This is how millions of people are fooled into believing the AGW crap.

[PredFan]

For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Indeed, the BBT is starting to look like a relic of the past.

What is that supposed to mean?

Not surprised you don't understand it.

 

[SwimExpert]

They're called proxies.

Name me one proxy that does not end up relying on the assumed correlation between CO2 and "average temperature."

 

[Billy_Bob]

All these people screaming "FRAUD!!!!"

And the ice continues to recede. The oceans continue to rise. Why is that?

And.... They want to play word games with the science.

How much more damage will hurricanes cause when the wind blown tidal surges have less far to go to bring more water inland?

I'm a simple guy. I've been in three hurricanes. I believe in them. When god shows up to make these charletons correct let me know. In the mean time I will trust that the vast majority of scientists are honest brokers of what they discover.

You have hit every single talking point for the lie of AGW.

Global storm energy is lower and track solar output. This is not expected to increase (this year should end the lag time of rise from solar max) and now cooling will set in for about 7-10 years as we approach solar minimum and the new cycle.

Hurricanes are fewer as are tropical storms.

We are slowly coming up from the low just a few years back but there is nothing abnormal or unusual with our current storm energy or numbers of storms. They are all well within normal variation.

The fear mongering left dont want people to know that what we are experiencing today is normal behavior given the short duration of record keeping.

Graph Source

 

[Billy_Bob]

Except that the ice isn't receding and the oceans are not rising.

You ARE a simple guy, and as such you prefer to simply believe what you are told because it's easier than investigating yourself.

You want him to believe what YOU are telling him when you have NO evidence, and all the evidence he CAN find tells him that you're wrong in every regard.

Your own graphs show sea ice loss bottomed out and is no longer occurring.

Your use of the AMSL data set and the fact that they ADD 3mm to this data set per year to "offset land rise" is stunning. You have been warned that the data set is being manipulated yet you continue to use it. Why? Better yet post the unaltered graphing..

 

[PredFan]

Except that the ice isn't receding and the oceans are not rising.

You ARE a simple guy, and as such you prefer to simply believe what you are told because it's easier than investigating yourself.

You want him to believe what YOU are telling him when you have NO evidence, and all the evidence he CAN find tells him that you're wrong in every regard.

Your own graphs show sea ice loss bottomed out and is no longer occurring.

Your use of the AMSL data set and the fact that they ADD 3mm to this data set per year to "offset land rise" is stunning. You have been warned that the data set is being manipulated yet you continue to use it. Why? Better yet post the unaltered graphing..

That stuff has been debunked before, it never matters, they still use it. That is why I dismissed it right away.

 

[HUGGY]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

It is painfully true those which we used to view as scientists have been anointed as such by some pretty shaky organizations. There was a time that science had to pass muster by those that only sponsored the work. Then there were periods in history when the church took a heavy hand in deciding what was truth or not regardless of the information discovered. Leaders often leaned on the truth and bent it out of shape.

Fortunately for the human species these dark times mentioned are nearly totally in the past.

It does not matter what anyone BELIEVES who is not working to find the actual scientific data that confirms or denies AGW. What the bible supposes to suggest is worse than irrelevant. What the bible thumpers WANT you to believe is worse than dangerous.

What data that has been collected suggests that human activity could very well accelerate CO in the atmosphere. How much is still not fully understood. Just the fact that it can accumulate and be added to by our own hand makes it obvious that we should be prepared to reduce our participation in CO levels.

What boggles my mind is WHY anyone would be so against human beings doing what they can to prevent problems. Even if it happens gradually over a hundred years or so do we really want to flood most of Florida and other parts of the coasts of many parts of the globe?

What is the end game for you deniers? What are you trying to prove? If anything is it not prudent to err on the side of caution and not go kicking and screaming into the future putting band aids on just the property of the rich and let the water take over those places that can't afford to put dikes around tiny places where only the wealthy reside and own property?

First of all, I don't know what the bible says about AGW, I didn't know it did, and I don't care.

What is the end game? I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think there is one in my case. I just want the truth. I hate what has been done in the name of science. All the lies, the fraud, the intimidation. All these so called scientists acting very much unlike scientists. Even if it wasn't wrong, it would still be debasing science.

Look at the last statements you made. All more political than scientific. The corporations, blah blah, the rich Blah blah blah.. We can recognise a scam when we see it. If there really is a science message, it's getting lost in the politics and scientists are not only allowing it to happen, they are actively participating in it.

