We won't Burn UP for over a Billion Years!

[flogger]

Firstly, Hansen is not the inventor of modern "alarmism." If anyone deserves that title, it is the non scientist, Al Gore

Hansen came a long time before Gore with his scary model forecasts of doom to Congress in 1988. None of which bear the slightest resemblance to what actually has transpired
.

Secondly, he is not saying that global warming has ended.

Of course he wont its his baby. But he has been forced to concede by the inconvenient intrusion of observed reality that it has been at a 'standstill' for a least the last decade or more which is something you will never accept even when someone like him says it. Why not ?

Thirdly, the scientific organizations have not backed off from their conclusions that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, or that human activities are accelerating it.

Were that actually true then given the thermometers and in light of Hansens 'concession' it makes them look even more ridiculously unscientific and politically hidebound now doesnt it ?

Fourthly, even the "conservative" media is saying that examples of weather extremes are due to AGW.

Thats your problem right there. You prefer the sensationalist media soundbites to any scientific or factual analysis because it fits your political worldview

And lastly, we've already been over this and over it, and you still have no argument. Get back to me when you have something new

What argument would you like me to make that hasnt overturned your misguided perceptions of reality many times previously now ?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Hansen came a long time before Gore with his scary model forecasts of doom to Congress in 1988. None of which bear the slightest resemblance to what actually has transpired
.


Of course he wont its his baby. But he has been forced to concede by the inconvenient intrusion of observed reality that it has been at a 'standstill' for a least the last decade or more which is something you will never accept even when someone like him says it. Why not ?



Were that actually true then given the thermometers and in light of Hansens 'concession' it makes them look even more ridiculously unscientific and politically hidebound now doesnt it ?



Thats your problem right there. You prefer the sensationalist media soundbites to any scientific or factual analysis because it fits your political worldview



What argument would you like me to make that hasnt overturned your misguided perceptions of reality many times previously now ?

I don't know. It looks to me like you're fresh out of ideas.
but, don't worry about it. You've taken a position against every scientific organization on Earth. The best you can do against such odds is to take a few quotes out of context and then deny plain facts.

Such as:

The first decade of the 21st century was the hottest on record, marked by unprecedented climate and weather extremes that killed more than 370,000 people,

Read more: Past decade hottest on record, marked by extremes: UN | Fox News

 

[flogger]

I don't know. It looks to me like you're fresh out of ideas.
but, don't worry about it. You've taken a position against every scientific organization on Earth. The best you can do against such odds is to take a few quotes out of context and then deny plain facts.

Please cite any statement by such an organisation claiming we are heading for catastrophe ? Hint ... The IPCC isnt it

Such as:

Read more: Past decade hottest on record, marked by extremes: UN | Fox News

And what makes you think our accurate record is anywhere near long enough to be making determinations about anything ?

Because the political body that is the UN says so !! If you keep relying on the subjective analysis of the sensationalist media for your info then its little wonder you believe as you do. Ever heard the quote 'panic sells' ? :roll:

 

[Dittohead not!]

Please cite any statement by such an organisation claiming we are heading for catastrophe ?

Sure, just as soon as you can cite any statement made by me claiming we are headed for a catastrophe.

And what makes you think our accurate record is anywhere near long enough to be making determinations about anything ? The UN says !! :shock:

Records in ice cores and so on go back tens of thousands of years, for one thing.
for another, they are saying the warmest on record, not the warmest ever. I'm sure the dinosaurs enjoyed a climate quite different from the one that we see today.

If you keep relying on the subjective analysis of the sensationalist media for your info then its little wonder you believe as you do. Ever heard the quote 'panic sells' ? :roll:

No one is panicking, nor relying on subjective analyses, nor the sensationalist media. What you're doing is setting up an argument, then arguing against it.

But, that's OK. Setting up strawmen is all you can do against overwhelming evidence that your argument just doesn't hold water in the real world. You know, kind of like a colander, all full of holes.

 

[gslack]

Hardly.

LOL, the link is to the paper he wrote where he said it. And the quote was verbatim..

Look or don't look dude, I don't care. But refusing to accept the truth just because it makes you incorrect is ignorant.. As well as immature..

 

[flogger]

Sure, just as soon as you can cite any statement made by me claiming we are headed for a catastrophe.

So your true motivation must be societal change than with AGW being todays trendy angle for achieving that yes ? Otherwise what are we talking about ?

Records in ice cores and so on go back tens of thousands of years, for one thing.

Indeed they do but none of them help you out much because they show todays conditions to be well within the natural norms.

Ice Cores

for another, they are saying the warmest on record, not the warmest ever. I'm sure the dinosaurs enjoyed a climate quite different from the one that we see today.

Bronze age man clearly did too .... minus SUVs

No one is panicking, nor relying on subjective analyses, nor the sensationalist media. What you're doing is setting up an argument, then arguing against it.

You cited the media in order to make your case I didnt.... remember ?

But, that's OK. Setting up strawmen is all you can do against overwhelming evidence that your argument just doesn't hold water in the real world. You know, kind of like a colander, all full of holes

What strawman ? I commented on what you linked . What did you want me to do ?

 

[gslack]

Godfather of global warming?

never did I say I didn't kinow who he was. I posted a few links showing who he really was.

quite different from the out of context quote above, wasn't it?

here's the rest of your own site:



Quoting Hansen as saying that global warming ended 15 years ago is much like quoting the Pope as saying that we should all be Protestants. Such a quote would have to have been taken out of context, just as yours was.

But, keep on trying. I know you have a difficult time coming up with real arguments showing that AGW is a hoax. Perhaps you could try something easier, like maybe proving that the Earth is the center of the solar system or something.

Dude you are ridiculous.. A few posts ago you weren't willing to admit Hansen was a warmer or a denier. You didn't even know who the man was, now you claim what he said wasn't what he actually said because now you know he's a warmer too...

ROFL.. There is dancing and then there is dancing, and then there is this crap you are trying to pull now.. It's as if all shame has left you..

 

[Dittohead not!]

So your true motivation must be societal change than with AGW being todays trendy angle for achieving that yes ? Otherwise what are we talking about ?

My real motivation is to poke fun at your absurd statements, nothing more. As for the political side of AGW, I'm pretty much neutral. I don't think that there is anything that can be done about it anyway, and I'm even more certain that any action taken by the government is going to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

I'm not advocating any sort of "societal changes", nor do I see it as "today's trendy angle." It is a scientific theory, pure and simple, and one that is accepted by every scientific organization on Earth. Arguing against it is much like arguing against evolution, or the heliocentric solar system, or the germ theory of disease. Sure, you can find a ton of electronic supermarket tabloids picking out one statement, one fact, one trend, and making a lot of nothing out of it, or just making up nonsense from whole cloth, but that only proves that they want to gain attention to sell advertising and nothing more.

The amazing thing is that so many people seem willing to attempt to discredit this theory and do it on the flimsiest of evidence, attributing to it positions that the scientific community does not take and making a political issue out of it.

And by "so many people", I mean not only the deniers, but also what you call the "alarmists" who want to preach doom and gloom and make political fixes that are likely to be worse than the disease.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Dude you are ridiculous.. A few posts ago you weren't willing to admit Hansen was a warmer or a denier. You didn't even know who the man was, now you claim what he said wasn't what he actually said because now you know he's a warmer too...

ROFL.. There is dancing and then there is dancing, and then there is this crap you are trying to pull now.. It's as if all shame has left you..

I posted his actual statements, the whole thing, context and all. Anyway, if he had changed his mind, so what? If Al Gore became a denier, so what? It would prove absolutely nothing.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Planet good for another 1.75 billion years, scientists say | Fox News

How does that work out for the global warming craze?

No one has ever argued that climate change will completely destroy the habitability of Earth, so...

 

[flogger]

My real motivation is to poke fun at your absurd statements

What absurd statements ?

As for the political side of AGW, I'm pretty much neutral

Yes I can see that ! :lamo

I don't think that there is anything that can be done about it anyway, and I'm even more certain that any action taken by the government is going to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

I agree. Its the cost of that 'counterproductivity' thats really been lightening my wallet of late here in the UK though

I'm not advocating any sort of "societal changes", nor do I see it as "today's trendy angle." It is a scientific theory, pure and simple, and one that is accepted by every scientific organization on Earth.

