Global Warming backdown

[Bonam]

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?

Sure. I'd prefer if the debates were more about issues and less about personalities and insults. If you want to describe me as a beacon or champion, go ahead.

[wyly]

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.

I have almost as many post in 11 months as you in 2 1/2 yrs and Waldo has surpassed you in about the same time, you're nobody... but you do have a supersized pompous ego that we'll never be able to equal...

[Guest TrueMetis]

I have almost as many post in 11 months as you in 2 1/2 yrs and Waldo has surpassed you in about the same time, you're nobody... but you do have a supersized pompous ego that we'll never be able to equal...

So post count = credentials now.

[wyly]

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.

oh ya, big bad Waldo and wyly, picking on the old folks, ya we're just a couple of bullies... ...act like a jerk and I'll hit back I don't care if they have both feet in the grave...

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?

some people get a real ego-trip acting all wise and self righteous...

[wyly]

So post count = credentials now.

and my dick is bigger than yours...

[Bonam]

I have almost as many post in 11 months as you in 2 1/2 yrs and Waldo has surpassed you in about the same time, you're nobody... but you do have a supersized pompous ego that we'll never be able to equal...

Grats on spamming forums? Heh.

[Keepitsimple]

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.

I agree - but I hope they continue to post. Waldo and Wyly (mini-me) are the perfect example of what is wrong with the AGW Alarmist crowd. Religious Dogma has no place in Science. These guys would be right at home in the old days in Salem, Massachusetts. It matters little who is right or wrong, partially or otherwise - their ignorant, narcissistic manner demonstrates on a daily basis how a scientific journey that should benefit all mankind can rot from the inside....and by extension, why the IPCC needs serious reform.

[waldo]

Religious Dogma has no place in Science.

....and by extension, why the IPCC needs serious reform.

ah yes, the ever present Simple hard-on for the IPCC. You've openly stated you're a denier - the IPCC means nothing to you other than as a means to push your denier agenda. You could care less about the IPCC and it's reform is a false-front denier talking point for you.

science? You deny science! You pray to the gods of anti-science - you're an Anti-Science Syndrome man - you're an ASSMAN!

[Keepitsimple]

ah yes, the ever present Simple hard-on for the IPCC. You've openly stated you're a denier - the IPCC means nothing to you other than as a means to push your denier agenda. You could care less about the IPCC and it's reform is a false-front denier talking point for you.

science? You deny science! You pray to the gods of anti-science - you're an Anti-Science Syndrome man - you're an ASSMAN!

....and you continue to display your small-minded dogma. You're like the over-bearing parent who insists on forcing their child to play a particular sport....instead of encouraging them to enjoy it. Eventually, you end up driving them away and turning them off. As I said, you're the perfect poster-child for all that is wrong with Climate Science. Keep it up Waldo......especially the little smiley-faces - they reenforce your arrogance.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

....and you continue to display your small-minded dogma. You're like the over-bearing parent who insists on forcing their child to play a particular sport....instead od encouraging them to enjoy it. Eventually, you end up driving them away and turning them off. As I said, you're the perfect poster-child for all that is wrong with Climate Science. Keep it up Waldo......especially the little smiley-faces - they reenforce your arrogance.

yes, when you can't argue on the science itself, you resort to personalization... or your favoured marginalization efforts. What do you care about Climate Science, ASSMAN?

[Keepitsimple]

yes, when you can't argue on the science itself, you resort to personalization... or your favoured marginalization efforts. What do you care about Climate Science, ASSMAN?

I actually care a great deal about science in general - from a layman's perspective. The politicization of science - as we have clearly seen with Climate Science and the IPCC - is a very dangerous happening. Science is one of the last refuges of pure intellectual human progress. To see it hijacked by special interests (the Green Industry), political dogma (redistribution schemes) and biased IPCC "gatekeepers" is scary indeed, reenforced by attitudes such as yours. That's why it is so important to address reforms in major collaborative efforts like Climate Science, especially in the areas of peer review, open access to data, quality control of computerized programming and modelling and governance of reporting. It should come as no surprise that such reforms are needed - Climate Science is a huge, integrated effort that dwarfs the size of typical large corporate or government projects - many, many of which fail. It's only logical that there is still much to discover, much to debate, and much to "settle".

