Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

Waldo.....so far, 250 of "your" scientists have signed a letter calling for better Quality Control but defending the IPCC on their "minor" mistakes in AR7 and unequivocally supporting the basic science. Your inability to do nothing but parrot Real Climate is what ruins any positive influence that you could have. Will you show any humility at all and admit that you have been wrong with regards to the lack of warming of the last decade? I won't hold my breath.

let's see... it's always heartening to have a denier presume to leverage (and misuse) anything that positions to support the IPCC. But let's have you interpret further, clarify further... in the face of the Open Letter's content that states, "14 of the warmest 15 years on record have been experienced between 1995 and 2009", could you clarify, in any humility you might presume to use, what your interpretation of the authors use of the word "stable" might mean, particularly in regards your association of the related phrase, of that word, to, as you say, "the lack of warming of the last decade"?

[Keepitsimple]

let's see... it's always heartening to have a denier presume to leverage (and misuse) anything that positions to support the IPCC. But let's have you interpret further, clarify further... in the face of the Open Letter's content that states, "14 of the warmest 15 years on record have been experienced between 1995 and 2009", could you clarify, in any humility you might presume to use, what your interpretation of the authors use of the word "stable" might mean, particularly in regards your association of the related phrase, of that word, to, as you say, "the lack of warming of the last decade"?

Typical obscure response. No one is denying that it has been getting warmer since 1850 - with temperatures going up and down (or stable) at various points - but always upward. We came out of an upward spike in the 90's and now we've levelled off. That's why many of the last years are the warmest - not all, but most......it only makes sense that it would be that way. That doesen't preclude the fact that temperatures have been stable for a decade - albeit at warmer levels than past. So once again, are you saying you disagree with the Scientists' statement that Global mean temperatures have been stable for the past decade? Just a yes or a no would be appreciated Waldo.

[waldo]

So once again, are you saying you disagree with the Scientists' statement that Global mean temperatures have been stable for the past decade?

stop - full stop! You're back-peddling now... at least you've dropped your nonsense about "cooling", although, I'm sure it's just a convenient lapse and you'll resurrect it at any point. So let's stay with your most recent befuddlement and attempts to qualify an association to, as you stated, "the lack of warming of the last decade"? You were asked, in any humility you might presume to use, how you're making that phrase association, particularly when presented with a positive decadal trend (notwithstanding the short-term decadal trending time line).

[Keepitsimple]

stop - full stop! You're back-peddling now...

Let me see, how can I put this politely.....I know, I'll use Waldo terminology - you're an idiot - a moron. I simply asked if you agreed with the scientists' statement that temperatures have remained stable for the last decade.....I've even acknowledged that they've put it in the context of their agreement with AR4. Why is it so hard for you to admit that perhaps on this one issue, you may have been a little over-exuberant? Is it straight Dogma or a mental defect?

the current decadal period of stable global mean temperature does nothing to alter a fundamental conclusion from the AR4

[waldo]

your moronic idiocy is front and center - no matter how hard you back-peddle. Again, how do you equate a, as you state, "a lack of warming" to your assumptions. Exactly what does "a lack of warming" mean to you Simple... better yet... what implication do you presume to infer from your "a lack of warming" association? It is obvious you struggle with trending. The warmest decade on record Simple... one that shows the observed warming is 100% consistent with the expected IPCC position that posits a warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade... one superimposed with short-term natural variability. Yet somehow... to you... this equates to, as you state, "a lack of warming".

[Keepitsimple]

your moronic idiocy is front and center - no matter how hard you back-peddle. Again, how do you equate a, as you state, "a lack of warming" to your assumptions. Exactly what does "a lack of warming" mean to you Simple... better yet... what implication do you presume to infer from your "a lack of warming" association? It is obvious you struggle with trending. The warmest decade on record Simple... one that shows the observed warming is 100% consistent with the expected IPCC position that posits a warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade... one superimposed with short-term natural variability. Yet somehow... to you... this equates to, as you state, "a lack of warming".

You're hopeless Waldo. Just hopeless. You remind me of Mr. Magoo....the cartoon guy who goes around mumbling to himself.

[waldo]

one can appreciate your frustration Simple - I'm sure it's not easy for you to deal with a repeat pattern of your distortions, your misrepresentations, continually coming back to bite you - big time! Perhaps it's simply Simple terminology ... perhaps we simply need to have you translate, in Simple speak, what "a lack of warming" means... and implies, to you.

[Shady]

excellent - bring your substantiation forward Shady - I'm quite sure we can have some real fun. As for your commenting on the global versus regional aspect of the MWP, we can certainly accept your premise that the MWP was a regional circumstance. Is that what you're saying Shady... is that why you feel there's no reason for you to comment in that regard?

