Global Warming, eh?

[Rory]

You do know that this spurious laundry list was compiled by a factory part engineer - clearly an expert in climate science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brignell

He has among his other 'hobbies', attacked the scientific study of the links between second hand cigarette smoke and lung cancer.

http://www.webcitation.org/5v5F96rKC

Power to the fucking people. Because, you know, defending big tobacco is the mark of a rebel who wants to save the lives of the common man.

And you know, spam posting this list is the mark of someone who is so confident in his argument that his doesn't need to back up, prove or remotely evidence their strongly held position.

Copy and paste - to victory!

[Saurian Tail]

Ah, and what the hell anyway, if the rubes will pay on trillions of dollars on fraudulent CDS's, then they can damn well pay a few more pennies to save the planet. Geez, benD, keep thinking like that and pretty soon you will believe that some Brussels bureaucrats are going to be appointed to take over from elected heads of state. BenD you are just fucking crazy.

Yeah never mind, I want my fear mongering to be backed by science.

If you are going to reject all the data, then your position is simply a philosophical one. Sophistry. BenD has not proved anything other than he is capable of reducing the data to the level that it provides little information about what is actually happening in physical reality. And in the absence of being able to actually make a case, he has proved that he is able to yell louder than everyone else.

[Sounder]

If you are going to reject all the data, then your position is simply a philosophical one. Sophistry. BenD has not proved anything other than he is capable of reducing the data to the level that it provides little information about what is actually happening in physical reality. And in the absence of being able to actually make a case, he has proved that he is able to yell louder than everyone else.

I do not reject all the data, and the spittle flecks I see are not on BenD's screen.

I think there are concerns that are of greater intrinsic impact to a greater number of people than is the danger posed by AGW.

In addition I think that AGW serves as a corrupting narrative that distracts the attentions of many well meaning people away from, instead of moving towards the areas where we will find solutions to this and other problems as well.

I also find the lack of interest in the realm of ideas a bit disconcerting. It's as if people think that throwing enough numbers around so that consensus is achieved is equivalent to fixing the whole situation. It's a bunch of gasbaggery in my opinion.

You all are responsible for what you think, I said fairly clearly what and why I choose to think the way I do. If anyone would like to take me to task for any of these things, please by all means feel free and I will respect your words.

Outside of that, who knows

[wintler2]

:drool2:
I hope I remember to never come back to this thread.

It's our fault for clicking on something titled like that and expecting any different.
What would you expect in threads with titles like:
I Gonna Beat You Upside Yo Head!
To Receive Righteous Asskicking, Click Here!!!
You're Stupid! Last Night Yo Mama Said So!
Etc.
Oh, and:
I WIN!!! Peace and Love Y'all. Ha ha, you're dead! Namaste!
Because that's what this is.
.

To cede the ground to the deniers would allow them to preach their namshub of defeatist ignorance unopposed, unacceptable to me.

I never came to RI pushing climate or resource depletion, i started out just enquiring of the conspiritards what evidence they had for their "peak oil+global warming are NWO hoax" preaching. In six years of asking (thats why i go easy on BenD, he's still a newbie) they have provided nothing coherent, only many thousands of posts full of pro-planet-fucker lies, conspiritard innuendo, personal abuse, and constant promos for the unfightable power of elites.

'By their works shall ye know them', and their persistance is proof enough to me that it is worth persisting in challenging them.

[wintler2]

..
I think there are concerns that are of greater intrinsic impact to a greater number of people than is the danger posed by AGW.

In addition I think that AGW serves as a corrupting narrative that distracts the attentions of many well meaning people away from, instead of moving towards the areas where we will find solutions to this and other problems as well.

I also find the lack of interest in the realm of ideas a bit disconcerting. It's as if people think that throwing enough numbers around so that consensus is achieved is equivalent to fixing the whole situation. It's a bunch of gasbaggery in my opinion.

Hi Sounder, mind if i ask a few questions?

Do you agree that there is a physical planet and biosphere that exists regardless of human ideas about them?

Do you agree that all the best data we have indicates that the mean temp of the planet is warming, .8C being a mainstream figure for warming to date?

I get that you think other perils are 'bigger' and as have said before can respect that, but would you agree that AGW is pretty 'big' as a problem? I agree that the focus on AGW has probably resulted in less focus on eg. deforestation & nuke pollution and that is certainly an unhappy outcome.

[Sounder]

Pat yourself on the back wintler2, but never ever give up on your defamation and derision shtick, otherwise you will have nothing left and might just disappear.

Thanks for your measured response wintler2, look I do not mind if you don't like how I think on this, I am only asking that people not project their fantasy foolishness on me and instead allow me the flavor of foolishness that is my actual cross to bear.

[tazmic]

I think that AGW serves as a corrupting narrative that distracts the attentions of many well meaning people away from, instead of moving towards the areas where we will find solutions to this and other problems as well.

The precautionary principle in action:



Wintler, did you just say conspiritard? On RI?

[Iamwhomiam]

Ben, would you remind all of us who wrote this way back on Page 5:

"This discussion is not about the 0.8 degree C warming according to the green trend line on the graph, there is consensus on that"

Perhaps now, you'll answer at least a few of the many questions that I've asked you. Sorry your memory is so poor you need such reminders and feel the need to ask repeatedly questions to answers long ago agreed upon.

[wintler2]

I do not mind if you don't like how I think on this,

I get that you think other perils are 'bigger' and as have said before can respect that

I am only asking that people not project their fantasy foolishness on me and instead allow me the flavor of foolishness that is my actual cross to bear.

But you're not interested in answering simple honest questions about your p.o.v ... okay, your choice, but then you can hardly complain about being misunderstood.

[Saurian Tail]

If you are going to reject all the data, then your position is simply a philosophical one. Sophistry. BenD has not proved anything other than he is capable of reducing the data to the level that it provides little information about what is actually happening in physical reality. And in the absence of being able to actually make a case, he has proved that he is able to yell louder than everyone else.

I do not reject all the data, and the spittle flecks I see are not on BenD's screen.

I think there are concerns that are of greater intrinsic impact to a greater number of people than is the danger posed by AGW.

In addition I think that AGW serves as a corrupting narrative that distracts the attentions of many well meaning people away from, instead of moving towards the areas where we will find solutions to this and other problems as well.

I also find the lack of interest in the realm of ideas a bit disconcerting. It's as if people think that throwing enough numbers around so that consensus is achieved is equivalent to fixing the whole situation. It's a bunch of gasbaggery in my opinion.

You all are responsible for what you think, I said fairly clearly what and why I choose to think the way I do. If anyone would like to take me to task for any of these things, please by all means feel free and I will respect your words.

Outside of that, who knows

This is all cool. I even agree with most of it. I think the best situation is always for individuals to have the most accurate information available. If people then choose to support a globalist agenda or ignore other pressing concerns, that it their business.

[Sounder]

But you're not interested in answering simple honest questions about your p.o.v ... okay, your choice, but then you can hardly complain about being misunderstood.

This makes no sense, RATIONALITY POLICE please come to my rescue.

Hey Jim, not only did I not complain about not being understood, I think my missive shortly before your inane post stated my position in a way so as to be accessible even to the learning impaired, such as yourself.

Pick up your game wintler2 and wipe that spittle off your screen.

[Ben D]

Ben, would you remind all of us who wrote this way back on Page 5:

"This discussion is not about the 0.8 degree C warming according to the green trend line on the graph, there is consensus on that"

Perhaps now, you'll answer at least a few of the many questions that I've asked you. Sorry your memory is so poor you need such reminders and feel the need to ask repeatedly questions to answers long ago agreed upon.

Sure thing friend Ian, you intuively were on the right track by emphasizing 'way' back on page 5. At the beginning of the thread, I presumed anyone and everyone who was posting on this Global Warming thread would know this. But Low and behold,.. imagine my flabbergastion to realize that most of the CAGWers didn't have a clue. So it was not possible to engage in any meaningful way when confronted with that sort of ignorance until that hurdle had been cleared.

Actually Ian, I must confess from my experience, so often I find the average person whose understanding of the world's reality is generally limited to practically word for word on what they hear over the the radio waves,.. what they see and hear on TV,.. and Internet.

Apparently for all the ubiquitousness and repetitiveness of pro CAGW fear campaign propaganda, it never does get around to informing the dumbed down 'battery hens' exactly how much known warming there has been to date. So when I tell them it's 0.8 of a degree C, their response is like happened here,... discombobulation associated with initial disbelief,...and later denial. of the figure of 0.8 degree C, and the source from which it comes. However interestingly, they never out and out go literally 'bananas' and abuse me like you, presumably because it's face to face,...bullies like it better when there is physical separation don't ya think?

[Ben D]

-Mystery solved-

-Post Deleted-

[Ben D]

Just a little post on the question of the Sun's contribution to global warming that I would like to share for those who may be interested.

Now we know that Hansen has persuaded many CAGW/AGW scientists that the Sun is not the dominant driver of global warming, CO2 is. But if you would permit yourself to consider that much of what you know is just your present understanding, as is Hansen's, and that as new relevant information comes to hand and considered rationally, one's understanding may go through a modification process which then becomes your 'new' present understanding. If you learn that way, you never stop learning, if you don't,..well..you cant learn!

From The 2nd Nagoya Workshop on the Relationship between Solar Activity and Climate Changes
16-17 January, 2012 | Noyori Conference Hall, Nagoya University (Nagoya, Japan)

Note there appears to be some corellation between the increase and high level Sun irradiance during the latter part of the 20th century and increase of global warming of recent times.

Here is a link (it's a PDF file of 41 Mb, so don't tell me I didn't warn you if you download it) to a Poster Display by Judith LEAN (Naval Research Laboratory, USA)...Variations in Solar Irradiation and Climate




Data Source....http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Actually though, in the final analysis if the Sun's irradiance levels are a more dominant factor then presently factored in, and remain high, there will still be global warming, just that the one world government wannabes wont be able to profit from it by a global carbon tax... ...a Sun Tax?....no they wouldn't dare...

[slimmouse]

So youre saying that the Sun, with 99% of the mass of the solar system and the graphs you show, explaining the increase in Solar Radiance activity might be a bigger factor than AGW ?

Now let me think about that.

One question about which I genuinely have no information. How do temperatures compare on other planets of late ? Do we know ?