Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Moonbox]

drama queen much? It is heartening to realize you're simply pissed cause you perceived being, as you say, "squeezed out"!

Lol...Drama Queen? I didn't say a thing about it until your little tag team started trolling jbg for it. He was right.

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

Buddy, you lobbed a wall of quotations boxes within quotation boxes at us, which literally filled over half of an entire thread page. Your pissing contest with Keepitsimple might seem interesting to you, but it's not to the rest of us. Cross-posting some debate you had with him 4 months ago, especially THAT thoroughly, is extremely irritating, not to mention against the forum rules. I have no interest in sifting through that garbage, even if it's the abridged version, to find worthwhile posts and responses that other people are writing.

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?

What is this? Kindergarten? But...but they did it too!? Suck it up. I don't read a thing they write about climate change usually and I was ignoring them, just as I was ignoring you, until you started trolling jbg for taking issue with your overbearing quotations.

If you're going to fill the thread pages with cross-posts and overquotation, and then flame someone for speaking up against it, you earned any ridicule you're getting.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Moonbox

[Pliny]

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:

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"?

Thanks for that full quote. What are my self-serving ends?

Of course global warming/climate change are not "imaginary hobgoblins". There is still room to debate whether or not it is anthropogenic and if so to what degree. It does seem you and the politically correct have been greatly alarmed by it though. We need some cooler heads to prevail in order to save us from a contagion of fear and the ultimate panic that would have our politicians ushering us into the fox's den.

[Pliny]

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...

A projection is fairly synonymous with prediction with the distinction that projection is based more on data whereas prediction is more general and doesn't specify what it is based upon. A projection is more convincing than the more general term prediction but the future is never a guaranteed fact which you seem to enjoy presenting it as. We could blow ourselves all up before there are any ill effects from global warming/climate change.

Should we head to the fox's den based upon your "projections"? Cooler heads need to prevail.

[Pliny]

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?

waldo...I'm surprised. If the accumulation of GHGs remained constant the temperature change might rise linearly. However, the accumulation is not constant and the fact it is a continuing increased accumulation should result in an exponential rise in temperature. Obviously this has not been demonstrated in reality but seems to be the "projection" you prefer and we should be half way to the fox's den by now.

[Pliny]

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?

Each time you think you have refuted something many times over you haven't, waldo, you just think you have. Is there any wonder why your victories seem hollow?

[jbg]

your trolling knows no bounds... but hey, when you can't argue anything, when you continually showcase your know nothingness, it's always best for you to go with your strengths, hey lil' buddy? Troll on, Shady - troll on!

This discussion is becoming downright moronic and/or juvenile.

[waldo]

Lol...Drama Queen? I didn't say a thing about it until your little tag team started trolling jbg for it. He was right.

you're imagining making shyte up - neither MLW member, 'wyly', or I, as you say, "trolled" the jgb... in fact, it was his out of the blue, drive-by statement that was the principal troll act. In any case, there's no need for you to justify your drama at the expense of the drive-by trolling jgb. Be proud of your drama!

Buddy, you lobbed a wall of quotations boxes within quotation boxes at us, which literally filled over half of an entire thread page. Your pissing contest with Keepitsimple might seem interesting to you, but it's not to the rest of us. Cross-posting some debate you had with him 4 months ago, especially THAT thoroughly, is extremely irritating, not to mention against the forum rules. I have no interest in sifting through that garbage, even if it's the abridged version, to find worthwhile posts and responses that other people are writing.

half an entire thread page??? Make up your exaggerating mind... you just said it was 2 pages a few short posts back - yeesh! There is no, as you say, "pissing contest" with Simple. What there is, is an unwillingness to let his ongoing repeat denier talking points, unsubstantiated denier talking points, stand; particularly when the exact same denier talking points have been refuted in earlier MLW threads. Your drama position would require one to refute those repeated denier talking points... from scratch. Instead I choose to pull selective statements... extracts... of refutations that have been previously made. If the denier talking points can get replayed, ad nauseum, most certainly, most definitely, succinct extracts of previously posted refutations are fair game. If you don't think so, run your drama on up the moderators flag pole.

What is this? Kindergarten? But...but they did it too!? Suck it up. I don't read a thing they write about climate change usually and I was ignoring them, just as I was ignoring you, until you started trolling jbg for taking issue with your overbearing quotations.

If you're going to fill the thread pages with cross-posts and overquotation, and then flame someone for speaking up against it, you earned any ridicule you're getting.

nice - now you're being flamed! Victim much? What level of drama are you reaching for now? What you're dismissing is the essence of these exchanges. You now openly admit to not even following what, as you say, "they write about climate change"... so you've clearly never seen the original unedited posts that the extracts are being gleaned from. How special of you to simply dismiss the content simply because you personally don't like prior quotes being referenced... the new content, to you!

