It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:49 pm

All times are [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:43 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Hi Acharya, just a quick note to talk about penguins and polar bears. Will be back later to respond more fully. The article you posted talks about sea ice. The assumption is that less sea ice means less polar bears. But observations do not appear to support this assumption. The WUWT article (mostly a reprint of a Globe and Mail article) cites a Nunavut government study saying that contrary to popular belief, the bear population is healthy. "Nunavut wants to base bear-management practices on current information “and not predictions about what might happen.”" Here's another polar bear article reprinted with some commentary in WUWT. Or if you prefer, you can go directly to the original article.

As regards the penguins, according to the science journal Nature, contrary to numerous news reports (based on what exactly?), global warming is not to blame.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:29 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
The science of climate change is overwhelming and well over 90% of real climate scientists are in agreement that the climate is changing and that part of that is certainly due to human influence.

My position is that even if that is all wrong (which it isn't) it's still the right thing to do because we should not even be playing around with the very sensitive climate - it's just not worth the risks. This is the only planet we have to live on and we should not just be good stewards of it but excellent stewards of it. That sentiment should be a global law. I would think that anybody with kids would agree.

If people want to continue to pollute at such a massive scale to the point of extinction then, perhaps we deserve it.

Prominent skeptic says he now believes in global warming

6th Mass Extinction
http://massextinction.tribe.net

http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:08 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Acharya wrote:
Hi James!
Hard to believe you've had three wee ones in the time since we met in person years ago. I bet they are just adorable. Love to your family from me. We had a marvelous time with you and your wife.

Thanks, we had a good time too. What a delight to meet you both! The kiddies really are adorable. I'll facebook you some pics if you like.. :)

Quote:
who is funding that site, by the way?

It's a blog hosted free on wordpress. It's not funded by anybody, but is supported by volunteer contributers, advertising and some merchendising. Here's some info on Anthony Watts. He also has a wiki page. It's the best resource for the skeptic viewpoint I have found. Another good source of information is Judith Curry's blog. She's considered a "lukewarmer".

Quote:
...the "C02 is good for you" argument

The claim that CO2 is toxic simply isn't true, and that's just a plain fact, like the fact that CO2 is a trace gas. And while I wouldn't say that CO2 is "good for you", an increase in CO2 may be beneficial to plant growth (and apparently we are seeing benefits in this regard).

So no, I do not worry about a non-toxic gas that plants love. I do worry about other forms of pollution which are actually happening right now, not in some prophesied future based on computer simulations which consistently fail in their predictions.

Here's an article by Christopher Monckton, a rather interesting character. He discusses the failure of climate models. He's Christian and right wing, so I would probably disagree with him on most things. But I think his views on climate are worth reading, especially since so few people are exposed to any decent criticism of the global warming scare.

Regarding the "Many Himalayan Glaciers Melting at Alarming Rates" article you linked to, here's one from the Guardian, The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows. And one from the Times of India: Good snowfall gives new life to glaciers

Regarding larger and more destructive weather patterns and Hurricane Sandy, I think this is a good read that deserves consideration. Here's a quote:

Quote:
The reality is, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose to 391 ppm (0.0391%) today, average global temperatures have not changed in 16 years, and sea levels are rising no faster than in 1900. Even with Hurricane Sandy, November 2012 marked the quietest long-term hurricane period since the Civil War, with only one major hurricane strike on the US mainland in seven years. This is global warming and unprecedented weather on steroids?

As you can see, there is much room for debate and discussion. I made the mistake of insulating myself from the critics of global warming. But the "climategate" issue caught my attention and made me suspicious, so I started researching. I no longer believe we are headed for a global warming catastrophe.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:40 am 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
...the climate is changing and that part of that is certainly due to human influence.

I don't disagree with that. We are most certainly changing our environment. The question is how much CO2 will influence global temperatures. It's a very specific question.

Quote:
it's still the right thing to do

What's the right thing to do?

Quote:
This is the only planet we have to live on and we should not just be good stewards of it but excellent stewards of it. That sentiment should be a global law.

While I agree with the sentiment in principle, I don't think sentiments make very good laws. Certainly a sound and effective regulatory system for toxic pollution would be nice. There are other options as well. But this conversation we are having is about CO2, not pollution in general. In my opinion, the global warming scare is impeding real progress on pollution. "The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”" (From "The “well funded” climate business – follow the money"). Imagine if all that money went to fighting real environmental issues that are happening right now, instead of fighting an imagined problem predicted to happen in the future.

Quote:
I would think that anybody with kids would agree.

:roll:

Quote:

Richard Muller is an interesting character. I'm not sure he was ever a skeptic, but it makes good headlines. Judith Curry is a co-author with Muller. The url I posted to her site discussing climate sensitivity was de-linked. Here's a fascinating interview with Muller. Here's a quote from the interview:
Quote:
When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. You have to respect the public. You have to give them the honest truth and not the exaggerated truth. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.

They say to me:

“What do you mean, the polar bears aren’t dying because of global warming?”

“What do you mean, the Himalayas aren’t melting because of global warming?”

You get this stuff, and I think the public is smarter than most people think.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:11 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
350.org

Re: Climategate:

Quote:
"A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming ... All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/scien ... d=all&_r=0

Quote:
"Well, they took a few phrases out of context. These are private e-mails, more than 10 years old, and they've tried to blow it up into something that it's really not,"

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 056#p18056

Here's an independent video discussing 'Climategate' since I don't want to give the impression that they did no wrong at all because they did some things that were rightfully suspect but, 'Climategate' was blown way out of proportion. However, climate science is now the better for it due to the constructive criticism:

part 1


part 2


It looks like you've been watching entirely too much Fox News to me, James. Have you seen OutFoxed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w39FnpuMRfo

just having fun with you on the Fox thing ... :lol:

tho they were certainly anti-anything climate change and had the attitude of nothing is wrong and it's all just a big a lie, which it isn't.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:56 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Re: Foxnews, yeah, I've heard that one before.
Since you link Mulller as an authority, lets hear what he had to say about climategate recently:
Quote:
Interviewer: ”…now that you have validated the information that was in dispute, supposedly, in the Climategate matter, is it fair to say, once and for all, that that is a settled matter, that should be all be [inaudible] and set aside?”

Prof Richard Muller: “No, no, no. Just the opposite. Actually, that’s not really accurate at all. The data they used in Climategate was proxy data. I wrote a book on the using of that.

What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence.”

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
James V wrote:
Re: Foxnews, yeah, I've heard that one before.
Since you link Mulller as an authority, lets hear what he had to say about climategate recently:
Quote:
Interviewer: ”…now that you have validated the information that was in dispute, supposedly, in the Climategate matter, is it fair to say, once and for all, that that is a settled matter, that should be all be [inaudible] and set aside?”

Prof Richard Muller: “No, no, no. Just the opposite. Actually, that’s not really accurate at all. The data they used in Climategate was proxy data. I wrote a book on the using of that.

What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence.”

Lets hear ALL of what Dr. Richard Muller has to say:

Quote:
Climate Skeptic Richard Muller Admits Global Warming is Real:

"After years of denying global warming, physicist Richard Muller now says "global warming is real and humans are almost entirely the cause." The admission by Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley and founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, has gained additional attention because some of his research has been funded by Charles Koch of the Koch Brothers, the right-wing billionaire known for funding climate skeptic groups like the Heartland Institute. "We can make the scientific case more solidly than had been made in the past," Muller claims. "I think this does say we do need to take action, we do need to do something about it.""



Berkeley Earth

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:29 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
As should be obvious, I am quite familiar with Muller and his views. I frequent the blog of his co-author Judith Curry. I have also read the critiques of his work. Have you?

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
James V wrote:
As should be obvious, I am quite familiar with Muller and his views. I frequent the blog of his co-author Judith Curry. I have also read the critiques of his work. Have you?

I've seen it and sadly, it's painfully obvious how the "Watt's up with that?" website quote-mine and emphasize anything anti-climate change about as bad as Fox News. Lets make an effort to be more centered rather than one-side or the other.

Berkeley Earth

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:05 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
James V wrote:
As should be obvious, I am quite familiar with Muller and his views. I frequent the blog of his co-author Judith Curry. I have also read the critiques of his work. Have you?

