The Great Green Con #1 GW Forecasts Wrong Again

[bush_cheney2004]

Such personal attacks on other members and their sources is the expected outcome here, despite the long record of alarmist dependence and distortions of identical data, research, blogs, and junk science. One would think they had learned a lesson after the great fall from grace in 2009 (CRU Climategate). As for cutting and pasting, who loves NASA and Goddard the most ?!

[BubberMiley]

"Angrily" really, another one ascribing emotions and so on that are not there. Get a grip, you aren't the only one with an opinion and when someone disagrees you have to attack.

Sorry. Your "try reading" quote came across as angry. I understand that your unwillingness to answer my questions stems more from lack of understanding of the issue than anger. I'm not attacking you for that. I'm just exposing you for what you are (but Waldo is doing a much better job).

Carry on.

[waldo]

Such personal attacks on other members and their sources is the expected outcome here, despite the long record of alarmist dependence and distortions of identical data, research, blogs, and junk science. One would think they had learned a lesson after the great fall from grace in 2009 (CRU Climategate). As for cutting and pasting, who loves NASA and Goddard the most ?!

I wondered how long you'd scurry away and keep quiet over your puffed up and failed understanding of 'uncertainty range versus confidence interval'... care to take another shot or will you settle in with the level of this, your latest reply...unsubstantiated broad generalization and a nod to your ongoing "greater CanAm dynamic" trolling! Which will it be?

[bush_cheney2004]

Better stick to "triage principles" as any reliance on a "95% confidence interval" on climate change will only continue the current alarmist undoing. With each passing day, alarmists need to scream louder because they are being tuned out. Adapt .... or cry like an alarmist.

[waldo]

Better stick to "triage principles" as any reliance on a "95% confidence interval" on climate change will only continue the current alarmist undoing. With each passing day, alarmists need to scream louder because they are being tuned out. Adapt .... or cry like an alarmist.

so... clearly... you have nothing to say/offer. Nice to read you once again reinforcing your inability to distinguish/understand uncertainty range vs. confidence interval! Well done - go with your strengths!

[Bitsy]

In the zeal to delegitimize scientific studies and Al Gore, lol, climate deniers or as some like to call themselves, skeptics, fail to do even the most basic research of their sources or the information before they post.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think VP Al Gore has done the most to "delegitimize" himself, all while raking in lots of cash. Well Done !!

[Shady]

I think VP Al Gore has done the most to "delegitimize" himself, all while raking in lots of cash. Well Done !!

Yep. Nothing like profiting from big oil to illustrate the utter hypocrisy of that man.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep. Nothing like profiting from big oil to illustrate the utter hypocrisy of that man.

...another inconvenient truth. Hope he paid taxes on that.

[Shady]

...another inconvenient truth. Hope he paid taxes on that.

I think he did, but before the rate went up in January. He wanted the sale to go through before he'd have to pay more in taxes. It's hypocrisy lumped on top of hypocrisy. Edited March 27, 2013 by Shady

[waldo]

In the zeal to delegitimize scientific studies and Al Gore, lol, climate deniers or as some like to call themselves, skeptics, fail to do even the most basic research of their sources or the information before they post.

yes, cause... basic research cuts into valuable Al Gore bashing time! It also lines up with their inherent predilection towards avoiding, at all cost, even attempting to interpret, convey and discuss, let alone support, their positions on AGW/CC. As for Gore, a somewhat less prolific communicator now, the loudest barkers here are blustering wildly over the sale of his part-ownership of Current TV... apparently their support for private enterprise has its limits!!!

[Hudson Jones]

Shady?

Did you get a chance to read the information Bitsy posted? It was an article from the scientist, Myles Allen, that David Rose misrepresented. I will post some of the information:

I also explained that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentrations, which we are almost certain to do now, was just the beginning. Increasing use of fossil carbon at the current rate would drive atmospheric concentrations towards four times pre-industrial figures by 2100. So even if the "climate sensitivity" is as low as 2C, as some lines of evidence now suggest, we would still be looking at 4C plus by the early 22nd century.

The reason is that there is plenty of fossil carbon down there, and we keep finding more: the Japanese have just demonstrated how to mine sub-ocean methane clathrates. And as other carbon pools fill up, an increasing fraction of the carbon we dump in the atmosphere stays there, in effect, forever (unless our grandchildren decide to pump it out again).

David accepted all of this – I quote: "Of course, I accept that CO2 emissions have to come down," – while arguing that the current government's emphasis on short-term measures like promoting windfarms is largely irrelevant.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think he did, but before the rate went up in January. He wanted the sale to go through before he'd have to pay more in taxes. It's hypocrisy lumped on top of hypocrisy.

Yes..that would be (hypocrisy)². Laughable still, some of the BS in Al Gore's film had to be explained away by the alarmists when challenged, then admitted as outright wrong. Alarmists think they can get away with lies and half-truths because their "cause" is so just.

[waldo]

Yes..that would be (hypocrisy)². Laughable still, some of the BS in Al Gore's film had to be explained away by the alarmists when challenged, then admitted as outright wrong. Alarmists think they can get away with lies and half-truths because their "cause" is so just.

no - your blustering means nothing... as would be expected with such a profile figure and an iconic target, the film has undergone extensive review on its scientific foundations; overall, the film stands up very well with a few legitimate criticisms, which, of course, give miscreants the outlet they so revel in. But, as I said, anytime you denier types can steer the discussion away from you actually having to substantiate your denial, you'll opt to derail by targeting Al Gore, every time - big time!

[bush_cheney2004]

... But, as I said, anytime you denier types can steer the discussion away from you actually having to substantiate your denial, you'll opt to derail by targeting Al Gore, every time - big time!

Back to the "denier" slur, no matter what the contravening view(s) may be. I am an "adapter", not a "denier", but we know that alarmists must lash out at any opposing opinion or facts that detract from their new found religion. All praise the Climate Change God, or ironically, be burned at the stake.

[GostHacked]

Well...there's one. There used to be a forest in British Columbia. Been there since the last Ice Age. Now it's been eaten by the spruce beetle...also around since the last Ice Age. Only brutal winters can keep its numbers in check. I haven't experienced a truly brutal winter since the early 1970s.

This past one was .. 'brutal' only in comparison to most of the winters I have experienced here. But this seems to happen every 5-7 years A few mild winters and then a colder/longer one. Last one that was like this was about 5 years ago. Almost broke records for snowfalls.

Spring is now starting to break and the snow is starting to melt. Gotta shine up and get the V-Star ready.

[waldo]

Back to the "denier" slur, no matter what the contravening view(s) may be. I am an "adapter", not a "denier", but we know that alarmists must lash out at any opposing opinion or facts that detract from their new found religion. All praise the Climate Change God, or ironically, be burned at the stake.

your victim act again? No, as before, the label is not a slur... certainly not any more than your use of the label alarmist. As before, your self-acknowledged denial and 'Adapt-R-Us-Only' posturing simply satisfies your personal overt need to ignore mitigation/preventive measures. Oh wait, is that a slur too?

[GostHacked]

How well does Gore's hockey stick graph stand up today?

Also the graph on the dailymail website shows the information about predicted temps were from the IPCC and the real temps as reported by the Met Office (how legit would that be?) It shows a slight downward trend instead of following predicted temps.

[waldo]

How well does Gore's hockey stick graph stand up today?

Also the graph on the dailymail website shows the information about predicted temps were from the IPCC and the real temps as reported by the Met Office (how legit would that be?) It shows a slight downward trend instead of following predicted temps.

it wasn't 'Gore's hockey stick graph'... and it stands up very well today. Only a denier would challenge global warming and the visual representation of the blade of the hockey stick - right?

the tabloid article has no merit/foundation - the image does not originate from any formal scientific body... it simply originates from a blog... a blogger... and was manipulated by the tabloid "journalist". The "journalist" negates a global perspective and focuses entirely upon surface air temperature without regard to the overall energy balance... like the 93% of warming going into the oceans. The original intent of the blogger's graph was to speak to how a particular grouping of newer-working models represented predictions versus observations for one particular and targeted surface air temperature dataset. Even as crafted/manipulated by the tabloid hack, the worst that could be stated from the graph is that observations for that dataset are on the lower end of the predictive uncertainty range... still within the predicted range of uncertainty... still within the confidence interval. Of course, the tabloid fervour overtook, reached into the lamestream media and we had the latest round of "Global Warming hoax, Global Warming has ended, Green Con, etc., etc. etc.)... it certainly feeds the scribbler types, per her blustering forward with this thread.

as an alternative, would offering scribbler something like this graphic actually mean anything to her?

[Bitsy]

But, as I said, anytime you denier types can steer the discussion away from you actually having to substantiate your denial, you'll opt to derail by targeting Al Gore, every time - big time!

The mention of his name simply reveals the weakness of their argument

[scribblet]

Sorry. Your "try reading" quote came across as angry. I understand that your unwillingness to answer my questions stems more from lack of understanding of the issue than anger. I'm not attacking you for that. I'm just exposing you for what you are (but Waldo is doing a much better job).

Carry on.

