As the Global Warming Goofy World Turns

[calfoxwc]

Falling apart at the seams. Scientists are unable to explain it.

 

And btw, there is more ice growing in the ..antarctic?

 

Kablooey goes mmgw as "fact".

 

It was all just a theory. A poltically oriented theory to

 

accrue funds, by the UN, to fund helping poor nations

 

around the world. Maybe I should post the title of the book

 

about the UN being wrought with fraud and greed and ulterior motives.

 

Corrupt all over.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

 

[Kosar_For_President]

Heck?

[calfoxwc]

Yo, he's gone. He had to give up being the all liberal cause stauch defender of bs with bs.

It got to be too much, ObaMao is failing too much. Obamao has as much respect on the international

scene as Honey Boo Boo. Actually, she has more. He's weak, lillylivered, a closet marxist, and

that means big trouble on the horizon with Russian and China going large war games in Europe

 

and Asia. But Obamao loooooves his leftist UN-ized mmgw theory. Even Heck doesn't like

standing in a giant liberal cowpie.

[MLD Woody]

So who is this author? James Delinpole?

 

Is this a scientific article? Even an article? No... it is a blog

 

"In a BBC Horizon documentary, "Science under Attack", Delingpole responded to Paul Nurse's discussion of the scientific consensus on global warming by saying that the idea of a consensus is unscientific. In response to Nurse's question as to whether he had read any peer-reviewed papers, he maintained that as a journalist "it is not my job" to read peer reviewed papers, but be "an interpreter of interpretations". He took offence at Nurse's analogy that his position was like a medical patient refusing to accept a clear consensus of opinion of expert doctors, and preferring the diagnosis of a quack. After the programme was broadcast, Delingpole complained on his blog that other parts of the interview had been edited out."

 

That's just from wiki, but if true.. then geez.

 

 

I'm reading over this blog post and trying to find any actual analysis. This is just a blog writer writing about his interpretations and his interpretations are something you agree with... so you post it... shocker

[calfoxwc]

You don't read well. In fact, there surely is something wrong with your reading comprehension.

 

Here, from the article:

 

Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.

 

Say, maybe if I repeat it several times, it might sink in:

 

Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.

[calfoxwc]

Here, do a google search on "scientists who dispute man made global warming".

scientists opposing the mainstream scientific ...

Scientists...|Scientists...|Scientists...|Scientists...

This is a list of notable scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream scientific understanding of global warming as summarized by the ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists...of_global_warming - Cached

More results from en.wikipedia.org »

EzineArticles - Global Warming Scientists Dispute Man-Made ...

There is an on-going dispute among global warming scientists about the so-called Global Warming Swindle Hypothesis, but most of there assumptions seem to ...

ezinearticles.com/?Global-Warming-Scientists-Dispute-Man... - Cached

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed ...

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ... U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority... - Cached

Global warming 'hiatus' puts climate change scientists on the ...

It's a climate puzzle that has vexed scientists for more than a decade and added fuel to the arguments of those who insist man-made global warming is a ...

www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-climate-change... - Cached

More results from latimes.com »

Fox News - Scientists dispute politicians’ claims that ...

Scientists say the evidence is far less concrete. ... Scientists dispute politicians’ claims that global warming grew ... but is global warming to blame?

www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/31/scientists-dispute... - Cached

More results from foxnews.com »

New Mexico Watchdog - MIT Scientist Disputes Man-Made Global ...

MIT Scientist Disputes Man-Made Global Warming In Sandia Labs Presentation By Jim Scarantino on July 25, 2012 Print This Post

newmexico.watchdog.org/15128/mit-scientist-disputes-man... - Cached

17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming - Digital Journal

Is there a scientific consensus on the topic of man made global warming? If you read the news in the major media you would have cause to believe that there is.

www.digitaljournal.com/...Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming - Cached

[MLD Woody]

First, it isn't an article. It is a blog

 

Second, I love the bulk posts where I'm expected to go source by source and analyze them all... your crazy is more than a one man job

 

Finally, I never said there are no scientists that dispute climate change. I'm sure there are "scientists" that support creationism too

[calfoxwc]

It's an article in a blog. First you bitch about it being a blog, then you bitch that I post all sorts of

 

sources that you could easily look up. IOW's, you don't know zilch about life, or much anything else.

