About July being the hottest month on record.....

[Lone Clone]

Maybe so, maybe not. The important thing is to stampede people, not give accurate scientific information.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...lobal-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/print/

 

[Funky Bunch]

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

In an effort to condense this thread...allow me to summarize the yet to be made posts by the usual suspects...

You're a denier!
You are stupid!
You should possibly be arrested and thrown in jail!

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Lone Clone]

In an effort to condense this thread...allow me to summarize the yet to be made posts by the usual suspects...

You're a denier!
You are stupid!
You should possibly be arrested and thrown in jail!

Rinse and repeat.

You left out the graphs.

 

[aflachawk]

Maybe so, maybe not. The important thing is to stampede people, not give accurate scientific information.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...lobal-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/print/

Those pesky facts again.

 

[unIowa]

If this means golf into late November then count me in.

 

[Accipiter]

Oh, the International Climate Science Coalition... headed by a former Canadian energy company public relations person, employing another public relations guy that used to work for tobacco companies, and funded in part by the Heartland Institute (that has in turn received funding from Exxon). Yeah, unbiased accuracy... that's what we need in talking about global warming. Clone; you preach scepticism in discussing global warming yet you swallow this? I don't think you should be dissing climate scientists if this is how sloppy you are.

 

[Joes Place]

Looks like the NASA Goddard ISS and Japan are in on the 'hoax', too...

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/jul_wld.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Probably shouldn't be getting your science information from Op Eds, because they tend to mix up things like 'error bars' associated with individual measurements vs. large averaged datasets....completely different things.

 

[moral_victory]

Global warming was already disproved by Inhofe. Why even bother at this point.

 

[Accipiter]

I've never understood the mind set of otherwise seemingly rational people who feel like climate science is a big hoax; deniers fly on airplanes, use computers, trust their lives to modern medicine, all of which are created by SCIENTISTS. Why then do deniers then completely disbelieve in the work of legitimate climate SCIENTISTS; is there something magical that happens when you get a climatology degree that instantly turns you into a sociopathic liar? If I went into computer science I'd be a trustworthy but if I went into climatology I'd be a liar? What's more likely; that climatologists are all fools or liars, or that there are various selfish interests that are feeding false information to the public about climate change?

 

[unIowa]

I've never understood the mind set of otherwise seemingly rational people who feel like climate science is a big hoax; deniers fly on airplanes, use computers, trust their lives to modern medicine, all of which are created by SCIENTISTS. Why then do deniers then completely disbelieve in the work of legitimate climate SCIENTISTS; is there something magical that happens when you get a climatology degree that instantly turns you into a sociopathic liar? If I went into computer science I'd be a trustworthy but if I went into climatology I'd be a liar? What's more likely; that climatologists are all fools or liars, or that there are various selfish interests that are feeding false information to the public about climate change?

They just don't want to change or pay for the change to happen.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

I've never understood the mind set of otherwise seemingly rational people who feel like climate science is a big hoax; deniers fly on airplanes, use computers, trust their lives to modern medicine, all of which are created by SCIENTISTS. Why then do deniers then completely disbelieve in the work of legitimate climate SCIENTISTS; is there something magical that happens when you get a climatology degree that instantly turns you into a sociopathic liar? If I went into computer science I'd be a trustworthy but if I went into climatology I'd be a liar? What's more likely; that climatologists are all fools or liars, or that there are various selfish interests that are feeding false information to the public about climate change?

Big Data would tell you that global warming is a hoax.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

I've never understood the mind set of otherwise seemingly rational people who feel like climate science is a big hoax; deniers fly on airplanes, use computers, trust their lives to modern medicine, all of which are created by SCIENTISTS. Why then do deniers then completely disbelieve in the work of legitimate climate SCIENTISTS; is there something magical that happens when you get a climatology degree that instantly turns you into a sociopathic liar? If I went into computer science I'd be a trustworthy but if I went into climatology I'd be a liar? What's more likely; that climatologists are all fools or liars, or that there are various selfish interests that are feeding false information to the public about climate change?

A few key words and phrases come to mind...

Agenda.
World or political viewpoints.
Credibility.

Also, you assume that everyone that is the least bit skeptical considers the promoters of manmade global warming as sociopathic liars and/or in on a big hoax...there are many other possible explanations...one is as simple as they could be wrong, and yet to the best of their ability, they are telling the truth as they know it.

