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

[-1=e^ipi]

you're clearly not reading what I've written - I have absolutely no intention to continue enabling your purposeful derail of this thread.

Of course I am reading what you write. You just can't handle trying to justify your unjustifiable claims. But to run away when backed in a corner is a pretty common tactic you use.

Edited September 16, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

Of course I am reading what you write. You just can't handle trying to justify your unjustifiable claims. But run away when backed in a corner, is a pretty common tactic you use.

no - the last exchange showed clearly you have absolutely no understanding of the target, you don't recognize/understand the mean mix/max temperature range limits (and their derivations), you have no clue as to what the 800,000 years ago distinction is (even after I clearly relate it back to you... try a simple google on Quaternary & 800,000 years - duh!). Of course, none of this gives you pause in your continued bluster. If you claim to be actually reading what I'm writing then you're purposely coming back with BS that has no bearing/relation to what I've written. You keep coming back with your agenda driven and purposeful use of the "catastrophic strawman" (in spite of my multiple attempts to highlight your improper use of the word), etc., etc., etc. I've spoken to several organizations that have provided what you labeled "dogma" scientific basis... or specifics to the beginnings of 'detrimental impacts'. What point is there in getting down to the nth degree details when you're simply predisposed to automatically labeling it "dogma".

your jackass reference to evolution had absolutely nothing to do with this thread, this discussion... you simply chose to attempt to inflame. That was enough and simply reinforced there was no point in continuing further.

nothing you could put up would ever present cause for me to "run away". You're nothing but a poser. I look forward to you delivering on your continued teasers where your boldly pronounce 'Son of Manifesto' is in the works! Here's a free piece of waldo advice: don't try to showcase your presumed math wizardry, speak English, keep it (relatively) short and deliver to the level of most board members... if you do so, you might actually get some interest and response next time! By the way, have you found a journal willing to publish your last masterpiece?

[-1=e^ipi]

you have no clue as to what the 800,000 years ago distinction is (even after I clearly relate it back to you... try a simple google on Quaternary & 800,000 years - duh!).

Clearly, which is why I have asked you to enlighten me. But you have been unable to do so.

Let's see, I enter the above into google and the first result is the wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

It only mentions 800,000 once. That is in the sentence:

"During the Quaternary Period, the total volume of land ice, sea level, and global temperature has fluctuated initially on 41,000- and more recently on 100,000-year time scales, as evidenced most clearly by ice cores for the past 800,000 years and marine sediment cores for the earlier period."

So to you, 800,000 years is special because we have good ice core data since then? What a weird distinction. Meanwhile, look at how many times the same article mentions 2.58 million years:

"This article is about the series of glacial periods during the last 2.58 million years."

"Quaternary glaciation also known as the Pleistocene glaciation or the current ice age, refers to a series of glacial events separated by interglacial events during the Quaternary period from 2.58 Ma (million years ago) to present."

"The entire Quaternary Period, starting 2.58 Ma, is referred to as an ice age because at least one permanent large ice sheet — Antarctica — has existed continuously."

"Before the current ice age, which began 2 to 3 Ma, Earth's climate was typically mild and uniform for long periods of time."

The next link has something to do with 800,000 years ago being roughly the time humans started to use fire.

http://scienceforkids.kidipede.com/geology/eras/quaternary.htm

Yeah, I call BS.

purposeful use of the "catastrophic strawman" (in spite of my multiple attempts to highlight your improper use of the word)

Oh, then please enlighten me as to it's proper use and definition.

I've spoken to several organizations that have provided what you labeled "dogma" scientific basis... or specifics to the beginnings of 'detrimental impacts'. What point is there in getting down to the nth degree details when you're simply predisposed to automatically labeling it "dogma".

I don't care which organizations you've spoken to. I only care about the science. Provide me with a scientific basis for the 2C target since you so strongly believe that it exists.

