AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[Keepitsimple]

nothing in what you've just written addresses the challenge put to you over that silly tennis ball analogy. In fact, what you've just written absolutely reinforces that you weren't being disengenuous in putting that analogy forward, repeatedly... you simply don't know what you're talking about. A few posts back you were again provided with a link to previous questions/challenge to your use of that tennis-ball nonsense... take that up instead of writing more to reinforce your confusion/misunderstanding/lack of knowledge/etc. The only Perspective you're providing is to reinforce your analogy nonsense and to add fuel to the mindset profile intent of this thread.

So - you disagree that CO2 has risen from around 300 PPM to 400PPM since around 1850? That's all I've said in using my tennis ball analogy - nothing more, nothing less. Just a clear, visual perspective. So step up Waldo - what's so wrong with the analogy?

[Wilber]

...and your point is??

My point is maintaining something can't be harmfull just because it isn't toxic is just stupid. Like saying it is impossible to over eat if what you are eating isn't poisonous.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Wilber

[waldo]

So - you disagree that CO2 has risen from around 300 PPM to 400PPM since around 1850? That's all I've said in using my tennis ball analogy - nothing more, nothing less. Just a clear, visual perspective. So step up Waldo - what's so wrong with the analogy?

it's in the questions/challenge put to your previously... as I said, you've had a recent link update to that. Please respond to that original challenge in the original thread where you first put forward your silly/nonsensical tennis ball analogy. Again, this thread is not intended to become the 'back & forth' vehicle for fake-skeptics/deniers to ply their unsubstantiated claims. It is however, the thread to highlight those claims... again, in that regard, thanks for adding your input to this thread.

[Shady]

Weak hurricane season. Completely opposite of alarmism predictions and "models" once again.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-10/no-named-storms-first-time-since-1992-at-hurricane-peak.html

[On Guard for Thee]

All 4 Canadian Ice caps (Devon, Meighen, Melville and Agassiz have receded rapidly. Only place you will see more ice is the Antarctic and that too is due to global warming increasing percipitation which dillutes surface water salt content raising it's freezing level. And it tends to be pretty thin ice.

Edited September 10, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Keepitsimple]

it's in the questions/challenge put to your previously... as I said, you've had a recent link update to that. Please respond to that original challenge in the original thread where you first put forward your silly/nonsensical tennis ball analogy. Again, this thread is not intended to become the 'back & forth' vehicle for fake-skeptics/deniers to ply their unsubstantiated claims. It is however, the thread to highlight those claims... again, in that regard, thanks for adding your input to this thread.

I think your attitude goes directly to the mindset of deniers such as yourself - who deny that warming (or no warming) could be primarily driven by anything other than human activity as it relates to fossil fuels. Your mindset is clear - obfuscate, deflect, complicate and annoy. The midset of an alarmist who is losing the "battle of observations".

You are driving the "back and forth" vehicle by referring to some foggy-headed question you may have asked in another thread. I've provide a clear perspective using tennis balls that provides visual perspective to the underlying "truth" of Global Warming - that CO2 has increased from 300 PPM to 400 PPM and that single fact has led to the Alarmist tipping points that are so often referenced. And yet you seem to be at odds with this depiction?

[On Guard for Thee]

Shady, on 10 Sept 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Weak hurricane season. Completely opposite of alarmism predictions and "models" once again.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-10/no-named-storms-first-time-since-1992-at-hurricane-peak.html

Have you actually tried reading the article?

Edited September 10, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[waldo]

I think your attitude goes directly to the mindset of deniers such as yourself - who deny that warming (or no warming) could be primarily driven by anything other than human activity as it relates to fossil fuels. Your mindset is clear - obfuscate, deflect, complicate and annoy. The midset of an alarmist who is losing the "battle of observations".

your fake-skepticism and outright denial notwithstanding, the evidence is absolutely and definitively clear: the principal causal tie to the relatively recent warming is anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions. As you have been challenged many times over, step-up (in an appropriate MLW thread) and supply your interpreted understanding and substantiated reference support that states the principal causal tie to warming is one other than, as you say, "human activity as it relates to fossil fuels".

of course, as you always do, you will ignore the above challenge... you deny the evidence, and you simply keep repeating the same tired refrain of yours. The fact you can't provide an alternative principal causal linkage means nothing to you... you simply deny for denials sake!

.

