or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Leftist Hate Speech
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leftist Hate Speech - Page 4

post #121 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Taskiss I've read Spencer's work including all of his own website, arguing the levels of warming pose no serious threats. If you want to argue from a perpective that is so set against AGW on his speculation alone you've got a narrative that's purpose is predominately hostile to all the other science out there. Your interest in proving that AGW isn't happening is not only dismissed by the scientist but people and lanscapes all around the globe. It's a position that increasingly looks rediculous as people see with there own eyes glaciers disappear around the world and on and on.

There are websites across the internet you will see telperature readings, including this one. Why you need me to post any is beyond me. If you've got a point you want to make, just make it and given you have a photo website to get images onto this forum you'll be able to post whatever you want right onto the forum page, which is something I can't do at the moment as I have no photo site account.

Here's a good article in the most recent New Scientist;

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Quote:
What it all means

If a 1 metre rise in sea level doesn't sound like much, consider this: about 60 million people live within 1 metre of mean sea level, a number expected to grow to about 130 million by 2100.

Much of this population lives in the nine major river deltas in south and southeast Asia. Parts of countries such as Bangladesh, along with some island nations like the Maldives, will simply be submerged.

According to a 2005 report, a 1-metre rise in sea level will affect 13 million people in five European countries and destroy property worth $600 billion, with the Netherlands the worst affected. In the UK, existing defences are insufficient to protect parts of the east and south coast, including the cities of Hull and Portsmouth.

Besides inundation, higher seas raise the risk of severe storm surges and dangerous flooding. The entire Atlantic seaboard of North America, including New York, Boston and Washington DC, and the Gulf coast will become more vulnerable to hurricanes. Today's 100-year storm floods might occur as often as every four years - in which case it will make more sense to abandon devastated regions and towns than to keep rebuilding them.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #122 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Here's a good article in the most recent New Scientist;

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Thankyou, it's astonishing more isn't being done. Things are messed up. There's a lot of links on there I'll get to later, but a very comprehensive article.

Here is some very promising progress, not least for Bolivia - "The team of MIT physicists and engineers said they have been able to boost the output of solar cells by as much as 50% by changing the makeup of the silicon films on the cells. The research team said the advancement could dramatically reduce the cost of using solar power because it slashes the amount of pricey high-quality silicon needed to 1% OF THE USUAL AMOUNT."

and..." The researchers are working on designs for high-altitude wind turbine kites that fly so high that airliners would have to fly around them, according to Stanford. Flying an expected 30,000 feet above the Earth, the tethered kites would be able to reach powerful jet streams that can flow 10 times faster than winds closer to the ground."
~ http://www.computerworld.com/action/...c=news_ts_head
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #123 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Your interest in proving that AGW isn't happening is not only dismissed by the scientist but people and lanscapes all around the globe. It's a position that increasingly looks rediculous as people see with there own eyes glaciers disappear around the world and on and on.

The way you continue to mischaracterize my position is exactly the issue I continue to respond to, Hands.

I question the conclusions and point out the inconsistencies put out by the global warming advocates. No more, no less. I question what is being promoted as the anthropomorphic effects contributing to the natural climate cycle and I question the correlation between a specific greenhouse gas and the global temperature trends. Lots of politicians are involved wanting to spend money they didn't earn "fixing" a problem I'm not sure exists, I question if there is any amount of money that can change a thig.

You insist on personalizing the difference between our positions. Well, good on you, but I also notice a void where you suggest facts exist...
Quote:
There are websites across the internet you will see telperature readings, including this one. Why you need me to post any is beyond me.

Websites across the internet posting graphs of the last 10 years of global satellite data is that common? Why, then you shouldn't have any problem posting a link. I made a claim that the satellite data suggests the last decade didn't show global temperature increases and you challenged that claim. I posted evidence from an acknowledged expert in satellite temperature monitoring to support my assertion. You... not so much.
post #124 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

The way you continue to mischaracterize my position is exactly the issue I continue to respond to, Hands.

I question the conclusions and point out the inconsistencies put out by the global warming advocates. No more, no less. I question what is being promoted as the anthropomorphic effects contributing to the natural climate cycle and I question the correlation between a specific greenhouse gas and the global temperature trends. Lots of politicians are involved wanting to spend money they didn't earn "fixing" a problem I'm not sure exists, I question if there is any amount of money that can change a thig.

You insist on personalizing the difference between our positions. Well, good on you, but I also notice a void where you suggest facts exist...Websites across the internet posting graphs of the last 10 years of global satellite data is that common? Why, then you shouldn't have any problem posting a link. I made a claim that the satellite data suggests the last decade didn't show global temperature increases and you challenged that claim. I posted evidence from an acknowledged expert in satellite temperature monitoring to support my assertion. You... not so much.

Global warming advocates? That would be the contrarians/denialists. Otherwise those three words are a direct mischaracterization of the position of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

Satellite temperature measurements

Quote:
To compare to the increase from the surface record (of approximately +0.07 °C/decade over the past century and +0.17 °C/decade since 1979) it is more appropriate to derive trends for the lower troposphere in which the stratospheric cooling is removed. Doing this, through May 2009:
  • RSS v3.1 finds a trend of +0.154 °C/decade.
  • UAH analysis finds +0.13°C/decade.

Satellite Temperatures

Hmm, RSS, UAH, and surface temperature trends are all positive through May 2009, the most recent month available from all four (two land based and two satellite based).

Instrumental temperature record

Quote:
For the last 50 years, the linear warming trend has been 0.13 °C [0.10 to 0.16 °C] per decade according to IPCC AR4 WG1.

Discussion of the satellite temperature records

Quote:
In the late 1990s the disagreement between the surface temperature record and the satellite records was a subject of research and debate. The lack of warming then seen in the records was noted. A report by the National Research Council that reviewed upper air temperature trends stated:

"Data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low- to mid-troposphere—the atmospheric layer extending up to about 5 miles from the Earth's surface. Climate models generally predict that temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the warming."

However, the same panel then concluded that

"the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising."As noted earlier, these temperature data, misinterpreted from the satellite data, are now known to have been too low.

An important critique of the satellite record is its shortness—adding a few years on to the record or picking a particular time frame can change the trends considerably. The problems with the length of the MSU record is shown by the table below, which shows the UAH TLT (lower tropospheric) global trend (°C/decade) beginning with Dec 1978 and ending with December of the year shown;

1991 0.087
1992 0.024
1993 -0.013
1994 -0.003
1995 0.033
1996 0.036
1997 0.040
1998 0.112
1999 0.105
2000 0.095
2001 0.103
2002 0.121
2003 0.129
2004 0.130
2005 0.139
2006 0.140
2007 0.143

Likewise, even though they began with the same data, each of the major research groups has interpreted it with different results. Most notably, Mears et al. at RSS find 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.

There are ongoing efforts to resolve these differences. Some believe that much of the disparity may have been resolved by the three papers in Science, 11 August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #125 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

The way you continue to mischaracterize my position is exactly the issue I continue to respond to, Hands.

I question the conclusions and point out the inconsistencies put out by the global warming advocates. No more, no less. I question what is being promoted as the anthropomorphic effects contributing to the natural climate cycle and I question the correlation between a specific greenhouse gas and the global temperature trends. Lots of politicians are involved wanting to spend money they didn't earn "fixing" a problem I'm not sure exists, I question if there is any amount of money that can change a thig.

You insist on personalizing the difference between our positions. Well, good on you, but I also notice a void where you suggest facts exist...Websites across the internet posting graphs of the last 10 years of global satellite data is that common? Why, then you shouldn't have any problem posting a link. I made a claim that the satellite data suggests the last decade didn't show global temperature increases and you challenged that claim. I posted evidence from an acknowledged expert in satellite temperature monitoring to support my assertion. You... not so much.



Are you denying that at least 8 of the hottest years globally over the last 150 years were 1998, 2002 , 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 ( NASA goes further, they actually believes that the 10 warmest years on record happened in the last 12 years, between 1997-2008)?

