posted January 14, 2014 07:10 PM            

quote:

---

It's quite relevant that it has been much warmer prior to man, but Leftists are never ones to get logic.

---

I really wish you'd stop positing the illogical followed by claims that it's others that are illogical. It's not relevant one way or the other whether it was warmer prior to man. Cat's right that context means something. In fact, context means a lot. If farmland dries up, and becomes unusable due to drought (i.e. the inability to bring water into the region), that's a problem. Making another un-nuanced statement that it's relevant doesn't prove it's relevance.

quote:

---

Glacial ice has all but recovered. That's an inconvenient truth for alarmists, isn't it? Gore just made up stuff that we would face in the near future. None of it happened. In fact, none of the cataclysmic, catastrophic, dire predictions of the climate alarmists have come true. That's why we can totally disregard what these faux scientists say. Their scare tactics never come to fruition. The proof is in the pudding. The pudding is just fine. The Earth is doing great.

---

Untrue. You think that by providing a single example that you can easily sweep away examples that don't back your story.

Glacial ice in recent news:
“A few years ago, the river disappeared and now this bridge, the longest bridge in Iceland, is just standing there, and there’s no water underneath it,” he said. “So it looks like we are crazy here in Iceland.”
Iceland’s vanishing ice - December 19,2013

But like most Alaska glaciers, Eklutna Glacier is shrinking. A photo taken by Stephen R. Capps in 1915, the year after Anchorage was founded, showed the glacier’s terminus jutting from the gorge. By comparison, a photo taken by Ron Karpilo in 2010 showed the glacier had receded substantially, more than 1-1/2 miles. The terminus and surrounding area depicted in the 1915 photograph, which appears to have consisted solely of ice and recently exposed rocks, is now largely forested.
As Eklutna Glacier shrinks, Anchorage’s water and power will become more expensive - December 15, 2013

While IPCC’s hypothesis was erroneous and alarmist, the fact that glaciers are indeed being lost is in no doubt, Prof Kulkarni told The Hindu. “What we find is that Karakoram is the only stable range. The others are retreating at different rates.” The investigation also finds that the rate of glacial loss in the Himalayas has accelerated over the decades: from around 9 Gt/year in 1975-85 to 20 Gt/year in 2000-2010. Glaciers are retreating faster in Western Himalaya than in Sikkim, it adds.
Himalayas lost 13 per cent of glaciers in forty years - January 9, 2014

Since 2000, the glaciers have decreased approximately 29 percent in volume and 32 percent in total surface area, according to Pascal Sirguey, a research scientist with the University of Otago in New Zealand.

Last year, the largest remaining ice field split into two pieces, “revealing ancient lava that may not have seen the sun for millennia.”
Kilimanjaro’s Glaciers Could be Gone by 2030 - December 16, 2013

"All but recovered" :eyeroll: You can see why I feel exasperated. It's like I'm holding up a cue card of a blue circle, and you keep insisting that it's a green square. It's not, and it's irresponsible for someone of your age to boldly state otherwise.

quote:

---

Volumes, AG? You asked for journal articles, and that's what I gave you. Not sure why there has only been one the past year (if that source is true).

---

Yes, but you seem completely oblivious to obvious need for them to be peer-reviewed, modern, and pertaining to the modern discussion. I don't bring you decades old studies from a Senator's office when discussing climate change, do I? No. That would be silly. That would be irrational. I bring you up-to-date information that confirms the consensus. I have no doubt that my source is true. Ever since the skeptics launched the campaign to discredit the consensus, people have been collecting stats on what the consensus actually is. The misrepresentation of the truth is so pervasive that they voluntarily scour the peer-reviewed studies of the time to validate the accuracy of what scientists believe.

quote:

---

If dinos can live, so can we. And we have shelter, AC, fridges, etc.

---

Dinos are living now? I haven't seen any where I live.

quote:

---

You alarmists should get on your knees every day thanking whatever deity you believe in (if any) that the earth is warm. A couple of degrees rise (which probably will never even happen) is much more favorable than a blanket of ice and 50 below zero for the next 60-100 years. Quit your bellyaching and enjoy the lushness.

---

Just more annoying trivializing.

quote:

---

Also, keep your scorecard straight. I'm no alarmist.

---

posted January 14, 2014 07:28 PM            

quote:

---

The honest believers are being duped by the profiteers and led astray.

---

How many times do I have to point out that you're the believer in this scenario. You don't represent science or knowledge. Are you admitting that you're being lead astray?

quote:

---

Problem is, none of it's true.

---

According to you, a layman without sufficient knowledge to make such a bold proclamation.

quote:

---

It's most unfortunate that pockets are being picked clean from well-meaning people who think they are doing something good.

---

People that BUY Prius's do so voluntarily. Toyota is merely providing for demand. Remember the garbage in the park?

quote:

---

Even if we have another 20 years with no warming, people like AG will stand with the climatologists of the day.

---

You say that as if it were the wrong course of action.

quote:

---

We could be in the middle of an ice age, and AG will side with climatologists who claim that CO2 caused it. Sad.

---

The weather would be sad, sure, but if I'm siding with climatologists, which are those people with the best information about the climate, there's nothing disturbing or distressing about it whatsoever. What do you have against the expertise of professionals?

posted January 14, 2014 08:13 PM            

quote:

---

If you parrot the alarmists, that makes you one

---

If you focus on labeling people "alarmists" you fail to endeavor to be scientific.

quote:

---

especially when you know their predictions have failed to manifest.

---

I don't. I know that some of the models didn't work out as planned. I know that the IPCC redacted something about glacial melt. I just posted several articles that confirm that glaciers continue to melt. Shall I go find a list of predictions they've made that have proven true? Do you think you're the first to come up with the idea that you could somehow discredit them in this manner?

While on the subject, how many times have we continued to trust people whose predictions didn't come true? Jwhop predicted a John McCain victory. Can we just discount him now? If so, then I'll start searching for other people's predictions that didn't come true, so we can throw the baby out with the bath water where their minds, study or knowledge are concerned.

quote:

---

I could post articles that show the glacial sheets revovering, but it would be a waste of time, just like when I posted clear data that sea levels have not risen.

---

Sea levels have risen. You did not post "clear" data that sea levels haven't risen, because no such data exists. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/002183.html

quote:

---

I hope you were being humorous with your dino comment.

---

I don't know that referencing an extinct category of cold-blooded animals is an apt comparison to a species of civilized, warm-blooded animals. Doesn't seem apples to apples to me. It seems like an attempt at trivializing the effect of a significant climate change minimizing the damage that such changes would bring to any animals environment (regardless of what type of animal it is).

quote:

---

There are plenty of real scientists who agree with me.

---

Not in the category of scientist that is publishing papers regarding the climate. If you want, you're welcome to post links (only) for these "plenty" of real scientist's climate work. I don't mind checking your work. I can almost be assured of the inaccuracy of your post given your record.

quote:

---

Those who don't depend on grants that influence them into falsifying data.

---

Absurd assumption.

quote:

---

Thanks for your admission that you will follow the climatologists' proclamations to the very end. At least you admit it. lol

---

posted January 14, 2014 09:16 PM            

quote:

---

So, let's say that 50 years go by with no warming. CO2 levels are insanely high. Model after model has failed. The IPCC says temps will soar any day now, because CO2 causes warming. Right. Just have faith, huh? At what point do you abandon this belief, AG? Seriously. I can't believe you adhere to Astrology. Astronomers don't give credence to it. In every other aspect of life, you seem to unquestioningly go with the status quo every time.

---

You always resort to this, this future day when you're inexplicably found right, and the science is found wrong. And you always imagine that science will have held absolutely firm this entire time never wavering in their "belief".

I don't understand why you think in these terms. Why would science be stubborn? Are they taught to be that in school? Are they challenged to be that way in the workforce?

If your imagination can conceive of this possibility, why does it refuse to see any alternate possibilities? That's what establishes an open mind. The reason I'm tough to deal with in GU is because I see the other possibilities you're missing. I weigh those possibilities against what you bring. When what you've brought doesn't measure up I give you a hard time. I think at times you've attempted to bring things that will measure up, but on this subject the attempt has failed....consistently. Time after time you imagine that what you know is greater than what I don't know (and worse you believe you know more than the scientists in the field know). You have absolutely NO reason to think yourself smarter than me. No reason to consider yourself better informed. So why in the world do you think that your opinion, your "belief", is going to trump citing the professionals?

Nothing is about "faith" on my part in this discussion. It would be unreasonable for me to roll over, and suddenly think that you're on to something when you've given no reason.

quote:

---

At what point do you abandon this belief, AG?

---

What "belief"? My belief is that you don't know what you're talking about. I know you think my belief is a belief in the things I post to disprove your notions, but it's not. I care more about you saying completely misleading things, than I do the myriad of information that disproves you. It pains me to see someone that has the capacity to diligently research come to the wrong conclusion. I have faith in your intelligence, but you don't give me reason when you post this stuff. Is it the false security that there's plenty of skeptical information that makes you feel confident in your decision to be skeptical? We're seeking truth. Truth is not found in editorials. Truth is found in the raw information presented without bias.

quote:

---

Plenty of postings exist here of scientists who reject the "concensus." You pretty much turned a deaf ear.

