Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lionking]

The most dangerous organization on earth

Unless you are a third world dictator.

The role of the UN in relation to the topic of this thread please. If you just want to rant about the UN, open another thread.

 

[Arnold Martin]

That is called confirmation bias.

So far, are you aware that you haven't shown an iota of proof against a global warming process of mainly anthropogenic origin going on? Your posts pretty boil down to a primitive epistemology with personal compromise: people who say A are morons, indecent or whatever -your strawmen- and you give credit to whatever confirms your prejudices -confirmation bias- and there's a lot of evil people there promoting the contrary to your notions -membership agreement prevents me from qualifying the last-

Again, be simpler, land your chopper and just try to convince us.

I absolutely agree and plead guilty to how you described me

And I can apply just as many biases to your position too

How do you plead ??

ps: that was not meant to be rude ... I imply we are both biased. Best wishes and stay warm

 

[aleCcowaN]

Not at all sir .... and by the way part of the title of this thread is ... "heated Conversation" ... and all I am trying to do is cool it down a bit ..... but I plead guilty to having a blend of tongue in cheek while being completely serious.

That is entirely happening in the realm of your imagination. Nothing reflects it in the real thread.

I regret to tell you that you just have a long list of things you wish to be real, then you think to be real. Let me elaborate further:

I have been a member of this forum for a year but just began posting yesterday

My motive is thus .... I am on Hudson Bay solid Ice watching Polar bears eat seals earlier in the season than normal.

..... Ice that is not supposed to be there (according to the warmists) and bears who were all going to drown (according to the warmists)

Why do CNN & CBC & The Sierra Club not plaster that all over the news (as good news)

Because they continue to deny that the deniers were correct and they want to save themselves the embarrassment

And speaking of embarrassment , notice how a majority of the "Important Warmists" from days gone by have gone silent because the weather did not cooperate with what they prophesied ??

That is the reason?

But the fact is I don't trust posters that think they are able to take a grain of sand in their buttcracks and build a pearl around it. I rather prefer evidence:

This was published 26 days ago. It's not scientific but it's infinitely better than the endless litany of your prose. We can consult the experts on the subject but we can save time as you may declare in a future post that they are part of the conspiracy.

Be sincere. You are posting here just because you felt like doing it. And your posting here as well as our replies to it will go on just depending on your inability and unwillingness to reason and get informed, just as it happened a dozen times here. The current record for Energizer bunnies is about 1200 posts, so enjoy yourself.

We could bury ourselves in back and forth statistics from both sides (and I am capable) but I have reverted to simple brutal truths that undermine the Warming agenda.

No, you are clearly not capable of it, sire, as it has been shown by your resort to fallacies instead of scientific arguments before, and your wrong use of the concept "statistics" now. You can show you have the ability to manage a modicum of scientific thinking by answering what I asked in #813. There are other points you were asked that you may reply by googling a little bit. There are even denialist prêt-à-porter arguments you may copy&paste. So far you have done none. It has been that poor.

You behave like a protester that is starting to abuse of these forum rules posting nonsense and changing the subject every time -constantly- you are caught in an argumentation you can't substantiate with evidence. And you feel good and important while doing it because people clearly more educated and knowledgeable than you bother in replying your nonsense. That is a well known pattern in these fora.

I urge everyone here not to set themselves up for further embarrassment .

It is not a bad thing to admit you have been suckered. Besides you can blame it on the 3 tactics of a brainwash that was used to start this whole effort to control world energy (by controlling the worlds exhaust pipes)

Do I see glimpses of messianism? I suggest you to elaborate further in the conspiracy theories forum. And think it better.

 

[Pixel42]

But here is what I read ........ In comparison to 2012, most indicators this year were closer to their long-term averages

It does indeed look like temperatures in the Arctic have been unusually low year, and will come out for the year as slightly less than the long term average:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11

And? What exactly are you claiming can be deduced from this?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I absolutely agree and plead guilty to how you described me

And I can apply just as many biases to your position too

How do you plead ??

I'll reply later some other tosh you posted before. But, do you think that it will suffice to say that "both are biased" when you're asked for evidence and you fail to provide? Besides, where is your "I can"?

ps: that was not meant to be rude ... I imply we are both biased. Best wishes and stay warm

Why the ps? There's no rudeness in it. On the contrary, it looked like a white flag.

