Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[boutons_deux]

Lol, TP

LOL, typical "religious" AGW denier, beliefs and blind political ideology trump facts.

messenger TP didn't do the studies, real scientists provided the message, as if such facts and such distinctions made any diff to you right-wing-bats.

[Agloco]

When it comes to my arguments of technical matters, I am well above the average person.

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/04/Laughing-GIF.gif

[RandomGuy]

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/04/Laughing-GIF.gif

Accidentally called your number the other day. Good to know it still works.

[RandomGuy]

Thats what they said in Yellowstone 1988.
Do you like your bread toasted?

Man I remember that. It was fucking crazy going outside at noon and seeing the red sun of sunset.

You could smell the pine trees burning in Laramie, that was fo sho.

[Agloco]

Accidentally called your number the other day. Good to know it still works.

Yeah, I was checking my messages (tardy as usual) when I realized it. My first reaction was "Damn, must be some serious shit going on in the Poly Forum".....:lol

I'm back in town btw, will call you to go grab some lunch or whatevs.

[boutons_deux]

Alaska Fisheries In Midst Of An Economic Collapse. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/29/1317631/-Alaska-Fisheries-In-Midst-Of-An-Economic-Collapse)

And not one politician is talking about it. But fisherman are talking about it. The people in the villages are talking about it. People who rely on outfitting the boats, who repair boats; the fish buyers and brokers. The cannery workers(!), the roe packers, and all the ancillary businesses.

They're talking about it. And what they are talking about is ocean acidification. (http://phys.org/news/2014-07-alaska-fisheries-ocean-acidification.html)

My daughter is a customer service rep at a major company. She deals with customers from all over the state; from Barrow to Ketchikan to Nome to Valdez to Cantwell to Kodiak, Dutch Harbor and ALL the Interior. So she hears a LOT of 'local' news from people who chit-chat; who k'vetch about politics, the economy and Obama. But since the opening of the herring fishery and the salmon fisheries, it been about the failure of the runs. (http://www.adn.com/article/20140121/bleak-king-salmon-run-predicted-alaskas-world-famous-kenai-river-summer) But as you see in the link, they aren't talking about why and what might be happening in the ocean while the fish are pelagic. One captain with whom my daughter spoke said it's the worst he's ever seen. He's hauled maybe 5 tons when he should have had 100-120 thousand pounds. Others (crew, hands, etc) talk about working two weeks and being basically in the hole. My daughter says that many, many of them talk about 'ocean acidification.' The salmon just aren't showing up, especially Reds and Kings. Many have lesions or worms and parasites.The crabs they are seeing are more easily damaged and there is a lot of 'dead catch'. She also says that many of the old-timers are talking about Fukushima too. She says these guys are convinced it has something to do with it. Other fisheries and species are also dropping off the cliff (herring, rock cod, ling cod, halibut, pollock) This is what is NOT being talked about in the so-called 'media' up here. Don't want the tourists to stay away.

Here's something else you won't see soon (at least until fall when the people start applying for food stamps en masse.)

The Interior villages are hurting. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/us-usa-salmon-alaska-idUSKBN0DO01120140508) Especially the Elders who depend on the salmon as their traditional diet and to feed the sled dogs, if they have them. As you see here from January 2013, (http://www.adn.com/article/alaska-fisheries-managers-early-run-yukon-king-salmon-limits) this has been happening for some time.

While this was reported, it doesn't make a blip of difference in "Seattle North" (Anchorage). Out of sight out of mind. Just like Native Americans in the lower 48.

But this little slice of the growing ecological disaster will snowball to an avalanche (get it, Alaskans?) and one of the pillars of the economy will collapse taking a LOT of capital with it. It will be interesting to watch who starts bailing first: The big corporate factory ships and Japanese investors or the fishermen themselves who can't make a go on 5 or 10% of what they need to make it profitable.

The Arctic is the laboratory for Climate Change. In the more than 34 years I've been here, I've watch most of the vegetation change. I've felt the differences in the winters and summers now and then. (This summer is warm and gorgeous, BTW) I've watched year to year as the animals change behaviors; invasive weeds; seen the bubbling methane in our lakes and ponds; and watched my favorite fishing places -where at times it was possible to catch a fish every cast!- now bereft of even sculpins.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/29/1317631/-Alaska-Fisheries-In-Midst-Of-An-Economic-Collapse?detail=email

[Cry Havoc]

They always get things wrong.

Maybe they should start studying real science instead of political science.

Because GOP politicians are more familiar with the intricacy of the climate, right? Right?

:lmao

Cue the "I know more about this than people who dedicate their entire lives to studying it" rebuttal.

[Cry Havoc]

http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/04/Laughing-GIF.gif

And about a thousand leagues below the average meteorologist or climatologist. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

2/3rds of the way through the year and we're still very much on pace for 2014 to be the hottest year on record. Sea Surface temperatures have set new all time records over the past week. It does seem as though El Nino chances have come down for a strong or moderate event but recent warming in that area of the ocean make it quite likely we will still see an El Nino. That should warm the remaining four months higher than normal. The real effects of an El Nino would be felt next year so if 2014 does break the record (more likely than not at this point) then its still quite likely 2015 will then break the mark set by 2014 due to the full effects. A lot can happen in the remaining 4 1/2 months but I think its really likely we'll see 2014 as the warmest year on record.

[DarrinS]

2/3rds of the way through the year and we're still very much on pace for 2014 to be the hottest year on record. Sea Surface temperatures have set new all time records over the past week. It does seem as though El Nino chances have come down for a strong or moderate event but recent warming in that area of the ocean make it quite likely we will still see an El Nino. That should warm the remaining four months higher than normal. The real effects of an El Nino would be felt next year so if 2014 does break the record (more likely than not at this point) then its still quite likely 2015 will then break the mark set by 2014 due to the full effects. A lot can happen in the remaining 4 1/2 months but I think its really likely we'll see 2014 as the warmest year on record.


So, what will have a stronger effect? El Nino? Or CO2?

[tlongII]

2/3rds of the way through the year and we're still very much on pace for 2014 to be the hottest year on record. Sea Surface temperatures have set new all time records over the past week. It does seem as though El Nino chances have come down for a strong or moderate event but recent warming in that area of the ocean make it quite likely we will still see an El Nino. That should warm the remaining four months higher than normal. The real effects of an El Nino would be felt next year so if 2014 does break the record (more likely than not at this point) then its still quite likely 2015 will then break the mark set by 2014 due to the full effects. A lot can happen in the remaining 4 1/2 months but I think its really likely we'll see 2014 as the warmest year on record.

How many years does this "record" consist of?

[MannyIsGod]

Short term? ENSO. Long term? CO2. An analogy to use here is that ENSO is like a direct deposit on payday, while CO2 is like a raise to your annual salary. One the day you get paid the biggest effect is the amount placed into your bank account. However, the raise occurs as an overlying function on top of that and in the long run obviously has a larger effect than any one given event.

[MannyIsGod]

How many years does this "record" consist of?

The instrumental record goes back to the late 19th century.

[Wild Cobra]

Short term? ENSO. Long term? CO2. An analogy to use here is that ENSO is like a direct deposit on payday, while CO2 is like a raise to your annual salary. One the day you get paid the biggest effect is the amount placed into your bank account. However, the raise occurs as an overlying function on top of that and in the long run obviously has a larger effect than any one given event.
Are you aware that the root studies defining CO2 sensitivity were done using temperature data during the period of solar increases and the solar effect was unknow?

Trace the CO2 sensitivity studies sometime. They reference past studies, that reference other past ones yet, never recalculating the base for sensitivity.

They didn't remove, what at the time, the solar variability. The root study is in the 70's.

[boutons_deux]

NASA Scientist Warns of Three to Four-Meter Sea Level Rise by 2200


a world-renowned scientist to warn that there could be a greater rise than that before 2100 - in addition to a catastrophic two to three-meter rise by 2200, and worsening increases thereafter.

NASA emeritus scientist Robert Bindschadler, who worked for 35 years (http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/personnel/index.php?id=302) as a glaciologist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, is sounding these warnings.

He led 18 field expeditions to Antarctica, and has participated in many other expeditions to glaciers and ice caps around the world. Although he recently retired, he maintains an active interest in the dynamics of glaciers and ice sheets, investigating how remote sensing can be used to improve our understanding of the role of ice in the earth's climate.

He actively developed applications that measure ice velocity and elevation using both visible and radar imagery, monitor melt of and snowfall on ice sheets by microwave emissions, and detect changes in ice sheet volume by repeat space-borne radar altimetry (using satellites to measure ice sheet thickness).

Bindschadler, who has published over 130 scientific papers, has advised the US Congress and the vice president on the stability of ice sheets and ice shelves and served on many scientific commissions and study groups as an expert in glaciology and remote sensing of ice. He also has degrees in astronomy and physics.

A fellow of the American Geophysical Union (2001), Goddard Senior Fellow (2000), and recipient of the Excellence in Federal Career (1989) award, the Antarctic Service Medal (1984) and the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1994), Bindschadler continues to be a leader in the public conversation around the climate's impact on the world's ice sheets and glaciers.

Truthout recently sat down with Bindschadler for an interview about his concerns about Antarctic glaciers, why scientists are often loath to enter into the debate over anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD), massive sea level rise in the future, and what he thinks can be done.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25509-nasa-scientist-warns-of-three-to-four-meter-sea-level-rise-by-2200

but WC will destroy him. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

yawn.

[MannyIsGod]

Short term? ENSO. Long term? CO2. An analogy to use here is that ENSO is like a direct deposit on payday, while CO2 is like a raise to your annual salary. One the day you get paid the biggest effect is the amount placed into your bank account. However, the raise occurs as an overlying function on top of that and in the long run obviously has a larger effect than any one given event.

To further illustrate this, there is this graphic from above:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gistemp_nino_s-638x218.jpg

By far almost all record years are El Nino. However, La Nina years are now just as warm and warmer as prior El Nino years. But All things being equal El Nino years will be warmer. That is why climatalogical short periods of time (ie 15 years) will have slower warming when there are disproportionate number of La Nina years. But If you get the opposite, you will see a short term bump in temperature. As our prediction of ENSO is fairly poor, we can't predict this on short term time scales. However, ENSO evens out over the long run so it doesn't matter on long time frames.

[DarrinS]

Seems odd that we're having this record-breaking year when the US has had a colder than usual year (so far).

And I do realize that the US is not the entire Earth.

[MannyIsGod]

Not all of the US is all that cold. July was pretty unseasonable for the Midwest and here in Texas but outside of that the country is warm.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201407-201407.gif

[Wild Cobra]

Seems odd that we're having this record-breaking year when the US has had a colder than usual year (so far).

And I do realize that the US is not the entire Earth.
Yep.

Past years, we were having long hot and dry periods. That heat we had a few days ago was short lived. It maxed out at 75 today. Most of this summer has been cooler than normal. We should be having 80's and 90's for highs.

[DarrinS]

Not all of the US is all that cold. July was pretty unseasonable for the Midwest and here in Texas but outside of that the country is warm.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201407-201407.gif


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2014/7

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you aware that the root studies defining CO2 sensitivity were done using temperature data during the period of solar increases and the solar effect was unknow?

Trace the CO2 sensitivity studies sometime. They reference past studies, that reference other past ones yet, never recalculating the base for sensitivity.

They didn't remove, what at the time, the solar variability. The root study is in the 70's.

2005 called and wants its arguments back.

[Wild Cobra]

Not all of the US is all that cold. July was pretty unseasonable for the Midwest and here in Texas but outside of that the country is warm.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/Statewidetrank/201407-201407.gif
Ron Silver is speaking to you from the grave:


http://youtu.be/yXbMWdl0Cds

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2014/7

Yes. Thats where I got the map from.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

2005 called and wants its arguments back.

I just want to point out that WC made that same argument about a year or so ago. He was shown the studies that take into account the information regarding solar output from 2003-4 then. He left and called me a bully. His typical bullshit.

So is he stupid or is he intentionally trying to mislead people do you think?

[TeyshaBlue]

Chances: Better than zero on either.

[MannyIsGod]

Who is WC?

[Wild Cobra]

I just want to point out that WC made that same argument about a year or so ago. He was shown the studies that take into account the information regarding solar output from 2003-4 then. He left and called me a bully. His typical bullshit.

So is he stupid or is he intentionally trying to mislead people do you think?
LOL...

You are an idiot. I'm not making the argument you say was disproved you lying piece of shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

You are an idiot. I'm not making the argument you say was disproved you lying piece of shit.

You did this last time, and then I asked 'what band from the solar input are they not considering?' I went and found a study from NASA showing you how they did consider what you claim then you went onto the 'You don't understand' routine. Then when I went onto point out how you had repeatedly demonstrated that you have difficulty understanding concepts in the past, you called me a bully and left. We can do it again if you want though.

Explain your argument please if I have unfairly characterized your previous statement. What are scientists not considering?

[Wild Cobra]

Explain your argument please if I have unfairly characterized your previous statement. What are scientists not considering?

I explained my argument. You are too stupid to understand it.

Take any study that claims a sensitivity value, and follow how they said they determined it. After you do that, we can talk. Till then, you are just being an ignorant troll.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I explained my argument. You are too stupid to understand it.

Take any study that claims a sensitivity value, and follow how they said they determined it. After you do that, we can talk. Till then, you are just being an ignorant troll.

So I am supposed to make your argument for you and I am stupid. Nice.

I will help your dumb ass but I am not looking the shit up for you.

First, link the study showing the effect not considered then link the study that does not consider this pivotal fact.

No one is going to take your word for it, WC. Whether you think it untrue or unfair people around here don't trust your veracity. Links trump that. Now make your argument.

[Wild Cobra]

If I pick a study, and trace the studies it's based on, you will accuse me of cherry picking.

Therefore, pick your own.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I pick a study, and trace the studies it's based on, you will accuse me of cherry picking.

Therefore, pick your own.

How about you let me be my own judge. I am not the only one who reads this either. Perhaps someone else will be convinced by it even if I am not.

Sounds like you lack conviction in your arguments. Why should anyone else buy it then?

[Wild Cobra]

How about you let me be my own judge. I am not the only one who reads this either. Perhaps someone else will be convinced by it even if I am not.

Sounds like you lack conviction in your arguments. Why should anyone else buy it then?
LOL...

You have not comprehended my point at all, have you?

I'm not claiming there is any study to support my contention.

I am claiming that no studies support the CO2 sensitivity in nature.

