'Global Warming' Losing Support

[CrusaderFrank]

Pyrrhic victory: the death spiral of the denial movement Watching the Deniers

It is far too early to declare “victory”, but its clear the denial movement is entering a death spiral.

Within a few years they will be a spent force.

I take no comfort in this: ”winning” the climate debate is the ultimate Pyrrhic victory.

An article in today’s Age notes the recent conversion of some high-profile sceptics of climate change:

“…has a confluence of extreme weather (fire, floods, heatwaves, mud slides) and dogged science – sober, clear consensus statements such as that released yesterday by the Australian Academy of Science – finally outmanoeuvred the engineers of denial? Are we at a tipping point in terms of public comprehension of the climate crisis? In terms of campaign denialism, is the jig up?”

The article describes the about-face of one of the UK’s most prominent sceptics:

“Last week, the science editor of Britain’s proudly sceptical Daily Mail filed a long article from the Arctic under the headline, ”The Crack in the Roof of the World: Yes, Global Warming is Real – and Deeply Worrying”.

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

 

[PoliticalChic]

You just made a butt load of statements that originated exactly there.

You have yet to present any proof whatsoever for your statements.

Rocks, I don't believe that this is my quote...please either correct same or find original for me...

 

[code1211]

You just made a butt load of statements that originated exactly there.

You have yet to present any proof whatsoever for your statements.

We've discussed all of this before.

The cooling between 2001 and 2009 is well documented.

The fact that the temperature was warmer in the Halocene than today is easily proven by both the proxy record and the evidence of the galcial cover being less than that of today at that time.

The problem with our discussions on this is simply that I look at the actual temperature and wonder what is happening. You presuppose that CO2 in the air is driving and will drive temperature and so you look at the rise of CO2 and leap to the conclusion that temperature is affected by it.

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

 

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit! There was no cooling between 2001 and 2009. In fact, 2000 to 2009 is the warmest decade on record. Even by Dr. Spencers figures, the 13 month running average between 2001 and 2007 was never seen before for any six year period. Even with the dip in 2008, it was still a very warm period.

UAH global temperature posts warmest January | Watts Up With That?

Not only that, with a strong and persistant La Nina, a solar minimum not seen in nearly a century, 2008 still was the tenth warmest year on record. Not the tenth coldest as it should have been, given all the factors except GHGs, but the tenth warmest.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rocks, I don't believe that this is my quote...please either correct same or find original for me...

PC, it doesn't say it is your quote, that was posted in reply to Code 1211.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm....... I just looked at the original, and in that it does say it is your quote, which, of course, it was not. Yet, on the post where you point out it was not, it correctly attributes it to Code. Odd, but I had nothing to do with the attribution, in either case, done automatically by the servor.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bullshit! There was no cooling between 2001 and 2009. In fact, 2000 to 2009 is the warmest decade on record. Even by Dr. Spencers figures, the 13 month running average between 2001 and 2007 was never seen before for any six year period. Even with the dip in 2008, it was still a very warm period.

UAH global temperature posts warmest January | Watts Up With That?

Not only that, with a strong and persistant La Nina, a solar minimum not seen in nearly a century, 2008 still was the tenth warmest year on record. Not the tenth coldest as it should have been, given all the factors except GHGs, but the tenth warmest.

Golly.

If CO2 is that powerful, it should be so easy for you to show us in a lab how a 200PPM Increase does all of that, no?

 

[code1211]

Bullshit! There was no cooling between 2001 and 2009. In fact, 2000 to 2009 is the warmest decade on record. Even by Dr. Spencers figures, the 13 month running average between 2001 and 2007 was never seen before for any six year period. Even with the dip in 2008, it was still a very warm period.

UAH global temperature posts warmest January | Watts Up With That?

Not only that, with a strong and persistant La Nina, a solar minimum not seen in nearly a century, 2008 still was the tenth warmest year on record. Not the tenth coldest as it should have been, given all the factors except GHGs, but the tenth warmest.

With your typical myopia, you hear read one thing and respond to something else.

The most recent full decade can be the warmest on record AND show cooling within the decade. I couldn't find the particualr graph i remembered, but here are two others:

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uah-after-2002.jpg

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/rss-after-2002.jpg

Both show cooling from 2002 to 2010. With the beginning of the decade so warm, cooling still allows warm final years in the decade. The obvious point is that CO2 was rising constantly throughout the decade and temperatures did not. How could this be?

Regarding the Solar minimum creating the tenth coolest year on record, this would be difficult. We are in the midst of a warming trend that has continued with only brief respites from 1650 until today. Just as August is generally warmer than june despite less direct Sun light, a warm decade is to be expected as a continuation of this overall trend.

 

[westwall]

Most people believe the climate is changing. It's not that people don't think global climate change is a problem, they just believe there are more immediate problems to be dealt with.

No, I don't agree with you on this. People realize that the climate is never static no matter what the alarmists say. They realise that after 30+ years of doom and gloom the alarmists are wrong so the general public no longer pay any attention to what the alarmists have to say. It's not because they think other problems are more important. It's because they fundamentally understand that the climate will do what it will do as certainly as the sun will rise tomorrow.

I am not going to waste my time defending what most of the scientific community is now excepting as fact. The evidence is overwhelming. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If what you say were true we wouldn't be talking about in this forum....now would we

 

[Old Rocks]

What we are talking about here is that people like yourself are trying to prevent anything being done to minimize the increase in GHG emissions. So, you denigrate the science and scientists that have shown the evidence. And you claim to be what you clearly are not.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit! There was no cooling between 2001 and 2009. In fact, 2000 to 2009 is the warmest decade on record. Even by Dr. Spencers figures, the 13 month running average between 2001 and 2007 was never seen before for any six year period. Even with the dip in 2008, it was still a very warm period.

UAH global temperature posts warmest January | Watts Up With That?

Not only that, with a strong and persistant La Nina, a solar minimum not seen in nearly a century, 2008 still was the tenth warmest year on record. Not the tenth coldest as it should have been, given all the factors except GHGs, but the tenth warmest.

With your typical myopia, you hear read one thing and respond to something else.

The most recent full decade can be the warmest on record AND show cooling within the decade. I couldn't find the particualr graph i remembered, but here are two others:

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uah-after-2002.jpg

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/rss-after-2002.jpg

Both show cooling from 2002 to 2010. With the beginning of the decade so warm, cooling still allows warm final years in the decade. The obvious point is that CO2 was rising constantly throughout the decade and temperatures did not. How could this be?

Regarding the Solar minimum creating the tenth coolest year on record, this would be difficult. We are in the midst of a warming trend that has continued with only brief respites from 1650 until today. Just as August is generally warmer than june despite less direct Sun light, a warm decade is to be expected as a continuation of this overall trend.

Neat. So some natural variation within the decade means that we are not warming in spite of the fact that the decade was the warmest on record. Now that is one wonderful peice of twisted logic. Not only that, but this year is well on it's way to rivalling 1998 and 2005 for the warmest on record.

February 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: Version 5.3 Unveiled Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Now Dr. Spencer is a sceptic. Yet, look at his graph. The year 2000 just touched the zero line, but from 2002 to 2007, the line is steady, and well above any other similiar period during the time of satellite observation. And even in 2008, the dip does not reach the zero line, in 2009, it goes above the steady line from 2002 to 2007.

That graph amply demonstrates that your statement concerning dropping temperatures from 2000 to 2009 is bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What we are talking about here is that people like yourself are trying to prevent anything being done to minimize the increase in GHG emissions. So, you denigrate the science and scientists that have shown the evidence. And you claim to be what you clearly are not.

Don't scientists tests their theories out in a laboratory?

If you feel you've reduced all the variables except for a 200PPM increase in CO2, why don't you show us how that happens in a laboratory setting?

Isn't that science?

 

[konradv]

What we are talking about here is that people like yourself are trying to prevent anything being done to minimize the increase in GHG emissions. So, you denigrate the science and scientists that have shown the evidence. And you claim to be what you clearly are not.

Don't scientists tests their theories out in a laboratory?

If you feel you've reduced all the variables except for a 200PPM increase in CO2, why don't you show us how that happens in a laboratory setting?

Isn't that science?

Not always. How many times do you have to be told the same thing? Besides, most of what you ask HAS been done, you just dishonestly refuse to ackinowledge it. You're nothing but a worthless TROLL anymore, Frank!!! Go slink off wherever gslack went and hid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What we are talking about here is that people like yourself are trying to prevent anything being done to minimize the increase in GHG emissions. So, you denigrate the science and scientists that have shown the evidence. And you claim to be what you clearly are not.

Don't scientists tests their theories out in a laboratory?

If you feel you've reduced all the variables except for a 200PPM increase in CO2, why don't you show us how that happens in a laboratory setting?

Isn't that science?

Not always. How many times do you have to be told the same thing? Besides, most of what you ask HAS been done, you just dishonestly refuse to ackinowledge it. You're nothing but a worthless TROLL anymore, Frank!!! Go slink off wherever gslack went and hid.

Show me one single test where you compared temperatures or local climates using only a 200PPM difference in CO2 as a control.

Just show me one time

 

[konradv]

Don't scientists tests their theories out in a laboratory?

If you feel you've reduced all the variables except for a 200PPM increase in CO2, why don't you show us how that happens in a laboratory setting?

Isn't that science?

Not always. How many times do you have to be told the same thing? Besides, most of what you ask HAS been done, you just dishonestly refuse to ackinowledge it. You're nothing but a worthless TROLL anymore, Frank!!! Go slink off wherever gslack went and hid.

Show me one single test where you compared temperatures or local climates using only a 200PPM difference in CO2 as a control.

Just show me one time

That's dishonest!!! You asked me to show you in the lab and now you're asking me to show you in local climates?!?! You've moved the goal posts!!! I can easily show that 300 ppm CO2 doesn't absorb as much infra-red radiation as 500 ppm, so I consider the lab part of your question TOTALLY answered. You KNOW that, hence the need to constantly change the parameters in order to maintain the fiction that your questions don't get answered.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL!!! Talk about a biased piece. The discussion didn't even happen and the author already decided who the "climate realists" are. Putting the cart before the horse, aren't you?

Looks like I'll have yet another nut to pwn in this forum!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Not always. How many times do you have to be told the same thing? Besides, most of what you ask HAS been done, you just dishonestly refuse to ackinowledge it. You're nothing but a worthless TROLL anymore, Frank!!! Go slink off wherever gslack went and hid.

Show me one single test where you compared temperatures or local climates using only a 200PPM difference in CO2 as a control.

Just show me one time

That's dishonest!!! You asked me to show you in the lab and now you're asking me to show you in local climates?!?! You've moved the goal posts!!! I can easily show that 300 ppm CO2 doesn't absorb as much infra-red radiation as 500 ppm, so I consider the lab part of your question TOTALLY answered. You KNOW that, hence the need to constantly change the parameters in order to maintain the fiction that your questions don't get answered.

Nobody gives a rats ass about all htis statistics/measurements anymore s0n.........and only the internet OCD k00ks like to talk about it anymore. Even on this forum, which draws hordes of socially disabled OCD lefties, there are like 4 or 5 of the extreme radicals chiming in on this crap. They sit at their PC's 17 hours a day waiting for some hysterical news report to pop up so they can feel like a hero and post it up!!! I mean, people like this poor sob Chris............HOLY MOTHER OF GOD..........tell me he and his pal Old Rocks didnt miss a few meetings??

 

[skookerasbil]

How the hell do you grow up and never learn about these......................

Not only did they miss meetings, they missed classes too!!!

 

[Oddball]

What we are talking about here is that people like yourself are trying to prevent anything being done to minimize the increase in GHG emissions. So, you denigrate the science and scientists that have shown the evidence. And you claim to be what you clearly are not.

What are you doing to minimize your GHG emissions?

Log out and go move into a wigwam in the woods.

 

[skookerasbil]

When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines June 15, 1991, an estimated 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide and ash particles blasted more than 12 miles (20 km) high into the atmosphere. The eruption caused widespread destruction and loss of human life. Gases and solids injected into the stratosphere circled the globe for three weeks. Volcanic eruptions of this magnitude can impact global climate, reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, lowering temperatures in the troposphere, and changing atmospheric circulation patterns. The extent to which this occurs is an ongoing debate.

Volcanoes and Climate Change (DAAC Study) : Feature Articles


A litle science lesson for the k00ks.........................And Pinitumbo was a pop gun compared to Tombora in the 19th Century

Highlighted above in red............note the operative words.............."ongoing debate". Ongoing debate does not exist in the dialect of the environmental k00ks in terms of "man made" global warming. Ever notice that??? These is no debate!!