Global Warming, eh?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:46 pm

Sadly, but expected, you entirely missed the point...again.

The point being that your source of information, the umbrella publisher, is "in cahoots" with that which you object to simply because they publish a scientific paper that attempts to sway doubters. Sorta like you view the work of the IPCC.

And you do not answer, but avoid questions put to you. Why don't you explain for all of us what Modeling is, how it works and why certain data are purposely excluded and for what reasons, you know to impress everyone here with your vast cut n paste knowledge?

Only an idiot would believe that transparent gases in our atmosphere force its heating more than that filled with black particulate matter, which our is, or worse, that it plays no part in its heating. Basic thermodynamics.

And once you've explained why all climate scientists need to use modeling and what it actually is, why don't you explain for us what a carbon tax is?

Hint: it affects the corporate polluters bottom line, (Costs them money).

Why don't you address the true conspirator Koch bros. and others of their ilk and why it is they fund so many denying front groups? Cui bono? I know it's easy for you to deny factual evidence... you've been abundantly clear in having done so repeatedly.

"I note that you have not been specific in where you think my understanding of the 1979 - 2010 temperature trend analysis was lacking so what can I say?"

Had you any understanding of this issue we would not be having this discussion. It's like trying to get an idiot to understand why he's an idiot. You can explain and explain, present to them all sorts of physical evidence, but understanding is simply beyond their reach. But out of kindness and urgency to answer their question why are they an idiot, still you try and only feel like an idiot yourself for all your futile efforts.

And please, just for little old ignorant me, explain what the C represents in CAGW, for I've not come across it before and your reference to it is the only I've encountered.

Were this not so very serious a problem, your view would be laughable. You are the real danger and your skewed view of reality will hurt us all. You will burn in the hell you've helped to create while I rest at peace in the cool earth.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6338
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Sounder » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:18 pm

Iamwhoiam wrote...
Were this not so very serious a problem, your view would be laughable.


Really, so would you say that GW is a bigger threat to human life than is the meltdown at Fukushima combined with a half dozen other major ways that we are poisoning the planet? What I consider laughable is 'environmentalists' having a boner for a common gas while not showing much concern at all about examining let alone controlling the use of toxins. Hey, who could use a few hundred tons of DU while we democratize your ass.

You are the real danger and your skewed view of reality will hurt us all.


If only we could speak of reality.

You will burn in the hell you've helped to create while I rest at peace in the cool earth.


Yes well, and I am welcome to think that it is the self-righteousness of folk like you that creates this hell, where the substance of the category 'environmentalist' is eviscerated on the alter of a false imperative that causes people to act in a way that is directly counter to their own values.

(And you have the nerve to talk about idiots.)
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby eyeno » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:37 pm

I don't want to burn in hell :shock: please but I do want to ask a question.

What do the IPCC people say about elephants in the living room like the effects of sunspots and solar minimums on climate? I think i've heard wintler2 reference it and I know he wasn't keen on the idea but I don't remember what the IPCC type opinion is.

For instance if you look at this pdf on page 4 it shows three cold periods at solar minimums. I'm also aware of the Maunder minimum but I don't remember how the IPCC type folk interpret it into the big theme.

http://www.insiidetrack.com/pdf/200707I ... cleexc.pdf
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby wintler2 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:50 pm

eyeno wrote:What do the IPCC people say about elephants in the living room like the effects of sunspots and solar minimums on climate?

IPCC 4th AR: 1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance
Google search 'ipcc sunspots' - took all of 2 seconds. Give it a try.


eyeno wrote:I think i've heard wintler2 reference it and I know he wasn't keen on the idea but I don't remember what the IPCC type opinion is. ...

wintler wrote:If the sun has been less active why are we still warmer than average? (in response to BenDs post of Daily Mails how-to-lie-with-graphs)

If you don't even read the replies, it is hard to believe that you proceed in good faith. My question is intended to highlight the first (of many) logic problem with the "AGW=sunspots" myth. Can i invite you to attempt an answer, BenD has so far avoided doing so.
Last edited by wintler2 on Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby DrEvil » Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:19 pm

Ben D wrote:What's more, fyi adjusting the data by subtracting 'estimated' impacts on factors that affect temperature readings to recreate the adjusted graph is not the same thing as creating a trend line, it's just massaging the figures to hide the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and thus impacts very much on the discussion taking place about there not being any warming for the last 14 years, and thus keep the CAGW/AGW scam going a little longer.


Yes, 'estimated'. Looks really scary in red! :frightened:

Of course they have to estimate. What would you like them to do? Guess?
And you also shoot yourself in the leg with the two graphs you posted above (the ones without any links to the source..), because they both show a clear warming trend. The first one is the raw measurements, and they all show a clear trend upwards. The second one is, as you say, OMGWTFadjusted, where they have removed all known natural variations, and what do you know?! It's still going up! And since we are not aware of any natural processes or cycles that can account for that warming, the obvious answer is : IT'S US!
And finally: So what if 98 was warmer than 2010? look at the video with the nice dog a few more times, then look up "trend" on wikipedia, google or wolfram alpha, then do some reading on the scientific method, and then finally, come up with a good argument for your case.
(Sorry in advance BenD, it's not personal, but you're clearly either willfully misunderstanding wintler2 and friends, or you really don't understand what it is they're saying.)
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3041
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:28 pm

Iamwhoiam wrote...
Were this not so very serious a problem, your view would be laughable.

Sounder wrote:
Really, so would you say that GW is a bigger threat to human life than is the meltdown at Fukushima combined with a half dozen other major ways that we are poisoning the planet? What I consider laughable is 'environmentalists' having a boner for a common gas while not showing much concern at all about examining let alone controlling the use of toxins. Hey, who could use a few hundred tons of DU while we democratize your ass.

First, let me say you know relatively little, if anything at all about me and your presumption is far from true. You prejudge me most unfairly and without cause. You're reaching.

Should I call you a promoter of nuclear power because you deny AWG? Wouldn't that be as ridiculous as your claiming I am more concerned about a gas than its polluting source?

Had you been aware of my work to have a highly polluted local former DU munitions plant site cleaned up at great expense and to have testing conducted on its former surviving employees and the residents of the neighborhood it polluted, or of my ongoing work to have the highly-radioactive West Valley, NY site cleaned up, I doubt you world have said such a thing as you did. West Valley is the site of the only commercial plutonium reprocessing facility that ever operated in the US and its highly-radioactive ground water plume threatens the safety of the Great Lakes, a drinking water source for millions of Americans and Canadians.

Sounder, Fukushima has little to do with the topic at hand, (AWG), aside from its contribution of particulates to our atmosphere, but to answer you to the best of my ability, both threaten our existence, though for some one will have more immediate and deadly affects than the other. The particulates from both will linger in our atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years and will effectively plague us eternally.

Let me be clear... some, because of their location, will die sooner from the effects of one of these serious threats, though another living in a different locale will die sooner from the other threat. While some will die from radiation poisoning in one part of the world, others living in a different part of the world will be dying from the effects of Global Warming and Climate Change. Dead is dead, so it's difficult for me to say which is worse. I suspect Radiation poisoning from Fukushima is the greater immediate threat to most, at least from my perspective.

I have worked for nearly 40 years combating nuclear power and 2 years ago brought Yves Maringnac, a French expert on their nuclear power industry to NY to meet with key legislators and their staff and other policy makers in our state to reveal the dirty secrets and foibles of their nuclear power program. I and those I work with have called for a complete and immediate shut-down of all nuclear power plants.

Perhaps you've forgotten or are not aware that it was I who brought this report to RI? The report that shows 170,000 North American deaths from Chernobyl: Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

What have you done lately, say in the last year, since Fukushima's disaster, to combat nuclear power and its deadly effects?

On average, I spend 20 hours a day fighting all sorts of polluting industries around the world; whether biomass burning for heat or energy, waste incineration, cement kilns, chemical companies and the oil and gas industry. These are all contributing causes of global warming and climate change.

I'm known for my good work by some of our leading environmentalists and concerned citizens in places like Venezuela, Australia, the Philippines,and the UK, as well as here in the US and in Canada. I communicate regularly with experts in their fields in cities like Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver and nearly every state in the US. Funny that we've never met before elsewhere, considering your great concern for our environment. Did you know I was involved in the litigation to force the EPA to uphold the mandates of the Clean Air Act, demanding limits be set on mercury and particulate emissions? Of course you didn't.

Sounder wrote:
Yes well, and I am welcome to think that it is the self-righteousness of folk like you that creates this hell, where the substance of the category 'environmentalist' is eviscerated on the alter of a false imperative that causes people to act in a way that is directly counter to their own values.

(And you have the nerve to talk about idiots.)

Please don't confuse expertise with self-righteousness.

I rarely have time to argue here with foolish twits like you. My time fighting pollution is much too valuable to waste on pointless argument with the uninformed, at least here, though I do sometimes try to better one's understanding of how poisoned our environment is in order to engage them and prompt them to act. I don't offer the information about my work for any self-gratifying reason, but rather to prove you wrong, again.

I am responsible for everything except for my very responsibility, for I am not the foundation of my being. Therefore everything takes place as if I were compelled to be responsible. I am abandoned in the world... in the sense that I find myself suddenly alone and without help, engaged in a world for which I bear the whole responsibility without being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an instant. ~ Jean-Paul Sartre
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6338
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby eyeno » Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:49 pm

wintler2 wrote:
If you don't even read the replies, it is hard to believe that you proceed in good faith. My question is intended to highlight the first (of many) logic problem with the "AGW=sunspots" myth. Can i invite you to attempt an answer, BenD has so far avoided doing so.



No problem. It really was an honest question. I'll be the first to admit that I stopped intently studying this a long time ago because it just wasn't my bag. I'm one of those that would appreciate more focus on some of the pollution issues such as nuclear leaks, pollution going into streams and lakes, etc...I probably read your reply to sunspots, whenever it was, which is how I remembered you had an opinion on it I just don't remember what you said. If I looked it up I would have to spend hours sifting through it in an attempt to wade through all the differing opinions and today it seemed quicker to simply ask you because I knew you would probably have it at your fingertips.
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:12 pm

Iamwhomiam wrote: You will burn in the hell you've helped to create while I rest at peace in the cool earth.

After applying Occam's razor to what seems a mostly incoherent rant about my lack of smarts, I see this as the underlying essential point you were trying to make.

You must understand that after reading your post, you reveal yourself to be, well,...angry and despairing about my perceived lack of faith in CAGW (C stands for catastrophic).

Btw, if I'm not mistaken, you admit to being inclined to the Buddhist faith, have you ever heard of the term Myalba
Myalba (Tibet, Tibetan? In the Esoteric philosophy of Northern Buddhism, the name of our Earth, called Hell for those who reincarnate in it for punishment. Exoterically, Myalba is translated a Hell.

Funny that,..enjoy you rest here... :thumbsup
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Rory » Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:49 pm

[quote="Ben D"][/quote]


Just my thoughts here as a neutral observer:

Bendie: I've got to laugh at the way you are fighting the good fight of the Kochs, oil barons and MIC, yet in complete denial about it, saying that wintler/iawia are the tools of tptb. It is a basic act of misdirection from someone who seems to be capable of little.

And, by the way, you're a snide cunt :thumbsup
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:58 pm

DrEvil wrote:And you also shoot yourself in the leg with the two graphs you posted above (the ones without any links to the source..), because they both show a clear warming trend.
(Sorry in advance BenD, it's not personal, but you're clearly either willfully misunderstanding wintler2 and friends, or you really don't understand what it is they're saying.)

Well you may very well feel sorry DrEvil, not for me but yourself.

Sorry to sound mean, but your misunderstanding comes from a lack of reading comprehension. Regarding the graphs you claim I posted without links, if you go back and check the sequence, the graphs were from the AGW web site that Wintler2 linked to. You will find it in my post of Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:06 pm.

The point of my posting them was not to deny a warming trend, but to expose the fact that the paper was an attempt to hide the statistic that 1998 was the warmest year on record. Because once there is an admission that 1998 is the warmest year on record, it follows logically that there has been no increase in global warming statistically for the last 14 years.

Now it's also true that the trend line mean is still upwards for now, but at a rate of 0.006 % C per year. This warming trend is not enough to claim CAGW or even AGW is verified, as it would take many hundreds of years to reach the warming that was supposed to be happening this century.

Look, despite the rhetoric, there is no consensus among the scientific community that CAGW/AGW climate science is settled, and asfaik there is no law against conjecture about future global temperature trends being warmer or cooler. So get over it already. :wink:
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby wintler2 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:09 pm

Ben D wrote:.. Because once there is an admission that 1998 is the warmest year on record, it follows logically that there has been no increase in global warming statistically for the last 14 years.


Nonsense. You are incapable of grasping the meaning of Trend, or of recognising your incapacity.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:13 pm

Rory wrote:
Ben D wrote:

Just my thoughts here as a neutral observer:

And, by the way, you're a snide cunt

Well thanks for your profound opinion Rory, it's refreshingly gratifying to come across the sort of detached neutrality that was exemplified by the wisdom of Solomon.

Btw, you may like to look up the topic of cognitive dissonance. :whisper:
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:22 pm

wintler2 wrote:
Ben D wrote:.. Because once there is an admission that 1998 is the warmest year on record, it follows logically that there has been no increase in global warming statistically for the last 14 years.


Nonsense. You are incapable of grasping the meaning of Trend, or of recognising your incapacity.


So if 1998 is the warmest year on record according to HADCRUT, does it not follow that according to HADCRUT, the warmest year on record is 1998, not any other year ever recorded.

What am I missing? :basicsmile
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Rory » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:45 pm

Ben D wrote: you may like to look up the topic of cognitive dissonance.

Why? Do you feel bad about spreading disinfo, lies and oilman propaganda, even though you know the planet is being fucked by them?
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Ben D » Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:13 pm

Rory wrote:
Ben D wrote: you may like to look up the topic of cognitive dissonance.

Why? Do you feel bad about spreading disinfo, lies and oilman propaganda, even though you know the planet is being fucked by them?

Look here Rory, it's nice of you to drop in to inform me about your present understanding, but from your revealed eloquence, and breadth of scientific knowledge concerning CAGW, it appears you're way above my humble pay grade,... so if you don't mind, I'll just settle for some of the less well informed such as Wintler2 et al.. :thumbsup
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests