REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Been a chilly year so far...

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Sunday, May 26, 2013 03:53
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3402
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:53 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 9, 2013 5:07 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Arkansas had snow in May, first time in recorded history.


In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(Firefly)


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 1:51 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by PIRATENEWS:
Arkansas had snow in May, first time in recorded history.




Oh, don't be silly. That's just weather. It's not climate. Everyone KNOWS the planet is getting warmer.





The science is settled.





Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 3:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Asinine. It's not ignorance, but stupidity, when people ignore the facts just to keep making the same stupid point. The point being, global warming creates extreme weather of both kinds, cold and hot, so the freak weather merely goes to give further evidence of climate change, rather than contradicts it. Which you already know, you're just so desperate to find ANYTHING you can put up to show your denial status.

Here, we're in another drought, have already had our first heat wave, and fire season has begun earlier than any other time in history--the OTHER side of freak weather.

But I know you're desperate to keep your head in the sand, so facts will have no effect on you; keep at it, be happy.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 4:58 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


If you want some of my excess rain water Niki, please feel free to come over here and I'll help you load your truck up. :)

I'm not complaining AT ALL though....... For realz.

This time last year we already had like 20 days above 80 degrees here. Only 1 so far... and the nights are still cold enough that I have to check weather.com to see if I should close my windows when I go to work.

Having more rain by the 10th of May than we had by the end of September last year?

Awesome.

Being able to avoid exorbitant A/C costs by simply not needing A/C rather than bitching that I don't have an A/C unit....?

Double Awesome.

Witnissing telltale signs of water with darkened grout around the interior walls of my basement......

Much less than awesome.... :(

Seems the idiots who lived here before me felt that it was a GREAT idea to firmly affix non-load-bearing walls to the surface by using a hammer drill and 8" nails......

Short of digging my house up and putting it on slabs, I don't see a way around this idiocy. Good for me I only pay in property taxes now what 1 1/2 month rent cost me back when I made money.



Don't worry though Niki. In going on my 3rd summer here, this is an anomoly. Never had a drop in my basement during the last two with nearly zero water.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 6:09 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT




I don't even have to try to find this stuff. The places I web-surf, it's just THERE, already.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/09/yale_climate_change
_survey_after_cold_winter_public_opinion_on_global_warming.html


After Cold Winter, Some Americans Decide Climate Change Is a Hoax After All

By Will Oremus

Quote:




March was pretty cold this year, and you know what that means: Global warming is a hoax!

OK, that isn’t actually what it means. But for a depressingly significant number of Americans, the nippy weather was apparently reason enough to decide that climate change isn’t a real thing after all. Yale’s latest survey of public opinion on climate change found that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped to 63 percent from 70 percent just last fall. This is the unfortunate corollary to the post I wrote last July, when tornados and scorching temperatures were driving belief in climate change to the highest levels since 2008.

Some of it is just seasonal variation: Unscientific as it may be, people are more likely to worry about climate change when it's warm outside than when there's a chill in the air. But the 63 percent figure is also lower than the proportion of Americans who believed in climate change at the same time a year ago, at the conclusion of an unusually mild winter. That 3 percent difference is right at the survey's margin of error, but it may suggest that an unusually snowy March has changed at least some people's minds about the underlying phenomena.

This is all very frustrating for those of us whose belief that the climate is changing is based largely on the overwhelming consensus of scientists who spend their lives studying exactly that.

But I'd submit that we should stop worrying so much about the minority of Americans who don't believe global warming is happening. After all, most of us aren't really qualified to make that judgment on our own, especially since the trend is so gradual as to be impossible to observe on a day-to-day or even year-to-year basis. Instead, we should worry more about the stunning 58-percent majority who don't agree that "most scientists think global warming is happening." That is demonstrably false, and testifies to a fundamental failure of communication on the part of the media coupled with widespread scientific illiteracy among the public.

On the other hand, it's a great triumph for the ideological hacks who run the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page.


SO maybe it makes a difference in the OPINION POLLS about what the public BELIEVES.

It doesn't change the FACTS. It doesn't change the SCIENCE. It DOESN'T CHANGE the shrinking polar ice caps. Might make a difference to POLITICAL SUPPORT for action. But the EXPERTS who've spent a lifetime or a career studying this stuff haven't changed their minds.

It might have been colder this winter ( more extreme weather for winter, if the theory is right.) We've already had a bad year for brush fires here in Southern California, and it's only May. We didn't get enough rain to end the drought. IF we don't get any more, and we have a hot firey summer, it'll be really bad. Will that prove it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 6:30 AM

STORYMARK


Just rappy reveling in his idiocy, yet again.

You'd think that when the only people who agree with him are the ultra crazy (PN) and the always drunk (Six) - it would clue him in as to the quality of his argument...




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 6:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

It doesn't change the FACTS. It doesn't change the SCIENCE. It DOESN'T CHANGE the shrinking polar ice caps. Might make a difference to POLITICAL SUPPORT for action. But the EXPERTS who've spent a lifetime or a career studying this stuff haven't changed their minds.

Of course not. Nor are they going to.
Quote:

Will that prove it?

Of course not, also. And the manipulators will continue to pump the ignorant full of "It's colder; it must be a hoax" to keep the public from realizing the truth. So it goes...

It's sad that everyone else will pay the same price as these bastards (who are doing it for their own motives, politics and profit); I wish somehow there would be a worse reckoning on THEM when the shit hits the fan...



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 12:29 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



I'll say it.

Niki is the Left's equivalent to a young Earth Creationist, who rabidly refuses to believe dinosaurs existed, or that if they did, they lived w/ Adam and Eve and were ALL vegetarians.

So far whacked out is her brain, all attempts at rational discussion are now moot.



I'm sure she's had a good life, though. For what it's worth.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 12:50 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'll say it.

Niki is the Left's equivalent to a young Earth Creationist, who rabidly refuses to believe dinosaurs existed, or that if they did, they lived w/ Adam and Eve and were ALL vegetarians.



Your stupidity knows no bounds. You're the one denying science, fuckwit - not her.

Granted, I don't think any level of proof would get you to change - you don't even care. The truth means nothing to you - you'll never admit to being wrong, no matter the evidence. Because you're an inhumane piece of shit.

Meanwhile, as morons like you continue to deny - the world passed a big threshold today, as Carbon in the air has reached 400 parts per million - the highest its been since humanity has existed.




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 2:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"People are pretty divided on this, scientists included."

"Evenly" means about 50/50. But in the case of scientists, you're wrong. It's 90/10 in favor of global warming.