Edited March 17, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[wyly]

Grats on spamming forums? Heh.

...grats on condescending arrogance...you want to be respected as an adult act like one, don't come strolling in here acting all mature and lecturing us on behaviour, you drop in once in a blue moon acting like the forum king, screw off...

you're deliberately trolling for a fight stirring the pot and inciting hostility, you're lower than the flamers we're arguing with...

Edited March 17, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

I actually care a great deal about science in general - from a layman's perspective. The politicization of science - as we have clearly seen with Climate Science and the IPCC - is a very dangerous happening. Science is one of the last refuges of pure intellectual human progress. To see it hijacked by special interests (the Green Industry), political dogma (redistribution schemes) and biased IPCC "gatekeepers" is scary indeed, reenforced by attitudes such as yours. That's why it is so important to address reforms in major collaborative efforts like Climate Science, especially in the areas of peer review, open access to data, quality control of computerized programming and modelling and governance of reporting. It should come as no surprise that such reforms are needed - Climate Science is a huge, integrated effort that dwarfs the size of typical large corporate or government projects - many, many of which fail. It's only logical that there is still much to discover, much to debate, and much to "settle".

you spit at science - you have no respect for it... you deny it! To speak of a one-sided politicization, as you do, clearly shows your blinders, reinforces your denial. There is nothing so political, so orchestrated, so biased, so damning... as the ongoing campaign of the political right championed and funded by, aided and abetted by, those with vested interests in purposely casting doubt and uncertainty over the current overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts the theory of AGW climate change. Just look at your most recent posts - you throw out the religious dogma tag, the zealotry label, the political dogma tag, you speak of "gatekeepers"... and have the nerve, the gall, to presume to speak on the behalf of, as you say, "intellectual human progress". You whine and snivel because some of us have the presence to call you on your continued bullshit. You have a single interest... you could care less about science, about reform... to you, it's all about casting doubt and uncertainty - any way you can, Mr. ASSMAN!

[Shady]

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

It's not his assessment, it's fact. You called him a reletavily new member. He's been a member since '07. He's been here longer than you have. By 2 years. You're wrong. He's right. It's not an opinion, or an assessment. It's not being anal. It's called being correct. You should try it sometime!

[waldo]

hey Shady - how are you doing on your little MLW fact-gathering exercise? Or are you too fixated on your latest British tabloid "journalists" fixation with... cartoons?

you have yet to bring a single post forward - not a one - that actually speaks to any of your own thoughts, or your own words, concerning the debate over climate change. You have never personally crafted a single paragraph of your thoughts on the debate. You have never stepped beyond your most basis comfort zone where you scurry about and presume to find something... anything... you think you can throw up as a challenge to the overwhelming scientific consensus. You pompously link to another of your tabloid nuggets, quote from it, and scurry away. That someone had the presence to create a thread dedicated to you, is a testament to your lack of integrity, to your personal dishonesty and lack of intelligence - the Shady "intellectual dishonesty" thread! How apropos. Each and every time you post and carry that signature forward is pure gold - real gold!

[Keepitsimple]

you spit at science - you have no respect for it... you deny it! To speak of a one-sided politicization, as you do, clearly shows your blinders, reinforces your denial. There is nothing so political, so orchestrated, so biased, so damning... as the ongoing campaign of the political right championed and funded by, aided and abetted by, those with vested interests in purposely casting doubt and uncertainty over the current overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts the theory of AGW climate change. Just look at your most recent posts - you throw out the religious dogma tag, the zealotry label, the political dogma tag, you speak of "gatekeepers"... and have the nerve, the gall, to presume to speak on the behalf of, as you say, "intellectual human progress". You whine and snivel because some of us have the presence to call you on your continued bullshit. You have a single interest... you could care less about science, about reform... to you, it's all about casting doubt and uncertainty - any way you can, Mr. ASSMAN!