Using your same standard, AGW is a regional circumstance as well, isn't it? Because like you and your heros insist, not every part of the world will experience warming. Some places may experience cooling. Other places may not experience any change at all. How is that any different from MWP?

And again. Could you please answer my true or false question?

Did two government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change get banned for exaggerating global warming? And were they banned because their claims were found to be not supported by science?

Like I said, I know you're a busy guy, so a simple yes or no, or true or false answer will do.

[waldo]

Using your same standard, AGW is a regional circumstance as well, isn't it? Because like you and your heros insist, not every part of the world will experience warming. Some places may experience cooling. Other places may not experience any change at all. How is that any different from MWP?

Shady, you need to get your parrot act together here... spend a bit of time actually reviewing the subject. The whole premise behind deniers lining up behind the MWP is a false premise that it was a global phenomenon - the simple fact you don't even recognize a fundamental facet of the denier argument, shows you're not even a worthy functioning parrot. By the way... do you believe the theory of AnthropogenicGlobalWarming climate change presumes that overall global temperature increase... implies something other than global?

And again. Could you please answer my true or false question?

Did two government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change get banned for exaggerating global warming? And were they banned because their claims were found to be not supported by science?

Like I said, I know you're a busy guy, so a simple yes or no, or true or false answer will do.

Shady, have a lol on me... actually, I saw your British tabloid link's author as Jonathan Leake and didn't give it another thought. Clearly, you think this is a big deal as this is now the third time you've referenced it. What's it all about Shady? I was sure after this prior MLW post we could dispense with anything you might trot out from Jonathan Leake... shown to be the absolute worst of the dishonest British tabloid journalists. It's clear your dishonest intellectual predilection steers you to anything from Jonathan Leake... but really, c'mon, have you no shame? What the heck... I'll bite, show me the link again, I might have a look at it - what's it all about Shady?

[Shady]

The whole premise behind deniers lining up behind the MWP is a false premise that it was a global phenomenon

Why wasn't it a global phenomenon? But besides that, why did it take place in the first place?

global temperature increase... implies something other than global?

Do we know that the overall global temperature didn't increase at all during the MWP? Show me the data? However, your hero Dr. Jones admits that the MWP might have been warmer than any warming we may have experienced at the present time. Why is that?

Shady, have a lol on me... actually, I saw your British tabloid link's author as Jonathan Leake and didn't give it another thought. Clearly, you think this is a big deal as this is now the third time you've referenced it. What's it all about Shady? I was sure after this prior MLW post we could dispense with anything you might trot out from Jonathan Leake... shown to be the absolute worst of the dishonest British tabloid journalists. It's clear your dishonest intellectual predilection steers you to anything from Jonathan Leake... but really, c'mon, have you no shame? What the heck... I'll bite, show me the link again, I might have a look at it - what's it all about Shady?

It's not about British tabloids, or your favourite scarecrow Jonanthan Leake. It's about whether or not something actually happened. Did it or didn't it? Yes or no.

[waldo]

It's not about British tabloids, or your favourite scarecrow Jonanthan Leake. It's about whether or not something actually happened. Did it or didn't it? Yes or no.

show me the British tabloid link again... what are your (rather, what are Jonathan Leake's) claims concerning another one of his, I expect, displays of lazy dishonest "journalism"?

as for the MLW... you're going against the process now Shady... I gave you a series of questions and you stepped up and accepted the questioning challenge (albeit you suggested it would take some time to respond). I eagerly await your collective response to those half-dozen or so questions... certainly, you don't expect me to help you make your case/argument - do you?

And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer! Can you tell us why? Surely you must know. Surely your AGW heros should know as well. And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today. Right? Even though it's statistically insignificant warming. And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

- care to substantiate your claims that the MWP temperatures were warmer than today?

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

- care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?

- care to state why you continue to hold fast to your intellectually dishonest claims that today`s warming is statistically insignificant... why you continue to act like an icehole concerning a single statement from a single scientist relative to only one of the assortment of surface temperature records available, notwithstanding corroborations from radiosondes, satellite, etc.

- care to substantiate your premise that the MWP period, regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP, presents statistically significant warming?

I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process.

Edited March 16, 2010 by waldo

[wyly]

show me the British tabloid link again... what are your (rather, what are Jonathan Leake's) claims concerning another one of his, I expect, displays of lazy dishonest "journalism"?

as for the MLW... you're going against the process now Shady... I gave you a series of questions and you stepped up and accepted the questioning challenge (albeit you suggested it would take some time to respond). I eagerly await your collective response to those half-dozen or so questions... certainly, you don't expect me to help you make your case/argument - do you?

it's more likely shady will die before you get any answers...other than TV weathermen and Tabloid journalists he doesn't have any legitimate sources...but you already knew that before you asked the questions...