I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after your flagrantly wrong opening statement.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 2:58 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Truth isn't determined by consensus.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 10, 2013 3:19 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


When you're ready to debate facts - with links and references - let's have a debate. But so far, all you have is the extremely ignorant opinion of others you so dutifully mouth. YOU seem to be the one who thinks that truth isn't a matter of consensus, it's a matter of plugging your ears and repeating - I can't HEEAAR YOU.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 2:57 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Mark, "everything you said" except that he said I was "the Left's EQUIVALENT"--in other words, I believe in global warming to such an extent that no facts would convince me otherwise. You missed that.

Of course, as usual, he's off his rocker. I'd ADORE it if global warming weren't happening and there was scientific proof of it. I absolutely despise the concept of what's coming, and I would, quite literally, give my life if it weren't so, just as I so incensed some others by stating something I have felt for decades: That I would die happily today if it would also instantly erase all forms of human life from this planet.

I don't relish the coming suffering...or even that which is happening to myriad species right now from the already-existing effects of global warming. The idea that we'll reach tipping point...if we haven't already...and what the earth will be like for coming generations makes me weep, even tho' I doubt it will happen fast enough to cause me more than bearable personal suffering, given the time I have left. But the Earth is precious, special, magnificent and a beautiful miracle; to contemplate its ruination horrifies me and I'd give anything if it weren't so.

Which is neither here nor there; I'm stuck with believing in scientific fact. So be it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, because rappy doesn't understand that climate is not judged by what happens in one place for one month, that climate means what happens over decades and centuries around the globe. But, yes, polar ice (both poles) is still melting, as is the GReenland ice shield and most glaciers.... ice which hasn't melted for millenia.

Rappy will never, ever accept fact when it crosses his beliefs. For a guy who claims not to be religious, he sure has a blinding belief structure!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:27 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, because rappy doesn't understand that climate is not judged by what happens in one place for one month, that climate means what happens over decades and centuries around the globe. But, yes, polar ice (both poles) is still melting, as is the GReenland ice shield and most glaciers.... ice which hasn't melted for millenia.

Rappy will never, ever accept fact when it crosses his beliefs. For a guy who claims not to be religious, he sure has a blinding belief structure!

Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 4:52 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact.



No global warming? How can you say that? Twenty years ago when you went to a 7-11 you could buy a snow cone, but today they're selling slushies. Explain that Mr. Smartypants. And if you cannot, then I suggest you watch Al Gore's climate movie 'An Inconvenience Store Truth'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 4:59 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact."

And here we have little rappy, once again failing to distinguish between facts and opinions. And once again failing to have a real debate with research results, cites, links and all that stuff - due exclusively to his idiocy, stupidity, laziness and extreme ignorance.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 5:00 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


And Jongsie going ME TOO! in line for all those wondrous qualities little rappy has in such abundance.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:31 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact."

And here we have little rappy, once again failing to distinguish between facts and opinions. And once again failing to have a real debate with research results, cites, links and all that stuff - due exclusively to his idiocy, stupidity, laziness and extreme ignorance.




Bear in mind that Rappy gets his "science" and "facts" from FauxNews, where one of the anchors once asked Bill Nye (the Science Guy) if volcanoes on the Moon had anything to do with global warming.

So that tells you really all you need to know about his grasp of science. They're also the ones who like to bring up global warming every time there's a snowstorm in winter - "Hey, what ever happened to global warming?!"

So, really, is it any surprise Rappy thinks a cooler week or month is the same as no climate change? Heck, the party he routinely supports says that pipelines are good for the environment, and that trees cause more pollution than cars.

And I'm not making that up.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:33 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact.




There was no credible evidence or proof for Iraqi WMD, either, but you weren't about to let facts get in the way then, were you?

And there's no evidence or proof of any Benghazi cover-up either, but don't let that stop you. You've never needed evidence or proof before!



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You've never needed evidence or proof before!
Well, like I said, rappy is a very religious person. He believes in Iraqi WMD, that making the wealthy even wealthier is (somehow) good for the economy, and that all of that carbon dioxide in the air has absolutely no effect on energy absorption (despite being incontrovertibly demonstrated by robust lab experimentsto be a greenhouse gas). There is absolutely no reason to talk to him, or jongsstraw.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:38 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I thought this was going to be a pleasant thread about weather.

I can say that it was a lovely Autumnal day today, just the thing for Mother's Day. Now there is a light evening rain. We so often get extremes of weather here, so I am enjoying 'nice' very much.

Anyway, back to the flaming...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I know that the Land Down Under had a near 10-year drought in the southeast, not? It broke in 2010, right? Is everything back to normal now?

We here is So Cal have had a dry winter and a very strange spring- hot, then cold, then hot... two days ago, it was 65 and raining (in VERY brief thunderstorms). Tomorrow, it'll be 95 and sunny. My sinuses can't take much more of this!

But nonethless, tomorrow I'm planting my veggie garden. A little late- been very busy, but will be putting on the usual (tomatoes, peppers, watermelon) and some different stuff- japanese eggplant, asparagus (a perennial), sunflowers (just 'cause theyre so cool) and blue corn. When the crops come in, everybody is welcome to chili con carne, blue corn, asparagus, watermelon and tequila!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 11, 2013 11:33 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Sounds like a wonderful selection of vegetables. I've never had blue corn before, is it similar in taste to the yellow?

I'm experimenting with a cold season vegie patch, broad beans, brocolli, silverbeat, and herbs. Not sure how things will do.

Yeah, drought broke for us in 2010 with flooding. Our garden has been a catastophe because of the extremes of weather. Last year we had to put in extra drainage, after years of establishing drought resistant plants. Still, I've always had a 'treat em mean' approach to gardening. If you can't survive with minimal love, it wasn't meant to be. Luckily, I'm a better mother than that :)

Melbourne always has had an unpredictable climate, with lots of temperature changes. The expression goes - if you don't like the weather, wait a day. I think it makes people a bit tetchy, because you never know what to expect.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:42 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

if you don't like the weather, wait a day

I'm beginning to think those sayings are everywhere; here we have micro-climates, so ours is "if you don't like the weather, drive ten miles", but I've heard both versions from people EVERYWHERE!

No. Ca. has had much the same as what Sig described. We just went through a heat spell, into the 90s, which usually only happens in our Indian Summer (Fall); then it went down into the low 60s, and today we'll hit 90 again. Yuck!

...Rap has a "grasp" of...anything?! Oh, wow, I never knew...!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:46 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

You've never needed evidence or proof before!
Well, like I said, rappy is a very religious person. He believes in Iraqi WMD, that making the wealthy even wealthier is (somehow) good for the economy, and that all of that carbon dioxide in the air has absolutely no effect on energy absorption (despite being incontrovertibly demonstrated by robust lab experimentsto be a greenhouse gas). There is absolutely no reason to talk to him, or jongsstraw.