Spencer now acknowledges that global temperature rises are large, he just doesn't believe that CO2, methane etc is the cause of it. He believes that because, he believes the temperature rises have been so great that CO2 and other GH gases, could not possibly create that much warming!

There is accurate data for CO2 levels in the atmosphere going back hundreds of thousands of years. In the last approximately 650,000 years the largest rise in CO2, before our present time, was an 80 ppm rise, which took more than 5,000 years to accumulate. Now we've risen nearly 80 ppm in just the last 50 years. Spencer thinks it's the amount of cloud cover warming the planet ( clouds have a huge effect on temperatures, particularly oceans, I'm certainly not doubting that), but the temperatures and GH gases are significantly out of whack, no huge volcano eruptions, no extra solar activity etc. In other words none of the factors that have influenced temperature before, are out of the ordinary except GH gases.


Even though CO2 in the atmosphere is so dangerous the rate that we're pumping it into the atmosphere is rising sharply- "The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14ppm – the fourth year in the past six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm. From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...arbonemissions

And then there's China and India's massively growing CO2 emissions. Let's all hope clouds not CO2 is to blame, just like Spencer would like to gather enough evidence to show that that's the only possible cause of global warming! And lets not waste our money on what 95% of climatologists already believe is the cause, CO2!
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #126 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Are you denying that at least 8 of the hottest years globally over the last 150 years were 1998, 2002 , 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 ( NASA goes further, they actually believes that the 10 warmest years on record happened in the last 12 years, between 1997-2008)?

Spencer now acknowledges that global temperature rises are large, he just doesn't believe that CO2, methane etc is the cause of it. He believes that because, he believes the temperature rises have been so great that CO2 and other GH gases, could not possibly create that much warming!

There is accurate data for CO2 levels in the atmosphere going back hundreds of thousands of years. In the last approximately 650,000 years the largest rise in CO2, before our present time, was an 80 ppm rise, which took more than 5,000 years to accumulate. Now we've risen nearly 80 ppm in just the last 50 years. Spencer thinks it's the amount of cloud cover warming the planet ( clouds have a huge effect on temperatures, particularly oceans, I'm certainly not doubting that), but the temperatures and GH gases are significantly out of whack, no huge volcano eruptions, no extra solar activity etc. In other words none of the factors that have influenced temperature before, are out of the ordinary except GH gases.


Even though CO2 in the atmosphere is so dangerous the rate that we're pumping it into the atmosphere is rising sharply- "The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14ppm – the fourth year in the past six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm. From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...arbonemissions

And then there's China and India's massively growing CO2 emissions. Let's all hope clouds not CO2 is to blame, just like Spencer would like to gather enough evidence to show that that's the only possible cause of global warming! And lets not waste our money on what 95% of climatologists already believe is the cause, CO2!

Since you're across the pond and what all, have you seen the BBC series Earth: The Climate Wars?

1 - The Battle Begins
2 - Fightback
3 - New Challenges

Very well done IMHO.

Spencer appears in the 2nd part, more or less eating crow.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #127 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Killing or even blaming the messenger is an ad-hom fallacy.

Discussing my motivations as opposed to the thread contents is an ad-hom.

Discussing intentions (how things should be ) instead of discussing reality (what is actually happening) is delusional.

Motivations are often discussed because they are relevant to deciding whether or not it's worth participating in any "debate" on the issues. Or to determine the bias of any particular position.

Nice try though. Calling people delusional that dare to question your motives is a nice touch. Did you manage to get anyone banned this time? I didn't bother to read the thread.
post #128 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Are you denying...

I don't know if you're just dancing around your failure to find a graph to support your challenge to my assertion about global temperatures for the last decade or if there's another agenda, but let's just keep it simple...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The denialists are left with extreme views because all the more rational ground has fallen from under them as the reality of science casts light on their positions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss

And the last decade of non global warming? Seems that having "extreme views" would require someone to ignore facts.

OK, so you challenged my post, I posted a graph of the last 30 or so years of satellite temperature data by someone who served as a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA - a guy principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work - and asked for you to support your challenge.

Do it or don't, but your tired saw of "discredited data" and "same old ground" hardly stands without evidence. Where's the "reality of science" in that?
post #129 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Really really.