You are driving the "back and forth" vehicle by referring to some foggy-headed question you may have asked in another thread. I've provide a clear perspective using tennis balls that provides visual perspective to the underlying "truth" of Global Warming - that CO2 has increased from 300 PPM to 400 PPM and that single fact has led to the Alarmist tipping points that are so often referenced. And yet you seem to be at odds with this depiction?

you're laying down a lot of words in your continual avoidance... just step forward and answer the questions/challenge - again, start with this one (respond in that same thread - thanks in advance).

.

[waldo]

Weak hurricane season. Completely opposite of alarmism predictions and "models" once again.

do you contend that all weather is a continued liner 'worsening' reflection on predictions? Does any single season represent your interpretation on predictive success? Since you're speaking with such definitive authority, why don't you step up and

- source the predictions you're referring to

- of those, state the (generalized) predictions you are calling "opposite to"... specifically, state what you understand the predictions that have been made are, both in terms of hurricane numbers and hurricane intensity.

- state the models you presume to speak of... those you presume to rely upon for "predicting hurricane strength"

- you appear to selectively isolate on the Atlantic region - ensure your above responses speak directly to your localized regional focus.

since you've finally returned back to this thread, and you're once again speaking of "alarmism", please step up and answer the question/request you keep avoiding. Per this prior post in this thread, the post you've been referred to many times over as you continue to use the labels 'alarmist, alarmism'... the post/request you ignore and refuse to respond to; again: "could you please state your understanding of alarmism and definition of the label alarmist... and who you attach it to and why you do so. Thanks in advance."

[Shady]

Hurricanes have doubled because of global warming!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html

Except the exact opposite. Classic alarmism!

[-1=e^ipi]

you may call them "unjustified alarmist BS"... they are not... they are backed up by the related WMO report the statements reflect upon.

Please explain to me how 'we are running out of time and if global temperatures increase by 2C then our children and grandchildren won't have a future' is not alarmist BS. What is it's scientific justification?

[On Guard for Thee]

I trust you did read at least a little of the latest article. It talks about the last century not just this season if that's what you're thinking.

[-1=e^ipi]

Weak hurricane season. Completely opposite of alarmism predictions and "models" once again.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-10/no-named-storms-first-time-since-1992-at-hurricane-peak.html

Actually, increasing atmospheric CO2 reduces the surface-tropopause temperature gradient, which reduces the thermal efficiency of hurricanes. It is not unexpected to have a decrease in the frequency and severity of hurricanes due to increases in atmospheric CO2 from human emissions.

Edited September 10, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

Hurricanes have doubled because of global warming!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html

Except the exact opposite. Classic alarmism!

perfect! Another case example fit for this thread's focus on the fake-skeptic denier mindset. The article is a reference to a single study, an article that if you actually read the complete article (which we know you don't actually do) has another scientist's countering side provided to the study findings. Again, a single study... without even getting into the particulars of that now dated study/article (its merits or lack of), if you're going to shout "alarmism", I suggest you take up the hints I gave you in my prior post. You certainly had no shortage of loud barking and thrashing/gnashing concerning the scientific consensus... yet, somehow, in all your fake-skeptic/denying bravado you can't be bothered to seek out exactly what is that consensus in terms of the predictive impact of warming/climate change on hurricanes.

probably the single biggest failure here is your inability to read... to comprehend: the single study is a historical review of the past where the authors analysis finds activity transitions in 1930 & 1995... analysis stops in 2005 (in line with the datedness of the study you've chosen to highlight). The increase in numbers of hurricanes is shown within the study data and an attribution conclusion is partially assigned to climate change (based on warmer sea surface temperature and altered wind patterns). Of course there is a legitimate point of criticism applied in evaluation of the accuracy of early 20th century data... that's the essence of the article's alternate point of view. Again, a historical review analysis without any predictive attachment made to the future.

Shady! Looks like you've been taken in again by another title... you should try... just try... to actually read your references. Go beyond the titles!

[waldo]

Please explain to me how 'we are running out of time and if global temperatures increase by 2C then our children and grandchildren won't have a future' is not alarmist BS. What is it's scientific justification?

you have taken some liberty with the statements:

- your 'running out of time' reference relates to being able to reverse the increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration trend:

“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” he said. “We are running out of time.”

- your 'if global temperatures increase by 2C then our children and grandchildren won't have a future' reference is not what was specifically said. The reference is one that presumes to keep within the target 2C temperature rise... whether you accept the target number or not (and based on our past discussions, you apparently don't), that is the accepted scientific, UN, and global nation government consensus target means to avoid "dangerous climate change in science and policy making". On some levels it's become somewhat of a moot point, as many scientists feel there is now no ability to avoid going beyond the 2C target limit. The statement made also comes after (at least in the article) a pointed emphasis on CO2 atmospheric/ocean retention periods and the related cumulative long-term impact on warming and ocean acidification.

“Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years and in the ocean for even longer. Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification. The laws of physics are non-negotiable,” said Mr Jarraud.

“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin provides a scientific base for decision-making. We have the knowledge and we have the tools for action to try keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future.

[-1=e^ipi]

- your 'if global temperatures increase by 2C then our children and grandchildren won't have a future' reference is not what was specifically said. The reference is one that presumes to keep within the target 2C temperature rise... whether you accept the target number or not (and based on our past discussions, you apparently don't), that is the accepted scientific, UN, and global nation government consensus target means to avoid "dangerous climate change in science and policy making". On some levels it's become somewhat of a moot point, as many scientists feel there is now no ability to avoid going beyond the 2C target limit. The statement made also comes after (at least in the article) a pointed emphasis on CO2 atmospheric/ocean retention periods and the related cumulative long-term impact on warming and ocean acidification.

No, they think that if it gets 2C warmer, then suddenly it's the end of the world or something. That is why we are 'running out of time' and our 'children and grandchildren will not have a future'.

The 2C target isn't a 'scientific' target, it is a political target.

[waldo]

No, they think that if it gets 2C warmer, then suddenly it's the end of the world or something. That is why we are 'running out of time' and our 'children and grandchildren will not have a future'.

you're taking the statements made by a single person and stating "they think"... you're stringing the separate statements together again... and you're doing it even in the face of having them quoted directly back to you. Again, that consensus 2C target presumes to avoid more damaging impacts.

The 2C target isn't a 'scientific' target, it is a political target.

given you're pushing on this, I won't hesitate to reinforce the past discussions where you clearly showed you had no understanding of what the target was and what it meant... and in short order you turned all the supplied information/reference provided to you around as if you were suddenly conveying it as your personal interpretation. You suddenly became a quick-study expert... without checking back, I believe I may have used the poser label!

a few posts back in this thread you made statements/implications concerning the WMO report iself. I suggested that if you wanted to have a go at the actual report you do so in an appropriate thread - not this one, given its intent, expressed now several times. In that same vein, given your quick study expertise, I trust you can support your absolute and definitive distinction between scientific versus political in regards the origination of the target goal... doing so in the thread where we last discussed this target would be most appropriate.

[Keepitsimple]

No, they think that if it gets 2C warmer, then suddenly it's the end of the world or something. That is why we are 'running out of time' and our 'children and grandchildren will not have a future'.

The 2C target isn't a 'scientific' target, it is a political target.

you're taking the statements made by a single person and stating "they think"... you're stringing the separate statements together again... and you're doing it even in the face of having them quoted directly back to you. Again, that consensus 2C target presumes to avoid more damaging impacts.

Waldo - the guy made a simple, clear statement that is undeniable......but there's that alarmist mindset at work again - obfuscate, deflect, annoy.

At the United Nations climate conference in the former German capital of Bonn on Wednesday, delegates and stakeholders discussed the options for reaching the overarching objective of international climate policy: that of limiting the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). That upper limit is considered to be the threshold to "dangerous climate change."

Technically, the goal might still be achievable. But from a political point of view, it has become patently unrealistic. And since a target that is unattainable cannot fulfill either a positive symbolic function or a productive governance function, the 2 degrees Celsius target will ultimately have to be modified.

Link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-change-target-of-two-degrees-celsius-needs-revision-a-904219.html

Edited September 11, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Waldo - the guy made a simple, clear statement that is undeniable......but there's that alarmist mindset at work again - obfuscate, deflect, annoy.

annoy? Do you get..... annoyed, Simple? Yes, the WMO rep made statements; where improper liberties were taken with them... twice (once, even after I dug them up, actually quoted them, and provided my interpretation of them). Do you call my direct quoting obfuscation/deflection? Or is it my interpretation? Cause I couldn't be any clearer as to what I said... not avoiding the more damaging impacts of AGW/CC will impact upon descendants futures.

given you deny it all why are you so troubled by the target, reachable... or not? I've already spoken to the fact some scientists have maintained the target will be passed; of course, the decades+ failure of key emitters to accept binding emission reductions is key to that... to which the 2015 COP meeting extends upon; i.e., extends on the prior commitments from world governments to accept binding emission targets.

[-1=e^ipi]

given you're pushing on this, I won't hesitate to reinforce the past discussions where you clearly showed you had no understanding of what the target was and what it meant... and in short order you turned all the supplied information/reference provided to you around as if you were suddenly conveying it as your personal interpretation. You suddenly became a quick-study expert... without checking back, I believe I may have used the poser label!

