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

[Shady]

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.

Perhaps it's slowing? Why are you denying facts? It hasn't just slowed, it's paused. Even the New York Times acknowledges these facts. Who's the denier now?!

[cybercoma]

Another post whizzes completely over your head. Do you even try to get the point? I'm not even really sure you read what you reply to.

[On Guard for Thee]

Once again, never mind surface temps., look in the oceans.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/02/10/there-no-warming-pause-says-study-planet-oceans-are-burning

[Keepitsimple]

Once again, never mind surface temps., look in the oceans.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/02/10/there-no-warming-pause-says-study-planet-oceans-are-burning

We heard you the first time and you are not anymore accurate this time. From the NY Times article that nicely summarizes where we are.....I'm sure you've just decided to ignore it - again demonstrating the mindset of the alarmist....:

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

[On Guard for Thee]

So your link disagrees with my link. You assume yours must be more accurate, again demonstrating the mindset of the naysayer.

[Keepitsimple]

So your link disagrees with my link. You assume yours must be more accurate, again demonstrating the mindset of the naysayer.

Well....the NY Times is no friend of the Skeptic so I think you might want to pay a little attention to their summary. Your link doesn't seem to take me anywhere outside this forum. I'll take a look if you try to post it again - but it's hard to dispute the facts....the oceans are just one of several theories that are undergoing scrutiny in trying to explain the plateau/pause/hiatus in warming. Is your position like that of Waldo? It's in the oceans - period, full stop? We've known that for 20 years etc, etc, etc? Do I have that right?

[On Guard for Thee]

The Argos floats seem to show it's in the oceans. I guess I have to take their word for it unless you think they are lyeing to us.

[Keepitsimple]

The Argos floats seem to show it's in the oceans. I guess I have to take their word for it unless you think they are lyeing to us.

Perhaps you have a cite that supports that claim? Everything I've seen so far from the introduction of ARGO in about 2003 shows either no warming or a little cooling. That aside - whether the oceans are cooling, warming or not..... - the oceans are only one of several factors that may play a role in climate change. The science is far from settled - all you have to do is sift through the predictions and keep an eye on the observations.

[On Guard for Thee]

Look up, Ive already posted a site. But there are many to choose from that say the same thing.

[WestCoastRunner]

Even the New York Times acknowledges these facts.

You need to look further than the NY Times if you want to back up your claims.

Edited September 18, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[-1=e^ipi]

There is no pause in warming! Or even a slowdown. David Suzuki says so!

How can you argue with this knowledgeable fruit fly scientist?

Edit: This post may contain sarcasm.

Edited September 18, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

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.

Is your position like that of Waldo? It's in the oceans - period, full stop? We've known that for 20 years etc, etc, etc? Do I have that right?

yes Simple! Way to fodderFuel the fake-skeptic/denier mindset! I've most certainly spoken of ocean warming, many times over... some of that was in response to you and the ShadyGuy who were long running with your talking point about "the oceans being a convenient alarmist ruse thought up in recent years". Of course, I squashed that nonsense of yours and spoke to the decades long studies and work of oceanographers studying ocean heat content. What I've never done is what you're trying to attach to me as shown in the above quotes... another ploy of your/the mindset. I've never spoken of accelerated ocean warming as the single cause, as the only cause, of the reduced rate of surface temperature warming. Why it was just 4 days ago, in this very thread, in a reply TO YOU, quoted at the bottom of this post, that I emphasized that very point... I've bold, red-colour highlighted the text for you! Also, not that long ago (also, I believe, in a reply to you) I spoke of another possible causal tie... where scientists are actively researching the cooling impact of increased aerosols due to the accelerated China/India industrialization.

note: at the bottom, I've taken the liberty of quoting that entire exchange, including your initial comment, as it speaks to another facet of the/your mindset... where you simply choose to repeat the same things over and over again... in this case your common "Argo refrain" that you repeat incessantly (now over many, many past posts across a multitude of MLW threads). Again, just a few posts back in this thread, you wrote your same Argo statement in response to MLW member, 'OGFT' (as immediately below). Somehow... somehow... you couldn't be bothered to address my response to your "Argo refrain"... of course not, you acknowledging it would put a dent in your continued repeat talking point nonsense! Of course, I've also refuted your "Argo refrain" in other posts... but you just keep repeating it!

Perhaps you have a cite that supports that claim? Everything I've seen so far from the introduction of ARGO in about 2003 shows either no warming or a little cooling. That aside - whether the oceans are cooling, warming or not..... - the oceans are only one of several factors that may play a role in climate change.

.

.

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?

no - Argo floats are not the only reliable source... you've been schooled on this before. But how quaint for you to simply dismiss the multi-decades work of oceanographers who have dedicated their careers to studying ocean heat content. You continue to display your purposeful skew concerning adjustments... you did it recently and I pointedly asked you if you only ever trusted raw data, regardless if it's known to include bias. Of course you ignored that question/challenge.

to your specific question, there are many studies that rely upon Argo float data; one of the more recent/profiled using older measurements, computer reconstructions and Argo profiling floats (down to 2000 meters): a single study that won't be representative of the definitive causal tie of the relative reduced rate of surface warming... but may be one of the multiple affecting causal ties:

Oceans Hid the Heat and Slowed Pace of Global Warming:

[Keepitsimple]

to your specific question, there are many studies that rely upon Argo float data; one of the more recent/profiled using older measurements, computer reconstructions and Argo profiling floats (down to 2000 meters): a single study that won't be representative of the definitive causal tie of the relative reduced rate of surface warming... but may be one of the multiple affecting causal ties:

Oceans Hid the Heat and Slowed Pace of Global Warming:

Wow - you really had to scratch to come up with yet again - more obfuscation, deflection and annoyance! That alarmist mindset again. In spite of your waffling one liner at the end of yet another blustery post, your very own link goes on to claim that all the "missing heat" is in the oceans - no reference to the several other causal theories. Sorry Waldo - you've been banging the Ocean Heat drum incessantly for too long - along with your mini-me, On Guard (couldn't resist ).

Edited September 18, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

In spite of your waffling one liner at the end of yet another blustery post, your very own link goes on to claim that all the "missing heat" is in the oceans - no reference to the several other causal theories.

you claimed I hold a position that accelerated ocean warming is the single causal tie to why the rate of surface temperature warming is reduced as compared to the prior decade. I refuted your claim directly with a recent quote... I referenced an earlier dialogue with you where I provided another possible causal tie being actively researched (again, aerosol cooling related to China/India industrialization). There is absolutely no waffle on my part. You're purposely making shyte up, you're purposely falsely claiming I hold a position that I don't. Why does your fake-skeptic/denier mindset allow you to do all that, Simple?

I provided you that specific link in regards to your incessant, nattering "Argo refrain". Of course, you ignore all that. At the same time I emphasize the referenced study is but a single study... I specifically state, "a single study that won't be representative of the definitive causal tie of the relative reduced rate of surface warming... but may be one of the multiple affecting causal ties:"

if the authors of that study presume to hold it up as a/the "definitive causal tie"... and I go out of my way to emphasize it is but a "single study", one that won't be representative of the definitive causal tie, but may be one of the multiple affecting causal ties..... to you, that validates your making shyte up and claiming I hold a position I don't? What fuels your fake-skeptic/denier mindset to do so, hey Simple?

[waldo]

Wow - you really had to scratch to come up with yet again - more obfuscation, deflection and annoyance!

Simple, you keep repeating this same triumvirate; as before Simple:

no Simple - I did not obfuscate, I did not deflect... but are you annoyed?

[Keepitsimple]

you claimed I hold a position that accelerated ocean warming is the single causal tie to why the rate of surface temperature warming is reduced as compared to the prior decade. I refuted your claim directly with a recent quote... I referenced an earlier dialogue with you where I provided another possible causal tie being actively researched (again, aerosol cooling related to China/India industrialization). There is absolutely no waffle on my part. You're purposely making shyte up, you're purposely falsely claiming I hold a position that I don't. Why does your fake-skeptic/denier mindset allow you to do all that, Simple?

So what is your position Waldo? Now that you've been called out on your devotion to the Ocean Heat meme - you're all over the map! First you claim that there is no hiatus/plateau/lack of warming in the past 17 years (because all the heat is in the oceans) - now you're saying there are other causal ties that can explain the hiatus/plateau/lack of warming? Are you now saying that the mysterious "missing heat" might not be in the oceans? Indeed, sure seems like there's some serious waffling going on. Since you've accused me of misrepresenting the position you hold (that the oceans hold the "missing heat") - these two questions will make your position clear - pretty straight forward.......

1) Is there a current hiatus/lack of warming in surface temperatures or not?

2) If you believe there is "missing heat", where might it be - and where do you think it is?

Edited September 18, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

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.

somehow, unbelievably, MLW member, 'Shady', believes dropping a link that addresses a "slowdown in surface temperature warming" is a revelation. Considering the guy started his own thread on the subject and received a brazillion responses that acknowledged the reduced rate of surface temperature warming (while speaking to possible causes scientists are actively researching to account for the reduced rate), one enters bizzaro-world when the guy presumes to now come back with "his slowdown revelation"! But yes, shaking your head is appropriate for anyone bothering to dignify anything the guy says... I rarely do so but given the nature of this 'fake-skeptic/denier mindset' thread, feel an obligation to highlight mindsets.

