Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Didn't one of you just use a mis-statement by Quayle and Palin as evidence of their stupidity?

 

Debunked how?

 

Once again, it is clear that either you can't read, or you don't bother to read.

Never once in this conversation has the name Quayle or Palin crossed my keyboard.

Icarus

 

Cap and trade is not at all "enron inspired". While Enron did lobby for C/T in the early part of the decade, the idea is 40+ years old. Emissions trading was in the original CAA in 1977, and C/T was instituted for SO2 and NOx in 1990.

 

You are saying it is not?

 

Uh, might want to check that one first, Alric.

 

There are a few people who I think we should send to go check it out first hand! LOL!

I suspect, depending on ones beliefs, they may get there sooner or later anyway!

 

Are you seriously objecting that because in a TV interview off-hand remark "he says millions of degrees" when it really it is thousands? I think the point is that is effing hot and can be used for energy.

And this seriously impinges on anthropogenic global warming how?

 

This isn't the place to discuss Al Gore's intelligence.

Alric, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but lately you just keep posting things that are ridiculous. They are wrong, and are shown to be wrong, and then you change the subject to something else that is bogus, and then go back to the wrong thing again. Over and over. It is literally like you are trying to change peoples opinions using pure disinformation. It doesn't matter how many times you say something that is wrong over and over. It's still wrong. It doesn't turn correct if you repeat it enough times.

Mathematically:

Wrong x 1,000,000,000,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000,000 Wrongs

I honestly thought at first that you knew your stuff really well. But lately I really feel like you only post stuff from a couple of different blogs without knowing the significance behind them (ie, the stalagmite proxy data graph). I really miss the Alric that would discuss things and have original input. F8L and I were having a fantastic discussion in this thread and now this thread has got pooped on for the last 5 or whatever pages.

Perhaps thats what you guys wanted? To poop on a thread that is casting so much doubt on the idea of AGW causing immediate threat to man.

-

Icarus, you have got to stop with the insults and bad language. Please respect the forums rules. If you can't get your point across without using fowl language or insulting people, why not just go elsewhere? Talking like that completely detracts from any point you are trying to make. I mean honestly, every post you've made in this thread is just insulting.

 

"Icarus, you have got to stop with the insults and bad language. Please respect the forums rules. If you can't get your point across without using fowl language or insulting people, why not just go elsewhere? Talking like that completely detracts from any point you are trying to make. I mean honestly, every post you've made in this thread is just insulting."

Please Oh Great one, reveal to me where I have "used bad language"? Please inform where I have failed to "respect the forums rules" (sic).
Please note any "fowl language". Show me where I have "insulted people"?

You may feel that I every post I have made in this tread is "just insulting". On the other hand, I don't believe you are the arbiter of truth, honesty, fact, respect, insult, rules or anything else. If you wish to take a pole, on whether or not I have been any of the things you accuse me of please feel free, and I will abide by the results.

I believe that the only thing that I have said of a personal nature is accusing you personally of being a hypocrite in a previous post or thread.

PS: I find you personally insulting, and I find many of your posts insulting, but I have NEVER complained publicly or to you about them!

PPS And just by the way Mr. Perfect, I believe the word you were looking for was FOUL, NOT FOWL! Unless of course your were referring to,,, Oh never mind.

foul |foul|
adjective
1 offensive to the senses, esp. through having a disgusting smell or taste or being unpleasantly soiled : a foul odor | his foul breath.
• informal very disagreeable or unpleasant : the news had put Michelle in a foul mood.
• (of the weather) wet and stormy.
• Sailing (of wind or tide) opposed to one's desired course.
2 wicked or immoral : murder most foul.
• (of language) obscene or profane.
• done contrary to the rules of a sport : a foul tackle.
3 containing or charged with noxious matter; polluted : foul, swampy water.
• [ predic. ] ( foul with) clogged or choked with : the land was foul with weeds.
• Nautical (of a rope or anchor) entangled.
• (of a ship's bottom) encrusted with algae, barnacles, or other marine growth.
• Printing (of a first copy or proof) defaced by corrections.

 

Proving, once again, AGW is religion.

 

I try as much as possible to cite published information, like the stalagmite data. You post only blogposts because it is the only source of information that can confirm your errors and biases.

