Jump to content

H1N1 and Climate Change


Recommended Posts

An excellent demonstration of why we should be wary.....of why we should act like scientists and question things when they're not clear - or don't make sense. This has nothing to do with denial - or ultra-sketicism. It has to do with human failings and integrity.

Well said. I'm sure they would appreciate that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 418
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

apparently... the Riverwind definition of deliberate misleading deceit is not to actually 'fudge' the graphic. Apparently... the Riverwind definition of deliberate misleading deceit is to pointedly leave a graphic line indicator visibly hanging/ending, while providing a full/complete accompanying description explaining divergence, while making an equally pointed textual reference that states and acknowledges the nature of the visibly hanging/ending graphic line indicator. No deceit - everything stated - everything shown - everything explained... in plain sight... unless you're a deliberate misleading deceitful denier, hell bent on making noise and spreading bull-shit.

all you asked for was a footnote... you actually got much more than that :lol:

My definition is the definition that most honest people have. It is only in climate science where alarmists believe they have a right to deceive people because they are 'saving the planet'.

Here are some illustrations that clearly indicate how odious the deception is.

An excellent demonstration of why we should be wary.....of why we should act like scientists and question things when they're not clear - or don't make sense. This has nothing to do with denial - or ultra-sketicism. It has to do with human failings and integrity. I'm afraid that Waldo will never understand.

Well said. I'm sure they would appreciate that too.

yes Michael - thanks again, for pointing out to Simple that he doesn't even adhere to his own pomposity - far be it from Simple to actually do just that, rather than parrot... far be it for Simple to actually, as he states, "question things when they're not clear".

in this ongoing theme concerning the Hackergate "hiding the decline" meme, we now have Riverwind falling back to the DailyMail/David Rose... probably the pinnacle of recognized biased denier publication/writer. As articles go, that's one of their "finer moments" where they have the audacity to suggest Roger Pielke Jr. is some arbiter of rational perspective - that he, as stated, "could in no sense be described as a climate change sceptic, let alone a denier". Truly a laughable statement, one that definitely sets the article up for the nonsense that follows... as Pielke Jr, is absolutely one of the more recognized and prolific skeptic/deniers out there. But I digress!

the denier play on this "hide the decline" meme, jumps back and forth between reports (AR4 and TAR)... usually you'll find the denier camp utilizing this AR4 graphic since it's the one that presents the more visible presentation of the Briffa2001 reconstruction ending... note: graphic enhanced to amplify and isolate what the denier anal email probers are fixated on - the turquoise line directly above the inserted arrow pointer. That's the graphic to which my AR4 quote applied.

but let' alternatively look at the TAR report reference within this latest Riverwind linked Daily Mail nonsense... the earlier report - the earlier graphic. Unfortunately for the denier camp... there were many individuals willing to equally probe for the real truth behind the Hackergate emails - you know, the thing Simple talks a good game about, but doesn't actually do or accept for himself. This blog presents an exhaustive accounting of the related "hiding in decline" emails in question.

What is absolutely clear is that the post-1960 decline was not the “issue” or “problem” being discussed here. And that Briffa’s series as used in the final version of TAR was very similar to one he had already published (including, of course, its termination in 1960).

as done by many others, several times before, it shows the absolute dishonesty of McIntyre in 'piecemealing' and fabricating, intended to mislead and fit his personal agenda. And, of course, that piece of disingenuous McIntyre crap is but one of those trumpeted by the denier side... with many other blogs simply regurgitating his agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the DailyMail/David Rose... probably the pinnacle of recognized biased denier publication/writer....
Yawn. It seems like when you run out of things to cut and paste you invariably attack the messenger. It does not really make a difference who reported the graphs the fact is the graphs are correct and leaving the decline out significantly changes the impression a reader gets from the graph. That makes it deceitful no matter how much BS is added to the text.

As I said, honest scientists would have included the data AND explained the divergence in the text. The fact that the alarmists scientists at RC and other places continue to defend this dubious practice is one of the reasons why their scientific judgement cannot be trusted.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it remarkable that there is a vestige of intentionally ignorant who cling to old propaganda surrounding climate change. It is beyond any doubt that it is a current phenomenon. It remains to be seen what effects there will be, but anybody who outright denies the existence of a scientifically verified concept is immune to reason and logic.

Blows my mind.

absolutely... the pathetic twist played out on this board has the skeptic/denier side continually moving - and contradicting - their own stated (or inferred) positions. Of course, for the so-called self-avowed skeptics, this would certainly be acceptable as it would simply reflect their changing and malleable viewpoints under "influence" - certainly acceptable, if they would ever acknowledge it... and keep their ever shifting uncertainty clear in their own minds. For the most part what we really have with these guys is what I've labeled as "DD" - denying their denial... as they truly aren't openminded skeptics intent on questioning both sides of the debate. More pointedly, these DDrs', scurry about finding and linking to each and every piece of unsubstantiated crap they can find... one of the worst offenders, usually attaches a bombastic statement along the lines of "another piece of IPCC propaganda dispatched".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who deny climate change are the same ones who believe that you have one life - one heaven - and you must live this life to the fullest even if it makes destroying our earthly heaven... These people are the classic guys who are proving it to be fact that you can take it with you...along with everyone else in tow as the eventually perish and decend into oblivion as we the living decend into an earthly hell - they are ass holes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn. It seems like when you run out of things to cut and paste you invariably attack the messenger. It does not really make a difference who reported the graphs the fact is the graphs are correct and leaving the decline out significantly changes the impression a reader gets from the graph. That makes it deceitful no matter how much BS is added to the text.

As I said, honest scientists would have included the data AND explained the divergence in the text. The fact that the alarmists scientists at RC and other places continue to defend this dubious practice is one of the reasons why their scientific judgement cannot be trusted.

double yawn! Why deny your own cut-and-paste theatrics? Unfortunately, who won't read anything that paints your hero McIntyre in an unfavourable light... will you? Actually - you can't read anything that would do that, since your whole world would come apart if your hero were tarnished in your own eyes :lol: (that linked to blog clearly paints... and tarnishes... your hero. And, of course, clearly shows the scam being run over the deniers manipulation of "hide the decline").

what's really laughable is your position when it simply comes down to the presentation/text itself. You would presume that "unsuspecting naive easily influenced readers" would actually get to the level of reading an IPCC report... and they would nonchalantly pick any graph and make a value assessment without actually reading the report itself... it's accompanying explanatory text, supplied in context to the graphics. It also presumes they would have no inclination to follow-up on the actual science... it would presume they're simply wandering about the interwebs and blindly find themselves reading an IPCC report - oh, the naivety of it all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

double yawn! Why deny your own cut-and-paste theatrics? Unfortunately, who won't read anything that paints your hero McIntyre in an unfavourable light... will you? Actually - you can't read anything that would do that, since your whole world would come apart if your hero were tarnished in your own eyes :lol: (that linked to blog clearly paints... and tarnishes... your hero. And, of course, clearly shows the scam being run over the deniers manipulation of "hide the decline").

what's really laughable is your position when it simply comes down to the presentation/text itself. You would presume that "unsuspecting naive easily influenced readers" would actually get to the level of reading an IPCC report... and they would nonchalantly pick any graph and make a value assessment without actually reading the report itself... it's accompanying explanatory text, supplied in context to the graphics. It also presumes they would have no inclination to follow-up on the actual science... it would presume they're simply wandering about the interwebs and blindly find themselves reading an IPCC report - oh, the naivety of it all!

It's OK Waldo. Calm down. Like I said previously, when a narcissist finally recognizes that they have been duped, it's not a pretty sight. It's OK that you strongly believe in AGW. Good for you......legions of people are on that side of the argument - rightly so....and their argument may yet prevail. But in addition to the scientific integrity issue, one can't blindly ignore that many of AGW's "examples" are either fraudulant or disproven - and these examples are what drives the public's perception:

1) The hockey stick is a fraud

2) Polar Bears are not in danger of extinction - their population is increasing - they're becoming a nuisance

3) The Himalayan glaciers are not disappearing at a rate that will see them gone by 2035

4) Arctic ice is recovering quite nicely, especially with this year's cold winter

5) Hurricanes have not increased - if anything, they've decreased

6) Warming has not increased in the past decade

Narcissism: Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it remarkable that there is a vestige of intentionally ignorant who cling to old propaganda surrounding climate change. It is beyond any doubt that it is a current phenomenon. It remains to be seen what effects there will be, but anybody who outright denies the existence of a scientifically verified concept is immune to reason and logic.

What exactly are you claiming is 'scientifically verified'? The idea that adding CO2 to the air causes the planet to warm? If so you will find that no one on this forum disputes that. What is being disputed is how much warming is caused by CO2 and the reality is no one is able to provide experimental evidence that allows us to determine how much warming will likely occur and recent temperature trends suggest that the effect of CO2 is likely less than claimed by the IPCC.

interesting... this latter statement of yours is certainly a departure from your recent posturing over a "global cooling trend"... isn't it? Should we cancel the request for you to provide citation to support your global cooling trend claim?

so, you now state, "the effect of CO2 is likely less than claimed by the IPCC". What about all those raised concerns about the IPCC using "likelihood probability categorizations"? Oh my!