[waldo]

This discussion is becoming downright moronic and/or juvenile.

so says the guy who kicked it off with your drive by troll post, hey?

[waldo]

Each time you think you have refuted something many times over you haven't, waldo, you just think you have. Is there any wonder why your victories seem hollow?

there is no 'thinking' a refutation has previously occurred. Those refutations, mostly against unsubstantiated nonsense, stand as testaments to the denier sham game. Your failed Mr. Wizard persona, on display through many past exchanges, is a testament to the nothingness of any critique you might presume to offer.

[waldo]

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?

waldo...I'm surprised. If the accumulation of GHGs remained constant the temperature change might rise linearly. However, the accumulation is not constant and the fact it is a continuing increased accumulation should result in an exponential rise in temperature. Obviously this has not been demonstrated in reality but seems to be the "projection" you prefer and we should be half way to the fox's den by now.

no - again, you are wrong... don't hesitate to offer substantiation to your claim of expected (but not realized) "exponential" temperature rise, particularly in regards the logarithmic relationship I described.

[waldo]

Of course global warming/climate change are not "imaginary hobgoblins".

then perhaps you should refrain from attempting to leverage that quote in the future, hey?

There is still room to debate whether or not it is anthropogenic and if so to what degree. It does seem you and the politically correct have been greatly alarmed by it though. We need some cooler heads to prevail in order to save us from a contagion of fear and the ultimate panic that would have our politicians ushering us into the fox's den.

there is no room/allowance for debate that the principal causal tie to global warming is anthropogenic... don't hesitate to make an interpreted substantiated case for an alternate principal causal tie, one other than the anthropogenic sourced CO2 associated with fossil-fuel burning.

[Keepitsimple]

there is no room/allowance for debate that the principal causal tie to global warming is anthropogenic... don't hesitate to make an interpreted substantiated case for an alternate principal causal tie, one other than the anthropogenic sourced CO2 associated with fossil-fuel burning.

So you've finally made a clear, unequivocal stand. No room for debate - no allowance for any debate. The principle cause of Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is due to humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's settled - case closed. No allowance for any debate....that's an unsettling comment.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[Shady]

So you've finally made a clear, unequivocal stand. No room for debate - no allowance for any debate. The principle cause of Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is due to humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's settled - case closed. No allowance for any debate....that's an unsettling comment.

There would still be the debate over what to do about, if anything. I'd vote to do nothing. Let technology catch up with the problem. It would be too expensive to do anything substantial, and it wouldn't make a difference anyways, with India and China doing as they wish. So in reality, the climate change issue is moot.

[dre]

So you've finally made a clear, unequivocal stand. No room for debate - no allowance for any debate. The principle cause of Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is due to humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's settled - case closed. No allowance for any debate....that's an unsettling comment.

Theres been decades of debate.

[wyly]

Theres been decades of debate.

50 years of debate among climatologists but we still haven't cover all the conspiracy theories as yet.. .

[waldo]

there is no room/allowance for debate that the principal causal tie to global warming is anthropogenic... don't hesitate to make an interpreted substantiated case for an alternate principal causal tie, one other than the anthropogenic sourced CO2 associated with fossil-fuel burning.

So you've finally made a clear, unequivocal stand. No room for debate - no allowance for any debate. The principle cause of Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is due to humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's settled - case closed. No allowance for any debate....that's an unsettling comment.

so... you did get flushed out, after all. Nothing to say about the discussion over your ongoing regurgitation of the same tired denier talking points that have been previously refuted, several times over?

in any case, what's this "finally made a clear, unequivocal stand" nonsense you're puffed up over? You're not reading anything new... from me. If you actually had your fake skeptic self tuned to the actual debate you wouldn't be, with this your latest post, reinforcing your... fake skeptic self. Yes, given known understandings and the prevailing science of the day - the principal causal tie to global warming is anthropogenic sourced CO2 associated with fossil-fuel burning. That is no longer debated by real scientists or legitimate skeptics. Clearly, as I've also stated many times over, the only real debate lies in terms of climate sensitivity and related responses toward mitigation/adaptation/prevention of associated climate change... this is nothing new to you... you know this, you've been engaged in past MLW exchanges concerning climate sensitivity.

[Moonbox]

you're imagining making shyte up - neither MLW member, 'wyly', or I, as you say, "trolled" the jgb... in fact, it was his out of the blue, drive-by statement that was the principal troll act. In any case, there's no need for you to justify your drama at the expense of the drive-by trolling jgb. Be proud of your drama!

You were both mocking him for stating that people didn't want to bother reading your badly written and poorly-formatted posts. He was right and I'm more than willing to back him up on that. You seem to think that these massive walls of verbosity, cross posts and re-posts are winning you arguments, and it appears your ego desperately needs this to be true given how much effort you obviously put into the cutting and pasting etc. Unfortunately for you, nobody is reading that garbage. It's to clumsy and tedious to waste time with. Ultimately it's up to you to decide whether you want to post and discuss like a normal human being, or continue with this verbose natter and quotation overload. You're only wasting your own time and bandwidth.

[waldo]

Moonbox, don't worry yourself - there is no significant effort required to format... a few seconds, here and there.

as stated before, your ridiculous (self-serving) position is one accepting to having the same previously refuted denier talking points raised, over and over and over again. Your nonsensical (self-serving) position requires that any response to these same repeated (and previously refuted) denier talking points, must be a response that can't draw reference to any previous posting/refutation... of the same denier talking points... by the very same deniers who have previously raised them in the past.

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.

Your drama position would require one to refute those repeated denier talking points... from scratch. Instead I choose to pull selective statements... extracts... of refutations that have been previously made. If the denier talking points can get replayed, ad nauseum, most certainly, most definitely, succinct extracts of previously posted refutations are fair game. If you don't think so, run your drama on up the moderators flag pole.

[jbg]

You were both mocking him for stating that people didn't want to bother reading your badly written and poorly-formatted posts. He was right and I'm more than willing to back him up on that. You seem to think that these massive walls of verbosity...

So true.

I can even agree that we should be minimizing the amount of cr*p we throw into the atmosphere. There are far better reasons for avoiding pollution than climate change.

Bad arguments drive out good arguments. I fear, for the sake of environmentalism, that climate change is a very weak reed to lean on.

[Michael Hardner]

There are far better reasons for avoiding pollution than climate change.

Far better than a consensus that it increases global temperatures and could have catastrophic effects ?

Hmmm....

It seems like another manifestation of the traditional American anti-authoritarian meme, which is being used as a blunt instrument in the wrong way here, I think.

[wyly]

Far better than a consensus that it increases global temperatures and could have catastrophic effects ?

Hmmm....

climatologists/scientists are very reluctant to give their opinion on what they see coming for fear of being branded alarmists...but catastrophic is the right word the planet is headed toward a very big hurt and taking action now may avert a total environmental disaster...there was one climatologist whose name I can't recall, dropped out of the process advocating for emission controls several years ago because in his opinion it was now too late to avoid what's coming...

It seems like another manifestation of the traditional American anti-authoritarian meme, which is being used as a blunt instrument in the wrong way here, I think.

indeed you can sense the political undertones throughout the conspiracy/denialism world...denialism has never been about the science it's been about corporate profits and it was an issue driven by al gore a democrat, ergo socialist/commies...over the last 5 years there has been an obvious shift in how CC has been accepted by the deniers, at first the science was wrong "it isn't getting warmer and puny humans can't effect climate"...then progressed to "it's getting warmer but it can't be CO2, it's natural and we'll adapt"...then "it's getting warmer so what we can farm in the arctic , pollution is bad so we'll clean up anyway but it's still not caused by CO2"...

[Pliny]

there is no 'thinking' a refutation has previously occurred. Those refutations, mostly against unsubstantiated nonsense, stand as testaments to the denier sham game. Your failed Mr. Wizard persona, on display through many past exchanges, is a testament to the nothingness of any critique you might presume to offer.

Another hollow refutation.

[Pliny]

So you've finally made a clear, unequivocal stand. No room for debate - no allowance for any debate. The principle cause of Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is due to humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's settled - case closed. No allowance for any debate....that's an unsettling comment.

You've just had your ass kicked again with this total refutation.

[waldo]

Another hollow refutation.

You've just had your ass kicked again with this total refutation.

please Pliny, please... bring your Mr. Wizard hollow argument self out!

[Pliny]

then perhaps you should refrain from attempting to leverage that quote in the future, hey?

That doesn't mean that imaginary "projections" aren't "imaginary hobgoblins" such as presented in Al Gore's film gosh what was it called again? How soon we forget. An Inconsequential Truth or something like that. You remember that one. Didn't contain much truth...

there is no room/allowance for debate that the principal causal tie to global warming is anthropogenic... don't hesitate to make an interpreted substantiated case for an alternate principal causal tie, one other than the anthropogenic sourced CO2 associated with fossil-fuel burning.

Whoa....another total refutation, dude.