 

[DC]

Yeah .... well if you want something scary look at who funds your side , look deep my friend , look deep.

Koch produces gas for your car , jetA for my helicopter , fertilizer for the veggies and cereal we eat , and steak for our barbeque. They are not the enemy

In his 1960's book .... "A Business Man Looks at Communism" ... Koch wrote that he found the USSR to be "a land of hunger, misery, and terror.

The warmists wish the whole world was like that , at least that is what would happen if we quit burning fossil fuel like we are. Fossil fuels are the best thing to ever advance mankind.

Next time you fly out to an environmental meeting thank Koch and Boeing

i don't have a car, and i have not flown since 2001.

i wish the whole world to be high tech. i wish everyone has a vehicle that can transport him wherever he wants. i wish we can use as much energy as we want to.
fossil fuels are great, they brought us here. but now its time to say slowly good by to fossil fuels. we have alternatives we can use.
we have the technology, we have the knowledge.

i never have been to a enviromental meeting ever and don't plan to go to one.
and everyone that pays to spread myths about our climate system is an enemy of humanity.

 

[DC]

aslo I am biased, biased towards evidence. if something has evidence i accept it, when it does not have evidence i do not accept it.

i also have no problem to admit having been wrong, i have no problem to admit that i have been missled.i did that already in this forum on another topic where i was totally wrong.

so would any denier post any compelling evidence as to why AGW is not true, i would accept it. but they can't. that is why they do not post any evidence but merely fairytales of allegedly changed words......
and not even for that they provided any evidence at all, they merely claim, they changed global warming for climate change.....

sure those of us that actually do read in the scientific literature about this topic know its not true at all.
and the only ones that indeed changed the words they use were the deniers.
they stoped using global warming and recommended to use climate change.....
a word the IPCC uses since the 80's.........

 

[tsig]

Remember Children...believe what the Global-Warming Preacher Man say about bad 'ole Carbon Dioxide: worship the Carbon and the Great God Mother Earth will make it plenty hot and burn you forever!

Carbon is da' Devil's fuel!

I see your arguments are all science so far.

 

[tsig]

I don't recall any attempts by the IPCC to control us?

See how slick they are.

 

[tsig]

I have never been a conspiracy theory follower .... they always leave out all the facts that do not support their wild imaginations.

The UN cannot control the weather and they know it. They desire only things they can control. They envision a perfect dictatorship of like minded people. I wish there was a better word than dictatorship , but there is not

Thank you
AM

You think the UN is conspiring to control the world but you're not a conspiracy theorist? How does that work?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Well...Lord Monckton and his ilk occasionally use dishonest arguments - and there are a lot of people who use dishonest arguments against AGW - spouting all kind of ridiculous things. Nevertheless, they have pretty-much shut down the AGW people.

Really, I think it is sad to see the AGW argument shut down in this manner even though I think their conclusions are without merit until more and better data is obtained. Nevertheless, sometimes I do take a secret delight in watching some redneck politico launch a crazy argument that absolutely broadsides an AGW advocate. I mean, it does effectively shut up the worst AGW advocates. It is sad that it has come to this. Funny...but sad.

I thought that what Louisiana Congressman Stiles did to Al Gore during some 2010 Congressional hearings was a bit rotten as far as an anti-AGW argument is concerned. I mean, I thought Stile's tactic of trying to link Gore to Enron's Ken Lay was a bit low...maybe a lot low. However, the tactic seemed to work just fine for a lot of people.

How come you are so "versed" in low tactics?

I'd like to invite you to participate in the discussion about AGW. You'll find the thread here.

 

[macdoc]

Why do American's think they are COTU??

AM is almost begging to be taken seriously instead of snickered at but then descends into the royal repuglies world conspiracy rap.

JG is just a political shill anyway - not even bothering to pretend to discuss climate science. Too bad the forum still allows trolling of this nature.

Perhaps JR should take a page from the LA Times and Reddit who simply do not allow climate change deniers of this ilk a soapbox.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/la-times-cuts-off-climate-change-deniers/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/193545-reddit-science-forum-banks-climate-change-deniers

Might be a spreading and welcome meme...