Yet there isnt a single study to date empirically linking human activity to global temperature nor is there a model study thats ever been worth squat

Arguing against it is much like arguing against evolution, or the heliocentric solar system, or the germ theory of disease.

Nonsense. This is comparing apples with oranges. You allude to certainties and absolutes on this that exist nowhere within published scientific literature to date. Even that guy Hansen (the one you 'forgot to remember' about) would never claim so and he invented it !

Sure, you can find a ton of electronic supermarket tabloids picking out one statement, one fact, one trend, and making a lot of nothing out of it, or just making up nonsense from whole cloth, but that only proves that they want to gain attention to sell advertising and nothing more.

Agreed. Maybe you should stop using them when making your points in the future then

The amazing thing is that so many people seem willing to attempt to discredit this theory and do it on the flimsiest of evidence, attributing to it positions that the scientific community does not take and making a political issue out of it.

Here in Europe its a massively expensive economic and political issue already. Personally speaking my energy bills have risen 40% in just 4 years due to green taxes levied on my continued existence in order to fight (?) this nonsense. These will double by 2020 too

And by "so many people", I mean not only the deniers, but also what you call the "alarmists" who want to preach doom and gloom and make political fixes that are likely to be worse than the disease

Indeed . Environmentalists have been killing us with their cures for a long time now. The current AGW alarmists are just the latest incarnation of that

 

[Dittohead not!]

What absurd statements ?

:lamo

Yes I can see that !

Good. About time.

I agree. Its the cost of that 'counterproductivity' thats really been lightening my wallet of late here in the UK though

You need to talk about your politicians, then, and not the science of AGW. Those are two separate issues.

Yet there isnt a single study to date empirically linking human activity to global temperature nor is there a model study thats ever been worth squat

In your opinion they aren't worth squat, because you're too invested in trying to discredit science in order to counter the political reaction.

You don't have to try to discredit a scientific theory in order to argue that carbon taxes are a bad idea.

Nonsense. This is comparing apples with oranges. You allude to certainties and absolutes on this that exist nowhere within published scientific literature to date. Even that guy Hansen (the one you 'forgot to remember' about) would never claim so and he invented it !

There are certainties. The actual position of the real scientists are based on them. The strawman arguments based on "alarmism" are not.

Agreed. Maybe you should stop using them when making your points in the future then

No, I really don't put Fox News quite in the category of electronic supermarket tabloids. That distinction would go to the World Net Daily, or perhaps to the Limbaugh Letter, or perhaps to environmentamerica. There are literally hundreds of them on the internet.

Here in Europe its a massively expensive economic and political issue already. Personally speaking my energy bills have risen 40% in just 4 years due to green taxes levied on my continued existence in order to fight (?) this nonsense. These will double by 2020 too

No wonder you're trying so hard tilting at windmills! I might be, too. The fact of the matter is that raising energy bills are not going to stop global warming, but that doesn't mean that global warming is a hoax.

Indeed . Environmentalists have been killing us with their cures for a long time now. The current AGW alarmists are just the latest incarnation of that

No argument from me there.

 

[flogger]

:lamo

So you have none . Fair enough

Good. About time.

Does 'irony' mean something just has a lot of metal in it to you ?

You need to talk about your politicians, then, and not the science of AGW. Those are two separate issues

Nonsense. The politicians got what they paid for . A pseudo scientific and taxable guilt trip nothing more

In your opinion they aren't worth squat, because you're too invested in trying to discredit science in order to counter the political reaction.

Without those models there is no crisis so lets look how they have gotten on to date

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

You don't have to try to discredit a scientific theory in order to argue that carbon taxes are a bad idea.

Its not a theory though its a hypothesis and one that has failed the test of both empirical analysis and observational confirmation

There are certainties. The actual position of the real scientists are based on them.

Please illustrate the certainties established for AGW ?

No, I really don't put Fox News quite in the category of electronic supermarket tabloids. That distinction would go to the World Net Daily, or perhaps to the Limbaugh Letter, or perhaps to environmentamerica. There are literally hundreds of them on the internet.

