More Globaloney from NOAA

[Crick]

You're a liar and a fool

 

[skookerasbil]

One will notice......whenever you pwn the shit out of one of these AGW climate crusaders, whats the kneejerk response?

What every limpwristed far left response is.........a personal attack post laden with profound amounts of misery and hysteria. That's who these people are.......missed the memo that told us all that when you get pwned on facts, you don't take your bat and ball and go home pissing and moaning. But you see it every day in here with these limpwristers. We all know them in life......they take a word or two and make a mountain out of a molehill without a second thought.

 

[skookerasbil]

ps.....the "liars" are winning...........HUGE I might add >>>


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html


Its a Jonestown for the AGW human racists in here. Nobody cares about their shit in 2014. But don't take my word for it......look on just page one of this forum and you see threads that last a day or two and die like a fall maple leaf on steroids.

 

[Kosh]

You're a liar and a fool

Is that what you say when you look in mirror?

 

[flacaltenn]

I keep hearing talk about a "Conspiracy" to instill Global Warming into the world's Weltanschauung and consciousness. A conspiracy by who? And for what purpose? Cui Bono? A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe. The costs of such a conspiracy would be massive. The number of scientists from every discipline required for it to be successful would be enormous. This is where Conspiracy Theories always break down for me. You have more than one person holding a "secret" and in a very short time it's not a secret any more.

I haven't researched Global Warming to any extent. I do read a lot about science though and put a lot of faith in it's truthfullness. To my knowledge no Scientist has ever held the Holy Grail of science, the Nobel Prize, by fudging his results. Testable, provable theories are at the heart of Science. Experimental result that are flawed are usually identified pretty quickly by peer review. Remember OPERA's faster than light Neutrinos?
Being an interested bystander, the overwhelming evidence that a great majority of the world's scientists agree with Global Warming to one degree or another, convinces me to accept their version.

And if they're right the environment may be saved. If they're wrong the environment may benefit from less pollution anyway.

Lemme take an honest whack at your questions. The eco-movement has been quite successful. THey face a problem of diminishing returns on the pollution problem in ADVANCED and WESTERN countries. They have little leverage over what happens in places like China or the Congo. AND THEY HATE FOSSIL FUELS.. With their deepest passion.

Unfortunately for them -- they also hate nuclear power, Large hydro and ALL the major sources of energy in the 21st century.. So there is no cogent argument for eradicting ALL of these -- especially when they offer no viable alternatives for ADVANCED WESTERN societies. So the opportunity to formulate a GLOBAL crisis and at the same time give them control in the western democracies of energy policy is CO2 regulation. Or as they say now "carbon" which is PURPOSEFULLY ambigious and nebulous so as to PURPOSELY CONFUSE the CO2 global warming issue with REAL --- honest to God pollution.. Just as you did in your last line. Kerry has repeatedly said what you said there. If we are wrong about GW -- the worst thing that will happen is the enviro will be cleaner.

All that PRESUMES that there ARE viable alternatives. There are none. So -- it's worth it to Leftist movements all over the world to hobble the advanced economies, exert economic Imperialism over dirt poor developing nations with an exaggerated crisis of Global proportions. The lies of Al Gore, the revelations of the ClimateGate emails, the tensions about the UN IPCC "process" and the utterly FAILED predictions of this juvenile science are all testimony to the POLITICAL motives behind this farce..

The "fable" of Global Warming is based on some science that correctly identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The warming due to CO2 increases ALONE are insufficient to trigger a bigger enough crisis. So GWarming theory INVENTS a lot of Magic Multipliers that essentially say that CO2 is only the TRIGGER for the apocalyptic future doom. That the planet atmos. is so fragile -- that a change of 1 or 2 degC will set off RUNAWAY WARMING due to positive feedbacks and that's where they get the script for the horror film. They turn 1 or 2 degC into 4 or even 8degC with magic and guessing and modeling. No historical empirical evidence to suggest that the Planet has a suicide wish and will destroy all life because SOMETHING raised the surface temperature by a degree or two...

 

[SSDD]

The "fable" of Global Warming is based on some science that correctly identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The warming due to CO2 increases ALONE are insufficient to trigger a bigger enough crisis. So GWarming theory INVENTS a lot of Magic Multipliers that essentially say that CO2 is only the TRIGGER for the apocalyptic future doom. That the planet atmos. is so fragile -- that a change of 1 or 2 degC will set off RUNAWAY WARMING due to positive feedbacks and that's where they get the script for the horror film. They turn 1 or 2 degC into 4 or even 8degC with magic and guessing and modeling. No historical empirical evidence to suggest that the Planet has a suicide wish and will destroy all life because SOMETHING raised the surface temperature by a degree or two...