 

Pointing out spelling errors is a sign of defeat. Thanks

 

I'm still waiting for examples of how I breached (In your most humble opinion)protocol. Guess maybe you can't since I didn't!

As for the spelling error, that assume you knew the difference,,, quack quack.

 

Sure.

Implying someone can't read:

Suggesting that people with beliefs different than yours will end up burning in the middle of the earth (that according to you know who is millions of degrees)

And lastly using foul language. I took the liberty of editing the actual words out of your post because I don't want to break forum rules.

Keep in mind this is only going back a page or two. The point is you haven't contributed anything. You come in here with insults and foul language but you can't make a point regarding global warming. If I were a mod I'd ban you because you are just fouling up the thread.

This is the last time I'll reply to you and drive this thread further off topic.

 

RadioPrius,

Boo, hoo, you're going to take your ball and go home, since not everyone likes to play your game.


I never called anyone a dumb nice person. Your friend Tim Bikes called some one that name. I merely pointed out that one shouldn't be confused as a dumb*#* just because one misspoke. (If you knew how to read, or had read it you would have realized this!)

As for accusing someone of not being able to read. In post ~ 353 Tim Bikes demonstrated that either he can't read or didn't bother to read (which is exactly what I said in post #361 or 363) when he said that I had spoken about Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin. Since he (and you!) didn't or couldn't read what my previous post said I can't be faulted for calling you out about it!

As for the quip about the center of the earth being hot, and my suggestion that some might want to go there to check it out personally. I plead guilty of having a sense of humor. I did not name, or even imply that it was directed at anyone in particular. Even Tim saw the humor in it. Tell you what, I'll stop trying to be funny when you stop trying to be scientist!

As for your wish to have me banned, feel free to cry to Mom and Dad, and see if they will send me to the corner. As for my contributing anything positive to this conversation/thread/forum, I will leave that to others to decide.

I have never used foul language, (I have used fowl language, quack quack however LOL!) on this or any other forum. I have never made a personal attach on anyone. I have never called anyone stupid, or even called their ideas stupid (No matter what I have thought of them!) I have on two occasions, called you a hypocrite. Once earlier in this thread somewhere, and once again in some other thread. I concede it is a breech of etiquette. That said, I have the courage to stand by that statement because you have demonstrated a willingness to demonize folks disagree with you, and hold them to a high standard, (which is fine) but when the shoe is on the other foot, you are not willing to step up and admit that folks who agree with you can be wrong at times as well.

hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
noun ( pl. -sies)
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

If the mods wish to ban me for this, then so be it.

 

Exactly what kind of proof is a wacko saying, "We could be flooded in 100 years if ...." Where's the beef?

Regarding your sea level graph from PSMSL: notice that they reference the IPCC reports. Junk in equals junk out. I've heard that the rise may be something like .6mm/year, but even if your claim of 2mm/year is accurate, how come the rate of rise hasn't changed from 1880? Wouldn't sea level rise be correlated with CO2 levels if your hypothesis is correct?

Yes, the climate has been getting warmer. But it has leveled off and is now starting back down in correlation with solar forcing. If man has anything to do with it the effect is tiny and is lost in the noise.

Also, check out this link:

ICECAP

It studies twelve islands in the South Pacific and finds that the sea level is not rising. The study was done by the Austrailian government.

 

The fact that Algore mis-spoke doesn't make him a dumba$$. The fact that he holds himself out as an expert in these areas and then makes a fool out of himself by demonstrating he doesn't know what he's talking about - that's what makes him a dumba$$. Sorry about the language.

OK...:focus:

 

Tim,

I'm not offended by your choice of words, only by the empty accusations of RP. No reason to apologize to me,

 

This is interesting.

I'm off work today, and so I was going to look up where my closest weather surface station is and audit it to see how valid it's readings are. A surface station's quality rating is determined by the NOAA's Climate Reference Network, you can read about it here.

So I was on surfacestations.org, and they show this graphic:



And provide a link to the full size graphic at NASA GISS. The graphic is shown below:



Notice any differences? Ie, the period of time from 1880-1910 has been truncated to remove the cooling observed by that station and give it a more hockey-stick look.

Edit:

WUWT has noticed this as well.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/