 

Perhaps you would seriously consider waiting until you grow up a good bit before continuing to

 

bitch. And bitch. and bitch. and bitch. and bitch. There's a whole world out there outside of your closet.

 

You bitch that the author isn't a scientist, but the author quoted a scientist. That makes you....

 

a bitchy little woodypeckerhead.

[Westside Steve]

So Woody, I guess we are doomed. Why waste all that time studying?

 

WSS.

[FairHooker11]

[MLD Woody]

So Woody, I guess we are doomed. Why waste all that time studying?

 

WSS.

So I don't end up a farmer or traveling musician

[MLD Woody]

Wow you're an idiot

[The Cysko Kid]

So I don't end up a farmer or traveling musician

Kind of arrogant don't you think? If not for farmers who would feed you? If not for troubadours who would entertain you? These jobs are not as expendable as you think.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Especially from someone who has done or accomplished nothing yet. Payback is a bitch, so it is best to remain silent until you accomplish something first.

[MLD Woody]

Kind of arrogant don't you think? If not for farmers who would feed you? If not for troubadours who would entertain you? These jobs are not as expendable as you think.

 

Yeah, I guess big company farmers can make a pretty decent living, I'm not entirely sure.

 

I'm not concerned about being entertained by musicians at the moment. But I mean, sure, there is a demand or these jobs wouldn't exist. So I agree with you there

[FairHooker11]

Wow you're an idiot

 

yes, I know you guys are! lol another inconvienent truth? hahaha

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

 

 

 

[Erie Dawg]

So I don't end up a farmer or traveling musician

WOW, you know your a real piece of shit you dumb fucker!

I would be surprised these guys have any respect left for you.

[MLD Woody]

WOW, you know your a real piece of shit you dumb fucker!

I would be surprised these guys have any respect left for you.

 

 

Oh my bad... I forgot I was just supposed to take the insults all day but never respond back.

 

Again, my bad

 

 

 

 

But for real, that's why I am still studying. I mean, he asked...

[MLD Woody]

... I feel like whenever one of these climate change threads come up, we're arguing the same points we did before and some on here are missing the same points as before

 

It is getting ridiculous.

 

And with Heck and Vapor being smart enough to take time away from this site, Idk if I have the stamina for ALL of these comments...

 

 

 

I'll just that one common theme from all the past threads was someone posting "oh my god it cooled from here to here" and showing a graph, only for that to be a small portion of a graph with an overwhelming warming trend. Deviations happen, i don't think anyone is they don't, but these deviations don't throw away the entire trend over a longer time period...

 

So if arctic ice decreases for years in a row, then increases one year, does that throw out everything that happened before it?

 

 

Plus, who knows where you guys find these pictures and images and quotes and "data". Is it really worth it to crawl throw every right wing climate skeptic blog to find them and see the actual "source"? No, not for me.

[Osiris]

A year-to-year change in arctic sea ice is meaningless, you have to look at a much wider span of time to determine overall trends. For example:

 

 

So to quote from this article, "Focusing on the inevitable occasional yearly recoveries while ignoring the long-term downward trend produces a misleading and confusing picture."

 

As the above graph shows, one could take, for example, ice levels in 2006 vs 2008 and claim that the ice levels are growing, however, that is misleading as it ignores the more important trend-line, which shows an overall decline over the years. So a graphic showing a one-year increase, or an article that touts a 29% increase over a year is not a scientific one, it is a political one.

 

Another overall trend, and a notion that the blogger in the OP article seems to hold disdain for, is the idea that much of the heat is being absorbed the the ocean. I don't see that idea as so implausible, as this graph shows a steady rise in ocean temperature:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg

 

 

 

Also, presenting a list of distinguished scientists who dispute man-made climate change is meaningless without comparing it to a list of distinguished scientists who support the man-made climate change theory. This graph does a nice job of that:

 

 

We can probably conclude from this that for every distinguished scientist who disputes climate change theory, there are about 20 who support it. So quoting this scientist or that scientist is really a useless strategy for this debate. As far as I'm concerned the debate is settled, it is only political and economic forces that stand to lose money and power that propagate the idea that climate change is not man-made.

[FairHooker11]

A year-to-year change in arctic sea ice is meaningless, you have to look at a much wider span of time to determine overall trends. For example:

 

 

 

So to quote from this article, "Focusing on the inevitable occasional yearly recoveries while ignoring the long-term downward trend produces a misleading and confusing picture."

 

As the above graph shows, one could take, for example, ice levels in 2006 vs 2008 and claim that the ice levels are growing, however, that is misleading as it ignores the more important trend-line, which shows an overall decline over the years. So a graphic showing a one-year increase, or an article that touts a 29% increase over a year is not a scientific one, it is a political one.

 

Another overall trend, and a notion that the blogger in the OP article seems to hold disdain for, is the idea that much of the heat is being absorbed the the ocean. I don't see that idea as so implausible, as this graph shows a steady rise in ocean temperature:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg

 

 

 

Also, presenting a list of distinguished scientists who dispute man-made climate change is meaningless without comparing it to a list of distinguished scientists who support the man-made climate change theory. This graph does a nice job of that:

 

 

 

We can probably conclude from this that for every distinguished scientist who disputes climate change theory, there are about 20 who support it. So quoting this scientist or that scientist is really a useless strategy for this debate. As far as I'm concerned the debate is settled, it is only political and economic forces that stand to lose money and power that propagate the idea that climate change is not man-made.

 

 

so how is the one out of every 20 scientists and those of us who side with them (minority by your claim) gonna lose money by propagating CC is not M-M?

 

its the other way around.

 

the privleged "20" and their supporters in this who are making out like bandits with the UN IPPC tax imposing on world nations foolish enough to pass such laws!

 

the "enlightened people" at the UN IPPC are "losing $$ " as you say with what the common sense people of Austrailia did recently in voting down the "Carbon (tax) Pricing

 

mechanism" They said in effect that the regressive nature of the so called carbon tax would hurt middle to low income classes... hmm

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/29/australian-voters-energetically-reject-concocted-climate-crisis-and-carbon-tax-disasters/

 

meanwhile......

 

where is the UN ?

[calfoxwc]

Top MIT scientist mocks the pro mmgw report from the UN.

 

Of course it's baloney.

 

Oh, woody, MIT is a very serious college academically, just so you can learn somethin...

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/

[MLD Woody]

Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all."

 

Sounds familiar...

 

I've also found a few articles about this Lindzen guy, like here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/

 

 

 

 

 

You read Osiris's post?

[Osiris]

so how is the one out of every 20 scientists and those of us who side with them (minority by your claim) gonna lose money by propagating CC is not M-M?

 

its the other way around.

 

the privleged "20" and their supporters in this who are making out like bandits with the UN IPPC tax imposing on world nations foolish enough to pass such laws!

 

the "enlightened people" at the UN IPPC are "losing $$ " as you say with what the common sense people of Austrailia did recently in voting down the "Carbon (tax) Pricing

 

mechanism" They said in effect that the regressive nature of the so called carbon tax would hurt middle to low income classes... hmm

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/29/australian-voters-energetically-reject-concocted-climate-crisis-and-carbon-tax-disasters/

 

meanwhile......

 

where is the UN ?

It isn't the common folks that I was referring to. The people behind climate change denial are the ones pushing the idea through the conservative media outlets, trying to win hearts and minds, and those people are the industries that have the most to lose: most notably, the coal and petroleum industries. David Koch, oil tycoon, has donated $67 million to climate change denial groups. There are teams of public relations specialists for the American petroleum institute for example, that are basically scientists who are paid to tow the anti mmcc line. A memo was leaked in the NYT that says as much. All of this is well documented here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#cite_note-38

 

 

As for the Australian vote, that only proves that the climate change deniers seem to be winning the PR campaign there despite scientific evidence. You should also take note of the tone of the article, as it is again political in nature, using hot button and vitriolic language to prevent readers from actually thinking instead of reacting. Show me some articles relying on science, something from a respected journal like Nature or Science, that denies climate change. These are objective and have strict peer-review standards.

 

As for China, and the pollution problem there that the photo demonstrates, yes, I'd love to see the UN do more. The Chinese, perhaps because they have such horrible pollution, do seem to be taking the global warming issue more seriously then the US.

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/how-dirty-polluted-china-takes-climate-change-more-seriously-than-we-do-20130307

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Chinese and Indian air and water pollution affect Korea, Japan and eventually blow across the pacific and affect Canada and the US. They have lax pollution control measures and usually do nothing or turn the other eye. It is really bad over there.

[calfoxwc]

osiris - new name for heck ?

Pro mmgw scientists are unable to explain the last 15 years... and unable to explain

the melting of ice in prehistoric times. It goes on and on and on.

 

Those nasty coal and petroleum industries have a lot to lose, and that's the only reason anybody denies

the leftwing, liberal money grabbing mmgw ? I even posted where it was admitted that

the UN needs money from mmgw to fund ending poverty.

 

The left is desperately trying to intimidate well off nations of mmgw. It's like "Bowling for Dollars".

 

It's a game, but it's been found out to be rigged. Truth is, the left has a LOT to lose, the the UN has the most to lose,

if they can't make $$$$$$$$ off of this mmgw THEORY. Look at the money Obamao's friends have made.

 

Like big dem contributors... like Solyndra, and others. They got their $$$, and they folded. Gore made $$$$$.

And the left can get all sorts of free stuff, if they can help win the phoney war to promote mmgw as "indisputable"

fact. It's a theory, and it has huge faults. But, it pays to be getting gov funds to work FOR it, especially when

the left wants to penalize companies, and ridicule indivuals, who won't be bought into the fraud.

[Westside Steve]

 

 

Oh my bad... I forgot I was just supposed to take the insults all day but never respond back.

 

Again, my bad

 

 

 

 

But for real, that's why I am still studying. I mean, he asked...

actually I was joking, & I assume woody was too. He may have misunderstood but probably not. Just for the record, in case I have to explain, if in fact your precious scientists are all right on the money we are all going to die within the next few years. We'll be incinerated!! The sky is indeed falling. So might as well skip finals this semester. Have another drink.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Of Kool aid? I think he is way under legal drinking age.

[MLD Woody]

actually I was joking, & I assume woody was too. He may have misunderstood but probably not. Just for the record, in case I have to explain, if in fact your precious scientists are all right on the money we are all going to die within the next few years. We'll be incinerated!! The sky is indeed falling. So might as well skip finals this semester. Have another drink.

WSS

 

We joke. Depends on who I'm responding to obviously, but u hold you above Cal, DieHard, etc. Even though I frequently disagree with you and your debate "tactics" annoy the hell out of me.

 

Can't skip finals. Need a good job.

 

 

 

And yes, I'm 21

[Osiris]

osiris - new name for heck ?

Pro mmgw scientists are unable to explain the last 15 years... and unable to explain

the melting of ice in prehistoric times. It goes on and on and on.

 

Those nasty coal and petroleum industries have a lot to lose, and that's the only reason anybody denies

the leftwing, liberal money grabbing mmgw ? I even posted where it was admitted that

the UN needs money from mmgw to fund ending poverty.

 

The left is desperately trying to intimidate well off nations of mmgw. It's like "Bowling for Dollars".

 

It's a game, but it's been found out to be rigged. Truth is, the left has a LOT to lose, the the UN has the most to lose,

if they can't make $$$$$$$$ off of this mmgw THEORY. Look at the money Obamao's friends have made.

 

Like big dem contributors... like Solyndra, and others. They got their $$$, and they folded. Gore made $$$$$.

And the left can get all sorts of free stuff, if they can help win the phoney war to promote mmgw as "indisputable"

fact. It's a theory, and it has huge faults. But, it pays to be getting gov funds to work FOR it, especially when

the left wants to penalize companies, and ridicule indivuals, who won't be bought into the fraud.

 

Not really sure what you mean by "Osiris - new name for heck?" but let's stick to focusing on debating ideas, not people's forum names. No real point in that.

 

Scientists being unable to explain things doesn't mean that they are wrong. When people thought the Earth was flat, they were unable to explain why, when viewed from a very high vantage point, the horizon had a slight curve to it. It took science to eventually figure it out, not a politics.

 

People were unable to explain why some people had seizures and attributed it to witchcraft. It took science to figure out the brain disorder we now call epilepsy, not politicians who were more interested in exploiting the disorder so they could burn innocent women at the stake.

 

As for Dems exploiting the MMGW thing for money, that is entirely possible, I don't necessarily disagree that there are probably some Dems doing just that. That, however, does not change the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly points to MMGW being real. I'm not happy this issue is so politicized by either side. If your roof is caving in, it isn't a political issue, you fix it or you get screwed.

 

Anyway, MLD Woody, good luck on your finals, I can see you have a good head on your shoulders. What's your major?