Please find one to prove me wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

You have not comprehended my point at all, have you?

I'm not claiming there is any study to support my contention.

I am claiming that no studies support the CO2 sensitivity in nature.

Please find one to prove me wrong.

No you are saying that they do not consider the entire band of input in their sensitivity predictions.

So that is your final answer though: 'No study supports CO2 sensitivity.'

The thing is that whenever I push for links from you and Darrin you pull this coy technique when its because you are embarrassed as to your sources. You ashamed of the link where you got this idea from?

[Wild Cobra]

No you are saying that they do not consider the entire band of input in their sensitivity predictions.

So that is your final answer though: 'No study supports CO2 sensitivity.'

The thing is that whenever I push for links from you and Darrin you pull this coy technique when its because you are embarrassed as to your sources. You ashamed of the link where you got this idea from?
Again, since you are too stupid to comprehend the first several times...

Take ANY study... ANY! I repeat... ANY STUDY that gives a value for sensitivity. Check the notes for where this is sourced. Find the source study, and you will find it is lacking facts we know today.

They use correlation without factoring the 1900 to 1950 solar increases.

Prove me wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, since you are too stupid to comprehend the first several times...

Take ANY study... ANY! I repeat... ANY STUDY that gives a value for sensitivity. Check the notes for where this is sourced. Find the source study, and you will find it is lacking facts we know today.

They use correlation without factoring the 1900 to 1950 solar increases.

Prove me wrong.

It's not my job to prove you wrong, dipshit. You haven't convinced me and i know trying to convince you is a waste of time. I am content to sit here and indicate that you have yet to provide a single link in all this and I think most people would agree with me you are not a reliable source on your own.

If you want to make your argumetn then fine but in the meantime I will just remind you to this point you are only full of shit.

[Wild Cobra]

It's not my job to prove you wrong, dipshit. You haven't convinced me and i know trying to convince you is a waste of time. I am content to sit here and indicate that you have yet to provide a single link in all this and I think most people would agree with me you are not a reliable source on your own.

If you want to make your argumetn then fine but in the meantime I will just remind you to this point you are only full of shit.

You don't get it.

The sensitivity of CO2 in the atmosphere is a farce. There are no proper studies.

Believe as you wish. Live in ignorance.

I have traced several studies to the CO2 sensitivity question. There are none that are any good. They should all be shitcanned, and all the research using them as a foundation as well. The root studies have not been updated with solar offsets, or any since. They rely on the inaccurate understanding of the 70's before we had satellites monitoring IR and solar in place.

The information is obsolete and wrong.

I don't expect you to take my word for it. I want you to see for yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't get it.

The sensitivity of CO2 in the atmosphere is a farce. There are no proper studies.

Believe as you wish. Live in ignorance.

I have traced several studies to the CO2 sensitivity question. There are none that are any good. They should all be shitcanned, and all the research using them as a foundation as well. The root studies have not been updated with solar offsets, or any since. They rely on the inaccurate understanding of the 70's before we had satellites monitoring IR and solar in place.

The information is obsolete and wrong.

I don't expect you to take my word for it. I want you to see for yourself.

This is from NASA. Please explain how science doesn't consider the satellite data.

http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/featured-items/airs_acos_co2_satellite_observations

[Wild Cobra]

This is from NASA. Please explain how science doesn't consider the satellite data.

http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/featured-items/airs_acos_co2_satellite_observations
I didn't say that.

I said the previous papers determining sensitivity were done before satellite measurements. Sensitivity values are not updated since with known solar changes of the period they used.

That paper doesn't give CO2 sensitivity, i.e. how many degrees of change there is to a doubling of CO2.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't say that.

I said the previous papers determining sensitivity were done before satellite measurements. Sensitivity values are not updated since with known solar changes of the period they used.

That paper doesn't give CO2 sensitivity, i.e. how many degrees of change there is to a doubling of CO2.

So you cannot do it as I suspected.

[Wild Cobra]

So you cannot do it as I suspected.

I cannot show you something that does not exist. That's why I'm asking you to show me it exists.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I cannot show you something that does not exist. That's why I'm asking you to show me it exists.


The Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is archiving and distributing all AIRS and ACOS data, and will be the source of upcoming releases of CO2 data from OCO-2. All of these data records are searchable by various criteria (temporal, spatial, event), via the Mirador search engine (http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/), and are available online for free download by FTP, and also with more advanced methods such as OPeNDAP (Open-source Project for a Network Data Access Protocol).

While it is easy to acquire, open, and read AIRS and ACOS data files, caution needs to be exercised when analyzing and interpreting these data, as is always the case with sensors working in different spectral bands and utilizing different technologies (Fig. 2 and Table 1). AIRS and TANSO-FTS are two very different instruments, with different sensitivities to various parts of the atmospheric column resulting from their spectral differences. In contrast to TANSO-FTS (the ACOS retrievals), AIRS CO2 retrievals utilize the 15 mm region of the spectrum (Fig. 2), where strong absorption does not allow the retrieval of information from surface layers. Moreover, because ACOS algorithms use reflected sunlight, these CO2 measurements (and those from the OCO-2) are all obtained during daytime only, while the AIRS measurements are derived from both daytime and nighttime observations.

This is the link to the data that you are saying they don't use that comes from the people with the satellites. This particular article has been cited over 800 times in other published science articles and hasn't even been up a year. It even talks about the experiments in the 1950s where they cooked a 24m square room and measured gas properties. I think you are too dumb to make your own argument.

I just want to say your entire coy, I know something you don't but play my game routine is fucking creepy. Scientologists act like that.

[Wild Cobra]

I am talking about CO2 sensitivity. Not CO2 levels or radiative forcing from CO2.

Can you say sensitivity...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am talking about CO2 sensitivity. Not CO2 levels or radiative forcing from CO2.

Can you say sensitivity...

The two are not mutually exclusive. You think satellites measure "CO2 sensitivity" and you are wrong. That is a derivation climate scientists use and this notion that they as a whole ignore the satellite data in being empirical is fun I guess but I just showed you where it was cited over 800 times in less than a year.

Who do think is citing NASA's satellite CO2 dataset at that rate?

[Wild Cobra]

I have repeatedly argued "sensitivity" as not being properly determined in papers. Are you really stupid enough to think otherwise?

I never said satellites mesured sensitivity.

Post#/quote please.

I only mentioned satellites for a time reference for what some people,consider more accurate measurements. In the case of solar, they are, and we didn't have satellites up there seeing the 1900 to 1950 changes in TSI. However, we know TSI increased, and the papers from the 70's didn't have the data of the sun to account for the solar variable.

You reliably, completely fail to understand the points I make.

I feel stupid for taking you off of IGNORE.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have repeatedly argued "sensitivity" as not being properly determined in papers. Are you really stupid enough to think otherwise?

I never said satellites mesured sensitivity.

Post#/quote please.

I only mentioned satellites for a time reference for what some people,consider more accurate measurements. In the case of solar, they are, and we didn't have satellites up there seeing the 1900 to 1950 changes in TSI. However, we know TSI increased, and the papers from the 70's didn't have the data of the sun to account for the solar variable.

You reliably, completely fail to understand the points I make.

I feel stupid for taking you off of IGNORE.

Please give us your derivation for climate CO2 sensitivity. Pretty please.

And if you want to present the 'more accurate' data then by all means present it. I have only been asking for it since the beginning. People can see what scientists use. I showed it. Now show us what you have that is better.

[MannyIsGod]

Anyone who claims to understand how a derivation of climate sensitivity is wrong can surely provide us with their own worked out climate sensitivity as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone who claims to understand how a derivation of climate sensitivity is wrong can surely provide us with their own worked out climate sensitivity as well.
I'm tired of repeating myself.

The fact that they didn't account for solar and used temperature changes vs. CO2 changes is why sensitivity numbers are wrong.

If you're man enough, take any study the gives a sensitivity value, and trace the referenced studies until you find the root study and see how they arrived at the number.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

[DarrinS]

Anyone who claims to understand how a derivation of climate sensitivity is wrong can surely provide us with their own worked out climate sensitivity as well.


I prefer one calculated empirically vs model.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone who claims to understand how a derivation of climate sensitivity is wrong can surely provide us with their own worked out climate sensitivity as well.
I'm glad you have come to your senses about the IPCC and other alarmists that make claims of how much CO2 will warm the earth.

[MannyIsGod]

I prefer one calculated empirically vs model.


I'm glad to know you've come around to supporting the IPCC's findings then.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm glad to know you've come around to supporting the IPCC's findings then.
LOL...

You are the perfect true believer!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I prefer one calculated empirically vs model.

These two notions are not mutually exclusive. Engineering is modeling empirically for example. In fact climate scientists use geometric calculus and systems logic just like engineers in a lot of their models.

I just linked the data stream NASA uses. I know you are familiar with BEST and various other datasets.

[MannyIsGod]

FYI


There are three main methodologies that have been used in the literature to constrain sensitivity: The first is to focus on a time in the past when the climate was different and in quasi-equilibrium, and estimate the relationship between the relevant forcings and temperature response (paleo constraints). The second is to find a metric in the present day climate that we think is coupled to the sensitivity and for which we have some empirical data (these could be called climatological constraints). Finally, there are constraints based on changes in forcing and response over the recent past (transient constraints). There have been new papers taking each of these approaches in recent months. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i#sthash.LqfGtpcl.dpuf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Realclimate.

LOL...

Manny uses blogs.

LOL...

[MannyIsGod]

After putting some thought into it, I'm not going to post here anymore. The place has become so toxic and full of racisim and nazism that I think my posting here anymore is likely not a good idea as I've never really made a huge effort to keep anonymity. Not that anyone here will miss me, but yeah. Peace out, deniers.

[SnakeBoy]

After putting some thought into it, I'm not going to post here anymore. The place has become so toxic and full of racisim and nazism that I think my posting here anymore is likely not a good idea as I've never really made a huge effort to keep anonymity. Not that anyone here will miss me, but yeah. Peace out, deniers.

:cry

Your climate change posts generally sucked with your overly defensive shitty attitude about all things climate related but on other topics you were interesting.

To me, you'll always be the guy who voted for the black guy because he was black, went to the inauguration and left inspired believing there would be change.

Good luck with saving the planet or whatever your next great cause is.

[pgardn]

After putting some thought into it, I'm not going to post here anymore. The place has become so toxic and full of racisim and nazism that I think my posting here anymore is likely not a good idea as I've never really made a huge effort to keep anonymity. Not that anyone here will miss me, but yeah. Peace out, deniers.

I will ask that you do not go as I liked the info.

[Wild Cobra]

I will ask that you do not go as I liked the info.

Let him go.

He cannot go toe to toe with me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Let him go.

He cannot go toe to toe with me.

Oh really, dipshit? You have put me on ignore twice and then say this?

WC is intimidated by the Fuzz.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh really, dipshit? You have put me on ignore twice and then say this?

WC is intimidated by the Fuzz.
My placing you on IGNORE is because you are too fucking stupid to debate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My placing you on IGNORE is because you are too fucking stupid to debate.

Funny cause that is exactly what Manny is saying. I get these are all words here but the saying is "actions speak louder than words."

You're full of shit and stupid but transparent all the same.

[Wild Cobra]

Funny cause that is exactly what Manny is saying. I get these are all words here but the saying is "actions speak louder than words."

You're full of shit and stupid but transparent all the same.
Yet you cannot stand toe to to with me either.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yet you cannot stand toe to to with me either.

My identifying how you really look at things does not mean that I too look at things the same way. Since you are the one that came up with it, I know you see it too.

You ran from me. Twice.

[Wild Cobra]

My identifying how you really look at things does not mean that I too look at things the same way. Since you are the one that came up with it, I know you see it too.

You ran from me. Twice.
Maybe if you would stop shitting on yourself, I wouldn't run from the stench.

[Agloco]

Let him go.

He cannot go toe to toe with me.

:lol

You're pretty funny WC.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

You're pretty funny WC.
Thank-You.

I do go for the laugh from time to time, but I'm serious when it comes to climate issues.

When's the last time he tried to show me wrong?

In case you have signatures off, you should see this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbMWdl0Cds

[SnakeBoy]

Expalination of a Climastrologist

[boutons_deux]

"I'm serious when it comes to climate issues."

holy shit! :lol

[boutons_deux]

World's largest icesheets melting at fastest rate ever recorded - twice as fast as five years ago! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/22/1323742/-World-s-largest-icesheets-melting-at-fastest-rate-ever-recorded-twice-as-fast-as-five-years-ago)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/22/1323742/-World-s-largest-icesheets-melting-at-fastest-rate-ever-recorded-twice-as-fast-as-five-years-ago?detail=email

what was that about a "pause" in global warming? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

World's largest icesheets melting at fastest rate ever recorded - twice as fast as five years ago! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/22/1323742/-World-s-largest-icesheets-melting-at-fastest-rate-ever-recorded-twice-as-fast-as-five-years-ago)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/22/1323742/-World-s-largest-icesheets-melting-at-fastest-rate-ever-recorded-twice-as-fast-as-five-years-ago?detail=email

what was that about a "pause" in global warming? :lol




Yawn...

Yes, we already know the geothermal and volcanic activity is melting western Antarctica. It's part of the "ring of fire," you know.


The loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has in the same time span increased by a factor of 3.

Scientists did discover that the East Antarctica ice shelf is gaining volume – this gain is not enough to compensate for the larger losses elsewhere.

As for Greenland, can you say "soot on ice?"

[boutons_deux]

New Study Provides More Evidence That Global Warming ‘Pause’ Is A Myth (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3475168/global-warming-atlantic/)
It’s one of the most oft-used arguments put forth by climate deniers: that there has been “no global warming (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/29/3465442/whitehouse-blasts-inhofe-on-climate/)” for the last 17 years, as evidenced by a supposed lack of increase in global average surface temperature.
It’s also one of the most oft-debunked, as overwhelming evidence (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/25/2562441/faux-pause-ocean-warming-speed-up/) has shown that most of the heat generated from increased carbon emissions gets absorbed into the ocean, not into the atmosphere. What’s more, scientists believe global temperatures are set to rise rapidly (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/22/3462647/global-surface-temperatures/) in the face of our increasingly warm and acidic oceans.

