Temp Refusing To Follow AGW Predictions [Pic+]

Submitted by: 5cats 4 years ago in Science

It"s now outside the predicted range entirely, in just a few years. Teh science = unsettled.
There are 280 comments:
Male 884
As I suspected, no answer.
0
Reply
Male 884
So I found this
http://tinyurl.com/cfa3ltt

Which I assumed was an April fool until I followed the link to a pear reviewed paper which stated that cooler, denser, water floated to the top.
0
Reply
Male 884
Sorry, as a physicist, I need to know.
0
Reply
Male 884
So, what else is heating the earth?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
"So you agree that all global warming is caused by the Sun and that we are talking about things that cause the earth to cool?"

Of course I don`t agree that "all global warming is caused by the Sun." You are continuing to confuse global solar input (the energy radiated to Earth in terms of light and heat) and global warming, the INCREASE in temperature the Earth has recently experienced. Per Merriam-Webster: "Global warming: an increase in the earth`s atmospheric and oceanic temperatures...."

If you are either unable to understand or unwilling to accept what the definition of global warming is, it is not possible for us to discuss global warming.

Earlier you had suggested that we should probably agree to disagree and I now concur. I am sure that both of us have better things to do than to circle endlessly in a conversation that is unproductive.

Take care and I`ll see you `round the website.
0
Reply
Male 884
So you agree that all global warming is caused by the Sun and that we are talking about things that cause the earth to cool?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
I would certainly agree that the Sun is virtually the sole provider of the Earth`s heat. I wouldn`t, however, describe the Sun as the "controller" of Earth`s temperature due to the massive role the greenhouse effect plays, as can be seen by the contrasts offered by our neighboring planets, Venus (runaway greenhouse effect) and Mars (virtually no greenhouse effect).

As I said in my last post, we need to be in agreement as to what is meant by "global warming," the recent INCREASE in the Earth`s temperature over the last 100 years. Are we in agreement with that definition?
0
Reply
Male 884
So you are now denying that the Sun is the major force in controlling the earth`s temperature?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
An-egg, I thought we were discussing global warming, which by definition is the INCREASE in Earth`s temperature over the last 100 years or so. The Earth`s uptake of solar energy, what might be called global solar input, is a separate but related matter. I`m hoping we can agree here on the difference between the two because having a discussion about global warming would otherwise be all but impossible.

So, yes, let`s get that fundamental covered. Are we agreed as to what is meant by "global warming"?
0
Reply
Male 884
You don`t seem to understand. You said that the Sun wasn`t behind global warming.

Anything else we discuss is concerned with the rate at which the earth cools, by re-radiating energy from the Sun. The only thing warming the planet in any measurable way is the Sun.

Remember, the fundamentals.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

I`ve been saying I`d like to address the fundamentals with you, and your willingness to believe the Sun is behind global warming points to a bit of a gap in knowledge about the whole endeavor.

I have to ask: You really thought that with thousands of climatologist, planetary scientists, and physicists working the issue of AGW and writing and critiquing papers, none of them thought to ask, "Maybe this warming is caused by the Sun?"

This is one of the very first things that was looked at as a possible cause, and it`s re-examined at every IPCC conference.

But the AGW "skeptic" blogs, Fox News, and others, seize upon this possible explanation as if it`s something that`s never occurred to anyone before. "Aha! They FORGOT about that!" ~sigh~

I`m leaving on a trip for the holiday, but should be back by late Sunday evening if you want to discuss further. Have a good Easter.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

How is this possible if the planets are heating? you ask. A lot of things other than solar radiation determine how warm a body is in our solar system: its reflectivity, its position in an elliptical orbit, the mixing of gases on its surface caused by storms--and, yes, the greenhouse effect.

Here`s a graph charting the level of energy being released by the Sun and the warming Earth has been experiencing. You`ll note that since about 1960, the Sun has been in a steady or declining state. While Earth has been warming.



(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Sure. Let`s put to rest this "It`s the Sun" myth (which I hear time and time again). You are familiar with the inverse square law of radiated energy, I`m sure. You halve the distance to the source (i.e., divide by 2), and you get a four-fold increase in energy (2 squared). We observe this every day when moving closer to a light source, like a table lamp.

Pluto (recently declassified as a planet, but still a recipient of solar energy all the same) is warming slightly. A-ha! You say, See: It`s the Sun! Not so fast: Mercury, which is our closest planet to the Sun, isn`t warming at all. If the warming of Pluto (and Earth) was being caused by the Sun, Mercury should be virtually on fire. Yet it`s temperature is unchanged.

But as I`ve already stated, this whole train of thought is off the tracks. We *know* how much energy the Sun is releasing: we have satellites that measure it. And for 35 years, it`s been decreasing.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 884
"The myth that the Sun is behind global warming is what`s behind the "Warming Planets" canard."

Really, you have evidence that something other than the Sun is warming the earth in any meaningful way?

Let`s address the fundamentals.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

As I`ve been saying, I`d like to address the fundamentals with you. And the best way I know how to do that is to describe the situation as you understand it. This is not a trick. Not a trap. Okay? Let`s both put aside the insults.

Here`s how I think you see it:

"Global Warming is an infant science, a pseudo-science, really, that was started recently by a small group of elitist "scientists." For the past decade or more, none of their predictions have been accurate and it`s becoming obvious that global warming is a big hoax to allow the government to tax us more and control our lives. The people responsible for this never share their data with the public and they`re dishonest. When their emails were recently uncovered and it was found they were trying to "hide the decline" of global temperatures, it was all exposed for the fraud it is."

Have I got that right? Anything you`d like to add?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
An-egg, I have no "fervor," as you call it. I thought it might be worthwhile if I gave you a little background on the subject and you can do whatever you want with it, even use it to attack AGW more knowledgeably if you want.

I`d prefer to do this by addressing the fundamentals first, but since you`re complaining I`m not answering questions, I`ll answer your latest (about global warming; I see no point in us going into the Laws of Motion).

The myth that the Sun is behind global warming is what`s behind the "Warming Planets" canard. In fact, Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and Uranus is actually cooling. But regardless: the Sun has recently been COOLING. For the past 35 years, the Sun and the Earth climate have been moving in opposite directions (Sun cooling, the Earth warming).

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 884
So here we go. You claim to understand, here are a few questions:

What happens to an object if you apply a force to it?

(next after your answer.)



0
Reply
Male 884
I am afraid that we will have to agree to differ as your understanding of science doesn`t allow for dissenting views.
0
Reply
Male 884
You don`t seem to get it. I was once on a train with a Christian Fundamentalist who wanted to convert me, he banged on and on with no real answers.

Look at your zeal.

Look at your fervor.

You believe that you can convert me because I don`t understand the true way.

You believe that I am uninformed, however there are many other reasons for global warming. The sun and the warming of all the solar planets for one.

You don`t answer any of my arguments, because in your eyes I am the prol, simply because I am an unbeliever.

Look back over the thread, I presented arguments that you didn`t dispute or if you did then you simply said that they were invalid, I read your article and you said that you didn`t want to go there (cherry picking).

Were you formerly a Jehovah`s Witness who has found a new calling?

Your faith is admirable, your openness to criticism less so.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Hi, there. (I guess it doesn`t make sense to label these posts @Squrlz and @An-egg because I`m 99.9998% certain we are the only two people still clicking on this thread. Anyway.)

So, no, you`re not really getting it, and I`m not being insulting there in saying that. Do you have time for a back-and-forth discussion here? Do you have an hour? That`s probably all that`s needed. I`m not sure I want to launch into the topic if it`s going to be done in 1,000 character teaspoons every 24 hours. That`s why I was suggesting you call; but no worries, we can do this in text here. I`d just like to be able to have a sustained conversation.
0
Reply
Male 884
It cut off one word, and that word was

right?
0
Reply
Male 884
"All too often, what happens is that a reporter, hostile to the topic, presents some smaller picture of the whole and either distorts it or misinterprets it, as is the case with this *Mail* story."

You see, here is my problem. The data is the data. If somebody with an opinion contrary to your own uses a different subset of the data than the subset that you choose to use to come to a different conclusion, that doesn`t make that person wrong.

Having a different opinion on the cause of any global warming that may be taking place doesn`t constitute a misconception.

This is exactly why I said that it was like a religion.

As far as I can see the two crimes that the Mail article is guilty of are not properly crediting the source of the data used and disagreeing with your high priests as only they are allowed to interpret any data for the poor common man who is too stupid or lazy to understand it on his own.

That`s what you were saying,
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

I was thinking about this exchange of ours this morning, and it occurred to me that you were very likely to leave the discussion having learned little that you didn`t already know. That would be a huge pity, and I think I have myself to blame.

I was so condescending in my early responses that it created an adversarial tone that we have yet to recover from.

From your earlier comments and questions, I can see that you harbor a lot of misconceptions regarding the science of climate change. That`s no surprise: Fox News and other outlets spend an enormous amount of energy to skew the public`s perceptions and they have been very successful at it.

I`d like to teach you a little more about the topic tonight. I doubt it would take all that long: I`m not an expert, only a fairly well-read member of the public. You can use the information however you see fit--even to argue more effectively against AGW.

Thoughts?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Here`s the thing: Climate change is not easy to understand. It`s a complex topic, built upon a lot of physics and statistics and most of the public doesn`t have the ability or interest to assimilate what`s in the scientific papers that are published on the topic. All too often, what happens is that a reporter, hostile to the topic, presents some smaller picture of the whole and either distorts it or misinterprets it, as is the case with this *Mail* story. If you look at the papers that were published, and how the data in them is often distorted, or misinterpreted, I think you`ll find that the popular press, particularly the conservative popular press, is the side that has committed the overwhelming majority of instances of cherry picking.

But I`d like to put aside the whole issue of cherry picking. Quite honestly, I think we have more important things to discuss.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: You`re still with me here; that`s awesome. I`m in a diner on an iPhone. I`ll be back in my office in 30 mins and I`ll respond at length then.
0
Reply
Male 884
So you don`t dispute that one side cherry picked data and the other side did the same?

Just checking that you are still paying attention.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: I`ll respectfully note that skepticism regarding the models is sensible. It only makes sense to ask, "Hey, if they`ve been publishing predictions over the past 20 years, just how accurate have those predictions been?"

There are several thousand scientists working internationally on the IPCC reports. So it won`t surprise you, I don`t think, to know that there is a team of scientists that address exactly that question: "How good have the predictions been? How have our published predictions based on the models compared to reality?" That`s a standard part of every one of the IPCC conferences.

If you`re interested, I can show you a chart that compares the four model-based predictions of the IPCC against actual temperatures. Interested? (This is not a trick question; I`m trying to invite discussion.)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Also, this isn`t about the *Mail* cherry picking data. It`s about the *Mail*`s article`s author either not understanding what the chart is showing or choosing to misrepresent it (I won`t presume to know which).

