Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

no MLW member should be concerned about, as you say, "conceding defeat", to you..... you offer nothing more than your unsupported and unsubstantiated statements. Nothing more, nothing less.

Blather Waldo....drivelling blather. This is back to the Princess Bride and "inconceivable". I do not thin the words "unsupported" and "unsubstantiated" mean what you think they mean! You can repeat them over and over in your attempt to continually uphold the Armageddon near future that you so zealously guard......but hey....there has been a lot of good news for humans over the last 10-20 years - observations that should give some small comfort to those who are truly concerned about the immediacy of Climate Change effects. But what do we get from ol' Waldo?......A war of attrition against any and all rational points of view that could tarnish the "Gods of Global Warming". You're certainly not a dupe Waldo - which defaults you to a shill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Blather Waldo....drivelling blather. This is back to the Princess Bride and "inconceivable". I do not thin the words "unsupported" and "unsubstantiated" mean what you think they mean! You can repeat them over and over in your attempt to continually uphold the Armageddon near future that you so zealously guard......but hey....there has been a lot of good news for humans over the last 10-20 years - observations that should give some small comfort to those who are truly concerned about the immediacy of Climate Change effects. But what do we get from ol' Waldo?......A war of attrition against any and all rational points of view that could tarnish the "Gods of Global Warming". You're certainly not a dupe Waldo - which defaults you to a shill.

Simple, you referring to "rational points of view" means nothing. Your latest 'ta da' efforts referencing creationist Spencer is a true testament to the failed skew of your claimed "rational". Your complete MLW posting history is filled with reams of citations and references to absolute cranks. Your kind of "rational"!!!

of course, with all your bunk being consistently shown to be nonsense, you've recently taken to a new tact... one that more forcefully diverts from your own, as you say, "blathering and bluster", to where you now choose to flail about wildly throwing around the "alarmist" tag. To you, anyone speaking to mainstream science, anyone quoting from IPCC or government reports... those are your new "alarmists"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, you referring to "rational points of view" means nothing. Your latest 'ta da' efforts referencing creationist Spencer is a true testament to the failed skew of your claimed "rational". Your complete MLW posting history is filled with reams of citations and references to absolute cranks. Your kind of "rational"!!!

of course, with all your bunk being consistently shown to be nonsense, you've recently taken to a new tact... one that more forcefully diverts from your own, as you say, "blathering and bluster", to where you now choose to flail about wildly throwing around the "alarmist" tag. To you, anyone speaking to mainstream science, anyone quoting from IPCC or government reports... those are your new "alarmists"!

Deflection once again Waldo. As I said some time ago, you represent the true "Denier". You deny that there has been a lack of warming over the last 15 to 20 years. You fail to define your "consensus" - yet like your new sidekick Cybercoma, deny that it is any less than 97%. You deny that IPCC computer models have continually exaggerated any warming. You ignore failed predictions like an increase in the number of hurricanes.......don't you understand that this is all good news for us all? Of course you do......but shills always have agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deflection once again Waldo. As I said some time ago, you represent the true "Denier". You deny that there has been a lack of warming over the last 15 to 20 years. You fail to define your "consensus" - yet like your new sidekick Cybercoma, deny that it is any less than 97%. You deny that IPCC computer models have continually exaggerated any warming. You ignore failed predictions like an increase in the number of hurricanes.......don't you understand that this is all good news for us all? Of course you do......but shills always have agendas.

