Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[Grat3fulh3ad]

It seems that negaters or diaffirmers or contradictors would suit as well for descriptors of thos who are on the less popular side of a contreversial issue.

I doubt there is any acceptable label for me to use to describe their position.

 

[Baba Ku]

I say fuck a whole bunch of labeling.
That is the problem with some of you...you want to label those who don't see things your way. Fuck that. Just who do you really think you are? I have the right to agree or disagree and with or without the aid of any sources at all, and it really isn't anyone's business. Not enough of their business to start placing names and labels on me, or anyone else for that matter, and that's for sure.

I know for a fact that I know a good bit more about every aspect of pot growing than many people here. Even people who are credible and have been around. Would it be righteous for me to start labeling and throwing stones at those who don't buy what I have to sell on a cannabis topic? Maybe make up a good derogatory name for those who show us their mite ridden and hermied out grows?
See a person like that is going to be called out and marked around here...because it is basically bullshit to act like that...even if you DO know you know what you are talking about when debating with a numbskull.
People really care less about the all knowledgeable grower, if he throws rocks at everyone else that doesn't see and do things the way he knows to be correct. He is seen for his shit all attitude, and who cares what he knows and grows.
I'd much rather be friends with a numbskull, than some high and mighty asshole who labels others for having a differing opinion. The numbskull might well be a very nice individual...those who label others on a regular basis have the odds against them already and it is very likely they suck at being friendly individuals.

And for those of you who think you are saving the planet by continuing your labeling and nasty debating...let me ask one question...do you drive or use electricity in any way? If so you really need to figure out that you are doing fuck all and are nothing but hypocrites.

Is it worse for a man to deny the material that convinces you, when you don't live it? Which is worse...denying, or preaching while fucking the deacons wife?

"I once was blind, but now I see" ...said the blind man who dropped his hammer and saw.

 

[Bacchus]

Bring on the cooling..... nothing like in your face facts to support your points.... When has the midwest seen it this cold this early??

Did someone just say "Art Bell"???? Tin foil hats for all!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

It is solely about practicality, and accurate communication.

'deniers' is just much easier to type than 'the people who either do not think global warming is happening, or think that mankind can't be responsible, or who think nothing could or should be done about it'... and it is accurate according to proper use of the word deny.

Pretending it is about anything else is yet another baseless demonization attempt.

 

[Greensub]

With every passing day, more and more people are realizing the fallacy of AGW. Most intelligent people now realize that AGW was a hoax and a fraud perpetrated on the public by a sleazy few attempting to reap huge profits. Their scheme is quickly unraveling, exposing their attempt to defraud the vulnerable masses.

With every passing day, more and more people are realizing the fallacy of AGW Denial. Most intelligent people now realize that AGW Denial was a hoax and a fraud perpetrated on the public by a sleazy few attempting to reap huge profits. Their scheme is quickly unraveling, exposing their attempt to defraud the vulnerable masses.

There... fixed it for you, no need to thank me.

 

[Ben Tokin]

One way to determine that you're on the wrong side of a debate is when you see the stampede of experts running away from your argument. This is currently the case with AGW.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

One way to determine that you're on the wrong side of a debate is when you see the stampede of experts running away from your argument. This is currently the case with AGW.

you keep making things up...

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

I have addressed all your challenges ssog, you just ignored it.

Hal Lewis's letter - nada

1000 dissenting scientists and the recent senate minority report. - 6 month out of date rebuttal from your favourite website

The article in the sciencedaily - nada

Monkton emails - said you would dig them up. so far nada

Methods and Materials of your 'science' maps of the medievil warm period - nada

So that would be a total fail.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Wrong again... linked you to a site that addresses everything you listed, and I commented on them,
So the fail is yours, aside from the fact that none of them are relevant to the core science demonstrating AGW.

Hal lewis joins a denier organization paid for by and officed in The Institute for Materials Minerals and Mining... in other words he's on oil company payrolls.

