...



The last time they were free of ice was 20 million years ago.  Because of Continental drif and thei current locations of thee land masses, that can't happen any longer.  Because of the circum polar current, Atarctica is climactically isolated from the rest of the world.  Warm water can't reach it.  That wasn't the case when it was attached to South America.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 8, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Karla: The current rise in sea level started WELL before there was enough man-made CO2 in the atmosphere to matter.. The rate is damn close to a straight line since the 1600s.. 

So if there IS a problem with that rate of rise, we had better find the REAL CAUSE of it don't ya think?  Because all of the HYSTERICAL projections that were made about that rate increasing have just been downgraded. 

The climate does change.. We came on the scene during a series of 4 oscillating Ice Ages.
Go ahead and make the infrastructures changes to the coastlines. But don't try to snow me with a discredited theory that allows political intervention into every aspect of our lives..


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



I agree.  All politicians are con artists.  Their skill is selling what's best for them to others who it might not be the best for.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



That may be the average.  There is wide variability around it though.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Science does.  Politics doesn't.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Go to this link and locate for us "climate change", global warming" or "agw"
> ...



Who is better qualified to write about a theory than the creator of the theory?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You,  giving the IPCC an insulting name,  says absolutely nothing about them,  but defines you.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Anybody who prefers ignorance, over a zeal for science, is merely choosing irrelevance.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The evidence supporting what you want to be true is?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



But the ice is melting in Greenland.  It's been demonstrated.  The question is,  if it's melting now,  and we have no alternative but to continue putting more megatons of GHGs into the atmosphere,  what's to limit the melting?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...



So if it has happened before why do you believe we are responsible this time?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Can you say circular reasoning?


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...










Yet another in a long line of socks....  they just don't get it do they!


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...










  And this post in a nutshell demonstrates PmsMZ's complete break with reality....


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...









Oooooh, megatons of CO2, ooooh what a big number!  Biggest you could come up with there mr. luddite?  Compare millions with quadrillions, which is the weight of the atmosphere.  That's why CO2 is measure in PARTS PER MILLION, because there is so little of it.


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...










Because then they can steal our money.  That's WHY!


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...










I was thinking more like NO REASONING, as in you can't reason with an insane person...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Now as soon as you admit that the IPCC is a group of politicians, you'll be on your way to recovery.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Because that is the impact of returning the carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere from being being sequestered in the ground for lo these millions of years. We did that.  Mother nature was happy with it in the ground where she put it.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So,  you don't read Einstein's publications of his theories?  What do you do?  Wait for the Classic Comics version from Fox.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Nobody ''gets'' what you wish was true.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Is this supposed to have meaning?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...



And you'd rather dump the responsibility for your life on others.  Leech!


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



But they're scientists.  Politicians are people like Rush,  and the Fox boobs and boobies,  and the Koch bios,  and Boehner and McConnell.  No wonder you're hopelessly confused if you can't distinguish between politics and science.  

Try to remember this analogy.  

Science is like your brain. 

Politics is like your asshole.  You know,  the thing that you think with.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 8, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



January is the warmest month of the year in Antarctica and the average temp is - 27 Celsius

The best guess is that temps will rise 2 degrees C  by 2100

Tell me now that any of the ice cap in Antarctica will melt any time soon.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 8, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> They've melted before in earth's history, so why wouldn't they ever do it again?



Really? All those dino-SUV's pumping out CO2? 

ROFL

You cultists are such morons...


----------



## mamooth (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> I won't even touch on the guy who personally altered over 5000 global warming entries to do away with any of the skeptical arguments, so yes, wiki is unreliable and biased.



Ah yes, the William Connelly conspiracy theory. All denialists are required to chant it. It's Based on Lawrence Solomon's wacky fabrications. It is an interesting illustration of how conspiracy theories sweep through the denialosphere. Because this one reinforces their sense of victimhood, they believe it with all their little hearts, and nothing will ever convince them otherwise.

And yes, the story is BS. That kind of goes without saying. I could say more, but it would be more fun to get Westwall to double down on it first.


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









If you weren't a scientific illiterate you would know what it meant.


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...









I'm not the one demanding you give me your cash asshat.  The only leeches here are you and yours.  You are too  lazy to go out and get an education and get a good job so you are part of this fraud hoping to rake in the big bucks when the government go's out and confiscates everything from those who DO work.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I won't even touch on the guy who personally altered over 5000 global warming entries to do away with any of the skeptical arguments, so yes, wiki is unreliable and biased.
> ...



"All denialists are required to chant it."

It is well understood that teenage girls make decisions and rules by consensus. The very nature of reality is determined by consensus.

Denialists also, like a bunch of teenage girls, think by consensus.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



"You are too lazy to go out and get an education and get a good job"

Yeah, now you have just gone of the deep end of projections and transference fantasy land. 

" the government go's out and confiscates everything from those who DO work."

And have no actual understanding of how the economy works as last I looked, the government hasn't confiscated food, cars, houses, etc.....  

We could talk about that eminent domain thing.  We could talk about SNAP and the massive assistance given to farmers.  We could talk about what "confiscate" means, in an economic sense.  Or you can play some word game regarding what you mean by "the government go's out and confiscates everything".  But the reality is that you are absolutely clueless, expressing some sort of wild eyed, amygdala driven, cerebellum deficient,  fantasy of you're own creation. 

Now we know exactly how crazy you really are.


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I won't even touch on the guy who personally altered over 5000 global warming entries to do away with any of the skeptical arguments, so yes, wiki is unreliable and biased.
> ...








Sure it was.....  You losers are so easy to manipulate!

*How Wikipedias green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles*


How Wikipedia?s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles


 The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

 The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

 The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world  Wikipedia  in the wholesale rewriting of this history.


Read more at LiveLeak.com - UK Green MP William Connolley - Wikipedia?s climate doctor


Recently, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee determined that William M. Connolley has, on a number of occasions misused his administrator tools by acting while involved and, as a consequence, William M. Connolleys administrative privileges are revoked.  [Link: en.wikipedia.org/.../Abd-William_M._Connolley]


Global Warming 
Issues with Wikipedia 
 In general, Wikipedia provides good information on various subjects. However, when it comes to Global Warming, the quality goes down considerably. 
The main problem is that the articles push a single point of view ... very strongly. The "rules" are that new information can not be added unless it is published in a peer reviewed journal. Well, for something this controversial, that is a good rule. However, these guys cheat - even when it is in a journal, and even when written by their heroes, these guys remove anything that does not agree with their preconceived position. Really. 

There is way too much to say - it is not worth my time to write it all down. This page just gives a few examples. 

Global Warming - Issues with Wikipedia

Know-alls - In Depth - theage.com.au

A good example of William M. Connolley?s work on Wikipedia. | Wikipedia Watch

And on and on....


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...










 * "The Science is Settled"*


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Turds like you and PMS are the ones who are always chanting the "concensus" mantra.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Seems to be what you keep claiming.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



In your imagination.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...



Try the IPCC report AR5, for one.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...



Horeshit.  I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



It's recorded here in the forum.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Study finds Greenland rebounding fast in response to ice loss - implications? 

Greenland bedrock rebounding fast as ice departs - earthquake risk? - Fairfax Climate Watch






June | 2012 | Dr. Steve Best

Are you just stupid on purpose?

NASA is shut down but Google has archived alot of images at

https://www.google.com/search?q=gre...noaa.gov%2Fdetect%2Fice-glacier.shtml;540;270


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> And this post in a nutshell demonstrates PmsMZ's complete break with reality....



Stunning, isn't it?  Just when you think you have set the bar as low as possible for them, they slip under it like a limbo king.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Now as soon as you admit that the IPCC is a group of politicians, you'll be on your way to recovery.



The believe that a real scientific body would put an ex railroad engineer / soft core porn writer in charge of their organization.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Because that is the impact of returning the carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere from being being sequestered in the ground for lo these millions of years. We did that.  Mother nature was happy with it in the ground where she put it.



You think the earth thinks about where CO2 goes and actually has feelings about it?  You just keep providing insights into your thinking.  It doesn't look good for you.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Turds like you and PMS are the ones who are always chanting the "concensus" mantra.



I honestly think that they don't think anyone has noticed.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Pull it forward, seeing as you are so confident.

BTW, have you figured out photosynthesis and soil carbon yet?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Looky here, a website by the NSIDC dedicated just to Greenland's declining ice.

Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 8, 2013)

Food for thought - and discussion

Antarctic ice grows as climate warms - environment - 02 April 2013 - New Scientist

Antarctic ice grows as climate warms

17:52 02 April 2013 by Fred Pearce
Magazine issue 2911. 

Call it a tale of two poles. While sea ice in the Arctic is vanishing fast, the extent of Antarctic ice has increased. Good explanations for the growth of ice in the Southern Ocean have been hard to find, but now the problem may have been cracked. Counter-intuitively, it seems global warming may be cooling southern surface waters.

Nobody predicted that the fate of ice at each pole would take such different paths in just 30 years, with Arctic sea ice dropping more than 15 per cent, even as Antarctic ice has risen by more than 5 per cent. The link between global warming and melting in the Arctic is clear cut, but the situation is more complex in the south. There, ocean water below a depth of 100 metres has been getting warmer, in line with rising ocean temperatures worldwide, but surface waters and the air above have become cooler.

The reason, say Richard Bintanja and colleagues at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, is that the deep warm water is melting the shelves of floating ice that extend from the continent. This is setting off flotillas of icebergs and creating a layer of cool, fresh water at the ocean's surface. Measurements and previous modelling studies show this is happening, say Bintanja and his team.

They hypothesise that the layer of cool surface water insulates the remaining floating ice from warm deep currents. Using a climate model, they show that a realistic injection of cool meltwater should bulk up Antarctic ice. They predict these trends will continue.

It sounds like good news &#8211; a powerful negative feedback on global warming. And it is. But the process has an unexpected consequence for global sea levels.

Climate models predict that, in a warmer world, ice slipping off Antarctica will raise sea levels. But they also show warmer air will hold more moisture, generating more snowfall over Antarctica. Piled up on the continent, that snow will keep water out of the oceans and moderate or even reverse the sea level rise from Antarctic melting.

Bintanja says that is wrong. Warm deep ocean currents will keep eating away at the ice shelves. But the cooler than anticipated air will evaporate less moisture and produce less snow. "More water stays in the ocean," he told New Scientist. Result: a cooler climate but more sea level rise.

This is controversial. Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey says the results make sense but thinks his own theory blaming the extra ice on changing wind patterns may contribute.

The issue needs to be resolved if we want accurate predictions of sea level rise. A draft of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could only say that the growth of Antarctic sea ice is "consistent with internal variability" &#8211; meaning it is essentially random. Testable hypotheses like those proposed by Bintanja and Holland help provide reliable forecasts.

Journal reference: Nature Geoscience, doi.org/k2r


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 8, 2013)

Sometimes "counterintuitively" just means "yeah we can't figure it out either"


----------



## mamooth (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Sure it was.....  You losers are so easy to manipulate!



Poor Westwall. He never learns not to hook himself. And he'll never make it into the reason-based community. In the reason-based community, if we make a claim, we don't show opinion pieces by partisan cranks to back it up. We show the actual data. I know, crazy, huh? At least by denialist standards, it's totally insane, looking at data instead of political opinions.

Now, on to the primary data. If Mr. Connolly is deleting all contrary opinions to push his AGW bias on Wikipedia, the deletion logs will show it. Let's look at his Wikipedia deletion log.

Deletion log - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since he's supposedly such a demon, you should find hundreds of cases of censorship in that wiki deletion log. But concerning the topic of global warming, there are 3 or 4 deletions. All minor bookkeeping stuff that no one cared about, not even the page authors.

So, the denialists were completely bamboozled by their denialist masters. Who didn't tell them that Wikipedia has conflict-of-interest rules that are strictly enforced, and that any actions an editor takes in his area must be reviewed by multiple unfriendly eyes. And the poor denialists never even considered looking at actual data, being it's so totally foreign to their nature to look at data instead of political screeds.

There's more. Here's his protection log, and his block log. Should be chock full of thousands of evil biased ... oh wait, it's still all just very mundane wiki stuff. 

Protection log - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Block log - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, the stories of demon Connolly single-handedly making thousands of adjustments to push AGW are wild fabrications, as proven by the Wikipedia logs.

That's point one, that some denialists lied their asses off.

Point two is that denialist cultists like Westwall won't care. They'll still repeat the big lie, even after it's been proven to be a big lie. To hardcore denialists, cult loyalty trumps truth every time. No stupid facts have ever changed Westwall's mind before, and he's not going to change his ways now.


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








  Quite the contrary.  That is the AGW cultists' meme.  The rest of the world is saying "hold on here, what evidence do you have for your dogma?"


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Food for thought - and discussion
> 
> Antarctic ice grows as climate warms - environment - 02 April 2013 - New Scientist
> 
> ...









"While Arctic ice is vanishing fast...."  With a statement like that, when presented with the reality below....one can't take anything these clowns have to say seriously...


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 8, 2013)

How would you characterize Arctic ice extents and mass trends since the beginning of satellite data?  I know you fellows are all really excited about this season's improved melt, but do you actually think you've got enough data to announce some kind of turn-around?  I mean, what do you think is happening now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Food for thought - and discussion
> ...



Is the pink color where the ocean is boiling?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Refer to these posts:

#484
#586
#588
#589
#1163
#1177
#1183
#1240
#1241
#1282
#1509

And that's just in this thread.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 8, 2013)

What's with you and the boiling ocean?  Has anyone ever claimed the ocean would boil or is the problem that you're not able to recognize facetiousness or sarcasm?  That'd be a shame.  I think it's time to put you back on the ignore list.  Just too much insightfully cutting repartee.  ;-)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> What's with you and the boiling ocean?  Has anyone ever claimed the ocean would boil or is the problem that you're not able to recognize facetiousness or sarcasm?  That'd be a shame.  I think it's time to put you back on the ignore list.  Just too much insightfully cutting repartee.  ;-)



Hansen was being sarcastic when he said the oceans could begin to boil? 
Starting at 2:00.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8]James Hansen: The Runaway Greenhouse Effect - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What's with you and the boiling ocean?  Has anyone ever claimed the ocean would boil or is the problem that you're not able to recognize facetiousness or sarcasm?  That'd be a shame.  I think it's time to put you back on the ignore list.  Just too much insightfully cutting repartee.  ;-)
> ...



They could, if the greenhouse effect went into a runaway condition.  What is it that you are having problems with?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Try presenting it and demonstrate what you think it means.  We will have a great time laughing at you.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 8, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > *When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's* then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.
> ...



Obviously.........*rolling eyes*


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

What is this thing????


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

peach174 said:


> *When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's* then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.
> 
> They also are not addressing why so many planets in our solar system climates are changing also.
> 
> It seems to be tied to something that is happening to our Solar System not mankind's pollution.



You need to stop believing every single thing you read and learn about the things that you do.






" This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature"

You might also consider that 1970 was 40 years ago, so you should get over it.

Try keeping up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I'm having problems with the claim our oceans could boil.
Maybe the warmers should run a new computer model? LOL!


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well, then you are scientifically illiterate so it isn't surprising you have trouble.  Evaporate might be a more apt term.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/

"In the past few years, however, physicists have been training supercomputers on the lowly water molecule, calculating its properties from first principles&#8212;and finding that it absorbs more radiation at more wavelengths than they'd realized before. In a paper published this week in Nature Geosciences, those calculations have rippled into a simple climate model. The paper's conclusion contains this slightly unsettling sentence: "The runaway greenhouse may be much easier to initiate than previously thought.""

.....


"What my results show is that if you put about ten times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gas&#8212;about 30,000 parts per million&#8212;then you could cause a runaway greenhouse today. So burning all the fossil fuels won't give us a runaway greenhouse. "

So, it seems a bit iffy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*Well, then you are scientifically illiterate so it isn't surprising you have trouble. Evaporate might be a more apt term.*

Hansen is scientifically illiterate, just because he said the oceans could boil?
You should tell him yourself.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well, I don't generally watch video.  I am a reader.  So I have no idea what the video says.

You shouldn't worry your pretty head about it though.  AWG will be a disaster well before that occurs, if at all.

The realist issues are species habitat changes, drougth, and excessive precipitation.  Maybe coastline erosion.

Hopefully the permafrost melt won't release too much methane.

If you are looking for definitive amswers, you migh want to stick to accounting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*In 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."*_

Ohhh, the Venus syndrome. Sounds scary, quick, let's spend trillions on inefficient energy._


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



There is only one point of view in climate science as well as most other sciences. You won't find both scientist and denialist viewpoints for gravity or nuclear fusion or quantum mechanics or black holes or EM energy or etc. 

Denialists have a completely unsupported wish for an alternative universe which is a plain old pipe dream.  You won't find it any textbooks.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You appear to be completely unaware that the rebounding in your reference refers to is the land mass rising due to the loss of ice weight.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What you see as convincing evidence is completely irrelevant,  a position that you've chosen.


----------



## P@triot (Oct 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> How would you characterize Arctic ice extents and mass trends since the beginning of satellite data?  *I know you fellows are all really excited about this season's improved melt*, but do you actually think you've got enough data to announce some kind of turn-around?  I mean, what do you think is happening now?



It *expanded* by 60% - there was *no* "melt"...


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Show us a quote from it.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_

How can fuel-less,  waste-less energy be inefficient?_


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > How would you characterize Arctic ice extents and mass trends since the beginning of satellite data?  *I know you fellows are all really excited about this season's improved melt*, but do you actually think you've got enough data to announce some kind of turn-around?  I mean, what do you think is happening now?
> ...



Time for you to get your facts straight. 

http://nsidc.org/icelights/2013/09/16/are-we-cooling/


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


_

If you think there's no waste running cars off of batteries, then you're an ignoramus.  By the time the power actually reaches the road, 90% of it has been wasted.  Then you have to consider all the money spent on infrastructure to deliver that 10% to the wheels.  There's the solar plant, the transmission lines, the charging stations.

No waste there, right?_


----------



## Impenitent (Oct 8, 2013)

"He Defrauded Me With Science"


What's all the the big commotion
It snowed just yesterday
And the rising of the ocean
Is only dramatic overplay
They're defrauding me with science
Defrauding me with science!
And ignoring simple history

When he's flying his Learjet
Defrauding me with science - Science
They say he's leaving a footprint
Science
Science

But it's all a big promotion
When it snowed just yesterday
And I can see no rising of the ocean
On the weak and old they prey
But he defrauded me with science
He defrauded me with science!
And disregarded simple meteorology

When Gore is flying ever nearer
Defrauding me with science-science
Science
I can see Al Jazeera
Defrauding me with science-science
Science

I thought he had such devotion
But now it seems he's mocking me
He sold out the Arctic Ocean
To pump and dump Current Tv
He defrauded me with science
He defrauded me with science!
And got off on a technicality

Good God Al Gore-
You're pitiful
I don't believe it
There he goes again
He's hidden his dossier
And I must get a FOIA
To see his inner secrets
And his little pet tricks

It's simple harmonic motion
So when it snowed just yesterday
And the rising of the ocean
A cycle repeated every day
Mmm but he defrauded me with science
He defrauded me with science!
And failed in philanthropy

He defrauded me - with science
He defrauded me with


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_

What's being wasted?  Something that's free,  sustainable,  and available with no consequences._


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



All the capital spent on solar plants, transmission lines, charging stations and battery powered automobiles is being wasted.  Your belief that these are zero cost items only demonstrates what an economic ignoramus you are.

Your claim that there are "no consequences" is especially hilarious considering recent threads on the the deaths of so many birds of prey.  

Pouring billions of dollars down a rat hole is a consequence.  That's money that can never be used to satisfy other human needs and wants, and it's all wasted if solar power turns out to be a loser.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

Impenitent said:


> "He Defrauded Me With Science"
> 
> 
> What's all the the big commotion
> ...



Science discovers truth.  Politics defrauds by imposing what's good for some on everyone. 

As it has turned out,  Gore has science on his side and Rush,  nothing but bullshit. 

Of course not everyone is capable of figuring that out.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_

What's the comparable figure for gasoline?_


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The infrastructure investment is less for gasoline than for electric cars powered by solar power plants - far less.  Furthermore, we already know gasoline powered cars work beautifully.

If you're asking about the efficiency of a gasoline engine, it's about 25%.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

Denialists have their backs to the wall.  They have been fully exposed and their cult inflicted lies just don't fly in public any more. 

They're sort of like flat earther's.  They're laughing stock.  They're the only ones left falling for the cult 's propaganda.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Denialists have their backs to the wall.  They have been fully exposed and their cult inflicted lies just don't fly in public any more.
> 
> They're sort of like flat earther's.  They're laughing stock.  They're the only ones left falling for the cult 's propaganda.



Ran out of arguments, did you?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 8, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Denialists have their backs to the wall.  They have been fully exposed and their cult inflicted lies just don't fly in public any more.
> ...



Not at all.  Science won.  Politics lost. Next time bet on a fleeter horse. Or a horse rather than a jackass.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I would never vote on you, PMS.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 8, 2013)

There might be more to climate change than the IPCC would have us believe.

For me it has to do with understanding the complexity of nature, and having studied anthropology.  Quite frankly, I know history.  I know that climate, throughout history, has had an effect on the rise and fall of civilizations.  

In the past, humankind had nothing to do with the long term fluctuations of the general mean temperature.  It has been much warmer than it is today, and much cooler.  

For the government, corporate and cultural elites to use global climate change as an excuse to impose global government, they will need to have much more convincing proof that we are changing the weather in a radical way, more than it has changed naturally.  Frankly, I haven't seen it.  Our global weather system is a far more complex and dynamic system than to be controlled by just one input.  Those beating their chests saying they "understand" the science are, in fact, deluding themselves.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You have proven time after time that you don't know what science is.

The AGW cult has been exposed.  That's why public support for things like the carbon tax is dropping like a stone.  Australia just got done kicking all the warmists out of the government.  The USA is next to get on that boat.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Ha ha ha hahaaaaa ROFL!!!



bripat9643 said:


> The AGW cult has been exposed.  That's why public support for things like the carbon tax is dropping like a stone.  Australia just got done kicking all the warmists out of the government.  The USA is next to get on that boat.



Are you predicting a big conservative comeback next election?  I think after the RNC gets through destroying the US economy ONE MORE TIME, that we might end up a - de facto - one-party nation.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 9, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.



And so?  What does that have to do with us?  What makes anyone think that our civilization can do anything about it any more than medieval European, ancient Chinese, or the Mayan civilization could do anything about long term global weather fluctuations.  They couldn't.  And neither can we.  All we can do is mitigate our coping strategies and not let the global elites extract monetary gain from the lower classes based on a lie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


_

Try to run your computer with your windmill.
We'll miss your cogent posts._


----------



## Impenitent (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > "He Defrauded Me With Science"
> ...



It is actually meant to parody both the denier shallow-science stance, and Al Gore hatred, so perhaps I did those parts fairly well!


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Denialists have their backs to the wall.  They have been fully exposed and their cult inflicted lies just don't fly in public any more.
> 
> They're sort of like flat earther's.  They're laughing stock.  They're the only ones left falling for the cult 's propaganda.



I haven't denied anything have I?

I just take all the apocalyptic predictions with a grain of salt.

As I said scientific findings and predictions are not the same thing.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

It boils down to,  do we base our actions on science,  based on its track record on understanding things out of the range of our senses,  including the future,  or politics,  and it's dismal record of promises broken.  Denialists say go forward blindly,   and hope for the best. 

Realists say knowledge is critical.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 9, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.



But that is likely NOT to happen.. As witnessed by the fact that the models couldn't make the call for 20 yrs nevermind 120yrs as on your graph.. 

ALREADY being revised heavily down.. Problem is --- all that scary propaganda is still taking up server space all over the web.. Gonna make it hard to separate the OLD from the NEW.. 

Yep ice is gonna continue to melt.. That is --- unless some solar scientists are correct and we are looking at another Solar Minimum in your lifetime..


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> There might be more to climate change than the IPCC would have us believe.
> 
> For me it has to do with understanding the complexity of nature, and having studied anthropology.  Quite frankly, I know history.  I know that climate, throughout history, has had an effect on the rise and fall of civilizations.
> 
> ...




So, the graphic above is brought to us by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann.

I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself. Harris said in the article by James Hagengruber. This would be The Rapture. The premise of this argument appears to be: human beings are not responsible for climate change because it is part of Gods greater Plan, therefore investing in costly forms of clean energy is not necessary or useful."

BigCityLib Strikes Back: What The Hell Is Long Range Weather?

This is the official temp record


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> > We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.
> ...



Well, now that just wouldn't be correct.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

It seems pretty obvious that many are confused about the 'A'  in AGW.  It really means that we're doing it,  so we can stop doing it. This is made more compelling by the simple fact that we have to anyway. 

So we gotta do what we gotta do.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > There might be more to climate change than the IPCC would have us believe.
> ...



Apples and bananas grasshopper.. The original graph was for EUROPEAN temperatures.. Not a stupid ass global average of bad proxy data.. 

The proxies are GOOD ENOUGH on their own.. To give us estimates of REGIONAL temp changes. Trying to make a "global average" out of them is iffy.....


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...



Sure it is.   I don't debate or refute the projections of this chart that was posted at all.  All I am saying is that the data and modeling used to make these projections are short sighted.  These people need to take logic classes.   Most people that debate AGW do not deny that warming is occurring, they just have issues as to how precisely we can determine the driving force.

_*Correlation*_ DOES NOT prove _*Causation.*_ 

Did you _look_ at the charts I posted?











What do you notice about them?  That's right, they can both be correct, (the graphs I posted,) and in line with the chart that was just posted.  They are _congruent_.   Look at the date range.  You will notice that dates for the temperature ranges I posted are much longer.  Why do AGW theorists want to take such a short sighted view of the Earth's temperature fluctuations?  One has to wonder if they have a hidden agenda, or if they are just ignorant. 

So what does that tell us?  It tells us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a good theory for explaining what we see occurring in nature.  Why?  Because long terms global temperature fluctuations have been occurring long before heavy industry, energy use, and mass transportation was engaged in by our species.  

Why do AGW supporters refuse to see the obvious right in front of their faces, even when their own charts and models show what is essentially truth?


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 9, 2013)

Sine wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.



True. Obama's friends know that efforts to mitigate climate change will result in more money in their pockets.

Maybe you can explain how a carbon tax leaves my pockets unharmed?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.
> ...



Maybe you can explain how it has anything to do with your pocket?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I use carbon fuels.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



I love this statement "Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation." because it couldn't be more wrong.

Correlation is required to prove causation.

The chart you presented is from whom?  Some Christian Fundamentalist nutbag that has some fantasy that God will save the planet and humans can't possibly cause climate change.

I just research.  You presented the bs.  Two graphs that don't agree. One is by a wack job.  Sorry if I can't accept the wackjob data.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



I don't know anyone who believes that the proof of AGW is based on correlation.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.



ANyone who believes there won't be less money in their pockets is an economic ignoramus.  The IPCC is proposing $73 trillion in taxes.  How is that not going to reduce the money in my pocket?  Wind and solar cost many multiples of what coal fired power plants can produce electricity at.  How is that not going to reduce the money in my pocket? Since the year 2000 the price of electicity in German has doubled.  200,000 people had their power cut off because they couldn't afford to pay their power bill.  You have to be an idiot to believe that the schemes of the AGW cult will not reduce your standard of living.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.
> ...



Because you wouldn't get any of it regardless.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Are you actually claiming that taxes don't affect the amount of money you have to spend?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



ROFL!  Where does the money come from if not out of my pocket?

Do you actually understand what a tax is?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



It is based on far more than just that.

Still, the fact remains that correlation is required.  If it wasn't correlated then it wouldn't be true.  But the fact is that it is.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Look in the mirror, numskull.  That's bascially the only argument the AGW cult has: correlation


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Unfortunately for the AGW cult, there has been no correlation for the last 15 years.


----------



## Politico (Oct 9, 2013)

OMG OMG. Today I got up and it was cold. Now yesterday it was warm. Even stranger. The day before it was warm and raining....at THE SAME TIME. Definitely something going on.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I love this statement "Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation." because it couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> Correlation is required to prove causation..




It's a necessary condition, but not a sifficient condition.  The great science expert might want to look that up because he obviously doesn't know what it means.



itfitzme said:


> The chart you presented is from whom?  Some Christian Fundamentalist nutbag that has some fantasy that God will save the planet and humans can't possibly cause climate change..



_Ad hominem _argument.  Another logical fallacy.



itfitzme said:


> I just research.  You presented the bs.  Two graphs that don't agree. One is by a wack job.  Sorry if I can't accept the wackjob data.



You don't "research." You mine propaganda mills.  

You posted another variation of the Hockey Stick graph - a proven fraud.  Your data is even less credible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You're right, it would take money out of my pocket, not add any.
Obama cronies will benefit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...