Oh, I don't think anyone's trying to talk to him at this point; we're just pointing and laughing. Rappy is the board equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:47 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact.



No global warming? How can you say that? Twenty years ago when you went to a 7-11 you could buy a snow cone, but today they're selling slushies. Explain that Mr. Smartypants. And if you cannot, then I suggest you watch Al Gore's climate movie 'An Inconvenience Store Truth'.



Snow cones... good grief man. You got me.

Point of fact... this spring on my part of the globe has been the coolest, wettest we've had in 20 years. The lakes, which have often been several feet below full, are now at or over capacity. It's awesome.




Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Because there's no proof or evidence of god OR agw. It`s not a belief , it's fact."

And here we have little rappy, once again failing to distinguish between facts and opinions. And once again failing to have a real debate with research results, cites, links and all that stuff - due exclusively to his idiocy, stupidity, laziness and extreme ignorance.



Its the Vatican 'proof' of God™ ? No more than the great Pyramids @ Giza are 'proof' of Ra.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:03 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

And there's no evidence or proof of any Benghazi cover-up either, but don't let that stop you. You've never needed evidence or proof before!



Yes, there is, and more is coming out.

And yes, I'm all about 'proof' and 'evidence'.

You're just too childish, too stubborn, too partisan to even be having this discussion with , at all.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:18 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by DOMOKUN1:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"People are pretty divided on this, scientists included."

"Evenly" means about 50/50. But in the case of scientists, you're wrong. It's 90/10 in favor of global warming.


I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after your flagrantly wrong opening statement.



Hmmm. Not that I used the word "evenly"...



- Sidebar to the thread: Curious at how we see some putting words into what others posted, and then making subsequent comments. I find it REALLY funny, as said person goes on a rant and falsely accuses another of doing exactly that, in another thread. This one > http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=54797

Oh, and then this must be a trademark...

" I didn't bother reading the rest of your post "


Ha!

Bitching out of the entire point, because of something YOU, 1kiki , made out of thin air, and yet again you go on whining about something of which you have no CLUE, because you didn't bother to follow along.



Now back to the original thread.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, sigh...
Quote:

You are the classic and perfect embodiment of one with a preconceived notion of your own moral and intellectual superiority that creates a stunningly blinding subjectiveness and the most pitiful "holier than thou" complex so easily associated with your kind.
Quote:

And I'll say this right now - I have ZERO against anybody here on a personal level - and I'd like people to know that up front. (I barely know any of you!) Sure, some comments might be personal in nature - that doesn't mean I hate you! Strong disagreement ain't the same.

Yup, that's pretty personal in nature. Sockpuppet or individual, we apparently have a clone.

And "pretty divided" is what he wrote. They're not. 90/10 is NOT "pretty" divided. It's a scientific consensus:
Quote:

This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

The main conclusions were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.

2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.

3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.Cites and links available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


That does not define "pretty divided". He can, of course, argue that he said "people" are "pretty divided", but that means nothing. "People" do not determine scientific consensus, they are led by who they choose to believe. "People" are "pretty divided" as to whether evolution is a fact or "God" created the world in seven days, too, if you want to put it that way...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:46 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



2 things


1. Consensus has nothing to do w/ science. It's not part of the scientific method.



2. I thought this was interesting ( mostly because no one got hurt )

Ice Tsunami



Sad thing is, these folks don't realize how bad this is gonna be until it starts crashing into the homes. It's neat, at first, but then... ut oh. 20+ homes were destroyed, said 1 report. I guess her home wasn't in the line of fire, so to say.

It really is similar to how glaciers advance. Sure, wind here is the driving force, ( so I'm not sure 'tsunami' is an accurate description ) but they just march onward, over the land, taking down anything that gets in its way. Most folks don't comprehend how much ice use to cover n. america, and Europe,etc... during the ice ages. Glaciers 1000's of feet high, mountains of ice, and fields of nothing but flat frozen terrain, as far as the eye could see.

Yeah, I'll take global warming over that, any day.





Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:03 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by DOMOKUN1:

And I don't think people are so terribly divided on the evolution thing being that it is totally compatible with religion and the Bible in general, but that is your sense of things?



Well, some are very divided, as I see it.

Does't mean those who understand evolution can't believe in the Bible, as some clearly do. Like Dr. Robert Bakker, for example. And while I don't share his views on THIS particular matter, it's clear that he's a very intelligent and reasonable person. Certainly one of the great paleontologists of recent history.

Just my 2 cents.

And as for the sock puppet stuff... I have to laugh. It only shows how some folks , when they have nothing left to offer, start grasping at all manner of straws.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:31 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by DOMOKUN1:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"People are pretty divided on this, scientists included."

"Evenly" means about 50/50. But in the case of scientists, you're wrong. It's 90/10 in favor of global warming.


I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after your flagrantly wrong opening statement.



Hmmm. Not that I used the word "evenly", and of course the numbers favor the global warming argument - so let's simply dismiss anything anybody else might have to present, evidence or opinion.

And of course you didn't bother to read the rest of the post! You are the classic and perfect embodiment of one with a preconceived notion of your own moral and intellectual superiority that creates a stunningly blinding subjectiveness and the most pitiful "holier than thou" complex so easily associated with your kind.


Careful there Domo, you're gonna get little Kuku all worked up. I think she has a medical condition known as permanent ovulation syndrome. So watch your step, literally.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:43 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by DOMOKUN1:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"People are pretty divided on this, scientists included."

"Evenly" means about 50/50. But in the case of scientists, you're wrong. It's 90/10 in favor of global warming.


I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after your flagrantly wrong opening statement.



Hmmm. Not that I used the word "evenly", and of course the numbers favor the global warming argument - so let's simply dismiss anything anybody else might have to present, evidence or opinion.




So present your evidence. And just so you know, opinion is not evidence.

Post your evidence. I'll wait. I won't hold my breath, though, because from what I've seen so far, your idea of "evidence" generally consists of nothing but one or two anecdotal incidents from your own life, with no corroboration from any objective, peer-reviewed sources.

But by all means, prove me wrong.

Quote:


And of course you didn't bother to read the rest of the post! You are the classic and perfect embodiment of one with a preconceived notion of your own moral and intellectual superiority that creates a stunningly blinding subjectiveness and the most pitiful "holier than thou" complex so easily associated with your kind.