And, since a pic is worth more than a youtube ...


It's kinda funny that you can look at that chart and not see the obvious upward trending of temperature...especially given the convienent curve shown.

The temperature, from that graph, appears cyclical with an upward trend where you can see the lows a good 0.4 degrees higher in the second half as opposed to the first half.

The climate models show a 0.14-0.18 global warming trend per decade. Both satellite and ground observations support this. Now, you can argue that this trend is natural but the fact remains that the change is alarming. The global warming average is 0.35C in 1978 but 1.16C in the artic.

This could be natural but we certainly are not helping matters. Personally, I don't buy too much into climate change as something that requires a lot of action but I do believe that conservation is simply the right course regardless from any perspective (ecology, national security, economy, etc).

There is no need to believe in global warming required to try to reduce oil usage and reduce green house emissions.
post #130 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Since you're across the pond and what all, have you seen the BBC series Earth: The Climate Wars?

1 - The Battle Begins
2 - Fightback
3 - New Challenges

Very well done IMHO.

Spencer appears in the 2nd part, more or less eating crow.

No I haven't and I hadn't heard of it before. I searched on the BBC iPlayer and nothing came up (the iPlayer is advert free and let's you watch any programs from the last week whenever you want, it's great). But it is on google video and I'm watching the first one now. Thanks!

The link with the Asian subtitles has the full 1 hour episodes, not the first links, they're just 5 mins intros. http://video.google.com/videosearch?...&aq=f&start=10
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #131 of 195
vinea, I've never questioned the fact that global temperatures are increasing... after all, it's part of a natural cycle for the global climate to oscillate between glacial epochs. My criticism is directed at the political machinations directing economic policy. It's grandstanding the issue, fear mongering for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

The reason CO2 is being touted as the particular greenhouse gas responsible for the boogie man is because there is a direct relationship between the wealth of a nation ... and the lifestyle of a nations citizens ... and the amount of energy being expended in that nation. There's sure more of a direct correlation between wealth and energy usage than GW and CO2 increases, which is exactly why I posted the graph. CO2 and warming are supposed to be directly linked, and if temps decrease while CO2 increases ... a "not so direct link" can be assumed, but then what emergency will there be as an excuse to tax richer nations?

For folks that want a global world economy, taxing the richer nations and distributing the cash to poorer ones makes sense. For folks wanting to prepare for a world with higher global temps ... which will absolutely happen no matter what is done about CO2 emissions ... then what?

If this were a serious issue there would be increased government spending to desalinate sea water, alternative energy sources, etc, basically, measures to cope with the "coming disasters" that are in most part due to a normal climate cycle, but what is being offered as the "solution"? VERY slight reductions in emissions are being promoted at incredible costs (that won't appreciably reduce the CO2 levels at all, and sure won't result in decreased temps) and trillions and trillions of bucks redistributed from the first world nations to the third.

It's not about the climate, it's about politics, and the very fact that the IPPC was established by the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme, which reports annually to the General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council, shows the connections responsible for their behavior.

There are arguments that focus on following the money in efforts to depreciate the assertions of certain outspoken individuals... well, then follow it.
post #132 of 195
You are obviously a leading climate scientist and not part of the vast world wide climate science conspiracy. Bravo.
post #133 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

You are obviously a leading climate scientist and not part of the vast world wide climate science conspiracy. Bravo.

You must be God
post #134 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

You must be God

I farted and the world warmed.
post #135 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I don't know if you're just dancing around your failure to find a graph to support your challenge to my assertion about global temperatures for the last decade or if there's another agenda, but let's just keep it simple...
OK, so you challenged my post, I posted a graph of the last 30 or so years of satellite temperature data by someone who served as a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA - a guy principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work - and asked for you to support your challenge.

Do it or don't, but your tired saw of "discredited data" and "same old ground" hardly stands without evidence. Where's the "reality of science" in that?

Jeeez Taskiss your not getting it at all. I posted that the revised figures showed GW in this thread at the outset of this discussion and in a prior comment on another GW thread here, which includes the last ten years as franksargeant has pointed out to.