Correlation IS NOT REQUIRED.. There is NO reason in the universe to suspect that the stimulus to the climate system or any of the complex myriad of variables in the climate "black box" needs to look exactly like the output.. That is counter-indicated by all we know about complex system behaviour.. 

You know what thread to comment about this on --- don'tcha??


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You don't get any now so you can't lose what you don't get.  How hard is this to understand?

Your entire concept is based on faulty assumptions.  You are full of assumptions.

Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?

How about Monsanto

5 Ways Monsanto Wants to Profit Off Climate Change | Mother Jones

"5 Ways Monsanto Wants to Profit Off Climate Change  -  The agriculture giant has a variety solutions for mitigating and adapting to global warming."

Monsanto Co Contributions to Federal Candidates | OpenSecrets

Senate
Total to Democrats: $15,500
Total to Republicans: $16,000

House
Total to Democrats: $36,000
Total to Republicans: $103,500

Recipient	Total
Aderholt, Robert B (R-AL)	$6,000
Bishop, Sanford (D-GA)	$1,000
Bustos, Cheri (D-IL)	$5,000
Camp, Dave (R-MI)	$2,500
Cantor, Eric (R-VA)	$4,500
Clay, William L Jr (D-MO)	$10,000
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO)	$3,000
Conaway, Mike (R-TX)	$10,000
Costa, Jim (D-CA)	$1,000
Crawford, Rick (R-AR)	$1,000
Davis, Rodney (R-IL)	$3,500
Gardner, Cory (R-CO)	$3,000
Gibson, Chris (R-NY)	$1,000
Graves, Sam (R-MO)	$2,000
Griffin, Tim (R-AR)	$2,000
Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO)	$1,000
Hudson, Richard (R-NC)	$1,000
LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA)	$1,000
Long, Billy (R-MO)	$1,000
Lucas, Frank D (R-OK)	$5,000
Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO)	$2,500
Nunes, Devin (R-CA)	$2,500
Nunnelee, Alan (R-MS)	$1,500
Owens, Bill (D-NY)	$1,500
Peterson, Collin (D-MN)	$3,500
Rogers, Hal (R-KY)	$1,000
Roskam, Peter (R-IL)	$2,500
Schock, Aaron (R-IL)	$1,000
Schrader, Kurt (D-OR)	$1,000
Scott, Austin (R-GA)	$2,000
Shimkus, John M (R-IL)	$2,000
Simpson, Mike (R-ID)	$10,000
Smith, Adrian (R-NE)	$7,500
Smith, Jason (R-MO)	$5,000
Stutzman, Marlin (R-IN)	$2,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS)	$10,000
Thompson, Glenn (R-PA)	$1,000
Valadao, David (R-CA)	$3,500
Wagner, Ann L (R-MO)	$10,000
Womack, Steve (R-AR)	$2,500
Yoder, Kevin (R-KS)	$2,500\


Senate

Total to Democrats: $15,500
Total to Republicans: $16,000
Recipient	Total
Baucus, Max (D-MT)	$1,500
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA)	$5,000
Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND)	$1,000
Kingston, Jack (R-GA)	$5,000
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA)	$2,000
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)	$5,000
Pryor, Mark (D-AR)	$6,000
Shelby, Richard C (R-AL)

It is just all too complex for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Damn you're stupid.

*A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.*

A common suggestion is a crbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

*Who are these "Obama cronies" that you imagine and assume?*

George Kaiser and Steve Westly were a couple.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

For instance; the medical device tax does not mean that healthcare costs will rise.  That is a mistaken assumption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In Need of a New Hip, but Priced Out of the U.S.

"An artificial hip, however, costs only about $350 to manufacture in the United States, according to Dr. Blair Rhode,"

"So why are implant list prices so high, and rising by more than 5 percent a year? In the United States, nearly all hip and knee implants &#8212; sterilized pieces of tooled metal, plastic or ceramics &#8212; are made by five companies, which some economists describe as a cartel. Manufacturers tweak old models and patent the changes as new products, with ever-bigger price tags."

The equilibrium price for depends on numerous factors, not of which are guaranteed to be predominant in any given market.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



 common suggestion is a crbon tax. A carbon tax will result in less money in my pocket.

Prove that, because you are assuming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yeah, we know, Monsanto is evil.

I didn't see anything about them getting tax dollars in your article.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Raising the cost of gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas won't take money out of my pocket?

You're funny.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are assuming that the cost of gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas will go up.

Your assumption that the price of a barrel of oil will simply increase is hilarious.   You're just full of  assumptions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yes, I'm assuming that when government adds a tax that prices will go up.

For instance, here in Chicago, cigarette taxes increased $1.00 per pack in March.

The total combined federal, state, county and local tax on cigarettes is up to $6.67 per pack. 

Do you think that raised the price?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*Your assumption that the price of a barrel of oil will simply increase is hilarious.*

I didn't mention oil. I guess it would depend on the point where the tax is levied.

Do you assume an added tax of, hell, shoot for the moon, $1 a gallon, won't raise the price of gas?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Here is the real dollar price of gasoline from 1990 to 2013





Why did the price go down to 1995 level in 2009.  Are you saying that it suddenly got that much cheaper to make gasoline?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'm not assuming anything.  You are.

In case you missed it,





So, gasoline suddenly became cheaper to make in 2009?  It was, all of a sudden, *$2*+ cheaper?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



He's not assuming anything.  He simply understands the laws of economics.  You obviously don't.  Prices are always driven down to the marginal cost of producing a product.  That cost includes excise taxes, such as the carbon tax.  

The economics you operate under are just another hoax.  They're a con.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



There was a deep recession in 2009.

Is your plan to levy a large carbon tax and cause a deep recession so that prices drop?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The whole point of the carbon tax is to increase the price of fossil fuels.  If it didn't raise the price, then it wouldn't cause consumption to decrease.

What do you imagine is the purpose of the carbon tax, to provide money for politicians to play with?  Yes, that's true.  but that's not the reason the members of the AGW cult use to justify it.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*I didn't mention oil.*

Now you are just being dumb on purpose.   Gasoline is made out of oil.  You know this, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I didn't mention oil. If you think a carbon tax on oil wouldn't raise the price of oil, say it.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Gasoline is made out of oil.

And the point is perfectly clear.  Prices go up and down for absolutely no reason except that suppliers can charge you for it. The 2009 drop from $4.25 to $1.75, the subsequent climb to $4.00 again had nothing to do with manufacturing costs or taxes.  You cannot spend money you don't have and prices will rise to consume the money you do.  The only real effect is if you make a shit load more than everyone else.  And I am quite sure you aren't in Warren Buffet's income range.

You are fooling yourself if you think that lower taxes means more money in your pocket.  It doesn't and that is perfectly obvious from the national average gasoline price drop of $2.50.  The price fell because people didn't have the money and it went back up again when they did.

The single greatest factor in market prices is how much money people have to spend.  The second greatest factor is what the prices are of all the other products.   The economy and prices is a game of who is going to get how much of your wallet.  Prices rise to consume all of your money.

If the average consumer doesn't have the money to spend, prices won't go up.  Just because a tax is levied doesn't mean that prices will go up.  

And this is the history of the average consumer's pocket book.  This is the relative income levels.





And this is the increase in output, per working person,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



No shit, Sherlock.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He's an idiot. I knew it before, I didn't realize how deep the stupid goes.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You can live in your fantasy land all you want, but it won't make it true.

What you cannot do is prove your fantasy is true.  You never have.

*"Prices are always driven down to the marginal cost of producing a product."*

No they are not.  You are assuming that they are priced at cost.  

How much should a hip replacement cost? Study raises more questions than answers - CBS News

 They found prices can range from $11,100 to almost $126,000 for the same procedure. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?pagewanted=all

While Mr. Shopenn was offered an implant in the United States for $13,000, many privately insured patients are billed two to nearly three times that amount. ... An artificial hip, however, costs only about $350 to manufacture in the United States, according to Dr. Blair Rhode, an orthopedist and entrepreneur whose company is developing generic implants.

And clearly, the price of manufacturing a gallon of gasoline didn't suddenly fall from $4.5 to  1.75.





You have your head shoved so far up your assets that you can't smell the coffee that you are overpaying for.

What Starbucks? $7 coffee is really worth - MarketWatch

What Starbucks $7 coffee is really worth
Coffee execs fess up about high profit margins of premium brews

"In fact, an 80% markup is standard in the coffee business on the higher-end brews, he says"

Little of it is at the marginal cost.

You've been sitting in your room, reading the idealized models that we use to compare reality to and stupidly thinking that is describes reality.  

The statistical normal distribution is an ideal model that hardly ever occurs.
Newtonian mechanics, F=ma, is and ideal model that seldom occurs.
Micro and Macro economic models are idealized models that hardly ever occur.

They are ideal models for comparison, not descriptions of the real thing.

What do you think *PROFIT* means?  Profit is in excess of costs and salaries.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Price is a function of supply AND demand, not just supply.  Although price can fluctuate greatly over the short term as a result of speculation or market conditions, over the long run price converges on the marginal cost of production.

The reason the price of gas went down in 2009 was the fact that we had a world wide recession.  That means consumers curtained their consumption of gasoline - a reduction in demand.

Try reading a book on economics.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



It's not a "fantasy."  It's basic economics.  I don't have to prove it's true because some great economists have already proven it.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It seems pretty obvious that many are confused about the 'A'  in AGW.  It really means that we're doing it,  so we can stop doing it. This is made more compelling by the simple fact that we have to anyway.
> 
> So we gotta do what we gotta do.



We don't "have" to do anything.

And we can't really stop it.

Even if we cut GHG emissions to zero tomorrow, which btw ain't ever gonna happen, we would still see some warming due to the lag in the system.

But you go ahead and believe that we can actually stop 7 billion people from producing GHGs if it helps you not be so afraid.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



ifitzme claims he has an engineering degree.   he seems to understand a few things about mathamatics, but he's totally adrift on the subject of economics.  He made a complete fool of himself claiming the schemes of the AGW cult won't cost us anything.  No wonder these nutburgers are so eager to raise taxes.   They believe they don't have to pay them.  Only corporations will pay them - as if corporations had some bottomless pit of money they use to pay taxes with.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I have an MBA and studies graduate economics.

Let me know when you want to discuss reality, instead of assuming that the world works according to ideal models.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You've got nothing.

Do tell, what are the factors that go into the supply curve, the demand curve, and the equilibrium point?  What are market imperfections?  What is a Nash Equilibrium and what is a Cournot oligopoly of n-firms?

What effect does the Cournot oligopoly have to do with market imperfections and the equilibrium point of the supply and demand curves?

You have a degree in economics.  Surely you can explain these things, right?


(What did you say was your degree in?  Oh, that's right, you actually can't explain them nor present any data to demonstrate them.)


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.
> ...



So you recommend sticking to FF to the last molecule and paying whatever it costs for the AGW consequences.  

Then what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Holy crap.
Your school would probably pay big bucks to keep that a secret.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



OMG! What will we do for light, once all the whale oil runs out?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Bullshit I guess. Got a load of that from the "alternative" folks.. 

Hydrogen for transport (made with OFF GRID renewables) AND
Nuclear for electricity.. Small scale buried reactors..........

Problems solved.. No pollution, no phoney global warming hysteria.. We can all focus on the goo, slime, and sludge problems.. And what to do with all those ugly useless wind mills.


----------



## westwall (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...







Bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You obviously have a degree in bullshit.   Do you know what the laws of supply and demand are?  When did they get repealed?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I think that that answer qualifies as a no fucking idea to the question of what's next.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That would solve the problems that doing nothing would create.  However,  is it the cheapest,  least risk,  least problematic?  

Maybe,  but I personally doubt it.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



They only want one thing.   To be right for once.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



They didn't.  But many factors drive both demand and supply.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Seeing as your answer is, the government will throw trillions at a solution, never mind if it doesn't work.......I prefer mine.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You obviously don't get it.  Politicians are not going to decide what replaces fossil fuels.  Some guy tinkering away in his garage or some small company led by a guy with big ideas is going to come up with it.  No one knows who that is at the moment.  If government gets too powerful and interferes too much in the market, it will never happen.  

They way big problems get solved is by millions of individuals using their brains to solve their own problems.  Government "solutions" only lead to more government and less prosperity for everyone.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You don't have a solution.  You don't even recognize that there's a problem. That makes you and other denialists totally useless.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Of what relevance is that?  The claim that corporations can set whatever price they want is obvious bullshit.  If that was the case, then why would the price of oil ever go down?  Ifitzme asked why the price declined in 2009.  His theories can't explain it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Putting a stop to the schemes of government toadies like you and ifitzme is very useful.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

Obviously denialists have been instructed that business is flawless,  government incompetent.  By who? Business of course.  Through the GOP.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Oil prices will be determined by what alternative to oil is available.  Thats why big oil has directed their minions to deny reality.  It's good for the oil business.  The minions don't think.  The do what they're told.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 9, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The guy in his garage better get his ass in gear.  The clock is ticking. 

The government has many solutions to problems. So does business.  After all both are run by liberals and that's what liberals so.  Solve problems.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If the problem is an eventual exhaustion of fossil fuels, the market will find the solution.

The only thing that will get in the way of that solution will be assclowns like you, using big government to waste trillions and put up roadblocks to the real solution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yes, Obama and Solyndra solved a problem, how to give hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds to an Obama supporter.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 9, 2013)

Time to put the troll to bed.. He's got a busy day tomorrow fixing all those problems.. 
"That's what Liberals do" ?????????????????????????????????

Maybe --- I'm a Liberal.. Not the kind of Liberal that PMZ would recognize. THE REAL kind of Liberal that has an inherent distrust of government power and reach.. And a huge faith in INDIVIDUAL initiative and responsibilities.  The trolls have inbred any kind of self-preservation RIGHT out of their offspring... 

REALLY Man.. DOn't feed this troll anymore.. He's exploding out of his jump suit like O.J.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 9, 2013)

Let's stop insulting each other


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The price of oil is determined by the laws of supply and demand, just like the price of every other commodity.  Contrary to your paranoid delusions, opposition to your schemes to save humanity isn't driven by some diabolical conspiracy instigated by the oil companies.  I'm not a "minion" of the oil companies.  If I was, then where's the my check?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Wrong.  Government creates problems.  For every problem it "solves" it creates two more.  In the process of "solving problems" it brutalizes the populace.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 10, 2013)

The computer you're typing on is the result of government funds spent developing processors were as small and as powerful as possible to support the moon mission.

The house you're sitting in is as resistant to storm and wind because of government money spent developing those capabilities.

The car you're driving, the roads it drives on, the plane you took on your last trip, the electricity and gas that power your home have all been, at one point or another, the beneficiaries of government funded research or subsidization.

If business' true interest was in caring for your needs, it wouldn't be wasting everyone's money creating false ones.  The government's job is to take care of those needs that business can't due to risk or won't due to cost.

If you want to see how well a nation works without a government, go visit Somalia.

And let's stop insulting each other.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The computer you're typing on is the result of government funds spent developing processors were as small and as powerful as possible to support the moon mission.



No, the computer I am typing on is the result of a couple of individuals pursuing a great idea in their garage.  Government would have never willingly handed over this sort of power to the public.  It was only their profound lack of foresight that allowed those two guys in the garage to fully realize their idea.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The computer you're typing on is the result of government funds spent developing processors were as small and as powerful as possible to support the moon mission.



The computers used for the moon mission had less power than a digital watch.  it was afterwards when private industry got involved in the computer chip business when we saw great leaps and bounds.



> The house you're sitting in is as resistant to storm and wind because of government money spent developing those capabilities.



The government did not develop construction methods all it did was set minimum standards for buildings.  The construction industry had to find a way to meet those standards in an efficient affordable manner.



> The car you're driving, the roads it drives on, the plane you took on your last trip, the electricity and gas that power your home have all been, at one point or another, the beneficiaries of government funded research or subsidization.






It's not the government's job to provide for our needs.



> If you want to see how well a nation works without a government, go visit Somalia.
> 
> And let's stop insulting each other.



Here we go again with the Somalia red herring.

Where has anyone here suggested we have no government?


----------



## loa (Oct 10, 2013)

*No, the computer I am typing on is the result of a couple of individuals pursuing a great idea in their garage. Government would have never willingly handed over this sort of power to the public. It was only their profound lack of foresight that allowed those two guys in the garage to fully realize their idea. *

How about the internet you are conversing on?   That's a direct result of some government funding and 'handing over' some technology. 

Things are not nearly as black and white as some of the posts portray. 


K.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The computer you're typing on is the result of government funds spent developing processors were as small and as powerful as possible to support the moon mission.
> 
> The house you're sitting in is as resistant to storm and wind because of government money spent developing those capabilities.
> 
> ...



*The computer you're typing on is the result of government funds spent developing processors were as small and as powerful as possible to support the moon mission.*

If the government had built the computer I'm typing on, it would be larger than your house and would have cost millions of dollars.

*If you want to see how well a nation works without a government, go visit Somalia.*

If there were government regulations against strawmen, you'd be serving hard time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The computer you're typing on is the result of government funds spent developing processors were as small and as powerful as possible to support the moon mission.
> 
> The house you're sitting in is as resistant to storm and wind because of government money spent developing those capabilities.
> 
> ...



Not really, a friend of mine BOUGHT the Apollo Mission Control computer.. I've had my hands on it.. And my Dad worked on the LEM guidance computer.. NEITHER contained any real fast track tech to the computer you're typing on.. 

The first 4 bit processors were developed in a race for the CONSUMER market.. 
Notably calculators and appliance control.

And the other poster was correct.. The govt was still paying folks for developing computers occupying multiple racks, when the Personal Computer was born.. 

Had to go buy a space heater today, because my govt designed heat pump cant hack 40 deg outdoor temps. And I picked up an additional plunger for my govt designed toilets...


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 10, 2013)

So, we clearly establishe, yesterday, that the reason people deny climate change is because they believe that the mitigation efforts will take money out of their pockets.

What should be clear, then, is that all of their understanding of economics and science is predicated on this initial assumption.  They begin with the assumption that all mitigation will always take money out of their pockets.  Then they approach economics and science to prove that the government is bad, as taxes are bad, and that climate chamge science is wrong.

This is why their logic and reasoning is so often disjointed, why they change direction so quickly, because the thread of consideration that they are following has less to do with the science and everything to do with their a priori determination.

We have seen this in the argument that CO2 is not responsible for the increase in temp when, in fact, with further pressing, the truth is that they believe that the temperature record is wrong or fabricated.  The obvious lack of logic in arguing that the temperature increase is a natural cycle, when in fact they believe that the data is faulty, completely escapes them.  It escapes them because the foundation of their focus has nothing to do with the science, it is about that money in their pocket.  What they really are not stating is that AWG doesn't exist because they know it will cost them money.

The fact of this is demonstrated.  We can go back in the thread and see who jumped in to "prove" that a carbon tax will cost them. 

The problem with their "proofs" is that, first off, they have no idea how to approach a null hypothesis.  In fact, they have no null hypothesis.  What thay have is a hypothesis, one that they take as actual fact. They then proceed forward, interpreting anything they can find, as proof.  This is what leads to the obvious ignorance.  Anything that brings their belief into question is ignored.  It is also what leads them to misinterpreting the basics, like marginal costs, supply and demand equibrium shifts, and the effects of taxes amd the money supply.  Everything is either molded to "prove" the a priori biased premise or is does not exist. Data either fits the premise or it is fabricated.  Statement by others either support the premise or it is a lie.

So, there is the why and how of the denial of climate change.


----------



## Impenitent (Oct 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > More stuff that Toddster doesn't know and can't imagine others kmow
> ...




Hurricane
(to Billie Jean)

Disasters come more often it seems
And so Pat Roberson and I prayed
Everybody knows exactly what it means
It had to be that gay parade - that party on Fire Island -that nightclub down in Queens

It was worse than a disaster scene
You see on the movie screen
I said, pardon me, what do you mean, by "anthropogenic global warming?"
She said, that is why the hurricane came aground
That is why - the hurricane - came aground

She told me the hurricane's name was Sandy
And it was the corporate modus operandi
They pump carbon dioxide in the air
Then these come aground
They pump - in the air - these come aground

Now I've always trusted corporations are careful what they do
They don't pump poisons in the air
I don't think the problem could be co2
Or that the corporations - just don't care

Hurricanes are not global warming
She's just a girl who claims
They caused this one
But Sandy is not Koch's son
She says they are the one
But the hurricane is not their son

Hurricanes are not global warming
She's just a girl who claims
They caused this one
But Sandy is not Koch's son
She says they are the one
But the hurricane is not their son

For Bush's two terms,
the law was on our side
But who can stand with Obama in charge*and his business death march
But then -  this hurricane- came aground

I went back to my corporate job
But what she said laid heavy on my heart
When I looked at the smoke stacks
My head began to throb - i thought about those slobs - and longed to join their mob!

Now I feel revulsed and conflicted
To this life of excess I've become addicted
I sold my soul as if money was eternal youth
Now that lie is - an inconvenient truth

All Man's wealth comes from cheap fossil fuel
I jumped at that because I'm nobody's fool
Now that cost has come home to roost, as deadly as a viper
And now we've got to pay -pay the piper

So take my strong advice
Just remember to always think twice
Do think twice - do think twice

She told my baby, we were swimming til three
Then she looked at me, and showed me a photo
My baby cried, her family had died, oh no
All because - this hurricane - came aground

Hurricanes are not global warming
She just a girl who claims
They caused this one
But Sandy is not Koch's son

Hurricanes are not global warming
She's just a girl who claims
They caused this one

She says they caused this one
But the hurricane is not Koch's son

She says they caused this one
But the hurricane is not Koch's son

Hurricanes are not global warming
She's just a girl who claims
They caused this one
But Sandy is not Koch's son

She says they caused this one
But Sandy is not Koch's son

She says they caused this one
She says they caused this one
She says they caused this one

Hurricanes are not global warming
Hurricanes are not global warming
Hurricanes are not global warming

...


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The market is doing that today.  The government is merely encouraging more rapid progress.  Why?  Businesses only invest in what's best for each of them individually.  People only buy what they need today.  Neither consumers nor companies will solve long term problems because they're no smarter than you are.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2013)

Impenitent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That is correct.. Artistic value aside and political bias cast off.. 

*Hurricanes are not global warming.* Not today or last year.. 

And Sandy wasn't a hurricane when NY was caught with it's pants down.. 
Do you know any tunes about mass hysteria?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



One thing  quite beyond conservative ''thinking'' is the concept of business and technological risk.  It's incurable.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Time to put the troll to bed.. He's got a busy day tomorrow fixing all those problems..
> "That's what Liberals do" ?????????????????????????????????
> 
> Maybe --- I'm a Liberal.. Not the kind of Liberal that PMZ would recognize. THE REAL kind of Liberal that has an inherent distrust of government power and reach.. And a huge faith in INDIVIDUAL initiative and responsibilities.  The trolls have inbred any kind of self-preservation RIGHT out of their offspring...
> ...



I have inherent mistrust in make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Why should they pay you if you are willing to follow just for a very little media entertainment?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The computer you're typing on is the result of government funds spent developing processors were as small and as powerful as possible to support the moon mission.
> ...



The technology came from the government,  not take as little risk as possible,  make more money regardless of the cost to others, business.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The computer you're typing on is the result of government funds spent developing processors were as small and as powerful as possible to support the moon mission.
> ...



Somalia is not a red  herring. It's the realized vision of extreme conservative politics, though it was realized just by people who didn't know any better.  Conservatives don't know any better either.  They  merely follow those selling plutocracy.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The computer you're typing on is the result of government funds spent developing processors were as small and as powerful as possible to support the moon mission.
> ...



''the Apollo Mission Control computer''

This statement alone defines the depth of your technological knowledge. The computer. Amazing.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> So, we clearly establishe, yesterday, that the reason people deny climate change is because they believe that the mitigation efforts will take money out of their pockets.
> 
> What should be clear, then, is that all of their understanding of economics and science is predicated on this initial assumption.  They begin with the assumption that all mitigation will always take money out of their pockets.  Then they approach economics and science to prove that the government is bad, as taxes are bad, and that climate chamge science is wrong.
> 
> ...



There are two possible explanations.  They don't know or they do know but don't care.  

I go with the latter.  They know but want to dump the consequences of their lives on liberals and future generations. 

It's mere failure to take responsibility.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

Impenitent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Unstable climate is AGW.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Most of Sandy's damage was done by water.  The consequence of adding high assignable cause variability to elevated sea level.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> So should we stop the climate from changing? How? And was there ever a time when the climate WASN'T changing?



This is the first time in global history when it's been on us.  We have to stop doing what's causing it anyway.  If we can make the move away from temporary energy sources like fossil fuels more quickly, we can save lots of money by not having to adapt civilization to a more extreme climate.


----------



## Impenitent (Oct 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Actually, I am in partial agreement with you - hurricanes are not caused by global warming.  

But things that are caused by global warming will make Hurricanes worse.  The additional water vapor in the air means more rain, and the higher sea levels will mean a deeper storm surge - and didn't you see both of those come into play with Sandy?

And mass hysteria is never recognized by those who have it!  They would call it something else - such as concensus - or skepticism - or something like that!  

And, yes, I know many more tunes!


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> So, we clearly establishe, yesterday, that the reason people deny climate change is because they believe that the mitigation efforts will take money out of their pockets.
> 
> What should be clear, then, is that all of their understanding of economics and science is predicated on this initial assumption.  They begin with the assumption that all mitigation will always take money out of their pockets.  Then they approach economics and science to prove that the government is bad, as taxes are bad, and that climate chamge science is wrong.
> 
> ...









No, we don't deny climate change.  We dispute the man caused aspect of it which you have yet to prove in the slightest.  It has nothing to do with taking money out of our pockets.  It has everything to do with your desire to have government take over the control of every aspect of our lives.  If we could pay money so that we could control the climate believe me we would happily pay.  Who wouldn't want to control the weather?  

The simple reality is, like the shysters of old who claimed they could bring rain to desperate farmers, you clowns demand we give you tremendous amounts of money and you present no measurable reason to do so.

You are no better then the shaman demanding virgins to be sacrificed to the volcano gods.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

Impenitent said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...



I'm not seeing any 'mass hysteria'.  By anybody.  Zero.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2013)

Impenitent said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...



No.. I didn't see higher sea levels come into play for Sandy from Global Warming. I saw higher sea levels due to an exceptionally high tide come into play.. 



> *List of New York hurricanes encompasses 84 tropical or subtropical cyclones that have affected the state of New York since the 17th century.* The state of New York is located along the East coast of the United States, in the Northeastern portion of the country. *The strongest of these storms was the 1938 New England Hurricane, which struck Long Island as a Category 3 storm on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. Killing more than 600 people, it was also the deadliest. *Tropical cyclones have affected the state primarily in September but have also hit during every month of the hurricane season, June through November. Tropical cyclones rarely make landfall on the state, although it is common for remnants of tropical cyclones to produce heavy rainfall and flooding.
> 
> 1954 &#8212; Hurricane Hazel - wind gust of 113 mph at Battery Park, highest ever recorded in New York City.
> August 31, 1954 &#8212; Hurricane Carol makes landfall on Long Island and produces wind gusts of 120 miles per hour (190 km/h) on Montauk Point.[3] On eastern Long Island near where Carol made landfall, a pressure of 960 mbar is recorded.[31] Winds on the island gust to 120 mph (195 km/h). The hurricane's storm surge covers the Montauk Highway in Montauk, effectively isolating eastern Long Island for a period of time. Due to the compact nature of the storm, most of Long Island is largely unaffected by the hurricane.[31] Specific damage totals for New York are unknown, although the storm in its entirety causes $460 million (1954 USD) in damage.[31]
> ...



*Note the years BEFORE Global Warming when MULTIPLE CERTIFIED HURRICANES affected the New York metro in ADJACENT YEARS. Like 1954, 55, 56 where 5 or 6 tropical storms/hurricanes hit the city*.. Go to the WIKI page and see for yourself.. 

I think your little ditty is great.. File it under "Folk" for ForkLore and collect the royalties.. 
If 0.5 degree in your lifetime is all it takes to turn weather into MONSTER WEATHER, there would be no one alive in Coastal mississippi or Texas today to tell the story or sing the song.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*The government is merely encouraging more rapid progress.*

What progress did they encourage at Solyndra?

*Businesses only invest in what's best for each of them individually.  *

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." 
*
 Neither consumers nor companies will solve long term problems because they're no smarter than you are*

Yes, comrade, the current Five-Year plan will maximize wheat production and allow us to magnify the glory of our Socialist Revolution.


----------



## Politico (Oct 10, 2013)

Man now it is warm again today. I am so confused.


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2013)

I agree with Flac, I am no longer feeding the PmsMZ troll.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> I agree with Flac, I am no longer feeding the PmsMZ troll.



