Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

*yawn*

Quote :

* “Which studies were compromised, how? be specific. Cite papers and data sets. What is the evidence? where is it? what work is affected? how? show me the evidence that says so.

* This supposed scandal involves perhaps a half dozen people, how does it affect the work of the 3,000+ others who’s work makes up climate science?

* How does it affect the work that was done before the alleged culprits graduated from univeristy? the work from before they were born?

* Of the 30,000(ish) studies that make up climate science, which ones are undone? where is the evidence? be specific … show us exactly how and why?” etc

* “You are certain it topples climate science? how? where? which studies? what evidence? You don’t know? then how are you certain?

* Please run through a list of the studies you believe are affected? Hockey stick? what’s that? please refer to specific papers and studies.You don’t know? then how can you be certain?

* Ahhh, Soandso 2004? so just how is it compromised? what part of the work? I thought you were certain?”

Still don't have any answers, huh?

Quote :

now the public has changed the term, from Global Warming to Climate Change.

You really, really need to stop regurgitating these bullshit talking points. They really make you look like a brain dead partisan hack falling neatly in line. Don't embarrass yourself further. If you'd ever actually read any of the science, you'd know both terms have been used going back decades. And unsurprisingly, it was conservative strategist Frank Luntz who recommended that switching terms from "global warming" to "climate change" would be an effective way for climate skeptics to downplay the urgency of the issue.

Besides, it's a moot point unless you believe that it's not happening. Did Fox's coverage of a snow storm change your mind?

Here's what Luntz said in his memo..
Luntz advises that, “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge” (p. 142).

Thanks for another interesting lesson,Heretic.

It's called "re-posturing"!

No actual comment? Hmmm... boring. And predictable.

#1. You will not change your opinion.
#2. I will not change my opinion.
#3. To argue, would be pointless.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

#1. You will not change your opinion.

Why should he? All of the evidence supports it. If the evidence didn't support his opinion, then I'm sure that Heretic would change his opinion. I know that I would.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

#2. I will not change my opinion.

Even when faced with overwhelming evidence that your opinion is based on falsehoods? The sane thing to do when presented with clear evidence that your "opinion" is not based upon the facts is to change it.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

#3. To argue, would be pointless.

Perhaps, but don't kid yourself. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that your opinion is equally valid... because it's not.

As they say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

#1. You will not change your opinion.

False. As Scorpion stated, I am perfectly capable of changing my opinion in light of contradictory evidence. I'll even give you an embarrassing example. I used to be a Twoofer. Granted it was quite some time ago and it wasn't for more than a few days... but that Loose Change video can be persuasive if its the only thing you've seen on the topic. Thankfully the consensus on the actual events of 9/11 is as solid as the one on AGW. A cursory glance at published reports from our government and the Pentagon (who also acknowledge AGW) as well as scientists from the related fields (physicists... who also acknowledge AGW) quickly turned me off of the Twoof movement.

This is why I'm so immediately skeptical of claims of conspiracy and particularly the alleged global warming one since it involves more people than the 9/11 cover-up would have.

I do find your ability to recognize the 9/11 conspiracy as the nonsense that it is at the same time you maintain the global warming conspiracy is real truly fascinating.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

#2. I will not change my opinion.

Which is just really f**king dumb. Especially since I can see no other reason for it other than to thumb your nose at Al Gore.

It’s not a virtue.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

#3. To argue, would be pointless.

Well, it doesn't have to be an argument... I was hoping for an entertaining and informative discussion. But try as I might I can never seem to get one, and certainly not an honest one. All I get are snide remarks and rants from individuals who are absolutely obsessed with Al Gore and armed with nothing more than ignorance, bad science, and poorly thought out and often contradictory arguments like your CRU hack incident. They also have an inability to admit they're wrong, even when caught in a flat out lie.

Honestly... You are fully allowed to accept our physical reality for what it is without getting into trouble. Agreeing with Al Gore will not destroy the universe; no one will revoke your party affiliation or teabagger membership.



On second thought, maybe they will... they do seem pretty fanatical about global warming (and creationism too).

Wow! Look at this. A thorough, surgical dissection of my three point post, by Scorpion then by Heretic. Is it any wonder why nobody posts on this board anymore? Have fun. Play amongst yourselves.

Unless Obama gets impeached....we'll be the third world.

This off and on climate has been happening for centuries. It's just another tool for freaks to make money on.

If climate control/pollution is such a problem, why are the communities throughout, not making it mandatory that you recycle an quit filling your garbage can up with recyclables?

