Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Well, there sure is some tricky stickhandling going on in this thread... How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Well, there sure is some tricky stickhandling going on in this thread...How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 What I see on this thread is a disagreement over what anthropogenic means in the survey. I'm not sure if Sharkman is getting what we're generally agreeing on in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 To put things in perspective - those downward-revised temperature projections are based on a doubling of CO2 - that might increase temperatures by 2.0 degrees. At the rate we're going - about two PPM per year, that would take almost two hundred years. Do you really think that we're going to be driving cars in 50 years that have to be filled with gas? Just look at the accellerated science of the last 100 years - the last 50 years - and project that forward. Even if we continue to use fossil fuels - engines will be more efficient as will emission controls and other remediation. "Dirty" fossil fuels are becoming cleaner every year. notwithstanding examples of continued ongoing rapid accelerated CO2 emissions like the 2010 6% record increase in CO2 levels, as is the fake skeptics way, you completely ignore 'longer-term' amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks... like ice sheet melting, migrating vegetation, GHG release from soils/tundra/ocean (most notably methane emissions from melting tundra). Counter to your overt dismissive position, there is certainly no shortage of fake skeptics... along with a few legitimate guys... who have previously attempted to make a case for lower sensitivity - none of those previous studies have prevailed through scientific peer-response. further to my reinforcement on the significant impacting positive feedbacks with implications to a high(er) sensitivity... a study in Nature - Climate change: High risk of permafrost thaw, just published: Abrupt Permafrost Thaw Increases Climate Threat As the Arctic warms, greenhouse gases will be released from thawing permafrost faster and at significantly higher levels than previous estimates, according to survey results from 41 international scientists published in the Nov. 30 issue of the journal Nature. Permafrost thaw will release approximately the same amount of carbon as deforestation, say the authors, but the effect on climate will be 2.5 times bigger because emissions include methane, which has a greater effect on warming than carbon dioxide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 What I see on this thread is a disagreement over what anthropogenic means in the survey. I'm not sure if Sharkman is getting what we're generally agreeing on in this thread. Oh sorry, what I get out of the debate in general has been reinforced by reading this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Oh sorry, what I get out of the debate in general has been reinforced by reading this thread. Ok, so you concur that warming is happening and that human activity (if not CO2 exactly) is the cause ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Ok, so you concur that warming is happening and that human activity (if not CO2 exactly) is the cause? will he concur... or at least offer a qualified position statement? in any case, a few recent posts in this thread have made somewhat generic reference to 'pollution'. Only in that MLW member sharkman has just now, in another concurrently running thread, expressed his interest/concern in regards to pollution, let me take another point of departure in that regard. Granted, sharkman hasn't expounded to the degree that MLW member Gosthacked has in the past... where he aligns with many fake climate change skeptics who channel concerns over pollution into a convenient package, one that presumes that simply combating 'toxic pollution' will address any required climate change focused CO2 emission reduction strategies, inclusive of associated impacting requirements related to adaptation, mitigation, prevention, etc. At this stage we can only surmise that sharkman selectively views pollution in regards to more traditional "toxic" aspects... and that he, similarly, does not include CO2 in his expressed pollution interest/concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) You assume waaay to much Waldo, and your post is a simple attempt to troll. I'm not interested in biting, and certainly not since you won't answer my very simple and politely posed questions about your views on China. Instead of answering that you respond with this wordy troll. Too bad about that. I will, however, clarify one faulty point you made regarding my views on pollution and China. China has very little in the way of controls or concerns about this issue. Their olympic contribution was an embarrassment in that regard. By comparison, Canada and North America have very stringent laws and guidelines on pollution and food laws. We are much safer and cleaner than them but that does not mean I hold the view that toxic pollution in China is causing Global Warming. My other views on the subject of Global Warming would make you even more snitty I'm afraid. Edited December 2, 2011 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 My other views on the subject of Global Warming would make you even more snitty I'm afraid. you are unable/unwilling to actually state your position... instead, as you repeatedly did in this thread, you purposely distract, you wildly label others with dogma infused insults, and you so absolutely and completely avoid any actual discussion that even remotely touches upon underlying science. Clearly, you can't back up your anti-science, "skeptic" blathering... which presents you as a bona fide fake skeptic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 you are unable/unwilling to actually state your position... It's too bad. There are only a few who are really interested in this topic here it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 It's too bad. There are only a few who are really interested in this topic here it seems. I'm sure you're well acquainted with some elements of the burgeoning 'cottage industry' out there that continues with heightened presence to analyze climate change skepticism... in all its forms and influences. Even in its short time, this thread has helped to showcase a representative MLW snapshot of the absence of real, of genuine skepticism... skepticism that isn't skepticism for denial's sake. There is nothing more interesting than to read real heightened skepticism - to read legitimate skeptics engaging themselves in questioning and challenging dialogue. Instead, typically on MLW, we read the usual suspects offering their brazen climate change denial and disinformation... nicely bundled and wrapped in fake skepticism... skepticism that can't be supported, can't be substantiated... skepticism for denial's sake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) skepticism that isn't