I've seen it and sadly, it's painfully obvious how the "Watt's up with that?" website quote-mine and emphasize anything anti-climate change about as bad as Fox News. Lets make an effort to be more centered rather than one-side or the other.

Berkeley Earth


Please. I've said clearly and from the outset that "Watts up with that" is a website that presents the skeptic viewpoint. So no, it isn't "centered" and is not meant to be. It is up to me to be centered by reading a variety of perspectives that includes the skeptics view. Likewise, how "centered" you are is your business. I am arguing the skeptics case here, so obviously I am going to cite skeptic websites. If we can get beyond name-calling and gross assumptions maybe we can have a discussion.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:00 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
James V wrote:
I do not worry about a non-toxic gas that plants love. I do worry about other forms of pollution which are actually happening right now, not in some prophesied future based on computer simulations which consistently fail in their predictions.
James, it is disturbing that you claim to be rational and honest and yet circulate such bad disinformation. I cannot imagine the motives that make you so gullible. Do you simply find reality too horrifying? Why have you retreated into denialist fantasy? Projected warming of more than four degrees this century is worse than a raging fever.

In the context of our interest here at Free Thought Nation into why people believe things that are not true, such as the Christ Myth, the rise of the new religion of anti-science is equally disturbing. A very good site to investigate the denialist hysteria is skeptical science - for example its study of denialism at http://www.skepticalscience.com/compreh ... ation.html

Regarding accuracy of models http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... ediate.htm shows how scientists have been able to accurately simulate the impact of CO2 on climate.

Quote:
Christopher Monckton
...who has been banned for life from United Nations climate meetings because of his rampant denial of reality. Christopher Monckton is the David Irvine of climate change. He has no interest in objectivity, but routinely distorts and selects claims using the sole criterion of whether they will serve his denialist political agenda.
See this explanation of how the "Monckton" character continues the successful "Borat" model.
Quote:
Regarding the "Many Himalayan Glaciers Melting at Alarming Rates" article you linked to


Image
Quote:
Quote:
average global temperatures have not changed in 16 years


I encourage readers to look at skeptical science to debunk such lies.

For example, it is clear that most heat goes into the oceans. In fact, the warming of the oceans since 1961 consists of a heat accumulation equivalent to two Hiroshima bomb detonations per second, every second over the past 50 years, and an even faster rate over the past two decades.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:06 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Robert Tulip wrote:
...oil industry shilling... creationists of climate science... denial... blatantly wrong... pursuing a blatant political agenda... dangerous... denialist literature... political ignorant rubbish... no basis in evidence or honesty... denialist shills.

Your reasoning here is quite clear: Anybody who questions global warming must be an oil company shill. Nobody could possibly have a honest critique. I'm really not interested in all this name calling. I don't know why you can't do better than that.

Quote:

You link to a site dedicated to criticizing wattsupwiththat.com but you will not allow links to the site itself? Again, terribly one sided.

Quote:
In this debate, your term "trace gas" is emotive, designed to imply CO2 is harmless.

"Trace gas" is not my term. From wikipedia: CO2 "exists in Earth's atmosphere... as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume." Why you would dispute this simple fact is beyond me.

Quote:
a runaway greenhouse effect would boil the oceans.

Nonsense. "Boiling Oceans and Burning Reputations with James Hansen"

Quote:
Quote:
... feedback loops that are supposed to amplify the effect of CO2 ... are poorly understood...
Yes, we do not know if it will take 20 years or 200 years for the sea level to rise... So you use this scientific uncertainty to argue we should accelerate catastrophe by burning carbon like there is no tomorrow.

Before you made it sound as simple as a silly gun analogy. Not so simple after all?? Then you falsely attribute something to me.

Quote:
...People who have delusions on such a dangerous scale deserve to be criticised. As I argued in my review, climate policy is a basic question of good and evil.

It is so very strange that the people who -don't- believe in a doomsday prophesy are the ones considered delusional. Alice in Wonderland indeed. And you reduce a complex issue to a basic question of good and evil. The old rule of thumb: Keep it simple, stupid.

Quote:
Quote:
...That you would twist my criticism of this project to make it look like I'm attacking the Haida people is truly disgraceful.
James, you are the one who described the Haida Salmon Restoration Project as a "stupid desperate act"


Yes. I am critical of the project and others like it. You apparently cannot make a basic distinction. Your argument here is that anyone critical of dumping tons of iron sulfate into our oceans is calling the Haida people stupid.

And somehow dumping tons of iron sulfate into oceans is good, but dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is evil.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:06 pm 
Offline
Hercules
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 55
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Robert Tulip wrote:
James, it is disturbing that you claim to be rational and honest and yet circulate such bad disinformation. I cannot imagine the motives that make you so gullible. Do you simply find reality too horrifying? Why have you retreated into denialist fantasy?

I am sorry you are disturbed Robert. I don't appreciate these personal attacks. You talk about fantasy and here you are indulging in it yourself with speculations about my person. Please stop this nastiness. Is this how you conduct yourself?

Quote:

No, he was banned for misconduct. Why should I trust anything you say if you don't appear at all concerned with accuracy?

<removed more name-calling>

Quote:
Quote:
average global temperatures have not changed in 16 years

I encourage readers to look at skeptical science to debunk such lies.

It's not a lie. I was very careful to read the supposed debunking of this claim before repeating it, as it seemed unbelievable to me. The statement "it hasn't warmed in 16 years" is accurate and nobody disputes that. They say it's misleading, and yes statistics can be misleading. They say that although it hasn't warmed in 16 years, it has warmed in the last 40. Fine. But that doesn't change a simple statement of fact: it hasn't warmed in 16 years.

Would you mind sourcing the images you post? Thanks. I'll reply to some of your other remarks at a later time.

_________________
“If one cannot think without mental patterns – and, in my belief, one cannot – it is better to know what they are; for a pattern of which one is unconscious is a pattern that holds one at its mercy." -Arnold Toynbee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:29 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
James V wrote:
[You say] Anybody who questions global warming must be an oil company shill.
Far from it. We should all question global warming. But we should learn from the science. Refusal to learn from the science is the evil.
Quote:
you will not allow links to the site itself? Again, terribly one sided.
I have made my point that WUWT is an evil nest of liars and idiots. I could not be bothered editing your trolling.
Quote:
"Trace gas" is not my term. From wikipedia: CO2 "exists in Earth's atmosphere... as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume." Why you would dispute this simple fact is beyond me.
I do not dispute facts, I just dispute how they are used for rhetorical purposes in debate. In calling 'trace gas' "your term", I meant you introduced it as a supposedly relevant fact in the debate here. As I recall, your intent in emphasising the small proportion of CO2 was to imply it is harmless. That is not true.
Quote:
Quote:
a runaway greenhouse effect would boil the oceans.

Nonsense.
See http://www.sindark.com/2010/02/04/is-ru ... sens-take/ for Hansen's argument that shifting all carbon from the crust to the air would boil the seas. The WUWT page that James V linked to has no facts in it, as usual.

The temperature window for liquid water is astronomically quite small, placing earth in the Goldilocks Zone. Business-as-usual is on track to boil the oceans as a result of very rapid CO2 increase.

But this will not actually happen. As James V pointed out, the climate tends to self-stabilize. This means that if human life is incompatible with stability, then humanity has to go. The economic impact of climate change would get far too severe to continue extraction of fossil fuels long before we got to a boiling ocean level. However, the speed of our CO2 extraction might cause massive sudden methane release, the cause that is suggested for the extinction of 95% of earth's species at the end of the Permian Age.

Quote:
you falsely attribute something to me.
Sorry, what did I falsely attribute?
Quote:
the people who -don't- believe in a doomsday prophesy are the ones considered delusional. Alice in Wonderland indeed.
Have a good look at the scientific data in my last post, rebutting your false assertions about temperature, glaciers, etc. Human life is not compatible with such trends.
Quote:
And you reduce a complex issue to a basic question of good and evil. The old rule of thumb: Keep it simple, stupid.
Yes I do, because I would like human life to continue to flourish on our planet. My view is that the fall from grace can be understood as alienation from nature. The result is that people with a fallen mentality think that human existence transcends its natural context, and are indifferent to evidence. Acharya has explained this in her This Stinkin' Earth discussion.

As Hansen explains, animal species are migrating towards the poles and up mountains in response to global warming. We are accelerating the driver of change, potentially producing the greatest extinction event in planetary history. That is evil.
Quote:
Your argument here is that anyone critical of dumping tons of iron sulfate into our oceans is calling the Haida people stupid.
No, I was responding to your direct statement that the Haida Salmon experiment is "stupid". You said it.
Quote:
[you say] dumping tons of iron sulfate into oceans is good, but dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is evil.
Yes, in fact. Climate management is good, but climate destruction is evil. Leaving aside your biased and wrong term 'dumping' to describe iron fertilization, algae promotion is precisely the type of scientific experiment we should be conducting in order to manage the global climate. As I said above, CO2 emissions are about a billion times greater in weight than the Haida iron experiment. A billion is a lot. But denialists have basic problems with numbers.

The unholy alliance against iron fertilization joins denialists with advocates who see emission reduction as the only strategy for climate stability. The advocates think that iron seeding is a distraction from tax instruments such as cap and trade. My view is that emission reduction, especially through tax instruments, is far too slow and impractical to stabilise the climate, and we need to geoengineer through large scale ocean based algae production. I would like to see this happen, so I will naturally criticise anyone who makes false claims as James V has done here.

The images in my previous post are all sourced from Skeptical Science, and directly linked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:45 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 844
James V wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
you claim to be rational and honest ...
...here you are indulging in it yourself with speculations about my person.
Alright, you never claimed to be rational and honest. I made that up. Sorry. Or did you mean something else? :)
Quote:
Quote:

No, he was banned for misconduct. Why should I trust anything you say if you don't appear at all concerned with accuracy?
James, now you are entering the denialist lowball playbook. I am a stickler for accuracy where it matters. The site I linked implied that Lord Borat Mockturtle was chucked out of Doha for falsely asserting the planet is not warming. Along with 98% of scientists I regard Monckton with contempt, so I confess I did not bother to drill down to establish that the excuse given by the UN was not 'rampant denial of reality', which is an accurate summary of his comments.

Now you may ask, why is it okay to regard Lord Mockturtle with contempt, while taking scientists seriously? It all gets down to the value you place on evidence and logic. Lord Mockturtle treats logic and accuracy with contempt, so those who value logic should regard him with contempt.
Quote:
...The statement "it hasn't warmed in 16 years" is accurate and nobody disputes that.
Whoopsie! Maybe you meant 15 years – since the warm year of 1998. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadc ... rison.html shows that the global warming linear trend over 16 years is plus 0.06 degrees Celsius (chart below), while the trend over 15 years is still plus 0.05 degrees. So your statement is false, and is hotly rejected by real scientists.

Even when denialist liars engage in the most appalling cherry-picking, choosing an unusually warm year (1998) as a starting point, they have to use only selected atmospheric data that supports the denial agenda, and blatantly ignore all accepted scientific practice regarding proper use of statistics in order to get their lying result. When all atmospheric data is included, it has in fact warmed since 1998. When ocean heat is factored in, the warming is massive. The ocean is the biggest heat sink on the planet. As Skeptical Science reports at http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-d ... art-1.html the denialist claims are like a furious effort to walk down an up escalator.
Quote:

statistics can be misleading.
Come now, that is a very dangerous concession for you to make. Just because the ten hottest years on record (except the famous 1998) are in this century, surely there is no reason to concede that denialists can be systematically deceptive?
Quote:
Would you mind sourcing the images you post? Thanks.
Right click on the image, select properties and copy url into browser. All are from the source I gave in the post, Skeptical Science, for example the glacier chart is from http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalay ... rowing.htm

Here are some charts showing how James V is wrong about global warming.
Attachment:
Global Temperature Increase Since 1997.gif
Global Temperature Increase Since 1997.gif [ 28.88 KiB | Viewed 5076 times ]

Attachment:
Global Temperature Increase Since 1850.gif
Global Temperature Increase Since 1850.gif [ 38.6 KiB | Viewed 5076 times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support