The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

[GPS_Flex]

There's a difference between questioning the "orthodoxy", as you call it, and denying the science itself. If you don't deny the science then you, like me, are a real Skeptic and not the "skeptic" that true Deniers - the one's that do deny the science - use for themselves. I'm not saying the models are correct, obviously they're not. But as you've just noted, the response to that is not to throw out the models but do more research to make the models better. The Deniers would have us throw out the models completely, which is absurd.

You like to publicly stroke your ego with this “I’m a reasonable skeptic” mantra don’t you? Are you staking this claim on the safe assumption that the IPCC models are flawed? If so, that isn’t exactly heroic, so I hope you’ll pardon me if I’m not as impressed with you as you seem to be with yourself.

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say some "would have us throw out the models completely" but I'm interested in who these people are. Would you mind naming a few of them for me so I can better understand how balanced and logical you are compared to those people?

Thanks

 

[GPS_Flex]

No, you make them better. Would you throw out Newton's gravity? It was "wrong", too - still is.

Yep. That got thrown out when a better understanding of gravity came along due to better methods of testing gravity.

AGW computer models can’t be compared to what Newton did though because they can’t be tested the same way his work could. You already knew that though, being a student of science and all, didn’t you?

 

[GPS_Flex]

Tearing up our economies? :lamo

We'd be better off tossing all the Bankers in jail and throwing their models out the window!!!

Alas, you reveal your political bias and true agenda. Typical liberal tripe.

 

[GPS_Flex]

You don't understand real science, or if you do you do a damn good job of playing stupid. You constantly quote political blogs instead of actually looking at the studies and critiquing them. You've made the issue into some political Conspiracy instead of keeping it to the science. In your world science is a nasty word not used in polite company - unless, of course, it happens to back up your opinion, then it's OK. :roll:

Refer to my last post.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Really ?

Feel free to cite any of those particular 'political crap' or 'denier blog' links in question ? :roll:

I can tell you one right now off the top: the list that included dumb ass quotes that cited the EPA from the late 70's and claiming it was part of the Great Conspiracy of climate change. :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

Alas, you reveal your political bias and true agenda. Typical liberal tripe.

Have you really read the reports from independent economists and Bush's committee on the causes of the Great Recession? Have you noticed the credit rating agencies and banking execs that have been fined and thrown in jail for their actions? Apparently not - no doubt trusting in those right wing blogger sites to give you the "low-down" instead of reading the reports.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Refer to my last post.

Given your previous response I have no reason to expect you to read science papers, either.


BTW - Your obvious lean is showing, why lie about being "Independent"?

I doubt you've read enough of my position on climate and fossil fuels to know what I think and you have no clue as to my position on other issues, either. On some you're most likely left of me, so I wouldn't be too liberal about using the word "liberal". You just make yourself look silly.

 

[flogger]

I can tell you one right now off the top: the list that included dumb ass quotes that cited the EPA from the late 70's and claiming it was part of the Great Conspiracy of climate change. :roll:

Please dont let me stop you citing the link in question because I'll be darned if I can remember it ? You are obviously ascribing someone elses posts to me :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

Please dont let me stop you citing the link in question because I'll be darned if I can remember it ? You are obviously ascribing someone elses posts to me :roll:

And barely a month has gone by since you posted it! :lamo :lamo :lamo


http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-wipes-out-civilization-2.html#post1061528184
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-wipes-out-civilization-2.html#post1061528217

 

[flogger]

And barely a month has gone by since you posted it! :lamo :lamo :lamo


http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-wipes-out-civilization-2.html#post1061528184
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-wipes-out-civilization-2.html#post1061528217

You've completely lost me (and I suspect everyone else) now. How does me citing anti human quotes by environmentalists mean I'm in denial of anything or indulging your conspiracy theory strawman ? Are you somehow claiming they didnt make them and that I made them up ? :roll:

BTW Thanks for reminding us of them. :doh

 

[flogger]

Have you really read the reports from independent economists and Bush's committee on the causes of the Great Recession? Have you noticed the credit rating agencies and banking execs that have been fined and thrown in jail for their actions? Apparently not - no doubt trusting in those right wing blogger sites to give you the "low-down" instead of reading the reports.

Interesting how you manage to bring this totally unrelated issue into a thread about 'Global warmings missing heat' isnt it ? Your true motivations for participating here are clearly other than environmental and more to do with petty US party political point scoring .... tedious stuff :roll:

 

[GPS_Flex]

Have you really read the reports from independent economists and Bush's committee on the causes of the Great Recession? Have you noticed the credit rating agencies and banking execs that have been fined and thrown in jail for their actions? Apparently not - no doubt trusting in those right wing blogger sites to give you the "low-down" instead of reading the reports.

While it’s entertaining to watch you carry on a conversation with yourself about my awareness of issues unrelated to the environment and climate, and to watch you answer your own silly questions for me, I’ll take a pass on this “occupy Wall Street” topic.

Thanks for reinforcing my point though.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Given your previous response I have no reason to expect you to read science papers, either.


BTW - Your obvious lean is showing, why lie about being "Independent"?

I doubt you've read enough of my position on climate and fossil fuels to know what I think and you have no clue as to my position on other issues, either. On some you're most likely left of me, so I wouldn't be too liberal about using the word "liberal". You just make yourself look silly.

What’s a science paper and why should I read one?

As for your positions on “climate and fossil fuels”, you’re right that I don’t know where you stand, but your sanctimonious self praise, combined with you sucking up to Deuce for his approval, says enough about you to know whether I should take you seriously or not for now. Don’t worry; I give everyone a fair shake. If you’re as awesome as you advertise yourself to be, I’ll give you credit. If you aren’t, I’ll call you on it.

Also, I’m registered to vote as an “Independent”, so think whatever you want.

 

[GPS_Flex]

You've completely lost me (and I suspect everyone else) now. How does me citing anti human quotes by environmentalists mean I'm in denial of anything or indulging your conspiracy theory strawman ? Are you somehow claiming they didnt make them and that I made them up ? :roll:

BTW Thanks for reminding us of them. :doh

Yeah, I'm lost too. What's your point exactly MoSurveyor?

 

[GPS_Flex]

Warmers are upset because it is not getting warmer and are looking for any excuse they can come up with, this article is hilarious.




"Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global ocean"

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

The earth’s climate obviously isn’t as sensitive as the alarmists, or the IPCC models, think.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Yep. That got thrown out when a better understanding of gravity came along due to better methods of testing gravity.

AGW computer models can’t be compared to what Newton did though because they can’t be tested the same way his work could. You already knew that though, being a student of science and all, didn’t you?

Of course they can be tested just as Newton's and Einstein's work was, by predicting outcomes. The current models obviously fail, telling me they are incomplete, just as Newton's work was incomplete - and everyone (in science) at the time knew it.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Interesting how you manage to bring this totally unrelated issue into a thread about 'Global warmings missing heat' isnt it ? Your true motivations for participating here are clearly other than environmental and more to do with petty US party political point scoring .... tedious stuff :roll:

I wasn't the one crying about "tearing up our economies". If you didn't want economics to be part of the discussion you shouldn't have brought the subject up.

Typical of you to forget your own post, though, especially when you think you can make hay by ignoring it. :roll:

 

[flogger]

Of course they can be tested just as Newton's and Einstein's work was, by predicting outcomes. The current models obviously fail, telling me they are incomplete, just as Newton's work was incomplete - and everyone (in science) at the time knew it.

Rather more than simply 'incomplete' I think . In this case its more like a jigsaw puzzle with almost all the pieces missing and no backgroud picture to work from anyway !

 

[MoSurveyor]

What’s a science paper and why should I read one?

I suggest you spend some time in your local library.

As for your positions on “climate and fossil fuels”, you’re right that I don’t know where you stand, but your sanctimonious self praise, combined with you sucking up to Deuce for his approval, says enough about you to know whether I should take you seriously or not for now. Don’t worry; I give everyone a fair shake. If you’re as awesome as you advertise yourself to be, I’ll give you credit. If you aren’t, I’ll call you on it.

"Sucking up" to Deuce? :lamo
Only a corporatist shill would use that type of language.

 

[flogger]

I wasn't the one crying about "tearing up our economies". If you didn't want economics to be part of the discussion you shouldn't have brought the subject up.

Typical of you to forget your own post, though, especially when you think you can make hay by ignoring it. :roll:

That was in respect of economics and the environment not drumbeating for irrelevant US centric party politics ....atta boy keep wriggling ! :lamo

 

[MoSurveyor]

You've completely lost me (and I suspect everyone else) now. How does me citing anti human quotes by environmentalists mean I'm in denial of anything or indulging your conspiracy theory strawman ? Are you somehow claiming they didnt make them and that I made them up?

You did what you and your kind often do, take quotes and ideas out of context to present them as evidence for your agenda whether the actual meaning in context promotes your views or not.

If you believe EPA standards of the 70's was somehow "anti-human" I invite you to take a long drink from an industrial water outlet full of poisons. Maybe you'll re-think that position.

 

[MoSurveyor]

That was in respect of economics and the environment not drumbeating for irrelevant US centric party politics ....atta boy keep wriggling ! :lamo

So if you start down a given road you want to steer? How typical! :lamo

 

[flogger]

You did what you and your kind often do, take quotes and ideas out of context to present them as evidence for your agenda whether the actual meaning in context promotes your views or not.

No I linked or cited verbatim the quotes as they were presented. Feel free to illustrate which quotes I have taken out of context you have literally dozens to choose from

If you believe EPA standards of the 70's was somehow "anti-human" I invite you to take a long drink from an industrial water outlet full of poisons. Maybe you'll re-think that position

The genesis of anti human environmentalism goes back a long way. The BS 70s new ice age scare was supposedly all our fault too I remember. Pointing that out doesnt mean I'm somehow pro pollution :lol:

 

[flogger]

So if you start down a given road you want to steer? How typical! :lamo

I couldnt care less about your politics or your interpretation of what you believe must be my politics. I'm not American :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

No I linked or cited verbatim the quotes as they were presented. Feel free to illustrate which quotes I have taken out of context you have literally dozens to choose from.

The genesis of anti human environmentalism goes back a long way. The BS 70s new ice age scare was supposedly all our fault too I remember. Pointing that out doesnt mean I'm somehow pro pollution :lol:

And you keep pushing the same failed point, which is also not uncommon for you. The one under discussion is taken out of context.

The EPA had zero position on any kind of climate change in the 70's other than pressing things like LA smog and the death of Lake Erie. I'm sure that's anti-human to you, though. Heaven forbid we should care about the toxic chemicals and particulates in our water and air if it costs money.

As you said, "atta boy keep wriggling". :lamo