The satellite data is all the same, it's got the UAH and RSS interpreting it. Whether it's in a graph spanning 1, 5, 10, 15 , 20, 25 or up to the 30 years of the collected data it's all there.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #136 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Jeeez Taskiss your not getting it at all.

I don't see you presenting any authoritative information at all, Hands. As far as others involved in this thread, well, let's just say that there are posts that don't display for me and we can leave it at that. If you'd like to have your posts treated in a similar manner, just declare yourself an expert of any and all inane utterances you might care to make instead of intelligent contributions to the discussion and I'll see what I can do.

If you have anything authoritative that presents current results on the analysis of NOAA satellite data for the lower atmosphere, post it. If not, well, just keep on accusing others of "not getting it".
post #137 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I don't see you presenting any authoritative information at all, Hands. As far as others involved in this thread, well, let's just say that there are posts that don't display for me and we can leave it at that. If you'd like to have your posts treated in a similar manner, just declare yourself an expert of any and all inane utterances you might care to make instead of intelligent contributions to the discussion and I'll see what I can do.

If you have anything authoritative that presents current results on the analysis of NOAA satellite data for the lower atmosphere, post it. If not, well, just keep on accusing others of "not getting it".

Anyone in this day and age that thinks this crisis isn't real or that we aren't connected to it makes ordinarily intelligent people sound really dumb. There's already been a wealth of evidence about this connection presented over the years. Too much to just discount.

There was a time when people didn't want to believe the earth was round but guess what. There was a time when we thought there were so many trees it didn't matter what we cut down. There was a time when people thought the surgeon general's report on cigarettes must be wrong.

But guess what? History's full of things people don't want to believe. Especially when they might be involved.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #138 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Here's a good article in the most recent New Scientist;

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Some people don't demand of themselves what they demand of others.

New Scientist


Quote:
New Scientist has maintained a website since 1996, publishing daily news. As well as covering current events and news from the scientific community, the magazine often features speculative articles, ranging from the technical to the philosophical.

It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal,[2] but it is read by both scientists and non-scientists, as a way of keeping track of developments outside their own fields of study or areas of interest.[3] Some science articles in the general press are based on its contents.[citation needed] The magazine also regularly includes features, news and commentary on environmental issues, such as climate change.



Sure, I'd be happy to accept that if we were just guys discussing opinions on an internet forum, but when certain parties keep dismissing people claiming credentials and demanding information meet their standards, they better follow their own rules.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #139 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Some people don't demand of themselves what they demand of others.

New Scientist






Sure, I'd be happy to accept that if we were just guys discussing opinions on an internet forum, but when certain parties keep dismissing people claiming credentials and demanding information meet their standards, they better follow their own rules.

See what I mean?

They'd rationalize anything to avoid the truth. Which under normal circumstances would be easy to see.

It dosn't really matter what anyone's credentials here are. We're all anonymous so we can claim anything. But the evidence is researched, available, certifiable, and out there for all to see. And there's much more of it than the few who want to discount it. And in this case with science and the way it works the more evidence the more likely. So the majority does tend to point to right or truth.

Now before you go off on a tear about this and compare it to say Galileo the evidence against him wasn't scientific it was religious bias.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #140 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I don't see you presenting any authoritative information at all, Hands. As far as others involved in this thread, well, let's just say that there are posts that don't display for me and we can leave it at that. If you'd like to have your posts treated in a similar manner, just declare yourself an expert of any and all inane utterances you might care to make instead of intelligent contributions to the discussion and I'll see what I can do.

If you have anything authoritative that presents current results on the analysis of NOAA satellite data for the lower atmosphere, post it. If not, well, just keep on accusing others of "not getting it".

You said " I don't see you presenting any authoritative information at all, Hands"

Well what do you think the RSS and UAH are, because they're the ones who are interpreting the data and interpreting it that it shows warming? franksargeant, who posted that that's what their analysis showed, you've put on your ignore list as you ignore the very same data that your posting in graphs. Your not making any sense.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #141 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

vinea, I've never questioned the fact that global temperatures are increasing... after all, it's part of a natural cycle for the global climate to oscillate between glacial epochs. My criticism is directed at the political machinations directing economic policy. It's grandstanding the issue, fear mongering for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

My bad for comming in on the middle of a thread.

