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

[waldo]

Great....then all is well. Let's keep doing that and not change a damn thing. Filler' up !

an absolute perfect quote for this fake-skeptic/denier mindset thread! Well done... the "Filler' up" addition was so fitting of a mindset that thinks blindly only of today and that thinks selfishly only of itself.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Great....then all is well. Let's keep doing that and not change a damn thing. Filler' up !

You just make sure you contain those southern inflitrators down your way. We'll be too busy up here pumping water out of Hudson's Bay to water our corn crops. OK?

[jbg]

don't hesitate to qualify your nonsense statement... just who/what is advocating for a total shutdown? In any case, if you can show your self in this thread again, why are you so selective in avoiding the earlier posts challenging you to substantiate your claims concerning your statement about "alleged warming", your apparent questioning of the greenhouse effect, etc.. You certainly have a lot of unsubstantiated denier claims, hey!

What I am asking is even if the most extreme measures were implemented how long would it take to show a result? If ever?

You are ducking the question.

[waldo]

What I am asking is even if the most extreme measures were implemented how long would it take to show a result? If ever?

You are ducking the question.

what extreme measures and who do you assert is calling for them?

as for (YOUR) continued question ducking, in earlier posts within this thread you have several waiting on you to step-up... you know they're there... quit ducking them!

Edited October 6, 2014 by waldo

[-1=e^ipi]

But hey, you don't get sumpin' for nutin'.

Please provide the justification for this claim.

This sounds a lot like the pseudoscience notion of charma or the 'we have sinned against Gaia so will be punished' nonsense. I.e. it seems the basis for your claims is an ideology resembling religion.

[bush_cheney2004]

What I am asking is even if the most extreme measures were implemented how long would it take to show a result? If ever?

They have no frickin' idea....the best they can do is save browser links to NASA, NOAA, and the American Meteorological Society !

[-1=e^ipi]

you didn't fair so well in your previous failed attempt in claiming a positive global CO2 effect will result in increased global crop yields... or your effective claim to present CO2 as nothing more than innocuous plant food!

Again with this continued strawman argument. You fail to understand the difference between a partial and full derivative so confuse claims about the CO2 fertilization effect with claims about the overall effect of CO2.

Let me know when you obtain even a basis knowledge of simple calculus.

While you are at it, please also learn some basics about the theory of evolution. Maybe you will eventually accept the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

Though you can continue to reject science and believe in magic fairy tales while claiming that 'science' backs your avocation for severe CO2 mitigation policies if you want. It only makes you look more absurd.

[On Guard for Thee]

Please provide the justification for this claim.

This sounds a lot like the pseudoscience notion of charma or the 'we have sinned against Gaia so will be punished' nonsense. I.e. it seems the basis for your claims is an ideology resembling religion.

Are you drunk again?

[On Guard for Thee]

They have no frickin' idea....the best they can do is save browser links to NASA, NOAA, and the American Meteorological Society !

Heaven forbid you might accept those scallywags might just know some science. Ha ha.The troll king rides again.

[jbg]

what extreme measures and who do you assert is calling for them?

as for (YOUR) continued question ducking, in earlier posts within this thread you have several waiting on you to step-up... you know they're there... quit ducking them!

What I'm asking is even if the U.S. and Canada stopped all GHG emissions would we accomplish anything?

[waldo]

Again with this continued strawman argument. You fail to understand the difference between a partial and full derivative so confuse claims about the CO2 fertilization effect with claims about the overall effect of CO2.

Let me know when you obtain even a basis knowledge of simple calculus.

While you are at it, please also learn some basics about the theory of evolution. Maybe you will eventually accept the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

Though you can continue to reject science and believe in magic fairy tales while claiming that 'science' backs your avocation for severe CO2 mitigation policies if you want. It only makes you look more absurd.

and you have the nerve to claim "strawman"!!! Your BS derivative backpedal to cover your big-time fail is there for all to see... apparently, to you, the scope of global within your claimed "increased global crop yields" is limited to your non-real world, isolated and artificial greenhouse enclosures! You can also keep making up shit about evolution and the nonsense evolution hypothetical question you trolled out in support of your... 'immigration solution to prevent "islamists" from entering Canada'... an absolute MLW classic. But here's a thought: is your derivative backpedal really any different from your evolution thread ending post where you, quite literally, said you were just kidding... that you were, effectively, just running a social experiment on your captive MLW members! Talk about your absurdity!

[waldo]

What I'm asking is even if the U.S. and Canada stopped all GHG emissions would we accomplish anything?

why would you ask such a question, pose such an option/alternative? Again, who/what do you assert is making such calls?

.

[-1=e^ipi]

Are you drunk again?

I don't drink. And how does whether I drink or not exempt you from the burden of proof and justifying your claim.

Justify your claim that you don't get something from nothing.

[On Guard for Thee]

What I'm asking is even if the U.S. and Canada stopped all GHG emissions would we accomplish anything?

That sort of approach to the problem sounds sort of ...alarmist, don't you think?

[waldo]

Justify your claim that you don't get something from nothing.

you keep trolling this thread attempting to derail it over extreme weather... and I've asked you twice now to quit doing it... to take your obvious want to discuss extreme weather/climate change to an appropriate thread. Again, I pointed out there are several candidate threads available (you know this since you've participated in them)... I also suggested you start a new thread if you feel you have something significant/new to bring forward in that regard.

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't drink. And how does whether I drink or not exempt you from the burden of proof and justifying your claim.

Justify your claim that you don't get something from nothing.

Since I never made such a claim I don't need to justify it. What I referred to is CC may for the short term actually enhance some areas of the planet i.e. Canada gaining more growing area in our north. But that somebody else will lose i.e areas in southern latitudes Mexico I mentioned, will lose arrable land. Do you understand what I am saying yet? I don't wish to explain it again..

[Mighty AC]

Not really...all that needs to happen is....nothing. Playing "rope-a-dope" with climate change alarmists ensures just that.

True enough. A little misinformation and some bought politicians and voila, nothing happens. The part I'm unclear on is the role of the media in this. Do you think the Murdoch outlets like Fox News and The Wall Street journal advocate for the, bought and paid for, Republican position or do they just feed their audience what they want to hear?

[cybercoma]

Was this posted yet?

Oceanographers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have discovered the heat content change of the Earth has been severely underestimated. ... [T]he amount of heat added to the Earth in the last 35 years is 24% to 58% higher than thought, due to poor sampling of ocean temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere.

Source: http://www.neomatica.com/2014/10/06/southern-hemisphere-analysis-reveals-global-warming-underestimated-24-58/

Research: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html

[waldo]

Was this posted yet?

Oceanographers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have discovered the heat content change of the Earth has been severely underestimated. ... [T]he amount of heat added to the Earth in the last 35 years is 24% to 58% higher than thought, due to poor sampling of ocean temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere. [/size]

Source: [/size]http://www.neomatica.com/2014/10/06/southern-hemisphere-analysis-reveals-global-warming-underestimated-24-58/

Research: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html

according to some of the fake-skeptics/deniers (even here on MLW) that whole ocean warming thingee is just a convenient ruse by scientists in an attempt to rationalize the relatively recent reduced rate of surface temperature warming. Cyber... your post is bordering on alarmism! Much like the recent days announcement from the European Space Agency (ESA) in regards the degree of Antarctic ice melt... gravity impacting, no less:

ESA’s GOCE satellite has shown that the ice lost from West Antarctica over the last few years has left its signature showing that the loss of ice from West Antarctica between 2009 and 2012 caused a dip in the gravity field over the region. Of course, another ESA satellite, CryoSat, has recently shown that since 2009 the rate at which ice is being lost from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet every year has increased by a factor of three. And, between 2011 and 2014, Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year.

[-1=e^ipi]

you keep trolling this thread attempting to derail it over extreme weather...

If people make an unjustified claim, I ask them to back it up. Though it is pretty typical of the alarmist mentality to think that you don't need to justify any of your claims.

Since I never made such a claim I don't need to justify it.

Yes you did. You wrote "But hey, you don't get sumpin' for nutin'.".

What I referred to is CC may for the short term actually enhance some areas of the planet

Why only in the 'short run'? You don't think that there will be any long run benefits?

But that somebody else will lose i.e areas in southern latitudes Mexico I mentioned, will lose arrable land.

Climate change isn't a zero-sum game. There will be benefits and costs, but that doesn't mean benefits do not exceed costs. All latitudes would benefit greatly from the CO2 fertilization effect for example, plus most of the warming will occur at polar latitudes as opposed to equatorial latitudes.

Do you understand what I am saying yet? I don't wish to explain it again..

As expected, climate alarmists think they should be exempt from needing to justify their claims.

Edited October 6, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

As expected, climate alarmists think they should be exempt from needing to justify their claims.

how's that been working out for? Anytime you'd like to extend beyond your unsubstantiated personal opinion, prior thread discussions await your return. Again, quit attempting to derail this thread.

[bush_cheney2004]

True enough. A little misinformation and some bought politicians and voila, nothing happens. The part I'm unclear on is the role of the media in this. Do you think the Murdoch outlets like Fox News and The Wall Street journal advocate for the, bought and paid for, Republican position or do they just feed their audience what they want to hear?

No...I think it's the same mistake that people made about Iraq. Critics wrongly assume that all reasonable people will logically come on side to their point of view when presented with the "facts" as they understand and advocate for. Economics says that the climate change alarmists have a lot more work to do before winning the day. Weeping polar bears on YouTube will not get the job done.

We've already digested the same data and analysis ad nauseam for over a decade and the only real impact came from a serious economic recession. Cap and trade, Kyoto, carbon sequestration, etc., etc. are all dead for the most part. Al Gore laughed all the way to the bank.

[TimG]

A little misinformation and some bought politicians and voila, nothing happens.

The greatest source of misinformation comes from climate alarmists and their patsies in the MSM who routinely misrepresent what the science actually says and fail to report the how little we really know about the effects of warming on society. Edited October 6, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

---

Edited October 6, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

If people make an unjustified claim, I ask them to back it up.

Do tell.

All latitudes would benefit greatly from the CO2 fertilization effect

When will they benefit, next week, next business cycle, 100,000 years from now?

As expected, climate alarmists think they should be exempt from needing to justify their claims.