Still, the idea that warming has been absorbed more and more by the ocean and not as much by the atmosphere has presented a good question for scientists: Why? Why, even as greenhouse gases have continued to concentrate in our atmosphere, have global air surface temperatures remained somewhat steady for the last several years? And where in the ocean has that heat actually gone?
The answer, according to a study published in the journal Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/860.summary?rss=1) on Friday, is that much of the heat missing from the atmosphere has been stored deep in the Atlantic Ocean, drawn in by a once slow-moving current that seems to have sped up in the beginning of the 21st century. The sped-up current has been able to pull down heat almost a mile into the ocean, according to the paper’s authors, oceanographer Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China and atmospheric scientist Ka-Kit Tung of the University of Washington.
Because of the sped-up current, Chen and Tung say that the North and South Atlantic oceans have been storing more energy than the rest of the world’s oceans combined since the year 2000.
“We found the missing heat,” Chen said, according to a research article (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897.full) published alongside the study in Science.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/OceanHeat.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3475168/global-warming-atlantic/

[DarrinS]

The heat is hiding in the ocean. It's going to come out and get us one day.

[xrayzebra]

New Study Provides More Evidence That Global Warming ‘Pause’ Is A Myth (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3475168/global-warming-atlantic/)
It’s one of the most oft-used arguments put forth by climate deniers: that there has been “no global warming (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/29/3465442/whitehouse-blasts-inhofe-on-climate/)” for the last 17 years, as evidenced by a supposed lack of increase in global average surface temperature.
It’s also one of the most oft-debunked, as overwhelming evidence (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/25/2562441/faux-pause-ocean-warming-speed-up/) has shown that most of the heat generated from increased carbon emissions gets absorbed into the ocean, not into the atmosphere. What’s more, scientists believe global temperatures are set to rise rapidly (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/22/3462647/global-surface-temperatures/) in the face of our increasingly warm and acidic oceans.

Still, the idea that warming has been absorbed more and more by the ocean and not as much by the atmosphere has presented a good question for scientists: Why? Why, even as greenhouse gases have continued to concentrate in our atmosphere, have global air surface temperatures remained somewhat steady for the last several years? And where in the ocean has that heat actually gone?
The answer, according to a study published in the journal Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/860.summary?rss=1) on Friday, is that much of the heat missing from the atmosphere has been stored deep in the Atlantic Ocean, drawn in by a once slow-moving current that seems to have sped up in the beginning of the 21st century. The sped-up current has been able to pull down heat almost a mile into the ocean, according to the paper’s authors, oceanographer Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China and atmospheric scientist Ka-Kit Tung of the University of Washington.
Because of the sped-up current, Chen and Tung say that the North and South Atlantic oceans have been storing more energy than the rest of the world’s oceans combined since the year 2000.
“We found the missing heat,” Chen said, according to a research article (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897.full) published alongside the study in Science.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/OceanHeat.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3475168/global-warming-atlantic/



And they just keep on getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming

Global warming is a myth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And they just keep on getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming

Global warming is a myth.

accusation. . . . breitbart. . . .

Think for yourself, bibleboy.

[xrayzebra]

accusation. . . . breitbart. . . .

Think for yourself, bibleboy.

You know peachfuzz, if you had a brain you would take it out and play with it, along with your other play thing.

:nope :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You know peachfuzz, if you had a brain you would take it out and play with it, along with your other play thing.

:nope :lol

So you think breitbart is legitimate, objective journalism? breitbart and british think tanks are you contribution to this discussion.

I don't really care if you won't argue with me. I have made my point that you are a hack.

[CosmicCowboy]

accusation. . . . breitbart. . . .

Think for yourself, bibleboy.

Fuzzy shoving his foot deep into his mouth again.

What a surprise.

Google is your friend, anklebiter.

http://www.chron.com/news/media/Australian-Bureau-Of-Meteorology-Accused-Of-137364.php

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy shoving his foot deep into his mouth again.

What a surprise.

Google is your friend, anklebiter.

http://www.chron.com/news/media/Australian-Bureau-Of-Meteorology-Accused-Of-137364.php

So I am supposed to come up with credible source for you guys? Bravo, you did what should have been done in the first place.

Further the post on the chron is a repost of the breitbart piece and not even their own work. Credible original sources are my friends.

[CosmicCowboy]

Houston Chronicle did not source Breitbart anywhere in the page.

So now, in Fuzzys eyes anyone that reports on the story is just reposting Breitbart?

I admit Breitbart can be sketchy just like the National Enquirer but they both have a consistent history of occasionally finding real breaking news stories long before the mainstream media picks it up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Houston Chronicle did not source Breitbart anywhere in the page.

So now, in Fuzzys eyes anyone that reports on the story is just reposting Breitbart?

I admit Breitbart can be sketchy just like the National Enquirer but they both have a consistent history of occasionally finding real breaking news stories long before the mainstream media picks it up.

The chron piece is word for word the exact same as the original breitbart piece. Critical thinking skills. ffs, did you even read either or?

What is at dispute is how the Aussie normalize their data from their various data sources. You will recall the discussion regarding the urban heat effect on urban sensors and BEST.

Not all sensors and locations are created equal. If that is the case yet you want to unify all the data in one place then you have to normalize the data. At no point does the breitbart piece actually discuss the parameters of their normalization. They just cherry pick some locations where the normalization increased the base value and wave their hands.

Fact is when you take nationwide data from thousand upon thousands of datapoints, you have to normalize it. It's precisely why in the US we did the BEST project to review the normalization of the surface temperature record. If there is a mistake in their work then fine let's get down to the bottom of it. Last time the Koch bros of the world put their money where their mouth was regarding this issue they lost because BEST approved the interpretation of the urban heat effect and other anomalies.

[RandomGuy]

Yawn...

Yes, we already know the geothermal and volcanic activity is melting western Antarctica. It's part of the "ring of fire," you know.




As for Greenland, can you say "soot on ice?"

Any explanation but the one the actual scientists studying it have concluded.

Interesting bit about greenhouse gas emissions deep in the ocean:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/underwater-methane-gas-plumes-erupting-along-atlantic-coast/

[Wild Cobra]

Any explanation but the one the actual scientists studying it have concluded.

Interesting bit about greenhouse gas emissions deep in the ocean:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/underwater-methane-gas-plumes-erupting-along-atlantic-coast/

Yes this is an interesting thing.

What is your explanation? Afterall, if it's a new phenomena, then shouldn't the rising sea level place more pressure on the gas, keeping it in liquid form?

If it's been occurring all the time, then it just shows we are still learning so many things we didn't know before.

Did you know that one idea behind the Bermuda Triangle with missing plane and ships was methane outgassing? A large eruption under a ship could cause the density of water with the bubbles to lower enough to sink a ship. The methane outgassing in the air can stall the old style propeller aircraft engines.

[RandomGuy]

Afterall, if it's a new phenomena, then shouldn't the rising sea level place more pressure on the gas, keeping it in liquid form?.

http://snd1.splashpress1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/double_facepalm.jpg

I'll let you think about that statement for a little while. Let me know if/when you get it.

[SnakeBoy]

What is your explanation? Afterall, if it's a new phenomena, then shouldn't the rising sea level place more pressure on the gas, keeping it in liquid form?


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Vmn52dG-o54/TXC4D4taTXI/AAAAAAAAAH4/MDxzvdYuh4M/s1600/facepalm_implied.jpg

Sorry WC, but stop making RG look good.

[RandomGuy]

if it's a new phenomena, then shouldn't the rising sea level place more pressure on the gas, keeping it in liquid form?



I will take it you haven't figured it out yet. When I get a bit of time later this weekend, I will flesh it out for you.

It might help if you read the link, although your statement ignores both the link that mentions some potential sources, and some basic physics applicable to your statement, referring to other buried solid methane.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Justin-Long-Idiocracy_zps463040d9.png (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/Justin-Long-Idiocracy_zps463040d9.png.html)

[Wild Cobra]

I will take it you haven't figured it out yet. When I get a bit of time later this weekend, I will flesh it out for you.

It might help if you read the link, although your statement ignores both the link that mentions some potential sources, and some basic physics applicable to your statement, referring to other buried solid methane.

I was being silly. The biggest problem I have is the thought they are new in the Atlantic. Methane Hydrates occur in the equatorial and polar regions, why not the temperate too?

For them to be a "new outgassing" then either the temperature is increasing, or the pressure is decreasing. Apparently, the temperature effect is overriding the increased pressure increase from the sea level rise.

[DarrinS]

Whatever Happened to Global Warming?




On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statisticalcalculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

This has taken me by surprise. I was among those who thought the pause was a blip. As a “lukewarmer,” I’ve long thought that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions will raise global temperatures, but that this effect will not be amplified much by feedbacks from extra water vapor and clouds, so the world will probably be only a bit more than one degree Celsius warmer in 2100 than today. By contrast, the assumption built into the average climate model is that water-vapor feedback will treble the effect of carbon dioxide.

But now I worry that I am exaggerating, rather than underplaying, the likely warming.

Full story here (http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855?mod=rss_opinion_main).

[boutons_deux]

the pause in some temperatures as proof that you AGW-denying BigCarbon shills/whores are right (and therefore there should be NO profit-reducing regs on BigCarbon pollution ) has been debunked.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What happens to the temperature of an ice bath when you add heat to it?


Well, I think people can agree that there has been warming, you know, in recent years. The question is whether or not it’s 100 percent anthropogenic, which means man-made. So I’ll leave that to the experts to discuss on that. But as it relates to the coast, you’re absolutely right, the studies show in the last few years that we average about 4 feet of erosion per year. Some counties are experiencing as high as 20 […] I mean, how do we respond in an effective way to hurricanes, or the next category 3, 4 or 5 [hurricane] that hits the greater Houston metropolitan area? I mean, that’s something that honestly keeps me up at night.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119303/george-p-bush-links-climate-change-extreme-weather

You should see what they are saying in GOP circles in Florida. Darrin's ship is sinking.

[boutons_deux]

AGW-denying BigCarbon's refineries along the Gulf Coast, like S. Louisiana, Houston, Corpus Christi (esp Kock Bros), etc, all under water in 2100.

[SnakeBoy]

AGW-denying BigCarbon's refineries along the Gulf Coast, like S. Louisiana, Houston, Corpus Christi (esp Kock Bros), etc, all under water in 2100.

So what?

[SnakeBoy]

So who's going?

http://www.crossroads-summit.com/

[Cry Havoc]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/16/august-was-hottest-on-record-worldwide-says-nasa

August 2014 was marginally the warmest August worldwide since records began 130 years ago, according to new data from Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Temperatures measured by government meteorological offices using land, sea and satellite data suggest this year’s global high was very close to those of 2011, 2008, 2006 and 2003. Overall, temperatures were 0.70C above the 1951-1990 baseline temperature average.

But Nasa warned against reading too much into a single month’s records. “The key issue for climate are the long-term trends, not individual months”, said Nasa-GISS director Gavin Schmidt.

2014 is shaping up to be an exceptionally warm year, with March 2014 the third hottest since 1880, and May and June the hottest ever.


----

It's cool that these warming trends have paused. :lol

[DarrinS]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/16/august-was-hottest-on-record-worldwide-says-nasa

August 2014 was marginally the warmest August worldwide since records began 130 years ago, according to new data from Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Temperatures measured by government meteorological offices using land, sea and satellite data suggest this year’s global high was very close to those of 2011, 2008, 2006 and 2003. Overall, temperatures were 0.70C above the 1951-1990 baseline temperature average.

But Nasa warned against reading too much into a single month’s records. “The key issue for climate are the long-term trends, not individual months”, said Nasa-GISS director Gavin Schmidt.

2014 is shaping up to be an exceptionally warm year, with March 2014 the third hottest since 1880, and May and June the hottest ever.


----

It's cool that these warming trends have paused. :lol


52 excuses for the pause

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/

[Cry Havoc]

52 excuses for the pause

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/

Sooooo we're in the middle of one of the hottest years in history, and your response is to bring up a site that says we've paused the warming trend? Is logic just at a premium where you're from?

[Cry Havoc]

wattsupwiththat as a legitimate news source. :lol

[Cry Havoc]

:lol The site won't even load.

:lol Servers probably got too hot.

[SnakeBoy]

Global warming likely to cause colder and snowier winters, scientists say
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/09/15/global-warming-likely-to-cause-colder-and-snowier-winters/20962706/?ncid=webmail3&a_dgi=aolshare_facebook


Thanks Global Warming.

[DarrinS]

wattsupwiththat as a legitimate news source. :lol

Here you go, faggot. Some nice left-of-center sources for you.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html?_r=0

[Cry Havoc]

Here you go, faggot. Some nice left-of-center sources for you.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html?_r=0

"But many governments are demanding a clearer explanation of the slowdown in temperature increases since 1998."

So it's still getting hotter, just not as fast.

:lol Pause

:lol "we're cooling down!"

:lol "In its last report in 2007, the IPCC stated that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" - in other words, humans burning fossil fuels"

:lol "The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity."

From the very source you're using to "prove" your point :lol

[DarrinS]

So you concede that there has been a pause, or hiatus, in warming over the past 15 or so years? Good.

[SnakeBoy]

So you concede that there has been a pause, or hiatus, in warming over the past 15 or so years? Good.

The warming hasn't paused. It's just that the oceans have absorbed the heat. Not on the surface but thousands of feet deep where no one was watching.

[DarrinS]

lol @ this guy's Al Gore impression


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tvpaD4oatk

[boutons_deux]

Watch Obama’s Top Science Advisor Repeatedly Shut Down Climate Deniers At House Climate Hearing (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/18/3568720/john-holdren-science-house-climate-hearing/)

Holdren, a lauded theoretical physicist, appeared before the Republican-led House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on Wednesday to testify about the Obama administration’s plan to fight climate change. But, as is true for all House Science committee hearings on climate change, much of the questioning focused not the content of the plan itself, but whether global warming is even real.

Additional lines of questioning included whether carbon dioxide actually harms human health, and whether the climate plan would lower global temperatures on its own — two questions with complicated answers that have been very thoroughly (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/07/383626/climate-change-harms-human-health/) explained (http://www.vox.com/cards/obama-climate-plan/can-the-u-s-solve-global-warming-on-its-own#E5839474) since the plan was introduced. One Congressmen accused Holdren of breaking the law by sending work e-mails from his personal account in 2013, while another said climate scientistsshouldn’t be trusted (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/17/3568923/bucshon-climate-scientists-money/) because of their dependence on the existence of climate change to make a living.

Fortunately, Holdren is a confident speaker who was able to succinctly explain the science to his climate denying questioners despite constant interruption. Here are a few of the best times he did just that.

Rep. Stockman’s Questions On “Global Wobbling”

After expressing his distaste for Obama’s Climate Action Plan, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) :lol :lol spoke about a recent trip to Maryland, where he apparently asked a NASA scientist what ended the last Ice Age. The scientist, Stockman said, credited “global wobbling,” or slight changes in the earth’s tilt and orbit that happen over tens of thousands of years.

What Stockman then wanted to know is, why isn’t “global wobbling” included in climate modelings?

“How can you take an element which you give to the credit for the collapse of global freezing and into global warming but leave it out of your models?” Stockman asked. “I’m a little puzzled because we still don’t have metrics of how to determine global wobbling.”

In the video, Holdren explains that global wobbling happens so slowly — on timescales of 22,000 years, 44,000 years, and 100,000 years — that it doesn’t impact the comparatively fast impacts of climate change. In fact, Holdren says because of previous wobbling, we should be in a cooling period as we speak. “But the warming inflicted by human activities has overwhelmed the effect of global wobbling,” he said.

Stockman also said he “can’t get answers” to how long it would take for the sea level to rise two feet. “Think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass, it doesn’t overflow. It’s displacement. :lol Holy Shit! :lol This is some of the things that they’re talking about that mathematically and scientifically don’t make sense.” :lol Go Texas!

Still, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher — not shy at all about his climate denial (http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php?s=34) — tried very hard on Wednesday to back both Holdren and EPA Office of Air and Radiation Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe into a corner by asking repeatedly about the direct health impacts of carbon dioxide. “At what level does carbon dioxide concentration become harmful to human health?”

Holdren answered in the way we could only hope one would: “Vice Chairman Rorhabacher, I always enjoy my interactions with you. I have to say, with respect, that’s a red herring. We are not interested in carbon dioxide concentrations because of their direct effect on human health, we are interested in them because of their effect on the world’s climate, and climate change has effects on human health.”

Rep. Bucshon’s Questions On How Climate Policy Works

Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) :lol easily had the climate denial comment of the day when he said he “won’t believe” scientific literature on climate change because the scientists who write it need global warming to exist (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/17/3568923/bucshon-climate-scientists-money/) in order to get paid.

That comment is in the video below, but so is Bucshon’s other attempt to derail the conversation on climate policy by asking: “Is it true that this rule will have no affect on global temperature change?”

Holdren explains as much. “The limitation of carbon emissions in the United states is a very important first step for us to take on a longer trajectory to meet the President’s goals of a 17 percent reduction from 2005 by 2020, and ultimately an 80 percent reduction by 2050,” he said. “If the United States does not take that sort of action, it is unlikely that other major emitters in the world — China, India, Russia, Europe, Japan — will do so either. And the fact is, all of us need to reduce our carbon emissions if we are to avoid unmanageable degrees of climate change.”

Bucshon’s response: “Okay, fair enough.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/18/3568720/john-holdren-science-house-climate-hearing/

17 Repugs on the House "Science" Committee are AGW deniers.

All y'all dumbfuck Repug right-wingers sure do elect a bunch of dumbfucks! :lol

[DarrinS]

thinkprogress


boots needs tp for his bunghole

[Uriel]

Was in a Politics class in my university, where the professor was giving a lecture. He said:

"You don't have to worry about people who say there's no such thing as climate change because there are also people who say the earth is flat."

[boutons_deux]

Seattle and Portland as late-21st-century Miamis.

Portland Will Still Be Cool, but Anchorage May Be the Place to Be

Scientists trying to predict the consequences of climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) say that they see few safe havens from the storms, floods and droughts that are sure to intensify over the coming decades. But some regions, they add, will fare much better than others.

Forget most of California and the Southwest (drought, wildfires). Ditto for much of the East Coast and Southeast (heat waves, hurricanes, rising sea levels). Washington, D.C., for example, may well be a flood zone by 2100, according to anestimate released last week (http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/uploads/ssrf/DC-Report.pdf).

Instead, consider Anchorage. Or even, perhaps, Detroit.

“The best place really is Alaska,” he added. “Alaska is going to be the next Florida by the end of the century.”

“The answer is the Pacific Northwest, and probably especially west of the Cascades,”

Washington State is gearing up to become the next Napa Valley as California’s wine country heats up and dries out.
“People are going crazy putting in vineyards in eastern Washington right now,” he said.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/science/on-a-warmer-planet-which-cities-will-be-safest.html?_r=0

[boutons_deux]

Jon Stewart: Talking to GOP about climate change is like ‘pushing a million pounds of idiot up a mountain’

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/jon-stewart-talking-to-gop-about-climate-change-is-like-pushing-a-million-pounds-of-idiot-up-a-mountain/

"climate change" is a euphemism, euphemisms are LIEs.

Anthropogenic GLOBAL WARMING is The Truth.

[boutons_deux]

Fox News host: We shouldn’t do anything about climate change because ISIS is “chopping off people’s heads”

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/23/watch_a_new_york_assemblyman_attempt_to_speak_trut h_about_climate_change_on_fox_news/

As always, Fox's LIES always have impeccable logic :lol

[boutons_deux]

Of course, Jon Stewart TRASHES you AGW-deniers and the Kock-sucking assholes all y'all elect


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/23/1331763/-The-Daily-Show-Burn-Noticed

[spurraider21]

So you concede that there has been a pause, or hiatus, in warming over the past 15 or so years? Good.
a slowing in warming is not necessarily a pause or hiatus in warming. just a change of rate. this graph is obviously not meant to be taken as stats on temperature, but just to illustrate the point. there is still an increase, just a slower increase

http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/images/83/displacement-time-graph-4.PNG

[spurraider21]

Fox News host: We shouldn’t do anything about climate change because ISIS is “chopping off people’s heads”

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/23/watch_a_new_york_assemblyman_attempt_to_speak_trut h_about_climate_change_on_fox_news/

As always, Fox's LIES always have impeccable logic :lol



where was the lie in that statement? is ISIS not chopping off people's heads? heck they even concede climate change

[boutons_deux]

where was the lie in that statement? is ISIS not chopping off people's heads? heck they even concede climate change

"we shouldn't do anything about GLOBAL WARMING" is a lie, and Fox knows it.

saying a couple people getting their heads chopped off is more important, more urgent than global warming IS A LIE, and Fox knows it.

It's you shithead bubbas and rednecks fall for the lies the Fox dictates to you non-stop, and you defend Fox's LIES.

[spurraider21]

"we shouldn't do anything about GLOBAL WARMING" is a lie, and Fox knows it.
that's not a lie. it's a suggested course of action. you could certainly argue its a poor choice, but it's not a lie

[boutons_deux]

that's not a lie. it's a suggested course of action. you could certainly argue its a poor choice, but it's not a lie

Fox KNOWS they are lying because BigCarbon/UCoC/ALEC/etc owns, pays Fox and Repug politicians so they deny science and agitate, propagandize to block ALL anti-warming policies.

[spurraider21]

Fox KNOWS they are lying because BigCarbon/UCoC/ALEC/etc owns, pays Fox and Repug politicians so they deny science and agitate, propagandize to block ALL anti-warming policies.
you are just rambling. doesn't change the fact that the line you quoted wasn't a lie

[boutons_deux]

Miami Finds Itself Ankle-Deep in Climate Change Debate


http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/05/08/us/JPCLIMATE/JPCLIMATE-articleLarge.jpg

The sunny-day flooding was happening again. During high tide one recent afternoon, Eliseo Toussaint looked out the window of his Alton Road laundromat and watched bottle-green saltwater seep from the gutters, fill the street and block the entrance to his front door.

“This never used to happen,” Mr. Toussaint said. “I’ve owned this place eight years, and now it’s all the time.”

Down the block at an electronics store it is even worse. Jankel Aleman, a salesman, keeps plastic bags and rubber bands handy to wrap around his feet when he trudges from his car to the store through ever-rising waters.

A new scientific report on global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) released this week, the National Climate Assessment (http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac), named Miami as one of the cities most vulnerable to severe damage as a result of rising sea levels.

Alton Road, a commercial thoroughfare in the heart of stylish South Beach, is getting early ripples of sea level rise caused by global warming — even as Florida’s politicians, including two possible contenders for the presidency in 2016, are starkly at odds over what to do about it and whether the problem is even real.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/florida-finds-itself-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-on-climate-change.html?_r=0&referrer=

[Wild Cobra]

Miami Finds Itself Ankle-Deep in Climate Change Debate


http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/05/08/us/JPCLIMATE/JPCLIMATE-articleLarge.jpg

The sunny-day flooding was happening again. During high tide one recent afternoon, Eliseo Toussaint looked out the window of his Alton Road laundromat and watched bottle-green saltwater seep from the gutters, fill the street and block the entrance to his front door.

“This never used to happen,” Mr. Toussaint said. “I’ve owned this place eight years, and now it’s all the time.”

Down the block at an electronics store it is even worse. Jankel Aleman, a salesman, keeps plastic bags and rubber bands handy to wrap around his feet when he trudges from his car to the store through ever-rising waters.

A new scientific report on global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) released this week, the National Climate Assessment (http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac), named Miami as one of the cities most vulnerable to severe damage as a result of rising sea levels.

Alton Road, a commercial thoroughfare in the heart of stylish South Beach, is getting early ripples of sea level rise caused by global warming — even as Florida’s politicians, including two possible contenders for the presidency in 2016, are starkly at odds over what to do about it and whether the problem is even real.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/florida-finds-itself-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-on-climate-change.html?_r=0&referrer=



Damn storm sewers bust be blocked again.

[boutons_deux]

Damn storm sewers bust be blocked again.

yep, full of seawater

[Wild Cobra]

yep, full of seawater

Seeping from his gutters?

What's wrong with this picture?

[Cry Havoc]

Watch Obama’s Top Science Advisor Repeatedly Shut Down Climate Deniers At House Climate Hearing (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/18/3568720/john-holdren-science-house-climate-hearing/)

Holdren, a lauded theoretical physicist, appeared before the Republican-led House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on Wednesday to testify about the Obama administration’s plan to fight climate change. But, as is true for all House Science committee hearings on climate change, much of the questioning focused not the content of the plan itself, but whether global warming is even real.

Additional lines of questioning included whether carbon dioxide actually harms human health, and whether the climate plan would lower global temperatures on its own — two questions with complicated answers that have been very thoroughly (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/07/383626/climate-change-harms-human-health/) explained (http://www.vox.com/cards/obama-climate-plan/can-the-u-s-solve-global-warming-on-its-own#E5839474) since the plan was introduced. One Congressmen accused Holdren of breaking the law by sending work e-mails from his personal account in 2013, while another said climate scientistsshouldn’t be trusted (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/17/3568923/bucshon-climate-scientists-money/) because of their dependence on the existence of climate change to make a living.

Fortunately, Holdren is a confident speaker who was able to succinctly explain the science to his climate denying questioners despite constant interruption. Here are a few of the best times he did just that.

Rep. Stockman’s Questions On “Global Wobbling”

After expressing his distaste for Obama’s Climate Action Plan, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) :lol :lol spoke about a recent trip to Maryland, where he apparently asked a NASA scientist what ended the last Ice Age. The scientist, Stockman said, credited “global wobbling,” or slight changes in the earth’s tilt and orbit that happen over tens of thousands of years.

What Stockman then wanted to know is, why isn’t “global wobbling” included in climate modelings?

“How can you take an element which you give to the credit for the collapse of global freezing and into global warming but leave it out of your models?” Stockman asked. “I’m a little puzzled because we still don’t have metrics of how to determine global wobbling.”

In the video, Holdren explains that global wobbling happens so slowly — on timescales of 22,000 years, 44,000 years, and 100,000 years — that it doesn’t impact the comparatively fast impacts of climate change. In fact, Holdren says because of previous wobbling, we should be in a cooling period as we speak. “But the warming inflicted by human activities has overwhelmed the effect of global wobbling,” he said.

Stockman also said he “can’t get answers” to how long it would take for the sea level to rise two feet. “Think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass, it doesn’t overflow. It’s displacement. :lol Holy Shit! :lol This is some of the things that they’re talking about that mathematically and scientifically don’t make sense.” :lol Go Texas!

Still, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher — not shy at all about his climate denial (http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php?s=34) — tried very hard on Wednesday to back both Holdren and EPA Office of Air and Radiation Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe into a corner by asking repeatedly about the direct health impacts of carbon dioxide. “At what level does carbon dioxide concentration become harmful to human health?”

Holdren answered in the way we could only hope one would: “Vice Chairman Rorhabacher, I always enjoy my interactions with you. I have to say, with respect, that’s a red herring. We are not interested in carbon dioxide concentrations because of their direct effect on human health, we are interested in them because of their effect on the world’s climate, and climate change has effects on human health.”

Rep. Bucshon’s Questions On How Climate Policy Works

Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) :lol easily had the climate denial comment of the day when he said he “won’t believe” scientific literature on climate change because the scientists who write it need global warming to exist (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/17/3568923/bucshon-climate-scientists-money/) in order to get paid.

That comment is in the video below, but so is Bucshon’s other attempt to derail the conversation on climate policy by asking: “Is it true that this rule will have no affect on global temperature change?”

Holdren explains as much. “The limitation of carbon emissions in the United states is a very important first step for us to take on a longer trajectory to meet the President’s goals of a 17 percent reduction from 2005 by 2020, and ultimately an 80 percent reduction by 2050,” he said. “If the United States does not take that sort of action, it is unlikely that other major emitters in the world — China, India, Russia, Europe, Japan — will do so either. And the fact is, all of us need to reduce our carbon emissions if we are to avoid unmanageable degrees of climate change.”

Bucshon’s response: “Okay, fair enough.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/18/3568720/john-holdren-science-house-climate-hearing/

17 Repugs on the House "Science" Committee are AGW deniers.

All y'all dumbfuck Repug right-wingers sure do elect a bunch of dumbfucks! :lol

:lol :lol :lol

Bucshon's 3 largest contributors are.... wait for it.... energy companies. :lol

[boutons_deux]

:lol :lol :lol

Bucshon's 3 largest contributors are.... wait for it.... energy companies. :lol

yeah, but that's nothing compared to the 97% of the world's climate people who get paid to lie that AGW is real.

[Cry Havoc]

yeah, but that's nothing compared to the 97% of the world's climate people who get paid to lie that AGW is real.

Man, it's a good thing Climate Change came along, or they wouldn't have work at all!

Wait... you mean they had jobs before? Wtf? HOW IS DIS POSSIBRU

[boutons_deux]

they wouldn't have work at all!

You Lie.

[Cry Havoc]

Context, sir. I didn't think it needed the blue font.

