NASA GISS shows 2009 as tied for 2nd warmest year on record

This is why I've come to realize there is no point arguing with some people. I've set up some competency levels to start a conversation.

I won't waste my time with people that won't accept that:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas

2. Climate change is the scientific consensus.

3. Peer reviewed papers are the only valid source of information.

4. Cherry-picking of data to suit your hypothesis.

Mention of these may result in immediate disqualification:

1. Reference to climateaudit

2. The claim that "climategate" changed in any way the scientific consensus.

3. Claim of global cooling.

These reflect the minimum level of competency for me to engage. I modeled these points after a similar competency test I made for creationists.

Cheers!

 

The AGW movement is dead.

 

Just because it is not the top priority for many, (and it is THE TOP PRIORITY FOR 28%!!!) doesn't mean it is not a priority for the other 72%.

This just illustrates how people like to turn stats around to bolster their argument. I don't think one can any more say that "nobody cares about global warming anymore" because of this poll any more than one can say that climate science is all fraud because of a few suspect e-mails.

It just shows to to what level of intellectual dishonesty our conversations sink to. Once again,, so sad.

Personally, global warming isn't my number 1 priority, but it certainly is near the top of things that I think are important.

 

What would you estimate the portion of the population that think climate change/global warming would be in the top 5 of priorities?

 

These are not personal attacks. Multiple times Icarus has made the statement that global warming is based on "repeatable experiments that lead to conclusive results" or some variation of that statement.

The fact is that there are ZERO "repeatable experiments that lead to conclusive results" that support the idea of human caused global warming. Icarus knows this - he has been called out on it before, and he has never provided a single example of anything that supports his claim. That is because there are zero conclusive studies out there that support the idea of humans effecting a change in climate at a rate greater than expect of normal variation.

Indeed, he is incorrect and is talking nonsense.

It's funny that you compare the idea of global warming to that of the existence of a god. You are correct that it is impossible to prove (or disprove) the existence of a nondetectable, invisible being such as a god. So, according to you, both of them are non-testable hypotheses, and are therefore nonsensical.

 

Yikes - you posted that climate change is the consensus. Do you realize that science doesn't work by voting? This must be terribly embarrassing for you.

 

I agree that at least the catastrophic AGW movement is dead. No one can realistically accept the ridiculous predictions made by alarmists any more.

Edit: You gotta love that Alric disses skeptic blogs but has a link to the ClimateGate propaganda website in his signature.

 

Ha!

Now, help me out. Is this ironic or is it hypocritical?

 

I have no idea, and in fact it doesn't make any difference.

Just because folks care (or don't care) about an issue doesn't mean it isn't important. How many folks in ~1950 would have said that civil rights for non whites was important or in their top five? How many folks in ~1970 thought that gay rights were important? How many people in ~1860 thought slavery was important? How many people in ~1960 thought polio was important?

The degree to which one thinks an issue is important is largely related (imho) to how people perceive the issue is going to effect them. You might think global warming is a big issue, but if you don't have a job, or health care etc it might not be your top issue. On the other hand, if you feel that the "costs to fix" global warming are going to effect you in a negative way, you may be incline to care very much.

So how about we concern ourselves with things that really matter. We can (and do) argue if global warming and it's consequences are real, but to argue whether or not others think it important does nothing to solve the issue(s).

PS To NVP. I call Bull on your assertion that your comments are not a personal attack! Not that I really care very much as it reflects badly on you, not me. I am saddened however that personal attacks drive out real debate and real dialogue, even amongst those that may think differently than we do. I would argue that we all would have been better off if you had stuck to your premise on your very first post in this forum where you said " I am a big supporter of global warming" (sic). If you had kept it civil all these months perhaps we could move forward instead of degrading into a P*@#*#&g contest. I honestly believe that it was you and your partner(s) who cast the first stone(s). I have tried in any number of threads to "play nicely, and get these threads back to civility, only to be attacked again and again. You and your partners should feel shame! I'm done with you, I will not respond to your posts, with the possible exception of to defend myself against this kind of stuff. Even then I will try to refrain as it only serves to stoke your furnace it seems. I might suggest that others do the same.

Keeping it clean, keeping it civil,

Icarus

 

Nice red herring. Did you want to comment on the considerable evidence that confirms global warming?

 

"I will not respond to your posts, with the possible exception of to defend myself against this kind of stuff"

 

This is such a cop-out. I merely asked you to put your money where your mouth is - and you could not do it. You routinely make up these lies about global warming and post them, and every time you get busted on them. And then you start saying we are attacking you personally when we are merely asking you to actually provide data to support your statements.

In other words, put up or shut up.

 

Haha, why don't you respond to defend yourself from my accusation that you were completely wrong when you made the statement that there is "considerable evidence that confirms global warming."

 

Basic physics calculations show that without greenhouse gases, the average surface temperature of the earth would be quite cold, likely nearly -20*C. But thanks to greenhouse gases, our surface temperatures average 14*C.

The basic physics behind how the greenhouse effect works is very well understood.

 

See what I meant about minimum competency?

iPhone ?

 

Consensus lol

 

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant." - Phil Jones in 2005; Former Head of the Climatic Research Unit

Did he really say that?

 

Yup.

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1120593115.txt

Read through to the bottom to get the context.

 

Oh my god, tell me you did not expect much more. LOL

 

seems to work in DC :noidea: