Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

WWWTT · September 28, 2012

no - in any related discussion throughout these many assorted MLW threads, I have spoken of the composite nature of warming; i.e., that it reflects upon the composite makeup of natural and anthropogenic positive and negative forcing... natural and anthropogenic forcings. You keep beaking off with your unsubstantiated opinion... when I punted your "Earth's inner core" alternate emphasis with the following post, your juvenile reply speaks volumes on how misinformed and ignorant you truly are. Like I said, you're so far out there on the fringe, of the fringe denial, you don't even know how far out you are:

You know what,I thought for a moment when I first read this comment we were going to start having a civilized debate about "Climate scientists keep getting it wrong",the title of the thread.

Then I re read parts of your comment that say "your juvenile reply speaks volumes on how misinformed and ignorant you truly are"

You twist the facts in a broadside denial by claiming that the Earths inner core is a "way out there idea"

First of the Earths average temperature is in the thousands of degrees with a cool thin layer or crust.

The radius of our planet is over 6000km with a crust only 50 km.

Over 99% of our planet is so hot that it is in a molten liquid state!

Why do you deny these facts?!?!?!?

Where my parents are from,Sao Miguel,Acores.I have visited geo thermal plants there were steam comes out of the ground and is exploited in several ways.

Facts buddy!

WWWTT

waldo · September 28, 2012

no - in any related discussion throughout these many assorted MLW threads, I have spoken of the composite nature of warming; i.e., that it reflects upon the composite makeup of natural and anthropogenic positive and negative forcing... natural and anthropogenic forcings. You keep beaking off with your unsubstantiated opinion... when I punted your "Earth's inner core" alternate emphasis with the following post, your juvenile reply speaks volumes on how misinformed and ignorant you truly are. Like I said, you're so far out there on the fringe, of the fringe denial, you don't even know how far out you are:

You know what,I thought for a moment when I first read this comment we were going to start having a civilized debate about "Climate scientists keep getting it wrong",the title of the thread.

Then I re read parts of your comment that say "your juvenile reply speaks volumes on how misinformed and ignorant you truly are"

your juvenile reply? You mean this one... this juvenile reply of yours?

Man that's a long winded swing at freekin nothing! You feel better now buddy? Did you have a cigarette after writing this comment? I guess when you got your head so far down stuck in the freekin sand there's no turning back.

You twist the facts in a broadside denial by claiming that the Earths inner core is a "way out there idea"

no - I addressed your specific request... I presented you a study that speaks directly to a known warming effect of the Earth's outer core... the natural global warming attributed to longer decadal changes in the length of the Earth’s day; changes that correspond to liquid iron movements within the Earth’s outer core. You choose to ignore the study's comparative review and findings; findings that say, after ~1930, there are no corresponding changes in the Earth’s core movement or length of day to coincide with an observed continuing increase in global surface air temperatures; an increase attributed to anthropogenic sourced GHGs. Let me correct myself... it's not that you ignore this study and it's findings; rather, you simply don't understand them - your denial precludes you even attempting to give them consideration.

First of the Earths average temperature is in the thousands of degrees with a cool thin layer or crust.
The radius of our planet is over 6000km with a crust only 50 km.

Over 99% of our planet is so hot that it is in a molten liquid state!

Why do you deny these facts?!?!?!?

Where my parents are from,Sao Miguel,Acores.I have visited geo thermal plants there were steam comes out of the ground and is exploited in several ways.

Facts buddy!

as I've said, several times now:

now, since you've offered nothing to substantiate anything... anything... you've stated... ever, given your expressed "research", please provide scientifically accepted substantiation to your, apparent claim, that the relatively recent (accelerated) rise in global temperature is attributed to, as you state, "the earth's inner molten core". Make sure to provide a direct correlation - thanks in advance. Oh, wait... you don't accept it's warming!

Moonbox · September 28, 2012

the $100 billion a year Green Climate Fund is a UNFCC legal based reality agreed to by world nations

$100B/year by 2020, and how much has been collected so far...$10-12 total for 2010-2012?

no - again, the distinction keeps alluding you.

The English language keeps escaping you. The fact that you keep using words you don't even understand speaks volumes, both about how desperate you are to sound smart and then how far off the mark you end up being.

The entire last paragraph of your response is almost incoherent. I barely have a clue as to what you're saying, so any attempt at a response is pretty pointless.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Moonbox

wyly · September 28, 2012

standard denier idiocy/tactic! Offer up an imagined what-if alternate and then proceed to assign the/an outcome of that imagined what-if alternate to someone/others who don't subscribe to your alternate imagination! Top it off with a liberal sprinkling of alarmism by stoking up the outcome to include, "the status of life" - overall!!!