Also, you seem to be very skeptical of the models and still don`t quite understand how they work (on a high-level). The fact of the matter (you probably won`t believe me, but on the off chance you will) is the the models that have been produced in the past 20 years have been exceedingly accurate. In fact, the main problem with the models of the IPCC is that they *underestimated* the rate of warming. In other words, the main problem with the models to date is that they have been *too* conservative: global warming has been occurring *faster* than most climatologists were predicting in the 1990s.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
An-egg: You know, I`m not trying to trap you here. It isn`t a trick question. I thought you wanted to discuss the topic. Apparently not.
0
Reply
Male 884
Obviously I will not answer your question as you misrepresent anything I or anyone else that you disagree with says.

I understand the confidence band;

I understand that the Mail cherry picked data;

I understand that the article that you posted also cherry picked data;

So, one side used a subset of the data and the other used a different subset for theirs.

What problem do you have? I know that I can prove almost anything with manipulated data, can`t you?

0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: confidence *band: forgive the typo.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@AnEgg: I`ve been trying, very hard, to have an intelligent conversation with you and that pretty much seems impossible. Let`s try a new tactic: I`ll ask you a very focused question and see if I can get a germane response.

So, you finally read the analysis of the *Mail* article. That`s encouraging. So, here`s a focused question for starters:

Don`t you find it the least bit odd that the *Mail* article`s author proclaims "The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated"--when, in fact, the graph is showing just the opposite: that global land temperatures (ignoring ocean temperature`s for the time being) are tracking in accordance with the model?

The trend line hasn`t left the 90% confidence banc (the *Mail* author mistakenly calls it a 95% band): something that the model predicts will happen 10% of the time, or one year in 10.

Response?

0
Reply
Male 884
So I read your tawdry little column.

What you`re trying to suggest is that one party is cherry picking data because you don`t like his results and that the cherry picked data that you present is the real answer.

Really?

Is this not lies, damned lies and statistics?

Also he cites quotations out of context, how does this compare to slandering journalists for stating facts, proven in court, as lies?

You lie and present falsehoods as your argument.

Go away troll.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: All the questions you`ve raised have been addressed by this link. For whatever reason, you refuse to take the time to read the information I provided, insisting I reproduce, in my own words, the information here in 1,000 character snippets.

Rather than do that, I have *twice* provided you with a telephone number so that we could discuss the information; you refuse to call.

So, I`ve provided answers to your questions, but you refuse to read the answers. I`ve offered to discuss the material with you, but you refuse to call. Were I even to accede to this sense of entitlement you seem to have, and spend an hour of my time responding to your questions, you`ve already stated that you will believe nothing I state because I am "a credentialed liar" (your words).

I don`t know how to help you, friend.
0
Reply
Male 884
@Squrlz4Sale
Just as you tried to discredit the Telegraph article as lies, only to have to take it back when you, yourself then proved it was true and that you just didn`t like the way it was written, you now try to discredit me as a liar, without a shred of proof.

I didn`t really expect any answers, I did expect more insults.

I am not calling you as I am sure you will misrepresent anything that is discussed as you did the article and me.

Were you an evangelical bible thumper, I wouldn`t call you either for the same reason.

You have no argument; you say things without a shred of evidence, and things which are demonstrably untrue; and you hold dogmatic views unswayed by evidence to the contrary. What would I possibly have to talk to you about?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

In terms of me helping you understand the material, we could either type our little fingers off here in 1,000 character snippets--OR you could give me a call at 610-616-5821. That`s a special burner number that I`ve created just for you tonight and it`s good for 90 minutes of talk time.

Same deal as the deal I offered last night (which you refused to accept): Call with an unblocked number, I`ll answer, and we`ll have a collegial discussion.

What do you say?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Now, my eccentric friend sans-college degree, let me make something perfectly clear. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who doesn`t have a degree. Plenty of smart people don`t and they go on and do great things. But I don`t have a lot of patience with someone pretending to be something they`re not. And I don`t have a lot of patience with someone who refuses to look at things with a curious mind and who is unwilling to learn.

I`ve been resistant to spoon-feeding you on remedial science and AGW 101 because it is time-consuming, really, and it`s not clear you`d either appreciate it or benefit from it.

That said, if you`ll stop pretending you`re something you`re not and lose the nasty attitude, I`d be willing to spend an hour of my time helping you understand the serious flaws in this *Mail* article.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Well, you`re back! This is exciting. And I see you`re back to being a physicist again. Physicist, high school teacher with an unnamed degree from a "faraway" place, physicist again. So hard to keep up with you there.

Yes, you did indeed call me a "charlatan"--as well as "liar," "shill," and "maniac". But I think calling me a "charlatan" was the boldest of them all, since you said it shortly after it came out that you were misrepresenting yourself as a physicist to attack the work of actual scientists.

Oh, but wait. Your a physicist again tonight. I forgot. =^.^=

Kidding aside, An-egg, I`ll tell you why you`re so worked up over all this. You aren`t a physicist. You aren`t a high school teacher. And you don`t have a college degree. This is as plain as the nose on your face, and that fact is eating at you. Sorry about that.
0
Reply
Male 884
)
0
Reply
Male 884
`t. You lied about the Telegraph article being false, you lied about me not being a physicist (you have no, absolutely none, evidence, you lie about whatever suits your cause.

I hope that your church of the global-warmongers accepts liars.
0
Reply
Male 884
@Squrlz4Sale
I challenge you to refute the original post;
I challenge you to deny that the UN is using a flawed model (based on 20 models);
I challenge you to dispute that policy is being made on spurious information by governments;
I challenge you to defend the model of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" that is being used by politicians, Al Gore just called for a carbon tax, (hint, it is probably the UN model)to increase our taxes.

Do these things and I will apologize for calling you a shill. (I don`t believe I ever said charlatan, it`s just not a word I like to use.)

Liar: proven liar, yes. Charlatan: unlikely, of course, you can do a search and it might be there but that won`t get you off the questions.

PS I don`t expect an answer to my questions, I expect some kind of smoke screen regarding my qualifications to ask them.

I expect no answers from you. When challenged, you say that the source is a lie, even if it isn
0
Reply
Male 884
Squrlz4Sale
I think you need a new name that reflects the drugs that you take so that your view of the world is aligned with what actually happened.
0
Reply
Male 884
@ Squrlz4Sale do you have some kind of learning disorder?
I am a physicist, I have a friend who is a TV weatherman;
You did lie and didn`t apologize;
If anyone reads the thread they will see that you just make things up;
your MO seems to be to lie to discredit anyone who disagrees with you: The OP (I defy you to dispute anything that article said), the Telegraph (the best selling broadsheet in the UK, and you admitted that lie);
your summary of our conversation. The record speaks for itself.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

* * *

So, CrakrJak, there you have it. "Nice try at slander," you wrote, "but you fail once again."

Hardly. For charges to constitute slander, they have to be untrue. As I`ve demonstrated, Spencer IS "the darling of Fox News" and IS "the Official Climatologist of `The Rush Limbaugh Show.`"

You`re right about one thing, though, CJ: Someone failed--but it wasn`t me. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

In his author bio for the piece (see below), Spencer describes himself as--or at the very least, was satisfied with the editor`s description of him as--the "official climatologist for The Rush Limbaugh Show."



Above: Spencer`s author bio for his glowing tribute to Rush.

This billing is something Limbaugh himself uses whenever referring to Spencer, as shown in this clip.

VERDICT: True. While you might expect an ostensibly objective scientist to shy away from any connection with the highly-partisan Rush Limbaugh Show, Dr. Spencer has embraced that connection and appears to be proud of the title bestowed upon him by Limbaugh as the show`s "official climatologist."

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

#2. "The Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show"
Since there are so few climatologists who disagree with AGW, Spencer is in high demand--not just from Fox, but from every "skeptic" organization airing anti-AGW stories. Chief among them is "The Rush Limbaugh Show," on which Spencer frequently appears. It`s a very cozy relationship. Four years ago, on the 20th anniversary of Limbaugh`s radio show, Spencer wrote this encomium for *The National Review Online*. In it, Spencer gets misty-eyed: "Many of us remember the first time we heard Rush as the moment when we finally found someone who was able to express the things that we were thinking."

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)



Above: The Google search on "Roy Spencer and Fox News" returns hit after hit.

VERDICT: True. It`s fair, if a little dismissive, to call Spencer "the darling of Fox News." Without him, the network wouldn`t be able to air many of their "skeptic" stories in a convincing manner. You need a scientist (even a bad one) to question other scientists, and Dr. Spencer fills the bill.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Enter Roy Spencer. Driven by his creationist and Evangelical views, he believes the world could not possibly have been created by God in a way that would leave it vulnerable to the activities of man--ergo, he finds all AGW research flawed. Never camera shy, he is happy to appear on Fox again and again to say so, basing his critiques on questionable or even mistaken interpretations of the data.

A quick Google search on "Roy Spencer Fox News" for just the past 12 months returns page upon page of hits (see below), each linking to an appearance of Spencer on the network where he served as the expert arguing that virtually everyone else in the field is mistaken. As one might expect, the foundation of his scientific outlook--his creationist and Evangelical beliefs--is not brought up in these interviews since it might undercut his appearance of scientific impartiality.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CrakrJak: Well, CJ, it looks like you get my time today since An-egg has withdrawn his questions.

Regarding my post, you wrote: "Dr. Spencer doesn`t work for Limbaugh or Fox News, nice try at the slander, but you fail once again."

Perhaps you misread my post, but I didn`t say he "works for" Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. Rather, I said he was "the darling of Fox News, and `the Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show.`"

Let`s see if those charges are true.

#1. "The darling of Fox News"
As we both know, Fox is a major source of climate change "skeptic" information, rarely missing a chance to mock the work of the vast majority of climatologists. The problem is, it`s hard to attack AGW science without an outlier scientist who`s willing to argue that 97% of the field`s other scientists are mistaken. Such outlier scientists are, of course, few and far between.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: What happened to your post from last night with the three questions? I logged on early this morning, saw them, and with this snow, an hour`s come up in my schedule. I just sat down here, wound up my timer--and it appears you`ve deleted your post.

That`s a pity because I was looking forward to getting into the science with you. If you still have an interest, put them back up, and I`ll see if I can answer them for you.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Squrlz: Dr. Spencer doesn`t work for Limbaugh or Fox News, nice try at the slander, but you fail once again.

jkfld: Your supposed `connections`, come from the radical left group Think Progress, which has a very bad track record playing fast and loose, making `connections` with half-truths and tenuous associations. They are a child organization of Center for American Progress (CAP) which is heavily funded by socialist billionaire George Soros.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@Squrlz4: Thanks for accepting! I was shocked at myself when I re-read some of my comments. I didn`t remember them being THAT nasty. Far more so than was called for.
I do try to behave myself! This time I slipped up.