skepticism for denial's sake.You are religious fanatic that simply screams 'denier' whenever you encounter a view that does not conform the the tenets of your IPCC religion. You would not recognize legimate sceptism if it slapped you in the face.So spare us your condescenting BS about 'legitimate sceptism'. All of it is yet another one of your mindless talking points intended to shout down serious discussion of the numerous uncertainties and unknowns that make many of the IPCC claims speculative at best. Edited December 2, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 I'm sure you're well acquainted with some elements of the burgeoning 'cottage industry' out there that continues with heightened presence to analyze climate change skepticism... in all its forms and influences. Even in its short time, this thread has helped to showcase a representative MLW snapshot of the absence of real, of genuine skepticism... skepticism that isn't skepticism for denial's sake. There is nothing more interesting than to read real heightened skepticism - to read legitimate skeptics engaging themselves in questioning and challenging dialogue. Instead, typically on MLW, we read the usual suspects offering their brazen climate change denial and disinformation... nicely bundled and wrapped in fake skepticism... skepticism that can't be supported, can't be substantiated... skepticism for denial's sake! You won't answer simple questions while offering up nonsense like this. So I say to you, "Keep the faith baby!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Waldo... why don't you switch teams for awhile... show us some good skepticism ? I mean, we all know where you really stand. It would be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 You are religious fanatic that simply screams 'denier' whenever you encounter a view that does not conform the the tenets of your IPCC religion. You would not recognize legimate sceptism if it slapped you in the face. So spare us your condescenting BS about 'legitimate sceptism'. All of it is yet another one of your mindless talk points intended to prevent a serious discussion of the numerous uncertainties and unknowns that make many of the IPCC claims speculative at best. ah yes, another guy with a standard go-to fall-back, one screeching and labeling religious fanaticism. You sir, you are the MLW poster-boy for illegitimate fake skepticism... granted, you offer a twist, a wrinkle that most others on MLW haven't the wherewithal to posture with. You couch your fake skepticism in 'concern'... as in "Concern Troll". When cornered in your fake skepticism and illegitimate expressions of concern you regularly embrace conspiracy... cause... that's all ya got! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Anyway - what about my suggestion ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 You won't answer simple questions while offering up nonsense like this. So I say to you, "Keep the faith baby!" give it a rest... in the other concurrently running thread, I answered your questions that were relevant to that thread's topic... and I suggested you take your off-topic questions to another related thread, or create a new one. As you've done within this thread, I appreciate you revel in distraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Waldo... why don't you switch teams for awhile... show us some good skepticism?Not a chance. Waldo has no interest in understanding skeptical arguments and seperating the good from the bad. All he cares about is shouting down anyone who disagrees with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) You couch your fake skepticism in 'concern'... as in "Concern Troll".Thanks for proving my point. If you cannot understand that many of the issues I raise are legimate questions then you have nothing usefull to add to the converstation. Edited December 2, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Waldo... why don't you switch teams for awhile... show us some good skepticism ? I mean, we all know where you really stand. It would be interesting. He seems to be a little shrill tonight, I wonder what happended? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Not a chance. Waldo has no interest in understanding skeptical arguments and seperating the good from the bad. All he cares about is shouting down anyone who disagrees with him. pummeling and beating back your ongoing charade is a most genuine example of separating out the crapola you regularly dispense... why... one could quite legitimately argue that the beat-downs you keep taking are a real showcase of my skepticism in action! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Thanks for proving my point. If you cannot understand that many of the issues I raise are legimate questions then you have nothing usefull to add to the converstation. oh... too bad I didn't catch it before your edit. Accusing me of an ad hom attack doesn't fly well when only a few posts back you label me a religious fanatic... now does it? You don't offer legitimate questions/challenges; rather, you simply distort, fabricate and disinform. You can't argue the science... you simply can't. Your link-to and cut&paste act has been opened wide exposing all your inadequacies and lack of knowledge. Your most recent examples of blinding offering up wide-open google links is a case-in-point. as I said, when all else fails you bluster, play the victim card, resort to conspiracy themes, denigrate climate scientists and climate science, act the 'Concern Troll', etc. Now as a point of clarification, although you're well aware of it: Concern Troll is a well recognized generic phrase/label... it most certainly is not an ad hom. In a climate change context, it truly fits your ongoing routine/charade where you express fake concern over aspects of warming... while at the same time going to extreme lengths to lobby for no action, for delay, presuming to play up the "economics" you also know nothing about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 He seems to be a little shrill tonight, I wonder what happended? will you ever... ever... have anything substantive to contribute to this thread? Or does your fear of actually having to discuss AGW climate change topics lead you to resort to drive-by nothingness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) pummeling and beating back your ongoing charade is a most genuine example of separating out the crapola you regularly dispenseNonsense. All you do is run around in circles.i.e. I say A - you respond with X. I debunk X with B you respond with Y. I debunk Y with C you respond with Z I debunk Z with A - you respond with X. ... Ad infinitum. You try to bury people with verbage and constantly reuse arguments that have been debunked. You fool yourself into believing you have an argument because you can't see the circles you are running in. Edited December 2, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 pffft! What have you ever... ever... debunked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.