Do you have any idea how "holier than thou" you come across with all your perceived moral and intellectual superiority and your own blinding subjectivity?

Of course you don't; you're far too self-obsessed to realize what a hypocrite you truly are.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:01 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


So, no evidence to present, then?



Color me unimpressed.



Oh, and by the way, it's "whose", not "who is"; "who's" is a contraction of "who is", so your statement reads "... who is ADD apparently keeps..."

Swing and a miss, indeed, Dummykun.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:42 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Hmmm. Not that I used the word "evenly", and of course the numbers favor the global warming argument - so let's simply dismiss anything anybody else might have to present, evidence or opinion."

You didn't use the word evenly, but 'pretty divided' implies it.

Also, you have nothing to back up the rest of your post. I find vague, general handwaving statements to be not testable, therefore not subject to debate on the merits of the science.

If you care to post something relevant and recent (PLEASE! no links from 20 years ago when the research has already moved on!) be my guest. Otherwise ... YAAAaaaaawwwwwnnnn.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:47 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"But I'm starting to think you might be one of these sock puppets too, a duplicate, how many of you are there here? 1KIKI; NIKI2 - hmmm.....does make one wonder now....couldn't get more creative in the use of your names?"

That makes 3 - so far I'm supposed to be SignyM, Niki2, and what's her name ... I'll come up with the name in a bit.

THANKS! for a great laugh! I hope you come up with even more amusingly wrong conjectures!




ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:43 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Oh, I just thought I'd add this, but I expect you to have something RELEVANT and FACTUAL to say about it, b/c after all, it's your piece de resistance for why you are right -


Is Roy Spencer the world's most important scientist?
By Norman Rogers

Roy Spencer is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama Huntsville who may be the world's most important scientist. He has discovered scientific insights and theories that cast great doubt on global warming doctrine. That doctrine has always been dubious and is often defended by attacking the integrity of anyone who dares to raise questions. Spencer is a rare combination of a brilliant scientist and a brave soul willing to risk his livelihood and reputation by speaking plainly.
This is sheer opinion, and there's not one scrap of scientific fact in this screed. Not a very promising beginning for one who claims to have relevant things to say.

The global warming promoters say we must scrap the world's energy infrastructure in favor of green energy. They say that burning coal, oil and natural gas adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere apparently the author doesn't believe digging up buried carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2 will add to the CO2 already present and that will cause a global warming disaster. The global warming believers demand a massive investment in uneconomic windmills and solar energy. Their demands are not exactly sincere, because their program is a utopian fantasy that will never be implemented on the scale needed to achieve the ostensible objectives.
More editorializing, AS IF the global community of global climate scientists are uniformly driven by the same economic, cultural, academic and social pressures that exist in the US. Which is bunk, of course.


The coalition of environmentalists, scientists and politicians who are the promoters of global warming inadvertently reveal their insincerity by the specifics of their programs. The much idolized Kyoto Protocol and associated Clean Development Mechanism, lets the giant emitters of carbon dioxide, China and India, off scot free for the simple reason that they would never agree to destroy the future of their countries by giving up fossil fuels. No CO2 emissions credit is allowed for CO2-free nuclear power because it would embarrass the environmental groups that spent decades denouncing nuclear power.
Sheer opinion.

The scientific backing for the global warming scare comes from climate science. (1) Climate science is a weak science. (2) The atmosphere is chaotic and difficult to define with scientific theories. (3) Attempts to predict the future of the climate and to quantify the effects of carbon dioxide are speculative (4) and influenced by ideological biases of the various scientists. (5) In climate science there are strong elements attempting to enforce uniformity of opinion. (6) Scientists that depart from the prevailing climate political correctness are sanctioned.
Again, more screed. Where's the proof for these claims (numbered for convenience to show just how MANY unsupported claims there are in one short paragraph)?

Monster computer programs, called climate models, are supposed to mimic the Earth's climate. The computer models do a poor job of mimicking the climate. One proof of this is that the 20 or so models from different science groups disagree considerably with each other about the amount of warming that will be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But, these inadequate computer models are the basis for the predictions of global warming doom. The emotional and financial investment in computer models is so great that their creators have lost objectivity concerning their creations. The computer models are the spoiled children of climate science.
20 current models? or including models that have been superseded? And what does 'considerably' mean? Now. I think it would be noteworthy if some number showed the earth staying the same - or cooling - but if they all indicate warming to varying degrees, does it change the overall conclusion?
It's hard to say what the author is writing about, as he himself doesn't seem to know. So, speaking of cherishing your ideological children to the point where you think they’re perfect and stop investigating ...

Roy Spencer is not a shrinking violet. Spencer vigorously promotes his ideas. If he didn't, the global warming establishment would happily ignore him and his ideas would be nothing more than a ripple in the climate science ocean. He issues press releases. He appears on television and radio. He is Rush Limbaugh's "official" climate scientist. Spencer has written three popular books on climate science as well as a small book on the principles of free market economics. None of this endears him to his more modest and more politically correct colleagues.
Just to establish this, so far there is not one scientific fact yet ...

The climate science establishment is irritated that Spencer has come up with highly creative discoveries that the establishment did not think of first. They don't like it that he openly contradicts climate celebrities like Al Gore and James Hansen. If that were not enough irritation, Spencer is a Bible-following Christian, as is his boss at the university, John Christy. Christy, an ordained minister, was a missionary in Africa before becoming a scientist. Obviously Christy and Spencer are not the only scientists who are serious Christians, but they don't seem to care if everyone knows it.
... still no scientific facts ...

I don't claim and never would claim that the climate establishment is a conspiracy of scientists to create false science to promote their own careers, even though it may appear that way at times, and even though some of the biggest doomsday promoters have had the greatest career success. The advocates ofglobal warming doom believe what they say. But, sincerity is not a substitute for critical thinking or common sense.
... not here either ...

How the climate establishment turns the output of the disagreeing computer models into predictions of climate doomsday is obscurantist alchemy. They take the average prediction of the models as the most probable future and assume that the truth likely is somewhere within the range of predictions exhibited by the various models. None of this is more than rank speculation, scientifically. No, it's statistical. If you take many measurements and perform many calculations, the trend is for the answer to be somewhere in the middle. Until something happens to overturn the entire system of thought, the best estimate is in the middle. The climate science establishment is less than open with the public concerning the shortcomings of their approach to climate forecasting. What shortcomings are those I wonder. But, due to the shortcomings of the author, I don't suppose I'll ever learn what they're supposed to be. At times the public presentations of climate science descend into outrageous advocacy. If you press the scientist-promoters of global warming they will say their methods are the best they can do given what they have. For public consumption computer alchemy is turned into solid science by the operation of the publicity machine and the United Nations's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. More weak unsupported 'stuff'.