A little "faux paw" by me ;-)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: Apology accepted. Thank you for that; I appreciate it more than you know.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@davymid: That multi-posting thing happens to you a lot? Must be "ghosts" in your computer...

@Squrlz4: Sorry I was rude, it was late and I got all grumpy. I apologize sincerely.

But you`re still wrong... :-p
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Sorry, not why why that reposted my earlier question. Not intentional. IAB for ya. Deleted it now.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CrakrJak: Ahhh, yes, Dr. Roy Spencer: the AGW "skeptic" who is a creationist, the darling of FOX News, and "the Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show."

CJ, we`ve been down this path before. Spencer is a well-known crank.

But that`s fine, CJ. Since you`re a creationist yourself, I`d expect you to throw your hat in with him, and I well know that nothing--and I mean *nothing*--that I state or link to is going to change your opinion.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
With all due respect Squrlz, A NASA scientist and builder of the satellite that is measuring air and sea surface temperatures (AMSU on the Aqua satellite), Roy Spencer PhD. (former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies for NASA), has a much different opinion.

Roy Spencer PhD

And before the slander starts, he`s not paid by any oil companies.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

For my part, I erred in describing a story on *An Inconvenient Truth* as "entirely untrue"--many of the story`s details are, in fact, accurate and I admitted the mistake. This didn`t stop An-egg, however, from calling me a liar the rest of the night.

Also, I called An-egg a liar for claiming to be a physicist. I`d apologize for that now--only it turns out he was, indeed, misrepresenting himself and is not a physicist. Rather, as he eventually explained, "one of (his) best friends is a TV weatherman."
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CrakrJak: "Anyways, the `science` isn`t settled and in fact it`s been leaning the anti-AGW direction even among non-skeptics."

With all due respect, CJ, NASA disagrees with you.

You`re right, however, about it getting personal. Between An-egg and 5Cats, I was called a "credentialed liar," a "charlatan," a "maniac," a "shill," "mentally unstable," and charged with "moral cowardice" and "liberal hypocrisy."

It was quite a show.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Wow, this thread added 5 pages since I last looked at it.

Not going to read through all of it, but apparently it was getting personal.

Anyways, the "science" isn`t settled and in fact it`s been leaning the anti-AGW direction even among non-skeptics.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Davymid: I`m down with that. `Night, all. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Here`s a f*cked up idea. How about we all calm the f*ck down, no-one phones anyone, and we all go to bed for the night and pick this up tomorrow? I for one plan to lead by example.

*davy takes off his Moderator hat and puts on his pajamas*
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@Squrlz4: I ask you directly:

How much alcohol have you had to drink tonight.

Have you taken your medication today?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote] My plan doesn`t have international calling. I`m sorry about that.[/quote]
That is a chickenshiite excuse! What sort of coward are you?
A couple of bucks may mean noting to you, but I am on a FIXED income! Every dollar spent outside "the budget" means one less dollar for FOOD!
Do. You. Understand. This. Concept?

Your moral cowardice is only matched by your liberal hypocrisy! And it pains me to say that because I like you.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: All right; goodnight. It would be nice if we can chat tomorrow, perhaps a little more calmly, OK?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: I don`t "refuse" to speak to you on the telephone. I can`t. My plan doesn`t have international calling. I`m sorry about that.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Seriously? THAT is your "best defense"?

OMG dude, you really need to sober up.

99% certain this can wait until morning...

Over and out.

(Since you refuse to speak to me on the telephone)
(Yes that is an unfair and nasty attack, so what? He invited it!)
(Yeah I like him, but if he acts like an idiot? I treat him like an idiot...)
(SURE he`s been really mean to me in the past, but I`m above "all that" and willing to forgive him)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: 5Cats? Seriously: take it down a notch. I have no idea why you are getting so worked up. No one`s mocking any disease you may or may not have. Deep breaths there, man.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]I`m afraid we`re limited to these messages here.[/quote]
You lost a LOT of respect with that remark @Squrlz4. I just don`t know what to say. Disappointment...
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d from last post)

... this stuff is comedy gold.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: Before going further here, allow me to set the record straight in regards to the charges of lying (something you just claimed I have "a history" of, 5Cats).

In the course of this entire saga of a thread, I`m aware of making only one inaccurate statement. I referred to a hatchet job piece in the *Telegraph* as "entirely untrue." I was wrong: some of the inaccuracies in Al Gore`s movie it cites are accurate. Several hours ago, I admitted my error:

[quote]I should not have called the *Telegraph* hatchet job "entirely untrue." I should have called it "a gross distortion of what happened in court, designed to deceive the gullible."[/quote]

Despite my admission of error, An-egg seemed peculiarly fixated on it, and spent much of the rest of the conversation calling me a liar.

Then, curiously enough, late in the thread, An-egg admitted that he had been misrepresenting himself as a physicist all along. Honestly,
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Also: IAB "chat" seems to be broken at the moment...
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@Squrlz4: Unless you have an "excuse" like "I was drunk at the time" Your actions are, in fact, inexcusable...

Really dude, you`ve gone too far! You`ve crossed the Rubicon! You have dratEDUP on an epic scale!

Stones? Glass houses? You have NO IDEA what you`re talking about. 99% guaranteed. My disease is not only "common" it`s "life threatening" an for you to mock it makes my blood boil...
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: Unfortunately, 5Cats, my Verizon phone plan doesn`t have international calling on it. So as much as I would cherish a phone conversation with you, I`m afraid we`re limited to these messages here.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@davymid: I admire your restraint in this matter. I KNOW you are one of the "good folks" at IAB...

Me? Double BA: English and Psychology.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
~looking to the ceiling~

OMG, this just gets better and better.

@5Cats: 5Cats, I`m not mocking your disease. If you`ll take a look at the record, you`ll see that you`re the one who made the accusations of "mental instability," not me. I simply stated, in effect, that a person living in a glass house shouldn`t be throwing stones.

Deep breath there, kitty.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]@5cats it is saying things that are untrue.[/quote]
@An-egg: Yuppers, @Squrlz4 is indeed doing that. He has a history, you know?
Still, he`s an OK guy and allowed to be an idiot. I`m sure you`ll agree...

[quote]@5Cats: You know, little buddy: Of all the people on here, I would think you`d be the LAST one to start slinging around the phrase "mentally unstable."[/quote]
@Squrlz4: I KNOW WHAT MENTAL ILLNESS IS! You dare to mock my disease? I can spot a schizophrenic, delusional or otherwise mentally ill person at a MILE AWAY!
You have NO IDEA!
"It takes one to know one"? Yeah. I`m there dude! To want to challenge ME? Go "head to head"?
BRING IT!
I`d call your phone if I could reverse the charges since I`m FREAKING POOR and have no resources.
Invite me once? I`ll dial...
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Have a good night.
0
Reply
Male 884
Nighty night. Fix your comprehension and we`ll share.
0
Reply
Male 884
Doubt it. You don`t seem to understand much.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: "Well, I`ll try to explain, you answer one of the questions that I asked (given that I answered all yours) and I`ll help (It will be hard for you to understand because I got my degrees in a far away place)"

I don`t get this. What you extended was an implied gentleman`s agreement (You first, Me second), which I accepted. And now you`re not honoring it? What are your degrees, please? You raised the subject, I went first, and now it`s your turn.

If you got your degrees in a "faraway place," no worries. I`ve lived abroad (in northern Europe) and have travelled a great deal in Asia. I`m sure I can manage to understand.
0
Reply
Male 884
@jkfld Squrlz4Sale has exposed himself as a liar who manipulates information to suit his cause. I doubt I can do better than that.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@jkfld: Thanks. As I`ve said before, these discussions tend to be like playing Whack-a-Mole: the same distortions and misunderstandings get presented again and again and again.

I do regret that I am not as patient as I could be or should be. But really, when a person attacks scientific work through ignorance and is impervious to gaining a real understanding of the topic, it`s a little exasperating.
0
Reply
Male 884
@Squrlz4Sale
Well, I`ll try to explain, you answer one of the questions that I asked (given that I answered all yours) and I`ll help (It will be hard for you to understand because I got my degrees in a far away place)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: "You are some kind of charlatan and you tell lies."

Let me get this straight: You come on here and misrepresent yourself as a physicist--and then you turn around and call *me* a charlatan who tells lies?

Really?
0
Reply
Male 884
@davymid one of my best friends is a TV weatherman with a degree in Physics and a doctorate in looking at cows. We agree to differ, but the conversations are good for all.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: You "answered all my made up things"? Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: "Depends what your degrees are. You first."

So I`ve provided my degrees. Now, you second.
0
Reply
Male 884
I meant the questions that you refuse to answer.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Ok, I promised no ambush, was just asking. And thanks for honest reply, on current situation.
0
Reply
Male 884
@squirrel you have nowhere to hide. you are some kind of charlatan and you tell lies. Either answer the questions or go away. I answered all your nade up things

Answer or admit that you`re some kind of shill
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: BA and Masters, both in English, both from top schools. GRE Verbal: 760/800. I`m not a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be (unlike someone else here tonight *ahem*).
0
Reply
Male 884
@Squrlz4Sale depends what your degrees are

you first.
0
Reply
Male 884
@davymid working in the ass-end of nowhere through choice
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: "Still no answer?"

I repeat: I`ll make a deal with you right now: If I answer your first question in my own words (since you childishly refuse to click on a link), will you then give me a call? Call it a professional courtesy, if you like.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: A high school teacher? But you said you were a physicist. You know, most people would say that "high school teacher" and "physicist" are two different things. ~scratches head~
0
Reply
Male 884
@Squits4Salw
still no answer
0
Reply
Male 884
@davymid It`s kind of mute
If you ask I`ll tell you I am a high school teacher
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Sorry to interject (sorry, I had a thing to go to), but earlier, An-egg, you said you were a physicist.

Of course you can politely (or non-politely) tell me to mind my own business, but what are we talking about here? Are we talking undergrad, postgrad, or something else? Are you currently working in the scientific professional field of physics? Of course, no answer required, I`m just curious. And no ambush here, no setup. Just asking.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: So, how about it (below)? I would think that a professional physicist such as yourself would be eager to make that deal.

"Nevertheless, I`ll make a deal with you right now: If I answer your first question in my own words (since you childishly refuse to click on a link), will you then give me a call? Call it a professional courtesy, if you like."

