Conservatives waking up to climate change

[Saigon]

Show where any dire prediction has come even close.

Ummm...both Artic ice melt and the collapse of glaciers have been far worse than any of the scientists predicted in the 1990s.

It really is worth taking a bit of time to read up on those....I think you'll be surprised to find at how drastic the damage is, and how conservative the predictions were in comparison with the reality.

Here's an example:

White House warned on imminent Arctic ice death spiral

National security officials worried by rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice overlook threat of permanent global food shortages.

n early April, Duarte warned that the Arctic summer sea ice was melting at a rate faster than predicted by conventional climate models, and could be ice free as early as 2015 - rather than toward the end of the century, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected in 2007. He said:

"The Arctic situation is snowballing: dangerous changes in the Arctic derived from accumulated anthropogenic green house gases lead to more activities conducive to further greenhouse gas emissions. This situation has the momentum of a runaway train."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/02/white-house-arctic-ice-death-spiral

 

[mamooth]

Exactly! Show where any dire prediction has come even close.

The models have been spot-on correct. Decades of correct predictions is why AGW science has such credibility. In contrast, your side is too chickenshit to even make a prediction.

Explain fudged data and efforts to discredit conflicting studies. Just what was the "nature trick"?

There is no fudged data. If that's what your political cult has brainwashed you into believing, you may be beyond our help. To break free of the brainwashing, you'll need to make the effort to step outside of your cult bubble and get data from honest, independent sources, instead relying solely on dishonest political hacks.

Motives and modus operandi of people who were telling me my SUV would flood Manhattan and South Beach influenced my position a lot more than arbitrary computer models and simplistic theories.

But nobody never said that. You're deliberately exaggerating to the point of wild dishonesty, which makes us wonder what the point of talking to you is. I mean, if you're just going to make crap up, what's the point? Yes, you've conclusively refuted the cartoon liberals of your imagination. You just fail at addressing the real world.

 

[PMZ]

I believe that fundamental to the doubt strategy of media conservatives is merely shifting the environmental costs in real dollars from we who have benefitted from them to future generations.

Science is in the way of that so it is their enemy.

Not very profound.

 

[westwall]

Ernie -

If you HAD read about previous warming periods, you would now both that models aren't the issue here, and that the science is particularly controversial or disputed.

I'm constantly amazed that posters here are reduced to bitterly arguing points that any genuinely sceptical scientist would accept without a moment's hesitation.

A laughable assertion from a laughable, ignorant propagandist. Anyone who has studied the paleoclimate record knows that what is happening today is neither unusual nor "unprecedented" as you all claim incessantly.

Your only source material for ANY of your claims are from computer models that a study from Harvard stated were "less then useful".

You can make any stupid BS assertion you want herr Goebbels, but in the long run they are still just propaganda...

 

[westwall]

And you have the balls to question MY credibility?

Yes.

In an era when every one of the 60 major scientific organisations confirms AGW, any sensible person is going to figure they are probably on to something. At least, any sane person is going to listen to what they have to say.

So yes, I do question why anyone would run in the opposite direction from science because they don't like the term 'climate change'. It makes no sense at all.

Yes, they all confirm it. Every prediction they have ever made has been proven false, every claim of impending doom going back 30 years has been shown to be false, they can present no repeatable laboratory experiment that supports the "theory" that a 200 ppm rise in CO2 will do ANYTHING, they hide their raw data, they corrupted the peer review system, they continually are forced to make new statements for their failed predictions and now, tired of having to explain their failures, they have resorted to no longer making any measurable predictions.

The one thing that HAS stayed consistent is their constant call for global poverty (themselves excluded of course), global control, and of course a global genocide to reduce the human population to a more "sustainable" level.

They have never hidden their desire to implement totalitarian control....not once...

 

[westwall]

Exactly! Show where any dire prediction has come even close.

The models have been spot-on correct. Decades of correct predictions is why AGW science has such credibility. In contrast, your side is too chickenshit to even make a prediction.

Explain fudged data and efforts to discredit conflicting studies. Just what was the "nature trick"?

There is no fudged data. If that's what your political cult has brainwashed you into believing, you may be beyond our help. To break free of the brainwashing, you'll need to make the effort to step outside of your cult bubble and get data from honest, independent sources, instead relying solely on dishonest political hacks.

Motives and modus operandi of people who were telling me my SUV would flood Manhattan and South Beach influenced my position a lot more than arbitrary computer models and simplistic theories.

But nobody never said that. You're deliberately exaggerating to the point of wild dishonesty, which makes us wonder what the point of talking to you is. I mean, if you're just going to make crap up, what's the point? Yes, you've conclusively refuted the cartoon liberals of your imagination. You just fail at addressing the real world.

Bullshit. Show us ONE prediction that has come about.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ernie -

If you HAD read about previous warming periods, you would now both that models aren't the issue here, and that the science is particularly controversial or disputed.

I'm constantly amazed that posters here are reduced to bitterly arguing points that any genuinely sceptical scientist would accept without a moment's hesitation.

