Global Warming backdown

[Pliny]

belated alert! - Pliny drive-by thread bump!

Let's get some peer reviewed bible chapters going, Waldo. What's the latest from the Pope? Glacier disappearing in 2012?

Temperature to skyrocket another 1/2 degree by 2050?

[waldo]

Pliny, perhaps a long walkabout will help you cope… better.

clearly, you’re having difficulty in managing the ever present onslaught of irrefutable evidence to support the theory of AGW climate change. It truly must pain you each time a part of your denial faith is shown to have no substance. Don’t be afraid of science, Pliny.

[Keepitsimple]

Remember how the alarmists changed their message from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? As Phil Jones says, we have not had any statisically significant warming in the past 15 years. He also admitted that there has been cooling since 2002 - but also statisically insignificant. So how are the alarmists starting to deal with this inconvenient truth? Here's the new talking point to counter this discouraging "lack of warming". Clever fellows these alarmists.

To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

From the "Getting Skeptical about Skepticism" Website: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Edited May 10, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Guest TrueMetis]

Remember how the alarmists changed their message from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? As Phil Jones says, we have not had any statisically significant warming in the past 15 years. He also admitted that there has been cooling since 2002 - but also statisically insignificant. So how are the alarmists starting to deal with this inconvenient truth? Here's the new talking point to counter this discouraging "lack of warming". Clever fellows these alarmists.

Not this again. One question have you actually read what Jones had to say or are you basing this just on the qoute Shady has in his sig?

[waldo]

Remember how the alarmists changed their message from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? As Phil Jones says, we have not had any statisically significant warming in the past 15 years. He also admitted that there has been cooling since 2002 - but also statisically insignificant.

since you continue to ignore the beat-back to your parroting of your favoured TV weatherman's fallacious position on station dropout, I accept your unconditional surrender on that point of discussion.

but now we see your personal desperation rise a few notches. We've already discussed the historical timings and basis for the changing terminology references; global warming versus climate change versus anthropogenic climate change. Only a desperate loser would trot this one out again?

as True Metis highlights, we've long since dispatched Shady's intellectual dishonesty over the Phil Jones statements. In your continued desperation you can ignore the other 4+ surface temperature records independently maintained (separate from CRU)... that do show statistical significant warming over that same cherry-picked time frame. You can revel in your cherry picked short-term trend time frame to dishonestly characterize Phil Jones & CRU data. You can ignore the fact that if you add but a single year to the cherry picked time frame, CRU data becomes statistically significant warming... you can presume to hang your hat on a single temperature record - one that does in fact show warming over the Phil Jones statement time frame. You can ignore the fact that at the end of this year that same cherry picked short-term time frame will roll over a year and become statistically significant.

it's painfully obvious that you don't know anything about temperature trending - that's been proven time and again through numerous MLW posts. You haven't a clue about statistical significance... but soldier on, parrot boy!

[bush_cheney2004]

....it's painfully obvious that you don't know anything about temperature trending - that's been proven time and again through numerous MLW posts. You haven't a clue about statistical significance... but soldier on, parrot boy!

The only "parrot boy" here has been evident for a very long time.

[waldo]

The only "parrot boy" here has been evident for a very long time.

I did not intentionally mean to usurp your hold; certainly, your perpetual mirror gaze is a testament to your own parroting prominence.

[bush_cheney2004]

I did not intentionally mean to usurp your hold; certainly, your perpetual mirror gaze is a testament to your own parroting prominence.

You have been exposed as not even a one-trick pony....it's always somebody else's pony.

[waldo]

your reality ignores... no negates... current climate science and the data and empirical evidence that AGW climate change is occurring. Other than your Talosian insights, do you actually have anything to account for the current warming relative to the most immediate time frames?