Oh, and for the record: My offer to discuss physics and AGW with you in a professional manner over the phone was extended a solid hour ago. And still no call. Huh.
0
Reply
Male 884
because if you are drunk (or whatever) I`ll cut you some slack
0
Reply
Male 208
Looks like our efforts to maintaining this thing worked. It`s all in how you look at things.
0
Reply
Male 884
That means that I demonstrated your mendacity earlier. Are you drunk? We were both there.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: "Oh, and remember, unless you can prove it, you are a proven liar (and I`ll cite that)."

I don`t even know what that means, frankly.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Guess what, my friend? I`m not your monkey. If you refuse to click on a link providing information, and refuse to give me a call to discuss this like an adult, that`s not my problem.

Nevertheless, I`ll make a deal with you right now: If I answer your first question in my own words (since you childishly refuse to click on a link), will you then give me a call? Call it a professional courtesy, if you like.
0
Reply
Male 884
@Squrlz4Sale Oh, and remember, unless you can prove it, you are a proven liar. (and I`ll cite that)
0
Reply
Male 884
@Squrlz4Sale
No. you didn`t. You think you did but you didn`t. Try again. Don`t quote, don;t link, just put it in your own words. answer the questions in your own words. Cite each then answer each: My expectations are low, I think you have nothing.

Just saying you have answered is not the same as answering.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: You know, little buddy: Of all the people on here, I would think you`d be the LAST one to start slinging around the phrase "mentally unstable."
0
Reply
Male 884
@5cats it is saying things that are untrue.
it needs a lesson
I will help it get over it`s delusions
I am trying to help the maniac
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Well, I give up. I`ve cited each of your questions and answered them. TWICE now. The first question of yours I have provided a lengthy debunking, via link, that I really have little interest in dumbing down and retyping for you. Yet you refuse to look at the link. So now I`ve even given you my cell phone number and offered to explain the topics in person to you, in a collegial manner. But you refuse to call. So tell me: Just what is it that you want? I`m at a loss here.
0
Reply
Male 884
Oh look: Somebody makes the status quo answer
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Honestly @Squrlz4: You`re going to regret all this when you sober up, mate...

@An-egg: I`m not sure why you`re having so much fun baiting a mentally unstable squirrel, but HEY! To each his own ;-)

If it floats your boat...
0
Reply
Male 884
No, it is 20 ,minutes since your post. I will not call you have questions to answer
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Seriously, friend: Why aren`t you calling? I have discussions regarding AGW and physics all the time, as no doubt, you do too since you`re a professional physicist. We`ll review the topic professionally and agree to disagree where it seems best. So again: Pick up the phone. I`ve been waiting half an hour already.
0
Reply
Male 884
Also, I click links regularly, Linux box and all. I just don`t click baited links.
0
Reply
Male 884
No. cite each and answer it.
you hide behind your deception.

I gave you questions, you provided static, Answer in your own words. I am sure you can`t
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Oh, the number`s real. My, you`re a timid fellow: afraid to click links, afraid to make a phone call.

And for heaven`s sake, I HAVE answered your questions. I`m even offering now to discuss the topics in person with you over the phone. Please call. I`m eager to exchange ideas on AGW and physics and discuss David Rose`s piece here.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
This is really unfortunate. I extended a courtesy to a professional physicist and gave out my cell phone number so we could have a collegial discussion about physics and AGW--and for some strange reason, my phone hasn`t rung and now you`ve abruptly left the discussion--but not before remarking, "I thought you`d wimp out."

Interesting.
0
Reply
Male 884
I still haven`t been caught lying, only one liar here. I doubt the number is real (I mean you;re a confirmed liar and I wouldn`t give out my number over the internet, that would be stupid)
I`ll discuss any kind of physics when you answer the questions (except 4 as I don`t want to hurt you)
0
Reply
Male 884

No, I thought you`s wimp out.

It`s ok, I expected it.

Have fun with your dogma, and try to defend it to people who see you as a shill.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: I have already answered your "questions," at least those two that were actually questions. Why don`t you be a big boy and click on the link I provided? I promise it won`t bite. Spend some time educating yourself on the topic and if you have any follow-up questions, I`ll be right here.
0
Reply
Male 884
So how much do you get paid for propaganda?

or do you have answers?
0
Reply
Male 884
I am not the documented liar. The one who repeats a lie because it gives it credence(is it Stalin or Hitler`s propaganda who suggested repeating the lie).

I see you are avoiding answering the questions.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: "I don`t want a link I want your answer. What you think. That should be east to understand. No lies this time or I`ll expose you."

LOL. I`m sorry but I just burst out laughing reading this statement of yours--says the person who is misrepresenting himself online as a professional physicist!

You`ve got chutzpah, I`ll give you that. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 884
easy not east
0
Reply
Male 884
oops, I am a slow typer
0
Reply
Male 884
again!
0
Reply
Male 884
I don`t want a link I want your answer. What you think. That should be east to understand. No lies this time or I`ll expose you.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: I did answer your questions, such as they were. Your response to #1 was to have the following tantrum:

"I didn`t look at your link because (a) You are a credentialed liar and; (b) you lie about newspaper articles and; (c) the source was the UN and the Met office, both of which are reputable, your links are now meaningless because you disseminate lies." Well, I guess you told me, huh?

#2, as I`ve already pointed out, wasn`t a question but a statement regarding a value judgment of yours.

#3, which *was* a question, I answered--but, apparently, that answer went over your head. You want me to try again? How about you reread my answer first. Fair enough?

#4, as I`ve already stated, wasn`t a question, but a childish insult directed at climatologists.

Happy now?
0
Reply
Male 884
Quite right as s/he will have no chance at an answer
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@Squrlz4: Take your time! I`ll check back tomorrow to read your -amazing- explanation of how you blow me off one minute, then b*tch and moan about being blown off yourself the next.
I`m sure it will be entertaining fiction, I mean reading! I`m sure there`s a perfectly logical bullhiite, I mean reason, for it!

It`s not like you, heaven forbid! live by one rule and expect others to live by a different rule! Heck no! That`d be... liberal... of you.

But go on! Go on! Pick at nits while utterly ignoring ALL the valid points @An-Egg has made! It seems to make you happy...
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: You know what? You`re going to have to take a number because I`m just a wee bit busy with a person who`s pretending to be a physicist.
0
Reply
Male 884
No. Answer the questions. You`re not mute. Do it. Cite them then answer them.

I know that you not going to.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
It`s a telling sign when -I- scream at someone for being rude...

Further rudeness on my part has been "self-contained"...
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: "Still no answers?"

Heavens, you`re dense. I repeat: I provided answers to all of your questions, such as they were. If you refuse to click on a link to get the data (#1); pose a "question" about a value judgment that is unanswerable (#2); fail to comprehend the answer provided, even though you claim to be a physicist (#3); and ask a childish "question" that is, in fact, simply an insult directed to climatologists (#4), it`s not my problem.

But honestly, why are you still here? You`ve already stated that you don`t believe anything I state and that you refuse to click on any links I provide. Got it. You`ve unilaterally ended the "scientific discussion" that never began. So run along, my friend.
0
Reply
Male 884
I have proof of it. If you answer the questions I might stop mentioning your lies.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]Annnnnd he`s gone. Interesting how averse our "physicist" appears to be to actually discussing science.[/quote]
@Squrlz4: How... IRONIC... of you!

Didn`t you just do that TO ME? In this very thread? Not so long ago?

Have you forgotten already? Shall I quote it?

Really dude? You`ve "tripped the light fantastic" on this one. You`re so far "over the edge" it isn`t funny anymore.

Arguing "picayune" details while IGNOREING the GLARING FLAWS of AGW? Really dude? Attacking the news media rather than the SOURCE (which is the MET, fyi) is just cowardice.

You want straightforward questions? Here`s one:

What does "hide the decline" mean?

You have (so far) refused to address this, simply casting it aside as "a vast right wing conspiracy" or something...

And quit being so GODDAM RUDE! Cheesus, really!
0
Reply
Male 884
Oh, but you lied. You *are* a liar.
0
Reply
Male 884
Just answer the questions honestly and I might stop calling you a liar.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: "Also, I believe that I have been polite and well tempered throughout. The record will show that."

What the record shows is that several minutes ago, in a single post, you used the words "liar," "lie," and "lies" and announced you would refuse to click on any links I provide. That may be called "polite and well tempered" in your neck of the woods, but I think most people would disagree.
0
Reply
Male 884
@Squrlz4Sale
So, still no answers?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: I provided answers to all of your questions, such as they were. If you refuse to click on a link to get the data (#1); pose a "question" about a value judgment that is unanswerable (#2); fail to comprehend the answer provided, even though you claim to be a physicist (#3); and ask a childish "question" that is, in fact, simply an insult directed to climatologists (#4), it`s not my problem.

Seriously, I am really struck by how difficult it is here to actually discuss science with someone who claims to be a physicist.
0
Reply
Male 884
Also, I believe that I have been polite and well tempered throughout. The record will show that.
0
Reply
Male 884
@Squrlz4Sale
you`re quite happy to libel honest journalists, and I know that is approaching an oxymoron, but you failed to give answers to any of my questions. Who`s ducking out of it now?
0
Reply
Male 884
@Squrlz4Sale why would anyone look at anything you have to say when you tried to discredit an article which was true, but presented in a way that irked you, as lies. You`re a joke.

Get back to your sponsors and find a new name.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Well, my eccentric, temperamental little friend, you`ve effectively ended this conversation by stating that you refuse to click on any link I provide and won`t believe anything I say. So congratulations: You have completely eliminated the danger that you might learn something.

Now, if that temper-tantrum of yours is your final expression on this topic, please move along and don`t let the door hit you on the way out. Goodnight.
0
Reply
Male 884
And again, this is a thread about a newspaper article.

I`ll try words of one syllable next time
0
Reply
Male 884
Hey, how much do you get paid to go on websites and spread the fearmongering propaganda?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: That was an impressive little temper-tantrum there, friend. Get back to me when you`re willing to discuss science like an adult.
0
Reply
Male 884
Oh, so is the graph from the Mail wrong too? Remember you have a 0 for 1 on discrediting journalists. Also, you linked to it so I don`t trust the source.
0
Reply
Male 884
4. sorry, the correct answer was Real Scientists
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Oh my goodness. Someone`s upset. We begin to discuss science (finally) and now you`ve put your fingers in your ears and declare that you refuse to look at any links, aka data, that I provide.

Well, that`s an impressive way to discuss a topic. Which PhD program taught you that technique, my "physicist" friend?
0
Reply
Male 884
3. you didn`t actually make a point
0
Reply
Male 884
2. Nope. I am pleased that there are many models, less pleased that the powers that be cherry pick to meet their goals
0
Reply
Male 884
!. I didn`t look at your link because

a) You are a credentialed liar and;
b) you lie about newspaper articles and;
c) the source was the UN and the Met office, both of which are reputable, your links are now meaningless because you disseminate lies.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

4. "Who designs all the satellites and equipment, and formulates the math that climate `scientists` use when they are not just spreading propaganda." Oh, this one`s easy: THE ILLUMINATI! Everyone knows they keep "formulating the math" to confuse everyone.

