The Global Warmers Have Lost the War

[Billy_Bob]

Deny this.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots

When your desperate, do things to the graphs that make it look like it is much worse than it really is...

 

[orogenicman]

Deny this.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots

When your desperate, do things to the graphs that make it look like it is much worse that it really is...

It doesn't change the direction of the slope.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then there is historical perspective... Which shows today as nothing special in any way..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Deny this.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots

When your desperate, do things to the graphs that make it look like it is much worse that it really is...

It doesn't change the direction of the slope.

But when placed into historical context, it is a meaningless slope..

 

[Defiant1]

Sorry Warmists, you were wrong. Please stop being hysterical ninnies......

------------------------------------------------------

It’s always nice to see a leftist outfit finally fess up to a lost cause. The global warming crowd has clearly lost, and this Mother Jones article makes this clear.

The governments of the world have not implemented the Kyoto treaty of 1992 or its 1997 update. The whole thing lapsed on December 31, 2012. It’s over. Kaput. Think of it as Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Clinton never submitted it to the Senate. Neither did Obama. It was allowed to die of old age.

In the latest article, we see that the far, far radicals of the global warming agenda had a metric of failure. If carbon dioxide reached a level of 350 parts per million, the end of the world would be in sight.

It is now at 400.

This 350 metric has been promoted for years by James Hansen. One of his acolytes is “deep ecologist” Bill McKibben, who has been sounding the alarm on the supposed ecological crisis ever since the 1980’s. He wrote a book on ecology in 1989: The End of Nature. (Note: nature is still here.)

All is lost! The end is near!”

When all is lost, the sensible response is to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Anyway, maybe by 2076. After McKibben has gone to his deep ecological reward.

We are beyond the point of no return. Right? I mean, if the metric had any validity in the first place, only one conclusion is sensible: “Head for the hills! It’s cooler there.”

So, will these people just go away now? Will they at least shut up? Not a chance. McKibben has created a cottage industry. He has a website: 350.org. The site does not tell us what 350 stands for: “All is lost! The end is near!”

The global warming movement has had no measurable political results, and also no measurable impact on temperature.


Yes, it’s true that global warming ended 18 years ago. But global warming activists do not take credit for this. In fact, they do their best to explain it away. That is because national governments have done nothing to stop CO2 emissions, yet global warming ended. No one needed the Kyoto Protocols or its 1997 update to stop global warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Game over.

In war until you have neutralized every single one of your enemy or your enemy has unconditionally surrendered to you, you haven't won.

Keep fighting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Losing" would be resorting to delusional nonsense like "no warming for 18 years". Losing would be having every bit of the data saying your fringe kook political cult is just nuts. Yep, the deniers.

Winners don't have to lie, fake data, and babble conspiracy theories about the VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy. Deniers do have to do those things.

Zander, why did you think you could try to pass off a cult kook lie like that and not get mocked for it? If your goal was to demonstrate your conspiracy cult has no regard for truth, you've succeeded.

Winners don't have to lie, fake data,

That's how we know you're losing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why the Death of Coal in America Is Saving You Money - DailyFinance

What is surprising is that the rate at which electricity prices have increased has actually slowed at the same time as coal plants are being shut down. Between 2001 and 2008, when coal usage was still growing, the price of electricity increased 4.2 percent a year in the U.S. In the six years since, electricity prices have increased just 1.2 percent a year.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
That's partly due to the falling cost of natural gas and partly because wind and solar energy are now lower-cost than coal or natural gas. Investment bank Lazard issues ban annual report called Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis that analyzes the cost to build new power plants, and coal at 6.6-15.1 cents per kWh is now more expensive than wind at 1.4-6.7 cents per kWh and even utility solar at 5.6-8.6 cents per kWh.

Coal is dead as a generation source. The plants will be shut down as soon as they need major maintenance. And then we taxpayers will be hit with the costs of cleaning up more superfund sites that the present energy corperations should never have let happen.

That's partly due to the falling cost of natural gas

The support that warmers have given to fracking must receive the credit for this.

 

[jc456]

"Losing" would be resorting to delusional nonsense like "no warming for 18 years". Losing would be having every bit of the data saying your fringe kook political cult is just nuts. Yep, the deniers.

Winners don't have to lie, fake data, and babble conspiracy theories about the VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy. Deniers do have to do those things.

Zander, why did you think you could try to pass off a cult kook lie like that and not get mocked for it? If your goal was to demonstrate your conspiracy cult has no regard for truth, you've succeeded.

"Whining" would be to constantly posting your trivial babble after the other side posts factual information. Dude/ dudette, you do this 'whining' over and over. Everyone sees it on the board. You are losing the battle and only have posts like your latest in an attempt to save face. can you say 'F A I L'?

BTW, the IPCC AR5 report confirms the 18 year hiatus. Perhaps you should actually read something.

Ah, but I know you won't

 

[jc456]

So, you are for subjugating the Middle Class by denying them jobs and hiking their utilities by 60%.