Anyway...I do agree with you on many points in your post. On the other hand, it is in our interests to reduce energy expended anyway. Specifically oil. Reducing our need for oil goes a long way to make the US more secure. Given we can't drill for significant new amounts that leads to a lot of things the treehuggers want as well.

Losing low MPG SUVs in favor of high MPG smaller cars go a long way to reducing the importance of the Middle East. Going electric shifts transportation energy needs from oil to nuclear, hydro and coal. Stuff the US can produce. And I'm willing to pay for clean coal costs given we have to breathe the air around here.

So, we can lower greenhouse emissions and make the US stronger at the same time.
post #142 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You said " I don't see you presenting any authoritative information at all, Hands"

Well what do you think the RSS and UAH are, because they're the ones who are interpreting the data and interpreting it that it shows warming? franksargeant, who posted that that's what their analysis showed, you've put on your ignore list as you ignore the very same data that your posting in graphs. Your not making any sense.

Where is the RSS and UAH links, Hands? I looked for them in this thread and didn't find them.

Seriously, if you have something, link it. This continued assertions without supporting authoritative evidence isn't leading to meaningful dialog.

Also, I've only put people on ignore who troll or declare themselves as deus ex machina. Some have earned their award for both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

So, we can lower greenhouse emissions and make the US stronger at the same time.

I'm all for reducing greenhouse gasses. I find that virtually every political treaty... every "plan" .. includes the ability to trade out the responsibility to reduce emissions, which accomplishes nothing, ecologically.

"There's a disaster coming! You must reduce emissions... or you must pay third world nations tons of money, either will work".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
post #143 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Some people don't demand of themselves what they demand of others.

New Scientist






Sure, I'd be happy to accept that if we were just guys discussing opinions on an internet forum, but when certain parties keep dismissing people claiming credentials and demanding information meet their standards, they better follow their own rules.

Follow the links. D'oh!

There are ELEVEN links in that New Scientist article to the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

So there you go Bucko. Proof enough for the umpteenth time no less.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #144 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Follow the links. D'oh!

There are ELEVEN links in that New Scientist article to the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

So there you go Bucko. Proved enough for the umpteenth time no less.

As characterized by you. Please do what you demand of others and link all 11 here and then prove they are all well-respected, peer reviewed science journals. Provide a level of scrutiny that constitutes peer review by a third party and prove all eleven articles have met that level of scrutiny. Provide all links to all literature that has referenced this literature, note and discrepancies and account for them as well.

Finally in the interest of full disclosure, note your employer, your investments and prove there is no conflict of interest as determined by me.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #145 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Where is the RSS and UAH links, Hands? I looked for them in this thread and didn't find them.

Seriously, if you have something, link it. This continued assertions without supporting authoritative evidence isn't leading to meaningful dialog.

For obvious reasons no less.

At least everyone else can see my links, and that's all that matters in the end.

I actually like being on someone's ignore list, they never see my 'smack down' posts, never reply to them, and in the end I always get the last word.

Meaningful dialog? Funny that, when you put someone on your ignore list expect to be left out of the entirety of the discussion.

You are in the dark, as it were with respect to the climate science, of that there is absolutely no doubt.

Don't expect a meaningful dialog, if you don't understand even the basics of the climate science.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #146 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

As characterized by you. Please do what you demand of others and link all 11 here and then prove they are all well-respected, peer reviewed science literature.


Get a clue, follow the links, to the ELEVEN well respected peer reviewed climate science literature links in the New Scientist article I linked to.

That's ELEVEN links more than someone else here in PO provided in their two links, which do not link to any of the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature. In fact the two aforementioned links are an op-ed piece of a few hundred words, at most, and some lecture notes to some course work, no less.

You really neet to stop with your all too well known mischaracterizations, especially when the factual science exists, right under your own face, and you continuously ignore this basic fact.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #147 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

As characterized by you. Please do what you demand of others and link all 11 here and then prove they are all well-respected, peer reviewed science journals. Provide a level of scrutiny that constitutes peer review by a third party and prove all eleven articles have met that level of scrutiny. Provide all links to all literature that has referenced this literature, note and discrepancies and account for them as well.

Finally in the interest of full disclosure, note your employer, your investments and prove there is no conflict of interest as determined by me.

What game is being played here? And by whom?

Please continue with the dodgy dialog, it forms Exhibit A, for the rest of the PO community.

I do find your rhetorical style and devices highly amusing. Particularly as displayed in the opening post of this thread.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #148 of 195
A guy who claims,
Quote:
The inter-world is an abstract virtualization, it's not reality. Getting upset because someone misrepresented themselves is foolish and immature.

that this is fine puts a poster on ignore because why?
post #149 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No I haven't and I hadn't heard of it before. I searched on the BBC iPlayer and nothing came up (the iPlayer is advert free and let's you watch any programs from the last week whenever you want, it's great). But it is on google video and I'm watching the first one now. Thanks!

The link with the Asian subtitles has the full 1 hour episodes, not the first links, they're just 5 mins intros. http://video.google.com/videosearch?...&aq=f&start=10

Watch all three in their entirety if you can;

Part One - The Battle Begins

Quote:
Dr. Iain Stewart traces the history of climate change and uncovers the great unsung heroes of climate change science.

In the 1970's the world appeared to be falling apart: from acid rain to overpopulation, ecological concerns were at the fore. It was at this time that climate change first became a hot political issue - but it wasn't global warming that frightened scientists, it was the complete opposite: a new ice age. Iain Stewart examines how the scientific community managed to get it so wrong, and introduces 'Jason' - the secret organisation of American government scientists who wrote the first official report on global warming in 1979.

By the late 1980's global became a serious political issue, and it looked as if the world was uniting to take action. It turned out to be a false dawn, because in the 1990's global warming was transformed into one of the biggest scientific controversies of our age.

Part Two - Fightback

Quote:
Dr. Iain Stewart investigates the counter-attack launched by global-warming sceptics in the 1990's.

At the start of the 1990's the world appeared united. At the Rio Earth Summit, global leaders signed up to a programme of action to tackle climate change. Even George Bush was there - George H. W. Bush, that is. The consensus didn't last, however.

Dr. Stewart examines the scientific arguments that developed as the global warming sceptics took on the climate change consensus. The sceptics attacked almost everything that scientists held to be true. They argued that the planet wasn't warming up; that even if it was, it was nothing unusual; and that whatever was happening to the Earth's climate was nothing to do with human-generated greenhouse gas emissions.

Featuring interviews with the key global-warming sceptics, showing how their positions have changed over time.

Part Three - New Challenges

Quote:
In the light of the science behind global warming and the arguments of climate change sceptics, Dr. Iain Stewart looks at the biggest challenge facing climate scientists. How can they predict exactly what changes global warming will bring?

The journey takes him from early attempts to model the climate system with dishpans to supercomputers, and on to the frontline of climate research: Greenland. Most worryingly, he discovers that scientists are increasingly concerned that their models are underestimating the speed of changes already under way.

IMHO, it's one of the best recent series I've seen on the climate science, covering the past ~50 years, starting with Keeling's CO2 efforts in the late 1950's.

It was first broadcast (I believe) on BBC 2 last year (7th, 14th, and 21st of September 2008).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #150 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Get a clue, follow the links, to the ELEVEN well respected peer reviewed climate science literature links in the New Scientist article I linked to.


Provide links from the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature if you ever want to have a serious discussion.


Quote:
That's ELEVEN links more than someone else here in PO provided in their two links, which do not link to any of the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature. In fact the two aforementioned links are an op-ed piece of a few hundred words, at most, and some lecture notes to some course work, no less.

Stick to the hard science as displayed in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature. You did not present an arguable position, just your own opinion, based on one website with no formal rewiew process attached to it whatsoever.


Quote:
You really neet to stop with your all too well known mischaracterizations, especially when the factual science exists, right under your own face, and you continuously ignore this basic fact.