The list of 1000 scientists contains very few scientists knowledgeable in climate related fields, and the 6-month old rebuttal still applies.

The article in science daily which gives us a good example of climate sensitivity?

only thing you have me on... partially... is the monkton claims, to which I could only find the rebuttals... which doesn't mean they aren't there... I actually haven't looked any more, since you're not interested in learning anything anyhow... just repeating tired old debunked denier nonsense.

I replied to your 95% uncertainty of guesses bullshit...

Your biggest fail is thinking AGW science is a house of cards, or that any of your points have any bearing on the evidence that the world is warming and it is driven by CO2.

 

[Bacchus]

With every passing day, more and more people are realizing the fallacy of AGW Denial. Most intelligent people now realize that AGW Denial was a hoax and a fraud perpetrated on the public by a sleazy few attempting to reap huge profits. Their scheme is quickly unraveling, exposing their attempt to defraud the vulnerable masses.

There... fixed it for you, no need to thank me.

Sounds like the war on terror.....

 

[sac beh]

Monkton emails

Could you clarify what exactly you want to know about Monckton? I reviewed the thread searching for where you requested information about this, but couldn't find exactly what your question is.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Could you clarify what exactly you want to know about Monckton? I reviewed the thread searching for where you requested information about this, but couldn't find exactly what your question is.

At one point in time there was an email exchange with monkton posted at skeptical science... I mentioned it, and now since I haven't found the email exchange it is evidence against AGW happening

In all honesty it was last year and the exchange may have only been linked to... I read a lot of info, so I may have been mistaken as to whether it was posted or linked to.

 

[sac beh]

SilverSurfer,

And as for the other points, they are addressed here already. I think I even responded to both the Lewis issue and the 1000 scientists issue. They both fall under one of the broad categories of fallacies here, namely non climate scientists dissenting from the climate science consensus based on non-scientific arguments and/or irrelevant personal disagreements. As soon as those 1000 scientists publish results of research that contradict the current science, I'll have another look.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

I want the emails as the comments about Monckton on skeptical science were more personal comments and insults rather than any science he brought up. He has always stood out to me as the guy with the actual empirical date and lots of it. I want to see his main points.

He has also challenged Gore to a live debate many times but Al baby isnt up for it. With anyone...

Did you actually read the senate minority report?

Have you looked at the evidence mounting that the climate models are still being manipulated and those nice red and orange maps are mis-represented?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/tisdale-k-o-es-gisss-latest-warmest-year-nonsense/

The science daily article just underlined we dont need manmade anything for warming to occur globally.

Thanks for your comments on Hal Lewis and the 1000+ scientists. I will look into it further. I just wanted to know your position.

I asked for the Materials and Methods because your data depends on it. It wasnt just the 95% uncertainty.

I and many others smell a coverup on Climategate also. That issue has yet to play out fully as much as you think its been busted.

 

[sac beh]

I hope you're not talking about the Monckton-Abraham debate when you refer to the "the emails". He wasn't the most rational denialism representative in that back-and-forth, to say the least.

But I still don't understand what the question is--again, I couldn't find the context searching the thread.

My view of Monckton is the same view I have of Gore, they're divisive political figureheads, but they don't have the credentials in climate science that I like to see before I think that he's the guy with the actual data.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Have you looked at the evidence mounting that the climate models are still being manipulated and those nice red and orange maps are mis-represented?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/tisdale-k-o-es-gisss-latest-warmest-year-nonsense/

That article is far from 'mounting evidence' that the maps are being misrepresented, It is one guy's take on what may be happening... Even if he is right, warming is warming whether the extra heat is stored in the ocean or atmosphere.

The science daily article just underlined we dont need manmade anything for warming to occur globally.

Exactly. The climate is sensitive to energy imbalances.

Also, If you actually think that proving that man is not needed for warming to occur (a fact which climate science has known and taken into account for many decades), is the same thing as proving that the current warming is not being caused by man, then you are hugely mistaken and a lot about your perspective is explained.

I asked for the Materials and Methods because your data depends on it. It wasnt just the 95% uncertainty.

It was explained and discussed. They made highly educated guesses based on tons of data.

The much more question... Where's your data showing evidence (even educated guesses based on tons of data) of a worldwide MWP?

I and many others smell a coverup on Climategate also. That issue has yet to play out fully as much as you think its been busted.

You and many others believe all sorts of conspiracy theorist fringe type things like that. People thinking something doesn't make it true. Nobody did anything remotely nefarious when they used mike's nature trick to hide the decline in accuracy in the tree ring proxies.

Keep clinging to that hope, though.

 

[sac beh]

Re: Hal Lewis

He seems to have several faces:

Yet, despite the complexity, the bottom line is that the earth will be substaintially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases, mainly carbon dioxide, and that warming could conceivably approximate the climate at the time of the dinosaurs. It seems likely, but not certain, that sea level will rise accordingly, conceivably by several feet or more. We are doing this to ourselves.

Can anything be done to slow it down? The only option in the long run is to decrease the amount of waste gases deposited into the atmosphere. That would require global cooperation and sacrifice now, to avert something far into the future, and a conjectural something at that. There is no evidence in human history that that is in the cards, but one can always hope.

From his book, Technological Risk

 

[Greensub]

APS Reply To Harol (Hal) Lewis

APS Reply To Harol (Hal) Lewis

APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to the American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.
In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

• Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
• Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
• The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.
Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.

APS Climate Change Statement and Commentary




About APS

The American Physical Society (www.aps.org) is the leading physics organization, representing 48,000 members, including physicists in academia, national laboratories, and industry in the United States and internationally. APS has offices in College Park, MD (Headquarters), Ridge, NY, and Washington, DC.

The Statement & Commentary is a good read too.

 

[HempKat]

Hempy, as usual, you completely miss the point and interpret most things according to your own rules and misguided understandings.

When you remove the psychological barriers others have built around you, a more complete understanding of the world is truly possible.

I didn't miss the point at all, I perfectly understand the deception you were going for. The problem is, what you said doesn't support or prove the point you were trying to make. All it proves is that for any debated topic there are opinions both pro and con. Which is opvious because it can't be debated if there isn't an opposing position.

As for "barriers", nobody builds a barrier around you unless you allow them. If there are in fact any "barriers" between you and reality they're the ones caused by your own unique perception. Everyone has these "barriers" though, it's unavoidable due to how we physically operate. So it's not really a "barrier" in the way you imply but more like our skin is a "barrier" between our organs and the world around us.

The problem here is you are closed to the subject and as such any opinion differing from your own, in your mind has to be wrong because you have arrogantly assumed you're right. You've tried to make the point that the science behind AWG can't be right because we've not studied it long enough so we can't possibly know if it's right. The flip side of that however is for the same reason we also can't possibly know if it's wrong either. Anyway being that you are closed minded you really have no business being in a debate because an honest debate requires both sides to have an open mind even though they have a particular opinion. Clearly you're not here for a debate though. Clearly you're intention was just to stir up the pot on a controversial topic in hopes of generating some internet drama of people attacking one another, for your amusement as you sit around the house during the winter. Same old Ben.

 

[Ben Tokin]

H3ad, you seem to not have an answer for everything, maybe you can not answer a question for me.

I noticed that in most graphs that track temperature and CO2 over several million years, the amount of CO2 and temperature rise at the same time. Some experts have theorized that the warming cycles thaw the colder regions of the Earth and this in turn releases more CO2 into the air. Thus, explaining the increase in both at the same time.

Now, millions of years ago, man was not burning much fossil fuel. I don't think he even knew how. So, my question is, how can you distinguish between AGW and natural increases in CO2 due to solar warming activity?