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

[Shady]

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

Alarmism and alarmist predictions usually have very little to do with actual science.

[On Guard for Thee]

Apparently a lot of scientists disagree. (Those are the people that actually DO have something to do with science) Don't you think ignoring science that doesn't suit you is kinda like what an ostrich likes to do? I think that there is actually no scientific proof they actually do stick their heads in the sand, but you get my point.

[-1=e^ipi]

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.

2C increase is both a projection and a target. The two are not mutually exclusive.

It is a projection because it is projected that under significant CO2 emission mitigation policies, it can be achieved.

You are trying to present what I said as if I thought that 2C is the expected increase in temperature under a no-mitigation scenario. That was never my position.

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..."

I think you misunderstand the concept of burden of proof. If my position is that 2C is not a scientifically based target and your position is that 2C is a scientifically based target, then the burden of proof/evidence is on you to demonstrate that 2C has a scientific basis, not on me to demonstrate the lack of existence of a scientific basis. With respect to a distinction between a scientific target vs a political target, the difference is the justification, if the justification uses the scientific method or not, etc.

[waldo]

2C increase is both a projection and a target.

yes, of course... and you initially termed it a projection in terms of how much warming you expected... the UNFCCC reference temperature target presumed upon the community of nations accepting, setting and meeting emission reduction committments. You most certainly did not recognize or understand the nature of the target. Ultimately our prior discussion found it's way to emission reduction scenarios and how they reflect upon, amongst several things, the 2C target..... you absolutely had no prior knowledge or understanding of the scenarios. Of course, per norm, that didn't stop yet another of your quick-study routines where you eventually came back as 'the scenario expert' - poser!

.

I think you misunderstand the concept of burden of proof. If my position is that 2C is not a scientifically based target and your position is that 2C is a scientifically based target, then the burden of proof/evidence is on you to demonstrate that 2C has a scientific basis, not on me to demonstrate the lack of existence of a scientific basis. With respect to a distinction between a scientific target vs a political target, the difference is the justification, if the justification uses the scientific method or not, etc.

you made the statement. The onus is on you to substantiate your claim... the onus is most certainly not on me to prove you wrong. I accept that your statement was simply your personal opinion, one you are unable to support.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

yes, of course... and you initially termed it a projection in terms of how much warming you expected...

No, I said that was the order of magnitude of expected warming.

You most certainly did not recognize or understand the nature of the target... you absolutely had no prior knowledge or understanding of the scenarios

Of course I did. It's pretty common knowledge that the 2C target can only be achieved if various countries agree to significant CO2 mitigation policies (like 50%-80% CO2 emission reduction).

you made the statement. The onus is on you to substantiate your claim... the onus is most certainly not on me to prove you wrong. I accept that your statement was simply your personal opinion, one you are unable to support.

Again, you clearly do not understand burden of proof/evidence. If I claim that unicorns do not exist, the burden of proof/evidence is not on me to demonstrate the lack of existence of unicorns, but rather on those that disagree to provide evidence of unicorns. Similarly, if I claim there is no scientific justification of the 2C target, the burden is not on me to show the lack of a scientific justification.

[bush_cheney2004]

Despite an already failed strategy, the alarmists have to scream even louder to try and get the attention of a world that has mostly moved on. The alarmists were undermined by the very thing they thought would win the day....climate data.

[On Guard for Thee]

Oh I don't think anybody's really moved on. Well except those ostrichs. You've heard of the WMO have you?

[Shady]

Despite an already failed strategy, the alarmists have to scream even louder to try and get the attention of a world that has mostly moved on. The alarmists were undermined by the very thing they thought would win the day....climate data.

This chart pretty much cuts the legs out from under the alarmist crowd.

[Mighty AC]

This chart pretty much cuts the legs out from under the alarmist crowd.

Again, with just the surface temps. What happens when we look at those surface temps but expand the time frame a bit and highlight the positive and negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation? We see a pattern and a long term warming trend.

What looks like a slowdown, Loeb explained, isn’t — it’s a fluctuate in a long-term pattern of surface temperatures that tend to fluctuate, but that, taken as a whole, are clearly trending upward. Factors like aerosols in the atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiation and cyclical weather patterns like La Nina/El Nino all play some role in causing those variations. Particularly noteworthy is the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), an El Nino-like pattern that lasts about 20 to 30 years: The last two pauses in surface warming correspond to periods when the IPO was primarily in a negative phase, bringing a cool tropical Pacific and strengthened winds. Accelerated warming, in contrast, occurred while IPO was in a positive phase.

The point? Loeb writes it out: “Decadal periods of minimal surface warming, or even cooling [translation: the pause], interspersing decades of rapid surface warming, are not inconsistent with a long-term warming trend” “Rather, it characterizes the interplay between steadily increasing greenhouse gas forcing and internally generated climate variability.”

