Michael Hardner Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Waldo I don't really care what your opinion on this is, you're like a rabid dog when this subject arises You can post as many links to your posts as you like but this is the only time I am going to respond to you in this thread I can see why he's rabid... seeing so much disinformation can make one crazy. Then there are those who can't stand the Waldos of the world and they make it their mission to prove them wrong. I understand that too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 You can't compare warming of the Earths atmosphere due to pollution to the extinction of animals One is a given, the other is not That is if you believe the U.S actually landed on the moon, I have my doubts You doubt the earth is warming and you doubt that humans landed on the moon. Ok, well you lack trust in institutions. I can understand why, but I can't prove to you that there's no conspiracy. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Then there are those who can't stand the Waldos of the world and they make it their mission to prove them wrong. I understand that too... It'd be like trying to prove if their is a God or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 It'd be like trying to prove if their is a God or not Pretty much.... just trust your gut on this one, olpy... I'm moving on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 You doubt the earth is warming and you doubt that humans landed on the moon. Ok, well you lack trust in institutions. I can understand why, but I can't prove to you that there's no conspiracy. Sorry. No, the earth was on a warming trend but stopped 15 years a go, and you have Al Gore flying around spouting GW nonsense when he really doesn't give a crap, maybe try getting a better spokesperson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Pretty much.... just trust your gut on this one, olpy... I'm moving on... That's all we can do with anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) No, the earth was on a warming trend but stopped 15 years a go, and you have Al Gore flying around spouting GW nonsense when he really doesn't give a crap, maybe try getting a better spokesperson referencing Gore shows how naive you are... the neophyte you are. I provided you a link that included the official MET Office response to that piece of crap tabloid nonsense you referenced... even in that single temperature data record (HadCrut3), warming has not stopped since 97/in the last 15 years. Nor has it as shown by the other major global temperature records from NASA, NOAA, JMA, BEST, UAH, RSS, etc. No thinking legitimate skeptics actually challenge warming! on edit: more to the point as highlighted many times over in previous MLW threads. Fake skeptics purposely key on 1997/98; it is the epitome of fake skeptic cherry-picking, as it presumes to leverage one of the all time warmest years on record as a trending starting point. Cherry-picking at it's best. Notwithstanding, of course, climate trending intervals are more representative in longer term 20-30 year time-periods... i.e., long-term climate distinguished from natural influences. And, of course, as has also been explained many times over in various MLW threads, the HadCrut3 dataset, of all global datasets, is traditionally the coolest of all datasets... hence, why fake skeptics have historically targeted it for misinformation purposes (cooler because it lacks station data from the Arctic/Northern Russia areas... those areas of the globe showing the most warming. Note: an updated HadCrut4 will be released shortly and is intended to provide a more representative Arctic station distribution). Edited March 7, 2012 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Anyone who believes we caused the earth to warm has to be pretty arrogant. Good post olp. If you haven't yet done so, research the role of one billionaire named Maurice Strong, and his role in the birth of the alarmist. Researching Maurice Strong is what led me to know that humans are not causing climate change. Strong is a pro-China advocate who will do anything to transfer wealth from the west to the third world. The Global Warming, Sorry I mean Climate Change caused by humans bullshit was his master plan to transfer wealth. Thankfully intelligent people are seeing through his scam, evebn though he did make a lot of damaging process. OLP...research Maurice Strong and you will see how this bullshit started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewTeddy Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Global Warming can not be tracked though a single hot or cold day, or a month, or a year, or even a series of decades. It is a long-term change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) It's quite interesting what's been happening the last 10 or 15 years. When you stand back and filter out the noise, it appears that we have a somewhat substantial warming anomole in the Northern latitudes - mostly the Arctic. When you look at almost the entire rest of the world - the US, Asia, Europe - as alluded to in the initial post of this thread - all you see is harsh winters and lots of snow. If you consider that the average global temperature has remained virtually unchanged over the past 15 years - and you subtract out the Arctic anomole, a very strong argument can be made that the Globe is actually cooling. As opposed to looking at the Globe as a whole, it would be nice to have a clearer explanation for the Arctic anomole. In fact, I'm sure most of the answers are there - but it's an inconvenient truth to put them in the context that I have laid out. Did I mention that I have Waldo on IGNORE? Edited March 8, 2012 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 It's quite interesting what's been happening the last 10 or 15 years. When you stand back and filter out the noise, it appears that we have a somewhat substantial warming anomole in the Northern latitudes - mostly the Arctic. When you look at almost the entire rest of the world - the US, Asia, Europe - as alluded to in the initial post of this thread - all you see is harsh