The Great Green Con #1 GW Forecasts Wrong Again

[waldo]

This is good for a CO₂ emitting chuckle....how often has this workflow been employed here ?

The Global Warming Alarmist Defender Flowchart

and there's, quite literally, a dozen such dumbass flowcharts that speak to the denialist mindset. Would you like to have a dropped graphic throw-down... or do you actually have something to contribute beyond your perpetual trolling?

[bush_cheney2004]

....nice dodge - you've given no words. I've asked you for your words - your own words to describe the presumed issue/concern within the link you blindly dropped without comment. Is there a reason you can't string a few thoughts together... is there a problem for you?

No problem at all....you can ask for whatever you want...but nobody takes direction from an alarmist. Haven't you learned that yet ? You don't get to conn the ship....ever.

Edited March 30, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

No problem at all....you can ask for whatever you want...but nobody takes direction from an alarmist. Haven't you learned that yet ? You don't get to conn the ship....ever.

I have absolutely no problem in continuing to showcase your charade... again, you haven't the wherewithal to step beyond dropping links or images... and scurrying away! Since you refuse to address it, let's bump the score up: you're now 7 big time fails for 7 lame-assed tries .. 7-for-7! Keep up the good work!

[bush_cheney2004]

I have absolutely no problem in continuing to showcase your charade... again, you haven't the wherewithal to step beyond dropping links or images... and scurrying away! Since you refuse to address it, let's bump the score up: you're now 7 big time fails for 7 lame-assed tries .. 7-for-7! Keep up the good work!

Thank you, as it is only appropriate that you keep a running score for the battles that seemingly only matter to you. The larger war by AGW alarmists has been lost, which is more than enough satisfaction for me. My needs are few, mere kilowatts and BTUs really, and of course I will continue to finance your favorite sources with my taxes.

[TimG]

This is good for a CO₂ emitting chuckle....how often has this workflow been employed here ?

So sad but so true. The AGW activist mindset in a single flowchart.

[Argus]

you say you don't pretend to understand the science... that's an easy statement for most of us to make, to varying degrees. Yes, there have been numerous warming/cooling periods in the past. The relatively current accelerated warming is unprecedented in the last ~12000 years.

I'll take your word for it, but 12k years is the blink of an eye in terms of earth's age. There's been no precedent for an ice age in the last 12k years either, but if one happened it wouldn't necessarily be because of my car.

you state you're unconvinced - how so/why so... on the most broadest of levels what would convince you?

I generally trust scientists. Unfortunately, the strident activism and politicizing of science in terms of this subject mean any scientist daring to venture a different opinion will be attacked. Under those circumstances, and given the evidence of past manipulation of data by scientists and activists I really am not sure what it would take to convince me, to be honest.

I'm not clear what you mean by 'workable solution'...

A workable solution would be something we could do (without bankrupting ourselves) which would (not might) reverse or at least stabilize the temperature. On the other hand, if that solution would cost, say, ten trillion dollars, while simply paying to help people adapt to the new temperatures would cost 1 trillion, maybe we should consider just adapting instead. From a Canadian perspective, I don't, to be frank, much mind if the temperature goes up.

But a scheme which simply shifts money around from wealthy western nations to poorer third world ones is not going to affect the environment.

[TimG]

I'll take your word for it, but 12k years is the blink of an eye in terms of earth's age.

I wouldn't because there is no evidence to support his conclusion since most proxies that cover the period have a resolution of 50 years or greater. This would smooth out any spikes in the record. If you look at higher resolution proxies like ice cores from Greenland you see plenty of periods where temperatures have changed as rapidly has they have today.

Here is a graph that illustrates the point:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Now_colder_than_during_most_of_the_past_7000_years.htm

Of course alarmists will scream and rant about these graphs because they cast doubt on their holy writ. But the message you should take away is measuring past temperatures for planet is extremely subjective and someone can pick and choose data to suit the narrative one desires. IOW - don't take his word or my word or anyone's word. The only rational assumption is that we don't know what temperatures did other than they were generally hotter than today.

Edited March 30, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

you say you don't pretend to understand the science... that's an easy statement for most of us to make, to varying degrees. Yes, there have been numerous warming/cooling periods in the past. The relatively current accelerated warming is unprecedented in the last ~12000 years. There are no natural influences that can replace fossil-fuel burning sourced CO2 as the principal causal tie to GW/CC. The influences of natural factors are included in the collective grouping of all forcings that contribute to GW. There is significant consensus between all knowledgeable scientists, including skeptics, that CO2 is the principal causal linkage. The outstanding question that remains is simply one of just how sensitive is the climate... just how much will/might it warm... and, of course, the related consequences of that warming with/without mitigating efforts.