[2centsworth]

Quick question. When will insurance adjusters stop starving?

[RandomGuy]

:lol :lol :lol

Bucshon's 3 largest contributors are.... wait for it.... energy companies. :lol

Yeah, the bit about displacement pretty much got that jackass a rather nasty bit of satire from Jon Stewart.

The bits that I saw pretty much show the results of what I call the Republican war on science.

That will, rightly, cost them a lot of the sensible center, until they decide to pull their collective head out of their asses. These congressional idiots on a house panel on science were downright embarrassing. The GOP rank and file should be ashamed of them.

[RandomGuy]

Quick question. When will insurance adjusters stop starving?

Depends on which company you work for. :)

[2centsworth]

Depends on which company you work for. :) being facetious. P&C companies are doing well from the lack of natural disasters. Not to say those disasters aren't around the corner, but I'd like to know when so I'll get my adjusters license:)

[RandomGuy]

being facetious. P&C companies are doing well from the lack of natural disasters. Not to say those disasters aren't around the corner, but I'd like to know when so I'll get my adjusters license:)

Well, from what I see, we are on track to have a below normal amount of Atlantic hurricanes for the year. Best to move to Cali, and deal with fire claims.

Not sure about the licensing process there, but you can probably find the info fairly easy at the CDOI website.

[TeyshaBlue]

Context, sir. I didn't think it needed the blue font.

He can't turn it off. :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

being facetious. P&C companies are doing well from the lack of natural disasters. Not to say those disasters aren't around the corner, but I'd like to know when so I'll get my adjusters license:)

Well they don't offer flood insurance so they miss the biggest source of damage. there are also many more claims than those of natural disaster. A storm doesn't need to be a tropical storm to do damage.

The actuaries have been crying about P&C claims increasing for over a decade to this point. Unless you are inside the insurance industry, we are not privy to the national claims totals with any degree of accuracy. Some states do report it and some of those that do like Florida are freaking out particularly along the coast.

More and more people are being deemed uninsurable and migrations are being forced. Premuims are going up. Claims are more aggressive and judgmental.

But yeah since the actuaries know how to manage even higher risk and make money at it, we should just disregard the whole thing.

[boutons_deux]

How's that famous pause in AGW workin out fer ya? :lol

Major U.S. Cities Will See 10 Times More Coastal Flooding By 2045 (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/08/3577287/tidal-flooding-report/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/AP070520016240-638x376.jpg

Flooding during high tide could occur so frequently in some U.S. cities in the future that parts could become “unusable,” according to a new report.

The report (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/impacts/effects-of-tidal-flooding-and-sea-level-rise-east-coast-gulf-of-mexico#.VDUxI_ldV8E), published by the Union for Concerned Scientists, looked at 52 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tide gauges in coastal cities in Florida, Maryland, Georgia, Virginia and other states. UCS analyzed the states’ flooding risk under mid-range sea level rise predictions taken from the White House’s National Climate Assessment — an estimate of 5 inches of sea level rise by 2030, and 11 inches by 2045. It found that tidal flooding could triple in some cities in 15 years and occur 10 times as often in most cities in the next 30 years.

The Mid-Atlantic states are particularly vulnerable, the report found. A tripling of tidal flooding events in these states would mean that, in some cities, flooding could occur multiple times per week. The report also found that by 2045, one-third of the cities and towns looked at could start experiencing tidal flooding more than 180 days each year, and nine cities would see flooding 240 times each year.

These floods aren’t the type that cause death or major destruction, the authors of the report noted on a press conference Wednesday. They’re “nusiance” floods (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/28/3464877/tidal-nuisance-flooding-on-the-rise-noaa-east-coast/), the kind that force residents to wade through water on their way to work and move their cars before the tide comes to avoid saltwater damage. But as sea levels rise, there’s likely only so much of this flooding that communities will be willing to take, report co-author Erika Spanger-Siegfried said. If the flooding becomes chronic, some areas may be forced to decide whether to relocate businesses and homes.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ucs-tidal-flooding-638x302.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/08/3577287/tidal-flooding-report/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

How's that famous pause in AGW workin out fer ya? :lol

Major U.S. Cities Will See 10 Times More Coastal Flooding By 2045 (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/08/3577287/tidal-flooding-report/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/AP070520016240-638x376.jpg

Flooding during high tide could occur so frequently in some U.S. cities in the future that parts could become “unusable,” according to a new report.

The report (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/impacts/effects-of-tidal-flooding-and-sea-level-rise-east-coast-gulf-of-mexico#.VDUxI_ldV8E), published by the Union for Concerned Scientists, looked at 52 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tide gauges in coastal cities in Florida, Maryland, Georgia, Virginia and other states. UCS analyzed the states’ flooding risk under mid-range sea level rise predictions taken from the White House’s National Climate Assessment — an estimate of 5 inches of sea level rise by 2030, and 11 inches by 2045. It found that tidal flooding could triple in some cities in 15 years and occur 10 times as often in most cities in the next 30 years.

The Mid-Atlantic states are particularly vulnerable, the report found. A tripling of tidal flooding events in these states would mean that, in some cities, flooding could occur multiple times per week. The report also found that by 2045, one-third of the cities and towns looked at could start experiencing tidal flooding more than 180 days each year, and nine cities would see flooding 240 times each year.

These floods aren’t the type that cause death or major destruction, the authors of the report noted on a press conference Wednesday. They’re “nusiance” floods (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/28/3464877/tidal-nuisance-flooding-on-the-rise-noaa-east-coast/), the kind that force residents to wade through water on their way to work and move their cars before the tide comes to avoid saltwater damage. But as sea levels rise, there’s likely only so much of this flooding that communities will be willing to take, report co-author Erika Spanger-Siegfried said. If the flooding becomes chronic, some areas may be forced to decide whether to relocate businesses and homes.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ucs-tidal-flooding-638x302.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/08/3577287/tidal-flooding-report/



Who cares?

It's a risk you take for buying so close to the ocean. Why are you standing up for the rich who own oceanfront property?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's a good start but, there's also the misrepresentation of the consensus, lying about the the polar ice caps melting, continuing the ruse that the Earth was warming after it was known it stopped in the last century, falsely connecting the frequency and severity of weather with the AGCC agenda, falsely linking AGCC to an increased incidence of asthma, the "Hockey Stick" graph (on which much of the current hysteria was based), and the persistent ruse that CO2 (a chemical necessary for life) is somehow fucking up the planet.


Actually, I don't look at the associations as much as the claims they make. You, on the other hand, discount information based simply on your prejudices against the messengers. You act as though the Consensus has no financial interest in continuing the ruse.


And, you can add Climate Alarmists to your list. They continue to conflate the effects of pollution with their Global Climate Change message - latest example:

Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/world/climate-talks.html?_r=0)


And, yet, the alarmist crowd continues to become more strident in their warnings of Armageddon. Just read the article.


I'm glad the destruction of our economy over something that's, at best an exaggeration, and at worst, a blatant attempt to force the redistribution of wealth, is fun for you.

This belongs here as you are literally just rehashing crap that has been refuted in this thread dozens of time.

Concensus - you showing 25 climate scientists and 50 other scientists who are skeptics does not detract from the denominator and the opposition who of an order 4 or 5 times as high. that is thousands to tens of thousands.

Hiatus - again read the BEST and NAS papers they do a much better job of describing the current state of science than I can.

more handwaving at something that was disproven is still guilt by association.

your armageddon rhetoric is great for the christians it riles them up. I still think it is gratuitous nonsense. the article describes


But while scientists and climate-policy experts welcome the new momentum ahead of the Lima talks, they warn that it now may be impossible to prevent the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding — events that could harm the world’s population and economy.

not the rapture

You should look at your last quote in this thread. You go from fuck the wealthy to redistributing wealth is bad. Nice sophistry.

[Wild Cobra]

How's that famous pause in AGW workin out fer ya? :lol


If the sea level is rising so much, why does this happen:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Gorey_Harbour_at_low_tide.JPG/800px-Gorey_Harbour_at_low_tide.JPG

You know, water volume and temperature are not the only effects to sea level changes. The friction of the wind speed and direction against the ocean makes a tide higher or lower. So does the speed and direction of the ocean flow itself. And the moon isn't the only celestial body that moves the tides. The whole angular alignments between the earth, sun, and moon all play a roll.

[boutons_deux]

If the sea level is rising so much, why does this happen:



You know, water volume and temperature are not the only effects to sea level changes. The friction of the wind speed and direction against the ocean makes a tide higher or lower. So does the speed and direction of the ocean flow itself. And the moon isn't the only celestial body that moves the tides. The whole angular alignments between the earth, sun, and moon all play a roll.

:lol HIGH tide is the problem, not low tide :lol

land ice is melting, ocean levels are rising

[spurraider21]

If the sea level is rising so much, why does this happen:
thats like saying "if its getting hot, why is there still winter"

[Wild Cobra]

No, its saying that climate happens anyway.

You can assume all you want that extra glacier melt is due to CO2. That doesn't make it so. We still don't understand the full effects of dozens of other factors, and CO2 might not make a difference in the scheme of things.

[Yonivore]

This belongs here as you are literally just rehashing crap that has been refuted in this thread dozens of time.
Sure, I'll carry on in this thread -- thanks.


Concensus - you showing 25 climate scientists and 50 other scientists who are skeptics does not detract from the denominator and the opposition who of an order 4 or 5 times as high. that is thousands to tens of thousands.
The whole consensus nonsense owes its genesis to a paper whose principle author is one John Cook:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article)

Unfortunately for Mr. Cook, people read.


97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yfGdFVHjqb4/VHG1InB4LHI/AAAAAAAABOg/e-kbEC4vKv8/s1600/97%25_560x463.jpg


Hiatus - again read the BEST and NAS papers they do a much better job of describing the current state of science than I can.
One simple question. When do the models say the warming will resume?


more handwaving at something that was disproven is still guilt by association.

your armageddon rhetoric is great for the christians it riles them up. I still think it is gratuitous nonsense.

But while scientists and climate-policy experts welcome the new momentum ahead of the Lima talks, they warn that it now may be impossible to prevent the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding — events that could harm the world’s population and economy.
not the rapture.
Maybe not but, did you overlook this excerpt?


While a breach of the 3.6 degree threshold appears inevitable, scientists say that United Nations negotiators should not give up on their efforts to cut emissions. At stake now, they say, is the difference between a newly unpleasant world and an uninhabitable one.
OMG!


You should look at your last quote in this thread. You go from fuck the wealthy to redistributing wealth is bad. Nice sophistry.
Nicely taken out of context. I stand by the statement that we shouldn't pay anyone -- including the wealthy -- for taking a known risk and building on property that is almost surely going to result in a claim.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, I'll carry on in this thread -- thanks.


The whole consensus nonsense owes its genesis to a paper whose principle author is one John Cook:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article)

Unfortunately for Mr. Cook, people read.


97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yfGdFVHjqb4/VHG1InB4LHI/AAAAAAAABOg/e-kbEC4vKv8/s1600/97%25_560x463.jpg


One simple question. When do the models say the warming will resume?


Maybe not but, did you overlook this excerpt?


OMG!


Nicely taken out of context. I stand by the statement that we shouldn't pay anyone -- including the wealthy -- for taking a known risk and building on property that is almost surely going to result in a claim.

:lmao

Now you are linking pop tart. Him accusing others of falsely categorizing scientists is the most hilarious shit I've seen all day. I'm done contending with google sophistry.

[Wild Cobra]

a slowing in warming is not necessarily a pause or hiatus in warming. just a change of rate. this graph is obviously not meant to be taken as stats on temperature, but just to illustrate the point. there is still an increase, just a slower increase

http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/images/83/displacement-time-graph-4.PNG
Yes, and solar warming of the oceans works the same way.

Consider this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TSIequalization90pctat55yr_zps82285205.png

The red line has no units as for simplicity, it is set to attempt to equalize to the TSI.

Any questions as to how I plotted this? Notice that any time the red line is above the TSI, it decreases, and increases any time it is below it.

Notice that even though the TSI peaked in 1948, the heat content still increased for several more cycles.

The graph is plotted from the official SORCE satellite data, and reconstructs of the past on their site.

[Yonivore]

:lmao

Now you are linking pop tart. Him accusing others of falsely categorizing scientists is the most hilarious shit I've seen all day. I'm done contending with google sophistry.
So, you didn't read the actual quotes from the scientists, in the article, who disagreed with Cook categorizing their papers as being in agreement with him?

Yeah, you are through.

[RandomGuy]

thats like saying "if its getting hot, why is there still winter"

Pretty much about the level of mentality of many of the pseudoscientists driving the denier movement.

[RandomGuy]

Sure, I'll carry on in this thread -- thanks.


The whole consensus nonsense owes its genesis to a paper whose principle author is one John Cook:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article)

Unfortunately for Mr. Cook, people read.


97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yfGdFVHjqb4/VHG1InB4LHI/AAAAAAAABOg/e-kbEC4vKv8/s1600/97%25_560x463.jpg


One simple question. When do the models say the warming will resume?


Maybe not but, did you overlook this excerpt?


OMG!


Nicely taken out of context. I stand by the statement that we shouldn't pay anyone -- including the wealthy -- for taking a known risk and building on property that is almost surely going to result in a claim.

Wow, you are putting up a link to PopTech.

Dude posted here for a while, until I caught him in a lie, then he left in fairly short order.

PopTech's MO is one of shameless cherry-picking, both of quotes and research papers.

Having dealt with the guy first hand long enough to know that he is as actively intellectually dishonest as you are, I will simply dismiss the ultimate conclusion.

I have little doubt that were I to waste time chasing this rabbit down the hole, I would find the author of that website did the same thing that I caught him in here and in his other links.

Shameless cherry picking to the point of blatant intellectual dishonesty.

[RandomGuy]

So, you didn't read the actual quotes from the scientists, in the article, who disagreed with Cook categorizing their papers as being in agreement with him?

Yeah, you are through.

Sure. I read the quotes. I also read the underlying context, and know about the particular people the quotes came from, popular with the denier crowd, just as the chemist is with the creationist crowd.

Offers a fig leaf of respectability for people like you to go into forums and jump up and down and point at, because most people are far too lazy to do a bit of digging, especially the kinds of people who are inclined to buy into the conservative war on science. Them Darwinists is out to git us...

[RandomGuy]

Sure, I'll carry on in this thread -- thanks.


The whole consensus nonsense owes its genesis to a paper whose principle author is one John Cook:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article)

Unfortunately for Mr. Cook, people read.