So any data that doesn't fit the AGW religion is controversial or disputed, but any that has been proven to be manipulated is accepted on blind faith. OK I got it now.

I guess you're not an atheist after all.

No, you don't get it at all - and it is very unlikely you ever will get it.

Understanding this topic means looking at it with an open mind, and without political blinkers of any kind or colour.

If you can do that, you will get the point. If not - then you won't.

Now that's VERY funny.. Really man -- you crack me up with your lack of self-awareness.

Can't think of phonier, dogmatic, politically motivated automaton than you.
At least you KNOW subconsciously, that your situation is hopeless and you will "never get it"..

 

[PMZ]

It's clear that one side arguing politics against the other side arguing science will never reach resolution. Especially given the lack of even elementary science education among the political Dittoheads.

Not a problem. Solutions aren't waiting for this circus to end.

It does cause pause though in thinking about the political climate in the world though and the state of education.

When so many can be led so far astray by just a couple of political entertainers, every government and country is in jeopardy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There was extensive testing done on mice to show a link between cigarettes and cancer why can't we zap some mice with 200ppm of CO2?

 

[S.J.]

It's clear that one side arguing politics against the other side arguing science will never reach resolution.

Well so far you haven't argued science OR politics, all you've done is attack everyone who dares question your assertions which you've not even come close to proving.

 

[PMZ]

It's clear that one side arguing politics against the other side arguing science will never reach resolution.

Well so far you haven't argued science OR politics, all you've done is attack everyone who dares question your assertions which you've not even come close to proving.

Actually what I do is question people who attack science in order to defend their dysfunctional politics.

So far none, zero, nada have offered any, and I mean any, data, theories, or other evidence that explains any part of the cause and effect chain that leads to AGW, as different than what science has proven.

This is not a close ball game. It's 100 to nothing in the closing seconds.

 

[PMZ]

There was extensive testing done on mice to show a link between cigarettes and cancer why can't we zap some mice with 200ppm of CO2?

This is the definite statement of denial science.

 

[westwall]

Still waiting mammy....

 

[PMZ]

Still waiting mammy....

You're waiting? We've given you the whole story. You've given us nothing but, well, nothing. 100 to zero.

 

[S.J.]

It's clear that one side arguing politics against the other side arguing science will never reach resolution.

Well so far you haven't argued science OR politics, all you've done is attack everyone who dares question your assertions which you've not even come close to proving.

Actually what I do is question people who attack science in order to defend their dysfunctional politics.

So far none, zero, nada have offered any, and I mean any, data, theories, or other evidence that explains any part of the cause and effect chain that leads to AGW, as different than what science has proven.

This is not a close ball game. It's 100 to nothing in the closing seconds.

And what have YOU offered?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There was extensive testing done on mice to show a link between cigarettes and cancer why can't we zap some mice with 200ppm of CO2?

This is the definite statement of denial science.

Why can't we test the effect of CO2 on temperature in a lab?

 

[PMZ]

There was extensive testing done on mice to show a link between cigarettes and cancer why can't we zap some mice with 200ppm of CO2?

This is the definite statement of denial science.

Why can't we test the effect of CO2 on temperature in a lab?

We can't put the earth in a testube. What we can, and have, done, is to model and simulate every cause and effect step in the chain separately. Deniers though have done none of that. There are no theories or data, or ideas even, that support what they wish was true.

 

[PMZ]

Well so far you haven't argued science OR politics, all you've done is attack everyone who dares question your assertions which you've not even come close to proving.

Actually what I do is question people who attack science in order to defend their dysfunctional politics.

So far none, zero, nada have offered any, and I mean any, data, theories, or other evidence that explains any part of the cause and effect chain that leads to AGW, as different than what science has proven.

This is not a close ball game. It's 100 to nothing in the closing seconds.

And what have YOU offered?

The entire story. Theories, real word data, experimental data, modeling. The opinion of the IPCC, up to the dynamics of the earth systems transition from energy balance, through energy imbalance, back to balance again at an increased temperature, fully represents the scientific consensus of the world. Understanding the dynamics fully will be years coming.

 

[S.J.]

Actually what I do is question people who attack science in order to defend their dysfunctional politics.

So far none, zero, nada have offered any, and I mean any, data, theories, or other evidence that explains any part of the cause and effect chain that leads to AGW, as different than what science has proven.

This is not a close ball game. It's 100 to nothing in the closing seconds.

And what have YOU offered?

The entire story. Theories, real word data, experimental data, modeling. The opinion of the IPCC, up to the dynamics of the earth systems transition from energy balance, through energy imbalance, back to balance again at an increased temperature, fully represents the scientific consensus of the world. Understanding the dynamics fully will be years coming.

The opinion of the IPCC? You mean THIS IPCC?

Latest IPCC Scandal: Exaggerated Sea Level Claims | Heartlander Magazine

 

[Abraham3]

Heartlander Magazine?!?!


HAAAAAHAAHAAA Ha ha ha haaaaaa