I do not disbelieve all of the work of all of the climate scientists, but I also do not blindly accept it. In particular, I am most skeptical about the dire predictions based upon models with assumptions made by humans. Which is not to say that it is all wrong...just that there are legitimate reasons not to take the latest headline and run with it.

Unfulfilled predictions of imminent climate related doom have been made through the years by at least some of these scientists...true?

 

[fredjr82]

Shocking LC hasn't been back to backup his "claims". BAU for him in situations like these.

 

[Lone Clone]

Oh, the International Climate Science Coalition... headed by a former Canadian energy company public relations person, employing another public relations guy that used to work for tobacco companies, and funded in part by the Heartland Institute (that has in turn received funding from Exxon). Yeah, unbiased accuracy... that's what we need in talking about global warming. Clone; you preach scepticism in discussing global warming yet you swallow this? I don't think you should be dissing climate scientists if this is how sloppy you are.

I am not sloppy enough to imagine someone endorses a position just because he presents it for discussion.

 

[Lone Clone]

I've never understood the mind set of otherwise seemingly rational people who feel like climate science is a big hoax; deniers fly on airplanes, use computers, trust their lives to modern medicine, all of which are created by SCIENTISTS. Why then do deniers then completely disbelieve in the work of legitimate climate SCIENTISTS; is there something magical that happens when you get a climatology degree that instantly turns you into a sociopathic liar? If I went into computer science I'd be a trustworthy but if I went into climatology I'd be a liar? What's more likely; that climatologists are all fools or liars, or that there are various selfish interests that are feeding false information to the public about climate change?

Maybe it's just stubborn stupidity....like the fanatical AGW extremists who think any question or bit of skepticism constitues denial and is therefore heresy.

 

[Lone Clone]

Shocking LC hasn't been back to backup his "claims". BAU for him in situations like these.

What claims did I make?

Or are you criticizing me for something I didn't say? BAU for you guys.

 

[fredjr82]

Oh, the International Climate Science Coalition... headed by a former Canadian energy company public relations person, employing another public relations guy that used to work for tobacco companies, and funded in part by the Heartland Institute (that has in turn received funding from Exxon). Yeah, unbiased accuracy... that's what we need in talking about global warming. Clone; you preach scepticism in discussing global warming yet you swallow this? I don't think you should be dissing climate scientists if this is how sloppy you are.

What claims did I make?

Or are you criticizing me for something I didn't say? BAU for you guys.

I quoted the Accipiter post you should be replying to. It pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding your OP. BAU for you though.

 

[PerkyForHerky]

that there are various selfish interests that are feeding false information to the public about climate change?

How many deny this or that climate changes?

 

[Accipiter]

A few key words and phrases come to mind...

Agenda.
World or political viewpoints.
Credibility.

Also, you assume that everyone that is the least bit skeptical considers the promoters of manmade global warming as sociopathic liars and/or in on a big hoax...there are many other possible explanations...one is as simple as they could be wrong, and yet to the best of their ability, they are telling the truth as they know it.

I do not disbelieve all of the work of all of the climate scientists, but I also do not blindly accept it. In particular, I am most skeptical about the dire predictions based upon models with assumptions made by humans. Which is not to say that it is all wrong...just that there are legitimate reasons not to take the latest headline and run with it.

Unfulfilled predictions of imminent climate related doom have been made through the years by at least some of these scientists...true?

OWF, you misinterpret what I said; there is a difference between climate change DENIERS and climate change SKEPTICS. In fact I'd put myself in the skeptic camp; the climate is so incredibly complex and climatology is an early and underfunded science. It could turn out that we're going into an ice age (see sunspot maunder minimum). Climatology is probably about where physics was a couple of hundred years ago, and we know how that turned out. I also think if present global warming predictions are true (which though uncertain, is probably right), that the pooch is already screwed; if by 2100 we cut per capita energy use in the U.S. by 50% (a drastic cut), what difference does it make... we're probably adding 3-4 BILLION people to the world's population by 2100 plus undeveloped countries are rapidly ramping up their energy use. There are radical changes coming that are positive; energy consumption efficiency is, after all, a scientific problem and scientific progress motors on. By 2030 electric powered, driverless cars will be exploding (Uber is not valued in the stratosphere because it offers cheap taxis; it will be the Amazon of self driving, electric cars. Most people in cities will not own cars; they'll call up a driverless car on their smart phone; there will be far fewer cars on the road, fewer parking spaces needed, and much less energy used.... no car insurance, many fewer accidents). No truck drivers needed, and as all traffic will be coordinated and moving at the same speed, no traffic jams. Fusion reactors may well appear before 2030 (see Lockheed Skunk Works plans). If we had any kind of brains we'd have a crash program to build Traveling-Wave nuclear reactors (being backed by Gates); they use spent nuclear fuel, which we have enough of to provide all of our electricity for a thousand years. Instead, the SEC says it would take at least ten years to approve such a reactor, so it's being built in China. Unfortunately I personally think by 2100 Florida and many other parts of the world will be under water; billions of people will be trying to migrate to the U.S. and Europe (think about Bangladesh under water; a hundred million people need to go somewhere... think about Africa, whose population is going to absolutely explode over the next thirty years). What we are seeing today in Europe is just a hint of what's to come, I fear.