[waldo]

So what is your position Waldo? Now that you've been called out on your devotion to the Ocean Heat meme - you're all over the map! First you claim that there is no hiatus/plateau/lack of warming in the past 17 years (because all the heat is in the oceans) - now you're saying there are other causal ties that can explain the hiatus/plateau/lack of warming? Are you now saying that the mysterious "missing heat" might not be in the oceans? Indeed, sure seems like there's some serious waffling going on. Since you've accused me of misrepresenting the position you hold (that the oceans hold the "missing heat") - these two questions will make your position clear - pretty straight forward.......

1) Is there a current hiatus/lack of warming in surface temperatures or not?

2) If you believe there is "missing heat", where might it be - and where do you think it is?

oh snap! Simple has "called me out"!!! I can't say it any plainer than the other brazillion times I stated it: there is a reduced rate of surface temperature warming as compared to the prior decade. The evidence for accelerated ocean warming has been presented and is being considered as one of the possible causal ties to account for the reduced rate of surface temperature warming. Scientists have brought forward other possible causal ties/influences and are actively researching those... I've spoken to some of those in this and other past MLW threads.

I'll also keep repeating the same point that you simply choose to ignore each time I've mentioned it in replying to you... the same point that you refuse to acknowledge, the same point that you refuse to comment on. The same point that calls into question just how reduced is the reduced rate? Yes Simple, one of those possible contributing causal ties might be... an underestimate of the actual global surface warming.

let me take the liberty of mentioning it again... just so you can ignore it again! That assessment of a reduced rate of surface temperature warming is, of course, based upon the observed surface temperatures... an interpretation of surface warming, on the degree of surface warming, on the reduced rate of surface warming is all predicated upon the surface temperature records. As has been highlighted many times over, remote areas of the Earth do not have compete station monitoring coverage... some of the most remote areas of the Earth are experiencing the most significant warming and have been for many years now. A relatively recent study, one now extended upon several times over, has addressed this remote area coverage... again, as I'm aware, this study (and its extensions) has not been formally challenged/refuted. I won't bother to again speak to details of that study (this is not the thread for it); however, I will once again, link to a mainstream article that speaks to it - here: Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

[Keepitsimple]

I won't bother to again speak to details of that study (this is not the thread for it); however, I will once again, link to a mainstream article that speaks to it - here: Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

Since you won't, neither will I. The scaremongering headline needs no further discussion.

[waldo]

Since you won't, neither will I. The scaremongering headline needs no further discussion.

I've spoken to it in other threads... I simply stated that, "I won't bother to again speak to details of that study (this is not the thread for it)". And the reason you've never acknowledged the several prior positings of this possible contributing causal tie would be..... what?

let's get to some more of the mindset here! To you, what makes that headline, as you say, "scaremongering"?

Edited September 18, 2014 by waldo

[Shady]

Since you won't, neither will I. The scaremongering headline needs no further discussion.

The pause is now considered a "speed bump." At least they've finally stopped denying the pause. Progress!!!

[waldo]

The pause is now considered a "speed bump." At least they've finally stopped denying the pause. Progress!!!

are you saying the reduced rate of surface temperature warming has not been acknowledged? The last couple of links you've put up speak to scientists stating as much... just how confused are you? Don't let Simple call you out... and ask you to state what you attribute the reduced rate to - let me? C'mon Shady, in your own words... no links, no cut&pastes, your own words. C'mon Shady, what do you attribute the reduced rate in surface temperature warming to?

[bush_cheney2004]

The pause is now considered a "speed bump." At least they've finally stopped denying the pause. Progress!!!

Interesting perspective.....reduced health care spending increases are called "cuts" by the same people.

[waldo]

Interesting perspective.....reduced health care spending increases are called "cuts" by the same people.

please sir, please take your attempts to derail yet another thread elsewhere... try 'south of the border', hey!

[Keepitsimple]

are you saying the reduced rate of surface temperature warming has not been acknowledged? The last couple of links you've put up speak to scientists stating as much... just how confused are you? Don't let Simple call you out... and ask you to state what you attribute the reduced rate to - let me? C'mon Shady, in your own words... no links, no cut&pastes, your own words. C'mon Shady, what do you attribute the reduced rate in surface temperature warming to?

Shady was referring to you and your mini-me (On Guard), among others. Back a couple of pages, Shady said "The 17 year temperature pause is pretty much accepted science".......and here's what you said in reply:

waldo, on 16 Sept 2014 - 1:08 PM, said:

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......

Seems to me you're either confused or in denial. "Keep repeating something that isn't"? First you didn't acknowledge the hiatus/plateau/lack of warming - then you did - now you don't?

Edited September 18, 2014 by Keepitsimple