And yes, making a conclusion before looking at the evidence is dogma.

your jackass reference to evolution had absolutely nothing to do with this thread, this discussion... you simply chose to attempt to inflame. That was enough and simply reinforced there was no point in continuing further.

Oh is that it? Did I hurt your feelings too much by bringing up evolution? Why are you so hesitant about confirming your creationist beliefs? You refuse to acknowledge the relevance and usefulness of the evolutionary history of the planet in understanding the impacts of climate change and you refuse to endorse the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

You're nothing but a poser. I look forward to you delivering on your continued teasers where your boldly pronounce 'Son of Manifesto' is in the works!

Oh you are back to name calling and mis-labelling things again? Not that you ever stopped...

Here's a free piece of waldo advice: don't try to showcase your presumed math wizardry, speak English

You mean incoherent waldo speak? No thanks. I'll stick with math and science.

So you reject the scientific principle of occum's razor, do not agree with how burden of proof/evidence works, approach things dogmatically and refuse to acknowledge that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?

Yet you claim to be on the side of science. Lol.

[waldo]

Clearly, which is why I have asked you to enlighten me. But you have been unable to do so.

Yeah, I call BS.

you're not reading; you're purposely ignoring the distinction I provided. I can't account for your inability to read and/or use google. Go back and read what I wrote. You're simply deflecting from the obvious point you have... you still have, no understanding as to the mean min/max temperature range limits and their associations. You're purposely derailing this thread with your continued nonsense. The fact you kept... you keep... speaking to 30 million years ago, to 200-600 million years ago, shows you have no recognition as to the representative period of the geological past that provides the reference period for the target. But don't let any of that get in the way of your BlusterBus express, hey!

Oh, then please enlighten me as to it's proper use and definition.

again, your fake-skeptic agenda to tag "catastrophic" to the target is your purposeful strawman.

I don't care which organizations you've spoken to. I only care about the science. Provide me with a scientific basis for the 2C target since you so strongly believe that it exists.

you believe there is a scientific basis; your own provided link reference speaks to it. As I said, I defer to your own statements labeling the scientific basis as "dogma". As before, I have no interest in speaking to anything that you automatically have designated as "dogma".

Oh is that it? Did I hurt your feelings too much by bringing up evolution? Why are you so hesitant about confirming your creationist beliefs? You refuse to acknowledge the relevance and usefulness of the evolutionary history of the planet in understanding the impacts of climate change and you refuse to endorse the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

again, it shows you were intent on further derailing this thread by introducing something that had no relation or bearing on anything being discussed. If you'd like to further showcase your unique attempt to carve out an evolutionary subset "story" to support your immigration solution to keep "radical Islamists" out of Canada, please do so in the appropriate thread you created - here: Oh wait, after all your nonsense and the waldo showcasing that nonsense, you finally relented and said you never meant it... you were simply running an experiment on your lab-rats MLW members! That's called a thread killer! Again, take it there... to that thread, where you were just kidding!

[Shady]

The 17 year temperature pause is pretty much accepted science. Alarmists have been scrambling to come up with excuses for several years now. They're up to 52 total excuses for the pause.

If you can't explain the pause, then you can't explain the cause.

[waldo]

The 17 year temperature pause is pretty much accepted science. Alarmists have been scrambling to come up with excuses for several years now. They're up to 52 total excuses for the pause.

If you can't explain the pause, then you can't explain the cause.

excellent reinforcement of a tried&true fake-skeptic/denier tactic... keep repeating something that isn't, regardless of how many times reality is explained to you: see reduced rate of surface warming vs. increased rate of ocean warming; see global surface temperatures are biased given an overall absence of station monitoring coverage in those areas of the earth experiencing the greatest rates of warming; see purposeful cherry-picking to 97/98 starting point; etc......

[-1=e^ipi]

You're simply deflecting from the obvious point you have... you still have, no understanding as to the mean min/max temperature range limits and their associations. You're purposely derailing this thread with your continued nonsense.