I'm waiting for denierworld to propose "it's cosmic rays" scenario to account for global warming, I haven't seen that one offered up for at least a year...any and every far out fringe scenario will do, anything but the obvious anthropogenic CO2, which just isn't possible because CO2 isn't a GHG :lol:

...

waldo · September 28, 2012

The English language keeps escaping you. The fact that you keep using words you don't even understand speaks volumes, both about how desperate you are to sound smart and then how far off the mark you end up being.

if you would really like to play this game I could go back and pull out all your spelling mistakes in recent posts... and there have been many! In any case, I have corrected your most significant contribution! :lol: I have also spread it out a tad and provide seeing-eye highlighting... just for you... just for your most inept comprehension display.

no - again, the distinction keeps

alluding

eluding you.

A part of the complete negotiations is/will be, a dove-tailed approach that works
both parts of the distinction
, playing one off the other.

The so-called "global budget approach" that sets a calculated level of global CO2 that may be omitted between now and 2050,

versus

the additional financial compensation from polluting developed countries to developing countries tied to a historical accounting of per-capita emissions (i.e., the Green Climate Fund).

Going forward, most likely, the final agreed to distribution assignment of the, 'between now and 2050 global CO2 budget', will be made on an equitable, per country/per-capita, emissions allocation basis...

effectively, each country will have it's own designated atmosphere of emissions to manage, applying climate protection strategies as it sees fit in order to meet required legally binding emission reduction targets.

on edit: to appease the anally retentive, 'alluding' changed to 'eluding'

TimG · September 28, 2012

$100B/year by 2020, and how much has been collected so far...$10-12 total for 2010-2012?

I don't why he brings this up. The fund is a fantasy invented by UN bureaucrats in order to save face when their 'climate deal' collapsed. The euro crisis and the end of nuclear power in Germany and Japan will ensure that this fund will never be anything but a joke.

The entire last paragraph of your response is almost incoherent. I barely have a clue as to what you're saying, so any attempt at a response is pretty pointless.

waldo is incoherent. he thinks that posting walls of text repeating quotes with a few ad homs represents an argument. if you do engage him and provide him with precise links that support exactly what you claim he will either

1) ignore them and spew ad homs at the source (without actually addressing the argument made).

2) start arguing a completely different point that had nothing to do with the point you made.

3) simply make up logically incoherent nonsense and claim it is 'refutation'.

Engaging him is a waste of time. It is a lot easier to follow these climate threads with him on ignore.

Edited September 28, 2012 by TimG

waldo · September 28, 2012

I'm waiting for denierworld to propose "it's cosmic rays" scenario to account for global warming, I haven't seen that one offered up for at least a year...any and every far out fringe scenario will do, anything but the obvious anthropogenic CO2, which just isn't possible because CO2 isn't a GHG ...

let us not forget the planet Venus' atmosphere!!!

waldo · September 28, 2012

I don't why he brings this up. The fund is a fantasy invented by UN bureaucrats in order to save face when their 'climate deal' collapsed. The euro crisis and the end of nuclear power in Germany and Japan will ensure that this fund will never be anything but a joke.

UN bureaucrats! With the authority of their governments to sign off on the fund... imagine that, hey! But really, c'mon, this fund is aimed, not entirely, but principally, to deal with adaptation requirements. Since you're the king of "Adapt-R-Us Inc.', this fund is right up your alley - yes? :lol: Hey did't you just say something about... impossible... a few posts back! Wasn't so impossible, was it?

Engaging him is a waste of time. It is a lot easier to follow these climate threads with him on ignore.

buddy, if you would like me to take it easy on you... I expect you're developing quite a complex over being continually left bent over with your pants at your ankles!

PIK · September 28, 2012

I don't why he brings this up. The fund is a fantasy invented by UN bureaucrats in order to save face when their 'climate deal' collapsed. The euro crisis and the end of nuclear power in Germany and Japan will ensure that this fund will never be anything but a joke.

waldo is incoherent. he thinks that posting walls of text repeating quotes with a few ad homs represents an argument. if you do engage him and provide him with precise links that support exactly what you claim he will either

1) ignore them and spew ad homs at the source (without actually addressing the argument made).

2) start arguing a completely different point that had nothing to do with the point you made.

