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

[waldo]

you can play word games forever Simple... in your attempts to avoid answering the pointed questions/challenge just put to you. Again, you made a most emphatic statement labeling an article title, as you said, "a scaremongering headline". I asked you to explain yourself... why you labeled it so. C'mon Simple, answer the questions. So far, in just these few recent posts we have you refusing to address the article that speaks to a possible under-estimate of surface temperature warming and we have you refusing to address why you labeled that article's title, "a scaremongering headline". C'mon Simple, step up!

I can't help it if you have extreme (and most selective, self-serving) comprehension difficulty. As for your word games, in the past, the ShadyGuy (and you, as well) have purposely played up the reduced rate of surface temperature warming in isolation... where you've either claimed it's cooling or that global warming has outright stopped. Your word games Simple... yours!

[On Guard for Thee]

So BC, I guess if I "reduced" your paycheck that would be OK just as long as I didn't "cut" it?

[Keepitsimple]

you can play word games forever Simple... in your attempts to avoid answering the pointed questions/challenge just put to you. Again, you made a most emphatic statement labeling an article title, as you said, "a scaremongering headline". I asked you to explain yourself... why you labeled it so. C'mon Simple, answer the questions. So far, in just these few recent posts we have you refusing to address the article that speaks to a possible under-estimate of surface temperature warming and we have you refusing to address why you labeled that article's title, "a scaremongering headline". C'mon Simple, step up!

I can't help it if you have extreme (and most selective, self-serving) comprehension difficulty. As for your word games, in the past, the ShadyGuy (and you, as well) have purposely played up the reduced rate of surface temperature warming in isolation... where you've either claimed it's cooling or that global warming has outright stopped. Your word games Simple... yours!

Word games Waldo? Here's your headline again:

Global Warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated new study shows

I called it scaremongering - can't think of a more apt word given the NY Times article that served as the basis for this current debate - which brings an old Don Rumsfeld quote to mind - and as each day passes, Climate Science continues to be humbled in a similar manner.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Exactly why the ocean would have started to draw down extra heat in recent years is a mystery, and one we badly need to understand. But the main ideas have to do with possible shifts in winds and currents that are causing surface heat to be pulled down faster than before.

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.

[waldo]

Word games Waldo? Here's your headline again:

Global Warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated new study shows

I called it scaremongering - can't think of a more apt word

you're still not explaining yourself Simple! The context of this discussion is the observed rate of surface warming. That study (and now subsequent extensions of it) have brought forward methodology/results that suggest the observed reduced rate may be significantly less than understood... as in, possibly not as much of a reduced rate. The study author's project surface warming is still reduced... but not as significantly reduced. And you label this "scaremongering"... that you couldn't think of a more apt word??? But hey now, why let emotional reaction and a lack of understanding get in the way of the fake-skeptic/denier mindset fueled rush to label "scaremongering"!

again, as I said, this is but one more of the possible contributing multiple causal ties to a reduced rate of surface temperature warming; i.e., an underestimate of the actual global surface warming.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes...they are trapped by the very word games they used to begin this "global warming" circle jerk.

Won't work any more.

[waldo]

Yes...they are trapped by the very word games they used to begin this "global warming" circle jerk.

Won't work any more.

please sir, don't sully the waters with your continued sexual perversions. Carry on!

[bush_cheney2004]

More data from the denier nation has come back to haunt them.

NASA...GISS...NOAA....oh why have thou forsaken the cause with such damning facts.

In God We Trust....all others bring data.

[waldo]

More data from the denier nation has come back to haunt them.

NASA...GISS...NOAA....oh why have thou forsaken the cause with such damning facts.

In God We Trust....all others bring data.

yet another thread derail attempt! But really, you're just repeating what you said in post #291 of this thread... which is simply a repeat of the same tired nonsense you've posted a brazillion times over. Have you no new material? But again, thanks for again further highlighting the mindset:

as I said to you in post #291:

"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!"

[On Guard for Thee]

Jeez, Harper missed the boat again. He could have went to NY a little early (like today), made a speech on global warming, and had people actually listen to him. oh well he'll just have to continue scurrying around in the shadows again.

[Hal 9000]

Personally, I don't trust reports that tell you whats inside, yet no one has really seen.

[waldo]

Personally, I don't trust reports that tell you whats inside, yet no one has really seen.

I'm not following your meaning; care to elaborate? Perhaps an example would help...

[waldo]

data trend analysis... data trends... trending... words/phrases that many fake-skeptics/deniers liberally throw around without having any real sense of the underlying stats/methodology behind those words/phrases. The most egregious examples in past MLW threads have been expressed by a few MLW members presuming to, quite literally, "eyeball" trends from raw data; i.e.,"the eyeball trending methodology". I've not yet deciphered if/how head-tilting while eyeballing factors! Equally, these trending eyeballers have a mental block in perpetually struggling with regional versus global focus/perspective.

in a concurrently running thread, one of those same MLW practitioners of past displayed 'eyeball trending" took exception to reading that August 2014 has been ranked globally, within available records, as the warmest August on record. This eyeballing fake-skeptic/denier proceeded to link to an article and provide one of the most disjointed posts seen on MLW in a very long, long time... rambling on about the "global warming press (the NYT, no less)" perpetuating a "steaming load of BS... of garbage"... something about the Hudson Bay, polar bears, and historical "weather" data; specifically a "rich historical database" with data as early as the 1700s recorded by Hudson Bay employees (presumably from/at the smattering of outposts in the Hudson Bay area).

of course the gist of the linked article was to address examples of an evolving ecosystem... evolving due to climate change. Apparently, this eyeballer took exception to his linked article not including reference to temperature record trends within the described "from 1700s rich historical database"... and that it was done purposely (by the "global warming press"), and it was done, "for good reason"! Of course, the eyeballer's implication is that the article (the "global warming press") is purposely ignoring contradicting past temperature trends. Apparently, these purposely ignored Hudson Bay area regional temperature trends will surely negate any suggestions that globally, August 2014 is the warmest August month on record. It gets wilder when the eyeballer proceeds to legitimize "the ignored temperature trends" by referencing a work of fiction that includes a suggestion of an "anomalous warm spell"... that "fiction tends to hew fairly close to fact"!

the eyeballer's clincher is a summation cloaked in bravado... a broad sweeping address and challenge to the multitudes of those who would presume to ignore the historical regional temperature trends of the Hudson Bay area:

Let's see the records.

My conclusion is that the believers of AGW will present data in an appealing, simplified and ultimately fraudulent manner.

that all got ramped up a notch when the eyeballer took further exception to reading that the year 2014 may turn out to be, globally, the warmest year on record, within available records. I'll make that same point/suggestion here: suggesting a likelihood that the year 2014 may ultimately rank globally, within available records, as the ranked warmest year globally on record.

The point I am making is that if the data since the 1700's is meandering one warm year is not alarming. Particularly if the data from 2014 is jimmied.

so... as in the past mindset displays on MLW, we encounter a relatively new update on those past displays, one from a fake-skeptic/denier who continues to show he has no grasp on the distinction between and relevance of, localized/regional versus global. The one distinction here is that no actual temperature trend eyeballing was undertaken and presented; rather, assumed regional temperature trend results were some type of countering "unknown known" to the relatively recent global positioning of warmest months/years (and the underlying temperature trends therein). And it wouldn't be complete without dropping an implication that current temperature data is incorrect/invalid... "jimmied", no less!

[Michael Hardner]

No serious climate scientist, including skeptics, doubts the data as far as I know.

This would mean that the data is wrong due to a... wait for it... CONSPIRACY.

[bush_cheney2004]

....This would mean that the data is wrong due to a... wait for it... CONSPIRACY.

