Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Originally posted by Mez353
Look at the references provided! I am not disputing the data source in any case. I am saying that they manipulate the data to fit the policy. It's not a smear, it's a fact. Don't you just love 'em?

In case your thick skull is having some more difficulty processing what I'm saying without Libby's prompting then I'm talking about the removal of the Medieval Warm Period from the calculations. It's like writing a history of Germany to prove that they're a saintly nation and removing the years 1939 to 1945.

Wut?

Where's the evidence for that?

You just seem to be wielding an uzi with bollax for ammo. But, hey, that's what you get when you are simply parroting from denialist websites.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

I will take you up on that bet.
Let's see what happens in the next few years and if the temperature will rise by 2 degrees as you predict.

Liberator will NOT acknowledge this, or will find a way to deny that it is true, but the "2 degrees" figure is a complete political fiction! the "father"of the 2-degrees standard has gone on record to say so.

Even the IPCC contributors admit a lack of agreement as to cause:

One policymakers’ summary omitted several important unequivocal conclusions contained in the scientists’ report, including, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate change to anthropogenic causes,” and “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” These significant revisions were made, according to IPCC officials quoted in Nature magazine, “to ensure that it [the report] conformed to a policymakers’ summary.”

townhall.com...

As for the "consensus," Phil Jones admits there's no such thing. Moreover, Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC.
www.openthemagazine.com...

How can you refute a negative? You can't. People may presume to believe whatever they want; but, there is no consensus as to causation for observed changes in climate.

The best the IPCC and East Anglia/CRU can do is say, "We don't know what else it could be, so it must be us."

That may be good enough for the sheep to run, but most rational people require a bit more.

Parroting replies, that's rich coming from you. How else can I show you, take you by the hand? Anyway, better than your farting!

Failure to discuss computer models that do not seem correct
Attribution of the warming trend to human activities only and no natural source
Reluctance to admit that the computer models are too coarse
Total reliance on these computer models
Influence of the Sun totally ignored
No realisation that this warming may be natural variability
Given no thought to the fact that any warming is largely recovery from the Little Ice Age

So I wouldn't hesitate to say that I think that it is your Farting that is the problem here.

Originally posted by Mez353
Parroting replies, that's rich coming from you. How else can I show you, take you by the hand? Anyway, better than your farting!

Failure to discuss computer models that do not seem correct
Attribution of the warming trend to human activities only and no natural source
Reluctance to admit that the computer models are too coarse
Total reliance on these computer models
Influence of the Sun totally ignored
No realisation that this warming may be natural variability
Given no thought to the fact that any warming is largely recovery from the Little Ice Age

So I wouldn't hesitate to say that I think that it is your Farting that is the problem here.

While a tad puerile, that's actually pretty creative. Well done.

You again seem to throwing out more scattergun BS. I think I asked for the evidence of the claim in the post I was responding to. Anyway, lets answer the current pile of BS:

Failure to discuss computer models that do not seem correct

I think they discuss models quite a bit. And I think they are doing pretty well. Not perfect, but I know of no climate scientists who say they are.

Attribution of the warming trend to human activities only and no natural source

That's quite wrong. Have you actually ever bothered to read the IPCC WG1 report?

Reluctance to admit that the computer models are too coarse

You mean that they don't admit they could be improved? Again, you're wrong.

Total reliance on these computer models

So in the same stream of BS in which you are actually whining about paleoclimate data, you also claim that climate scientists totally rely on computer models? That's funny. Perhaps try to integrate each of the BS memes into a coherent argument.

Influence of the Sun totally ignored

Again, I assume you haven't read the IPCC WG1 report. This is wrong.

No realisation that this warming may be natural variability

Again, if you read the IPCC WG1 report, and also have followed the science over the last 20 years, you would know this is wrong.

Given no thought to the fact that any warming is largely recovery from the Little Ice Age

Yeah, like magic the earth's climate just 'recovers', lol.