3) simply make up logically incoherent nonsense and claim it is 'refutation'.

Engaging him is a waste of time. It is a lot easier to follow these climate threads with him on ignore.

We should have a large word usage alert when he posts.

waldo · September 28, 2012

We should have a large word usage alert when he posts.

take your best denier shot PIK

WWWTT · September 28, 2012

your juvenile reply? You mean this one... this juvenile reply of yours?

no - I addressed your specific request... I presented you a study that speaks directly to a known warming effect of the Earth's outer core... the natural global warming attributed to longer decadal changes in the length of the Earth’s day; changes that correspond to liquid iron movements within the Earth’s outer core. You choose to ignore the study's comparative review and findings; findings that say, after ~1930, there are no corresponding changes in the Earth’s core movement or length of day to coincide with an observed continuing increase in global surface air temperatures; an increase attributed to anthropogenic sourced GHGs. Let me correct myself... it's not that you ignore this study and it's findings; rather, you simply don't understand them - your denial precludes you even attempting to give them consideration.

Oh ok I get.

Because I do only accept one feeble link that you provide as just that-one feeble link link,I am now incapable of "understanding".

Tell you what buddy,since you are boring me to freekin tears why don't you have the last word!

Keep it civil because I am also getting bored to freekin tears reporting you!

WWWTT

waldo · September 28, 2012

Oh ok I get.
Because I do only accept one feeble link that you provide as just that-one feeble link link,I am now incapable of "understanding".

Tell you what buddy,since you are boring me to freekin tears why don't you have the last word!

wow! Where are the spelling, grammar and comprehension police! :lol: Moonbox? Anyone?

one feeble link? I simply responded to your request. For what it's worth to your denier mindset, I have, in the past, several times over, spoke of caution in over-emphasizing any single study... whatever side of the debate. In this particular case, you are clearly in position to offer a counter study/report/analysis. Of course, if all you continue to do is utter your own unsubstantiated opinion... than it will simply remain as... your own unsubstantiated opinion.

Keep it civil because I am also getting bored to freekin tears reporting you!

gee - I'm not hearing anything back... have you cried wolf too many times? :lol:

TimG · September 28, 2012

buddy, if you would like me to take it easy on you... I expect you're developing quite a complex over being continually left bent over with your pants at your ankles!

This is a good example of tactic 1) on my list of waldo's incoherent debating strategies:

1) ignore them and spew ad homs at the source (without actually addressing the argument made).
2) start arguing a completely different point that had nothing to do with the point you made.

3) simply make up logically incoherent nonsense and claim it is 'refutation'.

waldo · September 28, 2012

on my list

oh... you have started a list! Wonder why?

hey, did you know, I have my own list:

ya, ya... let's add wealth transfer... and world government to your growing list, hey:

... TimG, as has been repeatedly highlighted, your MLW posts, your stated positions are founded on, "themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, selling disaster porn, rent seeking,

wealth transfer

,

world government

, etc., etc., etc.".

bring on your "arguments" Riverwind TimG... it's not like MLW search can't track your more recent or past down, hey?

TimG · September 28, 2012

bring on your "arguments" Riverwind TimG... it's not like MLW search can't track your more recent or past down, hey?

This is an example of tactic 3 on the list:

1) ignore them and spew ad homs at the source (without actually addressing the argument made).
2) start arguing a completely different point that had nothing to do with the point you made.

3) simply make up logically incoherent nonsense and claim it is 'refutation'.

Moonbox · September 28, 2012

ya ya, that's right... the bold-highlighted, explicitly stated distinction sailed right over your comprehension prowess! You claim the distinction, 'has no bearing on my argument'

Do you know what distinction means? It doesn't appear that you do.

nice rationalization there, Moonbox! We're wealthy, you're poor... we could pollute, you couldn't!

I'm merely highlighting that nobody has any moral high ground here.

Regardless of your deemed "complicating the debate", as I stated, the $100 billion a year Green Climate Fund is a UNFCC legal based reality agreed to by world nations; it does exist as a mechanism to transfer money from the developed to the developing world, to assist the developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change.

It's funny how you're insulting everyone's intelligence in this thread. I suggest you stop. Learn the arcane mysteries of the period, comma and semi-colon, and perhaps you won't look like the petulent, barely-coherent child you appear to be. The above paragraph is just a nightmare to read. Here's a tip: Don't ever use semi-colons. Most people can't use them properly and you can't even get the period or comma right so this is well beyond you.