I've already told you...I care not in the least about your AGW religion...the earth will survive just fine.

be comfortable coupling your hands to your ears, while shouting 'la la la la la la la la la la'

for someone who self-professes no caring for 'the debate', you spend an inordinate amount of time in climate change threads... looking like and sounding the fool. Wassup?

you profess no interest in the climate change debate - yet you prowl climate change related threads... are you simply bored and need additional outlets to dispense your one-liner trick pony show?

other than your long since passed, soundly trashed attempt to promote vulcanism (interesting coming from a Talosian), I can't recall you even attempting to account for recent warming. Surely, your self-promoted Talosian brain prowess can offer up more than 'la la la la la la la la la la'

[bush_cheney2004]

you profess no interest in the climate change debate - yet you prowl climate change related threads... are you simply bored and need additional outlets to dispense your one-liner trick pony show?

I "prowl" wherever I please....paying particular attention to pretenders like you who invoke the USA at every turn.

other than your long since passed, soundly trashed attempt to promote vulcanism (interesting coming from a Talosian), I can't recall you even attempting to account for recent warming. Surely, your self-promoted Talosian brain prowess can offer up more than 'la la la la la la la la la la'

Volcanism promotes itself, and has been doing so for billions of years. Your self promotion has lasted mere months, and is inconsequential.

[Pliny]

Pliny, perhaps a long walkabout will help you cope… better.

clearly, you’re having difficulty in managing the ever present onslaught of irrefutable evidence to support the theory of AGW climate change. It truly must pain you each time a part of your denial faith is shown to have no substance. Don’t be afraid of science, Pliny.

It's the priests and the Pope's you have to be wary of. You are a layman with an irrefutable conviction who is on a witchhunt for heretics and heathens that don't simply bow to the scriptures of the chosen and anointed Prophets.

[waldo]

you profess no interest in the climate change debate - yet you prowl climate change related threads... are you simply bored and need additional outlets to dispense your one-liner trick pony show?

I "prowl" wherever I please....paying particular attention to pretenders like you who invoke the USA at every turn.

your lack of game dispatches you to the prowl set... ya got nuthin else - and you're completely content with that. Shout it loud, B_C..... 'la la la la la la la la la'

other than your long since passed, soundly trashed attempt to promote vulcanism (interesting coming from a Talosian), I can't recall you even attempting to account for recent warming. Surely, your self-promoted Talosian brain prowess can offer up more than 'la la la la la la la la la la'

Volcanism promotes itself, and has been doing so for billions of years. Your self promotion has lasted mere months, and is inconsequential.

self-promotion... am I self-promoting my anonymity? Oh, if only you could reach for the elevated parroting positions of Simple/Shady... why just be content with your drive-by prowl set? Or do you have a special liking for Pliny?

[waldo]

Pliny, perhaps a long walkabout will help you cope… better.

clearly, you’re having difficulty in managing the ever present onslaught of irrefutable evidence to support the theory of AGW climate change. It truly must pain you each time a part of your denial faith is shown to have no substance. Don’t be afraid of science, Pliny.

It's the priests and the Pope's you have to be wary of. You are a layman with an irrefutable conviction who is on a witchhunt for heretics and heathens that don't simply bow to the scriptures of the chosen and anointed Prophets.

let's see, Pliny... you've hit upon, "priests... Pope's... witchhunt... heretics... heathens... scriptures... anointed... Prophets"!!!

did my calling out your denial faith touch a nerve? I would be most interested in your theological musings as to who holds those positions - name the names! Just who are the Pope's, who are the priests... who are the anointed Prophets? Damnit, we need names... name the names, Pliny. Name the names! Surely, we can only evaluate the depth of penetration of "the movement", if we have your names. Unleash the names, Pliny. Unleash the names!

[Pliny]

let's see, Pliny... you've hit upon, "priests... Pope's... witchhunt... heretics... heathens... scriptures... anointed... Prophets"!!!

did my calling out your denial faith touch a nerve? I would be most interested in your theological musings as to who holds those positions - name the names! Just who are the Pope's, who are the priests... who are the anointed Prophets? Damnit, we need names... name the names, Pliny. Name the names! Surely, we can only evaluate the depth of penetration of "the movement", if we have your names. Unleash the names, Pliny. Unleash the names!

I don't know your name.

I imagine like your poster child Pope Gore, you have pictures on all your walls.

[waldo]

I don't know your name.