Your chrerry picking ... your mischaracterization ... are not ad hominems, I'm not attacking you directly but your methods of argumentation, and in both regards the above statements are true.

I know the truth hurts, but it is the truth nonetheless.

Consensus /= truth.

For fun, and to actually address the thread topic (crazy I know... ) we have a link to the apology and original article run by HuffPo.

Palin will run in '12 on more retardation platform

In Sarah Palin's resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the "world needs more Trigs, not fewer." That's a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it's kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.

Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.

She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40's just to mix up some chromosomes.

She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth.

Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter.
This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job


BTW, and as noted in the Palin thread, I look forward to any submitted articles that note something similar being done to any other politician. You know like an article declaring that Edwards will be running on the "I'll give your wife cancer so you can justify cheating" platform or something fun like that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #151 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Provide links from the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature if you ever want to have a serious discussion.




Stick to the hard science as displayed in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature. You did not present an arguable position, just your own opinion, based on one website with no formal rewiew process attached to it whatsoever.




Your chrerry picking ... your mischaracterization ... are not ad hominems, I'm not attacking you directly but your methods of argumentation, and in both regards the above statements are true.

I know the truth hurts, but it is the truth nonetheless.

Consensus /= truth.

For fun, and to actually address the thread topic (crazy I know... ) we have a link to the apology and original article run by HuffPo.

Palin will run in '12 on more retardation platform

In Sarah Palin's resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the "world needs more Trigs, not fewer." That's a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it's kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.

Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.

She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40's just to mix up some chromosomes.

She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth.

Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter.
This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job

BTW, and as noted in the Palin thread, I look forward to any submitted articles that note something similar being done to any other politician. You know like an article declaring that Edwards will be running on the "I'll give your wife cancer so you can justify cheating" platform or something fun like that.

No comment. Except to say that the truth I was referring to, has nothing to do with peer review or climate science. Oh, and that someone appears to be somewhat upset about something for some reason.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #152 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Everyone here understand's your snark, or rhetorical style as it were.

However, it all falls on deaf ears, sort of like some blogs on the internets, or so I've been told.

I didn't realize your own words were snark.

Interesting.

I'll be happy to compare the readership of my blog to your blog and see who has more...

Oh wait...

You are in the dark, as it were with respect to the climate science, of that there is absolutely no doubt.

Don't expect a meaningful dialog, if you don't understand even the basics of the climate science.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #153 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I didn't realize your own words were snark.

Interesting.

I'll be happy to compare the readership of my blog to your blog and see who has more...

Oh wait...

You are in the dark, as it were with respect to the climate science, of that there is absolutely no doubt.

Don't expect a meaningful dialog, if you don't understand even the basics of the climate science.

No comment.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #154 of 195
Global warming is where the Republican attitude could be considered " Out of touch " or Out of step " with the rest of the world.

One of those things they have to work on before they can reform.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #155 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Global warming is where the Republican attitude could be considered " Out of touch " or Out of step " with the rest of the world.

One of those things they have to work on before they can reform.

The rest of the world craps in a bucket and lives in the dark.

If you have plumbing and electricity you are among the richest 3% of the planet.

However here are some fun polls for you to dismiss and to justify repeating yourself ad infinitum.

RR

56% Dont Want To Pay More To Fight Global Warming

Voters Closely Divided Over Cause of Global Warming


Quote:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% of U.S. voters now believe human activity is the cause of global warming, while 40% say it is caused by long-term planetary trends.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #156 of 195
Thread Starter 
TalkingPointsMemo

Must not forget that highbrow sites like TPM still take joy in associating protest with sexual actions.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #157 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll be happy to compare the readership of my blog to your blog and see who has more...

If you have a widely read blog, why are you wasting your time here?
post #158 of 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

If you have a widely read blog, why are you wasting your time here?

From the Palin thread,
Quote:
they had consulted the definition of narcissistic personality disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy and thought it fit her perfectly.
post #159 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

If you have a widely read blog, why are you wasting your time here?

I do it for the children, and the planet, and the planet's children.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #160 of 195
Proves my point.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Leftist Hate Speech