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

[PMZ]

I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse.

the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power.

"I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse."

"the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power."

Funny, I feel exactly the same about the deniers.

In addition, you've never provided any evidence as to the veracity of your tag line but anecdotally it is completely out of synch with my world and experience. Deniers have lost all credibility.

In my world the debate is over. The solution people have most of what they need from the researchers. It's an engineering and business game now.

One of us is living in a completely fraudulent world.

do you think I am a 'denier'?



as far as my sig- I will give an example that is widely known, even amongst people who don't follow the climate wars. for the past couple of years skeptics have been saying that warming has stopped. initially the warmers went ballistic and reported that not only was the warming still happening but it was happening at an ever increasing rate. Phil Jones got sandbagged with the question "is it significant", and to his credit he answered "no". but the pitbulls at SkS, Tamino, etc went to ever increasing lengths to torture the data to fit the warming dogma. bit-by-bit they have all started to admit that there is a problem, at least with the models. you would think most reasonable people would be happy that imminent disaster is not tomorrow anyways.

people notice when someone is assuring them that their position is the truth, then get hysterical and defensive when it doesn't work out, then meekly admit that they were wrong. if you are still in the defensive mode that is your right. but you better start planning on how to back down without losing too much face.

As you spend all of your time trying to find reasons to deny the conclusions of 97% of qualified climate scientists, yes, I think that you are a 'denier'.

I suppose one could apply your logic to all science research. That somebody with deep pockets benefits from virtually every finding, so could be funding those whose conclusions support what benefits them.

I, personally believe that it is much less likely to happen in science than in business where the only rule is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.

I'm also trying to figure out how such a massive conspiracy would work in the real world. Scientists from all over the world deciding jointly to fudge the results of their measurements and experiments in such a way that they all lead to the same false conclusion.

You'd think that among the thousands of researchers involved there would probably be one tattle tail.

 

[itfitzme]

I suppose one could apply your logic to all science research. That somebody with deep pockets benefits from virtually every finding, so could be funding those whose conclusions support what benefits them.

I, personally believe that it is much less likely to happen in science than in business where the only rule is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.

I'm also trying to figure out how such a massive conspiracy would work in the real world. Scientists from all over the world deciding jointly to fudge the results of their measurements and experiments in such a way that they all lead to the same false conclusion.*

You'd think that among the thousands of researchers involved there would probably be one tattle tail.

From a social science perspective, it doesn't need to be an overt conspiracy. *

There is group-think, which is typical for tightly bound small groups. *It is typical when there is one authoritive leader, like the persident. *Then the tendency is for everyone to agree.

Women, especially teenage women, go by concensus. Reality becomes defined by the concensus of the group.

In economics, Cournot and Nash equilibriums in the market hold prices above the natural equilibrium. *This is how pricing works between gas stations located near each other. *They watch each others prices and share the same goal, higher income. *

People are pack animals, so it's not impossible. *But for every economic and social tendency, there are opposing ones, so it becomes a balance. *Individuals also compete for that top prize.

Problem is, all the same things apply to the denialist camp. And it doesn't matter how much money it is, just that it is more than otherwise. And, more importantly from a sociological standpoint, there is validation, attention.

 

[Old Rocks]

And, in the real world, the latest ever recorded below zero temp in the Arctic has occurred. After WEEKS of 24 hour sunlight the temp STILL hasn't cracked 0. Your mantra is proving false....

Your link didn't support your claim. You know that, right?

Your link just showed a temps a little behind the mean, which everyone already knew, because of the persistent arctic cyclone. Nothing about your link said or implied "latest ever".

So, did you have any evidence that actually supports the claim you made?

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Don't know how to use a web site I see. Not surprising. Tell me admiral..or is it General now? Or maybe it's admiral general? Ah heck who cares, how exactly does a persistant arctic cyclone keep the temps low? The lower temps will certainly CREATE the arctic cyclone...that's for sure....but how do always manage to reverse the natural order of things?


Your system of thought is quite remarkable in its poor quality...

Now Walleyes, you claim a Phd in Geology. Now I attended the university three quarters this last school year, and never met any professor as ill informed as you are.

 

[itfitzme]

Your link didn't support your claim. You know that, right?

Your link just showed a temps a little behind the mean, which everyone already knew, because of the persistent arctic cyclone. Nothing about your link said or implied "latest ever".

So, did you have any evidence that actually supports the claim you made?

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

*Don't know how to use a web site I see. *Not surprising. *Tell me admiral..or is it General now? *Or maybe it's admiral general? *Ah heck who cares, how exactly does a persistant arctic cyclone keep the temps low? *The lower temps will certainly CREATE the arctic cyclone...that's for sure....but how do always manage to reverse the natural order of things? *


Your system of thought is quite remarkable in its poor quality...