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/06/conservative_media_is_now_just_making_things_up_about_climate_scientists/

[bush_cheney2004]

Again, with just the surface temps. What happens when we look at those surface temps but expand the time frame a bit and highlight the positive and negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation? We see a pattern and a long term warming trend.

The ocean warming trend faces the same fate as surface temps....and was also not accurately predicted by alarmist models.

[waldo]

The ocean warming trend faces the same fate as surface temps....and was also not accurately predicted by alarmist models.

thanks for fueling the mindset; another of your unsubstantiated drive-by's! ... a fine complement to your prior post/graphic "ta da" from the "Friends of Science" There are crank organizations... and then there's the one's that stand out amongst the cranks... FoS is on the crankFringe! Well done.

.

[waldo]

No, I said that was the order of magnitude of expected warming.

I already quoted what you said a few posts back; again: you stated, "I do not believe currently projected climate change (2 C increase in global temperatures)". Again, there is nothing projected/expected in relation to a conditional target... it's a goal!

Again, you clearly do not understand burden of proof/evidence. If I claim that unicorns do not exist, the burden of proof/evidence is not on me to demonstrate the lack of existence of unicorns, but rather on those that disagree to provide evidence of unicorns. Similarly, if I claim there is no scientific justification of the 2C target, the burden is not on me to show the lack of a scientific justification.

I understand you're feverishly avoiding being called out on your claim. You've claimed there's no scientific justification behind the 2C target... you claim it's a political target. Why is it so difficult for you to support your claim... why this silly 'burden of proof/evidence' play? You made the claim and you're unwilling to substantiate it. That's fine - I've already highlighted it as nothing more than your personal opinion. Clearly, if you had a foundation to support that opinion you'd provide it - easy peasy! But just for shits&giggles: how about you provide "your opinion" on how that 2C figure was arrived at... from your claimed "political basis"?

[-1=e^ipi]

I already quoted what you said a few posts back; again: you stated, "I do not believe currently projected climate change (2 C increase in global temperatures)". Again, there is nothing projected/expected in relation to a conditional target... it's a goal!

^ Doesn't understand difference between projected and expected. They aren't the same thing.

I understand you're feverishly avoiding being called out on your claim. You've claimed there's no scientific justification behind the 2C target... you claim it's a political target. Why is it so difficult for you to support your claim... why this silly 'burden of proof/evidence' play? You made the claim and you're unwilling to substantiate it. That's fine - I've already highlighted it as nothing more than your personal opinion. Clearly, if you had a foundation to support that opinion you'd provide it - easy peasy! But just for shits&giggles: how about you provide "your opinion" on how that 2C figure was arrived at... from your claimed "political basis"?

Yes, it is well established that you do not understand burden of evidence, and you also reject the scientific principle of occum's razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[bush_cheney2004]

Poor dears....their favorite NASA/NOAA data sets from the "denier nation" ruined their IPCC scam.

[waldo]

Poor dears....their favorite NASA/NOAA data sets from the "denier nation" ruined their IPCC scam.

yet another post representative of the mindset, albeit it does carry personal attachments. As you displayed just posts back, fake-skeptics/deniers are unable to actually discuss the particulars of their blowhard protestations; ones that typically take the form of simply posting a graphic without explanation, simply verbatim posting of cut&paste denier articles without any personal interpretation added, or posting (as quoted here) for no other reason than to attempt to inflame... invariably offering up curt words, like "scam, sham, con, fraud, swindle", in the process. Your personal attachments are simply gravy... post after post repeating reference to NASA/NOAA because, apparently, no one can ever refer to an American organization without paying a USA!, USA!, USA! homage. Or your repeatedly writing, post after post, "denier nation"... although you've been challenged many times over to support your claim that I (or anyone) labeled the U.S., as a nation, the "denier nation". As I said, you simply use these personal attachments to attempt to inflame... they simply help to reveal and highlight the mindset. Thanks for adding to this thread!

[Keepitsimple]

A "mindset" thread indeed. To use another poster's analogy, only an ostrich would believe that all of the predictions and models have been anywhere near accurate. Temperatures? Not even close. Hurricanes? Very quiet. Skiing industry doomed? It's thriving. Northwest package clearing out? Not anytime soon. And on and on. But my point is......all these things are good! The planet is not racing towards Armageddon as predicted by the usual suspects! But the alarmist "mindset" will not allow for the embracement of these positive factors. Why? I'd throw them into three categories. Some just can't stand the embarrassment of being wrong. Some have a radical social engineering agenda. And some (most) are just follow-the-crowd dupes that feel connected to a save-the-world-for-our-children faux movement.

The Alarmist mindset cannot accept good news. That's why The Waldo posts so feverishly - obfuscate, deflect, annoy.

[Mighty AC]

But my point is......all these things are good! The planet is not racing towards Armageddon as predicted by the usual suspects! But the alarmist "mindset" will not allow for the embracement of these positive factors. Why?

Why do you think nearly all of the climate science experts are wrong on this? The best minds in this field tell us decadal lulls in surface warming caused by natural variations do not negate long term warming trends. I don't understand how you can see a chart like the one below and ignore everything but the last few years.

"Don’t undermine the science just because you don’t like the economics. That’s a dangerous slope, because the problem of course is you’re not undermining just that, you’re undermining the basis of rational decision-making in society." - Brian Cox

[cybercoma]

Again, with just the surface temps. What happens when we look at those surface temps but expand the time frame a bit and highlight the positive and negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation? We see a pattern and a long term warming trend.

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/06/conservative_media_is_now_just_making_things_up_about_climate_scientists/

Jesus. Did you really need to spike the football into the bleachers?

[bush_cheney2004]

Cute summation of the alarmist's state of mind:

“Monty Python” did not foresee the current, catastrophic man-made global warming/climate change hoax. The group did, however, have a firm grasp of everyday absurdities. Their 1969 “Dead Parrot Sketch” depicts two completely different viewpoints of the reality of a dead “Norwegian Blue” parrot. The parrot is quite dead to any objective outside observer. The pet shop owner is unwilling to accept this reality, and he contrives a variety of absurd excuses to explain the parrot’s immobility.

Such is the case now with those denying the fact that their claim – that catastrophic climate change results from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide – has proved false. For seventeen-plus years, global atmospheric carbon dioxide has continued to increase, yet global temperatures have remained flat.

Schoolchildren are indoctrinated with the dogma of destructive climate change caused by human activity. However, none of those seventeen or younger have experienced the claimed global warming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/03/dead_parrot_climate.html

[On Guard for Thee]

Monty Python science. I suspected you had such a source. Oh well, always good for a laugh.

[Keepitsimple]

Why do you think nearly all of the climate science experts are wrong on this? The best minds in this field tell us decadal lulls in surface warming caused by natural variations do not negate long term warming trends. I don't understand how you can see a chart like the one below and ignore everything but the last few years.

That's because there is a long term warming trend that started around 1850 when we got out of the last cooling cycle. No reasonable person who pays attention would disagree with that. Here's an IPCC graph that shows precisely that......take a peak at that constant red line. But also take a look at some of the shorter term lines that they have drawn - the shortest being the last 25 years to about 2005 - which of course are the "steepest".....but imagine what that 25 year cycle will look like in another 5 years or so when warming will have been virtually flat-lined for the entire period if things keep going the way they have. Although some would pooh-pooh the thought, the warming/cooling cycles have followed a 25-30 year pattern, saw-toothing upwards to where we are today. No doubt humans have contributed a portion of the warming but as you stated - I don't understand how someone can see virtually no warming for almost 20 years and yet still maintain that humans are the driving force behind Climate Change. In light of the failed models, totally over-stated predictions, and the observed lack of warming - how can you not be a tad skeptical?

Link: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-6.html

[On Guard for Thee]

If you're looking for the so called "pause", look into the oceans. It's hiding there. Water is a much better absorber of heat than is dirt.

[Keepitsimple]

If you're looking for the so called "pause", look into the oceans. It's hiding there. Water is a much better absorber of heat than is dirt.

If it is, it's hiding quite well. The Argo project is the only reliable source of relatively deep ocean temperatures. Unfortunately, the Argo instruments only started collecting information in 2003. To my knowledge, Argo has not detected any significant warming - perhaps even a cooling.....do you have any evidence (based on Argo) to the contrary?

Edited September 13, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/12/global-warming-fake-pause-hiatus-climate-change

[waldo]

^ Doesn't understand difference between projected and expected. They aren't the same thing.

ya think! I certainly know the distinction - do you? Is that why you've been liberally using both through your recent posts in this thread? I used both, as in projected/expected, to align with your mixed usage. Would you like me to quote back for you?

Yes, it is well established that you do not understand burden of evidence, and you also reject the scientific principle of occum's razor.

not the razor, again!!! You sure reach for that razor whenever you're backed into a corner... damn, you're going to cut yourself one of these times. You made the claim, you were called on it and asked to support it. You refuse. Your unsubstantiated opinion has been noted - several times now! If you claim there is no scientific basis to the 2C target... that it's strictly a political target, that should be quite straight-forward for you to substantiate. Is there a problem, for you?