I imagine like your poster child Pope Gore, you have pictures on all your walls.

weak Pliny... very weak. What's wrong? Having now listed one of your suggested Pope's... are you still waiting for DenierHQ to advise whether you can release the rest of the names?

much has been written about denier's preoccupation and targeting of so-called 'profile communicators'... over and above their desire, intent or efforts to actually investigate the foundation science itself. The lazy denier will always go for the easy out - target the messengers, whether they have any real significance, or not. Target the messengers, never (rarely) the message... Pliny, hopefully denierHQ frees you up to release the rest of those names.

[Pliny]

weak Pliny... very weak. What's wrong? Having now listed one of your suggested Pope's... are you still waiting for DenierHQ to advise whether you can release the rest of the names?

much has been written about denier's preoccupation and targeting of so-called 'profile communicators'... over and above their desire, intent or efforts to actually investigate the foundation science itself. The lazy denier will always go for the easy out - target the messengers, whether they have any real significance, or not. Target the messengers, never (rarely) the message... Pliny, hopefully denierHQ frees you up to release the rest of those names.

Well, no matter what evidence is brought forward you deny it - is the denial yours or is it your Priests and Popes denying it with of course their own scriptures. I fully expect them to produce fodder for you to parrot in order to further the Inquisition.

The fact remains that politics has once again tainted science with it's idealistic endeavours to create the perfect world. A world where it would be unthinkable to question the wisdom of it's approved biblical literature.

Here's a good name for you - Maurice Strong, whom you will find, I'm certain, is a wonderful man. Put him on your list. Tack up his picture next to Pope Al's as the Canadian Arch-bishop. You probably have it up there already - and you are asking me for names. Take a look on your wall, you should be naming names for me, Waldo.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

Well, no matter what evidence is brought forward you deny it - is the denial yours or is it your Priests and Popes denying it with of course their own scriptures. I fully expect them to produce fodder for you to parrot in order to further the Inquisition.

Pliny, you're simply the drive-by guy... you've not brought forward a scrap of so-called "denier evidence" yourself. However, the so-called "denier evidence" you would presume on, is never denied. Advocates for the theory of AGW climate change relish any/all opportunities to beat back and debunk the so-called "denier evidence". Have you any so-called "denier evidence" you'd like to parrot, Pliny? Anything? Anything... at all?

The fact remains that politics has once again tainted science with it's idealistic endeavours to create the perfect world. A world where it would be unthinkable to question the wisdom of it's approved biblical literature.

that's right, Pliny... politics is isolated to one side of the debate. Your denier side does not engage in political posturing, does not advocate for political gain, does not invoke positions separate from political ideologies, etc., etc., etc. Clearly, your denier side is being... denied!

Here's a good name for you - Maurice Strong, whom you will find, I'm certain, is a wonderful man. Put him on your list. Tack up his picture next to Pope Al's as the Canadian Arch-bishop. You probably have it up there already - and you are asking me for names. Take a look on your wall, you should be naming names for me, Waldo.

ok, we're on a roll, Pliny. You've named Al Gore... and now... Maurice Strong. But surely, Pliny... 2 guys - that's it?... and who has really even heard of Maurice Strong? Surely there must be more you can reveal. More names, Pliny... more names! Who is controlling it all Pliny? Just who is masterminding it all?

[Shady]

Well, no matter what evidence is brought forward you deny it

You're quite right. There's something extra ironic about the biggest denier of all, calling everyone else a denier!

[waldo]

You're quite right. There's something extra ironic about the biggest denier of all, calling everyone else a denier!

hey lil' buddy, would you like me to start posting links to all your Shady practices posts... the posts where you've scurried away, refusing to answer questions. I have a growing bookmark list... would you like... just one?

c'mon, Shady - don't let your repeated ass-kickings get you down... don't be discouraged! Why don't you step up and parrot something... anything... to presume to account for recent warming.

c'mon Shady, it's great sport making you look the idgit. Who can forget the magic in watching you fumble and flail about over your presumed significance for the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions. That was a real hoot, hey Shady? Oh that's right... that's one of those many bookmarks I have just waiting for you Shady. Would you like that one played back for you... where you scurried away refusing to answer questions, vis-vis, the CO2 fraction in the air versus the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions. Should we play that one back for you?

