how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[itfitzme]

I don't know anything about infectious diseases and bugs.

 

[SSDD]

Once again, for the learning impaired...warmth does not lead to more bugs.


The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube

This should be interesting to and inspire a desire for further information to ANYBODY who is interested in the science, cause and effect, related to global warming. Yes?

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? Much less grasp what he is saying?

That interview is so valuable from a whole list of angles. On the IPCC process. On the way these lies get embedded in the public media. On the fallacy of "consensus". AND on bugs.

I haven't been following THIS thread closely.. Have ANY of the quadruplet choir responded to this link? Think ANY of them has listened to it?

This is a keeper --- thanks to (I think) Westwall...

Yeah, a couple of specific claims of impending AGW disaster but they turned out to be nothing more than smoke. Claims that cholera would be a problem in the southeast if temps go up a couple of degrees but it turns out that historically, cholera has been a problem up north where the average mean temp is several degrees cooler than here and bark beetles which turned out to be an unintended consequence from fire control and the banning of logging on so much public land.

 

[mamooth]

I do. Suffice it to say the cranks are parroting their cult's nonsense again. The independent sources point to warming as the cause of the bark beetle explosion.

Climate Change and Bark Beetles of the Western United States and Canada: Direct and Indirect Effects

I thank the cranks for giving me the opportunity to prove my point, with independent sources, yet another time. It's a habit I have, backing up my points with evidence. Pity none of them can do the same. Heck, I can't even get them to do so much as even state a simple point directly, that's how craven that bunch is.

 

[SSDD]

Like I said, as soon as warmist try to get specific with the threats from climate change, we see that the doom and gloom they predict is really all in their heads and most certainly not based on any sort of solid science. For all the horrors they promise from even a slight rise in temperature, they sure don't seem to be able to name any actual consequences that will hold water.

 

[SSDD]

I do. Suffice it to say the cranks are parroting their cult's nonsense again. The independent sources point to warming as the cause of the bark beetle explosion.

Climate Change and Bark Beetles of the Western United States and Canada: Direct and Indirect Effects

I thank the cranks for giving me the opportunity to prove my point, with independent sources, yet another time. It's a habit I have, backing up my points with evidence. Pity none of them can do the same. Heck, I can't even get them to do so much as even state a simple point directly, that's how craven that bunch is.

Surprise surprise surprise....another model. And the authors admit that there is very little information available to support the claims of their model. From the abstract:

The success of bark beetle populations will also be influenced indirectly by the effects of climate on community associates and host-tree vigor, although little information is available to quantify these relationships. We used available population models and climate forecasts to explore the responses of two eruptive bark beetle species. Based on projected warming, increases in thermal regimes conducive to population success are predicted for Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby) and Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, although there is considerable spatial and temporal variability.

When are you people going to learn that the output of models is not data and especially models where the authors admit that there is little data available to quantify their claims. That is, by defnintion, an admission that they just made it up.

 

[mamooth]

Hmmm, so far crickets. Come on Saigon, mamooth, Itfitzme, PMZ. . . surely one of you is brave enough to watch that video.

Watched it before. The whole movie. Strangely, you seem to be under the impression we're unfamiliar with denialist propaganda like "The Great Global Warming Swindle". But then, since you refuse to look outside of your cult for information, you naturally assume we must act the same way. Not how it works.

Anyways, the clip's big problem is the cherrypicking. There's essentially a single dissenter from the IPCC position, and the clip solely quotes that guy. It doesn't even mention that contrary evidence exists. Pretty dishonest, but it's how the whole movie works.

But don't take my word for it. Here's what the British government says.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/71.pdf
---
Professor Paul Reiter’s evidence does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published
---

Now, if you're interested in hearing all sides, you'll read that whole section. If you're not, you'll invoke some conspiracy theory regarding the British government and the IPCC.

 

[SSDD]

Hmmm, so far crickets. Come on Saigon, mamooth, Itfitzme, PMZ. . . surely one of you is brave enough to watch that video.

Watched it before. The whole movie. Strangely, you seem to be under the impression we're unfamiliar with denialist propaganda like "The Great Global Warming Swindle". But then, since you refuse to look outside of your cult for information, you naturally assume we must act the same way. Not how it works.

Anyways, the clip's big problem is the cherrypicking. There's essentially a single dissenter from the IPCC position, and the clip solely quotes that guy. It doesn't even mention that contrary evidence exists. Pretty dishonest, but it's how the whole movie works.

But don't take my word for it. Here's what the British government says.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/71.pdf
---
Professor Paul Reiter’s evidence does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published
---

Now, if you're interested in hearing all sides, you'll read that whole section. If you're not, you'll invoke some conspiracy theory regarding the British government and the IPCC.

So by way of rebuttal, you provide a single statement by a guy who is not one of the preemininent experts in his field. Good one

 

[mamooth]

Output of models is not data and especially models where the authors admit that there is little data available to quantify their claims. That is, by defnintion, an admission that they just made it up.