Thank you Waldo. Once again, you've proven my point. I rest my case.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

I've posted this before - much to Waldo's chagrin.....but just to keep things in perspecive for our part of the woods:

Since 1948, ranked in terms of warmest:

2000 - 11th warmest

2001 - 4

2002 - 19

2003 - 8

2004 - 33

2005 - 6

2006 - 2

2007 - 13

2008 - 17

2009 - 14

Link: http://www.msc-smc.e...te=2008&rows=61

chagrin? Simple, I relish that repeated post of yours... the one you presumed to trot out inferring "global cooling"... the one that, yes, did show you had an affinity for Environment Canada... the one where I reinforced your misunderstandings by presenting you with Environment Canada's own trending data - here:

again, Simple... what was it you wanted to say?

more 'eyeball reasonability' tests, hey Simple? You've already been presented with NASA/GISS temperature data that shows the past decade as the warmest on record... NOAA/NCDC confirms the same:

* Global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through December tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest on record, at 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average.

* The 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record, with an average global surface temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the 20th century average. This shattered the 1990s value of 0.36°C (0.65°F).

* Ocean surface temperatures (through December) tied with 2002 and 2004 as the fourth warmest on record, at 0.48°C (0.86°F) above the 20th century average.

* Land surface temperatures through December tied with 2003 as the seventh warmest on record, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average.

Simple's 'lack of warming' over the last decade ... Simple, the champion for, as he claims, "intellectual human progress". Yes, Simple... the case is certainly rested on your pumped up puffery, your purposeful intent to deny science, to cast doubt and uncertainty in any manner you can.

(on edit: updated trend link)

Edited January 8, 2011 by waldo

[waldo]

if you travel at all through our mountain ranges... you know the impact of the pine beetle.

What’s Killing the Great Forests of the American West?

Across western North America, huge tracts of forest are dying off at an extraordinary rate, mostly because of outbreaks of insects. Scientists are now seeing such forest die-offs around the world and are linking them to changes in climate.

Instead of just two weeks, the beetles fly continually from May until October, attacking trees, burrowing in, and laying their eggs for half the year. And that’s not all. The beetles rarely attacked immature trees; now they do so all the time. What’s more, colder temperatures once kept the beetles away from high altitudes, yet now they swarm and kill trees on mountaintops. And in some high places where the beetles had a two-year life cycle because of cold temperatures, it’s decreased to one year.

“A couple of degrees warmer could create multiple generations a year,” she said, as she chopped off a piece of bark on a dead lodgepole pine to show the galleries of burrowing larvae. “If that happens, I expect it would be a disaster for all of our pine populations.”

Across western North America, from Mexico to Alaska, forest die-off is occurring on an extraordinary scale, unprecedented in at least the last century-and-a-half — and perhaps much longer. All told, the Rocky Mountains in Canada and the United States have seen nearly 70,000 square miles of forest — an area the size of Washington state — die since 2000. For the most part, this massive die-off is being caused by outbreaks of tree-killing insects, from the ips beetle in the Southwest that has killed pinyon pine, to the spruce beetle, fir beetle, and the major pest — the mountain pine beetle — that has hammered forests in the north.

These large-scale forest deaths from beetle infestations are likely a symptom of a bigger problem, according to scientists: warming temperatures and increased stress, due to a changing climate. Although western North America has been hardest hit by insect infestations, sizeable areas of forest in Australia, Russia, France, and other countries have experienced die-offs, most of which appears to have been caused by drought, high temperatures, or both.

what's the problem... it's just natural... besides, scientists are all scammers - right Simple, right Shady?

[Shady]

hey Shady - how are you doing on your little MLW fact-gathering exercise? Or are you too fixated on your latest British tabloid "journalists" fixation with... cartoons?

Yeah, I'd change the subject if I were you too. You're pretty much as wrong as wrong can be in your insistence that the poster in question is being anal for being right.

you have yet to bring a single post forward - not a one - that actually speaks to any of your own thoughts, or your own words, concerning the debate over climate change. You have never personally crafted a single paragraph of your thoughts on the debate. You have never stepped beyond your most basis comfort zone where you scurry about and presume to find something... anything... you think you can throw up as a challenge to the overwhelming scientific consensus. You pompously link to another of your tabloid nuggets, quote from it, and scurry away. That someone had the presence to create a thread dedicated to you, is a testament to your lack of integrity, to your personal dishonesty and lack of intelligence - the Shady "intellectual dishonesty" thread! How apropos. Each and every time you post and carry that signature forward is pure gold - real gold!