Even though Spencer is a bit of an outlaw, he is still a climate scientist in more or less good standing. Like cops, Marines, or members of fraternities, once you're a climate scientist, you're one for life, contingent on reasonably good scientific behavior. Remember that climate scientists go through a lengthy acculturation as graduate students, postdocs and junior scientists. His fellow climate scientists may diss him in writing but there remains a line they won't cross. For example, Christy and Spencer still have their government research grants. At a climate science dinner that I attended, I noticed that the scientists were very protective of Judith Curry, an accomplished climate scientist who, like Spencer, has gone over to the dark side and become openly skeptical about the doomsday claims. I attribute this to the fellowship among climate scientists that is stronger than scientific or ideological differences.
What does this unverified bit of gossip have to do with AGW, I wonder ...

Like the climate, group opinion among climate scientists is chaotic, meaning that the potential exists for a sudden transformation, perhaps an ideological ice age or a psychological warming. Spencer, Christy, Curry and the many other skeptic scientists are outliers, but if a tipping point is reached, climate science might undergo a rapid change of collective opinion. This could leave the civilian camp followers and the manufacturers of windmills dangling in the wind.

The pressure that is building on climate doctrine is the failure of the Earth to warm, a trend that has now continued for 16 years. What failure to warm? Does melting polar ice not count? How about warming of the vast oceans? The melting of glaciers? The rise in land-based temperatures? It sure would be nice if the author linked some valid scientific data to 'show' that the earth has failed to warm, but as with the many other RWAs here, data is in very, very short supply - non-existent in fact.
The longer warming is stalled, a claim he has failed utterly to support in the face of constantly increasing CO2, the harder it becomes for the believers to continue believing. Compounding the failure of the Earth to warm is the failure of the oceans to warm for the last 10 years. So they HAVE warmed? BTW there is the phenomenon of the melting ice cube, where water temps remain constant until all the ice is melted. It'll be an interesting time when that happens, as it's on track to do.Normally, failure of the Earth to warm would be explained by saying that the ocean is sucking up the energy flux that would cause the atmosphere to warm. But if the ocean is not warming either, the ice is melting that explanation won't work. (Some persistent believers in ocean warming are now searching for the missing warmth in the deep ocean, a part of the ocean that is largely beyond the vision of most monitoring systems.)

Roy Spencer at some point had an epiphany that resulted in new insights. The central question about global warming, that climate science tries to answer, is what is climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is formally a number that describes the amount of warming or cooling the Earth experiences in response to a change in the energy flow. Various things can change the energy flow, including adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

If scientists were gods and able to control the energy output of the sun, climate sensitivity could be measured via an experiment. On the average the energy flow on to the Earth from the sun is about 240 watts per square meter. The outward flow of energy, on the average, is the same, resulting in a stable, average Earth temperature of about 14 degrees Celsius or 57 degrees Fahrenheit. If energy flow could be throttled up, to say 244 watts per square meter, and we observed the resulting change in the Earth's temperature, this experiment would get us the climate sensitivity. According to the climate establishment increasing the energy flow by 4 watts per square meter would cause the earth to warm, averaged over the seasons and different locations, by about 3.25 degrees Celsius. The climate sensitivity is expressed by the ratio (3.25 degrees/ 4 watts per square meter) = 0.81 degrees per watt per square meter. A climate sensitivity of 0.81 represents a very sensitive climate. If the climate is very sensitive, then adding CO2 to the atmosphere could be a problem. This is an essential mistaking of changes in input for changes in losses. In fact, both are active factors at the same time.

Given the establishment's belief in a highly sensitive climate, doubling CO2 in the atmosphere should increase the average temperature of the Earth by 3 degrees Celsius. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere effectively changes the net energy flow from the sun because CO2 inhibits the outward escape of energy via long wave radiation. Would that there was some reference for this.

Scientists are not gods, no matter what they may think, and you think I'm snarky? This whole article is riddled with gratuitous snark, masquerading (in your mind apparently) as valid scientific discussion so they can't change the energy output of the sun for an experiment. Once again, reverting to a basic misunderstanding of inputs and losses. But they do have computer models that supposedly mimic the Earth's climate and they can use the computer models to perform experiments that are impossible to perform on the actual Earth. Using the admittedly poor models and glossing over the fact that the models disagree with each other, characterizations made without a shred of proof the establishment claims that the Earth has a very delicately balanced climate that will be disrupted by CO2 emissions. You would think that at this point they would demand that we switch to a CO2-free nuclear economy. But the establishment gives away its ideological bias by demanding that we switch instead to a windmill and solar panel economy. Apparently for no good reason! Just because!

Roy Spencer's science specialty is the measurement of the Earth's temperature by satellites. Spencer and Christy keep track of changes in the Earth's temperature by analyzing data from certain satellites that measure microwave radiation that originates in oxygen molecules. There are other satellite-based instruments that measure the energy flows into and out of the Earth via long and short wave radiation - heat radiation and sunlight.

Due to random fluctuations from changes in weather, clouds and temperature, the average temperature of the Earth and the energy flows into and out of the Earth wander by a small amount over months. Spencer constructed what are called phase space graph that show this random wandering. An example is below.



This graph is constructed by placing a dot for each day, the dot placed at a point on the graph that represents the average radiation flux and the average temperature over 91 days. These quantities are measured by satellites looking at the Earth. As the radiation or energy flux and the temperature wander the trail of dots traces a path. Rather than being a completely random path, it is evident that there is a suggestion of structure. At times the trail of dots traces a diagonal line. Spencer called these diagonal lines striations.

Spencer discovered convincing evidence that the slope of these striations is a measure of climate sensitivity. In the graph above the diagonal lines follow the striations and indicate that the Earth's climate sensitivity is about 0.11, or about 7 times less than the 0.81 that the establishment claims. The convincing evidence is that Spencer created simple simulations of climate, with known climate sensitivity, and used data from the simulations to create phase space plots. The climate sensitivity measured from the plot agreed with the known climate sensitivity built into the simulation. Spencer then made phase space plots using data from the establishment's monster climate models, and found, at least for some models, that the same relation held. Let's not claim that Spencer discovered a law of nature comparable to the general theory of relativity, but he has made a genuine discovery of considerable originality.

In a blog posting, modestly titled Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found, Spencer described his discovery of the striations as follows:

"These linear striations in the data were an accidental finding of mine. I was computing these averages in an Excel spreadsheet that had daily averages in it, so the easiest way for me to make 3-monthly (91 day) averages was to simply compute a new average centered on each day in the 6-year data record."