If you allege the scientific integrity of what you believe is so strong then why are you using any of them then ?

No wonder you're trying so hard tilting at windmills! I might be, too. The fact of the matter is that raising energy bills are not going to stop global warming, but that doesn't mean that global warming is a hoax.

No its a scam. Theres a difference

 

[Dittohead not!]

So you have none . Fair enough



Does 'irony' mean something just has a lot of metal in it to you ?



Nonsense. The politicians got what they paid for . A taxable guilt trip nothing more



Without those models there is no crisis so lets look how they have gotten on to date

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png



Its not a theory though its a hypothesis and one that has failed the test of both empirical analysis and observational confirmation



Please illustrate the certainties established for AGW ?



If you allege the scientific integrity of what you believe is so strong then why are you using any of them then ?



No its a scam. Theres a difference

The average temperature of the Earth is going up. Carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels is partly responsible.

That is not a scam. It is observation and reality.

We're headed for total environmental disaster if we don't all quit burning fossil fuels and reduce our carbon footprint forthwith regardless of the costs.

That is a scam. Science does not support it.

We need big government to protect us from ourselves, or we're likely to destroy the planet.

This is also a scam, and is not supported by science.

Scientists are just telling government what it wants to hear in order to keep the research dollars coming. It's all a conspiracy to increase the size and power of government.

This is also a scam. For one thing, government doesn't have that sort of advance planning. For another, scientists are not going to buy into such a conspiracy. For yet another, non governmental entities are saying exactly the same thing.

 

[flogger]

The average temperature of the Earth is going up. Carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels is partly responsible.

Please cite the empirical evidence that the increase of 0.012% of atmospheric volume of CO2 can be distinguished from natural background variation much less quantified in its effect on temperature ?

That is not a scam. It is observation and reality.

Prove it ?

Scientists are just telling government what it wants to hear in order to keep the research dollars coming. It's all a conspiracy to increase the size and power of government.

Greed and job security seem more likely candidates amongst some. Its human nature

This is also a scam. For one thing, government doesn't have that sort of advance planning. For another, scientists are not going to buy into such a conspiracy. For yet another, non governmental entities are saying exactly the same thing

You cant really be that naieve surely ? Doubtless you'll buy into every 'big oil' skeptic conspiracy twaddle going though :roll:

 

[gslack]

I posted his actual statements, the whole thing, context and all. Anyway, if he had changed his mind, so what? If Al Gore became a denier, so what? It would prove absolutely nothing.

No ya didn't dude.. LOL, in reality I DID!

Remember my link? It was to the actual paper silly.. Yeah I did that, me...Another poster, posted a similar link to the same paper... All YOU did was post from our links and claim you actually did something...Next time you want to play this game at least do your own work.. ROFL

 

[Dittohead not!]

Please cite the empirical evidence that the increase of 0.012% of atmospheric volume of CO2 can be distinguished from natural background variation much less quantified in its effect on temperature ?



Prove it ?



Greed and job security seem more likely candidates amongst some. Its human nature



You cant really be that naieve surely ? Doubtless you'll buy into every 'big oil' skeptic conspiracy twaddle going though :roll:

Big oil skeptic? Even Exxon Mobile is acknowledging the reality of AGW now.

Managing climate change risks
Our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is focused on increasing energy efficiency in the short term, implementing proven emission-reducing technologies in the near and medium term, and developing breakthrough, game-changing technologies for the long term. Technological innovation will play a central role in our ability to increase supply, improve efficiency, and reduce emissions. Approximately 90 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by petroleum products are released when customers use our products, and the remaining 10 percent are generated by industry operations.1 Therefore, technology is also needed to reduce energy-related emissions by end users.

all about improved efficiency, reduction of emissions, and technology. Nothing about a scam and a hoax.

 

[gslack]

My real motivation is to poke fun at your absurd statements, nothing more. As for the political side of AGW, I'm pretty much neutral. I don't think that there is anything that can be done about it anyway, and I'm even more certain that any action taken by the government is going to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

I'm not advocating any sort of "societal changes", nor do I see it as "today's trendy angle." It is a scientific theory, pure and simple, and one that is accepted by every scientific organization on Earth. Arguing against it is much like arguing against evolution, or the heliocentric solar system, or the germ theory of disease. Sure, you can find a ton of electronic supermarket tabloids picking out one statement, one fact, one trend, and making a lot of nothing out of it, or just making up nonsense from whole cloth, but that only proves that they want to gain attention to sell advertising and nothing more.

The amazing thing is that so many people seem willing to attempt to discredit this theory and do it on the flimsiest of evidence, attributing to it positions that the scientific community does not take and making a political issue out of it.

And by "so many people", I mean not only the deniers, but also what you call the "alarmists" who want to preach doom and gloom and make political fixes that are likely to be worse than the disease.

The bolded and underlined part above? That's a description of trolling dude.. If that is your only motivation, than your motivation is to troll.. Last I heard that was frowned on..

 

[flogger]

Big oil skeptic? Even Exxon Mobile is acknowledging the reality of AGW now.
all about improved efficiency, reduction of emissions, and technology. Nothing about a scam and a hoax.

I dont blame them jumping on the bandwagon theres billions to be made from the guilt programmed suckers out there. You cant have it both ways though Is big oil now good or bad ?

Still waiting for your proof of hypothesis BTW

 

[Dittohead not!]

I dont blame them jumping on the bandwagon theres billions to be made from the guilt programmed suckers out there. You cant have it both ways though Is big oil now good or bad ?

Still waiting for your proof of hypothesis BTW

Big oil is neither good nor bad. It is necessary, however, for an industrial society.

Sorry, but citing all of the evidence that went into the affirmation of AGW theory is way, way beyond what is reasonable to post on an internet forum. I'm not about to attempt to write a PhD thesis on the subject and post it here.

 

[flogger]

Big oil is neither good nor bad. It is necessary, however, for an industrial society.

Sorry, but citing all of the evidence that went into the affirmation of AGW theory is way, way beyond what is reasonable to post on an internet forum. I'm not about to attempt to write a PhD thesis on the subject and post it here.

Citing the Peer review study affirming that shouldnt be too much trouble for you should it given its claimed scientific integrity ?

OK then lets take one IPCC diktat and focus in on that instead. In AR4 they claim we must reduce our CO 2 emissions by 80% by 2050 . Please cite any study that affirms this requirement and/or establishes the effect on temperature it will have were it to be achieved ?

Proceed ....

 

[Dittohead not!]

Citing the Peer review study affirming that shouldnt be too much trouble for you should it given its claimed scientific integrity ?

OK then lets take one IPCC diktat and focus in on that instead. In AR4 they claim we must reduce our CO 2 emissions by 80% by 2050 . Please cite any study that affirms this requirement and/or establishes the effect on temperature it will have were it to be achieved ?

Proceed ....

I believe I've already said that there is no such study.
We must reduce them by 80% or what? You see, you've strayed once again into the politics of AGW.

 

[flogger]

I believe I've already said that there is no such study.

Ergo the hypothesis has no basis in fact or science

We must reduce them by 80% or what? You see, you've strayed once again into the politics of AGW

Glad you agree that the IPCC in decreeing such a diktat as being necessary , are more politically than scientifically motivated . We are making progress

 

[Wiseone]

Planet good for another 1.75 billion years, scientists say | Fox News

How does that work out for the global warming craze?

Fox has a "science" section.

Couple of problems here.

1) From the article:



In no way does this article suggest that Climate change is, or is not a factor.

You're making that comment without anything to support it.

2) This article focuses strictly to matters of the sun and it's expansion... in regards to creating the possibility of life in our solar system.

You're reaching... and there's nothing to grab.

I'd also like to point out that no one who advocates for the existence of global warming, man made or otherwise, has ever suggested that it will literally kill all life on Earth, pretending that they have argued that point is just a simple straw man tactic.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ergo the hypothesis has no basis in fact or science



Glad you agree that the IPCC in decreeing such a diktat as being necessary , are more politically than scientifically motivated . We are making progress

Perhaps.
My position is what it has always been.
It has never been what you seem to think it is.