perhaps you could now shift to, instead, show those recent temperature trends that speak to your "less than claimed" statement. Notwithstanding, of course, we've already discussed the various IPCC SRES scenarios and your desire to, it seems, always reach for the most liberal projections of the various IPCC SRES scenarios. That somehow, you are able to previously acknowledge and suggest acceptance towards the political consensus, be it right or wrong; one that reflects upon the more optimistic IPCC B1 SRES scenario. A political consensus where more than a 100 countries have adopted a global warming limit of 2°C or below (relative to pre-industrial levels), as a guiding principle for mitigation efforts to reduce climate change risks, impacts and damages. Somehow, in your ever increasing web of personal contradiction, you'll speak to that optimistic IPCC B1 SRES scenario while at the same time consistently pushing your agenda toward denigrating the IPCC by otherwise (usually and typically) drawing reference/inference to the more liberal IPCC SRES scenarios. And, of course, I trust you'll remember my pointing out to you that the recent G8 statement towards that political consensus was directly attributed to the work of the IPCC with specific documented G8 attribute outlining the G8 position relative to the IPCC B1 SRES scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that mankind has seperated himself from nature and literally out smarted himself and now has a problem with nature and it's vengence. It used to be that waste - was part of the big picture - put it this way - waste was good...a human being would walk and have a crap on the ground..the poop would decay and stimulate a plant to grow with great vigor..on the return trip the man would eat that plant and gain strenght to carry on...Waste products generated by living beings has always been good for the environ we are enclosed in..we are part of that environ...part of the mechanizm. So what's the problem now? I would say that it's the fact we do not generate waste any longer..we generate poison...So that ancient man that was meant to benefit though the cyclical act of excreation no longer does so - we are out of the loop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's OK Waldo. Calm down. Like I said previously, when a narcissist finally recognizes that they have been duped, it's not a pretty sight. It's OK that you strongly believe in AGW. Good for you......legions of people are on that side of the argument - rightly so....and their argument may yet prevail. But in addition to the scientific integrity issue, one can't blindly ignore that many of AGW's "examples" are either fraudulant or disproven

Narcissism: Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Simple translation: even though I deny my denial, I'm quite comfortable in falsely posturing as a self-avowed skeptic.

no problem, Simple - you should be able to bring all those examples forward and prove, as you state, "fraud". Waiting...

:lol: I let it go up to now as I thought you couldn't be that stoopid... does your medical training allow you to project narcissism to personal anonymity and the somewhat (relative) obscurity of this particular discussion forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who deny climate change are the same ones who believe that you have one life - one heaven - and you must live this life to the fullest even if it makes destroying our earthly heaven... These people are the classic guys who are proving it to be fact that you can take it with you...along with everyone else in tow as the eventually perish and decend into oblivion as we the living decend into an earthly hell - they are ass holes!

agreed - for many, denial is the only outlet available to justify their self-centered 'living in the now' excess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I let it go up to now as I thought you couldn't be that stoopid... does your medical training allow you to project narcissism to personal anonymity and the somewhat (relative) obscurity of this particular discussion forum?

Waldo, you're like an open book. Everyone one of your posts is dripping with the exact definition of narcissim that I provided. You may be invisible, but you're not anonymous.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess what, it doesn't matter if climate change is happening or not, we shouldn't be polluting this planet either way.

And if it is happening, the solution isn't to create a world treaty to reduce CO2 emissions.

It's every country making its own laws that will end pollution(not just CO2) and force industry to go green. Industry shouldn't be shaping our way of life, we should be shaping industry.

Solutions don't have to take 50 years like they want us to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess what, it doesn't matter if climate change is happening or not, we shouldn't be polluting this planet either way.
CO2 is plant food - not pollution. Mixing CO2 in with real pollution like smog makes it impossible to have a rational discussion on pollution.
It's every country making its own laws that will end pollution(not just CO2) and force industry to go green.
All environmental regulations must be balanced against their costs. There are many regulations that are relatively inexpensive to implement but blanket mandates to 'go green' are a waste of time.
Solutions don't have to take 50 years like they want us to believe.
Solutions for what? Renewable energy? We could spend 100 billion a year for the next 50 years building renewable power but it still would not meet more than small fraction of our energy needs. If you disagree then show us some business plans that layout the cost of building and deploying the massive infrastructure required. Statements like 'Solutions don't have to take 50 years' are meaningless without a concrete business plan. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess what, it doesn't matter if climate change is happening or not, we shouldn't be polluting this planet either way.

And if it is happening, the solution isn't to create a world treaty to reduce CO2 emissions.

It's every country making its own laws that will end pollution(not just CO2) and force industry to go green. Industry shouldn't be shaping our way of life, we should be shaping industry.

Solutions don't have to take 50 years like they want us to believe.

If CO2 is pollution you better hold your breath forever because thats what you exhaling. Show us the next evolutionary "green" approved step in humanity, a human who doesn't need to breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh! A Nobel prize winning report from 2007 has five glaring errors.

See it here!

I think this illustrates the propensity to overlook facts when one holds to an ideology. The IPCC definitely had one at the time this report was compiled.

They say it doesn't refute the major point of anthropogenic global warming but let's wait until all the facts are reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh! A Nobel prize winning report from 2007 has five glaring errors.

See it here!

I think this illustrates the propensity to overlook facts when one holds to an ideology. The IPCC definitely had one at the time this report was compiled.

They say it doesn't refute the major point of anthropogenic global warming but let's wait until all the facts are reviewed.

nothing to see here Pliny... move along now. Besides, Wilber earlier beat you to the punch.

alrightee... the comment occurred within the WG2 volume, and was minimally recognized and reported on - until this recent flap... after all, it's taken 3+ years since the release of the report to have this inconsequential WG2 comment brought forward. The higher profile WG1 Physical Science Basis volume actually presented a more generalized assessment on the state of glacier retreat. However, most significantly, the WG1 volume comment is what ended up within the overall IPCC Synthesis Report which summarizes the work from all respective volumes - hence, the WG2 volume comment could hardly be stated as "a major IPCC claim"... additionally, the WG2 comment does not appear within the Summary for Policymakers Report. So - on the point of Himalayan glacier retreat there is a lack of continuity across the sub-volumes of the overall report... a lack of continuity that isn't perpetuated to the Summary Report. It simply reflects on a lack of due diligence by co-ordinating lead author(s), who's job is to ensure continuity across all sub volumes of the overall report.

but most significant Pliny, is the state of world wide glacier retreat, one you feel comfortable with... one you can qualify and attribute to... something... anything? The IPCC has put out a statement on the melting of the Himalayan glaciers - Pliny, are you prepared to challenge this quote from that statement?

The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated: “Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”

This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment.

various blogs are now linking to this presentation given recently at the annual AGU conference - stated as reflecting the current state of the Himalayan glaciers... while also addressing this rather inconsequential WG2 volume comment. Pliny, are you ready to challenge this presentation on the current state of the Himalayan glaciers? Are you prepared to offer cause to qualify the significant retreat of some of the Himalayan glaciers - to challenge the statement that, overall, "total Himalayan glacier mass balance is distinctly negative?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CO2 is plant food - not pollution. Mixing CO2 in with real pollution like smog makes it impossible to have a rational discussion on pollution.

well, of course, it's already been pointed out to you that the U.S. Supreme Court and the EPA have formally recognized CO2 as a pollutant. Right? Of course, that won't stop your continued "plant food" commentary - will it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while also addressing this rather inconsequential WG2 volume comment.
Spin, spin. You, of course, fail to realize the real issue: this is yet more evidence that the IPCC is a hopelessly biased body that will accept made up numbers if they happen to help the IPCC political agenda. Just like the IPCC allowed Jones to first refuse to include the MM paper and then when it was include the IPCC allowed Jones to add editorial text that was nothing other than his unsubstantiated opinion.

Here is a link that discusses some of the other misrepresentations in the IPCC report.

How many more of the these revelations will it take for people like you to admit that the so-called authorities reporting the science of climate are biased?

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks guys, I know what CO2 is.

This whole CO2 climate change ordeal is nonsense. The problem isn't CO2 it's the fact that we don't stop polluting.

We should not be dumping toxins in our oceans, in our atmosphere and we shouldn't be creating more and more landfills for our never ending stream of garbage.

Why not force companies to make products that must be recyclable and green(or as much as possible) and the product must be created in a green manner.

What happens when the air that we breathe becomes air that we choke?

Money should not undermine the well being of this planet and its species.

I'm just gonna go out and say it, Keynesian economics is fascist economics, we've become slaves to central banks.

We need a better system, this current system doesn't work if people haven't realized by now, if you haven't, you will soon enough.

In fact, Dr. Jefferson Tester of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says that geothermal energy has a potential to power our country 140,000 times over, using Enhanced Geothermal Systems. The United States currently needs about 100 exajoules to power it's daily needs. Tester believes that there is a potential to harvest 14,000,000 exajoules of geothermal energy nation wide.

source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should not be dumping toxins in our oceans, in our atmosphere and we shouldn't be creating more and more landfills for our never ending stream of garbage.
Agreed. We need alternatives.
Why not force companies to make products that must be recyclable and green(or as much as possible) and the product must be created in a green manner.
There are three problems. 1) What does 'green' mean 2) Depending on your definition recycling is often less 'green' than throwing stuff away 3) What does 'possible' mean?

Companies have to make a profit. If government regulations make their products too expensive they will shut their doors. You cannot force a company to produce a product that they lose money on. This puts a limit on any regulations that a government can impose. Especially since it is impossible to convince all governments in the world to be equally strict.

What happens when the air that we breathe becomes air that we choke?
The air in north america and europe is cleaner than it was 50 years ago. The improvements came as governments mandated technologies as they became affordable. Governments that ignore the cost of technologies before mandating them will only hurt the economy. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...