Seriously, friend: You`re awesome. A living, breathing embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

`Night. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

3. *What* obviously flawed results? Seriously: the funniest thing about this *Mail* article is that it claims the chart shows that the estimates were "a spectacular miscalculation" when, in fact, the chart shows just the opposite: the trend line is tracking within the predicted range. I could insert an annotated screenshot here to point this out to you, but you`re a professional physicist so I`m sure you can read the chart on your own. Err... wait: Come to think of it, you *did* read the chart on your own and didn`t understand it correctly. Weird.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg:

1. I have already provided a link to an analysis that throroughly skewers the warped interpretation of the data in this hilarious *Mail* article. I guess you missed that, so here you go.

2. That`s odd: I thought you said earlier that you were "glad" there are hundreds of models of AGW being tested. Apparently, you`ve changed your mind. Well, I certainly can`t convince you that any of the models are "worth a penny of [your"> money." That`s a value judgment that only you can make. I do find it curious that someone who claims to be a physicist is so opposed to the work of other professional scientists.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 884
Actually, I have another few minutes. Like I said, it is a thread about a newspaper article. If you feel the urge to talk about science then feel free to show how that graph based on data from the UN and the Met Office demonstrates that
1. we are in a period of continued global warming;
2. that the models trusted by the UN (20 I believe were used for this) are worth a penny of my money;
3. anyone should consider climate change a credible science when it has produced such obviously flawed results;

and a bonus question
4. Who designs all the satellites and equipment, and formulates the math that climate `scientists` use when they are not just spreading propaganda.

I`ll give you a clue R___ S_________
0
Reply
Male 6,227
An-egg: "Laters."

Annnnnd he`s gone. Interesting how averse our "physicist" appears to be to actually discussing science.
0
Reply
Male 884
"it`s a lot easier to talk about movies and newspaper articles than to discuss, say, monotonic functions"

Yes, that`s because this is a thread about a newspaper article.

Laters.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Alrighty then: I should not have called the *Telegraph* hatchet job "entirely untrue." I should have called it "a gross distortion of what happened in court, designed to deceive the gullible."

Are you happy now? I certainly hope so.

Now, can you explain to me why you, who claim to be a physicist, have little to nothing to say about the science of AGW but want to talk about a movie all night?

Seriously: I can put off dinner for you. Let`s hear you address some science, for a change.
0
Reply
Male 884
I also have to go, but when you tell a lie in an argument and get caught on it, it is usually best to change the subject.
0
Reply
Male 884
So here we have it. I demonstrate that you lied. You then restate that I am a liar with no proof. And you expect people to listen to a word you say?

And I thought you didn`t have a sense of humor?

You also missed the part about the judge calling it a political film which could only be shown with guidance that it was one sided.


0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Do you really have anything to say regarding the science of AGW on here? Or are you simply going to talk about Al Gore`s movie all night? Yes, for someone pretending to be a physicist, it`s a lot easier to talk about movies and newspaper articles than to discuss, say, monotonic functions--but seriously: Is there any aspect of the science you`d care to discuss?

* * *

And a heads-up to all: I`m hitting the shower and going out for dinner, so it could be awhile before I participate further. You`ll forgive me, I hope, for having a social life. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-Egg: You haven`t even spent ten minutes on the NASA website, have you? I know, I know: Real science is just so annoying, huh? =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Awww. You`re cute when you`re in a pique. I like the way you come online, lie about being a physicist, and then paint yourself as the Defender of the Truth.

Again, since you didn`t seem to understand it the first time:

@An-egg: Lastly, regarding *An Inconvenient Truth* and the lawsuit: It appears to escape you, but the judge found for the DEFENDANT, ruled that there was no reason to bar the showing of the film in classrooms, and found the film "broadly accurate." In short: Your side LOST.

Did the judge find that the 96-minute film contained a handful of inaccuracies? Yes, absolutely. Does the finding of a handful of inaccuracies in an hour-and-a-half film judged to be "broadly accurate"--a film made by a politician and not a scientist--somehow invalidate a mountain of scientific work, spanning decades, that makes the case for anthropogenic global warming?

Only on FOX News--and, apparently, in your ill-informed mind.
0
Reply
Male 884
Also, you said, and I quote once again, "entirely untrue". You see how your arguments change when they are honestly challenged.

Had I not been here, people might have believed you when you said that the article was "entirely untrue", but now they know that you just didn`t like the way they presented the entirely truthful information.

Expect anyone to believe anything else you say?
0
Reply
Male 884
I said, "inaccurate predictions with great publicity". The mail article shows evidence from the UN and the Met Office of inaccurate predictions. There are not Micky Mouse organizations. An inconvenient truth was undoubtedly great publicity. It too contained factual inaccuracies, distortions of the truth and outright lies (like the evacuation of Polynesian Islanders)

Which part did I get wrong again?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: An honest journalistic approach to the story would have started with the headline, "Judge Upholds Showing of Al Gore Movie in Schools, Calling it `Broadly Accurate.`" As a subhead, or two or three grafs into the story, the journalist would have included the statement, "In the course of making his decision, the judge found the film contained a handful of errors."

Instead, what the *Telegraph* article did was to misrepresent the findings of the judge in order to influence gullible people like yourself into thinking that, somehow, all of AGW science had just been discredited in open court. Clearly, they succeeded: You cited the article yourself under just such a delusion.
0
Reply
Male 884
So, a thing that is "entirely untrue" cites a judges findings and says, basically, the same thing you did after saying it was "entirely untrue". Is this how your scientific method works?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Ollie: LOL! You noticed that too. Thanks for adding some levity here. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 884
The UK has very strict libel laws and no first amendment, how do these yellow journalists get away with publishing all their lies that contradict anthropogenic global warming?

(that was sarcasm, just for the record)

Recently a bunch of UK journalists got into a lot of trouble for illegal behavior, they worked for Piers Morgan`s paper, not the Mail or the Telegraph.

Now, you said "that very article as been widely demonstrated to be entirely untrue." and yet it quoted directly from the Judges report.

Just because you don`t like something does not make it untrue. See, that is how real science works.
Later you said, "Did the judge find that the 96-minute film contained a handful of inaccuracies? Yes, absolutely. "

Whereas the "entirely untrue" article said "Al Gore`s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday."

T
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Again, calling me eccentric merely means that I don`t agree with the dogma.[/quote]
@An-egg Actually, calling you eccentric means you`re egg shaped.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Look, friend: I`m going to hit the reset button here and offer you a fresh start. Stop pretending that you`re a physicist because, frankly, I`m feeling embarrassed for you.

You`re now calling AGW research "pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo," which tells me you`ve never even been exposed to any of the actual science but are, instead, getting your information second-hand from climate "skeptic" blogs.

Allow me to introduce you to a scientifically-literate website on climate change. Spend an hour or two looking around and reading. If you approach it with an open mind, there`s a real possibility you`ll learn something.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Squrlz: The actual data proves that AGW is a myth.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg:

"Then the money will go to real scientists researching real science."

I`m sorry, but you are absolutely hysterical. Keep `em coming! =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Lastly, regarding *An Inconvenient Truth* and the lawsuit: It appears to escape you, but the judge found for the DEFENDANT, ruled that there was no reason to bar the showing of the film in classrooms, and found the film "broadly accurate." In short: Your side LOST.

Did the judge find that the 96-minute film contained a handful of inaccuracies? Yes, absolutely. Does the finding of a handful of inaccuracies in an hour-and-a-half film judged to be "broadly accurate"--a film made by a politician and not a scientist--somehow invalidate a mountain of scientific work, spanning decades, that makes the case for anthropogenic global warming?

Only on FOX News--and, apparently, in your ill-informed mind.
0
Reply
Male 884
A liar too, now. Clearly calling attention to the scam that is global warming, the money made by people conducting this pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, and portrayal of hunch and misinformation as fact by the media to influence legislators is reducing your argument to name calling again.

Hope you can hang on to your job when people realize what`s going on and the plug gets pulled. Then the money will go to real scientists researching real science.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: "your cult"

I absolutely love this. I`m following the path of published scientific knowledge; you`re following the path of blogs and articles that have been repeatedly demonstrated to misrepresent science. I`m following the position of NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,and the U.S. Navy. You`re following the path of FOX News and a few eccentric bloggers funded by conservative think tanks and the oil industry. Yet I`m the one with the cult. Riiiiight.

Whatever, friend. You completely lost all credibility when you lied about being a physicist. So pardon me if I have a hard time taking you seriously.
0
Reply
Male 884
I am not going to continue. What part of these statements which clearly show a pattern of either incompetence or deception do you not understand?
0
Reply
Male 884
And, "In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. "
0
Reply
Male 884
And "In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that`s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. "
0
Reply
Male 884
The judge found

"This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore`s `wake-up call`. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus. "
0
Reply
Male 6,227
An-Egg: What is it about the following words you don`t understand? "I have no doubt that Dr. Stott, the Defendant`s expert, is right when he says that: `Al Gore`s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.`"

Those are the words of Justice Burton. You are spectacularly misinformed. Oh, and a liar about being a physicist. There`s that too. You go, dude!
0
Reply
Male 884
As opposed to someone who is apparently incapable of recognizing the dishonesty and scientific illiteracies in a movie by Al Gore. A movie which has been shown, in court, to contain inaccuracies and deception but is still believed to be true, at least by the people who were trying to get children indoctrinated into your cult with it.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: You know what? I was beginning to compose a response to your last two posts and it has occurred to me that this is an utter waste of time. Truly, I have much better things to do than teach remedial science to (1) a person pretending to be a physicist and (2) to you, someone who is apparently incapable of recognizing the dishonesty and scientific illiteracies in an article published in the *Daily Mail*.

Have a great afternoon! =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 5,018
Not going to bother reading this new page. I was just looking for a Dr. Daveymid ultimate smack down. He makes the deniers look so stupid it is funny to read.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]Does that help?[/quote]
That helps the Anti-AGW side, actually! thx!

"We don`t know for sure, and our models are all over the place, but unless we spend trillions of dollars and destroy the West`s economy? THE SKY WILL FALL!"
"How will we know if you`re right?"
"Easy! The temperature will rise! Or fall. Or it might stay the same. It will rain less, droughts everywhere! Or it might rain more..."
& etc.

But first: spend TRILLIONS on schemes that not only "might not work" they may even make the problem WORSE!
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]where all the world`s climatologists and scientific bodies have signed a secret pact to not challenge the findings of anthropogenic global warming is--[/quote]
@Squrlz4: I believe the term you`re looking for is "100% Correct".
The "climategate e-mails" ALL of which are now public record, clearly show the creators of AGW doing the following:
- faking data
- laughing about how fake their data is (not wanting it to be "too fake")
- self-referencing each other`s papers
- conspiring to "ostracize" anyone who DARES oppose them

All of the above do NOT qualify as "science" in any way, you cannot "hide the decline" without surrendering ALL your credibility!

Thus far your entire argument seems to be:
- it`s only 1 time, and 1 in 20 is still OK
(this is sort-of true)
- you are wrong
(this is "kindergarten" tactics)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Your last few posts suggest you don`t understand why there are currently several hundred different models of AGW being tested. Odd that I have to explain this to someone who is a professional physicist, but whatever.

While the fundamentals of AGW are now well understood, there are countless aspects of the phenomena that are not and which are the focus of much debate, much data collection, and are the basis of many of the computer models. A good example of this is the role of aerosols. Aerosols are particulates sprayed up into the air, as when a volcano erupts. The key question here is, Do aerosols heat up the planet or cool it? On the one hand, aerosols are known to block sunlight and decrease the amount of thermal energy absorbed by the Earth. On the other hand, aerosols often serve as nuclei for condensation, which promote cloud cover--which tends to increase the greenhouse effect.

Does that help?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Here, verbatim, was the finding of the Justice Burton:

[quote"> I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear: It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.... I have no doubt that Dr. Stott, the Defendant`s expert, is right when he says that: "Al Gore`s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."[/quote">

Here`s a link to the written judgment so you can read it for yourself.

Curious that a professional physicist, like yourself, would be linking to an article that has been widely discussed in the scientific community as a travesty of journalism. Hmmm.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Interesting that you should link to that *Telegraph* article because that very article as been widely demonstrated to be entirely untrue.

The *Telegraph* article says that a judge found Gore`s move contained "nine key errors." That is egregiously dishonest. In his judgment, the Justice Barton did use the word *error* nine times--by putting the word in quotation marks to indicate he was rejecting the plaintiff`s allegations. Sally Peck, the author of the *Telegraph* article, misrepresented the judge`s use of the word to distort what happened in court.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 884
stick for social engineering.
0
Reply
Male 884
Maybe, instead of explaining to me that there are a lot of different views on the cause of global warming (Different models means different views, I got that right?), you should get on to some of the politicians who use it as a stick social engineering.
0
Reply
Male 884
I presume you`ll be praying to the deity that is AGW and cannot be questioned, whose very existence is so politically convenient, about whom no ill- word may be spoken, for a couple of hotter years.
0
Reply
Male 884
You saw the original post?
I believe that was the climate change model used by the UN, if the Daily Mail is not totally making this stuff up.
I am pleased that there are several hundred computer models currently being tested. You understand that they are models, that is good too.
See how positive and encouraging I am being, in spite of your personal attacks.
Why then are these models, which presumably differ to some extent, somehow proof that anthropogenic global warming exists?
If there are several hundred models, how is jury out on anthropogenic global warming?
Global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise seems to have come to a halt for the last 15 years. Does this not ring any alarm bells. I may not be a very good physicist, but I know when a scam is being perpetrated and when something being portrayed as fact is found to be a lie in open court.


0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Please forgive me for hurting your feelings. Would you like a tissue?

Again, for the third time: Which models are proven flawed? What scenario? And how, exactly, did they prove that AGW is, in your words, "junk science"?
0
Reply
Male 884
There you go again with the personal attacks. Proving again that anyone who challenges the cult is fair game.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: You`re a physicist? Who believed there was one AGW model out there that has been proven "flawed," and which has thus thrown AGW theory in disarray?

You`re a physicist? Who doesn`t understand that AGW, and indeed all prominent scientific theories, are challenged as a matter of course? And that such challenges are welcomed as part of the scientific process?

Well, if you`re a physicist, my friend, you`re not a very good one.

But nice job trying to deflect my questions with manufactured indignation. So again: Which models are proven flawed? What scenario? And how, exactly, did they prove that AGW is, in your words, "junk science"?
0
Reply
Male 884
Here let me remind you of the kind of stuff people try to pass off as science these days.

inconvenient
0
Reply
Male 884
As for inaccurate predictions with great publicity, did you see Al Gore`s movie?

No, I`m making that up too.
0
Reply
Male 884
Again, calling me eccentric merely means that I don`t agree with the dogma.

Your suggestion that I don`t know about science is offensive to everyone who is not a scientist. Do you realize how patronizing that is?

Calling me a conspiracy theorist merely strengthens the argument that your religion cannot be challenged by the non-believer.
0
Reply
Male 884
And as for knowledge of the scientific method, I am a physicist which is why I find made-up junk science so distasteful.

Predictions were made that have turned out to be wrong. Political decisions based on those flawed predictions have altered the way people live their lives and are potentially set to do even more damage.

People who supported the flawed models which gave inaccurate predictions have made a lot of money out of it and so will not listen to rational argument as it is not in their interest.

Great publicity has been given to the most fear-mongering theories and predictions as a political tool to manipulate the people into accepting carbon taxes, limits on the amount of CO2 they produce and green technology initiatives that failed.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg:

*fshewwww!*

Hear that? That`s the sound of my last two posts going over your head. I`d suggest reading them again, really slowly. You can move your lips, it`s OK. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 884
OK, models.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg:

"The model that has been presented made predictions that were inaccurate. It is therefore flawed. You need a better/different model."

I love this one (above) because it has "Fox & Friends" written all over it. To what model are you referring? Are you aware that there are currently several hundred different computer models of AGW being tested internationally? And that virtually every one of those models has a Worst Case scenario, Best Case scenario, and Most Likely scenario?

So again: Which model are you talking about? Which scenario? What were the inaccurate predictions? Your belief that there is one model out there, that was found to be inaccurate, and which has therefore thrown the entire field of climatology up in the air is--here`s that word again--eccentric.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@An-egg: Allow me to explain how science works because it`s pretty clear you don`t have a good grasp of the scientific method. A scientist makes a hypothesis, tests it, analyzes the data, and after a process of peer review, publishes a conclusion. That conclusion is immediately challenged and tested by other scientists. The more prominent the scientist, or the more significant the finding, the more attention is directed toward it and the more challenges are made by other scientists and scientific bodies.

Your conspiracy theory, where all the world`s climatologists and scientific bodies have signed a secret pact to not challenge the findings of anthropogenic global warming is--how shall I say this without offending you?--a little eccentric. It`s also at variance with reality: Challenges to AGW are routinely made, foremost at AGW conferences. Not one of those challenges has overturned the basic assertions of AGW theory.
0
Reply
Male 884
Well they certainly don`t have the data, cohesive computer models, or mathematical theorems to come anywhere near proving it.

Go on call me names when you don`t have any better argument. There is big money in this for these groups who go along with it, and almost nothing for groups outside their club.

Here we go. The model that has been presented made predictions that were inaccurate. It is therefore flawed. You need a better/different model. To think otherwise is dogma, not science.

Whoever said the best was to get rich was to found a religion appears to have been right.

0
Reply
Male 6,227
[quote]Because if they did, they`d get kicked out of the club.[/quote]

Uhhh, no. Because they don`t have the data to refute it. Herpaderp, buddy. Herpaderp.
0
Reply
Male 884
"There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change."

Because if they did, they`d get kicked out of the club.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: 5Cats, you or any scientist could refute all of anthropogenic global warming theory OVERNIGHT if you could demonstrate that planet Earth has been cooling over the past 100 years or that the rapid warming the Earth has been experiencing is due to a natural cause.

In fact, any scientist who could deliver such data would be assured lasting fame in the scientific community and financially set for life.

Alas, such data do not exist. As I`ve said repeatedly: There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world today that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

Since the refutation of AGW cannot be accomplished honestly, what we have instead are dishonest articles, like this one by David Rose, that misinterpret data and misinterpret the work of climatologists.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@davymid: I appreciate your being polite :-)
(smilies make everything better!)

When I channel my "inner caveman" his name is Trogg... his friends are Thunk and Wilfred...

I`ll have a go:
Long ago, the Earth was perfect and the weather never changed. All the animals got together and sang "Circle of Life" every day! Just like a Disney movie! It was never too hot, never too cold, never too dry or too wet. Life was good!
THEN a thing called "humans" happened, In no time at all they killed 80% of the animals, cut down 80% of the forest and dug up 80% of the land, Oh My!
Suddenly, entirely because of humans, the temperature of the WHOLE PLANET began to change! Unprecedented!
Here`s 100% proof: If the temp is warmer next year? PROOF of AGW! If it`s colder? PROOF! If it stays the same? That`s proof too!
Teh science = irrefutable!
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Then, one day, 50,000 years ago (about a minute before midnight on New Year`s Eve, in geological terms), Ugg the Caveman and his wife Uggette evolved and moved into the cave. Ugg lit a fire in the cave. Uggette said "Ugg, it`s getting hot in here. I know this cave was colder than this in the Ordovician, and it was hotter than this in the Cretaceous, but is there any chance you could put that f*cking fire out? I`m sweating like a bastard, and now I`m going to have to take my mammoth-skin off. And it`s not even suppertime yet."

Is any of this sinking in? About rate of change? Acceleration versus velocity? Orders of mathematical derivatives? Evidential scientific proof? Anything? Thought not.

p.s. anyone that thinks that "Climategate" was even a thing (it wasn`t), is scientifically illiterate and has no idea of how the scientific process works. There. I said it.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Let`s say there`s a cave. It`s a cave, but a magical cave. It has a magical thermometer embedded into the roof. This cave has been there since time immemorial.

Once upon a time, that cave was very, very cold. That time was called the Ordovician, 450 million years ago. It was the time of Snowball Earth, the planet was covered in ice to the Equator. We know this. Then, millions of years later, the cave got very warm. That time was called the Early Cretaceous, 130 million years ago. The whole planet had no ice, with tropical conditions from pole to pole. And all was good with the world.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
F*ck, I should be gone to bed by now, but I can`t let this bullsh*t lie. As 5Cats himself would say, as would a text from my 8-year old niece, "I can`t stand teh stupid. LOLZ!"

Dude, as you and others have pointed out, the planet was much hotter and much colder long before we humans came around. No argument. Valid point. It`s the RATE of climate change that we`re currently seeing that is unprecedented in the geological record. Let`s not go into credentials. Let`s assume I`m a random guy like you, who happens to like Catgirls.

Surely even you can understand this. Let me continue my attempt to empathise. Let`s take this slowly. Here follows the Children`s Fable of the Cave, which I`m making up as I go along (so bear with me):
0
Reply
Male 5,018
Squrlz4Sale you left out (d) Trolls
0
Reply
Male 4,891

An old Canadian and a squril arguing.

*squeek!Chirp!*
*Eh?!*
*Squeek!*
*hoser!*
*chirp! squeek!*
*Eh? Whataboot!*
*Hiss!*
*Liberal!!!*
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

As I have already stated in this thread, the only people who currently claim the science of anthropogenic climate change is "unsettled" are those who are (a) motivated primarily by an aversion to anything they perceive as "liberal"; (b) oil and coal industry executives; and (c) crackpots. I`ll leave it to the readers of our debate here to determine to which category you belong.

Goodnight.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Since the early 20th century, when the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide in atmospheric heating were first understood, scientists have posited that this burning of fossil fuels could cause the planet to warm. Over the decades, the case in support of anthropogenic global warming has become stronger and stronger as more and more data were collected. By the 1990s, computer models and computational power had reached such a state that it was becoming clear that the only factor that could account for the rapid global warming that was being observed was man`s burning of fossil fuels. By the year 2000, by any reasonable assessment, the consensus was in: global warming was real and was caused by man. Today, there are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

The Earth climate that we enjoy today is a comparatively recent development, geologically speaking--a state of rough equilibrium between carbon emissions and carbon uptake, and between solar heating and thermal radiation that has allowed for remarkable biological diversity and the emergence of human civilization.

Prior to this period of equilibrium, enormous amounts of carbon were sequestered beneath the surface of the Earth and removed from the atmosphere in the form of fossil fuel deposits. This sequestration took place over hundreds of millions of years. In the last 150 years, man`s burning of fossil fuels has abruptly dumped much of that carbon back into the atmosphere in the blink of a geological eye.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
5Cats, your posts consist of such a mishmash of scientific misunderstanding, manic rantings, and zombie falsehoods (myths that have been repeatedly proven false but keep coming back to life on climate "skeptic" blogs) that I hardly know where to begin.

How about we start with the basics? CO2 levels and temperatures on Earth have absolutely been higher in the distant past; you`re correct about that. But I don`t think any sane person wants to see us return to the condition of, say, the Devonian Era (the Age of Fishes), when crocodiles swam over Antarctica.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 40,752



The Sun has NOTHING to due with the Earth`s temperature... those lines actually matching? Sheer coincidence!
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Face it @Squrlz4: You drank the AGW Kool-Aid and asked for seconds...

I look with my own eyes and see:
CO2 was 10X present levels before humans
It was MUCH hotter before humans
It was MUCH colder before humans.

AGW (no matter how you disguise it`s name) is just plain wrong.

Sure! The Earth might be getting warmer, it`s highly possible! It has been doing so since the "little ice age" ffs...

NASA says: the "solar variance" (0.1% of the Sun`s output) accounts for more difference in temperature than ALL the heat sources on Earth combined. Solar Variation

"The amount of solar radiation received at the outer surface of Earth`s atmosphere averages 1366 watts/meter"
Sorry, how many Hiroshima Bombs per square meter per second is that? ffs...
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats:

[quote] it was just so... alarming! at how obvious these "logical errors" were... [/quote]

Seriously, 5Cats? You`re going to completely gloss over the three outright FALSEHOODS you`ve committed (the title of your submission and the two sentences of description), and instead focus on looking up the names of rhetorical techniques used by others?

Clue train: Propagating outright falsehoods is a lot more serious than employing any of the rhetorical devices on your chart.

Also: Clearly you aren`t understanding the reason why climatologists, when writing papers for the public, express the additional energy absorbed by the Earth in terms of atomic bomb blasts. This is not fear-mongering, it`s communication: the vast majority of the public has no idea what 268 terajoules of energy means--but they can readily understand that the energy of four Hiroshima atomic blasts is an enormous amount.

Get it now (I hope)?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]I know where it is from 5Cats. It is incredibly annoying.[/quote]
Sorry @markust, it was just so... alarming! at how obvious these "logical errors" were...

I know we`re all guilty of them now and then, but geez! Measuring heat in "Hiroshima Bombs" is the very definition of "fear mongering" eh?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
~paws on hips~

Step aside, Ollie, and throw me the keys to your Cadillac. AND MAKE IT SNAPPY. You`ve figured out the Great Liberal Global Warming Conspiracy, so you must surrender all your most-loved material possessions to liberals and a passel of shiftless black people.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
0
Reply
Male 5,018
I know where it is from 5Cats. It is incredibly annoying. Everything anyone does here is on that list.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
"Climate change" isn`t about saving the world; it`s about liberals bossing people around and taking their stuff.
0
Reply
Male 1,045
The daily mail.

I read it just out of curiosity and it`s pretty much what i expected.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@Markust: It`s From This List
Which I posted at IAB. I cannot, however, link it and quote at the same time, you know eh?

"the Earth is absorbing approximately 268 terajoules of extra solar energy per second."

@Squrlz4: What`s the baseline? 10 quintillion? How do we know it`s 100% mankind`s fault this "so called increase". How`d we establish what`s "normal"? The distant past when it was 2.2C warmer than today? Or when the CO2 levels were 10X what they are now?

Really, you`re so very helpful!

Dang, I was being polite too. Teh sarcasm, it just slipped out!
0
Reply
Male 5,018
5Cats "Take your pick: "Appeal to Fear" or "Guilt by Association" but either way, it only attacks the messenger, not the message. ("Ad Hominem")"

If you are going to keep this crap up I am 100% done with you. It is the most annoying thing I have ever seen on here. What are you in Junior High?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: Weak sauce there, 5Cats, weak sauce.

Seriously: In response to my thorough discrediting of this dishonest article and my explanation of how everything you`ve contributed toward it--the title of the post and two sentences of description--is FALSE, that`s all you`ve got? A complaint about expressing the additional heat energy the Earth is absorbing in terms of Hiroshima bomb explosions?

Well, let me help you out then. Stated less dramatically, the Earth is absorbing approximately 268 terajoules of extra solar energy per second. Hope that helps. Don`t mention it. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]#3. "The science = unsettled." FALSE[/quote]
@Squrlz4: That`s odd, @markust`s link suggested 30% of "climate scientists" thought the current series of "climate changes" were mostly or ALL natural, NOT man made. Hey, argue with him! He`s the one who said it.

It`s already been mentioned that "oil and coal" stand to make a LOT of money off this. Carbon Credits? They`re chomping at the bit!!!

But just ignore all the other stuff I`ve said and trot your little straw men out for you to vanquish! Windmills to tilt at, paper tigers to slay...

@LordJim: The "prediction" said constant increase in temperature due ENTIRELY to "man-made greenhouse gasses", but reality shows something else. Is the PREDICTION true or false? Sure it`s "a little early" to say it`s 100% dead, but it`s looking sort of pale...
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Goes to show you how warped their stances are.

@patchouli: Wait, what? WHO in the world has ever said both? No one at IAB, not ME that`s for certain.
>>See: "Straw Man"
Like @DromEd said: Source! Or GTFO.

@Squrlz4: From your link:

"...it has accumulated the equivalent heat of 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second."

I was unaware of the scientific unit of measure "Hiroshima Bombs", are YOU sure it`s the kind of "science" YOU want to promote?
Take your pick: "Appeal to Fear" or "Guilt by Association" but either way, it only attacks the messenger, not the message. ("Ad Hominem")



Just make the ranges wider, and PRESTO! It fits!
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d from previous post)

#3. "The science = unsettled."
FALSE: There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. At this point in time, the only people who claim the science of anthropogenic climate change is "unsettled" are those who are (a) motivated primarily by an aversion to anything they perceive as "liberal"; (b) oil and coal industry executives; and (c) crackpots.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
I think the article itself has been thoroughly discredited. Allow me now to address the assertions made in the submission`s title and description.

#1. "Temp Refusing To Follow AGW Predictions"
FALSE: As shown by the graph the article itself provides, global land temperatures are within the predicted ranges, albeit at the lower end of the ranges.

#2. "It`s now outside the predicted range entirely, in just a few years."
FALSE: It`s not outside the predicted range *at all*. The added phrase "in just a few years" is odd: Is it outside the predicted range now or "in just a few years"? Note that the model predicts that the temperature track will fall outside the 95% range 1 year in 20, or 5% of the time. So even if the line were outside of the 95% range for the most recent year`s data (which it is not), it would not be at variance with the model.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 1,243
This is kind of silly, the human race is polluting more than ever before. While i have no doubt corporations want to let things be business as usual, the glaring problem is our pollution is going to affect us sooner or later, and likely already is.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
What a Craptastic post
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Citation Patchy? Just who here has said that?
0
Reply
Male 4,745
I find it funny how the folks who are claiming that the temp has done this many times in our Earths 4.5 billion years are usually the same people that also defend the Bible`s assertion that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Goes to show you how warped their stances are.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
This dishonest article has already been thoroughly debunked (link below).

Here`s the gist for the busy among us: "David Rose has given us yet another textbook example of global warming denial, quite literally denying that the planet is warming. In attempting to support this myth, Rose has grossly misrepresented the positions of most of the climate scientists he references in his article, as well as misinterpreting their data."

5Cats, I have to ask: Is this really the kind of journalism you want to promote?

"David Rose Hides the Rise in Global Warming"
0
Reply
Male 6,227
The *Daily Mail* and its coverage of global warming, courtesy of the "Global Warming Policy Foundation," is a long-standing clown act.

If you want to see just how absurd this dynamic duo is, take a look at this.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`the data is true OR false based on WHO prints it?`

Data is data, but data in the hands of a clown with an agenda which is then twisted clumsily to support an ignorant position is, well, a Daily Mail science article.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
5cats
`proven beyond ANY doubt that the AGW people deliberately manipulated their "models" to match the data`

Evidence or link please. And not to the Daily Mail. I seriously hope you are not talking about the `Climategate` fiasco.

0
Reply
Male 5,018
"Trololololol... 5Cats all day.. you people don`t learn."

It`s hard not to bite when faced with so much stupid. Each time I tell myself, just move on, but somehow he pulls me in. I look at the 2 star rating and I know it is a troll post and he still pulls me in. The troll is strong in this one.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@davymid: Again, the data is true OR false based on WHO prints it? Same data.

"The line showing world temperatures comes from the MET Office `HadCRUT4` database, which contains readings from more than 30,000 measuring posts"

You disputing that? idk, I didn`t "lookitup" myself...

I suppose the "National Enquirer" was wrong when they claimed John Edwards (Democrat, twice candidate for Vice President) had a "love child" with his mistress while his wife had cancer?

Oh wait! That was 100% true! But it CANNOT be true, it wasn`t printed in the "proper papers"...
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@FoolsPrussia: Look at the "range" for their future predictions: about 0.6C.
Their "analysis of the past" range? About 0.4C.
That`s a HUGE difference! And it still doesn`t match what`s actually happening, nor what will happen in the next 5 years...