I'll take your word for it, but 12k years is the blink of an eye in terms of earth's age.

yes, ~12k years is that blink – it was only mentioned to provide a more relatively recent dated reference point to today’s relatively recent accelerated warming – unprecedented since. The obvious point to warming within long past ages is that no significant human influence existed during those periods of time. Mankind’s influence on today’s accelerated warming is known with strong likelihood… there are no natural forcings that can provide the principal causal linkage to today’s accelerated warming.

perhaps the most salient point is that any discussion of past warming is largely irrelevant to the impacts of ongoing warming today. Whether it was warmer… or colder… in the distant past, does not negate the known impacts of man’s burning of fossil-fuels on current warming. Reaching for distant past ages warming is a tried & true tactic deniers regularly trot out when attempting to negate the impact/degree of current warming. However, this is a most opportune point to expand further on, particularly in light of MLW member ‘TimG’s’ response to you in the immediately preceding post to this one… to this same quote of yours I’m now replying to:

I wouldn't because there is no evidence to support his conclusion since most proxies that cover the period have a resolution of 50 years or greater. This would smooth out any spikes in the record. If you look at higher resolution proxies like ice cores from Greenland you see plenty of periods where temperatures have changed as rapidly has they have today.

Here is a graph that illustrates the point:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Now_colder_than_during_most_of_the_past_7000_years.htm

Of course alarmists will scream and rant about these graphs because they cast doubt on their holy writ. But the message you should take away is measuring past temperatures for planet is extremely subjective and someone can pick and choose data to suit the narrative one desires. IOW - don't take his word or my word or anyone's word. The only rational assumption is that we don't know what temperatures did other than they were generally hotter than today.

(bold emphasis added by the waldo)

what we read in the TimG response is not only his personal “hide the incline” failing, we also read him echo a few long-standing denier talking points along the way. If nothing else, this should put perspective on his bellicose and pompous certitude. What we have here is TimG applying a global emphasis to a localized regional focused event (in Greenland). His regional/localized linked graph (and like versions) are regularly flogged by deniers to suggest, for example, that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than current warming. And, of course, he takes his 'never-ending auditor McIntyre' fueled marching orders to denigrate Paleo temperature reconstructions, at large.

about that “hide the incline” graphic above:

- the graphic image includes an air of presumed legitimacy by including text defining it’s data to be associated with a named scientist, named published paper title and the name of the journal where the scientific paper was published. The actual paper – here: Clearly, the “hide the incline” graphic above resembles nothing like any figures within the actual scientific paper. The paper itself relies upon a Greenland GISP2 ice-core record to reflect aspects of abrupt climate change, with particular focus on a period ~ 11,500 years before ‘present day’.

- as with typical denier graphics, the origin of the graphic usually reflects upon a series of linked hosts… one denier blogger just links the graphic from the original host/creator, another re-links from there, and another re-links from the original re-link, and another, and another, etc. In this case, the TimG linked graphic is hosted on an author’s web site… a non-scientist flogging an “Ice Age Now - Now colder than during most of the past 7000 years” book. From here you can follow linkages of that graphic back through 2 other no-name denier blogger sites until reaching the original graphic found on a profile denier blogger site… one of the same sites the failed blowhard parrot linked to earlier in this thread during his epic and recent ‘7 big time fails out of 7 lame assed tries’ meltdown series. Ultimately, the graphic was created by a geologist, a ‘David Lappi’, a guy with an online resume that shows a 30-year career path of work associated with oil/gas exploration and development. The graphic itself is not unique for its deceptive intent… several like graphic images have been crafted by denier types and they proliferate the denialsphere.

- this TimG ‘hide the incline’ linked graphic truly does… hide the incline of recent accelerated temperature increase. The graphic presents peaked warm temperature events, in Greenland, through the ‘Minoan/Roman/Medieval’ warming periods over the last ~10K years, with the graph sliding down towards the ‘Little Ice Age (LIA)’ period and a lil’ ole raised temperature tic upwards at the very end of the graph/LIA period. Clearly, showing the relatively recent accelerated warming on that graph would defeat the purpose of the author’s book/premise, of the assorted deniers along the way and the graphic’s creator… all who want to project an emphasis on warming today being either less than the graphics emphasized peak warming events, or simply non-existent in relation to those events (i.e., “hide the incline”). The graphic (and it's variants) has never been used, as I've seen, to simply speak to an isolated regional/localized Greenland ice-core temperature presentation, one prior to today's relatively recent accelerated warming.

- the specifics of the ‘hide the incline’: the actual data behind the original paper that the linked graphic presumes to use/reference can be found – here: As can be seen, the most recent data point shows as “0.0951409 thousand years before present”; ie. 95 years before present day. By convention, present day is defined as 1950 which reflects upon the unreliability of dating geologic time series using radiocarbon dating after 1950… unreliability after 1950 due to H-bomb atmospheric testing. So – 95 years prior to 1950 present day is 1855; that is to say, the most recent GISP2 ice-core temperature record stops in 1855. At the point of the ice-core drilling, anything beyond (above) this last 1855 data point was no longer solid ice and was the beginning of the ice-sheet above the ice-core.

- the linked ‘hide the incline’ graphic above does not show any warming from the point of 1855 forward to today… does not reflect any warming as expressed within the Greenland ice-sheet (above the GISP2 ice-core) and near-surface air temperatures. What are they hiding!... other than the post-1855 warming expressed through scientific analysis and published temperature reconstructions of that ice sheet (above the ice-core) & near-surface air temperatures; a post-1855 warming result, beyond the ice-core record, that would place 'warming, at large, above the graphic's end-point above (warmer than) any other points in the graphic across the graph's complete 10K year period. Oh my... hide the incline!

.

[waldo]

I am aware there have been numerous warming and cooling periods in our past however, and am unconvinced the current one is not natural, although it might well be influenced to some degree by men.

you state you're unconvinced - how so/why so... on the most broadest of levels what would convince you?

I generally trust scientists. Unfortunately, the strident activism and politicizing of science in terms of this subject mean any scientist daring to venture a different opinion will be attacked. Under those circumstances, and given the evidence of past manipulation of data by scientists and activists I really am not sure what it would take to convince me, to be honest

you state: “any scientist daring to venture a different opinion will be attacked” --- any scientist??? Hyperbole much? For the most part scientists don’t engage the political realm; they’re too busy doing… science. Typically, scientists engage each other in the peer-review arena. However, increasingly of late, smallish segments of legitimate scientists have become more publicly engaged as they have realized a communications gap exists in terms of presenting and conveying science at a layman’s understanding level. They've ever too slowly realized that the mainstream media has, to varying degrees, abdicated its role in properly presenting well researched and accurate science related articles/information... abdicated in favour of cost savings, expedited syndication and newswires - a scenario that has been all too ripe for AGW/CC denialists to push their agenda through. Legitimate scientists acting to counter known false information and disinformation campaigns, is not, as you state, a scientist 'attacking different opinions'.

you state: “evidence of past manipulation of data by scientists and activists” --- again, another most generalized broad-based statement without any reference point. Even if you have representative examples, how would you presume to extrapolate those examples and the number of scientists they might represent, to the greater complement of world-wide scientists? Do you smear hundreds of thousands of scientists for the failings of… how many?

.

[waldo]

I'm not clear what you mean by 'workable solution'... if you expect absolutes before you would consider action on any level be considered/pursued... or what? Clearly, the principal focus is to gain a movement towards stabilizing temperature rise...

A workable solution would be something we could do (without bankrupting ourselves) which would (not might) reverse or at least stabilize the temperature. On the other hand, if that solution would cost, say, ten trillion dollars, while simply paying to help people adapt to the new temperatures would cost 1 trillion, maybe we should consider just adapting instead. From a Canadian perspective, I don't, to be frank, much mind if the temperature goes up.

clearly my earlier point was lost on you… no country can isolate itself from the global impacts of warming. Again, there is no such thing as a ‘Canadian only atmosphere’… ‘Canadian only oceans’… More and more studies are coming forward with more conclusive support showing linkages between the recent year’s extreme weather events and increasing warming. We’ve had several thread discussions that have touched upon impacts Canada is already experiencing and, in particular, what a warming Canadian/Arctic north will mean in terms of massive infrastructure costs, dramatic direct and feedback impacts of melting permafrost, etc.

the action/response to, as you say, ‘just adapt’, is a non-starter. Unless carbon emissions are reduced to effect temperature stabilization, your ‘just adapt’ will become nothing more than a self-perpetuating cycle of adapting to increasing more dramatic impacts upon impacts upon impacts.

.

But a scheme which simply shifts money around from wealthy western nations to poorer third world ones is not going to affect the environment.

ya, ya… the ‘world government wealth distribution’ meme gets trotted out quite regularly. Any particular reason it’s one that’s formed in your perceptions?

.

[Guest]

the action/response to, as you say, ‘just adapt’, is a non-starter. Unless carbon emissions are reduced to effect temperature stabilization, your ‘just adapt’ will become nothing more than a self-perpetuating cycle of adapting to increasing more dramatic impacts upon impacts upon impacts.

.

.

Actually, adapting to climate change is the only reasonable path. Your second sentence is a good example of a non starter. There is absolutely no way that is ever going to happen.

As for the self perpetuating cycle of adaptation, why shouldn't we have to do that? What right do we have to not have to do that?

[waldo]

the action/response to, as you say, ‘just adapt’, is a non-starter. Unless carbon emissions are reduced to effect temperature stabilization, your ‘just adapt’ will become nothing more than a self-perpetuating cycle of adapting to increasing more dramatic impacts upon impacts upon impacts.

Actually, adapting to climate change is the only reasonable path. Your second sentence is a good example of a non starter. There is absolutely no way that is ever going to happen.

As for the self perpetuating cycle of adaptation, why shouldn't we have to do that? What right do we have to not have to do that?

ok, ok, I'll play off your absolute extremism! Isolated adaptation in the complete absence of initiatives to reduce emissions is a 'fools errand'. When you speak of 'adaptation only', to no mitigation pursuits - none... absolutely none, you're accepting to extremes; accepting to the worst case impact scenarios, those with ever increasing and more destabilizing positive feedback warming amplification effects. Which, of course, has you pompously balancing across the precipice juggling 'known knowns', 'known unknowns' and 'unknown unknowns'... but no biggee since you'll just throw more money, onto more money, onto more money trying to prop-up your isolated regional localized abode against the global onslaught!

does your 'adapt-R-Us' only plan have all the tipping points teed up, ready for you to prop-up..... oh, wait... is it your intent to simply let them drop? Oh my!

as for your self-proclaimed "right" to a self-perpetuating cycle of regional focused adaptation to impacts, upon impacts, upon impacts, etc.,... your "having to not have right" (huh!)... uhhh... how much does that cost, and who pays for it?

[Guest]

ok, ok, I'll play off your absolute extremism! Isolated adaptation in the complete absence of initiatives to reduce emissions is a 'fools errand'. When you speak of 'adaptation only', to no mitigation pursuits - none... absolutely none, you're accepting to extremes; accepting to the worst case impact scenarios, those with ever increasing and more destabilizing positive feedback warming amplification effects. Which, of course, has you pompously balancing across the precipice juggling 'known knowns', 'known unknowns' and 'unknown unknowns'... but no biggee since you'll just throw more money, onto more money, onto more money trying to prop-up your isolated regional localized abode against the global onslaught!

does your 'adapt-R-Us' only plan have all the tipping points teed up, ready for you to prop-up..... oh, wait... is it your intent to simply let them drop? Oh my!

as for your self-proclaimed "right" to a self-perpetuating cycle of regional focused adaptation to impacts, upon impacts, upon impacts, etc.,... your "having to not have right" (huh!)... uhhh... how much does that cost, and who pays for it?

It's not absolute extremism. It's reasonable pragmatism.

And I didn't say no to any mitigation. I said a reduction in carbon emissions such that it effects temperature stabilization is a non starter. I fully support all sane environmental practices. Actually, I would fully support the insane ones if you could get everyone else to. You won't be able to, hence the "non starter" designation.

My "isolated regional localized abode"? I'll make sure my sump pump is operating, sure.

What right? I said we have no right to expect not to have to suffer the consequences of both our actions and our existence. I'm not sure what percentage is responsible for what so I'll blame both.

You seem to think that if we all pull together, the Dunkirk Spirit, maybe, we can jolly well fix it all. We can't pull together enough to fix problems that are readily apparent, and fixable without too much grief, the odd famine or genocide come to mind. How do you expect us all to pull together, with all the grief it entails, when the best we can hope for is a little voice out of Hawaii saying: Keep struggling, it's levelling out"?

As for the cost, how much does your "solution" cost? It all costs.

[waldo]

It's not absolute extremism. It's reasonable pragmatism.

And I didn't say no to any mitigation. I said a reduction in carbon emissions such that it effects temperature stabilization is a non starter. I fully support all sane environmental practices. Actually, I would fully support the insane ones if you could get everyone else to. You won't be able to, hence the "non starter" designation.

You seem to think that if we all pull together, the Dunkirk Spirit, maybe, we can jolly well fix it all.

nice back-peddle! Clearly, you're deep!

oh, right... now you're for the "sane" kind of mitigation, hey? The, uhhh.... practical kind!!! What kind is that... to what end and means? By who? The pragmatic countries??? Are they pragmatically acting on their own? Or do they have a lil' pragmatic clubhouse they meet at... as they, as you say, "pull together... jolly well fixing it" - pragmatically! Uhhh... fix what... up to what pragmatic "sane" mitigating point???

.

[Guest]

For Pete's sake you're annoying. You make stuff up as you go along. Or you can't read.

Show me the back peddle and I'll donate ten bucks to the Sally Ann.