Well, as soon as you answer the several questions I posted to you, I'll be more than happy to release the vault of information I've gathered over the last couple of days. Stop filibustering.

[waldo]

Yeah, I'd change the subject if I were you too. You're pretty much as wrong as wrong can be in your insistence that the poster in question is being anal for being right.

Well, as soon as you answer the several questions I posted to you, I'll be more than happy to release the vault of information I've gathered over the last couple of days. Stop filibustering.

no subject being changed Shady... the subject is your denial in the face of the scientific consensus. Your claimed 'vault of information'? What... you mean all your links to denier blogs or tabloid journalists. It is comforting to know you've been out on a mission! You haven't a hope of putting anything together on your own - of making an argument on your own.

what? no comment on the two previous posts that speak to the record temperatures of the past decade... or the forest devastation? Oh wait... somehow your MLW treatise will reconcile our forests devastation, our permafrost melting, our rising sea levels, our arctic ice extent loss as nothing to concern ourselves with - cause Shady's expert testimony on the MLW says all of today's observations are natural in cause.

[waldo]

it's only natural... hey Shady?

Huge methane leak in Arctic Ocean

Methane is leaking into the atmosphere from unstable permafrost in the Arctic Ocean faster than scientists had thought and could worsen global warming, a study said Thursday.

From 2003 to 2008, an international research team led by University of Alaska-Fairbanks scientists Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov surveyed the waters of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which covers more than 772,200 square miles (two million square kilometers) of seafloor in the Arctic Ocean.

"This discovery reveals a large but overlooked source of methane gas escaping from permafrost underwater, rather than on land," the study said.

"More widespread emissions could have dramatic effects on global warming in the future."

[Shady]

the scientific consensus

There is no scientific consensus. And the term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron anyways. Anyone who uses such terms is either completely ignorant of the whole purpose and methodology of science, or is being purposely dishonest.

[waldo]

whatever! Just normal circumstance... natural, you hear! It's just natural - move along now, nothing to see here:

Arctic Tundra is Being Lost As Far North Quickly Warms

The treeless ecosystem of mosses, lichens, and berry plants is giving way to shrub land and boreal forest. As scientists study the transformation, they are discovering that major warming-related events, including fires and the collapse of slopes due to melting permafrost, are leading to the loss of tundra in the Arctic.

Much of the Arctic has experienced temperature increases of 3 to 5 degrees F in the past half-century and could see temperatures soar 10 degrees F above pre-industrial levels by 2100. University of Vermont professor Breck Bowden, a watershed specialist participating in a long-term study of the Alaskan tundra, said that such rapidly rising temperatures will mean that the “tundra as we imagine it today will largely be gone throughout the Arctic. It may take longer than 50 or even 100 years, but the inevitable direction is toward boreal forest or something like it.”

Increased burning and thawing of the tundra also is expected to accelerate global warming. Scientists point out that huge amounts of carbon — and substantial amounts of methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas — are tied up in the permafrost that underlies most Arctic tundra. Michelle Mack, an ecosystems ecologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville, notes that “twice as much carbon exists in the world’s permafrost as in the atmosphere. So as they melt, these soils will add immensely to the carbon dioxide in the air.”

[waldo]

There is no scientific consensus. And the term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron anyways. Anyone who uses such terms is either completely ignorant of the whole purpose and methodology of science, or is being purposely dishonest.

one who denies science, as you do... can hardly be in a position to offer proclamations. Your denying the consensus is simply an extension of your denying the science. That consensus you deny presents itself on many, many levels... it's supported by the positions of the Academies of Science across the world, it's widely and emphatically supported by the scientific organizations that study climate science... it's supported by the overwhelming majority of the climate scientists that actively do research and publish climate related papers. The acknowledgment to your personal display of intellectual dishonesty, most certainly, disqualifies you from commenting on the dishonesty of others - ya think!

[Shady]

Scientific Consensus

Definition:

The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field.

Source: GreenFacts

More:

Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:

all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress,

the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.

Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".

Link