waldo Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 so now that waldo has dispatched the denierworlds(faux skeptics) rehashed claims do we return in six months to witness once again when simple/shady et al. dredge up the same poo hoping no one will remember how they were dismissed before? Maybe some people have better things to do then wade through mufti-colored surround-quotes. nice spin it's sometimes referred to as "getting your arse handed to ya"...interesting, someone who claims to be lawyer dismissing a precisely written argument ... It was the furthest thing from a precisely written argument. It was a series of sloppy, lazy and poorly formatted walls of text that basically copied the last few pages of the thread. Nobody read it nor should anybody be expected to read it. Make your point succinctly and if you want to include a link then do so, but don't even bother posting garbage like that. as the reference leads directly back... to me... to my recent posts: those posts were not a series of, as you say, "sloppy, lazy and poorly formatted walls of text". And most certainly, they were succinct... very much to the point. The point? The point being that these exact same "talking points" from MLW members, 'Simple' & 'Pliny', had been made before (in fact, repeatedly) without substantiation... by these same MLW members. And, also repeatedly, these same "talking points" had been refuted. The posts you seem to have difficulty with were, in fact, a replay of the exact same MLW member, 'Simple & Pliny', "talking points" with prior accompanying refutation. And yet, and still, these two MLW members continue to bring forward, again... and again... the exact same nonsensical unsubstantiated BS. now, I acknowledge your apparent willingness to advocate for unsubstantiated, nonsensical BS... I, on the other hand, have no qualms in identifying a pattern, a repeat pattern, an ongoing pattern, of disinformation, of misinformation... and, in kind, presenting my own repeat pattern of prior refutation. carry on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 It was the furthest thing from a precisely written argument. It was a series of sloppy, lazy and poorly formatted walls of text that basically copied the last few pages of the thread. Nobody read it nor should anybody be expected to read it. Make your point succinctly and if you want to include a link then do so, but don't even bother posting garbage like that. ya ya that's keep on the tangent that deflects from the issue denier-world and climate change...waldo's posts reflect perfectly the exchange forum member wayward son and I had a few pages back starting at post #214 and carried forward since that point, that these self proclaimed skeptics are anything but... they attempt to frame themselves as objective while their constant recycling of talking points that been definitively dismissed by factual evidence long ago reveal them to be politically motivated scientific illiterates...denier/conspiracy trolls... wyly-Posted 16 September 2012 - 03:16 PMwhich is what we've been telling pliny, shady,simple and all the members of the deniers club for a number of years...but they keep going back to old talking points as if nothing has changed...accurate facts have no relevance to their mindset... waldo has previously articulated it well and backed up his posts with relevant citations, re-posting old exchanges is the perfect answer to deniers who re-post their recycled lies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 ya ya that's keep on the tangent that deflects from the issue denier-world and climate change... The rhetoric isn't getting you anywhere. waldo's posts reflect perfectly the exchange forum member wayward son and I had a few pages back starting at post #214 and carried forward since that point, that these self proclaimed skeptics are anything but... they attempt to frame themselves as objective while their constant recycling of talking points that been definitively dismissed by factual evidence long ago reveal them to be politically motivated scientific illiterates...denier/conspiracy trolls... THAT is an articulate post and THAT's all he needed to say. What waldo did is throw a block of quotation boxes at us that nobody is going to read. waldo has previously articulated it well and backed up his posts with relevant citations, re-posting old exchanges is the perfect answer to deniers who re-post their recycled lies... No that's just reposting and it's against the forum rules. If you want to refer us to old exchanges, do so via link or page # etc, but don't assault us with a giant block of irritating quotation boxes that nobody is going to even bother reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 What waldo did is throw a block of quotation boxes at us that nobody is going to read. No that's just reposting and it's against the forum rules. If you want to refer us to old exchanges, do so via link or page # etc, but don't assault us with a giant block of irritating quotation boxes that nobody is going to even bother reading. whether you choose to read them... I certainly could care less. I've provided an accounting of a repetitive ongoing pattern of purposeful disinformation/misinformation - one that has been repeatedly addressed... refuted, several times over. if you want play forum rules moderator, I will highlight those posts were extracts... significantly paired down, significantly reduced from the originals, intended to isolate, intended to align with your decried lack of "succinctness". how comes you ain't be chastising the disinformers/misinformers... for causing you to deal with the same ole BS, over and over and over and over again, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) and there it is... the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has officially called the new record on Arctic sea ice extent loss “We are now in uncharted territory,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. “While we’ve long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur.” “The strong late season decline is indicative of how thin the ice cover is,” said NSIDC scientist Walt Meier. “Ice has to be quite thin to continue melting away as the sun goes down and fall approaches.” NSIDC scientists have observed fundamental changes in the Arctic’s sea ice cover. The Arctic used to be dominated by multiyear ice, or ice that survived through several years. Lately, the Arctic is increasingly characterized by seasonal ice cover and large areas are now prone to completely melt away in summer. ... notwithstanding the significant reduction in multi-year ice... in the quality of that multi-year ice. speaking to another of Simple's favoured Palooka points of fabrication... that, as Simple's go-to blogger claims that, "Total global polar sea ice extent is largely unchanged over the past 30 years". Oh ya, Palooka blog science rules! following up on an earlier MLW post, this Plenary lecture from Canada's David Barber, from the recent International Polar Year, Oslo Science Conference... a lengthy talk, well worth spending the time if you have any interest in understanding and appreciating the ongoing work that's occurring within Canada's Arctic region. Towards the end, Barber offers comment on some of the significant funding/sponsorship initiatives from government... which itself has been supplanted with a more significant and timely update/study, as previously linked to and discussed within MLW: => 'Permanent' Arctic ice vanishing - Satellite images misled shocked scientists Multi-year sea ice used to cover 90 per cent of the Arctic basin, Barber said. It now covers 19 per cent. Where it used to be up to 10 metres thick, it's now 2 metres at most. The findings, soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, come as a shock to experts worldwide. Although northern sea ice hit a record low in 2007, researchers believed it was recovering because of what they were seeing on satellite images. But the images the experts relied on were misleading because the rotten ice looks sturdy on the surface and has a similar superficial temperature, Barber explained. "The satellites give us only part of the story. The multi-year ice is disappearing and it's almost all gone now from the northern hemisphere." NSIDC comments in regards Barber's study: Dave Barber’s observations give the sort of on-the-ground confirmation of the situation that lends confidence to predictions that we’re headed towards a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean. Dave’s been up there looking at sea ice conditions for many years. He knows what he’s talking about. The most interesting thing in the article is that the old multiyear ice is so broken up now. Even if there is a considerable amount, it is all in broken (or even rotten) floes of ice and not a largely consolidated pack like it used to be. That is a significant change in the character of the ice cover beyond the basic changes in extent and age distribution. on edit: the above quote is a most significantly reduced in size extract of the original post; one intended to highlight a pointed reference to past discussions concerning (the lack of quantity/quality) multi-year Arctic Ice. In deference to MLW member, 'Moonbox's' raised concern, the full unedited, unreduced prior post appears - here: Edited September 20, 2012 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 whether you choose to read them... I certainly could care less. I've provided an accounting of a repetitive ongoing pattern of purposeful disinformation/misinformation - one that has been repeatedly addressed... refuted, several times over. if you want play forum rules moderator, I will highlight those posts were extracts... significantly paired down, significantly reduced from the originals, intended to isolate, intended to align with your decried lack of "succinctness". how comes you ain't be chastising the disinformers/misinformers... for causing you to deal with the same ole BS, over and over and over and over again, hey? well there ya go waldo...if you just cut'n paste and don't put in the pretty coloured boxes you can rehash old talking points ala pliny, simple, shady et al and moonbox will be oblivious and read every word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Pliny, if there is a prediction of warming it doesn't mean that warming will happen every year, but that over time it will happen. Michael, according to the theory, GHGs are building up in the atmosphere annually and it is GHGs that are the source of AGW. How is it possible to have a decrease in warming with a constant increase in GHGs? You can say there are other factors but the argument is that it is GHGs that are the source of the problem. The argument real skeptics make is that CO2 build up that exceeds the natural cycling levels builds up and does not disappear for as much as a century. That may be correct, but if so the warming should be exponential and it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 The Earth is doing what it would naturally do, climate change is a myth and fear mongering tactic by the left. Classic chicken little syndrome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 well there ya go waldo...if you just cut'n paste and don't put in the pretty coloured boxes you can rehash old talking points ala pliny, simple, shady et al and moonbox will be oblivious and read every word ya, ya... far be it from me to attempt to provide clarity and pertinent past related discussion reference... especially when it so glaringly draws attention to repeat patterns of denier disinformation/misinformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 THAT is an articulate post and THAT's all he needed to say. What waldo did is throw a block of quotation boxes at us that nobody is going to read. he verified the point that they're not skeptics they're deniers, they rehash identical points that have been dismissed months earlier... If you want to refer us to old exchanges, do so via link or page # etc, but don't assault us with a giant block of irritating quotation boxes that nobody is going to even bother reading.as if you'd link back to post #, ...but you're okay reading the same disingenuous crap from simple/shady over and over again?...No that's just reposting and it's against the forum rules. our forum facilitator Michael has also remarked on the deniers rehashing of the same identical talking points... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 The Earth is doing what it would naturally do, climate change is a myth and fear mongering tactic by the left. Classic chicken little syndrome. now slink away and go hide with CPCFTW before anyone asks you to back that up with an intelligent response accompanied by a citation or two... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 That may be correct, but if so the warming should be exponential and it is not. if you'd like I will actually start writing your denier talking points for you! What you meant to say, is "warming should be linear, and it is not" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Has anyone talked about the Antarctic sea ice setting a new record for most ice ever measured at this time of year? Makes sense the melt-water running off the continent in the summer would show up as ice around the coast during the winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 and there it is... the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has officially called the new record on Arctic sea ice extent loss ... notwithstanding the significant reduction in multi-year ice... in the quality of that multi-year ice. [/indent] [/indent]on edit: the above quote is a most significantly reduced in size extract of the original post; one intended to highlight a pointed reference to past discussions concerning (the lack of quantity/quality) multi-year Arctic Ice. In deference to MLW member, 'Moonbox's' raised concern, the full unedited, unreduced prior post appears - here: Is that anthropogenic? And is the future predicted accurately? Is predicting the future conjecture or fact? Basically, predicting the future is conjecture maybe based upon a collection of current facts or just gazing through a crystal ball? Let's not fall prey to fortune telling and resort to everyone heading for the Fox's den. Let's just take the data and do what we can with it. We need alternative energy, even if our burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming or climate change, we are going to eventually run out of these non-renewable resources. Once we find something to replace them we can leave them in the ground or do something with them other than burn them up. If you want some conjecture I believe we are on the verge, if it hasn't been done yet, of finding an alternative energy that will replace fossil fuels. The political structure of the global economy is what is delaying any advancement. Governments are just too dependent upon revenues from fossil fuels and replacements for the tremendous loss of revenues must be found. Governments of course, must not only avoid a collapse of their funding but protect the interests and structure of our fossil fuel based economy. Why else would they be so interested in doing nothing about global warming but come up with taxing the air? Actually, that plan is unworkable and not feasible so do we just head for the fox's den? HL Mencken said that the entire purpose of the political process is to keep the populace alarmed. Are you proposing we be alarmed, waldo? How about we just take a scientific approach and do what we can technologically, not politically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 if you'd like I will actually start writing your denier talking points for you! What you meant to say, is "warming should be linear, and it is not" No. I meant "Exponential" not linear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Makes sense the melt-water running off the continent in the summer would show up as ice around the coast during the winter. his post implies he doesn't know winter is just ending in Antarctica... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 as if you'd link back to post #, ...but you're okay reading the same disingenuous crap from simple/shady over and over again?... Who says I read it? our forum facilitator Michael has also remarked on the deniers rehashing of the same identical talking points... Okay, fair enough, but most of them can be easily skipped. I don't need to furiously scroll my mouse to get through them to get to the next worthwhile post. As it stands, these climate threads are some of the worst on the whole forum to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Is that anthropogenic? And is the future predicted accurately? Is predicting the future conjecture or fact? Basically, predicting the future is conjecture maybe based upon a collection of current facts or just gazing through a crystal ball? Let's not fall prey to fortune telling and resort to everyone heading for the Fox's den. Let's just take the data and do what we can with it. We need alternative energy, even if our burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming or climate change, we are going to eventually run out of these non-renewable resources. Once we find something to replace them we can leave them in the ground or do something with them other than burn them up. your crystal ball analogy demonstrates you don't understand the difference between predictions and projections... there are no predictions but there are climate changeprojections...predictions are based on known factors/forcing that remain constant...which isn't possible with climate change where factors are changing constantly... climate change projections take into considerations factors change, so there is a high and low range...and the projections have proven accurate and for the most part conservative when compared to observed results... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 HL Mencken said that the entire purpose of the political process is to keep the populace alarmed. Are you proposing we be alarmed, waldo? How about we just take a scientific approach and do what we can technologically, not politically. given your past posting fake skeptic history, a full accounting of that quote offers the appropriate perspective on your apparent, many, varied and ever-evolving positions: H. L. Mencken: The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. clearly you revel in mix-mashing science/politics to your self-serving ends; however, let's have you be clear and forthright: in line with your quote reference (and posting history), are you labeling global warming/climate change as an, "imaginary hobgoblins"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 Okay, fair enough, but most of them can be easily skipped. I don't need to furiously scroll my mouse to get through them to get to the next worthwhile post. which is it? Easily skipped... or a furious mouse scroll!!! As it stands, these climate threads are some of the worst on the whole forum to read. then move along... nothing for you rubberneckers to see here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 As it stands, these climate threads are some of the worst on the whole forum to read. then why are you here?... no one is forcing you to come to CC threads...if you're not taking part in the debate and only here to criticize waldo's debate style you're flaming the thread...waldo has thick skin and can take the criticism but don't just criticize waldo's style and not add something to the debate.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 I don't understand what the big deal is anyways. Even if global warming were true, who cares? Does anybody think that in 20 years, technology won't have changed? Does anybody think that in 20 years, we'll still be using the comubstion engine? CO2 emmissions will fall off of a cliff in the future. But there isn't anything significant that can be done now, without destroying the economic lives of hundreds of millions of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 That may be correct, but if so the warming should be exponential and it is not. if you'd like I will actually start writing your denier talking points for you! What you meant to say, is "warming should be linear, and it is not" No. I meant "Exponential" not linear. interesting, particularly given the logarithmic relationship between a rising atmospheric CO2 level and its associated radiative forcing proportional affect on warming. Tell me - what distinguishes logarithmic and exponential changes over time... is one, uhhh... the inverse of the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) then why are you here?... no one is forcing you to come to CC threads...if you're not taking part in the debate and only here to criticize waldo's debate style you're flaming the thread...waldo has thick skin and can take the criticism but don't just criticize waldo's style and not add something to the debate... I was trying to take part. Go back to page 16 & 17 to see that. Wayward Son and I were having a fair and reasonable discussion about what all of this meant. Waldo then proceeded to squeeze us out with about 2 pages of garbage quotations and reposts, and then you both trolled jbg for saying something about it. Your basis for this was that he was dismissing a precisely written argument when it was obiviously and demonstrably the FURTHEST THING from that. This is a discussion board, not quotation or prolixity wars. Edited September 20, 2012 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 I was trying to take part. Go back to page 16 & 17 to see that. Wayward Son and I were having a fair and reasonable discussion about what all of this meant. Waldo then proceeded to squeeze us out with about 2 pages of garbage quotations and reposts, and then you both trolled jbg for saying something about it. Your basis for this was that he was dismissing a precisely written argument when it was obiviously and demonstrably the FURTHEST THING from that. This is a discussion board, not quotation or prolixity wars. drama queen much? Best you get over it. It is heartening to realize you're simply pissed cause you perceived being, as you say, "squeezed out"! Buddy, I added 4 posts, each of which directly responded to immediately preceding posts... and quoted directly from them. What you painfully, with drama, object to, is I went back and added in directly relevant posting exchange from prior MLW threads... and as I pointed out to you, these were significantly reduced extracts, aimed to highlight the actual quote being referenced within this thread. you've been asked several times now, but apparently refuse to answer: again, why is your heightened drama concern not equally raised against the purveyors of repeat, multiple repeat, ongoing repeat, over and over again repeat, misinformation/disinformation? Apparently, you have no qualms with these guys raising resurrecting the same tired old denier talking points, again and again and again... even when they have been refuted many times over in prior MLW threads. Wassup, hey? 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.