Spencer depicts his discovery as a flash of insight, like Fleming's discovery of penicillin, where he noticed that mold accidentally introduced into a petri dish was killing bacteria. Spencer's description of his discovery makes a memorable story. This is the type of story that is too good to check, but I decided to check it anyway. In the hallway at a scientific meeting between presentations I asked Christy about this. The expression on his face told me more than anything he said. Spencer's discovery wasn't that easy.

Other scientists have tried to use the satellite data to measure climate sensitivity. Often they came up with obvious overestimates. For example, in the phase space plot above there is a near horizontal line that is a simple fit to the cloud of dots. The slope of that line corresponds to a climate sensitivity of 1.6, an implausibly extreme climate sensitivity. And here we have an example of a number being derived from data being thrown out - for the simple reason that the guy didn't like it. Speaking of ideologically-driven 'science'. Richard Lindzen of MIT has also devised similar methods of estimating climate sensitivity from measured data. Stephen Schwartz, a government scientist at the Brookhaven National Lab, has investigated climate sensitivity with approaches similar to Spencer.

The small wandering changes in the energy balance come from random changes in clouds as well as an assumed feedback from temperature changes that affect clouds, water vapor and outgoing radiation. Temperature changes, in turn, come from changes in energy flow as well as other causes such as energy exchanges with the oceans. It is this tangling up of cause and effect that make it difficult to deduce climate sensitivity from the noise in the system that causes the small deviations in the energy balance in the atmosphere. Spencer's work essentially revolves around understanding and untangling these effects.

Spencer and his co-author William Braswell published their ideas in a peer reviewed scientific paper that appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research in August of 2010. The road to publication was long and tortuous and some of his claims had to be watered down to get past the reviewers. It might be that the reviewers were hostile to Spencer because he was upsetting the global warming apple cart or perhaps they thought that Spencer's claims were too broad for the evidence he had. In any case scientists habitually complain about reviewers of their papers. A clear case of establishment bias against Spencer's ideas would come later.
Because clearly, all problems with the paper must have been political.

In July 2011, Spencer published another paper in a fairly obscure European journal Remote Sensing. This paper incited an unusual angry outburst from important elements of the climate establishment. It's a bit difficult to know why they were so angry. The paper is an extension of Spencer's previous work and answers some of the criticism of his 2010 paper. Remote Sensing offers rapid peer review and publication, no doubt an attractive feature for Spencer, previously subjected to long delays and false starts from trying to publish in more traditional climate science venues. The establishment anger may have been triggered because the establishment probably didn't know about the article until it was published and secondly because the article highlighted faults in the establishment's climate models by comparing model output to satellite observations of the Earth. Spencer's paper made the models look pretty bad. Spencer's article received huge publicity due to a Forbes column by Heartland Institute fellow James Taylor. This surely added to the upset of climate establishment grandees. Hmm, speculation, gossip, mind-reading - but no science.


A remarkable, no holds barred attack was made on Spencer on the website The Daily Climate. The Daily Climate article contained statements such as this:

"Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover." Was this taken out of context? Well, following the link in the original, yes, it was. The intro to that statement was this: "Their errors date to the mid-1990s, when their satellite temperature record reportedly showed the lower atmosphere was cooling. As obvious and serious errors in that analysis were made public, Spencer and Christy were forced to revise their work several times and, not surprisingly, their findings agree better with those of other scientists around the world: the atmosphere is warming." (with links in the original to the papers). And the follow-up statement (also with links in the original) provides a recent example: "Last Thursday, for instance, the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres published a study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer. Their findings showed that Christy erred in claiming that recent atmospheric temperature trends are not replicated in models." I have to say it's pretty brazen to include links which demonstrate your own cupidity.


This is not the sort of things that scientists say about each other, at least not in print. Besides it was a complete lie, because Christy and Spencer are known to be very competent and careful scientists. More interesting than what was said, is who said it. Kevin Trenberth was the first author. The two other authors were John Abraham and Peter Gleick. All three of these scientists are aggressive defenders of global warming catastrophe theory. With their arguments, links, and data conveniently left out of the author's narrative.

Let's take Kevin Trenberth first. By general acclaim, Trenberth is one of the smartest climate scientists alive. Trenberth is a Distinguished Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Ironically, Trenberth is a strong critic of climate models, for example here and here, yet he defends the alarmist predictions that are rooted in climate models. Following the links, it's clear that Trenberth's objections aren't global (so to speak) but very limited to particulars.

John Abraham is a professor of mechanical engineering. He is one of the leaders of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team. This is a group set up to rapidly refute criticism of global warming alarmism. "The Climate Science Rapid Response Team is a match-making service to connect climate scientists with lawmakers and the media. The group is committed to providing rapid, high-quality information to media and government officials." How very nefarious. Activists became alarmed that the global warming skeptics were getting a foothold and the activists decided that the problem was that the media wasn't getting good information in a timely manner. Thus the rapid response team is a counter propaganda outfit. The problem is that if people are starting to doubt what you say, screaming louder may not solve the problem. Spin and gossip, akin to our newly baptized RWA claiming to know what we're thinking even when we post nothing, or post contrary opinions.

Peter Gleick, the third author of the attack on Spencer, is a water scientist and a self proclaimed climate scientist. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation genius award. He is also a criminal, though following the links it appears he was not prosecuted, let alone found guilty albeit one that avoided prosecution due to good political associations. Yep, not REALLY a criminal. Approximately six months after the Daily Climate blast at Spencer, Gleick impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, a libertarian Chicago think tank with global warming skeptic tendencies. Perhaps believing his own propaganda, he thought that if he could get the confidential packet of documents distributed at the Heartland board meeting, he could prove that Heartland had a nefarious agenda funded by the fossil fuel industry. When that confidential information turned out not to be incriminating, he forged additional documents designed to discredit the Heartland Institute. (He claimed the forged documents were sent to him anonymously in the mail.) But that's an obvious impossibility. He "leaked" everything to the global warming advocacy blogosphere. But Gleick was an amateur criminal and was quickly exposed. One of his mistakes was to feature himself in the forged documents, making it appear that Peter Gleick was a person of great concern to the Heartland Institute. Gleick used a fake email account to execute his crime. He clearly violated the federal wire fraud statue (18 USC 1343). Gleick's lies were widely disseminated and greatly damaged the Heartland Institute. In spite of strenuous requests by the victim Heartland Institute, the administration's U.S. Attorney in Chicago has refused, so far, to prosecute. Gleick was quickly rehabilitated, returned to his position as the president of the Pacific Institute and given the honor of an invited talk at the 2012 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union. Maybe the MacArthur Foundation will give him another genius award for escaping prosecution and professional shame. Odd, how with all these allegations, the author - as is the pattern for this entire collection of tripe - has not a single shred of data.