---

No, I didn't. I looked into them, and found them to be old, dead, and/or not currently involved in climate science. That's not turning a deaf ear. Because this topic is so old people were able to gather quotes from those old codgers, and swindle you into a false sense of security.

quote:

---

Several of these climatologists already admitted to falsifying data.

---

This is a vague statement. If you're referring to Climategate, you're 100% wrong. Not only did no one "admit" to falsifying data, but the science in question was confirmed via other scientific avenues around the world.

If you've talking about the Himalayan glaciers, that is kind of correct, and was redacted. The Himalayan Glaciers continue to lose mass, however.

Just came across this whilst again looking into falsified data. It skews to the other side claiming that they falsified data, and it's much worse than anyone thinks: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-falsified-data-and-global-warming/
(Sounds like BS to me)

quote:

---

You can downplay Climategate, but at least one was fired over it.

---

So you are talking Climategate where no one admitted falsifying any data, and all data was confirmed correct? I didn't find any mention of firing or resigning in the wikipedia article on the "scandal". You'd think that sort of thing would have made it in there if it were true, right?

quote:

---

We are not talking about failed prediction. It's failed science.

---

No, it's not. First off, you don't disprove science by accounting for a scandal with untruths. There was nothing admitted, and no one fired. You tackle science with science. You find recent scientific papers that back your claim. How do you believe this is a relevant line of attack?

quote:

---

When so-called specialists in their field say temps will rise X amount based on CO2 increases and it fails, that's serious stuff.

---

That's not what they do to my knowledge. I've never read that any scientist believed in a strict and firm correlation that dictated a precise temperature increase per precise measurement of CO2 emission. That's over-simplifying things. This is why I keep driving home the necessity for nuance. I know we've talked about how the warming has melted the Russian permafrost releasing methane which is an even more potent insulator than CO2. Even that little detail would have implications.

The easiest way to explain the "alarm" is the temperature record. It shot up in an unprecedented way. They've been working on why that happened ever since. One thing that seems clear enough is the CO2 element of the puzzle. That's not to say that it's the ONLY thing going on. This plateau that we've reached seems to confirm otherwise (I think).

quote:

---

you will always parrot others and their conclusions and not be skeptical or engage in critical thinking.

---

I obviously engage in critical thinking. I'm hyper-critical of your thinking about this topic. I couldn't show this attribute any clearer. I also couldn't show this attribute if I didn't have a wide base of knowledge on the subject that tells me that you don't know enough about the subject to be making these statements. If I knew nothing of this science, then I would only be in a position to question you. I haven't only questioned you. I've investigated your claims, and provided contrary information. You just hope that you can diminish my argument by making it out to be something that sounds stupid. It's obviously not stupid. Once again, I can't fathom why you'd possibly think you could be superior to me in the way you consider these things.

quote:

---

Even some well-meaning scientists who sincerely believe that CO2 should cause a rise in temps are conceding that this seems to not be alarming due to unknown variables in the real world that render the computer models insufficient.

---

posted January 15, 2014 01:22 PM            

quote:

---

The easiest way to explain the "alarm" is the temperature record. It shot up in an unprecedented way. They've been working on why that happened ever since. One thing that seems clear enough is the CO2 element of the puzzle. That's not to say that it's the ONLY thing going on. This plateau that we've reached seems to confirm otherwise (I think).

---

I can buy that.

posted January 22, 2014 12:06 AM            

Listen to da man! He knows what he's talking about.

You wouldn't like Ghia when she turns bitchy and cold. We're in an interglacial reprieve from the last ice age. Ice ages are the norm on earth. Warming periods are the short interludes between ice ages.

posted January 22, 2014 05:27 PM            

quote:

---

We're in an interglacial reprieve from the last ice age.

---

Humpft jwhop maybe in Florida!

posted January 22, 2014 10:57 PM            

"Retail stores make lots of money on the promotion of Santa, too--but that doesn't make flying reindeer real."...Randall

Yep

posted January 23, 2014 02:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Gore may have invented the internet, but he was clearly way off with his climate predictions, yet the left bought all of his gibberish hook, line, and sinker (pun intended). While I'm certainly not a huge Bush fan, that idiot, Gore, is not worthy to shine his big Texas boots.

---

Know why I don't like Gore? I mean besides the obvious. The year he won the Nobel for that tiresome little slideshow of his, he was up against this woman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler

How that lowlife sob had the audacity to accept the award knowing this woman had been rejected in his favor is beyond me. Dishonorable. To hell with him.

Bush, of course, is no better. Anyone who believes so is either uninformed or playing politics.

posted January 25, 2014 11:38 AM            

QUIZ

posted January 25, 2014 03:17 PM            

California is in it's longest drought in 500 years