LOL, but you and others on here really 'understand the issue' - sure you do. The only people exposed are those who can't accept that it's not so cut and dried, and the ones doing the name calling and denigrating are those who can't tolerate opposing opinions. Instead, they just attempt to denigrate the poster... now that behaviour really does do the exposing.

BC2004 is correct in saying that" alarmists must lash out at any opposing opinion or facts that detract from their new found religion" Not only lash out but start with the personal attacks and negative descriptions etc.

The 'unwillingness to answer questions' is simply that I don't read or answer everything on here, mainly because by answering some it just gives them a larger forum to spew and spin. Best to ignore some comments. Besides, where is it written that I or anyone else has to reply to everyone. Get a life there's more than one side to any issue, this one has many.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10915-james-hansen-nasa-admits-global-temperature-standstill-is-real

[scribblet]

How well does Gore's hockey stick graph stand up today?

Also the graph on the dailymail website shows the information about predicted temps were from the IPCC and the real temps as reported by the Met Office (how legit would that be?) It shows a slight downward trend instead of following predicted temps.

Doesn't matter to those who like to belittle anyone they disagree with.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/07/lawrence-solomon-celsius-not-rising/

ETA a great little linkey

Peter Foster: Inglorious ­Warmists

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/03/19/peter-foster-inglorious-%C2%ADwarmists/

Edited March 27, 2013 by scribblet

[waldo]

The 'unwillingness to answer questions' is simply that I don't read or answer everything on here, mainly because by answering some it just gives them a larger forum to spew and spin. Best to ignore some comments. Besides, where is it written that I or anyone else has to reply to everyone. Get a life there's more than one side to any issue, this one has many.

no - your "unwillingness" simply reflects you not knowing anything about anything. You talk of having an opinion... you don't have an opinion - you're simply a cut&paste parrot... one that doesn't have a clue about what you're linking/referencing. I believe I've punted every one of your chestnuts... save these last two. And I could do the same with these... but what's the point in continuing - you haven't the wherewithal to recognize you're being summarily dispatched. Take solace in being on the fringe of the fringe!

[Bitsy]

A couple of objective reviews or great little linkey if your prefer of Greedy Lying Bastards as opposed to the thoughts and lies by Peter Foster, a known vocal, climate denier.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-07/news/37528494_1_climate-change-koch-brothers-heartland-institute

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jan/20/greedy-lying-bastards-oil-filmmaker

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/film-reviews/greedy-lying-bastards-doc-shrieks-to-the-converted/article9782678/

About the hockey stick:

As the NSF now reports, none of Mann's critics ever showed the courage or conviction of actually laying a formal complaint before Penn State, where Mannis director of the Earth System Science Center. But the allegations were so prominent in the blogosphere and in mainstream media that the university took it upon itself to conduct an investigation. The NSF then reviewed Penn State's exculpatory findings, duplicating some parts of the investigation in greater detail.

The result? No shred of evidence exists to impugn Mann's work.

As Romm points out, the central conclusion drawn from the Hockey Stick - that temperatures, stable for a thousand years, have spiked dramatically since humans began using fossil fuels - is also being confirmed with each new study. It appears that, unless you are willfully blind or directly in the employ of the fossil fuel industry, the evidence - of climate change, as well as of Mann's scientific bona fides - is undeniable

.

http://www.desmogblog.com/national-science-foundation-vindicates-michael-mann

And yet, Foster wants you to believe economists like Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick as opposed to science, tsk, tsk.

Deniers are still chafing after Climategate, which they thought was their coup de grace, proved to be such a lemon.

[TimG]

And yet, Foster wants you to believe economists like Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick as opposed to science, tsk, tsk.

Steve McIntyre is a statistician by training and is more qualified than Mann to comment on the usefulness of Mann's various reconstructions (Mann is largely incompetent when it comes to statistics).

Also, the Penn state investigations into Mann were by the same people who 'investigated' allegations against the pedophile Sandusky. Being cleared by 'Penn State' means nothing to anyone who understands the issues.

Mann is basically fraud but he has successfully fooled many people who do not have to background to understand his garbage science into believing he is some sort of persecuted hero. It is rather pathetic and one of the reasons I hold climate science in contempt. I see better science in the weekly horoscopes.

Deniers are still chafing after Climategate, which they thought was their coup de grace, proved to be such a lemon.

A lemon? Kyoto is dead and there is little chance of it being revived. Obama has no chance of passing any anti-CO laws. The Japanese are quietly abandoning any GHG commitments because they decided closing down nukes is a higher priority - same for the Germans. The UK is facing power blackouts because of idiotic GHGs regulations.

I would say the people calling for sanity are the winners over the anti-CO2 alarmists.

Edited March 27, 2013 by TimG