no - no deflection here, Simple... I am coming straight at you! You choose to purposely concentrate on surface temperature warming while ignoring that part of the earth where more than 90% of warming goes - the oceans. You choose to purposely ignore the (now multiple) studies that suggest the so-called "pause" in surface warming is, effectively, neglible. I had no trouble defining the consensus... it was you who stumbled under the incessant waldo junkyard dog act pressing you to define your interpretation of the consensus. As for IPCC models, your failed attempt with "your boy, creationist Spencer", didn't work our so well for you, did it? I've shown you just how well the IPCC models have done in prediction/projection... you simply choose to ignore the facts presented to you. Hurricanes? I suggest you revisit your talking point template... no predictions exist for an increased frequency of hurricanes! Why should anyone be surprised you, once again, confuse intensity with increased frequency. C'mon Simple... up your game! Get in the game, at least! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - no deflection here, Simple... I am coming straight at you! You choose to purposely concentrate on surface temperature warming while ignoring that part of the earth where more than 90% of warming goes - the oceans. You choose to purposely ignore the (now multiple) studies that suggest the so-called "pause" in surface warming is, effectively, neglible. I had no trouble defining the consensus... it was you who stumbled under the incessant waldo junkyard dog act pressing you to define your interpretation of the consensus. As for IPCC models, your failed attempt with "your boy, creationist Spencer", didn't work our so well for you, did it? I've shown you just how well the IPCC models have done in prediction/projection... you simply choose to ignore the facts presented to you. Hurricanes? I suggest you revisit your talking point template... no predictions exist for an increased frequency of hurricanes! Why should anyone be surprised you, once again, confuse intensity with increased frequency. C'mon Simple... up your game! Get in the game, at least! :lol:

Deny, deny, deny.......your heat in the ocean is the newest, already tiresome attempt to account for the lack of surface temperature warming (there - have it your way) as continually predicted by the IPCC models and assessments going back 20 years.

You've been schooled thoroughly on the "consensus" - one has never been defined, let alone quantified - and when you were asked to step up - to actually define this elusive consensus put forward by your ilk, you resorted to unintelligible blather.

Hurricanes? Nothing to really speak of in the US since 2005 - except for Sandy - a tropical storm with a freakish confluence of factors.

The IPCC models? Give your head a shake. Virtually every one over-estimated the warming. If they were anywhere near being accurate, one would expect some to be under, some to be fairly accurate, some to be over. Go figure. Deny again.

You junkyard dog persona is simply someone who keeps talking - and says nothing - over and over.

Over and out.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo's technique:

1) post a response that completely ignores the argument being made.

2) respond with insults/incoherent blather when the fact that the response does not address the argument is pointed out.

3) prolong the pointless discussion until the original post is lost among pages of long irrelevant follow ups.

Pretty much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deny, deny, deny.......your heat in the ocean is the newest, already tiresome attempt to account for the lack of surface temperature warming (there - have it your way) as continually predicted by the IPCC models and assessments going back 20 years.

no - MLW member Shady and you have both tried this ploy before. There is nothing new about research and findings relative to Ocean Heat Content... I quoted/linked studies as early as the late 90s in that regard. Perhaps you could explain why you choose to ignore ocean warming? Perhaps you could choose to explain why you ignore the study references I've provided that speak to actual surface warming relative to a more complete assignment of measurement, particularly in those areas of the earth with sparse station locations?

again, you can keep spreading your unsubstantiated nonsense concerning IPCC model predictions... in that regard, you tried and failed (big time) with your recent attempt to trumpet the failed science of your latest go-to denier guy, creationist Spencer. Again, I've shown you exactly what the IPCC models have done in terms of prediction/projection... just how many ass-kickings do you need before you stop your "IPCC model nonsense"?

You've been schooled thoroughly on the "consensus" - one has never been defined, let alone quantified - and when you were asked to step up - to actually define this elusive consensus put forward by your ilk, you resorted to unintelligible blather.

no - the only unintellibible blather is yours. You absolutely refused to provide your interpretation of what the consensus meant to you... in spite of me pressing you on this, repeatedly pressing you on this, you would NOT step up and provide your interpretation. Matter of fact, you have yet to do so! In my last post reply to you, I linked to the summary post where I provide what the consensus is/relates to/reflects upon/etc. - here, chew on it again: here

Hurricanes? Nothing to really speak of in the US since 2005 - except for Sandy - a tropical storm with a freakish confluence of factors.

is this your way of deflecting from your major screwup concerning frequency and intensity? You may want to recognize the distinction between hurricanes making landfall and those that don't... and, it's a big world out there, hey Simple... apparently there are hurricanes throughout the world - go figure!