Now Walleyes, you claim a Phd in Geology. Now I attended the university three quarters this last school year, and never met any professor as ill informed as you are.

Okay, someone explain this persitent arctic cyclone, ice cap, and season thing to me. *Just the basic balance. *Obviously, clouds reflect. *They reflect in the visible range, of course, they are white. And I must conclude they reflect IR as a cloudy night is a *warm night. *The summer season results in more sunlight at the north pole. *But I don't know what happens to the PAC.

Does the PAC change, seasonally?

If so, how has this typically go?

Has any changes resulted in direct changes to the ice and temps?

What's the expected variance off the mean for the 80th parallel?

 

[flacaltenn]

"I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse."

"the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power."

Funny, I feel exactly the same about the deniers.*

In addition, you've never provided any evidence as to the veracity of your tag line but anecdotally it is completely out of synch with my world and experience. Deniers have lost all credibility.*

In my world the debate is over. The solution people have most of what they need from the researchers. It's an engineering and business game now.*

One of us is living in a completely fraudulent world.

do you think I am a 'denier'?



as far as my sig- *I will give an example that is widely known, even amongst people who don't follow the climate wars. for the past couple of years skeptics have been saying that warming has stopped. initially the warmers went ballistic and reported that not only was the warming still happening but it was happening at an ever increasing rate. Phil Jones got sandbagged with the question "is it significant", and to his credit he answered "no". but the pitbulls at SkS, Tamino, etc went to ever increasing lengths to torture the data to fit the warming dogma. bit-by-bit they have all started to admit that there is a problem, at least with the models. you would think most reasonable people would be happy that imminent disaster is not tomorrow anyways.

people notice when someone is assuring them that their position is the truth, then get hysterical and defensive when it doesn't work out, then meekly admit that they were wrong. if you are still in the defensive mode that is your right. but you better start planning on how to back down without losing too much face.

Which is wierd. Because I've looked back intomit from time to time and this;

looks pretty much the same. *Oddly, if it was some grand conspiracy, it would still be going up, not pausing.

And the deniists still say the same old thing, that the numbers keep being revised. *It's the same story with the CPI, UE, and every abstract measure.

I'd be worried if they weren't making adjustments. *It is cutting edge, current science stuff. *If you want a confidence level of 99.9999999%, you need to be in physics, not messy stuff like climate or economics.

Oh, I know, they inserted a pause to let the real temps catch up. *Soon they will start trending it down so that it matches the real, non-warming world. *That'll be about 30 yeaes out, long enough for them to collect retirement.

Yeah, that's it. *Yeah.

Yeah.. That post had all the fingerprints of literal statistical genius..

Say WHAT???

 

[gslack]

I suppose one could apply your logic to all science research. That somebody with deep pockets benefits from virtually every finding, so could be funding those whose conclusions support what benefits them.

I, personally believe that it is much less likely to happen in science than in business where the only rule is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.

I'm also trying to figure out how such a massive conspiracy would work in the real world. Scientists from all over the world deciding jointly to fudge the results of their measurements and experiments in such a way that they all lead to the same false conclusion.*

You'd think that among the thousands of researchers involved there would probably be one tattle tail.

From a social science perspective, it doesn't need to be an overt conspiracy. *

There is group-think, which is typical for tightly bound small groups. *It is typical when there is one authoritive leader, like the persident. *Then the tendency is for everyone to agree.

Women, especially teenage women, go by concensus. Reality becomes defined by the concensus of the group.

In economics, Cournot and Nash equilibriums in the market hold prices above the natural equilibrium. *This is how pricing works between gas stations located near each other. *They watch each others prices and share the same goal, higher income. *

People are pack animals, so it's not impossible. *But for every economic and social tendency, there are opposing ones, so it becomes a balance. *Individuals also compete for that top prize.

Problem is, all the same things apply to the denialist camp. And it doesn't matter how much money it is, just that it is more than otherwise. And, more importantly from a sociological standpoint, there is validation, attention.

LOL, dude you are so full of it... What in the hell do economic theories have to do with AGW, or even the first part of your post where you ramble about group-think?

Damn man put the pipe down..

 

[SSDD]

Now Walleyes, you claim a Phd in Geology. Now I attended the university three quarters this last school year, and never met any professor as ill informed as you are.

Those that can...do. Those that can't.....well you know the rest. Or maybe you don't.

Those ivory towers, contrary to your belief are not where the best and brightest reside.

 

[SSDD]

do you think I am a 'denier'?



as far as my sig- *I will give an example that is widely known, even amongst people who don't follow the climate wars. for the past couple of years skeptics have been saying that warming has stopped. initially the warmers went ballistic and reported that not only was the warming still happening but it was happening at an ever increasing rate. Phil Jones got sandbagged with the question "is it significant", and to his credit he answered "no". but the pitbulls at SkS, Tamino, etc went to ever increasing lengths to torture the data to fit the warming dogma. bit-by-bit they have all started to admit that there is a problem, at least with the models. you would think most reasonable people would be happy that imminent disaster is not tomorrow anyways.

people notice when someone is assuring them that their position is the truth, then get hysterical and defensive when it doesn't work out, then meekly admit that they were wrong. if you are still in the defensive mode that is your right. but you better start planning on how to back down without losing too much face.