I've already asked you:

How much money has been collected for the Green Climate Fund so far? By 2020 it's supposed to be $100B/year.

The answer should tell you how much the West is committed to these toothless treaty negotiations and how far off your wishful thinking is from reality.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Moonbox

waldo · September 28, 2012

This is an example of tactic 3 on the list:

hey buddy, make sure you keep that list handy... keep checking it each and every time I punt your sorry denier self to the curb. It will be doubly reinforced each and every time you make another of your, "It's impossible", pronouncements!

keep that list handy for the grammar police (aka Moonbeam)! :lol:

waldo · September 28, 2012

I've already asked you:
How much money has been collected for the Green Climate Fund so far? By 2020 it's supposed to be $100B/year.

The answer should tell you how much the West is committed to these toothless treaty negotiations and how far off your wishful thinking is from reality.

you asked? Oh, I just checked... yes, you did ask... in an edit of one of your earlier posted gems! Here's a clue: I barely give your initial posts the time of day - I'm certainly not inclined to check them out for your subsequent follow-up edits. I do note you must have been so enamored with one of the more recent MLW member, 'TimG's', posts... where he similarly called into question the financing of the fund. You must have been so taken with his post you thought to turn back on yours and edit it, in kind. Can't you think for yourself Moonbox?

as for your question... the one you somehow think has bearing/significance... would you like me to link you to a calendar - something that shows you how far off 2020 is? But hey now - perhaps you might actually stretch yourself and provide insightful link(s) for related discussion... you know, show how you've suddenly become such an expert on the climate negotiations in just a matter of a few short days. I mean that was you that started off by acknowledging you don't follow the negotiations and know nothing/little about them, right? That was you, right? Do you have an update on the fund - something you'd like to share? Don't be shy now! :lol: Will your insightful link(s) address the many creative options being considered to fund... the fund? Don't be shy now!

Moonbox · September 28, 2012

you asked? Oh, I just checked... yes, you did ask... in an edit of one of your earlier posted gems! Here's a clue: I barely give your initial posts the time of day -

Oooh! Except here you are, nattering and nattering and quoting and re-quoting against pretty much anyone who pokes their head in. I think you're full of ****.

I do note you must have been so enamored with one of the more recent MLW member, 'TimG's', posts... where he similarly called into question the financing of the fund.

Are you talking about the part where he quoted ME questioning the financing of the fund? As for editing, I edit all my posts, often immediately after I write them. It's pretty much always to fix errors. You should consider doing it yourself.

You must have been so taken with his post you thought to turn back on yours and edit it, in kind. Can't you think for yourself Moonbox?

Please look back a couple pages and notice how he's quoting ME :lol:

as for your question... the one you somehow think has bearing/significance... would you like me to link you to a calendar - something that shows you how far off 2020 is?

If you think it would help, link a calendar, sure. How about you do something productive instead though, and do the math. That funding is going to have to grow 50% every year for the next 7 years to make the mark. That won't happen. Don't take my word for it though. Look back at this conversation in 2020 and remember this: I'll be laughing at you.

I mean that was you that started off by acknowledging you don't follow the negotiations and know nothing/little about them, right? That was you, right? Do you have an update on the fund - something you'd like to share?

I don't need to be an expert on climate negotiation to know something about pragmatism and about basic human nature. Do I need to link you a long history of failed international treaties? I can if you like. These treaties also had far bigger teeth than neutered ones like Copenhagen (which was an utter failure by the way). I'll also give you an update on the fund. It's not doing so hot! :lol:

waldo · September 28, 2012

Oooh! Except here you are, nattering and nattering and quoting and re-quoting against pretty much anyone who pokes their head in. I think you're full of ****.

oh my! Calm down! Compose yourself - perhaps take a keyboard break... clear your mind - grab one of your, 'Grammar for Dummies' books! :lol:

damn, for someone who admits a per-post regimen of needing to self-edit, are you really capable of leading the MLW grammar police? Who gave you the title/position... I demand a recount!

If you think it would help, link a calendar, sure. How about you do something productive instead though, and do the math. That funding is going to have to grow 50% every year for the next 7 years to make the mark. That won't happen. Don't take my word for it though. Look back at this conversation in 2020 and remember this: I'll be laughing at you.

so... you plan to be on MLW in 2020? Perhaps by then you might realize a Commander of Grammar title! By the by, ever hear of lump sum payments? Besides, haven't you been following the U.S. election - Romney is promising the good time investments will roll!