Do you just shut your brain down when you see the word "model"?

Of course you do. Because it allows you to pretend there isn't a buttload of non-model evidence there as well.

Next time, try reading. It will prevent you from looking like so dumb. But you won't. After all, you so badly want those excuses to fabricate your idiot conspiracy theories. And it's not like you've ever cared about looking dumb. Having a normal sense of shame pretty much disqualifies someone from being a denialist.

 

[mamooth]

Now, if you're interested in hearing all sides, you'll read that whole section. If you're not, you'll invoke some conspiracy theory regarding the British government and the IPCC.

So by way of rebuttal, you provide a single statement by a guy who is not one of the preemininent experts in his field. Good one.

Can I call it or what?

Rather than read the section I point to, SSDD just waves his hands around, yells a bunch, and does whatever is necessary to excuse not looking at it.

Which would be why it's pointless to go into details with this crowd. They are cultists, and they will actively refuse to look outside their cult for data, even when you directly point them at it.

 

[numan]

Turns out that bark beetles are just one more of the seemingly neverending parade of unintended consequences heaped upon us by do good liberalism. Seems that bark beetles are a problem because of fire control. When fire was allowed to be a natural part of the ecology out west, bark beetles were controlled naturally. Do gooders out to save the trees turn out to have been responsible for tens of thousands of them, and more every year, being killed by bark beetles.

How sad that your propaganda fails to explain why it is that fire control existed decades before bark beetles became a major problem -- and why it is that the bark beetle problem escalated with measurable and well-recorded increases in temperature in the regions affected -- and that the spread of the beetles is well documented to be into new areas where the temperature has risen.

Better luck misleading people in the future, SSDD !!

.

 

[SSDD]

Do you just shut your brain down when you see the word "model"?

Of course not...but I do pay attention when an author of a model says that there is hardly any information upon which to base his model. Maybe you should try and key in on important statements like that rather than simply letting them go in one ear and out the other as if there was nothing in between.

Also, considering the abject failure of climate models, anything that incorporates them must be taken with a grain of salt. So you have a guy with no data on the relationship between beetles and warming incorporating that lack of information with a failing climate model...and you take that seriously?

 

[westwall]

You mean we have quintuplets, not guadruplets here? Hmmm. . . .

Anyhow, for grins and giggles, I think the deflections are now up to five or more, so let's put it out there again and see what happens:

Did anybody on this thread watch the video Westfall posted? If so, you know that his comments on the presence of malaria bearing mosquitos was to illustrate that the 'scientific opinion' that global warming would increase malaria was just simply foolish on the face of it. But he was discussing that not to discuss malaria bearing mosquitos or bugs in general, but to address a much larger issue.

And then he went on to discuss a really serious issue with the IPCC formal report.

I just wondered what those who watched the video thought about the issue he raised and the point he was making?

Good video from a genuine expert. Earlier one of the "tuplets" mentioned bark beetles out west as a climate change problem. I took a quick look and wonder of wonders, it isn't a climate change problem at all. Turns out that bark beetles are just one more of the seemingly neverending parade of unintended consequences heaped upon us by do good liberalism. Seems that bark beetles are a problem because of fire control. When fire was allowed to be a natural part of the ecology out west, bark beetles were controlled naturally. Do gooders out to save the trees turn out to have been responsible for tens of thousands of them, and more every year, being killed by bark beetles.

Yes, I am very familiar with the chronic ignorant enviro-nut issue out here. TRPA is a bi state compact between CA and NV to try and mitigate Lake Tahoe's clarity issues. When it was formed it was a good idea (like most are) but then as it's members gained stature in the community they began to flex their muscles and a whole host of problems that we never knew existed suddenly began to rear their ugly head.

New regs were of course forthcoming and the TRPA became one of the most tyrannical groups I have ever had to deal with. The entire Tahoe basin is a powder keg waiting to torch off thanks to the TRPA (at the behest of "environmental" groups) and their outright ban on removing downed trees.

When the fire does come the whole basin will be returned to a moonscape like it was at the turn of the last century. All because a group of ignorant people think they know better then anyone else. And their legal fee's they collect too of course...lots and lots of those.

 

[SSDD]

Now, if you're interested in hearing all sides, you'll read that whole section. If you're not, you'll invoke some conspiracy theory regarding the British government and the IPCC.

So by way of rebuttal, you provide a single statement by a guy who is not one of the preemininent experts in his field. Good one.

Can I call it or what?

Rather than read the section I point to, SSDD just waves his hands around, yells a bunch, and does whatever is necessary to excuse not looking at it.

Which would be why it's pointless to go into details with this crowd. They are cultists, and they will actively refuse to look outside their cult for data, even when you directly point them at it.