[Shady]

hey lil' buddy, would you like me to start posting links to all your Shady practices posts... the posts where you've scurried away, refusing to answer questions. I have a growing bookmark list... would you like... just one?

c'mon, Shady - don't let your repeated ass-kickings get you down... don't be discouraged! Why don't you step up and parrot something... anything... to presume to account for recent warming.

c'mon Shady, it's great sport making you look the idgit. Who can forget the magic in watching you fumble and flail about over your presumed significance for the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions. That was a real hoot, hey Shady? Oh that's right... that's one of those many bookmarks I have just waiting for you Shady. Would you like that one played back for you... where you scurried away refusing to answer questions, vis-vis, the CO2 fraction in the air versus the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions. Should we play that one back for you?

I don't bother with deniers anymore. It's like talking to a brick wall.

[waldo]

I don't bother with deniers anymore. It's like talking to a brick wall.

the only 'denying' is yours, lil' buddy. As you choose to run away, run away, I accept your unconditional surrender and expect you will no longer show a presence within climate change related threads. Thanks in advance for presenting no further display of your Shady practices, your intellectual dishonesty and your parroting of fabricated/dishonest tabloid journalists.

[Shady]

the only 'denying' is yours

Complete nonsense. You've been presented with very credible information in opposition of your religious-like views. But you've constantly and purposely denied them.

your intellectual dishonesty and your parroting of fabricated/dishonest tabloid journalists.

More nonsense. The only dishonesty and fabrication of information was by the prophets Mann and Jones, and the organization known as the IPCC. Their errors and outright unscientific behavior has been illustrated to you several times. And what do you do? You deny them.

You're a denier. Like I've said, I choose not to bother with deniers anymore. It's like talking to a brick wall. Your days of obfuscation and insult are over.

[waldo]

Complete nonsense. You've been presented with very credible information in opposition of your religious-like views. But you've constantly and purposely denied them.

your examples of previously presented credible "denier information" would be... what?

More nonsense. The only dishonesty and fabrication of information was by the prophets Mann and Jones, and the organization known as the IPCC. Their errors and outright unscientific behavior has been illustrated to you several times. And what do you do? You deny them.

yes, your personal lack of ethics and integrity has been well demonstrated. Your dedicated "intellectual dishonesty" thread is a testament to your Shady practices! Yes, clearly... you've wigged out over the 4... count em, 4... exonerations of Mann & Jones. That you continue to hold your signature quote is the most telling point about you. You lack any ability to think for yourself and actually converse intelligently within any topic discussion... your standard mode of operation is to scurry about looking for denier nuggets (typically dishonest fabrications of your go-to tabloid "journalists"), throw up a blind link without actually adding anything of your own comment/interpretation. When you're called on your bullshit, you typically bluster wildly and when pushed to where you can't actually answer, you run away, run away! You're a lame assed, limp dicked, know-nothing. You have no game!

[waldo]

no backdown! 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences including 11 Nobel Laureates have signed an open letter in opposition to the attacks on science and scientists from global warming deniers: from the journal Science:

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

[bush_cheney2004]

no backdown! 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences including 11 Nobel Laureates have signed an open letter in opposition to the attacks on science and scientists from global warming deniers:

Ding...ding...ding...ding...ding! We have a winner folks....the USA's National Adademy of Sciences!

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.

The NAS was signed into being by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, at the height of the Civil War. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government. Scientific issues would become even more contentious and complex in the years following the war. To keep pace with the growing roles that science and technology would play in public life, the institution that was founded in 1863 eventually expanded to include the National Research Council in 1916, the National Academy of Engineering in 1964, and the Institute of Medicine in 1970.

I am honored that waldo has yet again chosen America over all other contenders....15 credits are awarded!

National Academy of Sciences of Argentina

Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Korea

Armenian National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Sciences of Belarus

Estonian Academy of Sciences

French Academy of Sciences

Georgian Academy of Sciences

Latvian Academy of Sciences

Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Academy of Sciences of Moldova

Russian Academy of Sciences

Turkish Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences

The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium

Pakistan Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Sciences, India