Edited March 16, 2010 by wyly

[Bonam]

Man it's ironic how despite being convinced on a scientific level that global warming is occurring, reading this thread I can't help but cheer for the so called "deniers". Wyly and waldo are utterly destructive to their proclaimed cause. I almost feel drawn to take up the incorrect side of the argument just to stand against their zealotry and hostility.

[waldo]

Man it's ironic how despite being convinced on a scientific level that global warming is occurring, reading this thread I can't help but cheer for the so called "deniers". Wyly and waldo are utterly destructive to their proclaimed cause. I almost feel drawn to take up the incorrect side of the argument just to stand against their zealotry and hostility.

you're a relative newcomer - early on, when these climate related threads started to spawn, a sense of decorum was maintained. Over a drawn out time frame that gradually disintegrated to what you see today. Frankly, one can have little to no respect for any denier side that purposely distorts, fabricates and lies.

[Bonam]

you're a relative newcomer

Let's see:

Bonam

* Full Member

* Group: Members

* Posts: 1,563

* Joined: 13-June 07

* Location:Vancouver

waldo

* Full Member

* Group: Members

* Posts: 1,784

* Joined: 14-January 09

You know, you said it yourself:

distorts, fabricates and lies.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Bonam

[waldo]

duh! Yes, I have checked your side profile previously, but did not think you were that literally anal... would it be fair to say you've not been an active poster for quite some time... until recently? If not, I can only suggest I've not noticed you until recently - in any case, that's the level of comment that draws you out to a combative challenge (re: "distorts, fabricates and lies")? Your presence has certainly been felt in terms of self-posturing over your proclaimed education, but I've not noticed you over these last, what... 6+ months... in any climate related threads. In any case, I've made a special note to recognize your sensitivities... carry on.

[Bonam]

duh! Yes, I have checked your side profile previously, but did not think you were that literally anal... would it be fair to say you've not been an active poster for quite some time... until recently?

I took a break. However, I've been posting in climate threads (along with other threads) since 2007. What's changed since then? Well, you and wyly signed up. Wonder if that could have anything to do with the lowering of the quality of debate you say you've noticed.

[waldo]

I took a break. However, I've been posting in climate threads (along with other threads) since 2007. What's changed since then? Well, you and wyly signed up. Wonder if that could have anything to do with the lowering of the quality of debate you say you've noticed.

yes, thanks for acknowledging your break... so, in actuality, my statement should have read something along the lines of, "you're a relative newcomer, in that you've taken a lengthy break from regular posting". As I said, that quality of debate has most certainly deteriorated... we've had related discussions to that end... and, some of us, have acknowledged our contributions, in kind, to that deterioration. At this point, with this cast of misfit deniers, the 'gloves are off' and discussion is unlikely to improve... at least with the misfits.

[Bonam]

At this point, with this cast of misfit deniers, the 'gloves are off' and discussion is unlikely to improve... at least with the misfits.

Two problems with this:

1) you guys behave worse than these "misfit deniers". Your opponents may be dense and focus exclusively on specific topics rather than the whole or misquote statements, etc. But you guys are just plain hostile, an insult in more posts than not. Calling people morons, idiotics, etc. In one recent thread, one of you was equating questioning climate change with Holocaust denial. It's just ridiculous.

2) what is the goal of your "gloves off" approach? Do you honestly think you are gonna convince someone? Beat your opposition into submission? What?

Edited March 16, 2010 by Bonam

[Shady]

duh! Yes, I have checked your side profile previously, but did not think you were that literally anal

I see, so to you, being anal is being factually correct? No wonder you're head-over-heels in love with the AGW true-believers. Facts be damned!

[waldo]

1) Your opponents may be dense and focus exclusively on specific topics rather than the whole or misquote statements, etc. But you guys are just plain hostile, an insult in more posts than not.

hostility breeds like hostility... insults are almost self-perpetuating. I would suggest you're a bit 'selective'; in any case, some of us don't suffer fools lightly.

2) what is the goal of your "gloves off" approach? Do you honestly think you are gonna convince someone? Beat your opposition into submission? What?

what is your goal in calling the subject out? Do you honestly think you're going to bring about change... are you a beacon/champion for board self-moderation?

[waldo]

I see, so to you, being anal is being factually correct? No wonder you're head-over-heels in love with the AGW true-believers. Facts be damned!

I rest my case

[Shady]

it's more likely shady will die before you get any answers

Well, I haven't gotten any answers from where's waldo yet either. And considering I asked him speicific questions before he asked me, I think it's only fair that he provide his answers first. However, my guess is that he doesn't have any answers. Come'on waldo! I'm sure Phil-boy must have something for you to regurgitate!

[Shady]

I rest my case

Well, explain to us all what you meant by him being anal? Is it that he was right and you are wrong? Is that it?

[waldo]

your willingness/want to prove out Bonam's assessment is noted