I said absolutely NOTHING about "the corporations..blah" or otherwise.

As far as the bible references it seems to me that the main detractors in the debate on global warming are also the heavy hitters defending the bible and the existence of god. I can't say what the connection is but I suggested that the most gullible, AKA those that subscribe to the sky fairy theory, are being suckered into this debate also. Somebody is making a buck here somewhere because congress just failed to pass a bill that at least acknowledges the fact that human activity is responsible for some of the pollution in the atmosphere. Now WHY do you suppose that happened? Because America and human beings in general have had NO effect on the pollution levels in our air? And congress just wanted to clear up that point?

Sure there have been some so-called scientists or rather activists that have raised a ruckus over pollution and found a home in AGW as the leverage point on their attacks against the polluters. Some if not much of what the activists preach is over the top. I get that. So we ignore what could be a serious problem that we could have a hand in correcting if done early enough because a handfull of fruit cakes offend you?

It seems to me also that the detractors jump on every missed projection as if nothing has happened "so ..what's the problem? and by the way you guys are all liars". In a very similar way these same people attack Obama. The resemblance of the debate tactics is hard to miss. In that sense this is a political debate as well as a scientific one.

 

[HUGGY]

For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Indeed, the BBT is starting to look like a relic of the past.

According to whom? Was it posted on the day room bulletin board?

You should pay a little bit of attention to what's happening in science. This is the problem with most of you AGW believers. You don't really know squat about science, you think that agreeing with AGW makes you smart. It doesn't. It only makes you a victim of the scam.

First of all I don't believe everything I read or see or hear. And I do tend to recognize a scam when I see one like when you say "the polar ice is not receding".

 

[PredFan]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

It is painfully true those which we used to view as scientists have been anointed as such by some pretty shaky organizations. There was a time that science had to pass muster by those that only sponsored the work. Then there were periods in history when the church took a heavy hand in deciding what was truth or not regardless of the information discovered. Leaders often leaned on the truth and bent it out of shape.

Fortunately for the human species these dark times mentioned are nearly totally in the past.

It does not matter what anyone BELIEVES who is not working to find the actual scientific data that confirms or denies AGW. What the bible supposes to suggest is worse than irrelevant. What the bible thumpers WANT you to believe is worse than dangerous.

What data that has been collected suggests that human activity could very well accelerate CO in the atmosphere. How much is still not fully understood. Just the fact that it can accumulate and be added to by our own hand makes it obvious that we should be prepared to reduce our participation in CO levels.

What boggles my mind is WHY anyone would be so against human beings doing what they can to prevent problems. Even if it happens gradually over a hundred years or so do we really want to flood most of Florida and other parts of the coasts of many parts of the globe?

What is the end game for you deniers? What are you trying to prove? If anything is it not prudent to err on the side of caution and not go kicking and screaming into the future putting band aids on just the property of the rich and let the water take over those places that can't afford to put dikes around tiny places where only the wealthy reside and own property?

First of all, I don't know what the bible says about AGW, I didn't know it did, and I don't care.

What is the end game? I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think there is one in my case. I just want the truth. I hate what has been done in the name of science. All the lies, the fraud, the intimidation. All these so called scientists acting very much unlike scientists. Even if it wasn't wrong, it would still be debasing science.

Look at the last statements you made. All more political than scientific. The corporations, blah blah, the rich Blah blah blah.. We can recognise a scam when we see it. If there really is a science message, it's getting lost in the politics and scientists are not only allowing it to happen, they are actively participating in it.

I said absolutely NOTHING about "the corporations..blah" or otherwise.

As far as the bible references it seems to me that the main detractors in the debate on global warming are also the heavy hitters defending the bible and the existence of god. I can't say what the connection is but I suggested that the most gullible, AKA those that subscribe to the sky fairy theory, are being suckered into this debate also. Somebody is making a buck here somewhere because congress just failed to pass a bill that at least acknowledges the fact that human activity is responsible for some of the pollution in the atmosphere. Now WHY do you suppose that happened? Because America and human beings in general have had NO effect on the pollution levels in our air? And congress just wanted to clear up that point?

Sure there have been some so-called scientists or rather activists that have raised a ruckus over pollution and found a home in AGW as the leverage point on their attacks against the polluters. Some if not much of what the activists preach is over the top. I get that. So we ignore what could be a serious problem that we could have a hand in correcting if done early enough because a handfull of fruit cakes offend you?