More nonsense claims by Waldo without justification. What is it that I do not understand about temperature ranges over the past 800,000 years that justifies the 2C target?

The fact you kept... you keep... speaking to 30 million years ago, to 200-600 million years ago, shows you have no recognition as to the representative period of the geological past that provides the reference period for the target.

Different geological periods are useful in different ways to understanding climate change. The past 600 million years are useful in understanding the evolutionary history of the planet. 34 million years ago is useful because it is the start of antarctic glaciation. The past 2.6 million years are useful if you want to try to construct climate models of the earth.

Now could you explain why you keep referring to 800,000 years ago? I did a google search just as you asked and posted the 'results'. Please back up your claims, or I am going to conclude that you don't understand the geological timescale as well as you think you do, but won't admit that the 800,000 value is wrong because it would hurt your ego.

again, your fake-skeptic agenda to tag "catastrophic" to the target is your purposeful strawman.

I'm not the one who labels 2C warming as catastrophic. That is the climate alarmists.

you believe there is a scientific basis; your own provided link reference speaks to it. As I said, I defer to your own statements labeling the scientific basis as "dogma".

No, I believe there are claims that a scientific basis exists. But I do not believe that there exists a scientific basis.

All you have to do is tell me what this scientific basis is. Which should be super easy for you since this basis totally exists, right?

it shows you were intent on further derailing this thread by introducing something that had no relation or bearing on anything being discussed.

Evolution and the scientific method are very relevant to the issue of climate change.

If you'd like to further showcase your unique attempt to carve out an evolutionary subset "story" to support your immigration solution to keep "radical Islamists" out of Canada

Lol, wtf? Please elaborate what you mean by carving out an evolutionary "story". What is the story I am carving out, and how am I relating it to immigration and Islamists? Please back up your claims.

[waldo]

an explanation for the relevance of the 800K geological period was provided to you

other than your purposeful derail of this thread, your continued references to 30 million years ago, 200 million years ago, 600 million years ago, have no bearing

you continuing to use the catastrophic designation is simply your strawman; one you continue to purposely repeat simply to derail

believe whatever you want concerning the scientific basis

as suggested, as requested, quit purposely derailing this thread with the nonsensical evolution "subset story" you fronted to support your immigration solution to keep "Islamist radicals" out of Canada... you know, the point you relented on advising you really "didn't mean it"! You know, the "social experiment" you were running! Again:

it shows you were intent on further derailing this thread by introducing something that had no relation or bearing on anything being discussed. If you'd like to further showcase your unique attempt to carve out an evolutionary subset "story" to support your immigration solution to keep "radical Islamists" out of Canada, please do so in the appropriate thread you created - here: Oh wait, after all your nonsense and the waldo showcasing that nonsense, you finally relented and said you never meant it... you were simply running an experiment on your lab-rats MLW members! That's called a thread killer! Again, take it there... to that thread, where you were just kidding!

[On Guard for Thee]

Shady, on 16 Sept 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

The 17 year temperature pause is pretty much accepted science. Alarmists have been scrambling to come up with excuses for several years now. They're up to 52 total excuses for the pause.

If you can't explain the pause, then you can't explain the cause.

Edited September 16, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[On Guard for Thee]

What pause?

[Shady]

What pause?

The pause in warming.

[-1=e^ipi]

an explanation for the relevance of the 800K geological period was provided to you

Well I don't see this 'explanation'. All you told me is 'google it'. Could you please provide it to me again since you claim it exists?

other than your purposeful derail of this thread, your continued references to 30 million years ago, 200 million years ago, 600 million years ago, have no bearing

You can keep claiming that the past doesn't matter in understanding climate change. But that does not make it true.

you continuing to use the catastrophic designation is simply your strawman; one you continue to purposely repeat simply to derail

You keep trying to appeal to my motive and construct some sort of narrative in order to avoid responding to what I actually write. You make claims; why is it so hard for you to back up your claims?

as suggested, as requested, quit purposely derailing this thread with the nonsensical evolution "subset story" you fronted to support your immigration solution to keep "Islamist radicals" out of Canada... you know, the point you relented on advising you really "didn't mean it"! You know, the "social experiment" you were running! Again:

Your choice of wording gives me the impression that you are trying to tie belief in evolution with nazism and 'the final solution'. If I am wrong, please explain to me what you mean.