The pushback to Spencer's Remote Sensing paper became more bizarre when the editor of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, resigned and apologized to Kevin Trenberth for publishing Spencer's paper. In his letter of resignation Wagner made it clear that there was no impropriety in the publishing of the paper. Peer review was properly conducted by qualified reviewers. Why would an Austrian professor and the editor of a journal published in Switzerland apologize, for not doing anything wrong, to a government scientist in Colorado? Obviously because the establishment was displeased by the paper and the implied criticism of the establishment. Apparently the influence of the climate establishment is powerful and world wide. If they say jump, scientists everywhere say how high. Presumably the apology was directed to Trenberth acting in his capacity as a leader of the climate establishment. This is a complete misrepresentation of the resignation letter, which can be found here: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

Steve McIntyre, a prominent skeptical scientist and blogger said this:

"Like most of us, I've been a bit taken aback by the ritual seppuku of young academic Wolfgang Wagner, formerly editor of Remote Sensing, for the temerity of casting a shadow across the path of climate capo Kevin Trenberth. It appears that Wagner's self immolation has only partly appeased Trenberth, who, like an Oriental despot, remains unamused."
Gossip, interpretation, and completely devoid of scientific data.

Besides the slander and power plays against Spencer described above, the establishment also commissioned a scientific paper to debunk Spencer's work. The scientist chosen to do this was Andrew Dessler, a professor in the atmospheric sciences department at Texas A & M university.

Texas A&M has a large atmospheric sciences department. On their website there are 22 tenured and tenure track faculty. What is really unusual about the department is that all the regular faculty are seemingly required according to whom? to sign a global warming loyalty oath called the climate change statement. Every faculty member except one new arrival has signed. None of the lowly adjunct faculty's names appear.

The Texas A&M atmospheric sciences department is part of the College of Geosciences. That college also houses the department of Geology and Geophysics that operates practically as a satellite of the Texas energy industry. Texas A&M has a large endowment, heavily invested in energy industries, and of course, the revenue of the state of Texas is heavily dependent on carbon burning energy industries. There are strange bedfellows in the Texas A&M College of Geosciences.
Which argues against them being part of a global warming cabal.

Andrew Dessler wrote his paper attacking Spencer's paper. It zoomed through peer review in 19 days, a remarkable speed record. It was published in Geophysical Research Letters, a favored journal of the global warming establishment.
Gossip, yadda yadda ...

It probably didn't matter what Dessler's paper said or how objective it was. All that really mattered is that the climate establishment could say to the world of media and politics that Roy Spencer had been refuted. Spencer had a response on his website within 24 hours of receiving a preprint of the paper. One problem for the establishment is that Dessler is prone to go a bit wobbly and lose focus as to the main task. The main task is making skeptics like Roy Spencer look like incompetent idiots. Dessler entered into a dialog with Spencer and accepted suggestions from Spencer to correct errors and otherwise improve the paper attacking Spencer himself. Spencer felt this was a great step forward from establishment figures ignoring him or taking potshots from afar.

The global warming scientific establishment is starting to look like the final days of the Soviet Union. On the surface it appears impregnable and the dissidents are a minor problem. But the huge soviet edifice quickly collapsed when people lost their fear of the system and the functionaries stopped following orders. There came a point when everyone decided to stop living a lie. I can't believe, for example, that every faculty member at Texas A&M is really happy about signing a climate loyalty oath.
More gossip ...

The lie the scientist believers in global warming are living is that the climate models reliably mimic the Earth's climate and are suitable for predicting the future. Roy Spencer has developed a theory to compute climate sensitivity, using real data, data that does not invoke the monster climate models. His theories may or may not stand the test of time, but the climate establishment should stop acting like a science mafia protecting its turf. New ideas should be allowed to circulate freely, not be strangled at birth.
... with hyperbole sauce ...

Norman Rogers, educated as a physicist, is a retired computer entrepreneur, a volunteer Senior Policy Advisor at the Heartland Institute, a member of the American Geophysical Union and of the American Meteorological Society. He maintains a website.
and a really pathetic example of self-promotion and bias as the cherry on top.



Are you mistaking this for a scientific paper discussing both the pros and cons of a hypothesis, referencing both past data of other researchers as well as newly generated data of the researcher him/ herself?



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 13, 2013 5:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


He'll never read it, Kiki, and you know it. More and more this new person shows himself to be, if not an actual sockpuppet of someone, certainly cut from exactly the same cloth.

I got a smile out of him accusing me of being a sockpuppet, since anyone who's been here for very long knows my feelings on same. Also the fact that I'm probably the only person here who is quite up front about myself, having posted personal information, photos, etc., and even keeping everyone up to date with videos of the trip they made possible for me. Given Kiki's been here longer than I, it's amusing to think of her suddenly creating a sockpuppet like me.

Just for his information, if he's not just a shadow: People here know my feelings about environment, conservation, etc., so when the Gulf Spill happened I was pretty upset. One wonderful person who has long been gone came up with the idea of helping to send me to the Gulf to help with the restoration (I will always be indebted to Anthony), and others chipped in. The result was that I was able to spend two wonderful weeks in Louisianna, scooting along on my butt replanting marsh grasses in Lake Pontchartrain, which memory I will always treasure. I will always be indebted to the people here for that, and I never forget it.

Everyone who's been here knows I'm nobody's sockpuppet, and think the very idea of one is pretty asinine. Anyone who can't speak for themselves, and is desperate enough to create a fictional personna just to have another voice agree with them, is pretty pathetic. They have been created here, and found out (which sockpuppets strangely disappeared thereafter); I had to ask what one WAS when I first heard the suggestion regarding someone else, as I'd never encountered such a thing on the internet before. For not the first time, I agree with Rap; "It only shows how some folks, when they have nothing left to offer, start grasping at all manner of straws." I guess he was talking about our newbie, since he's the one suggesting I am.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 13, 2013 5:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Thank you, Kiki, for exposing that stupid article as the drivel that it is. I would never have ahd the patience. Apparently Domokun1*, rappy, jongsstraw, et al have never READ a scientific paper, and don't know what evidence sounds like. For their edification, here is part of one such paper:

Quote:

Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model
Caspar M. Ammann*, Fortunat Joos*†‡, David S. Schimel*, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner*, and Robert A. Tomas*