Which is wierd. Because I've looked back intomit from time to time and this;

looks pretty much the same. *Oddly, if it was some grand conspiracy, it would still be going up, not pausing.

And the deniists still say the same old thing, that the numbers keep being revised. *It's the same story with the CPI, UE, and every abstract measure.

I'd be worried if they weren't making adjustments. *It is cutting edge, current science stuff. *If you want a confidence level of 99.9999999%, you need to be in physics, not messy stuff like climate or economics.

Oh, I know, they inserted a pause to let the real temps catch up. *Soon they will start trending it down so that it matches the real, non-warming world. *That'll be about 30 yeaes out, long enough for them to collect retirement.

Yeah, that's it. *Yeah.

Yeah.. That post had all the fingerprints of literal statistical genius..

Say WHAT???

You have to wonder if he bothered to notice the cooling trend clearly indicated at the end of his graph. The AGW hypothesis is failing so badly that the warmers can't even manage to come up with faked data to support it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Walleyes, you claim a Phd in Geology. Now I attended the university three quarters this last school year, and never met any professor as ill informed as you are.

Those that can...do. Those that can't.....well you know the rest. Or maybe you don't.

Those ivory towers, contrary to your belief are not where the best and brightest reside.

OK. So where was Einstein employed?

 

[Old Rocks]

Which is wierd. Because I've looked back intomit from time to time and this;

looks pretty much the same. *Oddly, if it was some grand conspiracy, it would still be going up, not pausing.

And the deniists still say the same old thing, that the numbers keep being revised. *It's the same story with the CPI, UE, and every abstract measure.

I'd be worried if they weren't making adjustments. *It is cutting edge, current science stuff. *If you want a confidence level of 99.9999999%, you need to be in physics, not messy stuff like climate or economics.

Oh, I know, they inserted a pause to let the real temps catch up. *Soon they will start trending it down so that it matches the real, non-warming world. *That'll be about 30 yeaes out, long enough for them to collect retirement.

Yeah, that's it. *Yeah.

Yeah.. That post had all the fingerprints of literal statistical genius..

Say WHAT???

You have to wonder if he bothered to notice the cooling trend clearly indicated at the end of his graph. The AGW hypothesis is failing so badly that the warmers can't even manage to come up with faked data to support it.

OK, dumb fuck, so once again, the increase is not a linear line, but superimposed over the natural variations. And, with all ten of the warmest years on record since 1998, I would hardly state that it is cooling at present. You can see that right here;

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[SSDD]

OK. So where was Einstein employed?

So are you saying all college professors are Einsteins...or even remotely comparable? Got any actual data to back that up...never mind....stupid question to ask you.

 

[SSDD]

OK, dumb fuck, so once again, the increase is not a linear line, but superimposed over the natural variations. And, with all ten of the warmest years on record since 1998, I would hardly state that it is cooling at present. You can see that right here;

Cooling's coming rocks....how long must the trend continue before it sinks through your thick skull? How far are you behind the curve...really?

 

[IanC]

Phase change in the AMO and PDO suggest that cooling is plausible for the next decades but why should we claim to know for sure?

 

[mamooth]

Exactly the same PR crowd that denied smoking causes cancer now works for the AGW denialists. As in the very same people.

Yes, there are professional propagandists out there, and they work for the denialist side. And why wouldn't they? That's where 99% of the money is. You have to take a pay cut to work on the honest side, which is another thing that gives the AGW side credibility.

 

[IanC]

Exactly the same PR crowd that denied smoking causes cancer now works for the AGW denialists. As in the very same people.

Yes, there are professional propagandists out there, and they work for the denialist side. And why wouldn't they? That's where 99% of the money is. You have to take a pay cut to work on the honest side, which is another thing that gives the AGW side credibility.

who is getting rich on the skeptic side? most of the most influential skeptics actually pay out of their own pocket to get their message out. I only wish that guys like Steve McIntyre could have an intern to track down information and do some of the grunt work.

 

[IanC]

Now Walleyes, you claim a Phd in Geology. Now I attended the university three quarters this last school year, and never met any professor as ill informed as you are.

Those that can...do. Those that can't.....well you know the rest. Or maybe you don't.

Those ivory towers, contrary to your belief are not where the best and brightest reside.

OK. So where was Einstein employed?

its pretty hard to call the place where Einstein finished his time in the US a run of the mill University.