The IPCC models? Give your head a shake. Virtually every one over-estimated the warming. If they were anywhere near being accurate, one would expect some to be under, some to be fairly accurate, some to be over. Go figure. Deny again.

again, as I just said a few paragraphs above in this same reply: "again, you can keep spreading your unsubstantiated nonsense concerning IPCC model predictions... in that regard, you tried and failed (big time) with your recent attempt to trumpet the failed science of your latest go-to denier guy, creationist Spencer. Again, I've shown you exactly what the IPCC models have done in terms of prediction/projection... just how many ass-kickings do you need before you stop your "IPCC model nonsense"?"

you've provided nothing to substantiate your repeated claims concerning IPCC models... well, nothing other than your failed attempt with your denier guy Spencer!

You junkyard dog persona is simply someone who keeps talking - and says nothing - over and over.

Over and out.

no - I'm saying a lot... you simply Simple, can not deal with it. You can't deal with continually having your nonsense highlighted and shown for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.your heat in the ocean is the newest, already tiresome attempt to account for the lack of surface temperature warming

Exactly. It's funny how this lame heat in the oceans excuse wasn't mentioned even a smidgen over the last several years. Just the last couple now that we all know that warming hasn't been occuring. It's like climate scientists didn't realize that the oceans existsed until last year or something. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like climate scientists didn't realize that the oceans existsed until last year or something. :rolleyes:

Are you going to substantiate your claim that the precipitation in Saskatchewan and Western Manitoba was not excessive, or is this another drive-by smear where you disappear when asked to provide actual facts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you going to substantiate your claim that the precipitation in Saskatchewan and Western Manitoba was not excessive, or is this another drive-by smear where you disappear when asked to provide actual facts?

That would mean you first substantiating your claim that it is excessive. Btw, excessive is somewhat subjective don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. It's funny how this lame heat in the oceans excuse wasn't mentioned even a smidgen over the last several years. Just the last couple now that we all know that warming hasn't been occuring. It's like climate scientists didn't realize that the oceans existsed until last year or something. :rolleyes:

Shady, you need to broaden your scope of reading and information sources... extend a bit beyond your British tabloid and 'breitbart like' references! For your missing understanding and perspective, a few partial extracts from previous waldo posts - enjoy at your leisure:

oh my, Simple, Simple, Simple! You haven't the basic understanding to grasp what's been clearly and precisely presented for you! Let me outline your (latest) big-time fails:

- you natter on about a 'lull, hiatus, "pause" in warming... something you describe as "it's cooling"! :lol: Of course, in your purposeful fake-skeptic skewed world, you isolate that in a context that only gives consideration to surface air termperature... that area where less than 3% of global warming heat goes. In your skewed isolation, you purposely ignore that more than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans... the ocean heat content of the upper 2000m of the ocean continues to warm. Of course, you've been shown this in previous MLW threads; you conveniently choose to ignore/overlook this. It's called GLOBAL warming for a reason, Simple.

...

nonsense! Ocean warming has been significantly studied for over a decade+... changes in observed ocean heat content (OHC) are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing. If you're interpreting a higher profile for ocean warming, it's only because, wait for it, wait for it... scientists have heightened their study focus, principally to account for why the rate of surface temperature warming is lower in recent years... and found the increased rates of OHC warming I mentioned earlier.

since you're all about models, here's a most dated 2001 study speaking to both your continued unsubstantiated claims concerning models as well as OHC:

DETECTION OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE WORLD'S OCEANS

Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years. The horizontal and temporal character of these changes has been closely replicated by the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM) forced by observed and estimated anthropogenic gases. Application of optimal detection methodology shows that the model-produced signals are indistinguishable from the observations at the 0.05 confidence level. Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%. This suggests that the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system. Additionally, the requirement that modeled ocean heat uptakes match observations puts a strong, new constraint on anthropogenically forced climate models

another dated study... 2005... also a model/ocean heat transfer focus! I trust this one will (also) meet your astute scrutiny - yes? Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would mean you first substantiating your claim that it is excessive. Btw, excessive is somewhat subjective don't you think?

since it twas I that first used the word 'excessive' in that status update... the status update that you threw a LOL at my use of the word 'excessive'. Tell me... does the following graphic meet your subjective attachment? I've highlighted 3 colours for you in the graphic summary accounting of the April-to-July Canadian prairie precipitation as compared to the historical distribution. Tell me... what does the pattern extent of those 3 colours suggest to you about the level/degree of this years amount of rainfall in Saskatchewan and Manitoba? Excessive - yes? You're welcome... carry on!