97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yfGdFVHjqb4/VHG1InB4LHI/AAAAAAAABOg/e-kbEC4vKv8/s1600/97%25_560x463.jpg


One simple question. When do the models say the warming will resume?


Maybe not but, did you overlook this excerpt?


OMG!


Nicely taken out of context. I stand by the statement that we shouldn't pay anyone -- including the wealthy -- for taking a known risk and building on property that is almost surely going to result in a claim.

Of much more close relevance, and to the point of the OP of this long-lived thread is PopTech's beloved list:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

He keeps adding to it, slowly over time.

Of course, since PopTech very vociferously defends this list, and does so in a very sly intellectually dishonest way, others have actually done the exact same thing to his list, that he did here, i.e. called and contacted the scientists who published the papers in his list.

Most of them were shocked that someone would have put that on such a list, and actively said that his inclusion was a misrepresentation.

Having read close to 50 of the papers on the list during my arguments with PopTech here, I can safely say that his bar for including things on the list is low, to put it mildly.

Someone that dishonest is not inherently wrong in their assertions, but anyone of good conscience should be very skeptical of their conclusions and assertions of fact.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

[RandomGuy]

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4915557&postcount=877


From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner


1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy

PopTech:
One case of refusing to answer a fair question.
Failure to provide evidence when asked.
Strawman logical fallacy


(edit)
Here is a good bit on the differences between honest skepticism and irrational denial of human caused climate change.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/evolution-climate-deniers-the-redux-edition/

Here is a link to the skeptics society, a group dedicated to fighting pseudo-science of all kinds, and what honest skeptics think of deniers:
http://www.skeptic.com/tag/global-warming/


A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

This is to be contrasted with a "Denier"


Skepticism, after all, is a rational, intellectual process that involves critical analysis of the facts and reasoned doubt applied to all evidence and hypotheses.

“The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.” skeptic.com


In contrast, Climate change Deniers:

ignore the facts and evidence;
do not critically examine any evidence or hypotheses;
unquestionably embrace any counter proposal, no matter how transparently absurd or false.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/that-denier-vs-septic-thing-again/#more-2959

[RandomGuy]

Wow, I had forgotten how truly insane the guy behind PopularTechnology.net is (Narcissistic personality disorder). (say AmateurPsychologistGuy)


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196304&page=2

Some of my better work. PopTech was insane, but fairly intelligent nonetheless.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow, I had forgotten how truly insane the guy behind PopularTechnology.net is (Narcissistic personality disorder). (say AmateurPsychologistGuy)


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196304&page=2

Some of my better work. PopTech was insane, but fairly intelligent nonetheless.

Yeah once Yoni's google sophistry, which I would equate to pseudoscience by your last definition above, reached Pop-tart I realized what I was dealing with and just stopped.

NAS, BEST, and the Royal Academy are all ignored and not argued on merit vs Pop-tart being blindly accepted. It is what it is. Apparently after he edited all his posts here and left, he did a series of articles on why marijuana is bad Reefer-Madness style. :lol He sure got me.

Have to love it.

[Yonivore]

Yeah once Yoni's google sophistry, which I would equate to pseudoscience by your last definition above, reached Pop-tart I realized what I was dealing with and just stopped.

NAS, BEST, and the Royal Academy are all ignored and not argued on merit vs Pop-tart being blindly accepted. It is what it is. Apparently after he edited all his posts here and left, he did a series of articles on why marijuana is bad Reefer-Madness style. :lol He sure got me.

Have to love it.
Do NAS, BEST, or the Royal Academy say when the warming will resume?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do NAS, BEST, or the Royal Academy say when the warming will resume?

I linked you their stuff. Look for yourself. That you are looking for a specific date speaks to your level of understanding of the subject though.

[Poptech]

Of much more close relevance, and to the point of the OP of this long-lived thread is PopTech's beloved list:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

He keeps adding to it, slowly over time.

Of course, since PopTech very vociferously defends this list, and does so in a very sly intellectually dishonest way, others have actually done the exact same thing to his list, that he did here, i.e. called and contacted the scientists who published the papers in his list.

Most of them were shocked that someone would have put that on such a list, and actively said that his inclusion was a misrepresentation.
Why are you lying that I am intellectually dishonest? Name the scientists that were called, name the papers on the list and then state why they were included. The only intellectually dishonest person is yourself.


Having read close to 50 of the papers on the list during my arguments with PopTech here, I can safely say that his bar for including things on the list is low, to put it mildly.
The Criteria for inclusion (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Criteria) is explicitly stated on the list,

"Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism."


Someone that dishonest is not inherently wrong in their assertions, but anyone of good conscience should be very skeptical of their conclusions and assertions of fact.
Name one thing I lied about.

[Poptech]

Wow, I had forgotten how truly insane the guy behind PopularTechnology.net is (Narcissistic personality disorder). (say AmateurPsychologistGuy)
I must have been very effective for you to lie and poison the well like this. Unfortunately you never won a single argument with me and had to resort to baseless personal attacks, evasion and psychobabble.

[Poptech]

Now you are linking pop tart. Him accusing others of falsely categorizing scientists is the most hilarious shit I've seen all day. I'm done contending with google sophistry.
Powerpuff Girl, where did I falsely categorize a scientist? And please avoid your psychobabble when answering.

[Poptech]

Wow, you are putting up a link to PopTech.

Dude posted here for a while, until I caught him in a lie, then he left in fairly short order.
You are seriously delusional and now have to resort to lying about me? No such series of events ever happened. Cite and quote this figment of your imagination.


Having dealt with the guy first hand long enough to know that he is as actively intellectually dishonest as you are, I will simply dismiss the ultimate conclusion.
Why are you lying that I am intellectually dishonest?


PopTech's MO is one of shameless cherry-picking, both of quotes and research papers. [...]

I have little doubt that were I to waste time chasing this rabbit down the hole, I would find the author of that website did the same thing that I caught him in here and in his other links.

Shameless cherry picking to the point of blatant intellectual dishonesty.
Wow, you are one dishonest individual. I don't cherry pick either quotes or research papers. You never "caught" me in any such thing. Your inability to debate me has resorted in you having to now flat out lie about what happened, amazing. You sir are the true intellectually dishonest individual.

[Poptech]

Sure. I read the quotes. I also read the underlying context, and know about the particular people the quotes came from, popular with the denier crowd, just as the chemist is with the creationist crowd.
Why are you dodging the key question,

Did Cook et al. (2013) falsely classify skeptic papers as endorsing AGW?

[Poptech]

http://greenfyre...
The Truth about Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html)

"Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage."

[Th'Pusher]

Yay. PT is back. This will be interesting for a couple of minutes.

[Th'Pusher]

Yoni is going to love poptech.

See what you miss when you leave for 2 years dejected that Mitt Romney lost the election :lol

[Poptech]

Yoni is going to love poptech.
Yoni is well aware of who I am.


See what you miss when you leave for 2 years dejected that Mitt Romney lost the election :lol
I left because I was bored and prefer debating more intelligent people not brain-dead stoners.

[Wild Cobra]

I left because I was bored and prefer debating more intelligent people not brain-dead stoners.

No kidding.

This forum has really gone downhill since I joined.

What do you think of my graph in post 1647?

Since energy equalization uses an exponential function, I made a graph accordingly to illiterate that ocean warming can still occur after the sun reduces in TSI.

I have a neat TV episode clip in my signature. Here it is if you don't have signatures on:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbMWdl0Cds

[RandomGuy]

Why are you lying that I am intellectually dishonest? Name the scientists that were called, name the papers on the list and then state why they were included. The only intellectually dishonest person is yourself.


The Criteria for inclusion (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Criteria) is explicitly stated on the list,

"Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism."


Name one thing I lied about.

IT LIVES!!!!

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/frankenstein.jpg

I see you have re-animated the corpse of your account after a 2yr+ absence. Either Yoni contacted you, or you stumbled across the discussion because, as a narcissist you likely are a regular self-googler.

I would bet on the latter.

[RandomGuy]

Yoni is going to love poptech.

See what you miss when you leave for 2 years dejected that Mitt Romney lost the election :lol

PT is more of a libertarian than a classic republican. If you want to get a rise out of him, call Ron Paul an idiot.

And Yoni already knows about PT from PT's former run here.

[Yonivore]

IT LIVES!!!!

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/frankenstein.jpg

I see you have re-animated the corpse of your account after a 2yr+ absence. Either Yoni contacted you, or you stumbled across the discussion because, as a narcissist you likely are a regular self-googler.

I would bet on the latter.
While I can't speak to its accuracy, of the two, the latter is the only once to which I cannot speak. As for the former, I had forgotten there was even a PopTech that posted in the forum and I certainly had no idea he was related to the blog I quoted the other day. So, there's that.

[RandomGuy]

Do NAS, BEST, or the Royal Academy say when the warming will resume?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/03/2014-set-to-be-worlds-hottest-year-ever-climate-change

2014 set to be world's hottest year ever

Not sure if you had noticed that bit.

[RandomGuy]

While I can't speak to its accuracy, of the two, the latter is the only once to which I cannot speak. As for the former, I had forgotten there was even a PopTech that posted in the forum and I certainly had no idea he was related to the blog I quoted the other day. So, there's that.

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose an alternate theory to incessant self-googling would be an email notification. I still think PT is a self-googler, as it would fit with his "avenger" mindset and pattern of behavior. He has a cause, and that requires active searches.

[RandomGuy]

Name one thing I lied about.

I can start with this.

For one thing, your repeated claims that I committed "ad hominem" logical fallacies, and further, resorted to appeal to popularity logical fallacies.

You failed to reasonably demonstrate either assertion, despite being asked repeatedly.

A rather longer, detailed explanation:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196304&page=2&p=5847193&viewfull=1#post5847193

[Yonivore]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/03/2014-set-to-be-worlds-hottest-year-ever-climate-change

2014 set to be world's hottest year ever

Not sure if you had noticed that bit. Wasn't on Fox "news", so you are still waiting to be told what to think about it, I would guess.
So, I make no claim to having any particular knowledge of climate matters but, when you posted this, my suspicion was that this had already been countered, somewhere on the internet. Now, before you blast the blogger (or me for linking to it, for that matter) just look at what he's asserting and tell me if, in fact, he has it wrong or why, for that matter, your source is better than his.

“Hottest Year” Update (http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/hottest-year-update/)

He posts some graphs that appear to be from legitimate sources and claims they're more accurate than the method used to proclaim 2014 path to the hottest year ever. (Never mind the hyperbole of using "ever" in the headline.)

Take a look at the graphs and his sources and let me know what you think, Random.

Here's the graph which purports to support your assertion.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/image_thumb68.png?w=520&h=310

And, here are two graph, in the blog post, that say otherwise and that he claims are more accurate than the method used as the basis for your claim.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/image_thumb69.png?w=520&h=308http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/image_thumb70.png?w=520&h=314

So, which is it? And, as an amateur, I would point out this highlights another problem we seem to encounter with fair frequency. Cherry-picking data and information to fit a narrative. I would have to go back and find it it but, I swear, I recall some other year(s), within the past decade being declared as the hottest ever -- all while, on the other hand -- consensual climate scientists admitted the warming trend had actually ceased at the end of the last century. So, which is it?

Here is the full text from the blog post...


According to RSS, the YTD anomaly ranks a very ordinary 7th warmest since 1998. UAH make it tie 3rd.

Both are well below the two hottest years in 1998 and 2010.

We have been continually told that the satellite data will catch up with the surface data after a lag, but it has stubbornly refused to do so.

There is absolutely no way this year will get anywhere those record years on the satellite datasets, which is precisely why we will hear nothing about it from NASA, NOAA or the MSM.

[RandomGuy]

Why are you lying that I am intellectually dishonest? Name the scientists that were called, name the papers on the list and then state why they were included. The only intellectually dishonest person is yourself.


The Criteria for inclusion (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Criteria) is explicitly stated on the list,

"Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism."


Name one thing I lied about.

I would define lying as including the deliberate withholding of information, generally with an intent to deceive.

Deliberately withholding information that might be considered relevant to an impartial observer is definitely not a hallmark of intellectual honesty.

This post is a VERY typical one of yours. You don't outright state any falsehood, but most definitely leave out some rather important information.

You do not define "support", i.e. what are the criteria?

You do not define who determines if it "supports"?

You do not, in the interest of full, intellectually honest, disclosure, disclose how strongly any of those papers support a "skeptic argument".


My analysis of your list at the time was that the answers to the above questions are:

Anything that could be even minutely contradictory to AGW.
Poptech is the sole arbiter.
Generally weakly, according to my haphazard sample.

Further nowhere do you fully acknowledge the peer reviewed papers that do support AGW. While I can't fault you for making a case, I can fault you for not providing any reasonable commentary on the papers that do, or providing a good-intentioned, impartial reader some links. Of course, that could just as well be laziness, I suppose.

Is deliberately withholding relevant information an intellectually honest thing to do?

[Yonivore]

I would define lying as including the deliberate withholding of information...
For the record, I'm not accusing you of lying. Just wanted to put that out there.

[RandomGuy]

[whips out a bunch of graphs]

http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1417625935984/TemperatureChart_WEB_0312.svg

Basis for the claim is here, it would seem, drawn from:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/03/2014-set-to-be-worlds-hottest-year-ever-climate-change

Not really overly interested in getting into rebutting your favorite blog posts, tbh, but I will be happy to show what data set the claim appears to be based on.


I will say, for someone whose argument for voter ID is "this could be a problem, so let's spend money to prevent it", your choice of argument here, is ironically delicious.

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/196/1/5/delicious_irony_by_gwafu-d57bnah.png

[RandomGuy]

For the record, I'm not accusing you of lying. Just wanted to put that out there.

Thank you.

I really do try very hard not to, whatever anyone thinks of my motivations or opinions. I really do try to further admit the weaknesses in my own arguments, and acknowledge mistakes, and when people make good points, even if I don't agree with them. Whether I reach this ideal or not, though...

I try.

[Yonivore]

http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1417625935984/TemperatureChart_WEB_0312.svg

Basis for the claim is here, it would seem, drawn from:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/03/2014-set-to-be-worlds-hottest-year-ever-climate-change

Not really overly interested in getting into rebutting your favorite blog posts, tbh, but I will be happy to show what data set the claim appears to be based on.


I will say, for someone whose argument for voter ID is "this could be a problem, so let's spend money to prevent it", your choice of argument here, is ironically delicious.