 

[Lone Clone]

I quoted the Accipiter post you should be replying to. It pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding your OP. BAU for you though.

And you misrepresent, or misunderstand, plain English.

I didn't endorse the piece. I threw it out there for discussion and comment.

Accipter didn't even address the points. He just trashed the source, then trashed me for good measure.

 

[Chewback]

Presumably LC has found something that he regards as incredibly profound and feels the need of his own personal thread in which to display it before our wondering eyes.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

OWF, you misinterpret what I said; there is a difference between climate change DENIERS and climate change SKEPTICS. In fact I'd put myself in the skeptic camp; the climate is so incredibly complex and climatology is an early and underfunded science...

It's totally possible that I misread your post...but you did lead off by mentioning "deniers" a couple of times in your post...I think that is why I thought you were skewering "deniers". At any rate, I welcome an earnest conversation on this subject, I certainly do not have all the answers and FWIW, I think there are a number of people who think they know more about this than they do and IMO they harm the conversation with their attacking and/or condescending replies...even up to declaring that "deniers" should be jailed.

If I misunderstood you, please accept my apology. I too think there is quite a bit of difference between someone that is skeptical of the dire predictions, etc, made by some and someone that truly denies that there is any change or steadfastly refuses to consider various potential causes of the changes that we can observe.

 

[fredjr82]

Accipter didn't even address the points. He just trashed the source, then trashed me for good reason.

FTFY

 

[lucas80]

What claims did I make?

Or are you criticizing me for something I didn't say? BAU for you guys.

BAU for you to start this thread again and again and again...

 

[Lone Clone]

FTFY

And you continue to compound your error. BAU, indeed.

 

[Lone Clone]

BAU for you to start this thread again and again and again...

This is a fair observation on your part. I have indeed started several threads with links to articles that bring certain parts of the AGW scripture into question.

I probably should have learned better by now. It's like the people who exult in asking fundamentalist Christians how there could have been space enough on the ark for two of every species. All it does is piss them off, make them splutter and call you a denier.....er, atheist.

No useful purpose is served. I shall endeavor not to repeat my folly. As the lawyer Fred Gailey, played by John Payne, observed in "Miracle on 34th Street" : Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to.

 

[Joes Place]

This is a fair observation on your part. I have indeed started several threads with links to articles that bring certain parts of the AGW scripture into question.

No. You link Op Eds littered with disinformation that are completely inconsistent with the accepted science, all from 'denier' sources. Then you step away and claim "I was only opening it up for discussion".

Just because you are incapable of understanding the science doesn't mean everyone else can't figure it out.

 

[Joes Place]

Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to.

Common sense and factual information show that this June and July both set all-time global temperature records:

"Faith" is taking the word of some random dude in an Op Ed claiming it's all a 'hoax'.

 

[rocketclone]

This is a fair observation on your part. I have indeed started several threads with links to articles that bring certain parts of the AGW scripture into question.

I probably should have learned better by now. It's like the people who exult in asking fundamentalist Christians how there could have been space enough on the ark for two of every species. All it does is piss them off, make them splutter and call you a denier.....er, atheist.

No useful purpose is served. I shall endeavor not to repeat my folly. As the lawyer Fred Gailey, played by John Payne, observed in "Miracle on 34th Street" : Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to.

Be careful here. The academics will no longer get their government grants if no global warming. If that happens Fred won't have anyone else to quote and do his thinking for him.