Have you ever spent any time in the British Isles? It can be rather a depressing place alot of the time due to the cool and wet climate. If I did believe that warming was actually occurring (sitting here freezing my nuts off throughout record low temperatures in November and early December makes me think otherwise) I'd actually say it was a good thing.

www.climatecooling.org...

■Global Warming Will Actually Have More Winners then Losers. Global cooling does not. Throughout the history of human life, the Earth's livability has always been better when the climate has been warmer than cooler. Human populations have expanded the most when the Earth warmed and turned greener, whether during the middle ages or during the last 2 decades. Whether it is a fish in the ocean, a shrimp in an aquaculture pond, or a bean on a vine, it will grow faster when it is warmer, all things being equal. Humans will be quick to take advantage of a warmer climate and to adjust if it gets too warm in an area. More crops grow where it is warm or hot than in frozen ground, and CO2 is a primary food of plants - basic facts that seem forgotten. Even now, NASA satellites show that the Earth has become 6% greener as the world has warmed over the past 20 years: "Our study (NASA) proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth" . Further, a May 2007 Nature paper shows that precipitation increases 6.5% per degree C rise, not the 1-3% used in models, making the Earth 3X wetter than models forecast. Deserts, as is known for prior warm periods, will be wetter, not drier. In the warm coastal farm lands near Guayaquil, Ecuador (near the equator) are many greenhouses, and in the cooler elevations, they are everywhere. This makes it clear how bad warming might be for agriculture. (Mez353 thinks he meant to say how bad cooling may be for agriculture here)
■More People Die from the Cold than From Heat and no Place on Earth is too Hot for Humans. In Europe, more than 200,000 people die from excess heat while 1.5 million people die from excess cold (Source: Lomborg 2007 ), a point left out of most assessments. For the US, the net lower death count from global warming in 2050 is estimated at 174,000 per year (Citation in Lomborg 2007).

www.climatecooling.org...

Older Climate Change News - Starting in 1895-2006
■New York Times, Feb 24, 1895 - Prospects of Another Glacial Period
■New York Times, Dec 7, 1905 - Amundsen Navigates Northwest Passage
■New York Times Oct 7, 1912 - Sees Glacial Era Coming
■New York Times Apr 6, 1919 - Do you Think our Climate is Changing?
■New York Times May 15, 1932 - Melting Polar Ice Caps
■New York Times May 5, 1946 - Top of the World (book review includes NW passage made during WWII). Need subscription or pay.

OK, so far you've ignored all refutation of the claims you've made, and have preferred to just regurgitate more BS.

A nice example of denialism in action. I'll let Lib waste his time with you if he feels masochistic.

Cheers.

I have tried. We all have tried, you just have a blanketed view. Like your Master you see what you want to see and will not entertain a different point of view. I hope that you are comfortable siding with the egotistical IPCC, the liars and cheats of the UEA CRC and good ol' Al.

To reiterate, most of us on this thread believe the climate is changing but we believe that this is a constant. We do not believe that the planet is warming in unison, rather we accept that some areas may be warming whilst others are cooling. Most if not all of us think that ramming Global Warming down our throats based on 'settled science' closes the door on any discussion and we will not accept that. We also think that GW is another mechansim whereby the PTB can pursue other policies (tax, war, one world government). We have the ability to see through the BS and we are proud to be skeptical because it means that we've not succumbed to the brainwashing.

Now please sitpatiently in your kennel before Libby arrives, there's a good boy.

reply to post by Mez353

Have you ever spent any time in the British Isles? It can be rather a depressing place alot of the time due to the cool and wet climate. If I did believe that warming was actually occurring (sitting here freezing my nuts off throughout record low temperatures in November and early December makes me think otherwise) I'd actually say it was a good thing.

Boy you can say that again!

I just looked out the window and it is SNOWING!!! I am in North Carolina and it snows here about once every five years... In January. I do not even own snow tires.

Last year we had FIVE, count them FIVE snow storms and now on Dec 4 a few days after Thanksgiving it is SNOWING - HARD! It looks like New Hampshire out there

Face it, the 60 year cycle has headed back towards cooler weather after a 30 year run.

This is what happens if you ask a question at a UN conference about global warming (and note that Schneider butters both sides of his toast. 'As NewsBusters reported in October, he appeared in a 1978 television program warning Americans of a coming Ice Age')


Scientist Uses UN Security To Stop Questions About ClimateGate
December 11th, 2009 (5) Posted By Erik Wong.

A Stanford professor with ties to Nobel Laureate Al Gore and the growing ClimateGate scandal used United Nations security officials at the climate conference in Copenhagen to halt questions about e-mail messages obtained from Britain’s Climatic Research Unit.

Dr. Stephen Schneider was speaking at the Bella Centre Thursday when Irish journalist Phelim McAleer began asking about ClimateGate.

McAleer is known for his documentary “Not Evil, Just Wrong,” which challenged the content of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” as well as for confronting the former Vice President during a lecture in October only to have his microphone turned off.

patdollard.com...

Originally posted by Mez353
We have the ability to see through the BS and we are proud to be skeptical because it means that we've not succumbed to the brainwashing.

Denialism is not skepticism.

I know you might prefer to pretend you are a skeptic, but you're not.

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, so far you've ignored all refutation of the claims you've made, and have preferred to just regurgitate more BS.

A nice example of denialism in action. I'll let Lib waste his time with you if he feels masochistic.

Cheers.

Okay I'll start with the recovery from the last Ice Age AKA rebounding theory.

15c.) Intellectual Property: You will not Post any copyrighted material owned by others, material belonging to another person, material previously Posted by you on another website, or link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution*, as defined by TAN, to its original source. You will not Post any material that infringes, misappropriates, or violates any patent, trademark, trade secret, or other proprietary rights of TAN or any third party. You will not use your Postings on the Websites to promote your own personal website or any other website with which you may be associated without first receiving permission from TAN.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Mez353
We have the ability to see through the BS and we are proud to be skeptical because it means that we've not succumbed to the brainwashing.

Denialism is not skepticism.

I know you might prefer to pretend you are a skeptic, but you're not.

edit on 4-12-2010 by melatonin because: (no reason given)

In your opinion but not the one that matters to me most, mine. You have made it clear in past postings that you cannot consider another point of view and have done so yet again. You really are a priceless work of art.

reply to post by Mez353


That's not even relevant, lol.

The rebounding talked about there is the earth's crust, not climate. And it's not about the little ice-age which is what your comment referred to, but the last actual ice-age.

Effectively, large ice masses are heavy. The cause the earth's crust to 'indent'. When the ice masses melt/retreat the crust rebounds.

The only relevance to climate is that these scientists suggest their data has implications for future sea level rises.

Absolutely nothing to do with temperatures rebounding/recovering from the little ice age.


ABE:

Originally posted by Mez353
In your opinion but not the one that matters to me most, mine. You have made it clear in past postings that you cannot consider another point of view and have done so yet again. You really are a priceless work of art.

lolwut?

So even though I've actually responded to most of your BS, while you have ignored the responses and posted more BS; it's me who can't consider another point of view?

Heh.

I have studied the data on climate since the 1970's.
Remember then? When the world was going to become an iceball unless we did something immediately?

Has no-one noticed that the "staff of scientific proof and enlightenment"-----I.E. the hockey stick graph you have been bludgeoned with-----fails to show any cooling?

Anyone notice that the "facts agreed upon by every scientist worldwide" ----I.E. Global warming-----failed so badly that the term had to be changed to "Global Climate Change!!!" to keep the failed industry afloat in grants and donations?

Any reasonable person question that the data of a couple dozen radical theorists has been taken as proven fact by the thousand or so others, and used by them for their own models without any verification of those theories?

Did anyone notice that the main body of investors and creators of the carbon tax scheme cashed out at the top of the market?

Glaringly obvious to those who didn't turn a blind eye are the admissions that a cooling of global temperatures has been ongoing since 1995, and that the Melting of the Himalayan glaciers data was all based on an opinion, not on a study of any kind.

Did you notice that between 70 and 85 percent (depending on who you ask) of the world population is exempt from any "greenhouse gas" limits or regulations?