I predict tomorrow it will be -6C +/- 1C
I predict tomorrow will be +2C +/- 10C

See? If it`s -7C tomorrow, I`m STILL RIGHT!

EMEMBER: This is the actual predictions, matched with the actual temperatures, not "if maybe perhaps could be" ok?

[quote]Yup, 99% of all ACTUAL EXPERTS[/quote]
@MasterJedi: Go argue with @markust, HE SAYS it`s only 70% ;-)

@LordJim: It`s already been proven beyond ANY doubt that the AGW people deliberately manipulated their "models" to match the data. Your link is full of fail.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
The Daily f*cking Mail? Really 5Cats? Why not just jump the shark altogether and start linking articles from the National Enquirer?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]It`s ok, you know better now![/quote]
@Evil_Eye: Yup! "Climate Change". If the climate gets warmer? AGW! If the climate gets colder? AGW!
Oh wait, that`s bullshiite and you know it, why defend it?

[quote]it is about causing extreme changes in weather patterns...[/quote]
Because weather patterns NEVER CHANGED before humans arrived, eh? Never, not once! Ice Age? Creationist Myth!! Proven to have never happened by AGW!

[quote]We still haven`t figured out what to do with the nuclear waste from the 1980s.[/quote]
@Gerry1: They DID "figure it out" and studied it 100X over. Obama killed it the minute he got into office. Why? idk, why`d he kill Keystone one week, then next week proclaim how Keystone was making new jobs and HE deserved all the credit? I just don`t know how "liberals" can wrap their minds around these things...
0
Reply
Male 16
Yup, 99% of all ACTUAL EXPERTS can easily conclude that global warming is an actual serious threat. Even this graph shows how much the earth has warmed up WELL BEYOND normal over the years. And one "ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING EXTREMEIST" starts spouting off "See, it`s not that bad". OH YES IT IS. It`s just not as EXTREME as some of the high forecasts, thats all. What a weirdo. Yes, global warming is real, all the major cities and countries hitting RECORD highs year after year + the 10 hottest years in our worlds history have all occured in the last 15 years.
FACT ... NOT SPECULATION. Some people are stupid is as stupid does I guess.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
I don`t understand their assertion. It`s still a clear rise in temperatures, and still appears to be within the range of prediction.


0
Reply
Male 60
Trololololol... 5Cats all day.. you people don`t learn... Troll
0
Reply
Male 4,745
Gerry1of1:
"Hardly conclusive that global warming isn`t happening. Just shows that it is not happening quite as quickly as predicted. Still happening.

And even if Global Warming weren`t real, cleaning up the air is still a good idea. We have to breathe that crap."
---------

+1
0
Reply
Male 4,745
Blah, blah, blah. How about this? Don`t worry about the names and the data, stop polluting so the air isn`t so polluted. Take one look at the air over Los Angeles and tell me again how reducing pollution is a waste of time.
0
Reply
Male 39,921

[quote]"Then ask yourself why the ONE SINGLE BEST non-polluting energy source, Nuclear Power, is NOT supported by the AGW crew. " [/quote]
Non polluting? We still haven`t figured out what to do with the nuclear waste from the 1980s.
0
Reply
Male 39,921

Hardly conclusive that global warming isn`t happening. Just shows that it is not happening quite as quickly as predicted. Still happening.

And even if Global Warming weren`t real, cleaning up the air is still a good idea. We have to breathe that crap.

0
Reply
Male 7,123
Science reporting from the Daily Mail. You have to be kidding.

There`s a fairly detailed rebuttal here.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Basically, the problem here is that we have a small group of IAB`ers who are so ideologically driven that they are entirely inaccessible by science on the topic of AGW. I`ve trotted down this debate path before and it`s absolutely fruitless. I`m not willing to waste more hours today arguing with people who dismiss the findings of NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Navy, and virtually every climatologist on the planet--all of whom stand by the science of anthropogenic climate change.

For those curious as to how these AGW debates on IAB usually play out (and how much time they waste), I`ll provide links in my next post to two fairly typical exchanges. Enjoy.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
@5Cats: "Silly me! Here I thought "warm" means "warm"!"

It`s ok, you know better now! If it helps your confused mind, we will call it climate change for you. That way you will know it is about causing extreme changes in weather patterns and not making us savings on heating bills.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@FoolsPrussia: Then why have TRILLIONS been spent on crappy power sources, while NOT ONE SINGLE new Nuclear Power station has been built? Anywhere in the whole world?

There were (iirc) 15 NEW applications to build N-Power in the USA right after AGW "took off". Not one of them got to "first base" never mind approved!

"Follow the money." Timeless Wisdom.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Then ask yourself why the ONE SINGLE BEST non-polluting energy source, Nuclear Power, is NOT supported by the AGW crew. "

I`ve never seen a survey that states that climate scientists oppose nuclear power as one solution. In fact, I`m sure a lot of them support it. I personally think it can be a good temporary solution as long as they use Generation IV reactors and have proper oversight.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Fun fact: Oil companies generally support global warming hypotheses. It`s a good way for them to get even more subsidies. The rich are getting richer off this stuff.

I`m not really disagreeing with the brunt of global warming, it`s just that a lot of you are being apocalyptic about it while the robbers are walking away with your money and the poor get socked. More scientists probably do believe in the apocalyptic scenario, yes. But I am in the camp of Henrik Svensmark. And the history of science tells us that the current consensus is often proven wrong. The guy who came up with plate tectonics was on the "fringe" for a long time. It also took decades after Dalton`s model of the atom to find out the correct one. Even Bohr`s wasn`t correct.

And after the false hockey stick graph, an inconvenient truth, and the deliberate falsifying of climate data by scientists (climategate), you wonder why there are skeptics?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Then ask yourself why the ONE SINGLE BEST non-polluting energy source, Nuclear Power, is NOT supported by the AGW crew.

Lower greenhouse gas than Hydro.
Lasts 5X longer than Wind.
Works 24/7/365 unlike Solar.
TINY amounts of waste compared to "clean coal".
(coal`s waste is actually MORE radioactive than Nuclear...)
AND safer than Natural Gas power...

Tell me again why billions were spent on GARBAGE while Nuclear power was blocked at every turn?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote](59%), or human activity and natural causes in more or less equal amounts (11%), were the primary causes."[/quote]
@markust: So by YOUR post? 30% of all these guys think it`s NATURAL? Gee, that`s not what I`ve been hearing for years, it`s 98% supported! So the AGW "true believers" tell us...
>>See: "Appeal to Popular Belief" Science isn`t resolved by yelling: "Survey SAYS!"

@Panzerlenis: Trillions of dollar wasted = harms the poor.
Counter-productive = makes it worse

The majority of "AGW Cures" fall into those two categories.
Ask the Germans how they feel since their electric bills have DOUBLED entirely because of "green initiatives".
Ask yourself why China and India are "exempt" from Kyoto Accord restrictions...
0
Reply
Male 40,752
[quote]knows that "global warming" isn`t the globe getting warmer...[/quote]
@Evil_Eye: Silly me! Here I thought "warm" means "warm"!
So if it gets warmer? AGW = Proven!
If it gets colder? AGW = Proven!
>>See: "Unfalsifiability" in the list of "Logical Errors" m-kay?

[quote]Yeah, let`s trust a conservative British tabloid.[/quote]
@markust: yeah! Because if they print the findings of the MIT? That makes the MIT`s findings faked!
>>See: "Appeal to Ridicule" in "Logical Errors" `atta-boy!

[quote]There`s an enormous, well-funded propaganda mill...[/quote]
@Squrlz4: Oooo-Kay. It`s a "vast right-wing conspiracy" just like Hilary said it was!
>>See: "Circumstance ad Hominem" in the "Logical Errors". Best thing I ever posted...
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Humm so a boffin on the dole for an Oil Co. is automatically full of it and not to be trusted but the boffin with the AGW money machine behind him HAS to be correct. See the incongruity? Anybody? Buller, Buller?

Global warming and Govt. health care. With these two machines government will be able to make you comply with ANYTHING they want. It`s either bad for you or bad for the planet. Either way you get it in the shorts.
0
Reply
Male 1,380
Unsettled? I find it bizarre that we have to prove global warming beyond all doubt before we do anything about it. If GW exists but we do nothing = VERY BAD. If GW doesn`t exist and we do something = a waste of effort and money. I`d rather prepare for the event that never happens, as opposed to not preparing for the event that could make us all extinct.
0
Reply
Male 5,018
@Andrew155, buried in the links of your op-ed there is the actual American Meteorological Society Member Survey on Global Warming. End of page 5 are the views about global warming. "A very large majority of respondents (89%) indicate that global warming is happening; in contrast few indicated it isn`t happening (4%), or that they don`t know (7%). A large majority indicate that human activity (59%), or human activity and natural causes in more or less equal amounts (11%), were the primary causes." Funny, that`s not what what you op-ed says.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
@Andrew: That is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. Hardly an accurate representation of the scientific community.

Not to mention most of those "scientists" are employed by the oil and gas industries.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Honestly, it`s hard to summon the energy to respond to reportage as distorted as this. There`s an enormous, well-funded propaganda mill out there that keeps churning these stories out and responding to them is like playing a game of Whack-a-Mole.

This particular story story seems to have been produced by the "Global Warming Policy Foundation." The GWPF is a conservative think tank headquartered within the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining in London. In short, it`s run by executives whose livelihoods revolve around the extraction and use of oil and coal.

As for the disinformation contained in the story, most of it is addressed by the two links I`ll provide in my next post. (For whatever reason, IAB`s software is mucking up the links when I try to add them to this first post.)
0
Reply
Male 5,018
"I bet these two people below believed An Inconvenient Truth and the Hockey Stick graph."

Never watched it and don`t know what that is. Why would I waste time watching something that tells me what to think? I guess that explains where you are coming from though. Let me guess big Glenn Beck fan?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
0
Reply
Male 7,927
The impression I get from the scientist that is showing this is that he has an axe to grind for being "cast out".

Either way a conservative newsgroup with a scientist that has reason to try and "get back" at the ones that wronged him = let logic work it`s course and take the article for what its worth.

I appreciate the read though
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I bet these two people below believed An Inconvenient Truth and the Hockey Stick graph.
0
Reply
Male 5,018
Yeah, let`s trust a conservative British tabloid. What`s next an article from the Enquirer or an Op-ed from Ed Anger? Nice troll I mean try.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
I will believe that when it is on something better then the Daily Mail. For a start, I am sure most people on this site knows that "global warming" isn`t the globe getting warmer...
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Link: Temp Refusing To Follow AGW Predictions [Pic+] [Rate Link] - It`s now outside the predicted range entirely, in just a few years. Teh science = unsettled.
0
Reply