The LA Times editor nailed it...

This past week, the Los Angeles Times took a little-noticed step that could have a profound impact on your children’s and grandchildren’s future: it decided to ban climate change deniers from its pages. If this step catches on and spreads to other media outlets, it could finally lead us away from the distraction of the phony, manufactured “debate” over the existence and causes of the global climate disruption and actually get down to the real work of confronting this challenge.

Editor Paul Thorton was admirably simple and direct on this point:

[W]hen deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts -- in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.
And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a body made up of the world's top climate scientists -- said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy. [Emphasis added]

Now if our intrepid deniers here want to adhere to this...

The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us

it may indeed be a lively and useful debate and they both might be surprised by peoples view here ( ie nuclear power and the role fossil fuels have yet to play )

But by foaming at the mouth over UN conspiracies and communism and whatever Faux news implanted spew of the day.....well ....one hopes they have a large appetite for ridicule and distain from the science community.

Hell....even the head of Exxon gets it....

Exxon CEO: Fossil fuels will warm planet, but humans can adapt
By THE CANADIAN PRESS
Published June 28, 2012 09:22 am | 72 Comments

ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson says fears about climate change, drilling, and energy dependence are overblown.

In a speech Wednesday, Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to adapt.

The risks of oil and gas drilling are well understood and can be mitigated, he said. And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.

Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" for energy misconceptions in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.

He highlighted that huge discoveries of oil and gas in North America have reversed a 20-year decline in U.S. oil production in recent years. He also trumpeted the global oil industry's ability to deliver fuels during a two-year period of dramatic uncertainty in the Middle East, the world's most important oil and gas-producing region.

"No one, anywhere, any place in the world has not been able to get crude oil to fuel their economies," he said.

In his speech and during a question-and-answer session after, he addressed three major energy issues: Climate change, oil and gas drilling pollution, and energy dependence.

Tillerson, in a break with predecessor Lee Raymond, has acknowledged that global temperatures are rising. "Clearly there is going to be an impact," he said Wednesday.

- See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Env...ssil-fuel-adapt-climate/#sthash.84oTTt1p.dpuf

So from his speech to shareholders...

We view climate change as a serious issue, it does present serious risk,” Tillerson told shareholders.

which way is it JG and AM....is Tillerson full of it or are you??

 

[aleCcowaN]

But by foaming at the mouth over UN conspiracies and communism and ....

Once again and again. Remember: the link between global warming "evil" and leftism is a cultural fabrication from the anglosphere -and maybe their western Germanic counterparts- (why the Anglospherers think they are the COTU??). As far as I know, global warming "evil conspiracy" is associated with savage capitalism and fascism in mostly the rest of the world.

 

[DC]

even if the UN or NWO or whom ever wants to take over the world or whatever, it does not change anything about the science of AGW.

 

[r-j]

It's not "the science" that the skeptics are questioning.

 

[DC]

It's not "the science" that the skeptics are questioning.

sure not, skeptics have accepted the evidence long ago.

the deniers however are questioning the science, heck a good part of them even questions the Greenhouse effect itself......

 

[r-j]

so would any denier post any compelling evidence as to why AGW is not true, i would accept it.

You have to state cleartly, in a scientific manner, what you mean by AGW. And what would disprove the theory you are talking about. Otherwise that is meaningless.

 

[r-j]

skeptics have accepted the evidence long ago.

Like that statement you just made. I am skeptical of what you claim. Your attempts to avoid a debate, an argument, or even a discussion, by claiming victory, that isn't how it works.

Not even close.

 

[macdoc]

R-J don't even try...you are hopeless at anything that requires a science base as we've seen time and again here and elsewhere. There IS no debate over the reality of AGW ....even Exxon head acknowledges that....

So is he wrong about it ....or are you????

We view climate change as a serious issue, it does present serious risk,” Tillerson told shareholders

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Envi....84oTTt1p.dpuf

The fossil fuel companies knew about in the mid 90s.....perhaps YOU didn't know that...

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

 

[DC]

You have to state cleartly, in a scientific manner, what you mean by AGW. And what would disprove the theory you are talking about. Otherwise that is meaningless.

AGW is very well defined. no need to further specify it at all. you know what A stands for? and GW? all you need