Got it.

You've been saying that for years.

And yet electric rates haven't gone up at all.

Your chicken little act keeps looking more ridiculous. Are you going to give it up, or do you plan to just keep on screaming about how the sky is falling, no matter how many people point and laugh?

I will say one thing. Your consistent failure on every topic is impressive. You deniers are somewhat useful in the way you're always wrong. If you predict something, it's highly likely the exact opposite will come to pass.

sure electric rates went up. have you kept your head in the sand so long that you missed the whole European disaster? Come now, you have to have some flippin common sense. You have to. I can't imagine you don't. But posting mis information as frequently as you do regarding the costs of green energy, well it's sad.

 

[orogenicman]

Then there is historical perspective... Which shows today as nothing special in any way..

You realize, of course, that Watt is not a scientist, and has no science degree. Right? Moreover, this is Jouzel's actual graph:

Please note how wrong Watt's claim is regarding the change in temperature. Watt intentionally altered the y-axis. The overall change in temperature on the graph is closer to 12 degrees, not 3.5.

 

[orogenicman]

Deny this.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots

When your desperate, do things to the graphs that make it look like it is much worse that it really is...

It doesn't change the direction of the slope.

But when placed into historical context, it is a meaningless slope..

When put into the perspective of environment consequences, it means everything.

 

[cnm]

Give Billy_Bob credit where due, he dismissed the idea that no warming had happened in 18 years.

 

[Zander]

Sorry Enviro-nutters- It's an acknowledged "consensus" fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for nearly 2 decades. Dedicated enviro-nuttters even refer to it as "the pause" and have a whole host of excuses for it. Shall we go over them? Sure, why not! Here are the top 10 "excuses" for the pause...(the nutjobs are up to 52 excuses now!)

1) Low solar activity

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

3) Chinese coal use [debunked]

4) Montreal Protocol

5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor

8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]

9) Stadium Waves

10) ‘Coincidence!’

Full List of excuses


You simply can't make this shit up. The AGW theory is WRONG. Increased CO2 concentration does not cause "global warming". It's all a convenient lie. We see the man behind the curtain and he's a shyster.....

 

[jc456]

Then there is historical perspective... Which shows today as nothing special in any way..

You realize, of course, that Watt is not a scientist, and has no science degree. Right? Moreover, this is Jouzel's actual graph:

Please note how wrong Watt's claim is regarding the change in temperature. Watt intentionally altered the y-axis. The overall change in temperature on the graph is closer to 12 degrees, not 3.5.

you do know that it is just a web site to collect others data? You do know this right? Please state you do so as to not look like a bigger fool.

 

[boedicca]

The Global Warming movement is just a pretext to establish totalitarian World Government.

Just sayin'.

 

[jc456]

Sorry Enviro-nutters- It's an acknowledged "consensus" fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for nearly 2 decades. Dedicated enviro-nuttters even refer to it as "the pause" and have a whole host of excuses for it. Shall we go over them? Sure, why not! Here are the top 10 "excuses" for the pause...(the nutjobs are up to 52 excuses now!)

1) Low solar activity

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

3) Chinese coal use [debunked]

4) Montreal Protocol

5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor

8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]

9) Stadium Waves

10) ‘Coincidence!’

Full List of excuses


You simply can't make this shit up. The AGW theory is WRONG. Increased CO2 concentration does not cause "global warming". It's all a convenient lie. We see the man behind the curtain and he's a shyster.....

even the IPCC AR5 report acknowledged it.

from the IPCC bullet in their summary:

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and
interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

 

[mamooth]

jc, you just destroyed Zander's claim. Well done.

Zander claimed no warming. You just documented there was less warming. Less warming is still warming. Hence, you proved Zander to be totally wrong.

Thanks for the help.

 

[PredFan]

Again, this is the wrong argument.

Wether the planet is warming or not is open for debate, interpretation, and subject to cherry picking from both sides. If he is not, then there is nothing we can do about the temperature.

 

[jc456]

jc, you just destroyed Zander's claim. Well done.

Zander claimed no warming. You just documented there was less warming. Less warming is still warming. Hence, you proved Zander to be totally wrong.

Thanks for the help.

yep, we've all stated that. Still makes it a hiatus, it isn't the level expected based on the rise in CO2. So that alone disproves the theory that temperatures follow CO2. Additionally,

from the IPCC summary:

"It is about as likely as not that ocean heat content from 0–700 m increased more slowly during 2003 to 2010 than during 1993 to 2002 (see Figure SPM.3). Ocean heat uptake from 700–2000 m, where interannual variability is smaller, likely continued unabated from 1993 to 2009. {3.2, Box 9.2}'

BTW, they call that statistically insignificant.

 

[Zander]

"Hockey Stick"
"Data Smoothing"
"Hide the Decline"
"the ocean ate my global warming"
"scientific consensus"
"The Pause"