34yr7md.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actual data that completely refutes their claims inevitably forces them to complain about your "tone". :lol:

Except in this case the data does not answer the question at all. It not enough to establish that he current rainfall sets records in some areas because weather records are set all of the time. What needs to be established is that rainfall of this magnitude is completely inconsistent with past rainfall patterns. To establish this we have to look at past rainfall peaks and compare them to the current peak for the region. If the current peak is only slightly higher than prior peaks then that would establish that the current rainfall patterns are NOT unusual. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How's the weather on Mars?

.

Weather isn't climate, except when it supports climate change.

Boges, feeling frisky?

in speaking to last years Alberta floods, this years earlier Alberta floods and the ongoing Sask/Man floods, John Pomeroy - Canada research chair in water resources and climate change: "all three unusual floods were caused by moisture-laden storm fronts that moved up from the U.S. and then stalled. The increase in stalled summer storms “that just sit there” appears to be tied to a shift in the jet stream and atmospheric flows".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except in this case the data does not answer the question at all. It not enough to establish that he current rainfall sets records because weather records are set all of the time. What needs to be established is that rainfall of this magnitude is completely inconsistent with past rainfall patterns.

and the underlying cause for storms "stalling out"... for shifts in the jetstream/atmospheric flow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you looked into it yet to find that it is, indeed, completely inconsistent with past rainfall patterns?

I am not the one making the assertion that it is inconsistent. The onus of showing that something is abnormal falls on the people claiming that something is abnormal (i.e. that something is "normal" is the null hypothesis that must be disproven).

Of course, the trouble for the alarmists is accurate historical data only goes back few decades which is hardly enough to establish the "normal" for the climate.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The onus of showing that something is abnormal falls on the people claiming that something is abnormal (i.e. that something is "normal" is the null hypothesis that must be disproven).

So you just closed your eyes when Waldo posted the precipitation chart for fear of him proving you wrong yet again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you just closed your eyes when Waldo posted the precipitation chart for fear of him proving you wrong yet again?

WTF?? You are the one that claimed that the precipitation is unusual. The onus is on you to show that it is unusual. I already explained why waldo's precipitation chart does not establish the claim that you wish to make.

So unless you actually provide data that establishes the claim that you made then we will have to assume that your claim is unsubstantiated and likely driven by an ideological desire to believe that any unusual weather event must be "abnormal".

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF?? You are the one that claimed that the precipitation is unusual. The onus is on you to show that it is unusual. I already explained why waldo's precipitation chart does not establish the claim that you wish to make.

So unless you actually provide data that establishes the claim that you made then we will have to assume that your claim is unsubstantiated and likely driven by an ideological desire to believe that any unusual weather event must be "abnormal".

WTF?? When the data says the precipitation is "very" high, "extremely" high, and "record" high, what do you think they are comparing it to? How could something that is "extreme" and "record" possibly not be "unusual" or "abnormal"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not the one making the assertion that it is inconsistent. The onus of showing that something is abnormal falls on the people claiming that something is abnormal (i.e. that something is "normal" is the null hypothesis that must be disproven).

Of course, the trouble for the alarmists is accurate historical data only goes back few decades which is hardly enough to establish the "normal" for the climate.

Sadly, many people in this thread cannot grasp the concept of occum's razor.

WTF?? When the data says the precipitation is "very" high, "extremely" high

Clearly these are well-defined scientific terms. *sarcasm*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF?? When the data says the precipitation is "very" high, "extremely" high, and "record" high, what do you think they are comparing it to? How could something that is "extreme" and "record" possibly not be "unusual" or "abnormal"?

We are talking about weather. There are ALWAYS times when natural weather variability results in events which are far from the average. Such events are NORMAL aspects of weather. If you wish to establish that the events are ABNORMAL you have to compare the current event to past events when the precipitation deviated from average. If the current events are roughly the same as past events then you cannot claim that the current events are abnormal (technically this is measured by the statistical variance). If you don't provide the data that allows such a comparison then you are making an unsubstantiated claim. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...