Funny thing is that even 8 degrees of warming from where we are now just gets us up to the temperature the earth has been for most of its history....They simply can't bring themselves to admit that in relative terms, the earth is f'ing cold right now. History tells us that 22 degrees C is the temperature the earth "prefers" and the temperature at which most of life on earth evolved.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Crick]

Why is it that deniers such as yourself so frequently talk about paleoclimatic data from the geological history of the Earth rather than that of the history of human culture? The Mesopotamian city-state of Ur was founded less than half way to the very first hash mark on your graphic. Homo-sapiens first diverged from Homo Neanderthalis less than a fourth of the way between the first and second hash mark - in the very late stages of the Pleistocene. With regards to human culture, your graphic is 99.995% irrelevant.

So what possible bearing does your plot have on the potential harm modern human culture faces from AGW?

I mean, other than the five major extinction events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event. Have a read through this link and see how many of those were caused by climatological changes taking place on scales that were rapid by geological standards but achingly slow compared to the pace of changes anthropogenic greenhouse emisssions are currently causing. See how often ocean acidification and radical temperature changes are listed in the theorized causes.

 

[SSDD]

Why is it that deniers such as yourself so frequently talk about paleoclimatic data from the geological history of the Earth rather than that of the history of human culture?

Because the earth could give a flying F about human culture. And 22C was the mean temperature just prior to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is presently in. It isn't necessary to go back to the dim recesses of earth's beginnings to find temperatures much higher than they are at present...all one need to do is look back to the time just before the present ice age and one finds temps about 8 degrees warmer than the present....which, by the way tidily puts the lie to wacko claims of run away global warming and tipping points which are a couple of degrees warmer than the present.

Since that is the temperature the climate invariably reaches after exiting ice age after ice age after ice age, why is it that you deniers think something different is happening now than has happened every other time the earth has exited an ice age?

The Mesopotamian city-state of Ur was founded less than half way to the very first hash mark on your graphic.

Man and his activities are irrelevant to the global climate. When the global mean temperature goes up past 25C, let me know, then, and only then will there be something unusual going on, and even then not unprecedented.

 

[Crick]

Why is it that deniers such as yourself so frequently talk about paleoclimatic data from the geological history of the Earth rather than that of the history of human culture?

Because the earth could give a flying F about human culture.

I think you meant to say that it couldn't give a fuck and my response is that no one ever said it did. The blatantly obvious point was that the human species and particularly, human culture, has developed under the range of conditions present during the previous few thousand years (500,000 if you want to talk about homo sapiens as a species). What might be normal over the planet's history should not be a comfort to us if it would kill us all outright.

And 22C was the mean temperature just prior to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is presently in. It isn't necessary to go back to the dim recesses of earth's beginnings to find temperatures much higher than they are at present...all one need to do is look back to the time just before the present ice age and one finds temps about 8 degrees warmer than the present....which, by the way tidily puts the lie to wacko claims of run away global warming and tipping points which are a couple of degrees warmer than the present.

Except that, as always, you have ignored the pace of current temperature change compared to the rate at which it changed in the past. And, again, there was no human culture back then, so what the onset or termination of the past ice age might have done to current human infrastructure is an unknown - and something you choose to ignore completely.

Since that is the temperature the climate invariably reaches after exiting ice age after ice age after ice age, why is it that you deniers think something different is happening now than has happened every other time the earth has exited an ice age?

Current warming is not part of the process of exiting the most recent glaciation. That in the face of the numerous temperature diagrams displaying the unprecedented warming acceleration since the Industrial Revolution, you continue to claim that it is, is just further proof that you are a paragon of anti-science. One hears of people whose opinions are so often wrong that your odds of being right are best served by accepting the converse of whatever they say. You are the closest thing to a real person I have ever come across for which such a practice would actually work.

The Mesopotamian city-state of Ur was founded less than half way to the very first hash mark on your graphic.

Man and his activities are irrelevant to the global climate.

You've got that turned around. The global climate is quite relevant to man and his activities.

When the global mean temperature goes up past 25C, let me know, then, and only then will there be something unusual going on, and even then not unprecedented.

Were that to happen in what would have been our lifetimes, there'd be no point in telling you anything as we'd all be long dead. I, for one, find that point entirely relevant.

Tell me something, are you really this stupid or is it that your decision to stick with an indefensible position forces you to make ridiculously bad arguments like these?

 

[SSDD]

I think you meant to say that it couldn't give a fuck and my response is that no one ever said it did. The blatantly obvious point was that the human species and particularly, human culture, has developed under the range of conditions present during the previous few thousand years (500,000 if you want to talk about homo sapiens as a species). What might be normal over the planet's history should not be a comfort to us if it would kill us all outright.

Lucky for us that we are the most adaptable species that have ever walked the face of the earth, because the climate is going to do what it has always done without regard to when we started walking upright. History tells us that the warming is going to continue till the mean temperature reaches something between 22 and 25C and no ice exists at one, or both of the poles...at that time the ice age will be over and the long summer begins till such time as another ice age begins.

Homo sapiens sapiens and his activities are irrelevant to the global climate.

Except that, as always, you have ignored the pace of current temperature change compared to the rate at which it changed in the past. And, again, there was no human culture back then, so what the onset or termination of the past ice age might have done to current human infrastructure is an unknown - and something you choose to ignore completely.

The pace of current temperature change is zero for damned near 20 years now....most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940 and there isn't a bit of evidence that the climb out from the little ice age is in any significant way different from any other move from a cold period....there are no proxys that can provide that sort of resolution. As usual, you just make up whatever you think will help you make a point.

Current warming is not part of the process of exiting the most recent glaciation.

Of course it is. Ups and down are all part of natural variability. The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were all significantly warmer than the present...are you going to claim that they aren't part of the process as well? Can you even describe the process in any way that would jibe with the past and project the future with any accuracy? Can you tell us precisely what caused the warming to begin 14K years ago?

That in the face of the numerous temperature diagrams displaying the unprecedented warming acceleration since the Industrial Revolution, you continue to claim that it is, is just further proof that you are a paragon of anti-science.

Graphs based on what? What proxy can provide a resolution accurate enough to show fractional temperature increases over century spans. Making stuff up isn't science. Since we all know that no proxy is capable of that sort of resolution, why would you claim that graphs based on non existent proxys show what we know can't be shown? Talk about anti science.

You've got that turned around. The global climate is quite relevant to man and his activities.

No, I got it right.

Were that to happen in what would have been our lifetimes, there'd be no point in telling you anything as we'd all be long dead. I, for one, find that point entirely relevant.

History tells us that life thrives in the warm. Of course, since you deny the facts that history shows us, there is little point in telling you.

me something, are you really this stupid or is it that your decision to stick with an indefensible position forces you to make ridiculously bad arguments like these?

Observation defends my point...you are the one spinning tales, picking cherries, and telling lies in an effort to support your point.

 

[SmedlyButler]

I keep hearing talk about a "Conspiracy" to instill Global Warming into the world's Weltanschauung and consciousness. A conspiracy by who? And for what purpose? Cui Bono? A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe. The costs of such a conspiracy would be massive. The number of scientists from every discipline required for it to be successful would be enormous. This is where Conspiracy Theories always break down for me. You have more than one person holding a "secret" and in a very short time it's not a secret any more.

I haven't researched Global Warming to any extent. I do read a lot about science though and put a lot of faith in it's truthfullness. To my knowledge no Scientist has ever held the Holy Grail of science, the Nobel Prize, by fudging his results. Testable, provable theories are at the heart of Science. Experimental result that are flawed are usually identified pretty quickly by peer review. Remember OPERA's faster than light Neutrinos?
Being an interested bystander, the overwhelming evidence that a great majority of the world's scientists agree with Global Warming to one degree or another, convinces me to accept their version.

And if they're right the environment may be saved. If they're wrong the environment may benefit from less pollution anyway.

Lemme take an honest whack at your questions. The eco-movement has been quite successful. THey face a problem of diminishing returns on the pollution problem in ADVANCED and WESTERN countries. They have little leverage over what happens in places like China or the Congo. AND THEY HATE FOSSIL FUELS.. With their deepest passion.

Unfortunately for them -- they also hate nuclear power, Large hydro and ALL the major sources of energy in the 21st century.. So there is no cogent argument for eradicting ALL of these -- especially when they offer no viable alternatives for ADVANCED WESTERN societies. So the opportunity to formulate a GLOBAL crisis and at the same time give them control in the western democracies of energy policy is CO2 regulation. Or as they say now "carbon" which is PURPOSEFULLY ambigious and nebulous so as to PURPOSELY CONFUSE the CO2 global warming issue with REAL --- honest to God pollution.. Just as you did in your last line. Kerry has repeatedly said what you said there. If we are wrong about GW -- the worst thing that will happen is the enviro will be cleaner.

All that PRESUMES that there ARE viable alternatives. There are none. So -- it's worth it to Leftist movements all over the world to hobble the advanced economies, exert economic Imperialism over dirt poor developing nations with an exaggerated crisis of Global proportions. The lies of Al Gore, the revelations of the ClimateGate emails, the tensions about the UN IPCC "process" and the utterly FAILED predictions of this juvenile science are all testimony to the POLITICAL motives behind this farce..

The "fable" of Global Warming is based on some science that correctly identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The warming due to CO2 increases ALONE are insufficient to trigger a bigger enough crisis. So GWarming theory INVENTS a lot of Magic Multipliers that essentially say that CO2 is only the TRIGGER for the apocalyptic future doom. That the planet atmos. is so fragile -- that a change of 1 or 2 degC will set off RUNAWAY WARMING due to positive feedbacks and that's where they get the script for the horror film. They turn 1 or 2 degC into 4 or even 8degC with magic and guessing and modeling. No historical empirical evidence to suggest that the Planet has a suicide wish and will destroy all life because SOMETHING raised the surface temperature by a degree or two...

and learned to love greenhouse gasses?

Your answer to my question, Cui Bono? seems to be the "Leftists" in the "eco-movement". You can't mean the whole eco-movement. Obviously there are people from all over the world and all across the political spectrum engaged in thousands of groups and projects to save or improve ecologies in every part of the globe. And from my observation extreme leftists are marginalized in all the Western Democracies. Or are you saying that it's the moderate Left driving this conspiracy?

Either way I still can't buy it. I'll quote myself here, "A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe." And those are just a couple of the components that would have to be involved for this conspiracy to garner the wide-ranging support it has. I've read 9/11 Conspiracy Theories with more plausible scenarios than this.

You say, "All that PRESUMES that there ARE viable alternatives. There are none." I've seen Technology do a lot of "miraculous" things in the last 50 years. I don't doubt for one second it can overcome whatever problems there are in providing alternative power sources. Just look at the advances in electric cars. And there are now solar panels that power spacecraft hundreds of millions of miles further away from the Sun than the Earth is. Solar is the ultimate source of hydro power and fossil fuels anyway, all they have to do is find a more direct route to the source.

I'm sorry, but for me, without evidence to the contrary that amounts to more than anti-Leftist rhetoric, "The fable of Global Warming" iis still a fable constructed by a broad range of anti-science far right wing conspiracy theorists with more "faith" than proof.

I remember well when "they" tried to convince us that Lead in gasoline was perfectly harmless, as was tobacco. And flourine in the water supply was a Communist conspiracy.

 

[flacaltenn]

I keep hearing talk about a "Conspiracy" to instill Global Warming into the world's Weltanschauung and consciousness. A conspiracy by who? And for what purpose? Cui Bono? A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe. The costs of such a conspiracy would be massive. The number of scientists from every discipline required for it to be successful would be enormous. This is where Conspiracy Theories always break down for me. You have more than one person holding a "secret" and in a very short time it's not a secret any more.

I haven't researched Global Warming to any extent. I do read a lot about science though and put a lot of faith in it's truthfullness. To my knowledge no Scientist has ever held the Holy Grail of science, the Nobel Prize, by fudging his results. Testable, provable theories are at the heart of Science. Experimental result that are flawed are usually identified pretty quickly by peer review. Remember OPERA's faster than light Neutrinos?
Being an interested bystander, the overwhelming evidence that a great majority of the world's scientists agree with Global Warming to one degree or another, convinces me to accept their version.

And if they're right the environment may be saved. If they're wrong the environment may benefit from less pollution anyway.

Lemme take an honest whack at your questions. The eco-movement has been quite successful. THey face a problem of diminishing returns on the pollution problem in ADVANCED and WESTERN countries. They have little leverage over what happens in places like China or the Congo. AND THEY HATE FOSSIL FUELS.. With their deepest passion.

Unfortunately for them -- they also hate nuclear power, Large hydro and ALL the major sources of energy in the 21st century.. So there is no cogent argument for eradicting ALL of these -- especially when they offer no viable alternatives for ADVANCED WESTERN societies. So the opportunity to formulate a GLOBAL crisis and at the same time give them control in the western democracies of energy policy is CO2 regulation. Or as they say now "carbon" which is PURPOSEFULLY ambigious and nebulous so as to PURPOSELY CONFUSE the CO2 global warming issue with REAL --- honest to God pollution.. Just as you did in your last line. Kerry has repeatedly said what you said there. If we are wrong about GW -- the worst thing that will happen is the enviro will be cleaner.

All that PRESUMES that there ARE viable alternatives. There are none. So -- it's worth it to Leftist movements all over the world to hobble the advanced economies, exert economic Imperialism over dirt poor developing nations with an exaggerated crisis of Global proportions. The lies of Al Gore, the revelations of the ClimateGate emails, the tensions about the UN IPCC "process" and the utterly FAILED predictions of this juvenile science are all testimony to the POLITICAL motives behind this farce..

The "fable" of Global Warming is based on some science that correctly identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The warming due to CO2 increases ALONE are insufficient to trigger a bigger enough crisis. So GWarming theory INVENTS a lot of Magic Multipliers that essentially say that CO2 is only the TRIGGER for the apocalyptic future doom. That the planet atmos. is so fragile -- that a change of 1 or 2 degC will set off RUNAWAY WARMING due to positive feedbacks and that's where they get the script for the horror film. They turn 1 or 2 degC into 4 or even 8degC with magic and guessing and modeling. No historical empirical evidence to suggest that the Planet has a suicide wish and will destroy all life because SOMETHING raised the surface temperature by a degree or two...

and learned to love greenhouse gasses?

Your answer to my question, Cui Bono? seems to be the "Leftists" in the "eco-movement". You can't mean the whole eco-movement. Obviously there are people from all over the world and all across the political spectrum engaged in thousands of groups and projects to save or improve ecologies in every part of the globe. And from my observation extreme leftists are marginalized in all the Western Democracies. Or are you saying that it's the moderate Left driving this conspiracy?

Of course it's the entire institutionalized Eco movement that HATES fossil fuels. And for most part big hydro and nuclear. There may be some pro-nuclear eco leaders and orgs, but not many. EVEN THO -- nuclear is the most VIABLE solution to cutting CO2 emissions at the moment. Seems that the eco-left is more afraid of nuclear than they are of Global warming.

Moderate --- Extreme Left? I'm not qualified to say. What is a Barbara Boxer or Al Waxman? What is Al Gore? What is the political leaning of WWF or Greenpeace or more importantly the ring-masters at the UN where this GLOBAL crisis is managed? I DO KNOW that the political leaning of Academic Science and I am intimately familiar with the incestuest, primadonna leftist tendencies there.

Either way I still can't buy it. I'll quote myself here, "A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe." And those are just a couple of the components that would have to be involved for this conspiracy to garner the wide-ranging support it has. I've read 9/11 Conspiracy Theories with more plausible scenarios than this.

You say, "All that PRESUMES that there ARE viable alternatives. There are none." I've seen Technology do a lot of "miraculous" things in the last 50 years. I don't doubt for one second it can overcome whatever problems there are in providing alternative power sources. Just look at the advances in electric cars. And there are now solar panels that power spacecraft hundreds of millions further away from the Sun than the Earth is. Solar is the ultimate source of hydro power and fossil fuels anyway, all they have to do is find a more direct route to the source.

I'm sorry, but for me, without evidence to the contrary that amounts to more than anti-Leftist rhetoric, "The fable of Global Warming" iis still a fable constructed by a broad range of anti-science far right wing conspiracy theorists with more "faith" than proof.

I remember well when "they" tried to convince us that Lead in gasoline was perfectly harmless, as was tobacco. And flourine in the water supply was a Communist conspiracy.

Powering a spacecraft is NOTHING LIKE supplying the daily Grid demand. Spacecraft are designed with solar technologies that are not commercially feasible and the functions of spacecraft are to be IDLE most of the time. Communications for example from deep space are sent back SLOWER than your old 9600 baud modem to save power.

Solar is a 6 hour per day power PEAKER technology -- not an alternative to any of our reliable 24/7/365 sources that the eco-left abhor. And wind is a complete waste of money for powering the ER of a hospital..

The "faith" is fully implemented in the Warmer belief that the Earth will destroy itself if a 1 or 2 degC trigger in temperature rise is experienced. That's what you have to BELIEVE in order to support the concept that we will see 4 or 8 degC rise before we reach 560ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.. And the Church of Global Warming REQUIRES belief that we are NOW SEEING the effects of 0.5degC rise in global surface temperature in your lifetime. They are blaming every "extreme weather event" on that miniscule change. Like the crowds that gather when the Virgin Mary appears on the side of a building in Rio... Blaming any hurricane that hits the US on Global Warming or the death of 19 firefighters in Arizona on the same Gaian divine powers.

 

[Crick]

Lemme take an honest whack at your questions.

Whack, yes. Honest, most definitely NOT.

The eco-movement has been quite successful.

They HAVE ? ? ?

REALLY ? ? ?

Gosh, our CO2 emissions are down to almost nothing. And look how that warming has stopped dead in its tracks!

THey face a problem of diminishing returns on the pollution problem in ADVANCED and WESTERN countries. They have little leverage over what happens in places like China or the Congo. AND THEY HATE FOSSIL FUELS.. With their deepest passion.

So AGW alarmists are all powerless, irrational, hysterical zealots. That must make your job easier. One has to wonder why you've had such a problem overcoming their arguments. *

Unfortunately for them -- they also hate nuclear power, Large hydro and ALL the major sources of energy in the 21st century.. So there is no cogent argument for eradicting ALL of these -- especially when they offer no viable alternatives for ADVANCED WESTERN societies.

AGW alarmists are haters and they want the entire world (at least the freedom loving parts of it anyway) to go dark. AGW alarmists LIKE the dark. We like the smell of mushrooms and mold. And we like to see people suffer. Particularly the poor. Yeah.

There are a broad range of people who oppose nuclear power. I'm not one of them myself. I think nuclear power is a wonderful thing - as long as you use your head when you build the things. For instance, building them on top of unstable geological faults is not a good idea. Building them on coastlines subject to tsunamis is not a good idea. But there are places you can build them and ways in which they should be built, where they will run their full lifetime without a hint of trouble. But getting back to the topic: a broad range of people are not amicable towards nuclear power with many new faces added by Fukushima and the 11 Mar 11 Tsunami. And I'm quite certain that a significant proportion of AGW deniers would fall into that camp. And a significant number of "AGW alarmists" and "eco-nuts", such as myself, find nuclear power not only acceptable but desirable. The lack of carbon, particulate and oxide emissions make them well worth the risk, particularly if that risk is properly addressed.

So the opportunity to formulate a GLOBAL crisis and at the same time give them control in the western democracies of energy policy is CO2 regulation. Or as they say now "carbon" which is PURPOSEFULLY ambigious and nebulous so as to PURPOSELY CONFUSE the CO2 global warming issue with REAL --- honest to God pollution.. Just as you did in your last line. Kerry has repeatedly said what you said there. If we are wrong about GW -- the worst thing that will happen is the enviro will be cleaner.

Now comes the political demonization and paranoia. We have presented here a conspiracy that makes those ten-thousand, conniving, climate scientists look like the gang at the office water cooler on a Sunday afternoon. We AGW alarmists are being purposefully ambiguous and purposefully confusing because we fabricated AGW out of whole cloth solely for the purpose of gaining power over energy policies. This is FCT's "honest whack"? For god's sake give us a fooking break!

All that PRESUMES that there ARE viable alternatives. There are none.

"There are none". "NONE". No nuclear power. No hydroelectic plants. No natural gas. No photovoltaic. No solar thermal. No wind. No tidal. No wave. No OTEC. No geothermal. None. It's either burn coal and oil or go dark. Those are your choices. Per FCT's "honest whack".

So -- it's worth it to Leftist movements all over the world to hobble the advanced economies, exert economic Imperialism over dirt poor developing nations with an exaggerated crisis of Global proportions. The lies of Al Gore, the revelations of the ClimateGate emails, the tensions about the UN IPCC "process" and the utterly FAILED predictions of this juvenile science are all testimony to the POLITICAL motives behind this farce..

Have you noticed how the advanced economies have been hobbled? Industries shuttered as their power supplies are shut down by angry leftist mobs. Witness the economic Imperialism (sic) leftists have exerted over the third world - a practice in which the right wing and the multinational petroleum corporations have never indulged. Talk to us about the lies of Al Gore - that humans have raised CO2 levels, that CO2 causes greenhouse warming, that global warming presents real threats to human society. Show us all these failed predictions: increased temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, droughts, floods, intensified weather. All failed. None of that has happened. Has it.

The "fable" of Global Warming is based on some science that correctly identifies CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

"Some" science? How about a shit load of science going back almost 200 years?

The warming due to CO2 increases ALONE are insufficient to trigger a bigger enough crisis. So GWarming theory INVENTS a lot of Magic Multipliers that essentially say that CO2 is only the TRIGGER for the apocalyptic future doom.

This is an interesting take on reality. We start with a lowball on the direct warming effects of CO2 but then we take a procedural twist without parallel. We have a problem in the real world, but FCT and his sources do not think it fair to address that problem in the real world. We must address it as if it were taking place in the simplest of laboratory set ups. We must ignore what will ACTUALLY happen as this problem progresses IN THE REAL WORLD. This is like looking at the dangers of house fires but purposefully ignoring smoke. This is like restricting a study on the hazards of smoking cigarettes to lung cancer and willfully disregarding cancers of the bladder, the throat, the lips, the tongue, hypertension, hypoxia, coronary heart disease and emphysema. Those "multipliers" aren't "magic", they're the goddamned positive feedback mechanisms that EXIST in this world of ours and that WILL produce the temperatures FCT doesn't want to hear about.

That the planet atmos. is so fragile -- that a change of 1 or 2 degC will set off RUNAWAY WARMING due to positive feedbacks and that's where they get the script for the horror film.

Smedley, ask FCT to show you a quote from any one of the five IPCC assessment reports that suggests anything like a significant risk of "RUNAWAY WARMING".

They turn 1 or 2 degC into 4 or even 8degC with magic and guessing and modeling.

Magic and guessing and modeling. All the same process, really. Right? There's no intellect applied in constructing GCMs. There's no attempt to make them reflect actual climatological processes. There's no physics inside there. They just crunch up some numbers - any old numbers - and then generate predictions of the Earth cooking like a flat rock in the Sahara. That's all climate scientists are capable of doing (being grossly incompetent or utterly amoral or both). Right?

No historical empirical evidence to suggest that the Planet has a suicide wish and will destroy all life because SOMETHING raised the surface temperature by a degree or two...

Producing something that you claim is part and parcel of your debating opponents position but is not and that is only there to provide you an easy target, is known as a "straw man". It's bullshit, but I guess FCT has had to use it and dozen other deviously bogus argumentative techniques so often, that the guilt of lying has just faded away to indiscernibility. He's numb. He can't feel it anymore. At least that's the way it seems to me.

Of course it's the entire institutionalized Eco movement that HATES fossil fuels. And for most part big hydro and nuclear. There may be some pro-nuclear eco leaders and orgs, but not many. EVEN THO -- nuclear is the most VIABLE solution to cutting CO2 emissions at the moment. Seems that the eco-left is more afraid of nuclear than they are of Global warming.*

That doesn't gibe well with our leftist administration in Washington doing everything they can to accelerate the approval and construction process for more nuclear power. And, of course, it has nothing to do with Fukushima. Did FCT mention Fukushima? Hmm... maybe he wants us to think that opposition to nuclear power is ALL irrational.

Moderate --- Extreme Left? I'm not qualified to say. What is a Barbara Boxer or Al Waxman? What is Al Gore? What is the political leaning of WWF or Greenpeace or more importantly the ring-masters at the UN where this GLOBAL crisis is managed? I DO KNOW that the political leaning of Academic Science and I am intimately familiar with the incestuest, primadonna leftist tendencies there.**

They are all moderates. There are no extreme leftists in office in the federal government. The WWF and Greenpeace reflect the centroid of the political spectrum of their donors. I've got a better question: who are the donors - the puppet masters - who guide the activities of (or simply created from whole cloth) organizations such as the Heartland Institute? The American Enterprise Institute? The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)? Americans for Prosperity? Beacon Hill Institute? The Cato Institute? The Competitive Enterprise Institute? Heritage Foundation? The Institute for Energy Research? Do ANY of these organizations represent objective science? Actual grass roots concerns of American citizens? No. They are the fable-spinners of the rich, the right and the fossil fuel barons of the modern age.

Powering a spacecraft is NOTHING LIKE supplying the daily Grid demand. Spacecraft are designed with solar technologies that are not commercially feasible and the functions of spacecraft are to be IDLE most of the time. Communications for example from deep space are sent back SLOWER than your old 9600 baud modem to save power.*

The ISS operates on solar power. Do its systems spend the bulk of their time on "IDLE"? Does the live video the astronauts send back on an almost daily basis come home over a 9600 baud link? Quite a trick. And precisely what photovoltaic technologies do the astronauts use that is not commercially viable? The latest spacecraft systems use multi-junction gallium arsenide/silicon cells. You can buy the same panels for your house. They won't be the cheapest panels around, but if you were paying the $10,000 a pound NASA pays to get them into orbit, you'd place a pretty high premium on efficiency, wouldn't you.

Solar is a 6 hour per day power PEAKER technology -- not an alternative to any of our reliable 24/7/365 sources that the eco-left abhor.

Obviously solar doesn't produce much energy when the sun's not out. Neither does any system when its fuel disappears. Fortunately, the fact that the energy it DOES produce when the sun is out is completely FREE of fuel costs means there's enough money saved there that it's economically feasible to augment solar systems with traditionally fueled systems (and still cut carbon emissions significantly) or add large scale storage systems such as the vanadium redox flow batteries recently discussed here. Zero fuel costs opens up a world of opportunities forever closed to systems burning coal, oil or natural gas.

And wind is a complete waste of money for powering the ER of a hospital.

Another straw man here of course. Ask FCT to identify utilities that have gone to pure wind and found themselves unable to supply their customers when the breezes calmed. You'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE as stupid as FCT and other deniers would have you believe is the center of the curve among people concerned about AGW.

The "faith" is fully implemented in the Warmer belief that the Earth will destroy itself if a 1 or 2 degC trigger in temperature rise is experienced.

Such statements are not to be found outside of denier claims such as this one.

That's what you have to BELIEVE in order to support the concept that we will see 4 or 8 degC rise before we reach 560ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere..

No. All that is necessary is to believe that positive feedback mechanisms exists. Ironically, the greatest of them is one deniers bring up more often than almost any other point in the discussion: that warming leads CO2. The geological record clearly shows that when temperatures increase, CO2 comes out of solution in the ocean and methane comes out of sequestration in frozen tundra. That is the largest positive feedback mechanism to CO2's greenhouse warming: more greenhouse gases.

And the Church of Global Warming REQUIRES belief that we are NOW SEEING the effects of 0.5degC rise in global surface temperature in your lifetime. They are blaming every "extreme weather event" on that miniscule change. Like the crowds that gather when the Virgin Mary appears on the side of a building in Rio... Blaming any hurricane that hits the US on Global Warming or the death of 19 firefighters in Arizona on the same Gaian divine powers.