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/196/1/5/delicious_irony_by_gwafu-d57bnah.png
I guess maybe I should have been more direct in my question.

Are the two graphs, posted in the blog I linked, from legitimate sources and datasets?

And, are the methodologies that generated that data more accurate than the one upon which the claim "2014 is going to be the hottest year ever" is based?

I didn't want to debate messengers with you but, whether or not the data presented is accurate and whether or not it tends to counter what you're proposing. That's all.

[RandomGuy]

You are seriously delusional and now have to resort to lying about me? No such series of events ever happened. Cite and quote this figment of your imagination.


Why are you lying that I am intellectually dishonest?


Wow, you are one dishonest individual. I don't cherry pick either quotes or research papers. You never "caught" me in any such thing. Your inability to debate me has resorted in you having to now flat out lie about what happened, amazing. You sir are the true intellectually dishonest individual.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/steve-benen873DD87A-B708-1297-C520-974AC1E37939.jpg


Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.

Delicious delicious wikipedia...


All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism.

You attempt to excuse or obfuscate this cherry picking is by to hiding behind your stated purpose, as if it shields you somehow:


To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Criteria

Yet nowhere, do you acknowledge or provide any links to anything that does not agree with you, or to any paper that does not.

Essentially:

"I'm not cherry picking because I state up front that I am cherry-picking, but I since I say that is my purpose, I'm really not cherry picking, nuh-uh."

:rolleyes



Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.

— Richard Somerville, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, March 8, 2011.

Just to get back to the OP. Thanks PopTech. Go stand in the corner with Cosmored. He bounces around forums about as much as you seem to.

[Yonivore]

Seriously, had I known I was going to instigate some grade school squabbling, I would have found another source.

[Poptech]

Seriously, had I known I was going to instigate some grade school squabbling, I would have found another source.
That is his intent and you are falling for it. If you think you are going to get intellectually dishonest people (especially stoners) to conceded something you are delusional. My article - '97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html)' absolutely destroys the credibility of the Cook et al. (2013) paper. It effectively demonstrates that their methods are fatally flawed and their conclusions worthless.

As for my list of papers, AGW proponents and Alarmists delusionally believe they hold the intellectual high ground with the peer-reviewed literature so they want to make your life as miserable as possible for citing something they want to pretend does not exist = peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments. My resource is the best and most comprehensive on the Internet for peer-reviewed papers that skeptics can use to debate. RandomGuy knows it as do all other Alarmists, which is why they relentlessly attack it with lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. It is all hand-waving to avoid accepting that these papers exist.

[Poptech]

IT LIVES!!!!
Notice how bad you have to try and poison the well with your trolling.

http://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Troll.jpg


I see you have re-animated the corpse of your account after a 2yr+ absence. Either Yoni contacted you, or you stumbled across the discussion because, as a narcissist you likely are a regular self-googler.

I would bet on the latter.
...or you are a computer illiterate who applies psychobabble when you do not understand something but want to make yourself feel intelligent.

[Yonivore]

That is his intent and you are falling for it...
See, you can stop there. I'm really not interested in the personal animus between you two or anyone else in this forum.

I posted what I thought were legitimate points. That they happen to appear in your blog was irrelevant to me. I didn't post your opinions, I merely linked to your blog because it contained quotes from scientists that claim they were misrepresented in the report that was the genesis for the whole "consensus" argument forwarded by the AGCC proponents. It seems obvious to me there are other problems with the report related to how the 97% number is derived, etc... but, I thought the actual quotes were the most compelling.

Seriously, had I known the quotes were being carried on a blog authored by someone who is specifically controversial in this forum, I wouldn't have bothered. I would have looked elsewhere for the information.

[Poptech]

PT is more of a libertarian than a classic republican. If you want to get a rise out of him, call Ron Paul an idiot.
Actually to be accurate I am politically independent. You are not going to get anything out of me insulting Ron Paul.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors All Fail

The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.
Symptoms

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.

Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So Poptart did you ever go get help? Have you seen a mental health professional about your mental illness. Did you at least make sure that it was 'only' aspergers and not an antisocial personality disorder like the survey you filled out indicates? Has anyone I emailed about your sickness brought it up to you?

[Poptech]

See, you can stop there. I'm really not interested in the personal animus between you two or anyone else in this forum.

I posted what I thought were legitimate points. That they happen to appear in your blog was irrelevant to me. I didn't post your opinions, I merely linked to your blog because it contained quotes from scientists that claim they were misrepresented in the report that was the genesis for the whole "consensus" argument forwarded by the AGCC proponents. It seems obvious to me there are other problems with the report related to how the 97% number is derived, etc... but, I thought the actual quotes were the most compelling.

Seriously, had I known the quotes were being carried on a blog authored by someone who is specifically controversial in this forum, I wouldn't have bothered. I would have looked elsewhere for the information.
You are still falling for it and do not realize it. They do not respect you here and are laughing at you regardless of the sources you provide. You are not going to convince them of anything on climate change no matter the sources you use because they are not intellectually honest and most of them are stoned. This is an ideological crusade for them not an honest debate. You can provide whatever sources you like and I can give you the playbook of how they will respond five pages of discussions out, why do you think I left? They are also a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who engage in psychobabble. I have debated on hundreds of forums and am being completely honest with you.

They want to frame me as "controversial" because I am actually a threat to them and they want to scare you from using my sources.

[DarrinS]

Welcome back to RandomGuy's ad hominem thread. Watch out for FuzzyRumpkiss. If you piss him off, he might write another strongly-worded email to the kids at SkS.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BTW, it wa around page 119 of the previous thread that I started to patronize him and eventually got him to fill out that survey. Classic Axis 1 narcissist as he is he went back and edited all of his posts admitting to mental illness and replaced them with anti-marijuana propaganda and assertions. When he gets upset with us that is his go to defense mechanism. He is a sick fuck for sure.

[Poptech]

So Poptart did you ever go get help? Have you seen a mental health professional about your mental illness. Did you at least make sure that it was 'only' aspergers and not an antisocial personality disorder like the survey you filled out indicates? Has anyone I emailed about your sickness brought it up to you?
Powerpuff Girl here is one of my puppets, too brain-damaged by drugs to know he is being controlled. He still thinks I honestly filled out a survey something I never do online.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Welcome back to RandomGuy's ad hominem thread. Watch out for FuzzyRumpkiss. If you piss him off, he might write another strongly-worded email to the kids at SkS.

:lol try debating the science some more. Post more UAH stuff whatever. You know we will argue on merit particularly RG who in my eyes has a vast amount of patience dealing with your deceit.

Just because after years of debate we have your methodology pegged and rub your face in it does not mean much beyond what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Powerpuff Girl here is one of my puppets, too brain-damaged by drugs to know he is being controlled. He still thinks I honestly filled out a survey something I never do online.

I didn't present it as a survey. I listed it as proof of mental illness which after 2 days of having you mechanically produce your canned arguments, you 'refuted.' We both know this and it's why you dislike me so much. I imagine you have a hard time reconciling all that despite your facade.

[Yonivore]

You are still falling for it and do not realize it. They do not respect you here and are laughing at you regardless of the sources you provide.
I don't care if I'm respected in an anonymous forum. Nor do I care if they laugh.


You are not going to convince them of anything on climate change no matter the sources you use because they are not intellectually honest and most of them are stoned. This is an ideological crusade for them not an honest debate. You can provide whatever sources you like and I can give you the playbook of how they will respond five pages of discussions out, why do you think I left? They are also a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who engage in psychobabble. I have debated on hundreds of forums and am being completely honest with you.
Okay but, I'm not sure any of that is related to why I post in this forum. And, that you explain this as the reason you left, it begs the question, why are you back?


They want to frame me as "controversial" because I am actually a threat to them and they want to scare you from using my sources.
Color me uninterested in what they want to do to you.

If the quotes you posted are actual, I would still like to see a response to them. It seemed to me there were more than a couple of scientists that believed John Cook misrepresented their papers. I was hoping to get a response. I think RandomGuy made a stab at it but, I was less interested in what he had to say because he was also attacking you in the post.

[Poptech]

BTW, it wa around page 119 of the previous thread that I started to patronize him and eventually got him to fill out that survey. Classic Axis 1 narcissist as he is he went back and edited all of his posts admitting to mental illness and replaced them with anti-marijuana propaganda and assertions. When he gets upset with us that is his go to defense mechanism. He is a sick fuck for sure.
What a dumb ass you have no idea how bad I trolled you. I came up with the asbergers thing from a book I had sitting on my desk knowing puppet boy would link to it and then I trolled him with marijuana links. His brain is so fried and I executed it so perfectly he still believes it is true. ROFLMAO.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are still falling for it and do not realize it. They do not respect you here and are laughing at you regardless of the sources you provide. You are not going to convince them of anything on climate change no matter the sources you use because they are not intellectually honest and most of them are stoned. This is an ideological crusade for them not an honest debate. You can provide whatever sources you like and I can give you the playbook of how they will respond five pages of discussions out, why do you think I left? They are also a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who engage in psychobabble. I have debated on hundreds of forums and am being completely honest with you.

They want to frame me as "controversial" because I am actually a threat to them and they want to scare you from using my sources.

:lol wow

Hey Yoni read the survey I have above and tell me you cannot see it. It's fucking hilarious how demented he is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What a dumb ass you have no idea how bad I trolled you. I came up with the asbergers thing from a book I had sitting on my desk knowing puppet boy would link to it and then I trolled him with marijuana links. His brain is so fried and I executed it so perfectly he still believes it is true. ROFLMAO.

And of course he edited all his posts because he meant it to be that way.

:lol aspergers
:lol trolling with an admission of mental illness which you feel you need to hide.

[Yonivore]

:lol wow

Hey Yoni read the survey I have above and tell me you cannot see it. It's fucking hilarious how demented he is.
What part of "I'm not interested in your petty grade school snipping" don't y'all understand?

[Poptech]

Okay but, I'm not sure any of that is related to why I post in this forum. And, that you explain this as the reason you left, it begs the question, why are you back?
I only come back to correct misinformation stated about my work. The last time I had left, they had long since avoided discussions of my work and resorted to personal attacks against me, at which point there was nothing of importance for me to respond to.


If the quotes you posted are actual, I would still like to see a response to them. It seemed to me there were more than a couple of scientists that believed John Cook misrepresented their papers. I was hoping to get a response. I think RandomGuy made a stab at it but, I was less interested in what he had to say because he was also attacking you in the post.
They are very real and you can contact the scientists yourself. You are not going to get an honest response from people here, why do you think they attacked me as a diversion?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What part of "I'm not interested in your petty grade school snipping" don't y'all understand?

I don't think there is anything petty about axis 1 and antisocial disorders.

[Yonivore]

I don't think there is anything petty about axis 1 and antisocial disorders.
In the context of a bunch of anonymous posters in an internet forum, I disagree. It is petty.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In the context of a bunch of anonymous posters in an internet forum, I disagree. It is petty.

Yeah but then again you are pretty nihilist when asked to examine what you think of anything done here so that doesn't mean much. I think from your vantage point everything done here is petty.

[Yonivore]

Yeah but then again you are pretty nihilist when asked to examine what you think of anything done here so that doesn't mean much. I think from your vantage point everything done here is petty.

You don't need to think it anymore, everything done here, in my opinion, is petty and insignificant. Unless, and until, something significant (enough to be recognized by the world outside this forum) is realized from the interactions here, it will remain petty and insignificant.

[DarrinS]

I don't think there is anything petty about axis 1 and antisocial disorders.


People who live in glass houses...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&p=5910380&viewfull=1#post5910380

[Poptech]

And of course he edited all his posts because he meant it to be that way.

:lol aspergers
:lol trolling with an admission of mental illness which you feel you need to hide.
You are now my puppet.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

People who live in glass houses...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&p=5910380&viewfull=1#post5910380

One is an admission of mental illness and the coverup. Mine is emailing people he writes smear campaigns on about it.

ueZ6tvqhk8U

I wish big bird would do one on mutual exclusivity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are now my puppet.

I'm convinced by this just as much as by your editing. .

I'm sure you have heard the expression: "if it walks like a duck. . . ." Actually I imagine your mental illness makes nuance between seeming and reality like that difficult, aspie.

[DarrinS]

FuzzyTard,


Are these the guys you spammed with your attack on Poptech?



Super creepy dude that pops up from under the table at 0:40 is the cartoonist who runs SkS.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdlWHpQqu0I

[DarrinS]

Same two tried to publish "research" that showed climate skeptics were crazy by using anonymous online polls (sound familiar?). Paper was rejected. Fail.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey Poptart. Darrin wants to work for you. He has new material for you.

I really like the part where Darrin accuses RG of ad hominem. You two are a lot alike.

[Th'Pusher]

I left because I was bored...

I was referring to Yoni. He fell into a deep depression when Mitt lost.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/steve-benen873DD87A-B708-1297-C520-974AC1E37939.jpg




Seriously, had I known I was going to instigate some grade school squabbling, I would have found another source.


No kidding.

I haven't heard that rubber/glue thing since maybe 3rd grade.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/steve-benen873DD87A-B708-1297-C520-974AC1E37939.jpg



Delicious delicious wikipedia...



You attempt to excuse or obfuscate this cherry picking is by to hiding behind your stated purpose, as if it shields you somehow:



http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Criteria

Yet nowhere, do you acknowledge or provide any links to anything that does not agree with you, or to any paper that does not.

Essentially:

"I'm not cherry picking because I state up front that I am cherry-picking, but I since I say that is my purpose, I'm really not cherry picking, nuh-uh."

:rolleyes




Just to get back to the OP. Thanks PopTech. Go stand in the corner with Cosmored. He bounces around forums about as much as you seem to.


That is his intent and you are falling for it. If you think you are going to get intellectually dishonest people (especially stoners) to conceded something you are delusional. My article - '97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html)' absolutely destroys the credibility of the Cook et al. (2013) paper. It effectively demonstrates that their methods are fatally flawed and their conclusions worthless.

As for my list of papers, AGW proponents and Alarmists delusionally believe they hold the intellectual high ground with the peer-reviewed literature so they want to make your life as miserable as possible for citing something they want to pretend does not exist = peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments. My resource is the best and most comprehensive on the Internet for peer-reviewed papers that skeptics can use to debate. RandomGuy knows it as do all other Alarmists, which is why they relentlessly attack it with lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. It is all hand-waving to avoid accepting that these papers exist.
Yes, he is intellectually dishonest on a very frequent basis.

Sometimes I call him RandomPropagandaGuy.

[Wild Cobra]

So Poptart did you ever go get help? Have you seen a mental health professional about your mental illness. Did you at least make sure that it was 'only' aspergers and not an antisocial personality disorder like the survey you filled out indicates? Has anyone I emailed about your sickness brought it up to you?
It's you Fuzzy toilet sucker who needs help.



lumpkin
The act of oral sex performed on a man while defecating.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lumpkin

[Wild Cobra]

----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy

PopTech:
One case of refusing to answer a fair question.
Failure to provide evidence when asked.
Strawman logical fallacy



I'm sure glade i have better things to do than be an internet forum score keeper.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yoni is well aware of who I am.


Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings



I left because I was bored and prefer debating more intelligent people not brain-dead stoners.


You are still falling for it and do not realize it. They do not respect you here and are laughing at you regardless of the sources you provide. You are not going to convince them of anything on climate change no matter the sources you use because they are not intellectually honest and most of them are stoned. This is an ideological crusade for them not an honest debate. You can provide whatever sources you like and I can give you the playbook of how they will respond five pages of discussions out, why do you think I left? They are also a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who engage in psychobabble. I have debated on hundreds of forums and am being completely honest with you.

They want to frame me as "controversial" because I am actually a threat to them and they want to scare you from using my sources.


Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW02XmBGQw

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seems WC has been drinking.

[Yonivore]

Now I remember why I quit posting...

[Th'Pusher]

Now I remember why I quit posting...

Because mitt lost :lol

[boutons_deux]

Now I remember why I quit posting...

... now that your memory worked, will you stop posting again?

[Poptech]

I can start with this.

For one thing, your repeated claims that I committed "ad hominem" logical fallacies, and further, resorted to appeal to popularity logical fallacies.

You failed to reasonably demonstrate either assertion, despite being asked repeatedly.
Any attempt to undermine a person's argument using character attacks or attacking their motives can be considered an ad hominem logical fallacy whether you explicitly make an argument or not while doing it.

I did not lie as you repeatedly engage in this behavior.

[Poptech]

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose an alternate theory to incessant self-googling would be an email notification. I still think PT is a self-googler, as it would fit with his "avenger" mindset and pattern of behavior. He has a cause, and that requires active searches.
Please stop demonstrating your computer illiteracy, automation is not "self-googling", let alone the usage of basic web analytics. The only "cause" I have is to correct misinformation stated about my work and or make clarifications when necessary.

[Wild Cobra]

Seems WC has been drinking.
Not yet, though I am getting quite the collection.

I might sip on some of this later:

http://bardstownwhiskeysociety.com/brands/parkers-heritage-collection.php


http://www.thirstysouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DSC_0070-Version-2-523x1024.jpg


http://www.thirstysouth.com/2014/09/16/2014-parkers-heritage-collection-wheat-whiskey/

[Poptech]

Delicious delicious wikipedia...
Please stop demonstrating your computer illiteracy and learn to cite reliable sources.


You attempt to excuse or obfuscate this cherry picking is by to hiding behind your stated purpose, as if it shields you somehow:

To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;
The stated purposed is quite clear as the list does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints. Which paper supporting a skeptic argument did I intentionally leave off the list?


Yet nowhere, do you acknowledge or provide any links to anything that does not agree with you, or to any paper that does not.
This argument is incoherent, why would I provide papers that do not support skeptic arguments in a resource that was created only for papers that support skeptic arguments?


Essentially: "I'm not cherry picking because I state up front that I am cherry-picking, but I since I say that is my purpose, I'm really not cherry picking, nuh-uh."
Where does the list claim to be a comprehensive resource on climate change?

[Th'Pusher]

Yoni is well aware of who I am.


As for the former, I had forgotten there was even a PopTech that posted in the forum and I certainly had no idea he was related to the blog I quoted the other day. So, there's that.

:lol Fuzzy may be on to something with this narcissist stuff...

[Poptech]

I would define lying as including the deliberate withholding of information, generally with an intent to deceive.

Deliberately withholding information that might be considered relevant to an impartial observer is definitely not a hallmark of intellectual honesty.

This post is a VERY typical one of yours. You don't outright state any falsehood, but most definitely leave out some rather important information.

You do not define "support", i.e. what are the criteria?

You do not define who determines if it "supports"?

You do not, in the interest of full, intellectually honest, disclosure, disclose how strongly any of those papers support a "skeptic argument".

My analysis of your list at the time was that the answers to the above questions are:

Anything that could be even minutely contradictory to AGW.
Poptech is the sole arbiter.
Generally weakly, according to my haphazard sample.
Conspiratorial argumentation, I did not deliberately do anything let alone with an intent to deceive. The list is fully cited and sourced as there is nothing to hide.

The criteria for support is that the papers are either explicit to a skeptical position, were written by a skeptic, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso (http://www.co2science.org/subject/subject.php) Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/) Ph.D. Climatology not me.

So again you spread misinformation as I am not the sole arbiter.

How "strongly" something supports a skeptic argument is purely subjective, alarmists like yourself believe some to be weak while skeptics would believe them to be strong.


Further nowhere do you fully acknowledge the peer reviewed papers that do support AGW. While I can't fault you for making a case, I can fault you for not providing any reasonable commentary on the papers that do, or providing a good-intentioned, impartial reader some links. Of course, that could just as well be laziness, I suppose.

Is deliberately withholding relevant information an intellectually honest thing to do?
Perpetual strawman argument, papers that support AGW have nothing to do with my resource nor do I claim they do not exist. Any reader of my resource who is literate would clearly know that it relates to the skeptic side of the argument as it is explicitly titled: "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"

[Poptech]

I'm convinced by this just as much as by your editing. .

I'm sure you have heard the expression: "if it walks like a duck. . . ." Actually I imagine your mental illness makes nuance between seeming and reality like that difficult, aspie.
Puppet boy, how does it feel to believe for two years you "got me" now knowing I trolled you? Stoners are so easy to manipulate. It was not as good as my last name troll though, which continues on to this day. So either you never followed through on your promise to email my enemies or they laughed at your stoner email. Which is a shame as I actually have a whole campaign setup targeting climate alarmists who attack people with autism spectrum disorders. So you were not that useful a puppet.

[Poptech]

FuzzyTard,

Are these the guys you spammed with your attack on Poptech?

Super creepy dude that pops up from under the table at 0:40 is the cartoonist who runs SkS.
Yeah, he demanded I take down all my Truth articles or he was going to release the spam. Obviously that never happened,

The Truth about DeSmogBlog (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html)
The Truth about Greenfyre (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/truth-about-greenfyre.html)
The Truth about RealClimate.org (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html)
The Truth about Skeptical Science (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html)
The Truth about SourceWatch (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html)
The Truth about Jon "Stewart" (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/10/the-truth-about-jon-stewart.html)

etc...

[Poptech]

"This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire."
I am the puppet master and all thanks to Michael Lewis' book for the inspiration,

http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1290480108l/6463967.jpg

When I saw the hook on the cover I thought of dumb ass.

[Poptech]

:lol Fuzzy may be on to something with this narcissist stuff...
I stand corrected but he did approve my friendship request (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/profile.php?do=buddylist).

[Th'Pusher]

Conspiratorial argumentation, I did not deliberately do anything let alone with an intent to deceive. The list is fully cited and sourced as there is nothing to hide.
In your estimation, would the majority of the scientists that authored the papers you cite in you list agree or disagree with AGW?

[Th'Pusher]

I stand corrected but he did approve my friendship request (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/profile.php?do=buddylist).
Btw- yoni isn't on your internet friend list.

[Poptech]

In your estimation, would the majority of the scientists that authored the papers you cite in you list agree or disagree with AGW?
It is not a list of scientists so I would have no idea, the only thing I can speak to is that the hundreds of skeptic authors do not support any alarmist conclusions. Regardless you would still need to clearly define AGW, so does this mean a contribution of 0.9% or 90%? Many skeptics support an insignificant or inconsequential anthropogenic contribution to climate change but misrepresenting their position by lumping them in with Alarmists would be disingenuous.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am the puppet master and all thanks to Michael Lewis' book for the inspiration,

http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1290480108l/6463967.jpg

When I saw the hook on the cover I thought of dumb ass.

So you read the book thought you might have some form of mental disorder but refuse to get evaluated. Well played. This line would make sense if you had not gone back and edited all of your posts admitting to it and then your campaign to deny ever having said it in the first place. I think your line was that I was drug addled and that you never said that. You even edited the posts themselves to say that.

Honestly, it was one of the better meltdowns over an outing I have ever seen. That multi-boxing sex offender at the fires of heaven and Narutoboy are the only better one I've seen.

Do you feel that the mentally ill should be allowed to own guns?

[Poptech]

So you read the book thought you might have some form of mental disorder but refuse to get evaluated. Well played. This line would make sense if you had not gone back and edited all of your posts admitting to it and then your campaign to deny ever having said it in the first place. I think your line was that I was drug addled and that you never said that. You even edited the posts themselves to say that.

Honestly, it was one of the better meltdowns over an outing I have ever seen. That multi-boxing sex offender at the fires of heaven and Narutoboy are the only better one I've seen.

Do you feel that the mentally ill should be allowed to own guns?
Puppet boy, I used Michael Burry's condition from the book as bait hoping you would email my enemies and I could start a campaign targeting climate alarmists who attack people with autism spectrum disorders. The editing of the posts was setting the hook which you still have in your mouth like a brain damaged stoner. You are such a dumbass, you still don't get it. The fact that you think it was a melt-down just shows you how good I am at this. Oh and my last name is really Kahn too, ROFLMAO!

[Th'Pusher]

Regardless you would still need to clearly define AGW

JUST use the general definition: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

In your estimation do the majority of the authors of the papers you cite agree or disagree with the wiki entry definition of AGW?

pretty basic stuff her PT.

[Poptech]

JUST use the general definition: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

In your estimation do the majority of the authors of the papers you cite agree or disagree with the wiki entry definition of AGW?

pretty basic stuff her PT.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that is not a definition of AGW. Regarding this definition: "Global warming is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system."

All skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

I already answered your question which will not change,

It is not a list of scientists so I would have no idea, the only thing I can speak to is that the hundreds of skeptic authors do not support any alarmist conclusions. Regardless you would still need to clearly define AGW, so does this mean a contribution of 0.9% or 90%? Many skeptics support an insignificant or inconsequential anthropogenic contribution to climate change but misrepresenting their position by lumping them in with Alarmists would be disingenuous.

[DarrinS]

JUST use the general definition: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

In your estimation do the majority of the authors of the papers you cite agree or disagree with the wiki entry definition of AGW?

pretty basic stuff her PT.


The skeptic argument isn't really about the greenhouse effect. It's about wheather or not these changes will be catastrophic. The current "pause" in warming began before ST existed as a website.

[Wild Cobra]

Puppet boy, I used Michael Burry's condition from the book as bait hoping you would email my enemies and I could start a campaign targeting climate alarmists who attack people with autism spectrum disorders. The editing of the posts was setting the hook which you still have in your mouth like a brain damaged stoner. You are such a dumbass, you still don't get it. The fact that you think it was a melt-down just shows you how good I am at this. Oh and my last name is really Kahn too, ROFLMAO!

Must you point out the obvious that everyone sees?

[Wild Cobra]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that is not a definition of AGW. Regarding this definition: "Global warming is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system."

All skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

I already answered your question which will not change,

It is not a list of scientists so I would have no idea, the only thing I can speak to is that the hundreds of skeptic authors do not support any alarmist conclusions. Regardless you would still need to clearly define AGW, so does this mean a contribution of 0.9% or 90%? Many skeptics support an insignificant or inconsequential anthropogenic contribution to climate change but misrepresenting their position by lumping them in with Alarmists would be disingenuous.
It would really be stupid for anyone to to say temperatures have not increased since 1700 since the sun has increased it's contribution to the energy balance since then.

[Wild Cobra]

The skeptic argument isn't really about the greenhouse effect. It's about wheather or not these changes will be catastrophic. The current "pause" in warming began before ST existed as a website.

I wonder just how stupid the warmers have to be to not understand this simple truth you just stated?

[unleashbaynes]

:lol climate deniers. Gonna go ahead and quote Toby here but there really isn't a position on this anymore than there's a position over which temperature water boils. We will see catastroohic effects from climate change in our lifetimes. There is no debate.

[boutons_deux]

I wonder just how stupid the warmers have to be to not understand this simple truth you just stated?

there is no pause, no cooling, 2014 is hottest on record, almost all the "hottest year on record" have been since 2000. you're parroting the BigCarbon LiES.

[spurraider21]

:lol climate deniers.
what does it mean to deny climate?

[unleashbaynes]

what does it mean to deny climate?

it means eat shit you overly technical fucker :lol

[spurraider21]

it means eat shit you overly technical fucker :lol
:lol

[Yonivore]

it means eat shit you overly technical fucker :lol
That's what I thought.

[boutons_deux]

more "facts" from the world-wide AGW conspiracy to ignore

California Drought Is The Worst In 1,200 Years

The last three years of drought were the most severe that California has experienced in at least 1,200 years, according to a new scientific study published Thursday.

The study provides the state with breathtaking new historical context for its low reservoirs and sinking water tables, even as California celebrated its first good soaking of the season.

Analyzing tree rings that date back to A.D. 800 — a time when Vikings were marauding Europe and the Chinese were inventing gunpowder — there is no three-year period when California’s rainfall has been as low and its temperatures as hot as they have been from 2012 to 2014, the researchers found.

“We were really surprised. We didn’t expect this,”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/california-drought-worst-1200-years-new-study-says/

[Wild Cobra]

Here is the abstract if anyone wants to read it:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062433/abstract

[Yonivore]

more "facts" from the world-wide AGW conspiracy to ignore

California Drought Is The Worst In 1,200 Years

The last three years of drought were the most severe that California has experienced in at least 1,200 years, according to a new scientific study published Thursday.

The study provides the state with breathtaking new historical context for its low reservoirs and sinking water tables, even as California celebrated its first good soaking of the season.

Analyzing tree rings that date back to A.D. 800 — a time when Vikings were marauding Europe and the Chinese were inventing gunpowder — there is no three-year period when California’s rainfall has been as low and its temperatures as hot as they have been from 2012 to 2014, the researchers found.

“We were really surprised. We didn’t expect this,”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/california-drought-worst-1200-years-new-study-says/

What caused the drought, worse than the current on, 1,200 years ago?