No, you are strawmaning my position (as you have done many times in the past).

If you want to go way back, my claim was that the expected increase in temperatures is a few degrees C, and the expected increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is a few hundred ppm by the end of this century. For some reason you didn't agree with this and demanded evidence. In one of my posts I used the 2C target as evidence for the expected increase in temperature to be on the order of a few degrees since the IPCC is unlikely to set an unacheivable target.

My position was that expected change is on the order of a few degrees, not that expected change will be 2C. I never claimed that the 2C target wasn't a political target.

In the context of various alarmists claiming that 'the earth will boil over' under a no-mitigation scenario or various alarmists thinking that the atmosphere will be unbreathable under, I hope that you can understand why establishing what the order of magnitude of expected change will be is important.

Edited September 11, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Shady]

you're taking the statements made by a single person and stating "they think"... you're stringing the separate statements together again... and you're doing it even in the face of having them quoted directly back to you. Again, that consensus 2C target presumes to avoid more damaging impacts.

given you're pushing on this, I won't hesitate to reinforce the past discussions where you clearly showed you had no understanding of what the target was and what it meant... and in short order you turned all the supplied information/reference provided to you around as if you were suddenly conveying it as your personal interpretation. You suddenly became a quick-study expert... without checking back, I believe I may have used the poser label!

a few posts back in this thread you made statements/implications concerning the WMO report iself. I suggested that if you wanted to have a go at the actual report you do so in an appropriate thread - not this one, given its intent, expressed now several times. In that same vein, given your quick study expertise, I trust you can support your absolute and definitive distinction between scientific versus political in regards the origination of the target goal... doing so in the thread where we last discussed this target would be most appropriate.

Single people can be alarmists waldo. It happens all the time. Al Gore is the biggest alarmist of them all. His predictions are absurd and always false. But he loves to alarm people with them.

[waldo]

No, you are strawmaning my position (as you have done many times in the past).

If you want to go way back, my claim was that the expected increase in temperatures is a few degrees C, and the expected increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is a few hundred ppm by the end of this century. For some reason you didn't agree with this and demanded evidence. In one of my posts I used the 2C target as evidence for the expected increase in temperature to be on the order of a few degrees since the IPCC is unlikely to set an unacheivable target.

no - no strawman here, no strawman ever... by me! This is certainly sweet revisionism on your part. Let the waldo set it/you straight... once again. You stated, "I do not believe currently projected climate change (2 C increase in global temperatures)".

again - a projection... is not a target! And now you've doubled-down on your nonsense by saying you used "the target" as evidence... of your projection reference... because, yes, of course, history backs you up in terms of how those big emitter world nations have responded wholeheartedly and lined up to meet all those emission reduction committments... you know, the one's that haven't been made! And, once again, you mention the IPCC.... which, I'll remind you again, had nothing to do with establishing the 2C target.

.

I never claimed that the 2C target wasn't a political target.

huh! Never said you did. I challenged you on your claim... that it is/was a political target (and not a scientific target). This claim that you made:

The 2C target isn't a 'scientific' target, it is a political target.

I trust you can support your absolute and definitive distinction between scientific versus political in regards the origination of the target goal...

but nice dodge attempt - try... again, "I trust you can support your absolute and definitive distinction between scientific versus political in regards the origination of the target goal..."

.

In the context of various alarmists claiming that 'the earth will boil over' under a no-mitigation scenario or various alarmists thinking that the atmosphere will be unbreathable under, I hope that you can understand why establishing what the order of magnitude of expected change will be.

about your strawman... strawmen!!!

.

[waldo]

Single people can be alarmists waldo. It happens all the time. Al Gore is the biggest alarmist of them all. His predictions are absurd and always false. But he loves to alarm people with them.

reads like you're getting closer to defining your personal labeling use of alarmism/alarmist... how/why you apply them. Are you almost there yet? Soon?

[Shady]

reads like you're getting closer to defining your personal labeling use of alarmism/alarmist... how/why you apply them. Are you almost there yet? Soon?

Alarmism/Alarmist: A person, or process by which somebody, or organization uses the theory of global warming to make unsubstantianted and outlandish claims about future happenings related to the environment in order to frighten people into adopting their "remedies" for said problems. These unsubstanitated and outlandish claims are ultimately proven false, but the desired outcome of alarming the public is already accomplished.

[On Guard for Thee]

Interesting description. What does it have to do with science though?