I have a real good suggestion: when you want to see what the case is for AGW and what harms it is believed it will cause, look to some knowledgeable, objective sources. The best place to start is the latest assessment report of the International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC's AR5. There you will find excellent science, conservative projections, well supported arguments laced with qualifications (ie, how likely) and the closest thing around to the current state of the opinion of the world's experts on this topic.

If you want to see the sort of manufactured mummery that desperation exceeding moral boundaries in an environment of scientific ignorance can produce, read what the deniers have to say.

 

[flacaltenn]

Lemme take an honest whack at your questions.

Whack, yes. Honest, most definitely NOT.

The eco-movement has been quite successful.

They HAVE ? ? ?

REALLY ? ? ?

Gosh, our CO2 emissions are down to almost nothing. And look how that warming has stopped dead in its tracks!

Radical whackoloons like Crick are EXTREMELY rare and dangerous. We are blessed with his Version2.0 life on USMB. Here is a prime example of a believer so damaged and brainwashed that he equates the ENTIRE HISTORY and current state of Enviro affairs with a trace atmospheric gas. No concept or cares or recognition of any other enviro issues that do not mention his sole fixation on CO2.. Their hijacking of the enviro movement is more dangerous than the powers of cow farts or beer fizz..

Do not attempt to reprogram this droid. His kind is numbered.. And we have a DUTY to preserve biodiversity and survival of his gene pool.. Because it represents a warning to society of how batshit crazy these religious zealots truly are...

 

[itfitzme]

noaa quietly decided that 2012 was not the hottest on record after all...

Globaloney: NOAA Quietly Changes Warmest Year Back to 1936 Without Comment | Wizbang

This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately. In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.

Your reference shows no evidence of its claim and I've been all over th NOAA site and find no such information.

 

[Crick]

Radical whackoloons like Crick are EXTREMELY rare and dangerous. We are blessed with his Version2.0 life on USMB. Here is a prime example of a believer so damaged and brainwashed that he equates the ENTIRE HISTORY and current state of Enviro affairs with a trace atmospheric gas. No concept or cares or recognition of any other enviro issues that do not mention his sole fixation on CO2.. Their hijacking of the enviro movement is more dangerous than the powers of cow farts or beer fizz..

Do not attempt to reprogram this droid. His kind is numbered.. And we have a DUTY to preserve biodiversity and survival of his gene pool.. Because it represents a warning to society of how batshit crazy these religious zealots truly are...

Didn't like getting that many corrections in one post, did you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Radical whackoloons like Crick are EXTREMELY rare and dangerous. We are blessed with his Version2.0 life on USMB. Here is a prime example of a believer so damaged and brainwashed that he equates the ENTIRE HISTORY and current state of Enviro affairs with a trace atmospheric gas. No concept or cares or recognition of any other enviro issues that do not mention his sole fixation on CO2.. Their hijacking of the enviro movement is more dangerous than the powers of cow farts or beer fizz..

Do not attempt to reprogram this droid. His kind is numbered.. And we have a DUTY to preserve biodiversity and survival of his gene pool.. Because it represents a warning to society of how batshit crazy these religious zealots truly are...

Didn't like getting that many corrections in one post, did you.

Corrections?? Izat what ya call 'em? I stopped at the 1st couple of whateveryoucallem because you clearly demonstrated how clueless and desperate you are. Why don't you respond to my CORRECTION of whateveryoucallem?? Why is it that your mind is so entirely closed to environmental issues that don't have to do with CO2 and GW?

THAT was not a correction. That was a plain old assholic move...

 

[Crick]

Corrections. Yes. That's what I call them. They are given in response to errors.

Here's one more: Mischaracterizing your opponents as you've been doing is not a sign of confidence. Try to keep in mind that they're the ones with mainstream science on their side and you're not.

 

[jc456]

Corrections. Yes. That's what I call them. They are given in response to errors.

Here's one more: Mischaracterizing your opponents as you've been doing is not a sign of confidence. Try to keep in mind that they're the ones with mainstream science on their side and you're not.

And yet still no evidence of 120PPM of CO2 driving climate. All of those corrections you claim, yet you can't find one piece of evidence to support your claim. Now that's special in my world!

 

[mamooth]

Here's something the deniers might want to look at, a layman's explanation of temperature data set corrections. It's on Judith Curry's blog, an approved denier source, so denier cult members are permitted to look at it. I know how important it is for denier cultists to believe their souls have remained pure, unsullied by contact with heretics that contradict their religious beliefs.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

Even at a layman's level, it's going to be beyond the grasp of most deniers, but I can't help out there. Complicated issues can only be dumbed down so much.