 

[rocketclone]

Common sense and factual information show that this June and July both set all-time global temperature records:

"Faith" is taking the word of some random dude in an Op Ed claiming it's all a 'hoax'.

Or believing phony data that is put forth by groups receiving grant money.

 

[BioHawk]

Maybe so, maybe not. The important thing is to stampede people, not give accurate scientific information.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...lobal-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/print/

Oh look! Another article to quibble about a minor detail and obfuscate the main issue that the Earth has, yet again, had one of the hottest months on record! Congratulations on getting distracted by the shiny light.

 

[Joes Place]

Or believing phony data that is put forth by groups receiving grant money.

...and the "conspiracy theory" argument is alive and well!!!

This means the Japanese, NASA Goddard & NOAA are all "in on it". They all have SO MUCH MORE at stake than the companies who own the hundreds of trillions worth of fossil fuel deposits still in the ground...

 

[Quintana]

my biggest complaint is that most of these graphs are showing a change of temperature on a very minute scale. we're talking about a temp fluctuation of +/- .7 degree. i guess it could be man-made. i can fart in my bedroom and raise the temp that much.

what would happen if we showed a line graph on a scale of even 10 degrees +/-. it would probably look like a table top with a crumb or two on it. or the colorful global temp change maps where a .5 degree change is represented by a transition from blue to red. who's sets those colors anyway? who's to say it wouldn't go from blue to light blue? of course they wouldn't get near the reaction as the sinister blue to red map.

 

[Accipiter]

It's totally possible that I misread your post...but you did lead off by mentioning "deniers" a couple of times in your post...I think that is why I thought you were skewering "deniers". At any rate, I welcome an earnest conversation on this subject, I certainly do not have all the answers and FWIW, I think there are a number of people who think they know more about this than they do and IMO they harm the conversation with their attacking and/or condescending replies...even up to declaring that "deniers" should be jailed.

If I misunderstood you, please accept my apology. I too think there is quite a bit of difference between someone that is skeptical of the dire predictions, etc, made by some and someone that truly denies that there is any change or steadfastly refuses to consider various potential causes of the changes that we can observe.

It was totally my fault for not being clear about defining "denier" vs. "rational Skeptic"

 

[rocketclone]

...and the "conspiracy theory" argument is alive and well!!!

This means the Japanese, NASA Goddard & NOAA are all "in on it". They all have SO MUCH MORE at stake than the companies who own the hundreds of trillions worth of fossil fuel deposits still in the ground...

Let's see, if you like your plan you can keep it, if you like your doctor you can keep him or her. The economy is doing well. If you don't agree with us the IRS will come to see you. Hurricanes are going to increase. Hurricane sandy was all because of global warming. The oceans will rise. Dogs and cats will be sleeping together.

Yes there is more at stake. There is money which countries want redistributed.

I am all for cleaning things up. But stop the ridiculous claims and address it as let's clean things up.

The other day some moron claimed it would lead to more wars. Just stop that talk and let's put together a plan that doesn't bankrupt businesses.

Fair enough.

 

[Tom Paris]

The funniest thing about this thread is the three "clones" are all deniers.

 

[SSG T]

Or believing phony data that is put forth by groups receiving grant money.

I don't necessarily disagree. However, do you apply this same standard to things like Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Farming (specifically the health consequences of our food), military contracts and the like? Or do you only take a critical look if it's something you first see lefties agreeing with.

For me, I take a critical view of all of them.

 

[Joes Place]

I am all for cleaning things up. But stop the ridiculous claims and address it as let's clean things up.

Then I suggest that you get your information on climate science from the IPCC, AAAS and other worldwide, respected science organizations, and not the Greenpeace crowd or left/right wing Op Eds.....

 

[Lone Clone]

Oh look! Another article to quibble about a minor detail and obfuscate the main issue that the Earth has, yet again, had one of the hottest months on record! Congratulations on getting distracted by the shiny light.

The reliability of the source material is a "quibble." Thank you for reinforcing my point, such as it was.

In a related matter, I need to be fair and give kudos to some prominent scientists for doing what they should have been doing the past 20 years: crying "bullshit!" when a prominent person on their side makes outrageous statements about the climate. Specifically, contradicting Harry Reid's claims about disappearing bears, the destruction of a third of the world's elk by ticks due to AGW, and how AGW has caused a huge increase in hurricanes.

If responsible people had been doing this all along to people like Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore, a lot of us would be a lot less skeptical.