And like it or not, this is your cousin 6 million years removed:

But it is your choice if you want to continue to deny the scientific fact of humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor.

[On Guard for Thee]

There is no pause in warming. But there are named Atlantic storms. We are on number 5, Eduardo, and number 6 is brewing. Check the facts Shady.

[waldo]

strawman deflection and purposeful thread derail

you're adding nothing new; you're simply repeating yourself... repeating your same nonsense

Your choice of wording gives me the impression that you are trying to tie belief in evolution with nazism and 'the final solution'. If I am wrong, please explain to me what you mean.

And like it or not, this is your cousin 6 million years removed:

But it is your choice if you want to continue to deny the scientific fact of humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor.

more strawman attempts hey! you were asked to take this to the original thread you created... you know, your "social experiment" thread. Again:

as suggested, as requested, quit purposely derailing this thread with the nonsensical evolution "subset story" you fronted to support your immigration solution to keep "Islamist radicals" out of Canada... you know, the point you relented on advising you really "didn't mean it"! You know, the "social experiment" you were running! Again:

it shows you were intent on further derailing this thread by introducing something that had no relation or bearing on anything being discussed. If you'd like to further showcase your unique attempt to carve out an evolutionary subset "story" to support your immigration solution to keep "radical Islamists" out of Canada, please do so in the appropriate thread you created - here: Oh wait, after all your nonsense and the waldo showcasing that nonsense, you finally relented and said you never meant it... you were simply running an experiment on your lab-rats MLW members! That's called a thread killer! Again, take it there... to that thread, where you were just kidding!

[waldo]

The pause in warming.

from your fake-skeptic/denier position, explain your so-called global warming "pause"... in your own words... don't link to one of your Breitbart-like sources and do a verbatim cut & paste. Explain yourself.

[Shady]

from your fake-skeptic/denier position, explain your so-called global warming "pause"... in your own words... don't link to one of your Breitbart-like sources and do a verbatim cut & paste. Explain yourself.

I linked to the New York Times. Hardly a so-called denier-like source.

[BubberMiley]

I linked to the New York Times. Hardly a so-called denier-like source.

When you link to something, you should include a link.

[Shady]

When you link to something, you should include a link.

I did when I originally posted it.

[Keepitsimple]

There is no pause in warming. But there are named Atlantic storms. We are on number 5, Eduardo, and number 6 is brewing. Check the facts Shady.

Again - this thread is about the Mindset of deniers and alarmists. Your statement is just another example of either willful blindness,complete ignorance or just as likely, simply repeating misinformation over and over (basically lying) - all alarmist mindset traits. Even the IPCC acknowledges a lengthy warming "hiatus" - and a category 3 hurricane has not landed in the US since the year Katrina hit - almost 10 years ago!

No major US hurricanes since 2005: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/15/major-us-hurricane_n_3930408.html

[Mighty AC]

Again - this thread is about the Mindset of deniers and alarmists.

...

Even the IPCC acknowledges a lengthy warming "hiatus"

Yes, the data shows uninterrupted heat accumulation. When we consider only surface temperatures we see a 100 year accelerated warming trend, punctuated by cyclical pauses, caused by natural forces. You've been shown the data often enough so tell me, what do you expect the surface temps to start to do sometime in the next few years?

Of course, we all know it's going to shoot up yet again. This has been happening since we started overloading the carbon cycle and increasing atmospheric CO2. Since, nobody else understands why you find the tennis ball analogy relevant, I'll attempt to forestall your repost. I'll even keep it simple, just for you.

Small numbers are not insignificant. Three tennis balls in 10,000 manage to trap enough heat to keep this planet from freezing. Increasing that amount by more than 33% traps more heat.

[Keepitsimple]

Of course, we all know it's going to shoot up yet again. This has been happening since we started overloading the carbon cycle and increasing atmospheric CO2. Since, nobody else understands why you find the tennis ball analogy relevant, I'll attempt to forestall your repost. I'll even keep it simple, just for you.

If "we all know".....then why didn't "we all know" that there would be a complete standstill in surface temperatures for 17 years and counting? Are you seriously trying to tell me that this was in any way predicted? What has driven my skepticism is the arrogance of those who say "the debate is over, the science is settled". We simply don't know as much as the alarmist community would have people believe. Humility and skepticism are the bedrock of genuine science.

[waldo]

What has driven my skepticism is the arrogance of those who say "the debate is over, the science is settled".

yes! Winner, winner... chicken dinner!!! A long-standing fake-skeptic/denier go-to: the "science is settled" meme... an oldie, but a goodie! And Simple, you double down with your repeat antics; you know, you absolutely know, this has been refuted many times over through an assortment of MLW threads... and yet, you persist.

and you are anything but skeptical, anything but a legitimate skeptic? Your posting history is there for all to find, to read.

We simply don't know as much as the alarmist community would have people believe. Humility and skepticism are the bedrock of genuine science.

alarmist community? Who dat? It's quite rich for you to speak of "we simply don't know"... again, your posting history shows just how much you know, as in "don't know"!

[Shady]

Warming plateau, courtesy of the New York Times.

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

Edited September 17, 2014 by Shady

[cybercoma]

Warming plateau, courtesy of the New York Times.

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

This has been addressed over and over again. Waldo's responses have all included this as a consideration. What's crazy is that you won't even accept that perhaps the rise in temperatures is slowing (which means it's still rising, just not as quickly) could be in part due to changes that have been made to address the problem.

But forget that for a moment. You're taking a broader data set and chopping out a section of it and ignoring everything else. You're literally exemplifying the concept of cherry picking, but you'll never admit to it.

This is why it's pointless to discuss these things with you and I SMH anytime someone dignifies your posts with a thorough response.

[Keepitsimple]

This has been addressed over and over again. Waldo's responses have all included this as a consideration. What's crazy is that you won't even accept that perhaps the rise in temperatures is slowing (which means it's still rising, just not as quickly) could be in part due to changes that have been made to address the problem.

But forget that for a moment. You're taking a broader data set and chopping out a section of it and ignoring everything else. You're literally exemplifying the concept of cherry picking, but you'll never admit to it.

This is why it's pointless to discuss these things with you and I SMH anytime someone dignifies your posts with a thorough response.

Lacking in The Waldo's ramblings are the humility and mild skepticism - both healthy attributes - that are shown in the Times article. A similar admission from His Puffery would add some credibility to his assertions - with particular emphasis on his "declaration" that the "missing" heat is in the deep ocean. His is not a suggestion, not just a theory, but a complete certainty - a fact......and that's not just alarmist - it's foolish.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

...................................................................

The deep-ocean theory is one of a half-dozen explanations that have been proffered for the warming plateau. Perhaps the answer will turn out to be some mix of all of them. And in any event, computer forecasts of climate change suggest that pauses in warming lasting a couple of decades should not surprise us.

Now, here is a crucial piece of background: It turns out we had an earlier plateau in global warming, from roughly the 1950s to the 1970s, and scientists do not fully understand that one either. A lot of evidence suggests that sunlight-blocking pollution from dirty factories may have played a role, as did natural variability in ocean circulation. The pollution was ultimately reduced by stronger clean-air laws in the West.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Keepitsimple