It is dumber than a bag of hair.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Time to put the troll to bed.. He's got a busy day tomorrow fixing all those problems..
> "That's what Liberals do" ?????????????????????????????????
> 
> Maybe --- I'm a Liberal.. Not the kind of Liberal that PMZ would recognize. THE REAL kind of Liberal that has an inherent distrust of government power and reach.. And a huge faith in INDIVIDUAL initiative and responsibilities.  The trolls have inbred any kind of self-preservation RIGHT out of their offspring...
> ...



That is classical liberalism.....not to be confused with modern socialism which is what is called liberalism today.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> So, we clearly establishe, yesterday, that the reason people deny climate change is because they believe that the mitigation efforts will take money out of their pockets.



Your premise is a lie.  No one is denying climate change.  What us skeptics are denying is man's responsibility for global climate change and we deny it because there is not one iota of hard proof to support the claim that man is changing the global climate.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



The technology in my computer didn't come from the government.  Those two guys in the garage took an entirely different path from government technology.  My computer is about as different from government technology as a steel belted radial is from a wagon wheel.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm afraid it did.  Integrated circuits and solid state components were the offspring of the space program.

Governments give plenty of reasons to be critical.  No matter what they do, they will not please everyone.  But they also do good and they exist because they do more good than bad.  Taking the position that we've heard repeatedly around here, that governments are the source of all evil, that we'd be better served by unfettered capitalism, is unsupportable if for no other reason than its extremism and absoluteness.  Personally, I'd rather be ruled by someone that wants my vote than by someone that wants my money.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm afraid it did.  Integrated circuits and solid state components were the offspring of the space program.
> 
> Governments give plenty of reasons to be critical.  No matter what they do, they will not please everyone.  But they also do good and they exist because they do more good than bad.  Taking the position that we've heard repeatedly around here, that governments are the source of all evil, that we'd be better served by unfettered capitalism, is unsupportable if for no other reason than its extremism and absoluteness.  Personally, I'd rather be ruled by someone that wants my vote than by someone that wants my money.



Facts bounce off media conservatives like water off a ducks back.  They pretend that the propaganda that they are issued 24/7/365 is gospel.  To know otherwise would require independent thought.  Not their strong suite. 

It's a nice simple black and white world to believe that all of the nefarious incompetent people ended up in government and business is flawless.  And all of the nefarious incompetent people are liberals while conservatives are flawless.  And all of the nefarious incompetent people are non Christian,  and don't join unions and aren't educated and aren't foreign and aren't women and aren't scientists. 

Comfortable,  but not true.  

A minor inconvenience. 

Black and white is easy.  Gray,  not so much.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm afraid it did.  Integrated circuits and solid state components were the offspring of the space program.
> 
> Governments give plenty of reasons to be critical.  No matter what they do, they will not please everyone.  But they also do good and they exist because they do more good than bad.  Taking the position that we've heard repeatedly around here, that governments are the source of all evil, that we'd be better served by unfettered capitalism, is unsupportable if for no other reason than its extremism and absoluteness.  Personally, I'd rather be ruled by someone that wants my vote than by someone that wants my money.



The stuff that the Govt paid for SPECIFICALLY for the Apollo FLIGHT computers was not a real prototype of the integrated circuits that National, Intel, Fairchild were already contemplating and DEMONSTRATING.

Computer History Museum - The Silicon Engine | 1960 - First Planar Integrated Circuit is Fabricated

*The tech ALREADY EXISTED *and the Apollo buys of ICs were the first CUSTOM application of that technology.. *The govt was simply one of the first CUSTOMERS for this tech.. *

The BULK of the development from RTL to DTL to TTL logic circuits occurred in the Semi company labs without significant govt intervention.. 

We don't have unfettered capitalism.. We have INCREASINGLY crony capitalism which NEITHER major party will address. And the problem is that the govt has decided to DECLARE itself a market mover. And usurp the right to fund winners and losers. They are demonstrably piss poor at this. And it is the primary source of lobbying and political influence. Stop the handouts and the corps go back to grazing and hunter gathering like they should.. 

RESEARCH is a different animal.. The taxpayer should never float a dollar to subsidize products that are ALREADY on the market. BUT -- ENCOURAGING innovation can be used sparingly and strategically.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 11, 2013)

Encouraging innovation can be used sparingly.

Why sparingly?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 11, 2013)

Early developments of the integrated circuit go back to 1949, when the German engineer Werner Jacobi (de) (Siemens AG)[5] filed a patent for an integrated-circuit-like semiconductor amplifying device[6] showing five transistors on a common substrate in a 3-stage amplifier arrangement. Jacobi disclosed small and cheap hearing aids as typical industrial applications of his patent. An immediate commercial use of his patent has not been reported.
The idea of the integrated circuit was conceived by a radar scientist working for the Royal Radar Establishment of the *British **Ministry of Defence*, Geoffrey W.A. Dummer (1909&#8211;2002). Dummer presented the idea to the public at the Symposium on Progress in Quality Electronic Components in Washington, D.C. on 7 May 1952.[7] He gave many symposia publicly to propagate his ideas, and unsuccessfully attempted to build such a circuit in 1956.
A precursor idea to the IC was to create small ceramic squares (wafers), each one containing a single miniaturized component. Components could then be integrated and wired into a bidimensional or tridimensional compact grid. This idea, which looked very promising in 1957, was *proposed to the US Army by **Jack Kilby**, and led to the short-lived Micromodule Program* (similar to 1951's Project Tinkertoy).[8] However, as the project was gaining momentum, Kilby came up with a new, revolutionary design: the IC.
Robert Noyce credited Kurt Lehovec of Sprague Electric for the _principle of p-n junction isolation_ caused by the action of a biased p-n junction (the diode) as a key concept behind the IC.[9]


 


Jack Kilby's original integrated circuit


Newly employed by Texas Instruments, Kilby recorded his initial ideas concerning the integrated circuit in July 1958, successfully demonstrating the first working integrated example on 12 September 1958.[10] In his patent application of 6 February 1959, Kilby described his new device as &#8220;a body of semiconductor material &#8230; wherein all the components of the electronic circuit are completely integrated.&#8221;[11] *The first customer for the new invention was the **US Air Force*.[12]
Kilby won the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physics for his part of the invention of the integrated circuit.[13] Kilby's work was named an IEEE Milestone in 2009.[14]
Noyce also came up with his own idea of an integrated circuit half a year later than Kilby. His chip solved many practical problems that Kilby's had not. Produced at Fairchild Semiconductor, it was made of silicon, whereas Kilby's chip was made of germanium.
Fairchild Semiconductor was also home of the first silicon gate IC technology with self-aligned gates, which stands as the basis of all modern CMOS computer chips. The technology was developed by Italian physicist Federico Faggin in 1968, who later joined Intel in order to develop the very first Central Processing Unit (CPU) on one chip (Intel 4004), for which he received the National Medal of Technology and Innovation in 2010.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm afraid it did.  Integrated circuits and solid state components were the offspring of the space program.
> 
> Governments give plenty of reasons to be critical.  No matter what they do, they will not please everyone.  But they also do good and they exist because they do more good than bad.  Taking the position that we've heard repeatedly around here, that governments are the source of all evil, that we'd be better served by unfettered capitalism, is unsupportable if for no other reason than its extremism and absoluteness.  Personally, I'd rather be ruled by someone that wants my vote than by someone that wants my money.



And yet they were taken to the next level by private enterprise.

And if you don't think politicians want your money you're in idiot.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



That you can't see advocating for less intrusive government is not the same as advocating for no government tells me all I need to know about your intelligence.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Encouraging innovation can be used sparingly.
> 
> Why sparingly?



Strategically, not tactically.. Because Govt has to get into the pants of MULTIPLE corporations on the same project.  And then there is the problem of proprietary information being leaked and favorites being played. That leads to more govt/corp collusion.  Universities also develop conflicts of interest when being fed from both sources.

AND -- because the govt has the attention span of a Valley girl.. And doesn't have the motivation to see things thru that motivates investment in the private sector.

PURE research or strategic programs in space, military, or medicine for example, I highly favor over giving GE $75 for each Energy efficient washer/dryer that they sell.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Early developments of the integrated circuit go back to 1949, when the German engineer Werner Jacobi (de) (Siemens AG)[5] filed a patent for an integrated-circuit-like semiconductor amplifying device[6] showing five transistors on a common substrate in a 3-stage amplifier arrangement. Jacobi disclosed small and cheap hearing aids as typical industrial applications of his patent. An immediate commercial use of his patent has not been reported.
> The idea of the integrated circuit was conceived by a radar scientist working for the Royal Radar Establishment of the *British **Ministry of Defence*, Geoffrey W.A. Dummer (19092002). Dummer presented the idea to the public at the Symposium on Progress in Quality Electronic Components in Washington, D.C. on 7 May 1952.[7] He gave many symposia publicly to propagate his ideas, and unsuccessfully attempted to build such a circuit in 1956.
> A precursor idea to the IC was to create small ceramic squares (wafers), each one containing a single miniaturized component. Components could then be integrated and wired into a bidimensional or tridimensional compact grid. This idea, which looked very promising in 1957, was *proposed to the US Army by **Jack Kilby**, and led to the short-lived Micromodule Program* (similar to 1951's Project Tinkertoy).[8] However, as the project was gaining momentum, Kilby came up with a new, revolutionary design: the IC.
> Robert Noyce credited Kurt Lehovec of Sprague Electric for the _principle of p-n junction isolation_ caused by the action of a biased p-n junction (the diode) as a key concept behind the IC.[9]
> ...



Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Encouraging innovation can be used sparingly.
> ...




''because the govt has the attention span of a Valley girl''

You say so much based on only one fact.  Somebody told you without evidence,  it felt good,  so you repeat it without evidence. 

That makes you so easy to cult-tivate as a minion. 

Millions of conservatives led by their feelings.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2013)




----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 11, 2013)

westwall said:


>



Have you ever noticed how damn accurately the projections of our tormenters match *their * demonstrated beliefs and actions??? 

It's incredibly reflectant. Virtually NOTHING gets absorbed. It's a perfect mirror.. 
Hope you're not "left enough" to have a dose of that...


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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








I'm a scientist first, observations always win out over personally held beliefs.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Show us some evidence that less government is advantageous. How about some examples.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You simply have presented no evidence of being a scientist and mounds to the contrary.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


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



Completely absent of fact.


----------



## freedombecki (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Project much?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I observe.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2013)




----------



## freedombecki (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 While you're typing out inanities? Oh yeah baby.

..

..

..​.[


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...



Without government investment and purchasing, integrated circuits would have taken years longer to get into the marketplace.

And this is certainly not the only example of both direct and indirect beneficial government investments in research.  Damn few companies out there conduct unapplied research.  How many satellites would be in orbit?  Would we have a Hubble?  Any of the manned missions?  Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Shuttle or the ISS?  Any of the planetary probes?  Why didn't business fund the Human Genome Project?  Surely there was money to be made there?  How about the massive biological surveys that have been conducted across several nations?  There's all manner of stuff that the goverment has funded, that has benefitted humanity six ways from Sunday, that no business would ever have put a dime towards: too risky and too little gain to be had.  

Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...
> ...



*Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position. *

So is arguing that government is all good.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Cartoons are inanities.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...
> ...



Part of the conservative business direction is no R&D.  Too risky. While laying off workers who create wealth is not.  Shrink to success.  Even though that's never been the case in corporate history.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2013)




----------



## PMZ (Oct 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



It's all good until someone comes up with data that shows that it's not. So far the data shows that,  in this modern,  complex world,  more education,  more energy reform,  more diplomacy and less war,  more science and less politics,  more reliance on the middle class and less on the wealthy,  more health care,  are productive.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 11, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...
> ...



That statement is what the empiricists call "non-falsifiable."  However, since history shows that many technologies developed quite rapidly without government subsidies of any kind, we can confidantly assume that it's false.  For example, between the wars the airplane went from bi-plane technology capable of little more than 100 mph to low wing, stressed skin monoplane technology capable of over 400 mph.  

Industrial planning has shown itself to be a colossal failure wherever it has been tried.




Abraham3 said:


> And this is certainly not the only example of both direct and indirect beneficial government investments in research.  Damn few companies out there conduct unapplied research.  How many satellites would be in orbit?



Why would private companies invest in rocket technology when the government was already spending billions on it?



Abraham3 said:


> Would we have a Hubble?  Any of the manned missions?  Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Shuttle or the ISS?  Any of the planetary probes?



How have any of those things benefited consumers?



Abraham3 said:


> Why didn't business fund the Human Genome Project? Surely there was money to be made there?



Why would they when government was already funding it?



Abraham3 said:


> How about the massive biological surveys that have been conducted across several nations?  There's all manner of stuff that the goverment has funded, that has benefitted humanity six ways from Sunday, that no business would ever have put a dime towards: too risky and too little gain to be had.



Aside from the human genome project, you haven't listed any.  It's also debatable whether the human genome project has benefited humanity significantly.



Abraham3 said:


> Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.



That's dead wrong.  Even if the results of government spending are good, the bottom line is that the revenue for all government spending is obtain by threatening people with guns.  That automatically makes it bad.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



First off, you have to demonstrate the government actually produces more health care, more middle class and more education.  The term "energy reform" is just a politician's bogus propaganda word.

Government is responsible for all wars, so it's absurd to expect it to be the cause of less war.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You must be on LSD when you read books on economics.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Encouraging innovation can be used sparingly.
> 
> Why sparingly?



It shouldn't be used at all.  Government shouldn't be in the business of molding society.  It's only legitimate function is to protect your rights, and that's it.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Advantageous to whom?

Smaller government costs less

When government costs less we all have more money in our pockets

That's advantageous to anyone.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Somalia has no shortage of government.  It has dozens of governments.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Having guns pointed at you to make you do things you don't want to do is always worse than the alternative.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So many that there might as well be none.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Somalia is what you get when a totalitarian socialist state collapses.  The survivors are left to squabble over the scraps.  The social institutions that would normally function in the absence of state power never had a chance to develop in Somalia.  Take common law, for example.  It's not something the state created, and it took a thousand years for it to develop in Europe.  It's the basis for all real law in the Western world.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Encouraging innovation can be used sparingly.
> ...



So you are proposing re-writing the Constitution, then.  Hmm.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Paddy, do you have an example you prefer?  Some state that shows the benefits of your philosophy?

On a related note, if a state of no government is fundamentally superior, why have we seen so few of them?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

I do not believe that people deny AGW because they see excess government control in it.  I really think the vast majority of opposition resulted from people's dislike of Al Gore.  And perhaps dislike is not the right word.  I think Al Gore's continued existence embarrassed people who were forced - or at least encouraged - by unusual circumstances, to support a 'president' who lost the popular vote and then turned out to be one of the worst presidents in US history.  Every time Al Gore's face appears, it is as if Republican's noses are rubbed in the detritus of the Bush presidency.  It doesn't help, I suppose, that Gore, like Carter before him, dedicated his post-political time to public service (and Bush did not).  It explains to some extent why we constantly hear the ridiculous accusation that Gore invented global warming to make himself rich.  It's why almost every single opponent of action to counter AGW is a staunch conservative (and FlaCalTenn's vitriolic, leftwing, commie-pinko, bleeding-heart liberalism is why I say "almost")( ;-) ).

I suppose if one is forced by one's _'principles'_ to adopt the absurd position that Bush was a satisfactory president, rejecting out of hand, science held as widely as is AGW, becomes far, far easier.  In for a penny, in for a pound.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I do not believe that people deny AGW because they see excess government control in it.  I really think the vast majority of opposition resulted from people's dislike of Al Gore.  And perhaps dislike is not the right word.  I think Al Gore's continued existence embarrassed people who were forced - or at least encouraged - by unusual circumstances, to support a 'president' who lost the popular vote and then turned out to be one of the worst presidents in US history.  Every time Al Gore's face appears, it is as if Republican's noses are rubbed in the detritus of the Bush presidency.  It doesn't help, I suppose, that Gore, like Carter before him, dedicated his post-political time to public service (and Bush did not).  It explains to some extent why we constantly hear the ridiculous accusation that Gore invented global warming to make himself rich.  It's why almost every single opponent of action to counter AGW is a staunch conservative (and FlaCalTenn's vitriolic, leftwing, commie-pinko, bleeding-heart liberalism is why I say "almost")( ;-) ).
> 
> I suppose if one is forced by one's _'principles'_ to adopt the absurd position that Bush was a satisfactory president, rejecting out of hand, science held as widely as is AGW, becomes far, far easier.  In for a penny, in for a pound.



I don't deny it but there is a political aspect to this whole thing.

Government is an agent of control nothing so the fact that the government wants to tell us how to live and is using apocalyptic propaganda is plain to see.

I just don't believe that a 2 degree C increase in temps over the next 100 years is going to be that big of a deal.

And Al Gore jumped on the band wagon to make himself rich with his carbon credit scam


----------



## JWBooth (Oct 12, 2013)

Almost no one denies climate change.
Climates have changed since the crust cooled and solidified.
The point of contention is the politicised question - Is man responsible for affecting change, can he reverse his affect?

To the same extent that a single drop of rain affects the flow of the Mississippi river, sure man makes a difference.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not believe that people deny AGW because they see excess government control in it.  I really think the vast majority of opposition resulted from people's dislike of Al Gore.  And perhaps dislike is not the right word.  I think Al Gore's continued existence embarrassed people who were forced - or at least encouraged - by unusual circumstances, to support a 'president' who lost the popular vote and then turned out to be one of the worst presidents in US history.  Every time Al Gore's face appears, it is as if Republican's noses are rubbed in the detritus of the Bush presidency.  It doesn't help, I suppose, that Gore, like Carter before him, dedicated his post-political time to public service (and Bush did not).  It explains to some extent why we constantly hear the ridiculous accusation that Gore invented global warming to make himself rich.  It's why almost every single opponent of action to counter AGW is a staunch conservative (and FlaCalTenn's vitriolic, leftwing, commie-pinko, bleeding-heart liberalism is why I say "almost")( ;-) ).
> ...



You say you don't deny it and they you deny it all.

Precisely what does this mean: "Government is an agent of control nothing so the fact that the government wants to tell us how to live and is using apocalyptic propaganda is plain to see."?  

The word "nothing" seems out of place.  If you choose to live in a nation of laws the government will always be telling you how to live; or, more accurately, how NOT to live.  What sort of controls do you anticipate from anti-AGW efforts that you would find unbearable or undesirable?


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Excuse the fuck out of me

Government is nothing but an agent of control.....

You people and you anti AGW strategies.

We should be fracking the shit out of our natural gas rich lands but the environmentalists who want to stop GW say no even though natural gas is the least harmful fossil fuel.

You all say you're all for science but have a fit when nuclear power is mentioned as a large scale proven emission free source of power.

No you people want carbon taxes and boondoggle federal wind farm and solar projects.

And where have I denied that the earth is getting slightly warmer?

I don't think that's the issue.  the issue is the predictions.

Predictions are NOT scientific evidence and are wrong as often as they are right.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> Almost no one denies climate change.
> Climates have changed since the crust cooled and solidified.



Did you actually think that was the question under discussion?  



JWBooth said:


> The point of contention is the politicised question - Is man responsible for affecting change, can he reverse his affect?



Everyone here was already aware of that.



JWBooth said:


> To the same extent that a single drop of rain affects the flow of the Mississippi river, sure man makes a difference.



On what do you base that?  The vast majority of scientists in this very field, based on decades of research, seem to disagree with you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> Excuse the fuck out of me



No problem.  I excuse the fuck out of you.  ;-)



Spiderman said:


> Government is nothing but an agent of control.....



Yes... are you saying that is a bad thing?



Spiderman said:


> You people and you anti AGW strategies.
> 
> We should be fracking the shit out of our natural gas rich lands but the environmentalists who want to stop GW say no even though natural gas is the least harmful fossil fuel.



You may be confusing a few different, admittedly overlapping, groups.  There is a general opposition to fossil fuels among people concerned about AGW which would - or has - produced some of the opposition towards fracking.  However, the bulk of the opposition towards fracking, at least from my own observations, is in response to other dangers fracking presents.  From Wikipedia's article on the subject: "Opponents point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flow-back, and the health effects of these.[ Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 115 (2): A76. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744. Retrieved 2012-05-01] .



Spiderman said:


> You all say you're all for science but have a fit when nuclear power is mentioned as a large scale proven emission free source of power.



I'm sorry to disappoint you but I fully support nuclear power.  I don't think we should put plants near major faults, in flood zones or areas subject to tsunamis, but other than that, I love nuclear power.



Spiderman said:


> No you people want carbon taxes and boondoggle federal wind farm and solar projects.



I like the idea of carbon taxes.  I would like the government to subsidize (via any of several means) wind and solar power projects.  I would also like them to work to enable greater use of nuclear power and research into other alternative energy sources (wave and tide power, OTEC, geothermal, etc).  I believe that is needed and will benefit all.



Spiderman said:


> And where have I denied that the earth is getting slightly warmer?



I don't know that you have.  The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and the Earth as a whole continues to warm.  Do not be fooled by the transition which has moved a large portion of the heat formerly accumulated in the atmosphere to the deep ocean.  The energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere HAS NOT CHANGED.



Spiderman said:


> I don't think that's the issue.  the issue is the predictions.



It would be nice if our science was perfect and omniscient, but it's not and never will be.  However, it IS better - MUCH better - than the views and actions pushed by those who reject our science.  And, since global warming continues apace, it is NOT actually the issue.  GHG's are still causing increased amounts of solar energy to be trapped in our atmosphere, our lands and - for the greatest part - in our oceans. 



Spiderman said:


> Predictions are NOT scientific evidence and are wrong as often as they are right.



I agree with your first clause - they are not evidence.  And what we are talking about are, for the most part, not predictions but projections.  There's a difference.  

It is grossly misguided to classify a multivariate projection of a complex process as right or wrong.   They are more or less accurate, but they are not right or wrong.  It would be nice if the world were that simple, but it is not.  That's why I look to the folks with the most education and applicable experience for the best information.  That practice tells me that the world is still warming and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.  It tells me that the path we are on presents a real risk to us and our descendants.  It tells me that overcoming this issue will be expensive and will require deep and enduring dedication.  And all of that - and the existence of folks with opinions such as yours - tells me we will fail.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...



Over population?  That's a bit out of left field.  When did we start talking about over population?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



The Constitution was a good attempt at limiting government, but it is fundamentally flawed.  The concept of limited government is an oxymoron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...




Duh . .  Yeah!  Doing what you want is called freedom, nimrod.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse the fuck out of me
> ...



A projection is a prediction.

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth.  A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

If you admit that GHGs will add to the warming of the Earth, then, given the trends of GHGs in our atmosphere, you have made a projection: the Earth will get warmer.


pre·dict  [pri-dikt]  Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
*to declare or tell in advance*; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
verb (used without object)
2.
to foretell the future; make a prediction.

proj·ect  [n. proj-ekt, -ikt; v. pruh-jekt]  Show IPA

verb (used with object), pro·ject.
6.
to propose, contemplate, or plan.
7.
to throw, cast, or impel forward or onward.
8.
to set forth or *calculate* (some future thing): They projected the building costs for the next five years.
9.
to throw or cause to fall upon a surface or into space, as a ray of light or a shadow.
10.
to cause (a figure or image) to appear, as on a background.

One involves events, the other suggests trends.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.
> 
> You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.
> 
> ...



The way to determine the likelihood of a prediction or a projection coming to pass is to simply verify that it made use of the best possible information and made use of the correct statistical means and took into account everything we know about physics and the working of, in this case, the world's climate.

If George predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow and Bill predicts that it won't, I can use the above method to determine that George has a monstrously better chance of being proven correct than does Bill.  So, while we cannot _know_, we can certainly improve our odds by using the best possible technique.  And, depending on the subject, the attempted precision of the prediction or projection and how far out one is attempting to forecast, the odds of accuracy can be far better than 50%.

The harm that will ensue for a specific temperature increase over a specific time period is much more amenable to determinsitic calculation than other climatic forecasts.  You haven't spent much time reading the IPCC's reports, have you.  They explain very clearly how they come up with the risks we face and what are the odds of their predictions being accurate.  They even explain how they came up with the odds.  The IPCC ARs are very open and very... trustable - they substantiate their reasoning about as much as its possible to do.  They do not make mysterious pronouncements.  They use the best science on the best information and from that make reasoned and CONSERVATIVE conclusions as to what we all face.

Do yourself a favor and rather than taking some blogger's opinion about the IPCC, read the reports yourself.  IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

KarlaM said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > KarlaM said:
> ...



That's true.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.
> ...



Wrong.  The best way to determine the likelihood of a prediction is to look at the track record of the people making the prediction.  So far the record for the AGW kooks is abysmal.



Abraham3 said:


> If George predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow and Bill predicts that it won't, I can use the above method to determine that George has a monstrously better chance of being proven correct than does Bill.



Horseshit.  You predict the sun will come up tomorrow because it has done so trillions of times in the past.  It has nothing to do with your knowledge of physics.



Abraham3 said:


> So, while we cannot _know_, we can certainly improve our odds by using the best possible technique.  And, depending on the subject, the attempted precision of the prediction or projection and how far out one is attempting to forecast, the odds of accuracy can be far better than 50%.



ROFL!   Based on what?  Certainly it isn't based on physics.  I think any genuine physicist wouldn't dare to make a prediction about climate 100 years from now since the number of variables approaches infinity.



Abraham3 said:


> The harm that will ensue for a specific temperature increase over a specific time period is much more amenable to determinsitic calculation than other climatic forecasts.  You haven't spent much time reading the IPCC's reports, have you.  They explain very clearly how they come up with the risks we face and what are the odds of their predictions being accurate.  They even explain how they came up with the odds.  The IPCC ARs are very open and very... trustable - they substantiate their reasoning about as much as its possible to do.  They do not make mysterious pronouncements.  They use the best science on the best information and from that make reasoned and CONSERVATIVE conclusions as to what we all face.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and rather than taking some blogger's opinion about the IPCC, read the reports yourself.  IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



If there is one thing the IPCC isn't, it's trustable.  The fact that they explain their methods doesn't make those methods correct.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

I think you should take a break for an hour or two and then come back and have a look at your responses.  See if you're still happy with them.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



In what way is it fundamentally flawed.  Which government has NEVER been used to mold society?


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



An important part (some would say critical) of the scientific process is the ability to make testable predictions.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 12, 2013)

britpat9642 said:
			
		

> ROFL! Based on what? Certainly it isn't based on physics. I think any genuine physicist wouldn't dare to make a prediction about climate 100 years from now since the number of variables approaches infinity.



I can predict that 100 years from now manmade ghgs will still be a major cause of global warming if we don't substantially reduce our emissions.  See you at the finish line.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Okay.  From the top.  You contend that the best way to determine how good a prediction will be is not to look at the data and the science, it is to look at the individuals.  Gollee.... where to start?

This is the faulty side of ad hominem.  Someone's past behaviors do not control their futures.  If it were, every kid that ever missed a math problem or couldn't name the capital of North Dakota would be doomed to complete educational failure.  Have you never lied?  Have you never stolen a piece of gum?  Have you never been mean to someone that didn't really deserve it?  I suspect you've done all those things but somehow, you managed to avoid becoming a brutal criminal.  Amazing.

Next, you contend that my confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow has nothing to do with my knowledge of physics but because it has risen trillions of times before.  Again, where to start?  Let's look back to ancient Greece.  Pretty smart people.  They developed a lot of our math and a fair bit of our science.  They saw the sun rise as many times as have we.  Yet they believed the sun was the god Apollo with a chariot of fiery horses dashing across the sky.  The only reason the sun came up every morning was because Apollo chose to continue carrying out his duty.  What's the difference between the ancient Greeks and us?  Our knowledge of what is actually happening and what it would actually require to prevent the sun from rising one morning.  And, just as a by-the-way, since the Earth was formed, the sun has risen approximately 1.28 trillion times.  However, I myself have been around for less than 22,000 of them.

As I explained, but as you seem to have missed, the accuracy of any prediction can be said to depend on several factors.  The less we know about a process for which we are attempting to make a prediction, the less the odds that it will be accurate. The more precise the prediction, the less the odds that it will be accurate.  The further out the prediction, the less likely it will be accurate.  I suspect you actually agree with those three points, but you did not pay enough attention when you read what I wrote and chose to describe those contentions as "horseshit".  They are not and it would be folly to disagree with them.

Finally, you tell us that the IPCC is untrustworthy and their provision of descriptions of the processes and functions they use doesn't help.  I can only point out that it is a great deal easier to determine if the IPCC is producing good information KNOWING how it is they arrived at their conclusions, then it would be did we not.  The biggest IPCC goof that I am aware of you and yours identifying was the matter of the melt rate of the Himalayan glaciers.  That leaves you another 1,699.75 pages to refute.  I suggest you get hot.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.
> ...



Poor example.

You cannot tell me what will happen if the earth is 2 degrees C warmer.  In fact that 2 degrees is in itself only a probability.

If as you say the doom and gloom propaganda are calculated "projections" then there should be calculations of where there will be droughts, how severe thy will be how many people will die etc

You cannot compare the warming predictions to a building cost calculation as they are not analogous at all.

Building cost projections takes known quantities of materials into account using pricing data from the past.

Saying that a 2 degree rise in temperature will result in X number of floods, Y number of droughts, Z number of people dead who wouldn't have died if the temp didn't rise etc is speculation.

Unless of course you want to show me the actual calculations for those things.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



You continue to confuse climate and weather.  

Climate change per se has no impact on humanity.  Most of us would never notice it.  Weather,  and sea level,  both of which are effects caused by AGW,  depending on degree,  will impose massive consequences on all of us.  Why?  We built civilization around the climate that we're changing from. 

Weather is caused by the exchange of energy between water,  land,  life,  ice and atmosphere. Now that we have trapped much more energy here,  the weather will change in response.  We can't predict weather decades in advance.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



You ignore that 100 percent of climate science supports the predictions of huge impacts on civilization.  Your position is entirely based on, you hope not. 

When you drive do you merely hope for no accident,  or do you actively manage the risks?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 12, 2013)

Climate change predictions are gay.......proven many, many times over. Because they are based upon bogus computer models which are gay.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow to its current gargantuan size.

The fact that every government now existing tries to mold society doesn't make it right.  In the year 1800 virtually every government on earth allowed slavery.  Is slavery right?


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I am not confusing anything.

The argument is that if the earth is 2 degrees warmer there will be drought, flooding, "super storms" etc etc and all that will kill people that would not have died if the temp did not rise 2 degrees.

And you yourself just admitted that those things cannot be predicted.

That's been the entire point of my argument about these dubious apocalyptic predictions.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Sorry but a mere 2 degree rise in temp will not have a "huge impact" on humanity


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Glad to hear it!  Those scientists had gotten me worried what with their PhDs and their peer-reviewed studies and all.  I guess I can relax now.  Whoo-ee, that's a load off my mind.  Thanks a million!


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



All governments grow and shrink according to the size of their populations.  And why wouldn't they?  It takes a bigger bureaucracy to service a larger population.  Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 12, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



You do realize, of course, that that 2 degree figure is a global average, right.  That it is entirely likely that among the numbers included in arriving at that 2 degree global rise includes extremes at both ends that can, do, and likely WILL kill people.  Right?  What?  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


_
Appeal to Authority_ - a logical fallacy.  Their studies are not "peer" reviewed.  They are PAL reviewed.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that 2 degrees will kill anyone.  In fact, it may prevent a lot of people from starving to death.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



It is not an appeal to authority.  And what would you make of Spiderman's PoV?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



If our government grew in proportion to our population growth, then it should still be spending only 5% of our GDP.  Government has grow far larger than that, and it now spends approximately 50% of our GDP.  In fact, the development of computers should mean that the number of people required to manage the government should be smaller now than it was in the 19th Century.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



It obviously is an appeal to author.  PMS is implying the AGW wizards are right because they have PHDs.

Which PoV of Spiderman's is that?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*Argument from authority* (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
[1][2][3]

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.
*********************************
Since my argument is inductive, the people to whom I refer ARE experts in their field and there IS a consensus among them as to these points, my argument is sound.

Spiderman simply claims that a 2C temperature rise will do no significant harm.  As far as I can tell, he has come to that conclusion based on his own, unrevealed reasoning.  My question was whether you found that more acceptable or less acceptable than my "argument from authority".


----------



## PMZ (Oct 12, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Climate change predictions are gay.......proven many, many times over. Because they are based upon bogus computer models which are gay.



You claiming that something is true has no effect at all on what is true.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that you actually read what I posted.  Otherwise, I doubt that you would have stuck with your "2 degrees won't kill" mantra.  Oh, and your claim that it "may prevent a lot of people from starving to death" is not supported by the evidence.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



According to who?



> Government has grow far larger than that, and it now spends approximately 50% of our GDP.



Considering that the government spends about 2 trillion dollars while we have a 12 trillion dollars economy (meaning that it spends roughly less than 17% of the GDP), I am going to have to call you on your bullshite claim.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You can't tell me what will happen can you?

No.

So why don't you find out exactly how much the sea will rise if the temp rises 2 degrees in the next hundred years then tell me how many people will die that would not have died if the temp did not rise at all.

Why do you assume that all these apocalyptic predictions are inevitable?

As i said I don't argue with the science but predictions of doom and gloom are not science.


----------



## JWBooth (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Peer review...
Alchemy was once supported by peer review.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 13, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Do you reject the scientific method?  Do you reject all science?  Do you enjoy your life in the woods eating small animals raw, that you have caught with your bare hands and wash down with water from mud puddles?

My apologies if your comment was intended for humor.

BTW, none of the 'peers' at that time were actually experts in their field, were they.  And by what method have we progressed from alchemy to high temperature superconductors, making molecules on demand and protein folding supercomputers?  Hmm.. That would be the scientific method... with peer review.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



There have been several periods in human history when the forces of ignorance have captured the culture and replaced knowledge based progress.  Most famously,  the Dark Ages.  They are always temporary but costly nevertheless. 

These will be recorded in history as one of those times.  

I think that the end of that tunnel is in sight though. 

A majority of Americans now realize that ignorance per se is a minor inconvenience for our culture.  Only ignorance pervasive enough to achieve political power is dangerous. 

That is what always limits the damage.  Political power based on ignorance is unsustainable. 

While knowledge certainly encompasses many areas outside of science our growth in scientific knowledge has always been the best leading indicator of progress.  It is the foundation for building a future based on solutions rather than beset by problems. 

All of the current noise will pass and we will steadily move away from temporary to permanent,  fuel and waste products free, abundant energy. 

And a new climate that will have to be adapted to. 

It would be good,  but not necessary,  if we could have that progress based on more certain projections and predictions,  but certainly we've come this far based on cloudy visions of the future and done OK.  

In the recent past,  we've seen and learned that politics has been an obstacle to progress.  Democracy allows us to solve that problem.  

That's real freedom.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



The appeal to authority is always wrong.  Authorities can be wrong, so any claim that a proposition must be true because some authority says it's true is automatically false.

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The article states, "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."
> 
> On the contrary, that is the fallacy in a nutshell. It is fallacious to believe the assertion must be true when your only evidence is that a certain authority made it. Without corroboration through empirical evidence, you can only conditionally accept the assertion.
> 
> ...



Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> For those interested in actual objective truth, there is no way to justify argument from authority in any way, shape or form. If you know that an expert agrees, you must know why he agrees. If you know why, present the argument directly, else it is assumed you are hiding ignorance and an ulterior motive. If you do not know why the expert agrees, then perhaps you are mistaken that he actually would agree in the specific situation being addressed, or perhaps the expert would be swayed by the counter arguments. Furthermore perhaps you are mistaken that the person is in fact an expert on the matter.
> 
> The expertise of the arguers and the "authority" would be determined by the outcome of the argument. At best authoritative status means the person is likely to have something influential to say on the subject. Trying to preclude someone from making an argument based on the belief that an authoritative source will disagree and win the argument is driven by the emotional need not to be deceived that the "authority" really was just that. This behavior is destructive to the spread of ideas and truth and should be recognized for the fallacy that it is no matter how it is used.
> 
> If the best you can do is to argue that someone else agrees with your belief, you shouldn't be arguing at all. -TZK &#8212;Preceding


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change predictions are gay.......proven many, many times over. Because they are based upon bogus computer models which are gay.
> ...



The same goes for the so-called "climate scientists," dipstick.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I obviously did read it.  I simply noted that it was wrong.

Recorded history supports the contention that a warmer climate would be more conducive to support human life.  The warmer periods of Earth's history were times of abundance when civilization flourished.  Famine and drought were the main themes during the colder periods.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



According to any kid in grade school who can do simple ratios.  Why should a larger population require the government to spend a larger proportion of the GDP?



orogenicman said:


> > Government has grow far larger than that, and it now spends approximately 50% of our GDP.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that the government spends about 2 trillion dollars while we have a 12 trillion dollars economy (meaning that it spends roughly less than 17% of the GDP), I am going to have to call you on your bullshite claim.



The federal government actually spends very close to $4 trillion, which comes to about 35% of GDP.  State and local governments spend an additional 15%.  The total comes to 50% of GDP.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What is the evidence that our government is ''gargantuan''? 

Compared to what? 

''It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow''. 

Fundamental to conservativism is disrespect for our country,  our people,  our Constitution,  our government. 

Exactly like the Taliban.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Compared to our government before WW I.



PMZ said:


> ''It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow''.
> 
> Fundamental to conservativism is disrespect for our country,  our people,  our Constitution,  our government.
> 
> Exactly like the Taliban.



Criticizing the government is the equivalent of being part of the Taliban?

Do you ever wonder why people think you're an idiot?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Do you disagree that we are unable to forecast weather years in advance? 

What is your forecast that AGW is benign, based on?  I say that it's based on, you hope that it's benign. 

AGW is a trend.  The IPCC,  the only source of climate science on earth, says that depending on how the earth transitions from one energy state to another, and how mankind manages the transition to waste product free energy, the final warming,  when we finally stop dumping CO2 in the atmosphere, will be between 2 and 12 degrees.  

We have already seen the weather changes predicted as a response to energy increase and instability in the earth's systems.  

The best example of the statistics that make the consequences of AGW certain,  though the details are not predictable, are casinos.  The least risky business that there is. They know at the end of a month or year exactly what percent of customers bets will kept by the house. Even though nobody has any idea on a given night what any particular game will do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The last time the Federal government spent $2 trillion was FY 2002.
This year they'll spend about $3.7 trillion.
Of course when you include all levels of government, the total is much higher.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



BriPat believes that,  as the best informed person on earth,  he is the authorative standard on all topics.  Nothing left to learn. 

I think that most of us know how to treat the few people that we meet who hold to that kind of belief.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Actually, not.  They are educated and informed and have chosen to devote their lives and talent to that specialty. 

Just like you've chosen to devote your life to watching Fox News. 

That makes them authorities on climate science and you an authority on Republican propaganda.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You still haven't proved that the appeal to authority is a valid argument.  You're simply an idiot spewing ad hominems.  All your arguments are logical fallacies.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



If humankind hadn't adapted to the climate that we are choosing to leave behind,  probably everything would be OK. While you were watching Fox News though we built coastal cities and farms and factories and homes based on the old climate. 

Of course we won't know what the new climate and weather will be like until we stop changing it and the earth's systems restabilize. 

It's only money and lives at risk.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Climate doesn't give a hoot what the "authorities" have to say.  That's what you fail to understand.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Climate has changed throughout man's history.  Humanity somehow managed to adapt.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I've never minded being thought an idiot by an idiot.  In fact,  it is to me a point of pride. 

No.  Disrespecting our country,  our people,  our Constitution,  our government is.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Disrespecting out government is as American as apple pie and fireworks on the 4th of July.  I haven't disrespected our country, people or Constitution.  Even if I had, that still wouldn't be the equivalent of being part of the Taliban.  They are primitive ignorant religious zealots.   That's what makes them dangerous, not "disrespecting" their country.

The AGW cult members are much closed to being the Taliban than skeptics are because belief in AGW is a cult, just like Islam.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



There is nothing to prove.  It's common knowledge among civilized people since the advent of the specialization required to leave behind hunting/gathering.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



And many of us will again.  It's only money and lives at risk.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You mean you still believe the appeal to authority is a valid argument?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Feel free to spend your own money, not mine.  I'll spend the rest of my life fighting goosestepping morons like you who feel qualified to spend my money for me.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I agree.  Authorities learn about climate,  not vice versa. 

However smart people learn from those with more expertise on all topics.  Even most animals do.  You seem to be the sole exception.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Apparently you learn from humbugs and con artists.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

Everything that I've ever learned was from someone better informed than I was then and there and in that topic.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You contributed to the problem,  we will hold you accountable for that.  Thats how society works.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Everyone but you does. It's called education.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Wrong.  It's called the inability to commit logic.  What you call "education" is nothing more than government brainwashing.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



There is no "problem," moron.  People are starting to wake up.  When they finally understand the facts, people like you will be laughed out of town.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Everything that I've ever learned was from someone better informed than I was then and there and in that topic.



That doesn't make them infallible.  It appears much of what you learned is bullshit.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



That is funny, given you have no facts.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I have an abundance of facts.  What we know is that much of what the AGW cult spews is propaganda, not facts.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Ever time I have followed up on a specific detail in your posts, it turns out to be complete nonsense.  Perhaps you don't know what a "fact" is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Everything that I've ever learned was from someone better informed than I was then and there and in that topic.



Now that you've learned the difference between zero investment and record investment, will you make fewer stupid claims?

Will you keep saying we're running out of oil, now that you've seen we will soon outproduce Saudi Arabia?

Now that you've learned from someone better informed than you on those topics.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I was brought up to support our country,  government, people,  Constitution,  and culture.  And if I found things that needed changing in any of them,  to rely on democracy to bring them about. 

It's revealing of your mindset that you see no difference between religion (the Taliban) and science (the IPCC).  Same as the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I think the only detail you proved wrong was whether the Norther Elephant seal was the only elephant seal, and that's a trivial detail.  Of course, you harped on that for all you could get out of it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The irony is that you accuse anyone who thinks the government needs changing of being a traitor or a member of the Taliban.



PMZ said:


> It's revealing of your mindset that you see no difference between religion (the Taliban) and science (the IPCC).  Same as the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages.



AGW isn't science.  It's a con and a cult.  Following the prescriptions of the AGW cult members will plunge us into a second dark age - literally.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 13, 2013)

It is not a fallacious argument by authority.  The authors of the IPCC are indeed experts in their field and there is a consensus among them as to these very topics.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> It is not a fallacious argument by authority.  The authors of the IPCC are indeed experts in their field and there is a consensus among them as to these very topics.



Apparently you believe there a valid appeals to authority.  There aren't.  IF you claim proposition 'A' is true because authority 'B' says it's true, then you have committed a logical fallacy, and that's exactly what PMS did.  There are no "valid authorities" in matters of absolute truth.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a fallacious argument by authority.  The authors of the IPCC are indeed experts in their field and there is a consensus among them as to these very topics.
> ...



Who would you go to when you need an operation. 

A plumber?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 13, 2013)

I thought we had already gone through this.  If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.

From Wikipedia's article on the topic:

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: 
  cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
  cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter 
  any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

I get the impression, here and elsewhere, that you don't always read everything I write.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



People die all the time.

You cannot prove that people who would not have died will die if the temp rises two degrees

As I said before there will be winners and losers in the climate change scenario.

Some places will definitely be better off for a bit higher temp some won't.

It's not the apocalypse.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 13, 2013)

A certain number of people will die from heat in any given year.  If you raise the temperature that number will increase.  The additional deaths would be due to the increased temperature.  A 2C increase in the world's average temperature WILL kill people.  It will also cause some serious consequences along the lines of rising sea level, melting ice, lost drinking water supplies, lost irrigation water supplies, increased incidence of severe weather... but you knew all this.  You just wanted to say something different and I suspect that nothing we show you in the way of supporting evidence will change what you say here.  That would be too embarrassing.  No one wants to admit they were wrong in public. So you'll just keep saying "it won't make a difference".  I guess that makes talking with you a compete waste of time.  Genug.

ps: people who, in a discussion of the natural sciences, demand proof of issues under discussion have clearly indicated that they have insufficient knowledge of science to  hold up their end of the discussion.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You like the word "cult", Paddy.  Could you tell us what you mean when you use the term?  It's got a bit of a range.  Do you simply mean a religion or do you mean an extremist religion or a religion with very few believers or do you mean a false religion whose leaders use devious means to maintain control of its adherents?  Any of those?  Something else?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Choosing a professional to perform a service has nothing to do with determining whether an argument is logically correct.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I thought we had already gone through this.  If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.



Wrong.  I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong.  In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary.  They didn't move with respect to one another.  That theory was dead wrong.  The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.  

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.



Abraham3 said:


> From Wikipedia's article on the topic:
> 
> Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
> 
> ...



Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong.  There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

Spiderman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



You're one of the very few that I know who believe that we will be able to phase out carbon dumping rapidly enough to limit AGW to 2 degrees. Tell us your plan to do that.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Professionals in any field are the authorities in their field. You would claim that following your doctor's medical advice is appeal to authority.  Or following your lawyers legal advice.  The IPCC members and supporters are the professionals in climate science.  You and I are very much amateurs.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought we had already gone through this.  If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.
> ...



A ridiculous statement.  Scientists devote their entire lives to understanding the natural world.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought we had already gone through this.  If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.
> ...




I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here.  I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.  

Just as an FYI: Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: &#964;&#949;&#954;&#964;&#959;&#957;&#953;&#954;&#972;&#962; "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed *during the first few decades of the 20th century.* The geoscientific community *accepted the theory after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s*.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority.  I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument.  It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature".  I am not claiming truths.  I am claiming likelihoods.  The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



One thing that all business people learn is that by the time the information gets perfect,  the opportunity is gone.  

Likely is about as good as it gets in time to act.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 13, 2013)

> In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary.



Incorrect.  Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting.  What it needed was a mechanism.  When Wadati&#8211;Benioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

It seems that the earth simply refuses to conform to conservative expectations.  They say 'A',  it does 'B'. It's almost like it has its own mind rather than conforming to what's convenient to their beliefs.  

Who knew that the universe is not under their control?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No I wouldn't.  That's what you're claiming.  If my doctor started claiming that eating vegetables was bad for me, then I wouldn't take his advice, and I would conclude that he was a quack.  Likewise, the IPCC and the so-called "climate scientists" are telling us that eating vegetables is bad for us.  Claims like that require ironclad proof, not just the say-so of some potential quack.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It seems that the earth simply refuses to conform to conservative expectations.  They say 'A',  it does 'B'. It's almost like it has its own mind rather than conforming to what's convenient to their beliefs.
> 
> Who knew that the universe is not under their control?



You mean it refuses to conform to left-wing expectations.  They say the globe is warming, but the temperature remains constant for 15 years.  They claim whether will become more "extreme," but hurricanes and tornadoes are less frequent.

You know how one can determine what the facts are?  Just assume they are the exact opposite of whatever you claim.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> > In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting.  What it needed was a mechanism.  When WadatiBenioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics.



Oh puhleeze.  Then change the date to 1960.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



And they can still be wrong.  And once in a great while you probably can be right about something, but I haven't seen it so far.


----------



## westwall (Oct 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









This is not exactly true.  Harry Hess had to promulgate the modified theory in the form of a poem in 1962 to not ruffle feathers.  The real serious work on it had begun in the 1930's.  It was finally accepted when J. Tuzo Wilson provided the mechanism of transverse faults and described how they would be found (accurately BTW) that the theory was finally widely accepted.

Until that time the geologists of that era treated plate tectonics theorists the same was as the fraudsters treat the AGW climate sceptics.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



They have the science,  you have the politics.  Nobody in their right mind would grant that you're more likely to be right. Science discovers what's true.  Politics sells what's best for the politician.  You lose.


----------



## westwall (Oct 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> > In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting.  What it needed was a mechanism.  When WadatiBenioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics.







Bullcrap.  Harry Hess had to refer to plate tectonics in a poem as late as 1962.  They didn't finally obliterate the old guard of the geology field till J. Tuzo Wilson described the transverse faults and their method of operation, plus how they would be found, that the old guard finally scurried off and hid.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



What you're saying is that whether claim 'A' is valid has no bearing on whether the authority's opinion determines whether claim 'A' is valid.

It's hard to believe anyone who claims to understand logic could utter such a Rube Goldberg syllogism.



Abraham3 said:


> I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument.



You and PMS and all the other AGW cultists are making a deducting argument.  Every time you claim claim AGW is true because of the so-called "scientific consensus," You aren't referring to the evidence.  You're only invoking the so-called "authority"  of the IPCC and so-called "climate scientists."  If you're making a case based on the strength of the evidence, then post the evidence.  Don't claim it's true because the IPCC or Michael Mann says so.



Abraham3 said:


> It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature".  I am not claiming truths.  I am claiming likelihoods.  The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.



Likelihoods are just another truth about reality.  The likelihood that I will die of cancer may not be known by me or my doctor, but it's still a scientific fact that there is a certain likelihood of it occurring.    Insurance companies invest millions of dollars trying to determine the likelihood of various kinds of life events, but they still come up with incorrect numbers and get soaked for billions of dollars.

The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050.  Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong.  Based on their track record they aren't experts.  They are charlatans.

The bottom line is, no matter how brilliant, no matter how educated, and no matter how dedicated an expert supposedly is, he can still be dead wrong about something he is supposed to have expert knowledge about.

All the geologists in 1950 were dead wrong about continental drift.  That fact alone should make anyone pause before claiming some theory is true because authorities 'X,' 'Y' and 'Z' says it's true.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"We're right.  You're wrong" is an easier way to say that, but it has the drawback of making the fatuousness of your "argument" more obvious.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



They're quibbling about the date because they have nothing else to attack.  They know the historical facts of how plate tectonics came to be accepted make the irrationality of their appeals to authority obvious.

Picking out a trivial detail of someone's argument and then viciously attacking it as if it was central to the argument is a favored tactic with left-wing demagogues.


----------



## westwall (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








I know, but what's funny is when they do that in this case, they open themselves up to a crushing defeat.  It is VERY well known just how vociferously the entrenched geologists were AGAINST Wegener's theory.  

Find any National Geographic Atlas from the mid 1960's and they are STILL promulgating the shrinking Earth theory of mountain building.  It is quite comical in light of what was already_ known_ about plate tectonics.

These clowns are *EXACTLY* the same.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

westwall said:


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



The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong.  And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine.  Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> All the geologists in 1950 were dead wrong about continental drift.  That fact alone should make anyone pause before claiming some theory is true because authorities 'X,' 'Y' and 'Z' says it's true.



So the hundreds of scientists who have contributed to the latest IPCC report are all wrong but you are right.   

Oh, and please explain to us how all the geologists in 1950 were wrong about continental drift, but all the geologists today making essentially the same claims are not?


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



So what you are saying is that it is okay to get one's facts wrong as long as one is a right wing fanatic, because they are somehow allowed to look stupid to everyone else.  Well, sir, I can agree that you look stupid, but I don't agree that looking stupid is the right way to go.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



What is comical is that you think that the vast majority of geologists in the 1960s subscribed to the shrinking Earth hypothesis, or even the more widely accepted expanding Earth hypothesis championed by Paul Dirac, Pascual Jordan, and later by Samuel Warren Carey and others.  The fact is that both of these ideas were easily shown to violate the laws of thermodynamics, a fact that was well understood by many in the geologic community, so was finally rejected for all time when plate tectonics was proposed and finally accepted.  Yes there are still stragglers who simply won't let it go, much like there are crackpots who think that global warming is a conspiracy by government scientists in order to gain government grants.

The primary argument against Wegener's theory was that it lacked a mechanism.  Plate tectonics finally gave us the requisite mechanism - mantle convection.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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



You have to be a moron to believe that's the point.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > All the geologists in 1950 were dead wrong about continental drift.  That fact alone should make anyone pause before claiming some theory is true because authorities 'X,' 'Y' and 'Z' says it's true.
> ...



They aren't making the same assertion, nimrod.  All modern geologists accept the theory of continental drift.   In 1950 they all rejected it.

And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Once again, you couldn't get my argument straight if it was painted on the broad side of a barn


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The fact is that in 1950 the scientific community rejected the theory that the continents moved.  So the consensus was wrong.  However, you claim that the theory of AGW is right because the consensus endorses it, but you're too damn stupid to see the problem with your "logic."


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> A certain number of people will die from heat in any given year.  If you raise the temperature that number will increase.  The additional deaths would be due to the increased temperature.  A 2C increase in the world's average temperature WILL kill people.  It will also cause some serious consequences along the lines of rising sea level, melting ice, lost drinking water supplies, lost irrigation water supplies, increased incidence of severe weather... but you knew all this.  You just wanted to say something different and I suspect that nothing we show you in the way of supporting evidence will change what you say here.  That would be too embarrassing.  No one wants to admit they were wrong in public. So you'll just keep saying "it won't make a difference".  I guess that makes talking with you a compete waste of time.  Genug.
> 
> ps: people who, in a discussion of the natural sciences, demand proof of issues under discussion have clearly indicated that they have insufficient knowledge of science to  hold up their end of the discussion.



Since more people die from cold, a warming world would result in fewer climate related deaths.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> So what you are saying is that it is okay to get one's facts wrong as long as one is a right wing fanatic, because they are somehow allowed to look stupid to everyone else.  Well, sir, I can agree that you look stupid, but I don't agree that looking stupid is the right way to go.



The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that the IPCC is a scientific organization.  Really?  What sort of scientific organization puts a railroad engineer / soft porn writer in charge?


----------



## Politico (Oct 14, 2013)

Man now it is cold and raining. I am so confused!


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So what you are saying is that it is okay to get one's facts wrong as long as one is a right wing fanatic, because they are somehow allowed to look stupid to everyone else.  Well, sir, I can agree that you look stupid, but I don't agree that looking stupid is the right way to go.
> ...



What sort of educated debater makes use of such a multiply-flawed argument?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



As is almost always the case, Wikipedia is completely correct.  It is logically correct to use an appeal to authority under the circumstances detailed and those are the circumstances under which we reference them as support for the validity of anthropogenic global warming.

Again, from Wikipedia: *Inductive reasoning* (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.

and

*Deductive reasoning*, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached from general statements, but in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached from specific examples.
***********************************************************************
*This is a deductive argument.
*
All men are mortal.
Aristotle is a man.
Therefore Aristotle is mortal.

*This is an inductive argument
*
Most men have facial hair
Aristotle is a man
Therefore Aristotle likely has facial hair

If you find somewhere, that someone here has made some form of the argument: "AGW is a fact because the IPCC says it is", they will have made a fallacious use of an appeal to authority.  If, instead, you find that people have said "The IPCC's statements support the validity of AGW", they are logically correct.

The other point I made along these lines (and to which you were the only respondent) was that. logically, it did not matter whether or not the experts were correct in the matter under discussion.  Hindsight is 20-20.  Whether or not it turns out to have been correct in the long run, taking reference to the best information available at any given point in time is logically unassailable.  You can hardly fault someone for failing to accept some point when, at the time, it is effectively unknown or, as is the case here, is espoused by a minority and rejected by the experts.

You said, _"What you're saying is that whether claim 'A' is valid has no bearing on whether the authority's opinion determines whether claim 'A' is valid."_  Unfortunately, that is not a correct description of the situation.  We do not know at this time whether or not AGW is valid (and will never KNOW whether it is TRUE because it is not epistemologically possible to do so) but we do know that the majority of the experts in the field believe it to be valid.  The question, then, is has it been logically correct of us to believe it valid because the experts believe so - to take their word for it.  As long as we do not claim that AGW is proven or to hold it as a fact simply because the IPCC accepts the validity of the theory, and as long as a consensus exists among the actual experts in the field supporting our contention, we are logically correct in so doing.

I was not attempting to refute your argument with my correction about the dates at which plate tectonics became accepted theory and my apologies that it turned into such.  I saw your "just make it 1960" comment and accept it.  However, the fact that professional geologists rejected plate tectonics does not make it incorrect to have relied on their opinion at the time or, in general to rely on the opinion of experts at any time.  No one has always been right ('cept you and I, eh? ;-)), everyone has been wrong at some point or another.  If you will reject everyone who has ever made a mistake, you will be spending the rest of your life by yourself.

You also stated, "The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050.  Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong.  Based on their track record they aren't experts.  They are charlatans."

The scientists of the IPCC are not charlatans.  You are making unjustifiable and unsupportable generalizations.  They are all simply scientists doing their job.  The vast majority of them are college professors and institute researchers who would be doing much the same research and publishing much the same papers whether or not the IPCC even existed.  They are not employed by the UN.

These scientists DO have a clue what the temperature of the Earth will be in 2050; far more of a clue than do you or I.  It is what they have been trained to do.  It is what they do professionally, every day, most for many years.  And the projections they have made so far are NOT guesses and have NOT been abysmally wrong.  They have not been perfect and neither they nor we ever claimed that they were.  But, when they were made, they were the best estimates available.  As we have all seen, new information, new data, new knowledge can change the landscape as we speak.

To get back to the real question with which we need to deal: the balance of energy at the top of the Earth's atmosphere (the ToA), as measured by several different satellites, is still uneven: less energy is reradiated from the Earth back to space than is falling on the planet.  The Earth is still accumulating solar energy.  As far as I can see, that point overwhelms all arguments about global warming having ended.  Whether it is some unknown natural cycle, whether it is caused by CO2 or TSI variations or cosmic rays...No matter WHAT its cause - it has not stopped.  The Earth is continuing to warm.  

Now then, since the increase of the temperature of the air, the land and the sea's surface has slowed dramatically since 1998, one has to wonder where that energy IS going.  The answer, per a growing body of evidence, is that it is going into the deep ocean.

Do you agree?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



As the old saw says,  when you find yourself in a hole,  first,  stop digging. 

Denying statistics is not a defense for denying science.  It's an explanation as to why you don't understand science.  Not understanding science is an explanation as why it's meaningless to you.  The fact that it's meaningless to you is only a statement about you.  It has nothing to do with the validity of science.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



''The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050.  Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong.  Based on their track record they aren't experts.  They are charlatans.''

I nominate this paragraph as most revealing of denialism. 

BriPat apparently does know the weather coming in 2050 because he knows that the probability distribution of the IPCC will be wrong. 

Interesting insight into the workings of the conservative  'mind'.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I think that one of the reasons that conservative entertainers have such an easy time manipulating the cult is that the cult members just don't possess the education for critical thinking.  A fact which they believe is denied by disagreeing with educated people.  By disagreeing with educated people,  they think,  they prove that their educational handicap is obviated. 

Missing,  of course,  what everyone else catches.  They're just plain wrong and unable to see why.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


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



His point seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## westwall (Oct 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


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






You claimed that the theory of Plate Tectonics was widely accepted in the 1960's and that is patently untrue.  It wasn't until the 1970's that it was accepted science wide.  That's how powerful the ruling class of the old geologists was.  The warmers are the exact same way.  They ignore evidence that refutes their theories and falsify data to support it.

They are exactly the same as those intellectually dishonest bastards that held up tectonic theory for over 30 years.  Congrats you're a dinosaur headed for extinction... yet again.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> What sort of educated debater makes use of such a multiply-flawed argument?



You really think a scientific organization would put a railroad engineer/soft porn writer in charge?  You just keep giving more and more about yourself away and you just keep looking smaller and smaller.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Late breaking news. 

Science works by continuously searching for more,  reliable, information upon which to build additional knowledge. 

That in no way says that all that science has known at any given point in history is unreliable.  What is unreliable is ignorance. Thats why humanity developed the scientific process.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > A certain number of people will die from heat in any given year.  If you raise the temperature that number will increase.  The additional deaths would be due to the increased temperature.  A 2C increase in the world's average temperature WILL kill people.  It will also cause some serious consequences along the lines of rising sea level, melting ice, lost drinking water supplies, lost irrigation water supplies, increased incidence of severe weather... but you knew all this.  You just wanted to say something different and I suspect that nothing we show you in the way of supporting evidence will change what you say here.  That would be too embarrassing.  No one wants to admit they were wrong in public. So you'll just keep saying "it won't make a difference".  I guess that makes talking with you a compete waste of time.  Genug.
> ...



'Warm' causes many effects.  Which ones are you referring to?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You are the expert on "plain wrong and unable to see why".

*There is zero money being invested in fossil fuel energy production. It's all going to sustainable, permanent solutions. *

Large oil firms hit record U.S. spending in 2012, as profits drop

The largest oil and gas companies increased their investment in onshore U.S. exploration, with a record $185.6 billion in capital expenditures in 2012, according to a study released Tuesday.

The Ernst & Young analysis found that independent energy companies, those that explore for and produce oil and natural gas but do not have refining operations, are driving the pursuit of domestic oil and are investing larger and larger shares of their profits in future projects.

Fuel Fix » Large oil firms hit record U.S. spending in 2012, as profits drop

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-skeptics-are-winning-30.html#post7980608

I think your failure is because you just don't possess the education for critical thinking and that you believe that your opinion determines reality. That is the most bizarre delusion that I've ever heard of.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Nice black and white logic. 

Because some science in the past was incomplete,  all science is unreliable.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What sort of educated debater makes use of such a multiply-flawed argument?
> ...



Well,  consider the Republican Party.  They put an uneducated,  ignorant sportscaster in charge of developing their worldview.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> [
> 
> 'Warm' causes many effects.  Which ones are you referring to?



I said that cold weather kills more people than warm weather so a warming world will result in fewer temperature related deaths.  Which part of that didn't you understand or were you just ignorant of the fact that cold is more deadly than warm?....or were you just bloviating on the effects you simply assume will result from your, as yet unproven, agw claims?

Show me one study that has found a definitive CO2 fingerprint in the global climate.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.



Possible, yes.  Easily possible, no.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Since more people die from cold, a warming world would result in fewer climate related deaths.



In the common patois:

That's been 'proven' wrong.  Try again

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Hot_weather_or_cold_weather_cause_more_deaths


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> As the old saw says,  when you find yourself in a hole,  first,  stop digging.
> 
> Denying statistics is not a defense for denying science.  It's an explanation as to why you don't understand science.  Not understanding science is an explanation as why it's meaningless to you.  The fact that it's meaningless to you is only a statement about you.  It has nothing to do with the validity of science.



Sorry Paddy, but this was fooking brilliant.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050.  Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong.  Based on their track record they aren't experts.  They are charlatans.
> ...



Now hold your horses for just a minute.  He has not said (here) that they are wrong.  He has simply said they have been guesses, that they have a bad record of accuracy and they they are charlatans.  None of those are supportable assertions, but he has not claimed to know the weather in 2050.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> They ignore evidence that refutes their theories and falsify data to support it.



What evidence would that be?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What sort of educated debater makes use of such a multiply-flawed argument?
> ...



While you continue to use completely fallacious arguments in what purports to be a debate.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



How else would he know that the IPCC probability distribution for climactic temperature in 2050 is wrong?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.
> ...



Interesting statistical challenge.  The probability of an educated forecast being correct vs a random WAG. 

I guess the variable would be in the word ''educated''.  Considering that the IPCC is the most climate science educated body in the world,  I would assume that the odds in their favor would be in the range of astronomical. 

But,  you're right.  Nothing in the future is guaranteed.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.
> ...



Meaningless.  Either they can be wrong, or they are infallible. In the former case, you can't claim AGW is a fact because they say so.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Any successful venture must be based on the best informed future vision.  You trying to sell that less probable insight is better than more probable,  is,  in a word,  ridiculous.


----------



## Impenitent (Oct 14, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Speaking of plate tectonics, it is neither understood, nor accepted where it counts, and that is by high ranking Republican Congressmen! 

Here is Joe Barton, influential on environmental and energy committees, showing his incredible misunderstand of geology, and climate science:

Rep. Joe Barton Denies Plate Tectonics; Thinks He?s a Genius


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



That is absolutely untrue.



> And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.



This explains why you Republicans are keeping the government shut down - because everyone is wrong but you.  Not a brilliant campaign strategy, if I do say so myself.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


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



The fact is that Carey introduced Plate tectonics in 1957.  The fact is that the earlier rejection of continental drift was primarily because for the theory to be valid there had to be a mechanism.  No one could offer such a mechanism, so by and large it was rejected.  Still, British geologist Arthur Holmes not only championed continental drift in the 1940s, in 1944 he offered up convection as the driving mechanism.  But it didn't receive widespread attention because of the war.  The fact is that in 1975 a consensus (by The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, and the American Geophysical Union) on Plate Tectonics was arrived at, and prior theories (i.e., earth shrinking and Earth Expansion) were rejected.

Oh, and I made no such claim that AGW is right because there is a majority consensus.  There is a majority consensus because it is right.  See the difference?


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > A certain number of people will die from heat in any given year.  If you raise the temperature that number will increase.  The additional deaths would be due to the increased temperature.  A 2C increase in the world's average temperature WILL kill people.  It will also cause some serious consequences along the lines of rising sea level, melting ice, lost drinking water supplies, lost irrigation water supplies, increased incidence of severe weather... but you knew all this.  You just wanted to say something different and I suspect that nothing we show you in the way of supporting evidence will change what you say here.  That would be too embarrassing.  No one wants to admit they were wrong in public. So you'll just keep saying "it won't make a difference".  I guess that makes talking with you a compete waste of time.  Genug.
> ...



A warming world will increase the incidents of malaria, typhoid, various mosquito-borne hemorrhagic fevers, West Nile virus, diarrhea (one of the largest killers in the third world) and other "tropical" diseases.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

westwall said:


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



Here is what I said for those with alzheimers or else don't have the ability (or are too lazy) to go back and refresh their memories by reading what was actually said:



> Incorrect. Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting. What it needed was a mechanism. When WadatiBenioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics.  Also I said later, "The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong. And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine. Congratulations."


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.



No.  With all consideration, it is not possible that you are correct.  There is a statistically insignificant probability that some words you spew might appear to correlate to some minor process in reality. Even so, that won't make you correct in any manner except some minor happenstance.

We know what the probabities of the IPCC statements are as they publish them as "highly likely", "very likely", etc.  They are 100% correct in all cases, even in the unlikely case that the unlikely event occurs.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > What sort of educated debater makes use of such a multiply-flawed argument?
> ...



You guys put a massage therapist and an ex-dj in charge of your arguments.  At least our guys are real scientists.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Since more people die from cold, a warming world would result in fewer climate related deaths.
> ...



Wiki?  Once again, I am laughing in your face.  Only the worst sort of tragically stupid idiot relies on wiki, and only the basest of fools uses it regularly. Is there anything that you warmers don't lie about?

http://geosciences.msstate.edu/faculty/dixon/reprints/2005bams.pdf



> Of the datasets identified in this study, the one that appears to be least influenced by the above limitations is gross mortality. *However, the gross mortality data must be detrended in order to remove a persistent winter-dominant death maximum*.



The Health Benefits of a Warmer Climate

Cold Weather vs. Warm Weather: Which Kills More People?

Heat or Cold: Which Is More Deadly?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> While you continue to use completely fallacious arguments in what purports to be a debate.



There is nothing fallacious about the argument.  I do find it funny that you keep dodging an answer.  Lets look at some scientific organizations and see what sort of people they put in charge.

The American Medical Association - James L. Madara, MD
The American Chemical Society - Marinda Li Wu, Ph.D
The Royal Society of Medicine -Professor Sir Michael Rawlins (Doctor and renowned researcher)

And the list just goes on and on.  I can't really find any real scientific body that has put a railroad engineer/soft porn writer in charge.  So again, what sort of body is the IPCC if it has put a railroad engineer/soft porn writer in charge....certainly not a real scientific body.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2013)

Impenitent said:


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



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnk0tIqsbYM]Congressman asks Admiral if the island will tip over by adding troops! - YouTube[/ame]

Lots of stupid politicians out there.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

*Rajendra K. Pachauri*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born	 20 August 1940 (age 73)

Nainital, United Provinces, British Raj (now Uttarakhand, India)

Nationality	Indian
Alma mater	North Carolina State University and La Martiniere Lucknow
Occupation	Chief, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Director General, TERI, Head Yale Climate and Energy Institute

Religion	Hindu
Spouse(s)	Saroj Pachauri
Children	Daughter Rashmi Pachauri-Rajan.[1]

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born 20 August 1940) has been serving as the chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007[2][3] during his tenure. He has also been the director general of TERI, a research and policy organization in India, and chancellor of TERI University; besides being the chairman of the governing council of the National Agro Foundation (NAF), as well as the chairman of the board of Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society. Pachauri has been outspoken about climate change. He has been appointed as Senior Adviser to Yale Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI) from July 2012 prior to which he was the Founding Director of YCEI (July 2009 &#8211; June 2012).

Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India.[5] He began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. He joined the North Carolina State University in Raleigh, USA, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, and a Ph.D. with co-majors in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[6] His doctoral thesis was titled, A dynamic model for forecasting of electrical energy demand in a specific region located in North and South Carolina.[7] He lives in Golf Links, New Delhi.[8] He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment.[9]

And if you've never written any soft porn in your day, I have to ask you what you did with your testicles.

Actually, I haven't the faintest idea what you refer to with your "soft-porn" comment.  The man's a hindu.  They're not particularly known for excess lasciviousness.

And I don't know where you got YOUR information, but characterizing the man as a railroad engineer seems slightly prejudiced.  Let's put all that text in nice clear tabular form:

Initial engineering education from the Indian Railway Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering
MS in Industrial Engineering
PhD in Industrial Engineering
PhD in Economics

Director General The Energy and Research Institute (TERI)
Chancellor, TERI University
Chairman, Governing Council, National Agro Foundation
Chairman of the Board, Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society
Founding Director and Senior Adviser to Yale Climate and Energy Institute 
and, since 2002, Chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.



I have to say that I laugh at the absurdity of this statement every time I read it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Wiki?  Once again, I am laughing in your face.  Only the worst sort of tragically stupid idiot relies on wiki, and only the basest of fools uses it regularly. Is there anything that you warmers don't lie about?



So, you don't seem to have bought in to the idea of the lot of us ceasing to insult each other.  I've been having substantial conversations with a number of your fellow AGW-deniers without any of us falling to the level you've just exampled.

Why don't you try it.  If you don't like it, phrases like "tragically stupid idiot" and "basest of fools" will be waiting hot in the wings to allow you to "laugh in our faces" anytime you want.  Till then, you could demonstrate your ability to prove the substance of your argument is superior without making use of irrelevant personal criticism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 14, 2013)

Trees? Under the ice in Alaska?? 1000 years ago??

That can only mean one thing...the SUV is far older than anyone realizes


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 14, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Trees? Under the ice in Alaska?? 1000 years ago??
> 
> That can only mean one thing...the SUV is far older than anyone realizes



I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I just wanted to make certain you were aware that Alaska has trees at the present time.  Lots of them.  Really.  Lots and lots.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why don't publish a catalog of errors that you've found in Wikipedia.  Errors in their publications.  Not things that they publish that you disagree with because they are much more likely to be correct than you are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Trees? Under the ice in Alaska?? 1000 years ago??
> ...



If trees have been buried by a glacier for 1000 years, that means 1000 years ago the glacier was smaller than it is now.

If you can't figure out what that means, I'll be happy to explain it to you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wiki?  Once again, I am laughing in your face.  Only the worst sort of tragically stupid idiot relies on wiki, and only the basest of fools uses it regularly. Is there anything that you warmers don't lie about?
> ...



Every time you use the term "denier" you're insulting us, so your complaints come off as crocodile tears.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.
> ...



Buffoons are always laughing.  The problem is no one else is laughing.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



If glaciers were static objects that never experienced gains or losses of mass, often simultaneously, you might have a point.  They are not, so you are wrong in your assumption.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Complaining when someone tells the truth, that isn't expressing crocodile tears?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Uh, no I'm not.  All the AGW cult members are moaning that the glaciers are shrinking, but the existence of trees buried under them indicates 1000 years ago they were even smaller than they are now.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



OK then.  Don't complain when I call you a jackass. 

After all, it's the simple truth.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The glaciers aren't shrinking they've grown 60% more than there previous largest size.   It is very difficult to hold the faith in global warming when they are freezing.   The last three years in a row global warming conferences have had to be cancelled because of cold or a blizzard.

Reality makes it very hard to continue faith in global warming.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What would you call people who deny science?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I call them members of the AGW cult.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No sir, what it means is that you are clueless as to how glaciers work.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The IPCC is climate science.  There is no science that says otherwise.  Period.  

Unfortunate for you.  Do you have enough integrity to admit that?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> *Rajendra K. Pachauri*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Born	 20 August 1940 (age 73)
> ...



So you acknowledge that he is a railroad engineer.  Again, what sort of scientific organization dealing with climate puts a railroad engineer in charge?

As to the soft porn....unsurprising that you would be uninformed.  Typical.  Look up "Return to Amora"  Seems that he doesn't keep to the tenets of his religion either.  Corrupt all the way through it seems.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



The climate isn't static either but you warmers seem to think it is.  Show me one study that finds, and proves a definitive human finger print in the present global climate.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 15, 2013)

Why should anyone be surprised that a glacier was growing, a thousand years ago?

And why don't you tell us what - for you - would qualify as a "definitive human fingerprint" so we don't waste time playing guessing games?

But, while I'm typing, I'd proffer the isotopic analysis that shows that every bit of the excess CO2 (above 280 ppm) came from the combustion of fossil fuels.  But do feel free to explain why that's not a "definitive human fingerprint".


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Why should anyone be surprised that a glacier was growing, a thousand years ago?
> 
> And why don't you tell us what - for you - would qualify as a "definitive human fingerprint" so we don't waste time playing guessing games?
> 
> But, while I'm typing, I'd proffer the isotopic analysis that shows that every bit of the excess CO2 (above 280 ppm) came from the combustion of fossil fuels.  But do feel free to explain why that's not a "definitive human fingerprint".



Because it has yet to be proven that the additional CO2 causes warming.  A definitive human fingerprint would be one that could not easily be due to other causes.  At present, all warming is within the confines of natural variability.  A definitive human fingerprint would be one that steps outside of natural variability.  Lets see such a fingerprint.

And consider the time line regarding that glacier...those trees were growing during the MWP...a time which you warmers claim was barely, if at all as warm as today and the warmth only happened in the North Atlantic region.  Clearly those trees were growing in a climate that was warmer than the present and oddly enough, the glacier was not in the north atlantic.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > *Rajendra K. Pachauri*
> ...



Whether or not he was a railroad engineer (whatever you think that's supposed to mean) is irrelevant.  He was once an infant shitting his diapers.  So were you.  He has two PhDs, was a university chairman and headed climate research organizations at Columbia and Yale.  

That he wrote something only shows me his skills and aptitudes are even wider than his CV would indicate.  That you choose to describe it as "soft porn" tells me that it's so mild you're afraid you'd be laughed off the board (a prudish American board) for calling it outright "porn".  I personally don't care if he revealed a hankering for young cows.  He's doing a good job where he's at and I have no reason to criticize the man.

You, on the other hand, appear to find it appropriate to attack the man with simplistic misrepresentations and points completely irrelevant to his job performance and, in fact, not to mention his job performance AT ALL.
I find it very difficult to restrain the idea that your comments here are based on ethnic prejudices.  But I'll keep trying.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Actually, I do know how glaciers work.

How did the trees get there if the spot wasn't ice free 1000 years ago?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The IPCC is a con.   It would take integrity for you to admit that.


----------



## westwall (Oct 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Why should anyone be surprised that a glacier was growing, a thousand years ago?
> 
> And why don't you tell us what - for you - would qualify as a "definitive human fingerprint" so we don't waste time playing guessing games?
> 
> But, while I'm typing, I'd proffer the isotopic analysis that shows that every bit of the excess CO2 (above 280 ppm) came from the combustion of fossil fuels.  But do feel free to explain why that's not a "definitive human fingerprint".








According to your logic there should have been no way for a tree to grow there.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> You, on the other hand, appear to find it appropriate to attack the man with simplistic misrepresentations and points completely irrelevant to his job performance and, in fact, not to mention his job performance AT ALL..



It is the abysmal failure of his "attempt" at his job that prompts me to ask what sort of organization puts a railroad engineer/soft porn author in charge.  Had he been doing a good job, I wouldn't have been prompted to ask the question in the first place.  He has led the IPCC to the point of being a laughing stock and into its own demise.  The IPCC has failed...the wheels are falling off your AGW crazy train and you are left desperately trying to maintain your faith.  All is lost for you and yours.....the climate will not cooperate.  By the time this cool period we are entering ends. you and yours will be long forgotten....like those who believed so fervently in eugenics.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > You, on the other hand, appear to find it appropriate to attack the man with simplistic misrepresentations and points completely irrelevant to his job performance and, in fact, not to mention his job performance AT ALL..
> ...



Consider the factual content of this post.  I couldn't find one either.  It's repeated propaganda.  What the originator and his minions wish people to think and believe. 

Self serving?  You betcha.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Why should anyone be surprised that a glacier was growing, a thousand years ago?
> 
> And why don't you tell us what - for you - would qualify as a "definitive human fingerprint" so we don't waste time playing guessing games?
> 
> But, while I'm typing, I'd proffer the isotopic analysis that shows that every bit of the excess CO2 (above 280 ppm) came from the combustion of fossil fuels.  But do feel free to explain why that's not a "definitive human fingerprint".



Yeah,,, You go right ahead and proffer that.. Except that the isotopic fingerprints of carbon combustion are pretty indistinguable from some natural sources... 

And that man is charged for NATURAL sources of CO2 as well in the accounting. 
Makes it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE (to 100% certainty) that anyone could claim that "every bit" came from fossil fuels..


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Why should anyone be surprised that a glacier was growing, a thousand years ago?
> ...



I think that we have pretty good records of fossil fuels by type consumed as far back as we've used them as well as cement manufacture and forest clearing.  

With those records and arithmetic we know how much of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere our activities put there. 

Simple chemistry and physics tell us the consequences of our contributions. 

What we can't know yet is what we will add to that before we're done and what effects caused by what we did and do will add to our damage

Finally,  exactly what the weather and sea level will be like in the new climate and what adaptation to our civilization will be required and when. 

There is a whole science that has been developed around risk mitigation and uncertainty. 

Combining climate science and statistics gives us valuable insight on prudent actions.  

Typical business methodology.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Because it has yet to be proven that the additional CO2 causes warming.  A definitive human fingerprint would be one that could not easily be due to other causes.  At present, all warming is within the confines of natural variability.  A definitive human fingerprint would be one that steps outside of natural variability.  Lets see such a fingerprint.
> 
> And consider the time line regarding that glacier...those trees were growing during the MWP...a time which you warmers claim was barely, if at all as warm as today and the warmth only happened in the North Atlantic region.  Clearly those trees were growing in a climate that was warmer than the present and oddly enough, the glacier was not in the north atlantic.



Wow, no manner of reality is going to get through your ignorance, is it?

Mythbusters experiement;
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=player_detailpage]Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube[/ame]

Wikipedia - Beer-Lambert
Beer?Lambert law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infrared 
http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

NASA
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Perhaps if you stomp your feet three times and repeat, "CO2 doesn't cause warming", you and Toto can visit the Wizard of Oz for a while.  Be sure to pout.  

You are amazing.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Because it has yet to be proven that the additional CO2 causes warming.  A definitive human fingerprint would be one that could not easily be due to other causes.  At present, all warming is within the confines of natural variability.  A definitive human fingerprint would be one that steps outside of natural variability.  Lets see such a fingerprint.
> ...



And exactly which part of any of that do you think points towards anything that is outside of natural variability....or a definitive human fingerprint in the global climate.  Clearly you believe, but like the dogma that rocks regularly links, what you claim is there, is not.  Feel free to point it out specifically if you think it is there.

Don't worry about disappointing me when you are unable to describe where the information you claim to be in those links is....we both already know that it isn't.  What strikes me as amazing is that you idiots believe that because CO2 absorbs and immediately emits IR, that it can cause warming.  How stupid do you have to be to believe in a magic gas?  

Want some magic beans to go with your magic gas?  I have some for sale...a bargain at a million dollars each.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2013)

Who ya gonna call??? 

MythBusters...  


Catchy tune that... Using Theatre LIGHTS to model Long Wave IR ---- Piss Poor Science..


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Who ya gonna call???
> 
> MythBusters...
> 
> ...



Shows exactly what passes for science in his mind....no wonder he has swallowed the hoax hook line and sinker.  If he thinks that was science, it is no wonder he views the IPCC as a real scientific body.....railroad engineer/soft porn writer and all.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 15, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo&feature=player_detailpage]CO2 experiment - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ&feature=player_detailpage]The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube[/ame]

The list goes on and on.

If you still are not convinced, you can do it yourself.  

Materials:

1. Automobile
2. Dry Ice
3. Duct Tape
4. Thermometer
5. Sunny spot
6. Record Book
7. Clock.

 Seal all the vents and cracks in your car with duct tape.  Purchase twenty pounds of dry ice.  Put it in the back seat of your car.  Park the car in the sun.  Sit in front seat.  Hold thermometer.  Record temperature every five minutes.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The IPCC is climate science.  There is no science that says otherwise.  Period.



*BING... (wait for it)... ... F-ing... ... (wait for it) ... GO ! ! !*


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 15, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Yeah,,, You go right ahead and proffer that.. Except that the isotopic fingerprints of carbon combustion are pretty indistinguable from some natural sources...
> 
> And that man is charged for NATURAL sources of CO2 as well in the accounting.
> Makes it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE (to 100% certainty) that anyone could claim that "every bit" came from fossil fuels..



Sure it is.  We have been tagging CO2 molecules since 1940.

What is a molecular tag? - Yahoo! Answers

"It ... refers to a molecule that has been "tagged" or "labeled" with a radioactive atom so that one or the other can be traced. 

For example, tagging the H2O or CO2 used by plants in photosynthesis with radioactive O2 allowed researchers in the 40s to determined that the O2 released in photosynthesis originally came from water, not CO2"

Didn't you know?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Tell us about the science that they deny.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 15, 2013)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The dumbest question of the night.  Which point do you disagree with? 

Human's burn fossil fuels.  

Burning fossil fuels create carbon dioxide. 

Carbon dioxide from energy production is released to the atmosphere. 

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. 

Greenhouse gasses are those that absorb longwave radiation.  

Once GHGs absorb radiation they immediately emit it in all directions.

The part that goes down,  as compared to up,  is absorbed by the earth's water,  land,  life,  ice,  and atmosphere.  

The only way that planetary energy balance can be maintained is to energize outgoing radiation by higher surface temperatures.  

Which one is in question in your mind?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Because it has yet to be proven that the additional CO2 causes warming.  A definitive human fingerprint would be one that could not easily be due to other causes.  At present, all warming is within the confines of natural variability.  A definitive human fingerprint would be one that steps outside of natural variability.  Lets see such a fingerprint.
> ...



That experiment is still flawed.  The gases were introduced during the experiment.  We don't know the temperature of the gases in the bottles.  The "greenhouse" gases could have been stored in a room at significantly higher temperature.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

No banana.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah,,, You go right ahead and proffer that.. Except that the isotopic fingerprints of carbon combustion are pretty indistinguable from some natural sources...
> ...



SO how did tagging some sources prove that all the CO2 comes from humans?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



All that can be true, and it still doesn't prove that humans are causing the Earth's climate to warm.  Furthermore, even if you managed to prove that humans were causing the Earth's climate to warm, you still have to prove that the consequences are as dire as you nutburgers claim.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The WMP, for starters.


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> CO2 experiment - YouTube
> 
> The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube
> 
> ...







Had you ever taken a physics class you would realize they are demonstrating the IDEAL GAS LAWS, not global warming.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> CO2 experiment - YouTube
> 
> The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube
> 
> The list goes on and on.



Yes, the list goes on and on.  Unfortunately, you fail to realize that the list is the number of side show charlatans who have fooled you.  In the first video, the whole experiment was found to be rigged...that is, the cameras were set to a very small portion of the CO2 absorption spectrum.  Something that the fraudster failed to mention...probably because he didn't know was that when a CO2 molecule absorbs IR, it emits that energy at a slightly lower frequency.  With the camera set to record a very narrow bandwidth, the emissions quickly left that bandwidth and thus the illusion was complete.

In the second, note that the bottles are capped.  Ever hear of a phenomenon known as the heat of compression?  Learn it, or at least read up on it and you will see that he provided a fine demonstration of the heat of compression...not of any greenhouse warming.

In every other experiment you might find to post, do take a minute or two and try and determine what the CO2 concentration is in the experiment and does it demonstrate warming when in the control it is a trace gas in the experiment and does it demonstrate that an additional 100ppm causes warming.

The ease with which you guys are fooled never fails to startle me.  Children are more difficult to fool.

If you still are not convinced, you can do it yourself.  

Materials:

1. Automobile
2. Dry Ice
3. Duct Tape
4. Thermometer
5. Sunny spot
6. Record Book
7. Clock.

 Seal all the vents and cracks in your car with duct tape.  Purchase twenty pounds of dry ice.  Put it in the back seat of your car.  Park the car in the sun.  Sit in front seat.  Hold thermometer.  Record temperature every five minutes.[/QUOTE]

Your own experiment is a fine demonstration of the heat of compression as well.  You raise the CO2 concentrations far above those found in the atmosphere and seal any pressure release vents.....again, learn about the heat of compression.

If you want to do an experiment with a car, park two side by side, windows up or down or slightly open.  You sit in one, no one sits in the other.  In a very short while, your own respiration will raise the concentration of CO2 in the car by 100ppm or so and the longer you sit there, the higher it will get.  Measure the temperatures in the two cars and see that the slight increase in the trace gas will not cause one car to be warmer than the other.  After an hour or so, the CO2 concentration in the car should be above 600ppm and still you will see no difference between the interior temperature of the cars.

Stop being so gullible and for God's sake, learn something.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Here is where we part company.



PMZ said:


> GHGs absorb radiation they immediately emit it in all directions.



While it is true that it is possible for a molecule to emit in any direction, show me some proof that it will emit in any direction under any circumstance.



PMZ said:


> part that goes down,  as compared to up,  is absorbed by the earth's water,  land,  life,  ice,  and atmosphere.



The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)  As of today, the second law says nothing about statistic probabilities or any other such thing and till it is changed to express that idea, it remains written in absolute terms....energy will not move from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy.  If you think differently, prove differently....there will surely be a nobel in it for you.



PMZ said:


> only way that planetary energy balance can be maintained is to energize outgoing radiation by higher surface temperatures.



I bet that you are under the impression that in order to maintain an energy balance, that energy out must equal energy in.  Am I correct?



PMZ said:


> Which one is in question in your mind?



None...as if you could school me.... you arrogant little pissant.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> If you want to do an experiment with a car, park two side by side, windows up or down or slightly open.  You sit in one, no one sits in the other.  In a very short while, your own respiration will raise the concentration of CO2 in the car by 100ppm or so and the longer you sit there, the higher it will get.  Measure the temperatures in the two cars and see that the slight increase in the trace gas will not cause one car to be warmer than the other.  After an hour or so, the CO2 concentration in the car should be above 600ppm and still you will see no difference between the interior temperature of the cars.
> 
> Stop being so gullible and for God's sake, learn something.



What we seem to be learning are your outstanding intellectual limitations.

That's your idea of a controlled experiment with meaningful results?  Let's do a little math.  0.9C/(150 years*365 days/yr) gives us 1.64e-5C per 24 hour day warming from an average of about 340 ppm.  Just how long were you going to wait to find a discernible temperature increase in your car and how were you controlling for the heat the occupant's metabolism was creating (and the bacterial metabolism in his rotting corpse)?

Again, someone correct me, aren't you the one claiming to be an actual research scientist?

I tell ya, what we seem to be "learning" are your outstanding intellectual (or ethical) limitations.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)  As of today, the second law says nothing about statistic probabilities or any other such thing and till it is changed to express that idea, it remains written in absolute terms....energy will not move from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy.  If you think differently, prove differently....there will surely be a nobel in it for you.



The Second Law gives ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTRAINTS on the motion of energy.  Here's YOUR challenge: find us a statement of the Second Law from any recognized authority that clearly indicates any restriction on the motion of energy.

And your sig continues to do nothing but show Mamooth to be the superior intellect.  The Second Law can be reproduced EXACTLY by a purely statistical approach.  The two are EQUIVALENT.  The universe is filled with discrete pieces of matter and discrete packets of energy - there is no continuum.  To insist that a statistical approach will not work is to deny reality.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> That's your idea of a controlled experiment with meaningful results?  Let's do a little math.  0.9C/(150 years*365 days/yr) gives us 1.64e-5C per 24 hour day warming from an average of about 340 ppm.  Just how long were you going to wait to find a discernible temperature increase in your car and how were you controlling for the heat the occupant's metabolism was creating (and the bacterial metabolism in his rotting corpse)?
> 
> Again, someone correct me, aren't you the one claiming to be an actual research scientist?



First, I have never claimed to be a research scientist.  Must you lie about every thing?

Second, in so far as an experiment to demonstrate that additional CO2 (as a trace gas) in an open atmosphere either does or does not cause warming my experiment is far more realistic than goofball's who intends to flood the atmosphere with CO2 and then tape it up so that you get a demonstration of the heat of compression which has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse hypothesis.  If you weren't a clueless idiot, you might have picked up on that fact.  Of course no warming will happen in my experiment just as additional CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause warming.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The Second Law gives ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTRAINTS on the motion of energy.  Here's YOUR challenge: find us a statement of the Second Law from any recognized authority that clearly indicates any restriction on the motion of energy.



Any statement that places constraints on the direction of energy flow by default places constraints on the motion of energy.  Here, from the physics department of the University of Georgia....

 It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.




Abraham3 said:


> your sig continues to do nothing but show Mamooth to be the superior intellect.  The Second Law can be reproduced EXACTLY by a purely statistical approach.  The two are EQUIVALENT.  The universe is filled with discrete pieces of matter and discrete packets of energy - there is no continuum.  To insist that a statistical approach will not work is to deny reality.



Only a true idiot thinks that a branch of mathematics is a fundamental mechanism of anything as opposed to being a means to try and describe the result of the workings of a fundamental mechanism.  When mamooth wrote that, I thought that s/he must be the stupidest person on the board...the number of you morons who have stepped forward to try and defend that moronic statement has proven that either you are all socks belonging to mamooth or the board is heavily populated with morons.

As to the second law being a statement of statistics, if that were true, then I suppose it would be stated as such.  It is not.  You suffer from the post modern malady of substituting models for reality and believing them to be reality.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > That's your idea of a controlled experiment with meaningful results?  Let's do a little math.  0.9C/(150 years*365 days/yr) gives us 1.64e-5C per 24 hour day warming from an average of about 340 ppm.  Just how long were you going to wait to find a discernible temperature increase in your car and how were you controlling for the heat the occupant's metabolism was creating (and the bacterial metabolism in his rotting corpse)?
> ...



Pardon me if I have you confused with someone else.  When I first arrived here, someone on your side of the argument claimed to have a PhD in Geology.  If that wasn't you, a thousand pardons.

Warming will take place in your experiment because you put a living breathing human being into your vehicle.  Being about as sloppy an apparatus as I've ever heard of, you'd do even worse by having the vehicles open to the atmosphere.  You should have suggested a sealed pressure compensation device (a balloon) or to have simply taken pressure changes into account with some high tech brain, pen and paper.

This whole experiment discussion is a red herring because you haven't the slightest intent of ever admitting that any experiment is valid no matter how it is done.  I said so when you started.  You aren't interested in facts, knowledge or truth.  You're simply looking for more opportunities to insult your debating opponents. 

I asked that you suggest a real experiment that would actually show whether or not greenhouse warming can take place.  If this two-cars-in-the-parking lot is the best you can come up... then please stop wasting everyone's time.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Pardon me if I have you confused with someone else.  When I first arrived here, someone on your side of the argument claimed to have a PhD in Geology.  If that wasn't you, a thousand pardons.



Pardon you for not checking the facts before you speak?  That's what you do.  Do you ask for pardon every time you speak?  



Abraham3 said:


> will take place in your experiment because you put a living breathing human being into your vehicle.  Being about as sloppy an apparatus as I've ever heard of, you'd do even worse by having the vehicles open to the atmosphere.  You should have suggested a sealed pressure compensation device (a balloon) or to have simply taken pressure changes into account with some high tech brain, pen and paper.



The body heat would be the only warming and any experiment that doesn't allow convection and conduction to take place is not analogous to the atmosphere.  All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.



Abraham3 said:


> whole experiment discussion is a red herring because you haven't the slightest intent of ever admitting that any experiment is valid no matter how it is done.  I said so when you started.  You aren't interested in facts, knowledge or truth.  You're simply looking for more opportunities to insult your debating opponents.



Well it is a set up, but not a red herring.  There are no experiments that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and there are no experiments that demonstrate backradiation as required by the greenhouse hypothesis.  The entire claim is no more real than the flawed computer models that have replaced your reality.  There is an atmospheric thermal effect, which is far larger than the fictitious greenhouse effect but it could care less what gasses compose the atmosphere beyond their atomic weights.



Abraham3 said:


> asked that you suggest a real experiment that would actually show whether or not greenhouse warming can take place.  If this two-cars-in-the-parking lot is the best you can come up... then please stop wasting everyone's time.



There is no experiment that can demonstrate greenhouse warming as described by climate science because it simply is not happening.  There is no experiment that can demonstrate backradiation because it is not possible.  You believe in a thing that can not be substantiated in any way that might be construed to adhere to the scientific method.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.



That was so stupid, it made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the chuckle.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Pardon me if I have you confused with someone else.  When I first arrived here, someone on your side of the argument claimed to have a PhD in Geology.  If that wasn't you, a thousand pardons.
> ...





Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic  Intermediate
The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.

Climate Myth...
Greenhouse effect has been falsified

"[T]he influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven. In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global warming.


This is no surprise, because in fact there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility.  The statement that so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2, contribute to near-surface atmospheric warming is in glaring contradiction to well-known physical laws relating to gas and vapour, as well as to general caloric theory.' (Heinz Thieme)


Some climate change skeptics dispute the so-called greenhouse effect, which keeps the surface temperature of the Earth approximately 33 degrees C warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In other words, without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be largely uninhabitable.

How do we know for sure this effect is real? The principle is demonstrated through basic physics, because a bare rock orbiting the sun at the distance of the Earth should be far colder than the Earth actually is. The explanation for this observation was based on the work of John Tyndall, who discovered in 1859 that several gases, including carbon dioxide and water vapour, could trap heat. This was the first evidence for what we know now as greenhouse gases. Then, towards the end of the same century, a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius proved the relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures.

Empirical Evidence for the Greenhouse Effect
We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moons surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun goes down on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).

Since the moon is virtually the same distance from the sun as we are, it is reasonable to ask why at night the Earth doesnt get as cold as the moon. The answer is that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no water vapour or other greenhouse gases, because of course it has no atmosphere at all. Without our protective atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be as barren as our lifeless moon; without the heat trapped overnight in the atmosphere (and in the ground and oceans) our nights would be so cold that few plants or animals could survive even a single one.

The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect  and the role CO2 plays  can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites. By comparing the Suns heat reaching the Earth with the heat leaving it, we can see that less long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving (and since the 1970s, that less and less radiation is leaving the Earth, as CO2 and equivalents build up). Since all radiation is measured by its wavelength, we can also see that the frequencies being trapped in the atmosphere are the same frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases.

Disputing that the greenhouse effect is real is to attempt to discredit centuries of science, laws of physics and direct observation. Without the greenhouse effect, we would not even be here to argue about it.


Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.
> ...



Same reaction I have when some dweeb posts a youtube or MythBusters PROOF of the power of CO2 warming.. Did ya watch the Mythbuster "proof" led by a 14 yr scientist? 

*The amount of CO2 to be added to those enclosures to DOUBLE CO2 concentration would have been a chunk of dry ice the size of a flea*.. HOW MUCH did they add? How much water vapor was present? What spectral content did the lamp sources have? 

[[My favorite is the one with the poser wearing a grounding strap on his wrist.. Yep static electricity is controlled !!! Unfortuneately, the rest of the experimental setup is a crap pile... 


Sesame Street.. It's a gas....


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








That's me.


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.
> ...








Look up the Ideal Gas Laws there admiral...


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

I think that the denialists need to check with the Fox News scientists and ask them why the moon's climate is so different from earth's.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I think that the denialists need to check with the Fox News scientists and ask them why the moon's climate is so different from earth's.



All the vehicles on the moon are electric. Duh.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So Westwall also climbs into the clown car.

Here's a hint, clowns. Nothing has been compressed.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)



Dude, you are so out in left field with this.  You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The second law states no such thing.  The second law says that energy gets spread out randomly with time.

That you are still insisting on this complete nonsense makes it obvious you are incapable of learning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)
> ...



Yeah, the 2nd Law is his kryptonite.

On the plus side, he doesn't want to waste trillions to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.
An amount that will be overwhelmed by Chinese and Indian CO2.


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








The heavier gas (CO2) forces out the lighter gas (O2) thus raising the temps dummy.  And you claim to be a "nuclear watch officer"


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the denialists need to check with the Fox News scientists and ask them why the moon's climate is so different from earth's.
> ...



I thought that you'd claim that it was because all of the green cheese the moon is made of needs to be refrigerated. 

I like yours better. 

Did it come from the Fox News crack science team?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > All experiments that contain CO2 at higher concentrations than found in the atmosphere demonstrate the heat of compression....not the fictitious greenhouse effect.
> ...



Do you have tourettes or some such syndrome that causes such outbreaks or do you just not know what the heat of compression is?  Or are you as I suspect, just a laughing jibbering idiot?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The second law of thermodynamics states in absolute terms that energy will not move from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)
> ...



Perhaps trying to deny science by using pseudoscience is not a great idea. Perhaps alchemy would lead to a better results.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It came from the "If we all drive really expensive electric vehicles, the Earth will cool" cult.

I read it in the "Letter from the President". You're still the President, right?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It's a dumb statement. 

But, by all means, explain it with references.  This I gotta read.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What can possibly go wrong with ignoring the future until all of the fossil fuel is gone?  For one thing,  we wouldn't have to try to adapt to an ever changing climate.  And we wouldn't have to create a sustainable energy system.  Just close the doors. 

Back to the caves.  A total conservative victory.  

And real progress in solving our overpopulation problem.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 16, 2013)

Astrology is far more reliable and predictive than AGW "science"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*What can possibly go wrong with ignoring the future until all of the fossil fuel is gone?*

When the fossil fuel is all gone, CO2 from human sources will drop.
Will your whining drop as well?
How many trillions should we spend to emit 10 ppm less into the atmospere?
Should we still spend it if China and India will emit 15 ppm more?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Astrology is far more reliable and predictive than AGW "science"



You sure, because my model looks like this.





You tell me what the CO2 levels and TSI will be and I'll tell you what the temp rise will be.

And I can guarantee it out preforms  your astrology.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?



Of course it has been falsified.  Every failed prediction falsifies it.  The failure of a tropospheric hot spot (the smoking gun) to materialize falsifies it  Climate models predict more warming in the upper tropical troposphere than the lower troposphere allegedly due to "heat-trapping" from increased greenhouse gases. Satellite observations do not show the warming trend predicted by models, and thus the basis of the theory of man-made global warming is falsified.  The increase in outgoing long wave IR in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2 falsifies it.  






The decrease in upper atmosphere water vapor in direct contradiction to the model projections falsifies it.  The lack of ocean warming falsifies it.  In short observation falsifies the hypothesis.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
> ...



Odd, because according to the university of texas,






So what do you mean by "The lack of ocean warming falsifies it. "


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Ah yes, good little Kayhoe or whatever her name is.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You really don't know what the heat of compression is?  Strange thing not to know for one who claims to have a clue.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
> ...



Oh, I get it... Dueling talking points.

"

Models Predicted Too Much Warming, New Data Show | Heartlander Magazine

The lack of a tropical upper tropospheric hotspot ... Spencer explained.

So, basically, you are just parroting Dr. Roy Spencer....

Anyone can do that....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=340

"The mistaken belief in skeptic circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric hot spot- it does not. Period."


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I know what the heat of compression is.  I'm just waiting for you to explain how it supposedly fits in with CO2 experiments.

That's the part I don't get.  But please do explain oh great guru of failed thermodynamics understanding.

You've already got the 2nd law wrong. Do demonstrate how badly you have heat of compression.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Odd, because according to the university of texas,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Egads but you are gullible.  Want to buy some prime beach front property in colorado?  How about central park in NY?  The golden gate bridge?  The london bridge?  How about india?  I'll make you a great deal on india.

Do you have any idea what those 10 to-the-22nd-figures mean.  They claim an increase of .07 degrees over a span of 50 years....as if we could measure the average temperature of all of the oceans to a hundredth of a degree since 1955.

Again I ask....how f'ing gullible are you exactly?  Take a guess.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



In other words, you have no actual information.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Nope...I think spencer is a charlatan as well.  He believes in the magic gas....he just doesn't believe the magic is as strong as you do.  I bring up the hot spot because all climate models predict it and demand that it is the human fingerprint on global warming....it doesn't exist and as such falsifies the hypothesis.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



From what I read, no models demanded that it is the human fingerprint on global warming.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The two experiments above were both carried out in sealed containers.  If you understand the heat of compression, then you should grasp how it applies to the above experiments.



itfitzme said:


> already got the 2nd law wrong. Do demonstrate how badly you have heat of compression.



You are saying that the physics department at the Georgia State University doesn't know what the second law of thermodynamics says?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> From what I read, no models demanded that it is the human fingerprint on global warming.



Considering your sources and the censorship they are subject to, that doesn't surprise me.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No, I am saying that you don't know what the Georgia State University is talking about.  You have misinterpreted it, taking it out of the context of the discussion that they present.

What I am saying is that your entire basis of knowledge is on a single page presented by the Georgia State University.  

What I am saying is that, unfortunately for your, the Georgia State University made an error in wording that has led to your confusion.

What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.

On the other item, by all  means, show us the calculations that show amount of heat that resulted from the measured pressure rise.

Oh, that's right, you don't actually have any proof that all the experiments were done in sealed containers nor have you made the calculations that prove that the temperature rise was due to pressure change.  Nor can you explain, then, given that CO2 does absorb IR, how much of the temperature rise was due to pressure change and how much was due to the IR absorption.

Oh, and that is just assuming that your concept is even functional.

What you fail to understand is that your concept is not  functional because you don't understand how thermodynamics functions and the conditions necessary to yield increased temperature from pressure.  What you are confused about is that the experiments don't create pressure that then results in heating.  Rather, even if your concept is marginally correct in the containers being sealed, it is the heat that is absorbed by the CO2 that results in a pressure change. This would then be actual demonstrated evidence that, in fact, the gas got hot as expected and that CO2 is a green house gas.

Ah, what the hell.

Here is how it works.  A cylinder containing gas is compressed.  The work that goes into the compression of the gas is turned into heat.

Here is the situation you are trying to apply it to.  A cylinder containing CO2 is heated by shining IR at it.  As the temperature increases, the pressure in the cylinder increases.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> The heavier gas (CO2) forces out the lighter gas (O2) thus raising the temps dummy.



Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! -- Wolfgang Pauli

("That's not right. That's not even wrong!")


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.



Says the idgit who doesn't understand how the heat of compression applies to the experiments above.  Excuse me while I laugh in your face.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 16, 2013)

So, according to the "theory" here, a tiny wisp of CO2 -- which cools as it expands -- compresses the air slightly, heating it. So far, so good. After all, due to that entropy thing, the heating will be slightly greater than the cooling.

Of course, the theory then has a problem. It's still a tiny wisp of gas, so the tiny bit of heat given off is totally insignificant. It's overwhelmed just by the noise of the rest of the experiment.

That's why it's so funny. None of them has any practical ability, the experience necessary to understand the vast differences in the scales of the heat involved. Just a buncha ivory tower residents.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2013)

ssdd said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > ssdd said:
> ...



lol!


----------



## IanC (Oct 16, 2013)

The hotspot is a necessary outcome of the physics behind CO2 theory. While its absence does not disprove AGW in general, it does disprove the correctness of the modeling. Just because this question has not been answered in the last decade, that does not mean it is any less important now than when it was first asked.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.
> ...



Well, I was going to say I would put the work into explaining the math for the heat of compression later.

But you just had to remind everyone what an asshole you are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > From what I read, no models demanded that it is the human fingerprint on global warming.
> ...





Warmist cult members like idiotme censor themselves.  They simply don't read anything that contradicts their dogma.  That's why they are so incredulous and enraged when they start posting in forums like this one and discover that opposition to their sermons is quite credible and quite strong.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...




So you aren't an asshole?

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

Man, you kill me, idgitme.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 16, 2013)

mamooth said:


> So, according to the "theory" here, a tiny wisp of CO2 -- which cools as it expands -- compresses the air slightly, heating it. So far, so good. After all, due to that entropy thing, the heating will be slightly greater than the cooling.
> 
> Of course, the theory then has a problem. It's still a tiny wisp of gas, so the tiny bit of heat given off is totally insignificant. It's overwhelmed just by the noise of the rest of the experiment.
> 
> That's why it's so funny. None of them has any practical ability, the experience necessary to understand the vast differences in the scales of the heat involved. Just a buncha ivory tower residents.



Notice how none of the deniers tried to address your point.  The fact that they are trying to refute the greenhouse effect this late in the game is just sad.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Odd, because according to the university of texas,
> ...




He's also ignoring the point that prior to the year 2000 there is very little data to base such a chart on.  Almost all the data is from a depth of 700 meters and up.  In other words, they are basing their claims on measuring less than 1/5th of the ocean.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So, according to the "theory" here, a tiny wisp of CO2 -- which cools as it expands -- compresses the air slightly, heating it. So far, so good. After all, due to that entropy thing, the heating will be slightly greater than the cooling.
> ...



Unlike YOUR  Borg minions.. Not all of us skeptics agree.. We've beat each other up bloody trying to determine the truth.. And decided that there's enough fraud and misrepresentation in your position for us to STILL be on the same team.. 

I've got 10 pages of debate with SSDD.. We did not reach a mutual agreeable understanding. You should try it.. Rather than taking direction from the Clergy over at skepticalscience or the IPCC..


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Well, I was going to say I would put the work into explaining the math for the heat of compression later.
> 
> But you just had to remind everyone what an asshole you are.



As if I need a goofball like you to explain anything to me.  I am to busy laughing out loud in your stupid arrogant face to ever take anything you say seriously.  Perhaps if you took off the red wig, the big rubber nose and the size 73 shoes I might be able to take you more seriously.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I've got 10 pages of debate with SSDD.. We did not reach a mutual agreeable understanding. You should try it.. Rather than taking direction from the Clergy..



I would think it was more than 10 pages and I thought we mutually agreed that we would never agree till such time as post modern science has had its time and you realize that you were wrong at which time you would humbly apologize.


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So, according to the "theory" here, a tiny wisp of CO2 -- which cools as it expands -- compresses the air slightly, heating it. So far, so good. After all, due to that entropy thing, the heating will be slightly greater than the cooling.
> ...









Uhhhh, that's where you're wrong olfraud, we don't have to _prove_ anything.  It's *YOU* that have to prove your theory.  So far you are batting 0.00 with your predictions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I've got 10 pages of debate with SSDD.. We did not reach a mutual agreeable understanding. You should try it.. Rather than taking direction from the Clergy..
> ...


*
Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasises the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on who the interested parties are and the nature of these interests. It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective.*

Is this what you're accusing flacaltenn of using?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

No reports of an explanation from Fox News scientists to explain the reason that the moon's climate is so different than earth's. 

Perhaps, unlike real world science,  they have no explanation.  They're stumped.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> No reports of an explanation from Fox News scientists to explain the reason that the moon's climate is so different than earth's.
> 
> Perhaps, unlike real world science,  they have no explanation.  They're stumped.



All the vehicles on the moon are electric. Duh.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > No reports of an explanation from Fox News scientists to explain the reason that the moon's climate is so different than earth's.
> ...



You already used that one.  That the best that the crack Fox News science team can come up with? 

Seems like high paid boobs and boobies could do better.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > What I am saying is that you have no understanding of the fundamental measurements of energy in physics so you are prone to misunderstanding of what the terminology means.
> ...



The heat of compression doesn't apply, that is why your so completely off base.

The heat of compression is the result of what????  Oh, COMPRESSION.  And how do we  compress a gas?   We reduce the volume.  

The first and second laws of thermo give us  dU=dQ-dW..  That is the change in energy is the change in heat minus the work done by the system.  When a system is COMPRESSED, as in a cylinder, then work is done on the system, increasing the energy of the system.  

How then is the energy stored in the system, once compressed?  As an increase in temperature and pressure.  

So, what is the heat of compression?  Energy from the pressurization of a gas or liquid converted to heat.  When the gas is pressurized, by compression, it gets hotter.  This is the exact opposite of what happens when compressed gas is allowed to depressurize.  

The heat of pressurization is noticeable when you pump up your bicycle tire.

The opposite is noticeable when the valve is opened on a canister of compressed gas.  It is typical for ice crystals to form around the nozzle where the gas escapes.  As the gas escapes, it decompresses and cools.

So, now explain your concept.  Or are you sticking with "do do head" because you have nothing?

Or perhaps you would like to move forward and do some calculations on the energy that is turned into heat as a cylinder of gas is compressed.

All we need it PV=nRT and the first law, dU=dQ-dW.  (maybe we need dQ=T dS).


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



There is simply no science that supports what they want to be true.  That simple.  None.  They are forced to make up exotic explanations that sound like they might be true and might fool those who don't know science which is primarily themselves.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 16, 2013)

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Odd, isn't it.  I can't imagine intentionally creating a fantasy at the expense of understanding how the universe functions. 

It was more fun learning this stuff in a positive way.  Revisiting it through their mistakes will just have to do.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

Here is some interesting links

http://www.iit.edu/arc/workshops/pdfs/Thermodynamic_Properties.pdf

Here is the statement that has SSDD all screwed up because Hyperphysics got sloppy and used "energy" instead of "heat".  

"Statement 2: No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of *heat* from one temperature level to a higher one"

(it's why I always read multiple sources.)

The applicable laws are the ideal gas law PV=nRT and  dU=dQ-dW, the first law of thermo.

A "heat of compression" process would be an isothermal process.

In isothermal compression (no heat is exchange with the environment), 

Q = -W = R T ln(V1/V2) 

The work done by the compression, in changing the volume of the cylinder, is turned into heat. 

The effect of more heat is increased pressure.

So, Q = -W = R T ln(P1/P2) 

Curiously, "heat of compression" really doesn't search well.  You have to know what you are looking for.


The example is 

Air is compressed from an initial condition of 1 bar and 25&#8451; to a final state of 5 bar and 25&#8451; by three different mechanically reversible processes in a closed system:

(b) Isothermal compression.

(b) Equation for the isothermal compression of  an ideal gas applies here:

(8.314) (298.15) ln (1/5) = 3990J


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> FlaCalTenn,
> 
> Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?



I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually occurs in nature.  For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature.  Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor.   There are also numerous other complications that are ignored.  The other experiments were utterly atrocious.  The one where the guy drops Alkaseltzer into the water to produce the CO2 is the worst of the worst.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > FlaCalTenn,
> ...



Do you have some water vapor data?  Do you have some actual numbers to back this up, or are you just supposin'?

Oh, and any explanation as to why CO2 is demonstrably accountable for some 80% of the variance in the temperature anomaly since 1960?

Oh, any explanation as to how and why there has been this mysterious specter of rising water vapor since 1850?

And, your opinion on the quality of an experiment doesn't really count for much.

Oh, here it is...

"Water vapour feedback continues to be the most consistently important feedback accounting for the large warming predicted by general circulation models in response to a doubling of CO2. Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000)"

So, water vapor is accounted for.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



No one has demonstrated that CO2 is accountable for 80% of the temperature variance since 1960.  

I didn't make any claims about the magnitude of the effect water vapor has on temperature, so why would have need to provide any figures?  I simply said it has an effect.  Are you denying that it does?

My opinion doesn't count for much only among the flock of nutburgers that you identify with.  Rational people have a different opinion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It worked once to hightlight your idiocy, why mess with success?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You claim it is water vapor.  You do know what you post, don't you?  "it ignores the effects of water vapor."  You brought it up.  So, do you have some numbers to show it is all water vapor and not CO2?  Or are you just supposin'?

I've showed CO2 as being responsible for some 80% of the variance in temp anomaly multiple times.  That's what that graph next to my screen name shows.

The IPCC has co2 as contributing about 45 times as much as TSI, so that is about 80%.

That is what these show









So, I'm just wondering, what you have for the actual effect of water vapor, seeing as you say it is ignored.

Or are you saying the value is zero? That is a number, and effect of zero.

I figure, seeing as you are so eminently qualified to determine if an experiment on IR absorption by CO2 is any good, you surely must have some info on the water vapor you suppose...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> FlaCalTenn,
> 
> Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?



Not sure what provoked that misunderstanding. I'll assume it was the comments about the lamps used in some of these "proofs in a box".. 

Of course CO2 absorbs IR in few narrow bands.. But not as well in the presence of moderate vapor as BriPat just pointed out.. AND in the atmosphere at 300ppm --- ONE of the three major absorbtion bands is already saturated. Another 1/2 overlaps water vapor. So the forcing function estimates are wildly high IN PRACTICE.. I don't doubt the theory part.. 

But back to the experimental lighting.. The only power of CO2 is to absorb IR. And to test temperature effects, the source OUGHT to be limited to the long wave bands that mimick the earth's surface. Because with a huge stage light --- it's NOT DESIGNED to produce IR illumination.. It's designed to provide VISIBLE bands. So just the normal HEATING effects of the metal around the bulb, variations in the spectrum of the individual bulbs, LIFETIME effects of those lamps is too much of confusion factor compared to the 1 deg the MythBuster's child scientist found. 

Many NEWER theatrical lamps even FILTER the IR to produce a cooler beam. (my first wife had a degree in technical theatre arts)... 

Too much out of band heating. Not enough calibration and control of the wavelengths that matter..


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You mean my idiocy that you can't refute that proves conclusively that you have only anti science behind what you wish was true? 

You've become the village idiot.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You are so FOS.. THe act really fails when you make SWEEPING assertions of shit you THINK you've proven --- but you don't have A CLUE about how water vapor and CO2 SHARE some of the same absorption bands.. 

So in the presence of even MODEST amounts of water vapor --- CO2 loses some of it's superpowers.. Water vapor is by FAR the dominant GHGas.. 

WHOOPSIE...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your idiocy is irrefutable.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > FlaCalTenn,
> ...



Here's a guy you need to teach your pseudoscience to. 

http://www.youtube.com/course?list=ECFA75A0DDB89ACCD7


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I suggest you narrow your research to a description of post modern science....


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> So, now explain your concept.  Or are you sticking with "do do head" because you have nothing?



Geez but you are stupid.  You more or less describe the heat of compression and still can't apply it to the experiments above.  In the two bottle experiment...think two bottles one containing a heavier gas than the other...contained...then heated.  Which is going to have the higher temperature and why?

CO2 being more dense than air, when heated with that lamp will generate more pressure within the bottle thus causing the temperature to rise to a higher temperature than the bottle with air, which by the way also rose to a higher temperature than it would had the bottle not been capped..... which has nothing to do with CO2's radiative absorption properties which are insignificant.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...




I claim what is water vapor?  I haven't claimed anything about whatever vapor other than the fact that their experiment doesn't account for it's affect.  Every warmist cult magician acknowledges that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.  Any legitimate experiment would try to measure its effect instead of ignoring it. 

I'll just ignore the rest of your post as the babbling of an obsessive compulsive idiot.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > FlaCalTenn,
> ...



The mythbusters experiment wasn't trying to show the effect of water vapor.  They were trying to show the effect of CO2, so naturally they would ignore the effects of water vapor and all other ghgs for that matter.  Your water vapor argument is a red herring.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Or you could post what you mean.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

Here's an idea.  Build the Keystone Pipeline to the moon instead of Louisiana. Gather up all of the fossil fuel wastes that we fart into our atmosphere and pipe them to the moon,  thus creating on the moon the prelife earth atmosphere and therefore climate.  Then farm it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor..  Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney.. 

I think NormalJoe was pushing a lecture from MIT physics (which I dutifully watched) where the prof is driving one of the tools used to estimate the CO2 forcing power.. He went on for an hour about deriving how much the temperature would change for any CO2 increase.. NOTES for the class gave me a better view of the "control panel" for the model he was using.. In that ENTIRE LECTURE --- the "water vapor" slider was set to zero.. 

Kryptonite for the folks who lie to you about how much of an ACTUAL effect CO2 has in a REAL atmos composition.. 

What good is the "experiment" when we can CALCULATE the effect of a CO2 only atmos? 

How accurate is the MythBusters set-up if they don't control the water vapor? 
((After all they had dripping wet statues of whatzhisname vaporizing in the boxes))

The ISSUE is how OVERSTATED the actual warming power of CO2 in practice.. 

Not herring --- Filet Mignon...


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



''Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor..  Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney.. '' 

You're right.  Not a red herring.  Either a lie or ignorance. It's just not true. 

Water vapor is not what's changing in the atmosphere.  CO2 is.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



This is actually hysterically funny and now ya gotta sit thru an explanation.. 
I saw that sucker punch coming and ducked. Because ASSUMING that SSDD realized the implications of labeling my science advice and views as "post modern" --- BECAUSE

The THREE of us (you, me and him) are actually more "Traditionalist" than "Post Modern" on many issues.. Like for instance --- the Constitution.. Which was written BEFORE NSA had massive satellite and communications gear to monitor "our Private Papers and Effects".

Fact is --- the quotes that SSDD cling to (in error) DESERVE an interpretation based on the "TRADITIONAL" letter of the laws.. And indeed, the new elements of Radiative Physics that explain "back radiation" and our ability to measure it and RF Fields and Waves arrived in Science History AFTER those quotes that SSDD abuses.  

It is our JOB to make certain that any NEW issues or insights do not violate the letter of the law. And I've explained to him that they do not.. However --- with no Supreme Court to weigh traditionalist versus post modern "truth" ---- we're at an impasse.. It's like all those 5 to 4 decisions that are based on opinion.. Except that science backed me up and left him DENYING the existence of the new technology and insights that are REAL and MODERN. 

Try DENYING computer spying and communications hacking from a Traditionalist View of our Constitution...

ROFLing in an awkward sort of way...


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > FlaCalTenn,
> ...



Quite the contrary, the presented experiments demonstrate how little and how easily CO2 will mix with other gasses and absorb IR.  The Alkaseltzer one is the best of them.  Anyone can do it at home with a couple of bottles, thermometers, a lamp, and some Alkaseltzer.  

The more detailed and controlled experiment gave us the Beer-Lambert Law and the absorption coefficients.

By all means, though, do your own experiment and post the video on u-tube.  Come back when you have the link.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Actually, you are wrong.  As CO2 drives temperature which in turn drives humidity, the water vapor can be entirely ignored in creating a basic model.  Water vapor only becomes a consideration if we want to be more precise and increase the predictive quality of the model.  Otherwise, it is unnecessary for simple proof that CO2 is the driving factor in the climate.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The key there is common bands.  Not all infrared bands are common to both water and CO2.  You apparent think you understand this issue but the world's scientists for some reason don't.  Talk about arrogance.  But that is neither here nor there with regard to the mythbusters episode.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Progress got us here.  It will take us beyond.  We just need to accept that denialism has been around forever and needs to be treated with the irrelevance it has abundantly earned.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



IGNORE WATER VAPOR AS A GHGAS?? C'mon grasshopper --- how much more is this act gonna go on?? 

IGNORE THE COMPOSITE absorption of CO2 in the presence of water vapor??? 

Oh yeah.. Hysterical.. The Wizard of Oz says... 
"No -- do not look behind that curtain" as Toto takes his leg in his jaws... 

How many vegetables do you have to have thrown at ya before you abandon stand-up comedy??


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Actually,  no experimentation is required.  We have the moon with no atmosphere and the earth with one and both get equal solar radiation per unit mass.  Easy to measure the climate in both places.  The difference between the two climate's can only be explained by GHGs.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



It takes quite an ego to believe that a conservative without climate science  or any science for that matter,  knows more about climate than those who've devoted their lives to its study.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


----------



## Rebelitarian (Oct 17, 2013)

loa said:


> I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> 
> Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:
> 
> ...



Global warming and climate change are nothing but Globalist agendas to put carbon taxes on people so the Globalists can fund a world bank.

It is a scam thought up by bankers for the benefits of bankers.  No real environmentalism is going on.

This is why people are tired of it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Nevertheless, there was water vapor in the container.  If they didn't want to show the effect of water vapor, then they should have insured that the container didn't have any in it.


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 17, 2013)

When I took Chem I, we went over the scientific method. The professor used climate science as an example of what not to do when it came to science. It wasn't that there may or may not be data supporting Anthropogenic Climate Change, it's that the science community is bending many of its own rules in getting papers out. The journals aren't properly vetting the articles, aren't allowing papers disputing the evidence and conclusions, won't let contrary voice present at conferences. We're not talking about the ID crackpots not getting a say, but the scientists with the background and the data. There are multiple questions from scientists that aren't being addressed by other scientists and it's a problem.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Actually,  it seems more accurate to me to say the the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration is what drives the change in climate. Nothing else is changing, but it is the traditional previous levels of several GHGs that has made earth inhabitable.  Some 33 degrees warmer than without GHGs.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> When I took Chem I, we went over the scientific method. The professor used climate science as an example of what not to do when it came to science. It wasn't that there may or may not be data supporting Anthropogenic Climate Change, it's that the science community is bending many of its own rules in getting papers out. The journals aren't properly vetting the articles, aren't allowing papers disputing the evidence and conclusions, won't let contrary voice present at conferences. We're not talking about the ID crackpots not getting a say, but the scientists with the background and the data. There are multiple questions from scientists that aren't being addressed by other scientists and it's a problem.



You're extremely lucky to have had a Chem professor that cares enough about the INTEGRITY of the process... 

The peer pressure and incentives for fraud are massive in any academic venture with this much political undercurrent.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Fact is --- the quotes that SSDD cling to (in error) DESERVE an interpretation based on the "TRADITIONAL" letter of the laws.. And indeed, the new elements of Radiative Physics that explain "back radiation" and our ability to measure it and RF Fields and Waves arrived in Science History AFTER those quotes that SSDD abuses.
> ..



There are no measurements of backradiation because it does not exist.  There are examples of people fooling themselves with measuring devices, but no measurements of backradiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He has issues with the gas laws as well.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is --- the quotes that SSDD cling to (in error) DESERVE an interpretation based on the "TRADITIONAL" letter of the laws.. And indeed, the new elements of Radiative Physics that explain "back radiation" and our ability to measure it and RF Fields and Waves arrived in Science History AFTER those quotes that SSDD abuses.
> ...



Uh non, mon ami.. SERIOUSLY?? I've been trying to be diplomatic.. 

I've got a $120 IR thermometer with a 12deg beam.. If it's at room temp and I point it at a colder window to find the leak ---- I've just MEASURED "back radiation". IR photons traveling from a COLDER OBJECT to a warmer one. 

And it's quite damn accurate.. Ya really want another 12 pages of Hatfields and McCoys???


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2013)

*Please SSDD --- let's go back to DEFCON 1.. *

Or not....








Start with the 26 references at the end.. Apparently NONE of these atmos scientists, physicists or meterologists ever knew they "can't measure backradiation.. 



> Atmospheric back radiation in the tropical pacific: Intercomparison of in-situ measurements, simulations and satellite retrievals - Springer
> 
> The back radiation has been measured with an Eppley pyrgeometer on board the R/V Vickers in the tropical Pacific Ocean during the field campaigns COARE (Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment) and CEPEX (Central Equatorial Pacific Experiment) in February and March 1993, respectively. As part of these compaigns radiosondes have been launched from the Vickers several times per day and cloud cover was observed frequently. The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to calculate the back radiation for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements. Another means of comparison is derived from space-borne SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave/Imager) measurements. The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and simulated downwelling irradiance at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. The comparison of satellite measurements with pyrgeometer readings shows a mean difference of-3 W/m2 and a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. The mean difference between satellite-derived back radiation and simulated one is 3 W/m2 with a standard deviation of 14 W/m2. Comparisons with results obtained from bulk formulae applied to surface meteorological observations show a good performance of the bulk parameterisations in the cloud-free case but a general overestimation of the back radiation in cloudy situations.
> 
> ...



This body of work goes back the 1986.. All that "post-modern" crap that you hate... 

Truce???


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's an idea.  Build the Keystone Pipeline to the moon instead of Louisiana. Gather up all of the fossil fuel wastes that we fart into our atmosphere and pipe them to the moon,  thus creating on the moon the prelife earth atmosphere and therefore climate.  Then farm it.



Those are the kinds of ideas we expect from you, PMS.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Oh come on, photons can't travel from a cold object to a warmer object.

That's why I don't go out in winter anymore, all cold objects are invisible to my warm eyeball.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I have one also....and neither yours nor mine actually measures IR radiation.  They compare the temperature of the object you are pointing them at with an internal thermopile.  You aren't getting a reading as the result of an incoming flow of photons, you are getting a reading based on a temperature difference.  If the thermopile is heating, then the rate of heating is used to determine the temperature difference between itself and the object you are pointing at.....if it is cooling, then the rate of cooling is used to determine the difference between its temperature and the temperature of the object it is pointed at.   Refer to the many available papers on fooling yourself with instrumentation.

There are no measurements of backradiation because there is no backradiation.  The scientific agencies who supposedly have data bases of backradiation to an agency measure the "backradiation" with an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere in order to get a measurement...of course, if the instrument is colder than the atmosphere, then the warmer atmosphere is radiating to the warmer instrument and they aren't actually measuring backradiation.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Same problem here. Sometimes my wife fades from view also.. 



Well -- when diplomacy fails --- you gotta be ready.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> *Please SSDD --- let's go back to DEFCON 1.. *
> 
> Or not....
> 
> ...



Did you note that your paper stated that "The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to *calculate the back radiation *for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements.  It went on to say "The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and *simulated downwelling irradiance* at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2. 

Here, have a read:

How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

CO2 alarmism feeds on an idea of massive backradiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR from the atmosphere to the Earth surface, about 330 W/m2 to be compared with 170 W/m2 absorbed shortwave radiation from the Sun.

DLR thus triples the radiation from the Sun to an alarming 500 W/m2 hitting the Earth surface. This should make it possible to boil eggs on the bare ground, but since this does not work out, we ask: What is the evidence that there is massive DLR?

The answer by a CO2 alarmist is: DLR exists because you can measure it, e.g. it by a pyrgeometer:

a device that measures the atmospheric infra-red radiation spectrum that extends approximately from 4.5 µm to 100 µm.
Here is how it works according to Wikipedia:


The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect the earth surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:


Where: 
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²] 
Ein - Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m²] 
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
The pyrgeometer's thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

Where: 
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²] 
Uemf - thermopile output voltage [V] 
S - sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m²]
The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.[1]
To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:


Where: 
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²] 
&#963; - Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m²·K4)] 
T - Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]
From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.
As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.


So now we now how DLR is measured. Does this mean that DLR exists as a physical transfer of energy from atmosphere to Earth surface? No, it does not as explained as myth of backradiation or DLR. We recall: 
A pyrgeometer measures a net transfer and then invents DLR by adding the net to outgoing radiation according to Stefan-Boltzmann for a blackbody emitting into a void at 0 K.

We see that a pyrgeometer does not measure DLR directly but invents it from the formula
E_in = E_net + E_out,
which is supposed to result from E_net = E_in - E_out expressing a Stefan-Boltzmann law of the form
E_net = sigma Ta^4 - sigma Te^4,
where Ta and Te are the temperatures of atmosphere and Earth surface. But Stefan-Boltzmann's law is not described this way in physics literature, where it instead takes the form
E_net = sigma (Ta^4 - Te^4),
which does not allow extracting DLR as sigma Ta^4.

DLR and backradiation is thus fiction invented from an ad hoc formula without physical reality, which is not described in the physics literature. Nevertheless there are companies selling pyrgeometers at price of 4.000 Euro, but of course selling fiction can also serve as a business idea. But is it legal to sell fiction as science? As science fiction?

To sum up: Working with fictional differences of massive gross flows feeds alarm, while physically correct net flow does not.

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You're talking to a guy that designs photon counting cameras for medical use.. These handheld IR "non-contact" thermometers are all optical.. They ALL specify an angle of acceptance for the beam so that you know how big an area you're measuring at what distance. In fact --- on the ones I use at client's places --- they have various plug-on filters for observing different IR bands. EVEN THERMOPILES measure photons if they used in NON-CONTACT applications.. 



> There are no measurements of backradiation because there is no backradiation.  The scientific agencies who supposedly have data bases of backradiation to an agency measure the "backradiation" with an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere in order to get a measurement...of course, if the instrument is colder than the atmosphere, then the warmer atmosphere is radiating to the warmer instrument and they aren't actually measuring backradiation.



Someone's misled you.. The reason that these high grade pyrometers are super cooled is NOT because back radiation doesn't exist. It's for accuracy of measurement and calibration to -----

A) reduce temperature drift in the sensors and processing circuits.
B) to reduce 1/F type thermal noise in the amplifiers and processing. 

I do cooled cameras all the time with Peltier and other solid state coolers.. NOT BECAUSE the flourescing protein I'm looking at and counting photons from is colder --- but because the signal is so close to the noise level.. Cooling from room temperature to even close to zero reduces the ELECTRONIC noise level sometimes 10 fold.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > *Please SSDD --- let's go back to DEFCON 1.. *
> ...



''DLR thus triples the radiation from the Sun to an alarming 500 W/m2 hitting the Earth surface. This should make it possible to boil eggs on the bare ground, but since this does not work out, we ask: What is the evidence that there is massive DLR?''

Of course the real question is what is the evidence that GHGs don't absorb longwave radiation.  Of course the answer is,  none.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Did you note that your paper stated that "The radiosonde and cloud observations are used together with a radiative transfer model to *calculate the back radiation *for a subsequent intercomparison with the pyrgeometer measurements.  It went on to say "The mean difference between pyrgeometer measurements and *simulated downwelling irradiance* at the sea surface is less than 2 W/m2, at a mean of 425 W/m2 in the warm pool, with a standard deviation of 8 W/m2.
> ...



Sunlight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Direct sunlight has a luminous efficacy of about 93 lumens per watt of radiant flux. Bright sunlight provides illuminance of approximately 100,000 lux or lumens per square meter at the Earth's surface. *The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.* At the top of the atmosphere sunlight is about 30% more intense, with more than three times the fraction of ultraviolet (UV), with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically-damaging shortwave ultraviolet.[3][4][5]"

Any idea what he's talking about?


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 17, 2013)

Rebelitarian said:


> loa said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph.  After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.
> ...



Yeah, it's all an evil science/banker conspiracy, while the deniers have humanity's best interest at heart.    Oh wait...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > *Please SSDD --- let's go back to DEFCON 1.. *
> ...



I almost quit reading right there. Mr SnowJob has already weighed in with his Wiki brain to observe that the sun flux to the surface is in the range of 1000W/m2 by its lonesome. So don't panic yet.. 

Now IT'S TRUE that the down-IR is about 330W/m2, but that does not ADD to the heat energy at the surface because your "mentor midget" here has neglected to tell you that at the SAME TIME --- 400W/m2 is LEAVING the surface. A little radiative complex subtraction tells you that the NET FLOW is UP.. About 70W/m2 towards the sky. That's the prime "cooling rate" of the planet... Had the 333 back radiation NOT EXISTED, you'd be a fudgesickle right now. So there are no eggs boiling, frying or being scrambled.




> The answer by a CO2 alarmist is: DLR exists because you can measure it, e.g. it by a pyrgeometer:
> 
> a device that measures the atmospheric infra-red radiation spectrum that extends approximately from 4.5 µm to 100 µm.
> Here is how it works according to Wikipedia:
> ...




DUDE !!! Wake up !!! this is not a conspiracy.. ALL radiative IR fluxes are measured this way.. If you're gonna count photons, you need to tally them in BOTH DIRECTIONS.. 
All that is being done is to subtract from the sensor reading an amount equal to the Black Body radiation of the sensor itself.. Thats all that Boltzmann crap that follows here. 


[[Do you see a parallel here? The analogy between subtracting the "back flow" of photons from the sensor to accurately determine the INPUT flow?
It's really is defined in EVERY Radiative Physics textbook.. True story.  Back flow -- Back Radiation? ]]

Nothing more than compensating a temperature reading for the "heat energy" being generated by the device itself.. CALIBRATION MAN.... 

[/quote]

Can't do the rest of this turdish quote.. The conclusions are based on severe misunderstandings of physics and instrumentation already addressed... 

Can we quit now?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> You're talking to a guy that designs photon counting cameras for medical use.. These handheld IR "non-contact" thermometers are all optical.. They ALL specify an angle of acceptance for the beam so that you know how big an area you're measuring at what distance. In fact --- on the ones I use at client's places --- they have various plug-on filters for observing different IR bands. EVEN THERMOPILES measure photons if they used in NON-CONTACT applications..



I am also talking to a guy who obviously doesn't know what is instrument is measuring.  IR thermometers work on the same principle as Pictet's experiment.  Look it up and perhaps learn to apply your knowledge to the real world as opposed to the model world.



flacaltenn said:


> misled you.. The reason that these high grade pyrometers are super cooled is NOT because back radiation doesn't exist. It's for accuracy of measurement and calibration to -----



Alas, you have been misled...if they weren't cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, they would not measure downdwelling radiation as it would not be happening.

You are fooling yourself with your instrumentation....not uncommon but very unfortunate.  Don't worry though, it is prevalent among today's scientists.  Hell, no less than dr roy spencer still believes that when he points his IR thermometer at the sky, he is measuring downdwelling IR even after the manufacturer of the device explained in no uncertain terms that he wasn't and why.  Being able to use a device is no assurance of knowing exactly what it is measuring.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Of course the real question is what is the evidence that GHGs don't absorb longwave radiation.  Of course the answer is,  none.



There is no question about CO2 absorbing...but absorption and emission does not equal warming.  You really are clueless.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the real question is what is the evidence that GHGs don't absorb longwave radiation.  Of course the answer is,  none.
> ...



It seems that you really have no point to make and no evidence to support the point you'd like to.

Personally, until you admit the validity of quantum theory and the reality of un-magically-restrained radiative heat transfer("if they weren't cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, they would not measure downdwelling radiation as it would not be happening"), I see no point in anyone discussing ANY technical topic with you.  Your views on those two points identify you as unqualified to form an opinion worth discussion.

ps: it's downwelling, not downdwelling.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Now IT'S TRUE that the down-IR is about 330W/m2, but that does not ADD to the heat energy at the surface because your "mentor midget" here has neglected to tell you that at the SAME TIME --- 400W/m2 is LEAVING the surface. A little radiative complex subtraction tells you that the NET FLOW is UP.. About 70W/m2 towards the sky. That's the prime "cooling rate" of the planet... Had the 333 back radiation NOT EXISTED, you'd be a fudgesickle right now. So there are no eggs boiling, frying or being scrambled.



There is no 333 backradiation...you are not freezing because you live under a column of air that is miles high....the heat of compression explains the temperature on earth, not a fictitious greenhouse effect.




flacaltenn said:


> !!! Wake up !!! this is not a conspiracy.. ALL radiative IR fluxes are measured this way.. If you're gonna count photons, you need to tally them in BOTH DIRECTIONS.. All that is being done is to subtract from the sensor reading an amount equal to the Black Body radiation of the sensor itself.. Thats all that Boltzmann crap that follows here.



You aren't counting photons "dude".  You don't even know whether photons exist or not.  At present, they are an ad hoc explanation for a behavior of light that we can't think of any other explanation for.




flacaltenn said:


> Do you see a parallel here? The analogy between subtracting the "back flow" of photons from the sensor to accurately determine the INPUT flow? It's really is defined in EVERY Radiative Physics textbook.. True story.  Back flow -- Back Radiation?



There is no backflow.  There is either inflow if the object being measured is warmer, or outflow if the object is cooler....the rest is a calculation based on the changing temperature.  Sorry that you don't understand how your instrumentation works....You would think that since you make your living with it apparently, you would take time to actually understand it. 



flacaltenn said:


> we quit now?



Sure, anytime.  You are wrong and won't see it.  You believe in the magic and nothing can convince you otherwise....I only hope that I live long enough to see the collapse of post modern science back to a state of actual science so that I can have the chance to fully enjoy your humble apology.  I won't gloat though...I am bigger than that.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Personally, until you admit the validity of quantum theory and the reality of un-magically-restrained radiative heat transfer, I see no point in discussing ANY technical topic with you.  Your views on those two points identify you as unqualified to form an opinion worth discussion.



So long as quantum theory remains full of errors, contradictions, and ad hoc fixes, what idiot would even think that it is valid.  The contradictions found within it raise far more questions than it answers.  It is a best guess at explaining a lot of things that we don't understand....the suggestion of validity is laughable at this point in our learning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > You're talking to a guy that designs photon counting cameras for medical use.. These handheld IR "non-contact" thermometers are all optical.. They ALL specify an angle of acceptance for the beam so that you know how big an area you're measuring at what distance. In fact --- on the ones I use at client's places --- they have various plug-on filters for observing different IR bands. EVEN THERMOPILES measure photons if they used in NON-CONTACT applications..
> ...



*Alas, you have been misled...if they weren't cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, they would not measure downdwelling radiation as it would not be happening.*

My optic nerve is a toasty 98 degrees.
My home is a chilly 70 degrees.
Why isn't my home and all its chilly contents invisible to me?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> My optic nerve is a toasty 98 degrees.
> My home is a chilly 70 degrees.
> Why isn't my home and all its chilly contents invisible to me?



You might consider the temperature of the original light sources relative to the temperature of your optic nerve.  Knowing things is pointless if you can't apply that knowledge to the world around you.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the real question is what is the evidence that GHGs don't absorb longwave radiation.  Of course the answer is,  none.
> ...



Aha,  progress. Where does the emission go?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Now IT'S TRUE that the down-IR is about 330W/m2, but that does not ADD to the heat energy at the surface because your "mentor midget" here has neglected to tell you that at the SAME TIME --- 400W/m2 is LEAVING the surface. A little radiative complex subtraction tells you that the NET FLOW is UP.. About 70W/m2 towards the sky. That's the prime "cooling rate" of the planet... Had the 333 back radiation NOT EXISTED, you'd be a fudgesickle right now. So there are no eggs boiling, frying or being scrambled.
> ...



The pressure at any altitude is pretty constant.  Compressing a gas creates heat during compression but not forever.  Barometric pressure is close to randomly variable.  It spends as much time and effort compressing and expanding any volume of air. Compressing heats and expansion cools.  Net heat = zero.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > My optic nerve is a toasty 98 degrees.
> ...



The original source? The source of energy in the atmosphere is the Sun. 
Now that energy can move toward the warmer ground, because the ground is cooler than the Sun? If you insist.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



As well, the temperature chamge is what causes the pressure change in the atmosphere.  There is no compressor.  The warmer are has a higher pressure than the colder air.  This is the mechanism that drives the wind as the hot-high pressure air moves to the colder low pressure area. Because warm air also rises and cold air falls, there is a horizontal mixing of the air.  

You may have noticed that as the sun goes down, the winds come from the west.  The air where the sun is being heated.  Where the sun has gone dowm, the air is cooling off.  This pressure differential drives the wind.

In the atmosphere it is the heating and cooling that drives the pressure.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 18, 2013)

Okay, so we are talking about an adiabatic process where no heat is transfered to the system.  Rather, work is done as 
-W=mgh  where m is he mass of the air, h is the change in height and g is 9.8m/s^2.

So now the question becomes one of magnitude.  How much heat is added as a result of this adiabatic process?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Okay, so we are talking about an adiabatic process where no heat is transfered to the system.  Rather, work is done as
> -W=mgh  where m is he mass of the air, h is the change in height and g is 9.8m/s^2.
> 
> So now the question becomes one of magnitude.  How much heat is added as a result of this adiabatic process?



Energy (heat) flowing among and between earth's systems (atmosphere,  water,  life,  ice,  land) results in weather.  The only source of that energy is the sun.  However the GHGs in the atmosphere determine how much energy leaves the systems for black,  cold space as OLR. 

Farting fossil fuel wastes into the atmosphere has,  and continues to,  restrict OLR,  creating an incoming vs outgoing energy imbalance which must result in increasing earthly temperature in order to resolve and return to stable balance. 

So,  all of that ''extra'' energy is being dealt with in earthly systems as they move towards the elevated temperature determined by today's GHG load.  Of course every day we fart more for it to deal with. 

Farting GHGs can only lead to higher climactic temperatures.  That leads to changed weather that, if we average over earth's surface and time,  we call climate. 

The weather that we built civilization around is,  and will continue to,  change. We will be forced to rebuild civilization, to one degree or another,  to adapt.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 18, 2013)

I was going to pursue this adiabatic heat of compression calculation when I realized that the first law of thermo applies. In order for this potential energy, mgh, to be converted to heat, the air has to get there in the first place.  The energy to raise the air comes from the initial heating done by the sun.  As well, for every pound of air that falls, there is aj equal amount that has to be raised.  All that the atmospheric adiabatic heat of compression is doing is recovering some or the heat that was converted into work and potential energy when the air was elevated in the first place. 

The fact remains that the energy that has increased the temperature of the atmosphere came from the sun in the first place.  Any adiabatic heat of compression process is only useful in detailing the processes of weather and to refine any understanding about what the balance of energy is at equilibrium.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Now IT'S TRUE that the down-IR is about 330W/m2, but that does not ADD to the heat energy at the surface because your "mentor midget" here has neglected to tell you that at the SAME TIME --- 400W/m2 is LEAVING the surface. A little radiative complex subtraction tells you that the NET FLOW is UP.. About 70W/m2 towards the sky. That's the prime "cooling rate" of the planet... Had the 333 back radiation NOT EXISTED, you'd be a fudgesickle right now. So there are no eggs boiling, frying or being scrambled.
> ...





Stunning.. .You are rejecting MORE AND MORE tenets of physics to protect your faulty position about ONE of them... Can't help ya.. Some of your response is too absurd.. 

I assure you -- my cooled photon counting cameras (available in your local hospital, research and forensic labs) do indeed count photons. ......Finding useful measurements of DNA markers for medical diagnosis and criminal investigations. I've verified that. 

Photons must exist as advertised even tho there are esoteric philosophical discussions of HOW they exist.  

And I challenge you to explain why the desert nightime lows are LARGELY determined by the presence or absence of a GHGas.. (water vapor content) ----- instead of on a constant atmos pressure.. 

You're in much the same shape as the ObamaCare Website. A few simple edits and a re-compile is NOT what's required to fix you.. I'd need to fire your creators and start from scratch... 

So unless you want to PRESS ME again by making silly assertions about how stupid Dr. Spencer (or others) are for defending real science ---- I won't press you..


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Nice quick shuffle from what you apparently know something about, to something,  just as apparently, you know nothing about.  

The ACA exchanges.  

You are reinforcing what I've always thought.  Conservatives do nothing but expect perfection from those who do.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I've created more websites than you have I'll wager. My partners have done complex website roll-outs. And I write about 500 lines of application level or firmware code a week on average.. 

That may be "nothing" in the grand scheme of ObamaCare woes --- but it does qualify me to assert that the whole sorry ass abortion wasn't TESTED, they KNEW it wasn't TESTED, and they decided to bluff... It's a disaster compared to what private industry consistently  produces every year successfully on release day...


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Awesome, you have a survey that demonstrates the quality level? Cuz, I can guarantee that it is somewhere from 5 to 10% failure rate.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I don't know your age or interest but the Medicare site offers much the same functionality as the ACA exchange and works fine.  Why?  It's mature.  Anybody who expects a glitch less rollout of complexity inherent in a nationwide system that created instant high demand is just not real world.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



In the direction of more entropy just as the 2nd law of thermodynamics demands.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The pressure at any altitude is pretty constant.  Compressing a gas creates heat during compression but not forever.  Barometric pressure is close to randomly variable.  It spends as much time and effort compressing and expanding any volume of air. Compressing heats and expansion cools.  Net heat = zero.



Compression heats, but not forever?  Do you have a clue regarding anything?  Take a look at saturn...travel down through the atmosphere (mostly hydrogen and helium by the way, no possibility of a fictitious greenhouse effect) till the pressure reaches  between 3 and 6 bar and the temperature moves from -36F to 62F.  Move on down till the pressure reaches 10 to 20 bar and the temperature moves up to above 130F.  Keep on moving down into the atmosphere and you will eventually reach a region where the temperatures due to pressure are over 11,000 degrees.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You should stop talking about thermodynamics because you have demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You completely misunderstand the second law and

you completely ignored the first law.

Just stop already.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> In the atmosphere it is the heating and cooling that drives the pressure.



So you think the weight of the atmosphere has nothing to do with pressure?  Interesting.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> And I challenge you to explain why the desert nightime lows are LARGELY determined by the presence or absence of a GHGas.. (water vapor content) ----- instead of on a constant atmos pressure..



Because as we know, water vapor, unlike CO2 can actually absorb and hold heat.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And I challenge you to explain why the desert nightime lows are LARGELY determined by the presence or absence of a GHGas.. (water vapor content) ----- instead of on a constant atmos pressure..
> ...



CO2 can't absorb and hold heat? 

How does dry ice sublimate?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > In the atmosphere it is the heating and cooling that drives the pressure.
> ...



No, constant pressure doesn't create heat.  Compressing does.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > In the atmosphere it is the heating and cooling that drives the pressure.
> ...



Not for the dynamic movement of air.  For the movement of air, it is the heating and cooling that drives the pressure. Perhaps you have seen them on TV, the high and low pressure zones that the weatherman shows on his map.


Your heat of compression idea is complete bullshit.  There is also cooling from decompression.  For every pound of air that falls to a lower elevation is offset by another pound of air that rises to a higher elevation. They are equal and opposite. 

Otherwise, if according to you it is the weight of the air that drives all those pressure differentials... well, explain how that works?  How is it that the low and high pressure zones are caused by gravity?

So, nice try bonehead.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 18, 2013)

I just can't figure out why they work so hard at being wrong.  It just makes no sense.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Oct 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, until you admit the validity of quantum theory and the reality of un-magically-restrained radiative heat transfer, I see no point in discussing ANY technical topic with you.  Your views on those two points identify you as unqualified to form an opinion worth discussion.
> ...



A fourth spatial dimension explains all that.  The quantum leap is into 4D and back again at a different place in 3D.   The maximum velocity within the substratum is 6 light-years a second.   Further proof is, that just like Warmalarmism, the scientific hierarchy institutes an Inquisition on anyone who questions their irrational jerry-built constructs.

John Nash (played by Russell Crowe in _A Beautiful Mind_) questioned the Quantum Quackery, as anyone would who is not a careerist conformist.   He was advised not to go there because of the Postclassical Inquisition.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Oct 18, 2013)

We don't trust treehuggers; AGW is just an extension of their cult.  They are unfit mutants with a Death Wish.  They've been trained to spew sophistic doubletalk and shout people down.  The immense power of this fringe group indicates that they have connections to the ruling class.  We must stop them before they destroy the modern economy and bring us back to the stagnant Middle Ages.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 18, 2013)

Typical, I am entitled to the reality that I want! 

Lots of luck with that!


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 18, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> *We* don't trust treehuggers; AGW is just an extension of their cult.  They are unfit mutants with a Death Wish.  They've been trained to spew sophistic doubletalk and shout *people* down.  The immense power of this fringe group indicates that they have connections to the ruling class.  *We* must stop them before they destroy the modern economy and bring *us* back to the stagnant Middle Ages.




Who is "we"?


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 18, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Oh... they made a movie.  It must be truth.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 18, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> We don't trust treehuggers...



Yeah, they are such evil people.  



> They are unfit mutants with a Death Wish.  They've been trained to spew sophistic doubletalk and shout people down.  The immense power of this fringe group indicates that they have connections to the ruling class.  We must stop them before they destroy the modern economy and bring us back to the stagnant Middle Ages.



What, exactly, is your beef against trees?  Do one fall and hit you in your noggin when you were a wee lad?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 19, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > We don't trust treehuggers...
> ...



It's sort of poetic justice that mother nature clearly offered us profound knowledge from life's model that sustainable energy,  in the form of plant life, made from carbon,  is the only path to sustainable life.  

We,  in our enthusiasm for the easy life,  denied her knowledge,  and chose a temporary,  but cheap at first glance,  alternative,  also from carbon. 

Now the bill for taking the easy path is due and some of us are trying to get out of paying it,  despite that there is no way not to. 

Somehow she always wins in the end and we have to learn yet another lesson from the natural universe.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Oct 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...



Nature is not supernatural.   Personifying a mindless and destructive force shows a primitive mindset.   Nature is the enemy of man and must be tamed and re-organized.  Your kind of thinking should have ended with the Stone Age.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 19, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Nature has the longest run on Broadway. Almost every kind of progress by man was modeled after some aspect of natural science. We are driven to higher and higher understanding of natural processes. 

I agree that to personify nature is nothing more than a literary trick to make the abstract a little more available to some minds.  

But,  ''a mindless and destructive force'',  or ''the enemy of man'' that ''must be tamed and re-organized.'',  is far from true in my book. In fact an approach that almost always ends in failure.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 19, 2013)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And I challenge you to explain why the desert nightime lows are LARGELY determined by the presence or absence of a GHGas.. (water vapor content) ----- instead of on a constant atmos pressure..
> ...



So SSDD my bud.  Looks like we are done again.  BUT I need to put a bookmark on this recurring abuse  of science.  So if theres  anything in my list of science stuff that you deny, please correct the ledger.

PHYSICS and STUFF that SSDD DENIES

#1 ----- The fact that Co2  can retain heat.

#2 ----- Greenhouse Theory and particurly the radiative IR  component of that theory that
explaains the balance btwn earth IR surface emision and radiative emissions from compponents of the atmos.

#3 ------ The fact that photons (light) travels without regard to surface temps and that ALL objects regardless otemp CAN and do exchange IR in proportion to there thermal energy.

#4 ------ That we have tools capable of measuring "backradiation" and that samples of this measurement have been done.

#5 ----- That we have to shelve all calculations in radiative physics because the existence of photons is still subject to speculative discussions of their quantum details.

#6 ----- That common handheld nonconttact IR thermoters are receiving and tallying IR photons

#7 ----- That some comment in a spec sheet about optional filtering for such a device means that Dr Spencer was fooled in his crude measurements of back radiation..


Thats a start.  I  reserve the right to revise and extend the list.  This is done without reviewing our most recent skirmish...


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And it all comes down to this unfortunate word use on 

HyperPhysics

" It is not possible for *heat* to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy* will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."

They got a little loose in their word usage, changing from "heat" to "energy". 

It is such a shame.


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I just can't figure out why they work so hard at being wrong.  It just makes no sense.












*Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time  The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts *



The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in November 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Organization for Meteorology (WMO). The main task of the UN Climate Framework  Convention (UNFCCC) was to assess the risks of global warming and to draw up mitigation strategies. One important role was to determine the global climate development over the last 1000 years in order to see if the warming of the last century was unique and to see if todays supposed manmade warming was a threat.

An examination of the five IPCC reports published thus far reveals a remarkable scientific reversal. What follows is the evolution of the 1000-year temperature curve: from double hump (1990) - to hockey stick 2001)  and back again to double hump (2013).

 See more at: Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time ? The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts



*Avid environmentalist challenges climate change alarmists - book event at Florey's*

About 10 years ago, while working to restore watershed and wildlife habitat, Steele said it became clear that landscape changes and natural cycles had a much greater impact on wildlife than climate change. The initial plan was to write on the subject for various magazines and websites, but he realized only a book could tell the whole story. This Sunday, Steele will be at Florey's to sign and discuss the book which developed from these earlier musings  "Landscapes & Cycles" (An Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism).

*"The more I researched the causes of change in wildlife populations and local climates, the more I became appalled by the amount of bad science that was too easily published simply because it agreed with the prevailing bias of climate catastrophes*," Steele said. "Every other chapter of the book highlights different species whose decline was mistakenly blamed on rising CO2."



Avid environmentalist challenges climate change alarmists - book event at Florey's - San Jose Mercury News




Now, what were you saying blind boy?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Ya think thats the only problem we have here?  Wouldnt be a 2 yr 22 page battle if it was that simple..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I just can't figure out why they work so hard at being wrong.  It just makes no sense.
> ...



I gotta get that book from your 2nd ref.. Love to have  all that species and range  hype debunked all in all place.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Yes, it isn't very complicated.  He would spend two years and 1000s of pages defending an incorrect norepinephrine locked "rule" because he can't deal with the fact that he misunderstood it.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I just can't figure out why they work so hard at being wrong.  It just makes no sense.
> ...



Your point being what?  That Pierre L. Gosselin is also working really hard to help you deny reality?

Or that your going to drop $20 bucks of a book by Jim Steele?

Cuz so far, you haven't explained anything except your own gullibility.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


You are wrong.  A misunderstanding of the 2nd law CANNOT explain ALL of those issues.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



That and ignorance.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 19, 2013)

Actually NOT ignorance. Which is why he and I maintain mutual respect.

These problems stem from poor choices  of internet research material.  Some of the folks who have peddled these "scientific conspiracies"  are quite brilliant,  but too arrogant and stubborn to engage in debate.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 19, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Actually NOT ignorance. Which is why he and I maintain mutual respect.
> 
> These problems stem from poor choices  of internet research material.  Some of the folks who have peddled these "scientific conspiracies"  are quite brilliant,  but too arrogant and stubborn to engage in debate.



Yeah, you too. Ignorant and arrogant.

And still believing this is caused by sines and cosines?





Sure, correlation doesn't prove anything.  Sure it don't.  You should get a hammer and prove that the correlation between hitting yourself and the pain doesn't prove anything.

Sure it don't.  

How about consumer credit, unemployment and deflation.  No causality in that correlation.




Maybe you can prove that the correlation between gravity and falling doesn't prove anything.  Sure......


----------



## PMZ (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Actually NOT ignorance. Which is why he and I maintain mutual respect.
> ...



Conservatives have extrapolated from correlation doesn't prove causation to correlation disproves causation.  And they have no idea that they're different.


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








Excuse me blind boy but those are YOUR sources turning on you.  Take up your whining with them...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Actually NOT ignorance. Which is why he and I maintain mutual respect.
> ...



My observation was that periodic zero mean climate cycles like amo pdo ao etc approximate sines and that by combining those it is very plausible that even with a very few components---- one can expect to see funcs approximating ramps and even hockey sticks.  Fact is  -  I, ve seen the results  for just the addition of oceanic cycles.  Done by misguided skeptics who also believe that climate models are the same as curve fitting.  Like  u do.......


u have a problem with that assertion?  On what math basis do u object Mr. SNOWjob?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 20, 2013)

Here ya go grasshopper..


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 20, 2013)

So in 2030 or so, when you and yours have sold the world that AGW wasn't real and never presented a threat to humanity, we're going to be in deep kim-chee (and sea water).


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



yah Ive seen those combinations of the PDO and AMO. cannot really be done because they are measured differently. and 'correcting' for ENSO is just as bad, or worse.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

When assignable cause variability enters the picture,  random (inexplicable) variability doesn't go away.  They merely randomly add and subtract at different unpredictable times.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



There is that magical thinking of yours.  My sourses are the global mean temperature readings, the USGS, the CO2 measures, Mauna Loa, and the sun, TSI data from the University of Colorado.

You appear to be the one that believes that what you think and what your denialist buddies think somehow magically affects the global temperature.  Physics doesn't care what you think about it.  It doesn't care who thinks what about it.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Based on what, that you don't understand it?  Cuz last I looked, nature doesn't really care if you don't like the constant.  Even Einstein knew that.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

The goal of denialists is to defeat the political implications of AGW. 

Their chosen tactic is to disprove AGW as an assignable and predictable cause of climate variability, by focusing on random variability.  

Their downfall?  Knowledge once gained is persistent.  It doesn't go away.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Here ya go grasshopper..



Your point being what?  That including PDO and AMO gives





Which accounts for some of the cyclical aspect?  Yeah, we get that, AMO and PDO are cyclical.  CO2 ramps.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

I can't imagine trying to get through life without the certain guidance of science.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Which just further demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.   A Fourier series is an infinite series and your not going to get any thing close to the temp record out of two or three naturally occuring ocean cycles.  You are welcome to try it if you can.  We will be thrilled to see how that works.

Oh, yeah, that's right... You don't actually follow up on your bs with real work.  You believe thay just clicling your heals together and saying "Sines and cosines make saw tooth waves" three times will magically make AWG go away.

Good luck with that.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Dude, every same person gets that the CO2, TSI, PDO, and AMO measures aren't just arbitrary curves.  They are real measurements.

You stupidly believe that correlating an infinit series of arbitrary cosines and sines is somehow going to explain thing away.  That is curve fitting, coming up with arbitrary curves of sines and cosines to fit.

The IPCF climate models are far more complex than the basic analysis I've done.  IPCC climate models are detailed, gridded, finite element models run on super computers.  I've just done a basic global mean average model.  

That you can't tell the difference between these two and arbitrary Fourier transform curve fitting just demonstrates your stupidity.  All you have managed to do so far is called "word salad", memorizing a bunch of terminology, like Fourier transformation, and posted then with no substance to back them up.  

Do you really believe that TSI isn't a driver of climate and that made up simes and cosines is real?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Why would you be stupid enough to "just combine them"?  The temperature readings from thousands of individual USGS and other air temperature readings around the globe are not "just combined" to get the global mean temperature.  The individual readings from hundreds of sea surface temperature readings are not "just combined" to get the average sea surface temperature od AMO and PDO.

So, what are you talking about?  That you do really stupid things and have no clue that everyone else isn't that stupid?  Really?

You would measure the temperature in all the rooms of your house, add them all up, and call that the temperature of your house?  You are really that dumb?


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

It is pretty obvious, at this point, that theae clowns really have no scientific grounds or actual evidence for there position.  All they have is made up "well it could be"s. And whem their bs doesn't fly, all they have is name calling.  

What we haven't seen from them is any meaningfull presentation of the drivers of global mean temperature and climate change.  I'm open to anything.  But all they have is arbitrary sines and cosines and misunderstanding of thermodynamics. 

What is the saying?  Oh yeah.

*Put up or shut up!*


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



In practice,  because of the silly global avg benchmark, they ARE being added in some fashion.
Perhaps these cycles need to be extracted from the raw data  for each ocean basin.

What I  ffind interesting about these compound synths  is that all these cyclics are moving in freq and phase wrt each other.  So theoretically, if they not combining to a hockey stick this century,  a few millenium down the road, they likely will.

How ya been man?  YOUVE MISSED SO MUCH progress on our "backrad is not a commie plot" campaign.       NOT


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Here ya go grasshopper..
> ...



Hopeless.  Just told you basically the opposite of that.  That multiple cyclic funcs create NON cyclic results.  Or more rigorously,  non cyclic results defined over a range related to the slowest func.

Climate scientists used to dismiss all these cyclical functs.  Largely because INDIVIDUALLY,
they didnt look like the curve they were attempting to fit. AND  being zero mean, they assumed all combos of these would be zero mean as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I can't imagine trying to get through life without the certain guidance of science.



Yet somehow, you manage.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



Now that just isn't true.  You are simply not paying attention.  
Every proffessional organization and nearly every educated individual knows that AWG is correct and they do care.  All you are demonstrating is that you are an idiot and among the half of the population that has a below average IQ.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I can't imagine trying to get through life without the certain guidance of science.
> ...



Typical conservative 'if I say so, it is'.  The ultimate source of their dysfunction in the real world.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Then demonstrate it.

You can't and won't because you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.  A Fourier cosine series creates a periodic function.  There is no finite or infinite series of real physical phenomina creating an infinite ramp.

You have been making this claim for a week and demonstrated nothing.

You are just full of shit.  You are simply wrong.  You aren't going to get an infinite ramp out of periodic functions, ever.  I've done circuit analysis.  I've used frequency domain calculations.  Ive used the Fourier transform and the family of transforms including s domain.  To begin with, a fourier series requires an infinite number of incrementing frequency fumctions to just get a periodic function with sharp corners.  You are full of shit.  You don't even have a finite set of real phenomina that reproduce that ramp.

Physics and science isn't based on your imagined fantasies.  It is about measured and demonstrated processed.  What you have is science fiction.

Put up or shut up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Tell me again about life starting 500 million years ago and how bad life had it during the Carboniferous.

Your ignorance of science is wide and deep. Matched only by your delusion of knowledge.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I can't imagine trying to get through life without the certain guidance of science.
> ...



You beat me to it.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Clearly my science is different than your pseudoscience. I thank God for that. 

I learned science from scientists.  You learned pseudoscience from entertainers.


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I can't imagine trying to get through life without the certain guidance of science.
> ...








Yep, this asshat makes 26 posts on average per day here!  Can you believe that?  And not one post is actually of benefit.  Not one.  A more useless example of the human race would be hard to find...


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



This is unconditional surrender.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's been the only success we've had.   The few people who invented everything that prevents the ungrateful rest of you from living like animals saw Nature as a chaos that must be re-organized.   Mankind would have gone extinct long ago if he had slavishly obeyed the laws of Nature, which is Satan.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

People mistake Darwin's "survival of the fittest" to mean "strongest".  It should be obvious, and is to the more intelligent of us, that "fittest" often means "symbiotic" and always means "most adaptable".

Shitting where you sleep, which is what climate change amounts to, well.... my dog is smart enough not to do that.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...



A completely different perspective than mine.  I see history as mankind learning to live with nature,  at least the average person.  Of all of the peoples on earth,  we white Europeans are probably at the extreme end of believing that nature is ours to mold.  Now we're learning that we adapt to nature,  not vice versa.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> People mistake Darwin's "survival of the fittest" to mean "strongest".  It should be obvious, and is to the more intelligent of us, that "fittest" often means "symbiotic" and always means "most adaptable".
> 
> Shitting where you sleep, which is what climate change amounts to, well.... my dog is smart enough not to do that.



You don't breath shit, but you do breath CO2, so your analogy is obviously false and idiotic.

AGW is a hoax.  Anything you say based on the premise that's true is therefor false.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We believe it because we do it.  In fact, there is no one who believes it more devoutly than the AGW cultist because he believes we can mold the climate.


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...









I'm glad you finally realized what a useless piece of shit you are.  You're unconditional surrender is duly noted and memorialized.


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> People mistake Darwin's "survival of the fittest" to mean "strongest".  It should be obvious, and is to the more intelligent of us, that "fittest" often means "symbiotic" and always means "most adaptable".
> 
> Shitting where you sleep, which is what climate change amounts to, well.... my dog is smart enough not to do that.









And you claim to be "smart".  What a farce.  Here's a hint bucko, Darwin didn't originate the phrase.  It's certainly a truism that those who claim to be smart are usually the most ignorant in the discussion, as you just so aptly demonstrated.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > People mistake Darwin's "survival of the fittest" to mean "strongest".  It should be obvious, and is to the more intelligent of us, that "fittest" often means "symbiotic" and always means "most adaptable".
> ...



Boy, you are stupid.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > People mistake Darwin's "survival of the fittest" to mean "strongest".  It should be obvious, and is to the more intelligent of us, that "fittest" often means "symbiotic" and always means "most adaptable".
> ...



Who cares.  It doesn't change the fact that it means "adaptation" not "strength".

"Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869 "

You sure have to go far left of field to come up with something to complain about.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Clearly my science is different *

You got that right. You said "When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life"

You also said, life on Earth started 500 million years ago.

*I learned science from scientists.*

And then you forgot it all. Good job!


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Brilliant retort, asshole.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



There really isn't any more to say to an ignorant moron like you.  You get treated the way you present yourself.   As you present yourself like an ignorant moron, you get treated like an ignorant moron.

This is the relationship between CO2, TSI and Temp anomaly.

This is before including CO2





And this is after including CO2





And that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that AGW is real and CO2 drives the temperature increase.

And, people that do it for a living have demonstrated even greater level of accuracy with






So, when you have something intelligent to add, then you will get an intelligent response.

Problem is, you know your full of shit and you have nothing to refute the scientific evidence.

Until then, you are an ignorant moron because you have to be one to have any other opinion.  That or you are an asshole. Or maybe you're and ignorant asshole moron doo doo head.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > People mistake Darwin's "survival of the fittest" to mean "strongest".  It should be obvious, and is to the more intelligent of us, that "fittest" often means "symbiotic" and always means "most adaptable".
> ...



Think of how much stronger your point could be made with some evidence to support it.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...



We (liberals) are smart enough to know that we can stop doing what we are doing that's changing the climate.  That,  apparently,  is well beyond conservatives.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I've been doing this for a long time and know the signs of conservative's frustration when they realize that they have used up the propaganda that they've been issued by headquarters,  there's no more coming,  and they've been beaten at every turn.  I've been here before.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Is this an example of a smart contribution from you?  I rest my case.


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Doing what?  Making an abject fool of yourself declaring there was no life on this planet 500 million years ago?   Let me tell you, it takes a particularly stupid person to make an assertion that ridiculous and then to stand by it merely demonstrates what a looney tune you are.  No one pays you  the slightest attention anymore based on your well demonstrated stupidity.

Congrats nimrod!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Stop breathing, your CO2 is killing Mother Earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yes, correcting your errors is another contribution from me to the board.
You're welcome.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



My errors?  

You're trying to correct what l'm right about.  You are a mis-iformation voter trying to recruit more. 

You're messing with my country.  I'm your worst nightmare.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Your post is like saying,  ''look over here!  I'm stupid.''


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You calling me stupid is music to my ears.  I certainly want anyone who thinks that you have any idea what you're talking about to notice that I'm different from you.  

Of course,  who would think that you have any idea what you're talking about?  

Ahhh.  Other mis-information voters.  You're litter mates on mama Fox.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yes, your errors.  Like this.....

*There is zero money being invested in fossil fuel energy production. It's all going to sustainable, permanent solutions.*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-skeptics-are-winning-30.html#post7980575


----------



## PMZ (Oct 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Great example!  I was talking about energy production.  You're talking about fuel production.  Don't you feel like an idiot!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



* I was talking about energy production.*

We're no longer spending on fossil fuel energy production?

No money is being spent building or maintaining fossil fuel plants?

No salaries are being paid to workers in those plants? Wow!

Any backup for this new claim?


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...








No, no I don't.  You provide ample ammunition every time you open your trap...


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Ummmm, I hate to break it to you...but, based on your posts... you're incapable of "thinking".


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 20, 2013)

With six you get eggroll.

With climate, you get change.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



People here were wondering about your claim to be smart and conservative.  I think that you've laid that to rest.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 21, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> With six you get eggroll.
> 
> With climate, you get change.



How many climate changes did we have to adapt to since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yes, I do manage to stomp your liberal idiocy into the ground.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



This from a conservative media sponge.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Oct 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> People mistake Darwin's "survival of the fittest" to mean "strongest".  It should be obvious, and is to the more intelligent of us, that "fittest" often means "symbiotic" and always means "most adaptable".
> 
> Shitting where you sleep, which is what climate change amounts to, well.... my dog is smart enough not to do that.




Adaptation means conformity, which is the enemy of genius.  You want us to look up to your Zero-Growth academic gurus, who try to glorify their own impotence by jealously saying that the scientific creativity of the last 400 years has led only to destruction of the kind and gentle Nature that we must obey as the divinity of their New Age cult.  

Nature is designed to make us extinct.   The balance of Nature is not in man's favor.   We are only insignificant objects in it.   The trust-fundie Treehuggers are anti-scientific.   They themselves didn't achieve their positions through mental superiority, so they are driven by class instinct to discredit the naturally superior.   They are feudal aristocrats who want us to live the lifestyle of the Middle Ages, which the re-birth of science ruined for them.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course the vast majority of their operating expenses are fuel and waste treatment. 

You'd think that they'd be smart enough to attack those costs. 

Oh,  that's right.  They are.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Oct 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > People mistake Darwin's "survival of the fittest" to mean "strongest".  It should be obvious, and is to the more intelligent of us, that "fittest" often means "symbiotic" and always means "most adaptable".
> ...



That's because a student lives like a child in college and winds up with the mind of a child.   The professors are intellectual pedophiles, worshipped as infallible father figures and able to sophistically deform gullible young minds into any kind of idiocy using slippery logic and authoritarian intimidation.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Oct 21, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> With six you get eggroll.
> 
> With climate, you get change.



And guess what, THIS IS A GOOD CHANGE!   The Earth is far too cold for human purposes.   Second, Nature will adapt to our changes; we don't have to adapt to Nature.  The goal of these Zero-Growth gurus is to beat us down into the passive, resigned, depressed, and demoralized subservience the ruling class wants us to feel towards any kind of power, natural or human.   Ever since the Renaissance, the defiant development of Nature created class mobility.   That's what all these influential freaks want to destroy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I observe.



I observe..... that your idea of a "scientific journal" is "Think Progress."


Difference between creationists and AGW morons?

One are a group of superstitious sheep who form views on no evidence and base their beliefs on the wild tales they hear from their leaders - the other thinks that Jesus returned from the dead.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 21, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > People mistake Darwin's "survival of the fittest" to mean "strongest".  It should be obvious, and is to the more intelligent of us, that "fittest" often means "symbiotic" and always means "most adaptable".
> ...



''Adaptation means conformity''

To me,  adaptation means changing in response to one's environment.  Or,  in slightly different terms,  solving problems.  

The natural consequence of not adapting is extinction.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 21, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Of course the alternative is ignorance.  

Useful thinking starts with facts and knowledge of the tools accumulated over the years by the curious.  

Uneducated,  undisciplined,  thinking without purpose is mental masturbation.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 21, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > With six you get eggroll.
> ...



At its core this is anti-science. Science is knowledge of all that there is in order to allow humanity to adapt,  progress,  harness all of its wonders to our use and create a better future for all.  

We have the potential to oversee the universe.  

Or.......


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Nope.  I'm a confirmed liberal.  I'm just not a totalitarian police state supporting asshole like you.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You must be thinking of someone else. 

I'm the world's biggest fan of democracy.  All of the people decide.  

Because the alternative is,  some of the people decide.  In the extreme,  the most powerful decide.  

We are in the process of ducking the ultimate bullet for democracy.  A misinformed electorate.  Purposeful propaganda cast to those easiest to mislead. 

The good news is that democracy has,  apparently,  repelled this particular attack.  

And that deficiencies in our defense against future attacks,  education,  have been revealed. 

The bad news is that there was some structural damage to our ship of state caused by the attack which we are repairing. 

When the biggest damages are stabilized,  we need to rethink life long learning as the real army keeping us free.


----------



## itfitzme (Oct 21, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Well, now we know you have no education.  Which makes your opinion of no value.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Democracy is mob rule in a bow tie....democracy is two jackals and a rabbit voting on what's for dinner.  Democracy is a terrible system and I believe you when you say you are it's biggest fan.  More evidence that you have the critical thinking skills of a cabbage. 





PMZ said:


> We are in the process of ducking the ultimate bullet for democracy.  A misinformed electorate.  Purposeful propaganda cast to those easiest to mislead.



We don't live in a democracy.  Luckily we live in a representative republic. Your lack of education shows more with every word you speak   ]


----------



## Abraham3 (Nov 3, 2013)

Who are represented?

Demos.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yes, we are a republic, but that republic makes laws and elects representatives based on democratic principles, and always has.  Now, I know that you probably prefer it if we had a dictatorship of neocons or tea naggers, but, as they say, tough shite.  Can we get back on topic now?


----------