They don't give a crap on the local level, or they would run the communities like they do out west in wealthier suburbs where the most educated know the importance, and streamline the process by giving one container the same size as the garbage container and educate people - even the dumb ones...that they will NOT pick up your garbage unless they fill the recycable container that is to be the same size as the garbage can, finding one or two true bags of garbage and the recyclable garbage can full to the tip. That's how much they throw in landfills in Indiana an other states where mandatory recycling isn't presented, or residents aren't educated. That causes landfills and shows the lack of intelligence of leaders in communities.

As far as that global warming crap, stick it up your butts. My mom and dad are in their mid-70s and nothing has changed - one November back in the '60s we ha 80 degree weather, on Thanksgiving Day. We called my uncle (dad's brother) in California, bragging. This crap is all political b.s.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Wow! Look at this. A thorough, surgical dissection of my three point post, by Scorpion then by Heretic. Is it any wonder why nobody posts on this board anymore? Have fun. Play amongst yourselves.

Yeah, you're right about that BWG, but old JCMT talks to himself all day on the other board. With Freelies dating the Preacher, she now has an occupation.

The politicals are remaining quiet on this board for some reason.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Wow! Look at this. A thorough, surgical dissection of my three point post, by Scorpion then by Heretic. Is it any wonder why nobody posts on this board anymore? Have fun. Play amongst yourselves.

So you are leaving to save yourself further embarassment...



Hmmm... boring. And predictable.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Wow! Look at this. A thorough, surgical dissection of my three point post, by Scorpion then by Heretic. Is it any wonder why nobody posts on this board anymore? Have fun. Play amongst yourselves.

The majority of people who don't post here are either incapable of honest discussion,or take the ball home when faced with indisputable facts that destroy their arguments.

There is a board however,where wild claims,indefensible positions,and absolute lies are cheered and go unchecked. If someone refutes those posts the thread quickly turns to the usual static of off topic cartoons,name calling,and of course their favorite method of personal attack,baseless accusations about their sexuality. Know which board I'm referring to?

It's your choice as to where you feel more comfortable posting.

Artie60438 wrote:

There is a board however,where wild claims,indefensible positions,and absolute lies are cheered and go unchecked. If someone refutes those posts the thread quickly turns to the usual static of off topic cartoons,name calling,and of course their favorite method of personal attack,baseless accusations about their sexuality. Know which board I'm referring to?

Somewhat similar to how you conduct yourself on YOUR Freetime thread.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

There is a board however,where wild claims,indefensible positions,and absolute lies are cheered and go unchecked. If someone refutes those posts the thread quickly turns to the usual static of off topic cartoons,name calling,and of course their favorite method of personal attack,baseless accusations about their sexuality. Know which board I'm referring to?

Somewhat similar to how you conduct yourself on YOUR Freetime thread.

As opposed to almost EVERY thread on the bigots.liars,and trolls,board. Btw,the Freetime thread was only started after months and months of her stealing content from here and falsely claiming that if you joined this site you would be infected by viruses.

Artie60438 wrote:

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

There is a board however,where wild claims,indefensible positions,and absolute lies are cheered and go unchecked. If someone refutes those posts the thread quickly turns to the usual static of off topic cartoons,name calling,and of course their favorite method of personal attack,baseless accusations about their sexuality. Know which board I'm referring to?

Somewhat similar to how you conduct yourself on YOUR Freetime thread.

As opposed to almost EVERY thread on the bigots.liars,and trolls,board. Btw,the Freetime thread was only started after months and months of her stealing content from here and falsely claiming that if you joined this site you would be infected by viruses.

I don't care how you rationalize it, Artie. Either name calling and personal attacks are wrong, or they're not.

Whatever the grievance with Artie, we all know that's certainly not the reason he's bailing on the discussion now.

Heretic wrote:

Whatever the grievance with Artie, we all know that's certainly not the reason he's bailing on the discussion now.

No, of course not. I know why he's bailing.

But can you believe this guy? Whining because we both answered his post?

Frickin' unbelievable.

Why the denial camp is winning (and we're all losing) the climate wars

Quote :

As the year began, climatologists were able to launch what should have been a devastating counterattack to the nonsensical but appealing notion that global warming has been replacing by global cooling. The records show that the first decade of the century was the warmest on record. Not only that, but 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record. This despite the recent La Niña, the phase of the irregular ENSO cycle that temporarily cools the surface waters of the oceans and consequently the lower atmosphere, and an unusually long solar minimum, which has the same qualitative, though not quantitative, effect on the Sun's heating of the planet.

Then there was the nail in the coffin of the already moribund argument that the siting of U.S. weather stations lent a warming bias to temperature records. A new paper from the staff of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., concluded the net bias came in the form of a cooling trend. If anything, temperatures in the U.S. have been rising more than previously thought. (Although the real bias is tiny, the important point is the absence of a warming bias.)