It seems to me also that the detractors jump on every missed projection as if nothing has happened "so ..what's the problem? and by the way you guys are all liars". In a very similar way these same people attack Obama. The resemblance of the debate tactics is hard to miss. In that sense this is a political debate as well as a scientific one.

You operate from a false premise, you assume that man made climate change is real then you create this whole scenario out of whole cloth to explain to yourself why anyone would doubt what is so obviously the truth. You puzzle and theorize and then make grand assumptions that are false simply because you start with a false premise.

So you didn't actually mention corporations, so what? You mentioned the rich and we've all heard this nonsense before and it also included corporations. You may have left it out but you meant it didn't you?

There is very little science to AGW, it is 99% left wing politics and agenda. Create a problem that doesn't exist, then offer the DNC and liberal policies as the cure for the problem. That is what they do. I'd ask you not to swallow the nonsense but I beleve its too late, isn't it?

 

[PredFan]

For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Indeed, the BBT is starting to look like a relic of the past.

According to whom? Was it posted on the day room bulletin board?

You should pay a little bit of attention to what's happening in science. This is the problem with most of you AGW believers. You don't really know squat about science, you think that agreeing with AGW makes you smart. It doesn't. It only makes you a victim of the scam.

First of all I don't believe everything I read or see or hear. And I do tend to recognize a scam when I see one like when you say "the polar ice is not receding".

Yeah I would beg to differ with you on that. You believe in AGW. You seem to lack any skepticism in that and you don't otherwise keep up with science. The evidence doesn't support your clam guy.

 

[mamooth]

Name me one proxy that does not end up relying on the assumed correlation between CO2 and "average temperature."

All of them.

You don't even know what a proxy is.

Explain to us how an ice core proxy assumes anything about CO2. This should be good.

 

[SwimExpert]

All of them.

You don't even know what a proxy is.

Explain to us how an ice core proxy assumes anything about CO2. This should be good.

Ice cores are used to gauge CO2 levels through history. Those CO2 levels are then used to extrapolate the alleged average temperature. Moron.

 

[mamooth]

Ice cores are used to gauge CO2 levels through history.

So far, so good.

Those CO2 levels are then used to extrapolate the alleged average temperature.

Hell no. Past temperature comes from the oxygen isotope ratios in the ice cores.

You didn't know a proxy from a model. Like I said, you didn't know what a proxy was. You're not logical. You're an irrational political cultist who thinks he's logical, because that's what his fellow cultists told him. We've only seen that act hundreds of times before.

Free advice. If you want to pretend to be logical, don't put pissy political diatribes in your sig. That gives away the charade instantly.

 

[SwimExpert]

Hell no. Past temperature comes from the oxygen isotope ratios in the ice cores.

Epic fail.

 

[mamooth]

Epic fail.

You were wrong. You may now choose to walk away with some dignity by admitting it. Or, you can throw a tantrum and abandon all dignity.

Given how many sources I can pull up, I suggest you think a bit before answering this.

I say ice cores determine paleotemperatures using the oxygen isotope ratios of the ice.

Do you still wish to claim that's "an epic fail"? Understand you will be asked to back up your claim.

 

[SwimExpert]

Epic fail.

You were wrong. You may now choose to walk away with some dignity by admitting it. Or, you can throw a tantrum and abandon all dignity.

Given how many sources I can pull up, I suggest you think a bit before answering this.

I say ice cores determine paleotemperatures using the oxygen isotope ratios of the ice.

Do you still wish to claim that's "an epic fail"? Understand you will be asked to back up your claim.

Point one, the first: No, that's now quite what you said. You are correct that the oxygen in the water is used to provide some information, but your previous statement suggests that it's the atmospheric oxygen trapped by the ice that is analyzed. This is false.

Point two, the second: Analyzing oxygen isotopes is a secondary metric. Water with heavy oxygen condenses before water with light oxygen. It's a slight difference, and the analysis only offers slight adjustments to the primary metric. Thus, if the average temperature is deemed to be 9C, the oxygen analysis might imply an adjustment to 9.1C. If you had any shred of understanding what you were talking about in the first place you would know this.

Point three, the third: The primary factor used to determine temperature is still CO2.

Point four, the fourth: Even if it were not the primary factor, it still relies on CO2 as part of the process.

According, I repeat my previous assessment of you: Epic fail.

 

[Pogo]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

Emeril Lagasse is Portuguese, not Cajun, and from Massachusetts, not Louisiana. So your attempted analogy is ironical in its ironicality.

Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

It clearly IS a hoax.

Thank you. Took all of two minutes to demonstrate exactly the fallacy I described.

Btw FCT --- being omniscient and all, when you have time, at your convenience of course, could you PM me the next Mega Lotto winning numbers? There's fifty bucks in it for ya. TIA.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oxygen is one of the most significant keys to deciphering past climates. Oxygen comes in heavy and light varieties, or isotopes, which are useful for paleoclimate research. Like all elements, oxygen is made up of a nucleus of protons and neutrons, surrounded by a cloud of electrons. All oxygen atoms have 8 protons, but the nucleus might contain 8, 9, or 10 neutrons. “Light” oxygen-16, with 8 protons and 8 neutrons, is the most common isotope found in nature, followed by much lesser amounts of “heavy” oxygen-18, with 8 protons and 10 neutrons.

• Paleoclimatology
• Introduction
• Written in the Earth
• A Record from the Deep
• The Ice Core Record
• Climate Close-up
• Explaining the Evidence
• Understanding the Past to Predict the Future

The ratio (relative amount) of these two types of oxygen in water changes with the climate. By determining how the ratio of heavy and light oxygen in marine sediments, ice cores, or fossils is different from a universally accepted standard, scientists can learn something about climate changes that have occurred in the past. The standard scientists use for comparison is based on the ratio of oxygen isotopes in ocean water at a depth of 200-500 meters.

Paleoclimatology The Oxygen Balance Feature Articles

Best stick to swimming pools.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ice cores are used to gauge CO2 levels through history.

So far, so good.

Those CO2 levels are then used to extrapolate the alleged average temperature.

Hell no. Past temperature comes from the oxygen isotope ratios in the ice cores.

You didn't know a proxy from a model. Like I said, you didn't know what a proxy was. You're not logical. You're an irrational political cultist who thinks he's logical, because that's what his fellow cultists told him. We've only seen that act hundreds of times before.

Free advice. If you want to pretend to be logical, don't put pissy political diatribes in your sig. That gives away the charade instantly.

really hard to get ice cores from namibia for your GLOBALproxy average. So the overall accuracy of the COMBINED proxies shouldnt be anywhere near the most accurate.

 

[flacaltenn]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

Emeril Lagasse is Portuguese, not Cajun, and from Massachusetts, not Louisiana. So your attempted analogy is ironical in its ironicality.

Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

It clearly IS a hoax.

Thank you. Took all of two minutes to demonstrate exactly the fallacy I described.

Btw FCT --- being omniscient and all, when you have time, at your convenience of course, could you PM me the next Mega Lotto winning numbers? There's fifty bucks in it for ya. TIA.

I noticed you ignored my obsersations that back up my assertion of a hoax. If you think I was wrong on any one of them---- please point it out. Then maybe ill share my intuition about Lotto numbers. I have several hundred things we should discuss about misrepresentations the GWarmers have made. How much interest and time you got?

 

[mamooth]

It clearly IS a hoax.AGW is.

I honestly thought we were doing flac a favor by ignoring this, but he just said he really wants to discuss it. Go fig.

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. It will cause about 1degC/doubing of concentration in the ATMOS. Most of our better "deniers" agree to that.

Yes, both of you. Sanity is hard to find in Denierstan these days.

But the rest of hype happened when scientists willingly allowed the socio-political activists to misintrepret their work.

Then your political party shouldn't have done that. The science wasn't political until your side deliberately made it so. If you want it to stop, then stop.

Statements like the "current rate of warming is unprecendented in the past 10,000 years is based on studies that never had the data integrity or the resolution to determine that.

In your opinion. Which mainly comes from very peculiar websites run by very dodgy people.

And studies of the "energy balance" got the right teensy tiny answer while ignoring the rather large "ocean storage" component that the warmers now blame for the failure of their models that were magically multiplying about 1 degC into 7 or 8 DegC by 2100.

That doesn't seem attached to reality at all.

There are credible recent polls of Climate Scientists indicating that THEY don't believe those historical "proxy" temperature studies and that MANY feel their field was an immature science when they launched into the front of public attention.

That's nice. Some handwaving about unnamed people, which all has nothing to do with the science being a hoax.

Al Gore described it perfectly when he screamed out "They Played on Your Fears".. He just was talking about another cause.

And some more of your politicizing to end it. You don't see the rational people here doing that.

I didn't see any evidence for a hoax there. What I saw fell more under the category of "rambling".