The Global Warming thread.

[Crock Hunter]

A couple of articles to pound the deniers with .. . not that they will ever value facts..

Study Shows GW has not Paused

The Earth Is Warming Faster Now Than It Has in 11,000 Years

[O Really]

But how can that be? Isn't the earth only 6,000 years old?

[Crock Hunter]

.
welllll.. looks like it's "walkstall" day to be poster boy for the terminally hypocritical... "walks" offers up a snow covered map and with feathers ironically fluffed (by Solar's personal fluffer.. supsalsmgr) crows.. .

"As of Dec. 15, snow covered 53 percent of the continental United States, the largest snow cover for that date in a decade"

Severe and long term droughts and heat waves around the globe .. Massive hurricanes and typhoons... to the full time hypocrit and part time denier these have nothing to do with climate change.. . however.. let it snow in December and some dumb cluck will post it as to say "What global warming" .. .. .

Best thing for "walkstall" might be rosemary and a 350 degree oven.. .don't forget to baste . ..

[Crock Hunter]

Another scientist comes clean about AGW hoax

Well it's taxed's turn to regurgitate misinformation into the waiting mouths of Tom's nest of armchair deniers.. this time from one of the coal/oil industries highest paid professional deniers.. one Richard Lindzen ..

Though Lindzen is very often discredited and has indeed apologized for misrepresenting climate data..this doesn't stop our taxed from sucking the guts out of this tired old worm. ..

What turns this ordinary denier moment of parroting into a "damn these people are stupid" gem is the paragraph in taxed's link that goes... . .

Lindzen doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that the planet has warmed. “We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800,” he tells me. There’s a caveat, though: It’s increased by “a very small amount. We’re talking about tenths of a degree [Celsius]. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?”

Let's hear a bit more from Lindzen...

There is agreement that CO{-2} in the atmosphere is increasing, and that current levels are about 35 percent greater than pre-industrial levels; there is agreement that much of this increase is probably the result of industrial emissions.

There is agreement that, when combined with other increasing greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), the total man-made greenhouse forcing is about 80 percent of what one expects from a doubling of CO{-2}. That is to say, we are effectively pretty close to a doubling of CO{-2} in terms of greenhouse impact.

...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

Thanks taxed for another opportunity to ridicule you pathetic nitwits..
-CH

[mwearl]

I love how the GW alarmists in the thread are suddenly breaking their own cardinal sin by claiming 2012 was the warmest, blah blah blah...The data has to go back on average of 25-30 years to show even the slightest average increase. I mean really small. But I did learn something from this article that I didn't' know about sea levels rising.

What would it take to convince you eager acceptors that this is all hogwash? More cold? Less cold? More rain? Less rain? 15 more years of no temperature rise, even though CO2 release have sharply risen? You have to have some answer and I'm curious to know what it is.

This article pretty much puts it in perspective.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... tml?page=1.

[Boatrocker]

Well, unlike the intellectual midgets of the RW, I prefer to place greater credence in opinions and judgement of people who are educated, skilled and actually employed in the sciences of climatology and meteorology, rather than rely on such laughable sources of misinformation as FUX, WingNutDaily, Flush Limpdick and all those psuedo-"experts" who are employed by the utility and oil industries.
But you believe as you wish; the willful ignorance of teatards has never- and will never- impact facts.

[mwearl]

And true to form, you either didn't read the article or find anything you could argue on it's merits. You claim to only listen to educated, skilled scientists, yet you immediately discount the one described. Proves the point I made in another thread. Doesn't matter how many credentials someone has, as soon as they go against The Agenda, they are ridiculed and ignored.

Well, unlike the intellectual midgets of the RW, I prefer to place greater credence in opinions and judgement of people who are educated, skilled and actually employed in the sciences of climatology and meteorology, rather than rely on such laughable sources of misinformation as FUX, WingNutDaily, Flush Limpdick and all those psuedo-"experts" who are employed by the utility and oil industries.
But you believe as you wish; the willful ignorance of teatards has never- and will never- impact facts.

[mwearl]

95% huh? Because working climatologists that don't believe it, and want to keep their jobs, are lining up aren't they. Just like the scientists against eugenics in Nazi Germany did. Sorry, you don't get to make claims like that with something that has been politicized to death and expect me to swallow it as gospel. Politics and agenda have corrupted that argument. Hiding disagreeable data, erroneous ice melt claims, dying polar bears, and the list goes on.

Poor mwearl, grasping at the straw of one climate scientist as if he's the messiah, one that admitted to screwing up mightily in 2009, because that's what he wants to believe while ignoring entirely the more than 95% of climate scientist who disagree, many of whom have specifically and in detail debunked Richard Lindzen.

Did he really expect Murcoch's The Weekly Standard to give the issue fair coverage rather than featuring the view of a tiny minority that fits their corporate suck-up mission?

[Boatrocker]

95% huh? Because working climatologists that don't believe it, and want to keep their jobs, are lining up aren't they. Just like the scientists against eugenics in Nazi Germany did. Sorry, you don't get to make claims like that with something that has been politicized to death and expect me to swallow it as gospel. Politics and agenda have corrupted that argument. Hiding disagreeable data, erroneous ice melt claims, dying polar bears, and the list goes on.

Poor mwearl, grasping at the straw of one climate scientist as if he's the messiah, one that admitted to screwing up mightily in 2009, because that's what he wants to believe while ignoring entirely the more than 95% of climate scientist who disagree, many of whom have specifically and in detail debunked Richard Lindzen.

Did he really expect Murcoch's The Weekly Standard to give the issue fair coverage rather than featuring the view of a tiny minority that fits their corporate suck-up mission?

If you're implying that scientists are lying because they are afraid of their jobs you are just fullashit. Red herring. Strawman. Bullshit.

[mwearl]

Not implying anyone is lying. Keeping silent, i'm more than implying it. I'd bet my life on it.

95% huh? Because working climatologists that don't believe it, and want to keep their jobs, are lining up aren't they. Just like the scientists against eugenics in Nazi Germany did. Sorry, you don't get to make claims like that with something that has been politicized to death and expect me to swallow it as gospel. Politics and agenda have corrupted that argument. Hiding disagreeable data, erroneous ice melt claims, dying polar bears, and the list goes on.

Poor mwearl, grasping at the straw of one climate scientist as if he's the messiah, one that admitted to screwing up mightily in 2009, because that's what he wants to believe while ignoring entirely the more than 95% of climate scientist who disagree, many of whom have specifically and in detail debunked Richard Lindzen.

Did he really expect Murcoch's The Weekly Standard to give the issue fair coverage rather than featuring the view of a tiny minority that fits their corporate suck-up mission?

If you're implying that scientists are lying because they are afraid of their jobs you are just fullashit. Red herring. Strawman. Bullshit.

[Crock Hunter]

I love how the GW alarmists in the thread are suddenly breaking their own cardinal sin by claiming 2012 was the warmest, blah blah blah....

First I don't get the impression that anyone here is an "alarmist".. . Being concerned isn't being an alarmist.. But as to your "2012 was the warmest" ...unless you're referring to the lower 48.. then it's true but not "Global"..

What would it take to convince you eager acceptors that this is all hogwash? More cold? Less cold? More rain? Less rain? 15 more years of no temperature rise, even though CO2 release have sharply risen? You have to have some answer and I'm curious to know what it is.

Well .. I'm a long term data kind'a guy.. and so far the GH gas, ocean temps, land temps and ice mass trends show no signs of reversing..

What does it take to convince you that "More cold? Less cold? More rain? Less rain? 15 more years of no temperature rise(wrong btw) " are very poor substitutes for data.. ?

This article pretty much puts it in perspective.

Yes .. there is some insight.. perhaps you should have read it when I referenced it earlier today.. .

Lindzen doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that the planet has warmed. “We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800,” he tells me. There’s a caveat, though: It’s increased by “a very small amount. We’re talking about tenths of a degree [Celsius]. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?”


btw.. nice Humane Society Benefit pic... I support them as well..

[Crock Hunter]

yet you immediately discount the one described.

Seems like I'm in good company ..

But your trust in industry paid scientists is duly noted..

[Crock Hunter]

and the list goes on.

and has been thoroughly debunked...

[mwearl]

Speaking of Humane Society Benefits, it's hard to use the the forum on a smart phone. Not complaining, just saying.

[O Really]

Speaking of Humane Society Benefits, it's hard to use the the forum on a smart phone. Not complaining, just saying.

I don't have a problem with my Galaxy S3, except for having to keep expanding size to read the text.

[mwearl]

First I trust my own instincts and observations. Then I give weight to others who aren't card carrying koolaid drinkers. They are easy to identify because they could never vote Democrat and barely vote Republican. And then I seek the same in my experts. Do you claim to be so different if not on the opposite side?

...But your trust in industry paid scientists is duly noted..

Sad as that is it's a step up from mwearl's absolute faith in network heads with journalism degrees and no scientific credentials at all.

http://blueridgedebate.com/viewtopic.ph ... &start=160

[mwearl]

Ha Ha. I'm not saying anything different about GW now than I've ever said. Still as sane as ever. We've had all these discussions before with the same results. Sorry, trying to shame me into your belief system won't work either. Paranoid is believing someone is scanning all your metadata

Yes, there's a huge difference when near unanimous scientific thought is on one side and your experts include a journalist and one actual scientist. I would never be so presumptuous as to put my partisan-slanted "instincts and observations" above settled science. That's what the blindly religious "card carrying koolaid drinkers" do.

What happened to you? You used to be more sane, now you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

[Mr.B]

"What happened to you? You used to be more sane, now you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist."

Hee, hee, hee.....boy howdy! I wondered how long it would take for the real Vrede to come out....not long, huh?

[Crock Hunter]

First I trust my own instincts and observations.

Betting against 9.7 of 10 actual climate scientists would lead most critical thinkers to reexamine their instincts wouldn't you say.. and clearly you've made no observations other than observing that certain individuals ..typically journalists(in very broad terms) ..disagree with the data while agreeing with your unreliable instincts.. ..

Then I give weight to others who aren't card carrying koolaid drinkers. They are easy to identify because they could never vote Democrat and barely vote Republican.

Indeed.. that's a fairly accurate description of political extremists.. You might be surprised to hear that Climate Science is a professional discipline and actively rejects partisan opinion though right-wingers seldom miss an opportunity to try and politicize it..

Do you claim to be so different ?

Thankfully Yes... but then I value facts...

[Crock Hunter]

you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist."

Hee, hee, hee.....boy howdy! I wondered how long it would take for the real Vrede to come out....not long, huh?

So far.. given his well rehearsed quacking .. he strikes me the same ..