Given those facts, even a middle-school student can see the thesis that any warming trend was natural and short-lived is just plain false. And indeed, after a spate late last year of "there's been no warming since 1998" stories, largely in the UK but also to a surprising extent in the US, that particular fiction is no longer a favorite of the anti-intellectual pundits. But that hasn't silenced them.

Instead, they've switched from attacking the science to attacking the scientists. The advent of the publication of hundreds of private emails among leading climatologists made this as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. We've all written things in haste that we'd love to retract, but that's just not possible in the wired world. And everyone makes mistakes. Automobile manufacturers sell cars with faulty accelerators and brakes because they're staffed by humans, just as IPCC authors cut corners and disregard protocol because they're human.

Here's IPCC author Phil Duffy, whose thoughts on the subject inspired mine:

Quote :

Things happen, but let's react appropriately. Medical doctors make mistakes every day. (In fact, medical errors in the US alone kill hundreds of people daily--the equivalent of a jumbo-jet crash.) And no doubt many of these errors happen because established procedures are ignored, sometimes knowingly. Does this mean the entire edifice of western medicine is wrong, or prejudiced, or the product of a conspiracy, and should be rejected? Of course not. Furthermore, the medical profession as a whole is still held in high regard, as it should be.

No one worth listening to is calling for a massive inquiry into the science underpinning modern medicine, or the engineering foundations of the car industry. But pseudoskeptics argue that the IPCC is systematically fraudulent simply because a couple of statements among thousands of pages of heavily edited and re-editing (and re-re-edited) documents cite gray literature instead of the peer-reviewed literature that supplied the science in the first place.

Is it controversial among those study such things that 40% of the Amazon is susceptible to drought? No. Is it controversial that Himalayan glaciers are receding? No. Only the way in which that science was presented and attributed was found faulty. To thrown out anthropogenic global warming because of such missteps is the climatological analog of dismissing an entire faculty of medicine because someone correctly diagnosed a patient because of a story they read in New Scientist instead of the medical journal article on which the story was based. Bad judgment? Yes. Fatal error? No.

Just more hypocrisy.

Not a surprise to anyone following the discussion here:

Why the denial camp is winning the climate wars (Part 2): they lie

Quote :

It gives me no pleasure to pass on the facts about the lack of respect for the truth shown by climate change pseudo-skeptics. But there's simply no getting around it.

Last year, in his book Science as a Contact Sport, veteran climatologist Stephen Schneider made much of the misuse of a quote that actually did come from his lips about the temptation to "offer up scary scenarios" and the need to stay honest. The problem was he ended his observation on conflicting messaging priorities by saying, "I hope that means being both" but that line almost never makes it into stories by denialists citing the quote.

That's bad enough, and it continues to haunt Schneider, but the latest example of integrity-free reportage, which comes from the UK, makes such transgressions seem like something less than a little white lie. "Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist" is the headline in The Independent. I shall lift several paragraphs from the story, as it really deserves wide distribution:

Quote :

Sir John Houghton, who played a critical role in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), was roundly condemned after it emerged that he was an apparent advocate of scary propaganda to frighten the public into believing the dangers of global warming.

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen," Sir John was supposed to have said in 1994.
...
The trouble is, Sir John Houghton has never said what he is quoted as saying. The words do not appear in his own book on global warming, first published in 1994, despite statements to the contrary. In fact, he denies emphatically that he ever said it at any time, either verbally or in writing.

In fact, his view on the matter of generating scare stories to publicise climate change is quite the opposite. "There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them," Sir John told The Independent.

"It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed," he said.

Even though the quotation appears on about 1.77 million web links, no one seems to know where it originated. On the few occasions a reference is cited, it is listed as coming from the first edition of Sir John's book, Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, published by Lion Books in 1994. But Sir John does not say it in this edition, nor in subsequent editions published by Cambridge University Press.

Christopher Booker, a newspaper columnist, considers the quotation so important that he lists it at the top of the first page of his most recent book on climate scepticism, The Real Global Warming Disaster, published last year. Mr Booker also cites the 1994 edition of Houghton's own book on global warming as the source of the quotation, even though there is no mention of it there. Mr Booker did not respond yesterday to enquiries by The Independent.

Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, also cited the 1994 edition of Sir John's book as the source of the quote, which he used last Sunday in an article denouncing the alarmism of climate scientists. Dr Peiser admitted to The Independent that he had not read the book recently and had only used the quote "from memory" because it is so widely cited in other books on climate scepticism.

And again, the same tactics employed by creationists: quote-mining or downright fabrication.

Seen this yet?