 

[IanC]

"I feel sorry for the scientists who have a lot invested in AGW theory, and are understandably reticent to just chuck it out. understandable but it is no excuse."

"the ones who piss me off are the media who went totally overboard and demanded ever increasing tales of doom, and got them. and the other characters who made their living off of turning alarm into money and power."

Funny, I feel exactly the same about the deniers.

In addition, you've never provided any evidence as to the veracity of your tag line but anecdotally it is completely out of synch with my world and experience. Deniers have lost all credibility.

In my world the debate is over. The solution people have most of what they need from the researchers. It's an engineering and business game now.

One of us is living in a completely fraudulent world.

do you think I am a 'denier'?



as far as my sig- I will give an example that is widely known, even amongst people who don't follow the climate wars. for the past couple of years skeptics have been saying that warming has stopped. initially the warmers went ballistic and reported that not only was the warming still happening but it was happening at an ever increasing rate. Phil Jones got sandbagged with the question "is it significant", and to his credit he answered "no". but the pitbulls at SkS, Tamino, etc went to ever increasing lengths to torture the data to fit the warming dogma. bit-by-bit they have all started to admit that there is a problem, at least with the models. you would think most reasonable people would be happy that imminent disaster is not tomorrow anyways.

people notice when someone is assuring them that their position is the truth, then get hysterical and defensive when it doesn't work out, then meekly admit that they were wrong. if you are still in the defensive mode that is your right. but you better start planning on how to back down without losing too much face.

As you spend all of your time trying to find reasons to deny the conclusions of 97% of qualified climate scientists, yes, I think that you are a 'denier'.

I suppose one could apply your logic to all science research. That somebody with deep pockets benefits from virtually every finding, so could be funding those whose conclusions support what benefits them.

I, personally believe that it is much less likely to happen in science than in business where the only rule is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.

I'm also trying to figure out how such a massive conspiracy would work in the real world. Scientists from all over the world deciding jointly to fudge the results of their measurements and experiments in such a way that they all lead to the same false conclusion.

You'd think that among the thousands of researchers involved there would probably be one tattle tail.

massive conspiracy? no such thing. group think and herd instinct? definitely. there are procedures in my workplace that I don't agree with but I follow them anyways.

as far as denying.... I agree that there has been warming, I agree that CO2 has had an impact even if the magnitude is unknown, and I agree that climate is changeable just as it always has been. what do I deny? the conclusions of catastrophe that are based on assumptions that are very unlikely to happen. what am I pissed off about? people like Marcott who wrote a sensible PhD paper on interglacial temps, only to be talked into adding incommensurate recent data to it and re-releasing it to public acclaim as the 'next greatest hockey stick'. it was torn to shreds in the open scientific marketplace, as was Marcott's reputation. why did it happen? because co-author Shakur wanted to try again after his own paper on CO2 induced warming was mascerated.

CO2 theory starts with legitimate and reasonable underpinnings but ends with an error cascade of obnoxious declarations of doom that any thinking person should be very dubious about.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah.. That post had all the fingerprints of literal statistical genius..

Say WHAT???

You have to wonder if he bothered to notice the cooling trend clearly indicated at the end of his graph. The AGW hypothesis is failing so badly that the warmers can't even manage to come up with faked data to support it.

OK, dumb fuck, so once again, the increase is not a linear line, but superimposed over the natural variations. And, with all ten of the warmest years on record since 1998, I would hardly state that it is cooling at present. You can see that right here;

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Are you that surprised when stocks hit "all time highs" consecutively when the DOw is above 15000??? Expect that to happen when the DOw is at 13,000?

Think the Dow hitting monthly "all time highs" is ANY INDICATION of future positive performance?

I don't care about "3rd warmest on record".. I understand where those numbers are coming from. Apparently you don't...

About those "natural variations".. As I pointed out to Mamooth in another thread --- A rational person would see that if a "natural variation" can swamp the projected increase from GHGas theory, -- why then --- WHY isn't it a bigger part of the modeling?

No excuse for finding the temp rise stalled due to well-known and quantified NATURAL variations.. Except maybe sloppy science eh?

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks still thinks the trend is rapidly accelerating. Or have you finally looked up the definitio of 'accelerate' Old Rocks?

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah.. That post had all the fingerprints of literal statistical genius..*

Say WHAT???

You have to wonder if he bothered to notice the cooling trend clearly indicated at the end of his graph. *The AGW hypothesis is failing so badly that the warmers can't even manage to come up with faked data to support it.

*There's no denying it any more. Cat's out of the bag. *Might just as well let everyone in on the secret. *The recent 16 year pause is just made up to let the real temp catch up.

It's a been a conspiracy by The Queen, The Rothchilds, The Gettys, and Colonol Sanders. *It really is all pretend so we can meet once every five years in Copenhagen for pony rides and ice cream.

Sorry, you weren't invited.

Yeah, that't it, yeah