Please refrain from insulting my intelligence any further. I have studied the raw ice core data, and find the resulting conclusions by those who stand to profit from the field of tax scheming contrary to the facts and insulting to those who actually look at the data and conclude that the climate does change on a cyclical basis, and 1 large volcanic eruption can do more to change climate than 50,000 years of human occupation.

reply to post by melatonin

Denialism is not skepticism. I know you might prefer to pretend you are a skeptic, but you're not.

I am glad you recognize what YOU are, a denier of real science.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
I am glad you recognize what YOU are, a denier of real science.

Yeah, because 'real' science requires the complex methodology of looking out your window and seeing if it's snowing in winter and noting you don't own snow tires, lol

Yeah, it's true. I deny what you think is real science is anything of the sort.

Melatonin didn't understand the article concerning rebounding (a point he asked me to tackle). The article addresses the need for revising the estimates of predicted ice loss due to global warming but he thinks it's not relevent to this discussion. Either that or he didn't understand (or switched off after reading) the first sentence which stated 'Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists'.

What did I say about his singular point of view? So here's another, again from www.climatecooling.org... about the modelling which he asked me to discuss.

We know that the Earth's temperature and the level of CO2 rise and fall roughly together, but it is not clear (not proven) whether this is cause and effect by either variable. In a first attempt to use a CO2 - based model to predict temperatures, the results are not impressive at all and are exactly opposite observations.


Despite what the newspapers say, the cause of the temperature rise, and therefore the future course, is settled only within the consensus group of scientists. This is based on work of computer modelers, believing their increasingly complex models show the cause is due to man's activities and that there will be increasing temperatures according to how much additional greenhouse gases are emitted.
TScience News: Chilling Possibilities. Here are many other scientists who are non-modelers, many with backgrounds as atmospheric physicists, climatologists, engineers, meteorologists, and paleo-climatologists, who do not believe the primary cause is mankind, although this could be part of it. Most of these scientists believe that the sun is at the root of the warming (if any), but that other factors are also at work.

Originally posted by Mez353
Melatonin didn't understand the article concerning rebounding (a point he asked me to tackle).

It's just not relevant. This was your comment:

Given no thought to the fact that any warming is largely recovery from the Little Ice age

The article is about isostatic rebound of the Earth's crust, and how this may relate to sea level rises. Says nothing about how warming is or is not due to a recovery from the LIA.

And then you decide to regurgitate more denier memes, lol.

reply to post by gotrox

Did anyone notice that the main body of investors and creators of the carbon tax scheme cashed out at the top of the market?

You missed one

Did you notice who was BEHIND Global warming?

1972 First Earth Summit -Where Chair Maurice Strong first brought up "Global Warming"
Strong - at 25, Vice President of Dome Petroleum: at 31 President of Power Corporation of Canada. headed Petro Canada and Hydro Canada, Senior Advisor to the World Bank and Rockefeller fund Trustee.

Then check out Ged Davis - 30 yr Shell Ex on the IPCC and his Senerio B1 Sustainability (Agenda 21)

Not to mention Lord Stern (banks) and Tony Blair (banks)

And of course our beloved CRU that was started and continued to be funded by Shell and BP.

If you REALLY want to see the Money Connection then look at what BP was up to the last time they were in the President's office from an eyewitness reporter

BP’s Excellent Oval Office Adventure

...The more relevant figure is 4,700. If my quick calculation has it right, that’s the number of days since the last time a BP CEO was in the Oval Office.

On that day, August 4, 1997, then-CEO, (then-Sir) John Browne, joined by Ken Lay, met in the Oval with President Clinton and Vice President Gore.

Their mission that day? As revealed in the August 1, 1997 Lay briefing memo which I was later provided — having left a brief dance with Enron after raising questions about this very issue — it was to demand that the White House ignore unanimous Senate instruction pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution (“advice”, of “advice and consent” fame), and to go to Kyoto and agree to the “global warming” treaty.

Oh, and to enact a cap-and-trade scheme....

Now what was that about the Deniers and Big Oil?