The economic and political decision to continue present hydrocarbon policies doesn't mean that the data is wrong or a conspiracy. Climate scientists do not determine policy, nor should they.

[waldo]

No serious climate scientist, including skeptics, doubts the data as far as I know.

This would mean that the data is wrong due to a... wait for it... CONSPIRACY.

clearly! One must give credit where credit is due... to the denialsphere's prolific 'Tony Willard Watts' and his most visibly failed attempts to call into question the surface temperature record... that whole accusing NOAA scientists of deception/fraud thingee. Of course, for the longest time on MLW, the TV weathermen types got a lot of play, most notably by MLW member, 'Simple'. I recall putting forward the formal published paper response from NOAA; a response that had to be made given the resulting mainstream media coverage 'Tony Willard' got and the impact it had on the public's perception of the accuracy of the surface temperature record. This truly became the leverage point for all manner of independent persons to attempt to confirm that accuracy... one that ultimately culminated in the Koch Brothers support behind the "Best Project". Unfortunately (for the Koch Brothers and their acolytes... and fake-skeptics/deniers at large), Best resulted in a reaffirmation (and strengthening) of the accuracy of the surface temperature record.

clearly, what within the mindset would favour fake-skeptics/deniers choosing to accept the blog writings of a former TV weatherman over the published work of legitimate scientists and the legitimate (scientific based) organizations they represent?

the follow-up attempt within the post that followed yours is so painfully weak/transparent... an attempt to shift focus away from the conspiratorial underpinnings that drive fake-skeptics/deniers to question, to challenge, the surface termperature record... an attempted shift away from conspiracy to that of policy determination. Yes, such a painfully weak/transparent attempt!

[jbg]

The most egregious examples in past MLW threads have been expressed by a few MLW members presuming to, quite literally, "eyeball" trends from raw data; i.e.,"the eyeball trending methodology". I've not yet deciphered if/how head-tilting while eyeballing factors! Equally, these trending eyeballers have a mental block in perpetually struggling with regional versus global focus/perspective.

How does "eyeballing" differ from "reading"?

And more to the point what is the reason to exclude direct experiences that people have with weather, which in most cases shows very little change over time?

[On Guard for Thee]

Do you mean those "direct experiences" that have resulted in more people being displaced by weather disasters last year than by global conflicts?

[jbg]

Do you mean those "direct experiences" that have resulted in more people being displaced by weather disasters last year than by global conflicts?

No. Weather and climate that real people experience. I am very suspicious of so-called "world data." Most of the world is either oceans, inaccessible areas or other places where data may be inaccurate. We all know what East Anglia did with data.

[On Guard for Thee]

So the roughly 23 million people who were displaced last year weren't real?

[jbg]

So the roughly 23 million people who were displaced last year weren't real?

How do you know that was the result of man-made forces?

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't know that. You were seeming to want references to real people with real weather issues. So there you go. It could be a mix of ocurences, perhaps not all based on global warming. But it's a bit of a scary reality.

[jbg]

I don't know that. You were seeming to want references to real people with real weather issues. So there you go. It could be a mix of ocurences, perhaps not all based on global warming. But it's a bit of a scary reality.

I think there were weather-related tragedies, even before the Industrial Revolution. The earliest one I know of, perhaps apocryphal, was a severe flood in Mesopotamia. It rained for 40 days straight, and only one male and one female of each species survived, on a huge boat.

Oh, and the story of Gilgamesh as well.

[On Guard for Thee]

So you don't understand the difference between bible stories and scientific data?

[jbg]

So you don't understand the difference between bible stories and scientific data?

I was writing tongue-in-cheek. But seriously, do you really think meteorological catastrophes started with the Industrial Revolution? Even I don't think AGW panickers are that dumb.

[On Guard for Thee]

They probably started the first time a dinosaur farted It's the ignoring of the rapid pace of frequency and severity pf same that makes the deniers ignorant.