winters and lots of snow. If you consider that the average global temperature has remained virtually unchanged over the past 15 years - and you subtract out the Arctic anomole, a very strong argument can be made that the Globe is actually cooling. As opposed to looking at the Globe as a whole, it would be nice to have a clearer explanation for the Arctic anomole. In fact, I'm sure most of the answers are there - but it's an inconvenient truth to put them in the context that I have laid out. Did I mention that I have Waldo on IGNORE? That makes a lot of sense. Good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huh Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Global Warming can not be tracked though a single hot or cold day, or a month, or a year, or even a series of decades. It is a long-term change. Except who determines what is long term? Really detailed climate information barely goes back 100 years, new climate discoveries come all the time, yet we have all the answers and the science is settled, only the ignorant would believe that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Jesus H Christ nothing pisses me off more than waiting for an op ed piece by Lorne Grunter to stop freezing my screen. It would sure be nice of there was an obvious warning on a link to the Nat Post, and especially to this moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 It's quite interesting what's been happening the last 10 or 15 years. When you stand back and filter out the noise, it appears that we have a somewhat substantial warming anomole in the Northern latitudes - mostly the Arctic. When you look at almost the entire rest of the world - the US, Asia, Europe - as alluded to in the initial post of this thread - all you see is harsh winters and lots of snow. the first thing you should do is acquaint yourself with the latitudes of the "U.S., Europe and the more prominent Asian countries"... just check the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer... always an easy reference, hey? Then have a look at this temperature to latitude grouping image presentation. You do realize where the U.S., Europe and most of Asia fit in that grouping, right? yes, warming is more prominent in Northern latitudes; however, warming is most certainly occurring in mid/southern latitudes. What could the reasons be for differences in the degree of warming across the respective latitudinal groupings, hey Simple? If you consider that the average global temperature has remained virtually unchanged over the past 15 years no, it most certainly has not - you are incorrect and purposely choosing to misinform Not ended... not slowed... and not natural 5 major global temperature data sets - annual averages with natural influences removed; - and you subtract out the Arctic anomole, a very strong argument can be made that the Globe is actually cooling. well... you've tried to make that cooling argument many times in the past, right Simple? How did that work out for you? Would you like me to reacquaint you with your failed attempts? But really, such is the fake skeptic way... "if we get rid of this warming over here, then we can argue it's actually cooling"! As opposed to looking at the Globe as a whole, it would be nice to have a clearer explanation for the Arctic anomole. In fact, I'm sure most of the answers are there - but it's an inconvenient truth to put them in the context that I have laid out. is there anything preventing you from speaking to explanations on greater norther latitudes & Arctic warming? To ferreting out what you call an, "inconvenient truth"? I mean, c'mon Simple... surely fake skeptics must have some supporting rationale to delineate the additional northern latitudes & Arctic warming? Surely! ok, ok... let's see: how about the greater proportion of land to water surface in the northern hemisphere... with oceans responding much slower to temperature change. Or how about, polar amplification, where changes in cloud cover, increases in atmospheric water vapour, and declining sea ice have all been suggested as contributing factors: e.g. The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification - Nature: James A. Screen & Ian Simmonds The rise in Arctic near-surface air temperatures has been almost twice as large as the global average in recent decades — a feature known as ‘Arctic amplification’. Increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases have driven Arctic and global average warming; however, the underlying causes of Arctic amplification remain uncertain. The roles of reductions in snow and sea ice cover and changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation, cloud cover and water vapour are still matters of debate. A better understanding of the processes responsible for the recent amplified warming is essential for assessing the likelihood, and impacts, of future rapid Arctic warming and sea ice loss. Here we show that the Arctic warming is strongest at the surface during most of the year and is primarily consistent with reductions in sea ice cover. Changes in cloud cover, in contrast, have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the atmosphere during summer and early autumn. We conclude that diminishing sea ice has had a leading role in recent Arctic temperature amplification. The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice–temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice-sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic. Did I mention that I have Waldo on IGNORE? no Simple, you just keep saying you do! In any case, I have my ready reply (on speed dial): keep on, keeping on, hey Simple? What's this now... you must be closing in on a dozen or so times you've highlighted you have me on ignore, hey? Of course, as is your way, as is my way... each and every time you keep highlighting you have me on ignore, I am quite content to remind you of your meltdown that cascaded into you throwing the ignore switch... you know, the day I took you to task over your blustering want to, as you related, legislate morality; i.e., to legislate an outright, absolute ban against any/all abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Except who determines what is long term? Really detailed climate information barely goes back 100 years, new climate discoveries come all the time, yet we have all the answers and the science is settled, only the ignorant would believe that. obviously, long term is relative to the discussion at hand. Your ~100 year direct temperature measurements reference clearly delineates from paleo-proxy temperature reconstructions. But what would be the/your intent in wanting to draw comparisons between today's relatively recent warming and paleo reconstructions... and ultimately, what definitive conclusions could be drawn from paleo records in terms of causal attachments for today's relatively recent warming? Those kinds of questions set a/the reference... the "science is settled" meme is one regularly trotted out by fake skeptics. Legitimate skeptics realize that proponents of AGW/CC do not recognize science as ever being settled. However, this 'unsettled science' does not negate confidence levels and probabilities of known/recognized understandings within science, nor does it detract from certain aspects of science that are known with near 100% certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 the "science is settled" meme is one regularly trotted out by fake skeptics. Legitimate skeptics realize that proponents of AGW/CC do not recognize science as ever being settled. However, this 'unsettled science' does not negate confidence levels and probabilities of known/recognized understandings within science, nor does it detract from certain aspects of science that are known with near 100% certainty. Hear hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Hear hear.Of course the part which alarmists miss: the stuff which is not known with any degree of confidence is the stuff we care the most about. e.g. how much warming are we likely to see and what will the consequences be? Waldo is also being his usual duplicitous self when he whines "settled science". Alarmists have been using the "settled science" argument from authority for years and pointing out that it is complete nonsenses is not only reasonable but necessary given the nature of the alarmist propaganda machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Of course the part which alarmists miss: the stuff which is not known with any degree of confidence is the stuff we care the most about. e.g. how much warming are we likely to see and what will the consequences be? likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C... step up and make your case for low climate sensitivity. If I recall correctly you've spouted off about sensitivity < 1°C, but had a little trouble supporting that, hey? Go for it - is there a new study that has you particularly emboldened? Waldo is also being his usual duplicitous self when he whines "settled science". Alarmists have been using the "settled science" argument from authority for years and pointing out that it is complete nonsenses is not only reasonable but necessary given the nature of the alarmist propaganda machine. who the hell is whining "settled science". I replied to another MLW member who made reference to it. Of course you take exception to someone pointing out the fake skeptics settled science meme... of course you do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Waldo is also being his usual duplicitous self when he whines "settled science". Alarmists have been using the "settled science" argument from authority for years and pointing out that it is complete nonsenses is not only reasonable but necessary given the nature of the alarmist propaganda machine. Yes, I also think that it is reasonable, as does Waldo. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 who the hell is whining "settled science". I replied to another MLW member who made reference to it. Of course you take exception to someone pointing out the fake skeptics settled science meme... of course you do! TimG misunderstood your response. He essentially agreed with your position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Global Warming seems to have a cult following, it's pretty freaky Edited March 8, 2012 by olpfan1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) TimG misunderstood your response. He essentially agreed with your position.I said that alarmists have been using the "settled science" argument for years to dismiss sceptical arguments. Waldo's claim that alarmists understand "that science is not settled" is waldo being duplicitous because he knows that the "settled science" meme was started by alarmists.Here is a quote from the 'alarmist in chief' Al Gore: "The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642You will also note that Gore does the alarmist's trademark "bait and switch". i.e. he mades a statement about science which does happen to be settled (more CO2 = warming) and uses it to suggest that his sci-fi predictions of disaster have equal merit. The same dishonest tactic is used over and over again by alarmists. Skeptics are only responding to this dishonesty. Edited March 8, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Here is a quote from the 'alarmist in chief' Al Gore: We have to come up with a word that describes grouping all who oppose you into the same category. That's what you're doing here, I think. I don't think Waldo and Al Gore have the same beliefs any more than you and olpfan... Deniers/Alarmists... these are just fringe groups on the edges of established science and mainstream skepticism... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Global Warming seems to have a cult following, it's pretty freaky what a wholly vacuous statement - seems quite fitting for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Skeptics are only responding to this dishonesty. which scientists advocating AGW/CC claim the "science is settled"? Nice to see you falling over yourself to reach for the inconsequential Gore! certainly, the real fake skeptics "science is settled" meme follows exactly what you're doing in these latest posts. How transparent. 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.