I read it. I just find it ironic that you complain that the information was no good because it was a statement from one person who happens to be one of the foremost experts in his field and attempt to rebutt it with a statement from one person who doesn't happen to be one of the foremost experts in his field.

You don't get irony either?

 

[westwall]

I don't know anything about infectious diseases and bugs.

Watch the video and learn something then...

 

[SSDD]

How sad that your propaganda fails to explain why it is that fire control existed decades before bark beetles became a major problem

If you had a clue, you would know that it took a while for the trees which the forest service has been planting (which happen to be at the top of the bark beetle menue) to grow. Geez guy, you claim to be smart but miss the most obvious things and instead jump immediately to climate change when no real data exists to suppport the claim.

Also exaccerbated by replanting a less diverse selection of trees. Bark beetles have preferences. When the Forest Service and BLM serve up their favorite fast foods in concentrated areas, there is less foraging, less diversity of forest and the beetles have less predation because they don't leave home to travel as much.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't think there is a lot to worry about. *According to*Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., while the globe may be warming;

"It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12)."

See, science.

Fig. 1. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration.

Fig. 2. Sea-surface Temperature.

Fig. 3. Frequency of Hurricanes.

Fig. 4. Extent of Sea Ice.

Evidence for Global Warming

 

[westwall]

This should be interesting to and inspire a desire for further information to ANYBODY who is interested in the science, cause and effect, related to global warming. Yes?

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? Much less grasp what he is saying?

That interview is so valuable from a whole list of angles. On the IPCC process. On the way these lies get embedded in the public media. On the fallacy of "consensus". AND on bugs.

I haven't been following THIS thread closely.. Have ANY of the quadruplet choir responded to this link? Think ANY of them has listened to it?

This is a keeper --- thanks to (I think) Westwall...

Yeah, a couple of specific claims of impending AGW disaster but they turned out to be nothing more than smoke. Claims that cholera would be a problem in the southeast if temps go up a couple of degrees but it turns out that historically, cholera has been a problem up north where the average mean temp is several degrees cooler than here and bark beetles which turned out to be an unintended consequence from fire control and the banning of logging on so much public land.

Yep, the cholera BS is especially funny, well at least it would be if it weren't so tragic in its consequences, and so indicative of the deniers outright ignorance of disease and its cause.
Anyone with a brain knows that cholera is a water borne disease and is treated quite easily with clean water.

Hell the worst European and American outbreak was way back in the early 1830's if my memory serves. Over 100,000 died and guess what they did to fix the problem.....yep, borrowed sewers from the Romans and stopped dumping their shit in the middle of the street.

 

[SSDD]

I don't think there is a lot to worry about. *According to*Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., while the globe may be warming;

"It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12)."

See, science.

Fig. 1. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration.

Fig. 2. Sea-surface Temperature.

Fig. 3. Frequency of Hurricanes.

Fig. 4. Extent of Sea Ice.

Evidence for Global Warming

Why do you guys invariably try to inject religion into the issue...I mean, other than your own envirowacko religion.

And as to the evidence for global warming link...the issue isn't whether warming is happening...that happens regularly...the issue is whether there is evidnce that man is the cause. On that issue, there is no proof or anything like it.

 

[westwall]

I do. Suffice it to say the cranks are parroting their cult's nonsense again. The independent sources point to warming as the cause of the bark beetle explosion.

Climate Change and Bark Beetles of the Western United States and Canada: Direct and Indirect Effects

I thank the cranks for giving me the opportunity to prove my point, with independent sources, yet another time. It's a habit I have, backing up my points with evidence. Pity none of them can do the same. Heck, I can't even get them to do so much as even state a simple point directly, that's how craven that bunch is.

The problem mammy old girl is computer models are really cute when they are used for the movies, but when you try and use them for science, the fiction that they, are becomes plain real quick. So far your computer models are batting .000, better not try and sell them to a baseball team.

 

[westwall]

Hmmm, so far crickets. Come on Saigon, mamooth, Itfitzme, PMZ. . . surely one of you is brave enough to watch that video.

Watched it before. The whole movie. Strangely, you seem to be under the impression we're unfamiliar with denialist propaganda like "The Great Global Warming Swindle". But then, since you refuse to look outside of your cult for information, you naturally assume we must act the same way. Not how it works.

Anyways, the clip's big problem is the cherrypicking. There's essentially a single dissenter from the IPCC position, and the clip solely quotes that guy. It doesn't even mention that contrary evidence exists. Pretty dishonest, but it's how the whole movie works.

But don't take my word for it. Here's what the British government says.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/71.pdf
---
Professor Paul Reiter’s evidence does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published
---

Now, if you're interested in hearing all sides, you'll read that whole section. If you're not, you'll invoke some conspiracy theory regarding the British government and the IPCC.

Nice, very dated paper there mammy. What exactly are his qualifications to speak on tropical and temperate diseases? I don't see any qualifications at all.