I don't need to be an expert on climate negotiation to know something about pragmatism and about basic human nature. Do I need to link you a long history of failed international treaties? I can if you like. These treaties also had far bigger teeth than neutered ones like Copenhagen (which was an utter failure by the way). I'll also give you an update on the fund. It's not doing so hot!

not so hot? Provide an actual update - sure you can! But I'm impressed - Wikipedia has served you well - you're now an expert on climate change negotiations! :lol: Let's recap a tad: you clearly recognize the need for emission reductions - you're all about "needing teeth"! How do you divorce yourself from the global outcomes of climate change, particularly those affecting developing countries. Oh, that's right... you're the, "We're wealthy, you're poor... we could pollute, you couldn't", guy! It's quite a reflection on you, that you appear to take such heartfelt glee in presuming the fund won't be funded to the intended level... and yet you're the "needing teeth" guy! Some, certainly not the waldo, would suggest yours is a hypocritical position.

Moonbox · September 28, 2012

oh my! Calm down! Compose yourself - perhaps take a keyboard break... clear your mind - grab one of your, 'Grammar for Dummies' books!

I'm not sure why you think this tactic is effective. Pretending that I'm outraged instead of just happily highlighting how brain-dead your posts are, proves what?

damn, for someone who admits a per-post regimen of needing to self-edit, are you really capable of leading the MLW grammar police?

It takes a very special type of person to mock proof-reading. :blink:

not so hot? Provide an actual update - sure you can!

I believe I asked you several times now how much money was collected over the last two years. You keep asserting that this is an important and legal agreement, so please prove it. Show us how firmly the West has committed to this and how successful it's been. I already provided my updated.

jbg · September 28, 2012

ya, ya... let's add wealth transfer... and world government to your growing list, hey:

But you are for a robust U.N. and their associated programs that transfer funds from the productive world to Third World thugocratic leaders peoples.

waldo · September 28, 2012

But you are for a robust U.N. and their its associated programs that transfer funds from the productive world to Third World thugocratic leaders peoples.

see COP 17 agreement of all participating nations: creation of a 'Standing Committee' for climate finance overview... comprised of twenty member nation countries, equally represented between developed and developing countries.

note: I've taken the liberty to adjust your comment (re: strikethrough their)... I think I'd like to join the Moonbox grammar crew!

waldo · September 28, 2012

I think you're full of ****.
oh my! Calm down! Compose yourself - perhaps take a keyboard break... clear your mind - grab one of your, 'Grammar for Dummies' books!
I'm not sure why you think this tactic is effective. Pretending that I'm outraged

my mistake - I didn't realize you were prone to throwing invective language.

damn, for someone who admits a per-post regimen of needing to self-edit, are you really capable of leading the MLW grammar police? Who gave you the title/position... I demand a recount!
It takes a very special type of person to mock proof-reading.

I didn't mock your expressed per-post edit/proof-reading regimen... I simply questioned your credentials!

not so hot? Provide an actual update - sure you can! But I'm impressed - Wikipedia has served you well - you're now an expert on climate change negotiations! Let's recap a tad: you clearly recognize the need for emission reductions - you're all about "needing teeth"! How do you divorce yourself from the global outcomes of climate change, particularly those affecting developing countries. Oh, that's right... you're the, "We're wealthy, you're poor... we could pollute, you couldn't", guy! It's quite a reflection on you, that you appear to take such heartfelt glee in presuming the fund won't be funded to the intended level... and yet you're the "needing teeth" guy! Some, certainly not the waldo, would suggest yours is a hypocritical position.
I believe I asked you several times now how much money was collected over the last two years. You keep asserting that this is an important and legal agreement, so please prove it. Show us how firmly the West has committed to this and how successful it's been.

but, but... you threw down a teaser... but failed to qualify that the amount reflected upon the so-called start-up component of the fund. What? Didn't Wikipedia give you that to add to your teaser? I'm truly interested in the path you followed in just a few short days... to suddenly speak so authoritatively - a reference would certainly help you make your point. I'm not sure why you're so hesitant to respond to my multiple requests for you to divulge your reference(s). In any case, as I asked, "Will your insightful link(s) address the many creative options being considered to fund... the fund?". Well, will they?

I already provided my updated.

your updated... what? Is there a missing proofread here? :lol:

jbg · September 29, 2012

see COP 17 agreement of all participating nations: creation of a 'Standing Committee' for climate finance overview... comprised of twenty member nation countries, equally represented between developed and developing countries.

When will the so-called "developing" countries succeed in becoming "developed"?