There is an ongoing debate on the role of the sun in recent observed warming. Century-scale solar irradiance variations have been proposed as cause for past climatic changes (e.g.,refs. 18 and 19). The latest summaries of the various uncertainties can be found in two recent reviews (20, 21). Satellite data since 1979 quantify the irradiance variations associated with the 11-year Schwabe sunspot cycle to ?0.08 – 0.1% of the ?1,367 Wm?2 solar radiation reaching the top of our atmosphere (21). This variation translates into a radiative forcing of
?0.2– 0.3 W m?2, roughly a factor of 10 smaller than the radiative forcing by well mixed greenhouse gases (2.4 W m?2 in 2000 AD relative to 1750 AD). Although direct measurements of solar irradiance are limited to the satellite period
(21), tentative correlations with records of sunspots (22, 23),aurora histories, geomagnetic indices, or the production rates of cosmogenic nuclei such as 10-Beryllium (10Be) and radio carbon (14C) (3, 24) in conjunction with magnetic behavior of sunspot numbers, and the sun’s closed magnetic field or its total energy output is not fully understood (27). Nevertheless, the temporal evolution of the different proxy series, particularly in certain well defined frequencies (?11-year Schwabe Cycle, ?80- to 85-year Gleissberg Cycle, and ?207-year deVries Cycle), is in reasonable agreement across most solar proxies (20, 28), and comparisons between proxies suggest significant modulation consistent with deduced solar cycles (20). However, the scaling required to translate a proxy record of sunspot number, or production rate of 10Be, into actual solar
irradiance anomalies is highly uncertain, and published estimates of multidecadal solar irradiance changes vary by more than a factor of five (3, 21). Recently, astronomical evidence has been used to suggest that low-frequency variability of solar irradiance might be very low, possibly restricted to the range of the observed high-frequency variability (29, 30). These new
estimates are lower by a factor of five or more than the upper end of previously used values (25, 31). Such low forcing from solar irradiance changes has even led to suggestions that low frequency paleoclimatic variability was not forced by solar variability.



Yes, I know... too many NUMBERZ! Too COMPLIKATED! How is one supposed to reach an easy conclusion without having to THINK???


There was one part of the article that really maded me laugh:
Quote:

At times the public presentations of climate science descend into outrageous advocacy.
And, this article ISN'T exactly the outrageous advocacy that is decries? Nearly made me spray coffee all over my keyboard, that.

* FWIW... DOMOKUN1- Hey, I noticed your name has a "K" in it, like Niki's and Kikis', and it has number in it too, just like them. Are you sure you're not Niki's sock-puppet?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 13, 2013 6:09 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"He'll never read it, Kiki, and you know it."

You mean he linked it and DIDN'T READ IT ALREADY? Hey, I figured.

On the off chance that he actually responds, perhaps we'll have a fruitful discussion. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

And if he doesn't after a reasonable amount of time - I responded on the same day so I'll give him a week - if I have the time and patience, I intend to pursue him from thread to thread and post to post with his failure to respond - just long enough, I hope, to make it glaringly obvious to everyone what a hypocrite he is. And when he DEMANDS! to be taken seriously and responded to over posts of his own, yes I will mention it before I write him off as someone to ignore.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 13, 2013 8:57 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Climate change 'scientists', aka ugly geeks who couldn't land a tv weather gig, now say chili today, hot tamale. Covers it all, with beans.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 13, 2013 8:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh dear, another one who has decided to become a piece of human go se. Get help, Jongsie. You have it in you to actually think. We've seen it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:49 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


bump

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:04 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'll say it.

Niki is the Left's equivalent to a young Earth Creationist, who rabidly refuses to believe dinosaurs existed, or that if they did, they lived w/ Adam and Eve and were ALL vegetarians.



Your stupidity knows no bounds. You're the one denying science, fuckwit - not her.




I'm denying a political agenda, not 'science'.

Quote:



Granted, I don't think any level of proof would get you to change - you don't even care. The truth means nothing to you - you'll never admit to being wrong, no matter the evidence. Because you're an inhumane piece of shit.



The the contrary, truth and honesty in science mean a great deal to me. You're just grumpy I don't buy into AlGore's asinine delusions.

Quote:



Meanwhile, as morons like you continue to deny - the world passed a big threshold today, as Carbon in the air has reached 400 parts per million - the highest its been since humanity has existed.



And it's been the coolest spring in this part of the world for at least 20 years.

Color me unimpressed.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So there Domokun1 -

Got anything to say about climate change? Ball's in your court.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Monday, May 13, 2013 06:09 AM

And if he doesn't after a reasonable amount of time - I responded on the same day so I'll give him a week - if I have the time and patience, I intend to pursue him from thread to thread and post to post with his failure to respond - just long enough, I hope, to make it glaringly obvious to everyone what a hypocrite he is. And when he DEMANDS! to be taken seriously and responded to over posts of his own, yes I will mention it before I write him off as someone to ignore.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


First, I can save you all that time and effort. As you can see by what response you DID get, Rap will never do more than repeat the same tripe, no matter what you post on the subject, so you needn't bother. You know that, and can of course post whatever you want, but it's just a waste of time, and I hate to see you wasting your time (although your dissection was just plain wonderful, thank you). But there's really no point to be MADE, because Rap's M.O. is solidly in place and has never changed, and I'm sure never will.

Second, has anyone else noticed that Domo-what's-his-name hasn't been back? He arrived on the fifth and hasn't been back since the twelfth, which is pretty standard, from my observations, for people who show up, seem (to me at least) suspiciously like sock puppets, and post exclusively or almost exclusively in RWED. His last post, far as I can tell, was in http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=54824&mid=
935940#935940
--posting this now might well bring him back, since anyone whose sock puppet he is will read it, but if he comes back, I'll wager he won't stick around long again. It's pretty S.O.P. for the "new" people I've seen arrive here who sound just like Rap or one of his buddies, then disappear, never to be seen again...

People are strange...must be bothersome to keep up the charade; in this case especially as he went to other forums (the lack of doing so having been noted with previous puppets), came here, then went back briefly to other forums, perhaps to solidify his bona fides, before returning here. Takes extra effort to put that much time into it; I don't expect they'll ever hang around long, and they just don't work, so it's weird, albeit slightly amusing, that whoever it is keeps making the effort. Not enough effort to distinguish their style from the familiar, either, so I'm tempted to give the Domo effort a C, better than some of the previous ones, but not all that great...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:16 - 237 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:06 - 592 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, October 31, 2024 13:46 - 7408 posts
No matter what happens...
Wed, October 30, 2024 23:43 - 21 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL