Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Hmm, so who is "Somite"

I'd love to know which of you has been busy "debunking all denialist points in climate change threads in other forums (http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/72725-global-warming-unstoppable.html) but information doesn’t penetrate denialism." I haven't seen a single AGWer debunk a "denialist" yet.

In fact, the thing that makes the "alarmists" in this thread so impossible to have a discussion with is that you refuse to acknowledge that climate science is not a perfect entity. There are *gaping* holes in it, and the science is *not* (even remotely) settled. Also most of you (well, only two of you really) refuse to admit that ClimateGate had any serious implications. Thankfully the rest of the world is not as thick headed. I really wish you were able to discuss the implications of such things instead of being intentionally difficult and acting as though if you admit the obvious flaws of AGW that the whole theory is "debunked."

Truly, the people who turn their blind eye to science are the alarmists.

 

LOL @ Somite. Alric?

 

It's me. You can consider yourself debunked if your arguments are countered by peer reviewed published data and all you have are blog posts and news clippings.

 

You can consider yourself crazy if you think that you've ever posted peer reviewed published data that counters any argument we've ever brought up.

When I look back on these last 10-20 pages I just see you get stomped on over and over and over. Most recently it was the stuff about the MWP, where you posted about an abstract but didn't read the paper, and the author even said his data was basically worthless for the reason you were posting it (ie, you were trying to show the MWP was lower than I think it is, but the author even claimed that his technique would tend to lower it - LOL). Then it was other abstracts you posted that you didn't read, then it was something from "informationisbeautiful" or whatever, and you got stomped on with that.

You are truly a denialist - you haven't debunked anything.

 

As noted before, I generally don't watch Youtube video links, or blog links. (Especially those that are written by TV weathermen. (Note weatherman, not climate scientist! Who isn't even a degreed meteorologist, may not have a degree at all!)(Anthony Watts - SourceWatch)

Just for the record, I also don't read links to "American Thinker" either, nor do I follow links, to Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or other TV "news" sites.

You guys can piss and moan about Alric, but at least he posts something other than blog posts.

PS. Do you know the difference between weather and climate? From your reliance on Watts Up, I begin to wonder.

 

If you don't read any of that stuff, and you don't read any scientific literature (by your own admission), then you, by the process of deduction, don't read anything. So you know nothing. Where do you get your information? Do aliens beam it to you? And yet you continue to argue? Ah, but you've never made a single post that referenced an article and commented on it. So what do you do here again?

Once again you have backed yourself into a corner where you, as always, end up looking foolish.

(Regarding WUWT, you attack the source, but not the content. BTW, it won science blog of the year.)

 

I didn't attack the source, I merely said I didn't as a rule read it, (as well as other things) and I mentioned that the principal was a TV weather man.

Once again, you own narrow focus causes you make conclusions "from facts that are not in evidence" Just because I don't generally read blog posts, or read (as I said) all the peer reviewed journals on the subject, doesn't by extension mean the only other sources besides "beaming it in from aliens" (which quite frankly is where I think the deniers must get it!)

There are literally thousands of news and information sources out there from basic scientific journals, to general interest publications with an emphasis on science, even mainstream print media to some extent.

I challenge you to suggest that you read "all" the peer reviewed science that is related to climate change/global warming. As I have suggested so often before, no one has the time to read it all. We all to some greater or lesser extent have to rely on compilations. When we do this, it is incumbent on us to research those that are compiling information. The fact that "Watts up" is Voted "Science Blog of the year" means nothing to me either. People vote for "American Idol" too, but that doesn't mean much to me either.

 

Albert Einstein was patent clerk when he proposed an idea far outside any consensus view, and yet much later his scientific epipahny is recognized as the truth and he as a genius. So, by all means reject any view from a mere TV meteorologist who demonstrably lives a 'greener' life than, oh, Al Gore or Rajenda Pachuari. BUT, accept as gospel the wild, alarmist claims made by a failed theologian and washed-up politician ( or a railroad engineer, economist) - claims that cannot be shown to be true in any peer -reviewd paper.

The reason some people here don't have a broad enough view of 'climate science' is that they avail themselves of ONLY the 'consensus' and ONLY mainstream repeaters. Al Gore is STILL invited to regularly make a fool of himself in the popular media, and never questioned about the veracity of the science he misuses. Yet the faithful still believe. Amazing.

Folks who talk about betting on their cjildren's children's etc. future, then say they don't have kids, then say they have an adopted child, then parenthetically add step children -all within the span of seneral days - seem to me to be the ones making things up as they go along.

Some of the most 'respected clmate scientists', publishing 'peer-reviewd' literature in 'respected journals, 'have recently been shown to be 'peer reviewing' each others' work, bullying editors of 'respected joournals', conspiring to delay and mischaracterize papers falling outside their self-established orthodoxy, and showing themselves to be anything but respectable. None of that means anything to those who refuse to even allow their eyes to touch or ears to hear an alternative viewpoint.

Amazing, yet let's only stick to the peer-reviewd matter on one side of the debate. Yeah, that's the way to get at the truth. Yeah, riiiiiiight.

 

Mere retired TV meteorologist asks obvious question no 'respected, peer-reviewed, hockey team published climateologist' can answer:

As you can see below, their prediction was largely reversed from what has happened. Most of the country has seen below normal temperatures during the same period.

Image from HPRCC – University of Nebraska at Lincoln
So my question is – if the climate models can’t reliably predict the next three months, what basis do they have to claim their ability to forecast 100 years out? It is well known in the weather modeling community that beyond about three days, the models tend to break down due to chaos.
We have all heard lots of predictions of warmer winters, less snow, animal populations moving north, drought, dying ski resorts, etc. But did anyone in the climate modeling community forecast the cold, snowy start to winter which has occurred. If not, it would appear that their models are not mature enough to base policy decisions on.
On the other side of the pond, The Met Office forecast 2010 to be the warmest year ever, as they last did in 2007. On cue, the weather turned bitter cold immediately after the forecast and it appears that the unusally cold weather will continue at least through mid-January. As in 2007, the Met office 2010 forecast is not getting off to a good start:

http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html

 

I would appreciate it if you can stick to the issue, and leave my children (adopted and step, but not biologic) out of this discussion. I am slow to take offense from much of what is said, but ridiculing me for the life choices I have made, and your perceptions about them are infantile, offensive, and not relevant. (The only context to which they would be relevant is if we were talking about global population issues and my impact on them. This is not even remotely what this thread is about.

I may insult you (although rarely that is my intention) but I draw the line at insulting your family! You and NvP have gone out of your way to insult me and mine and I think it petty, and it reveals more about you than it does about me!

 

1. You are the one who brought up your kids. You also brought up your age, and your job. The first rule on the internet is don't give out private information. The second rule is that anything you give out can and will be used against you on a message forum.

2. Ufourya never insulted your children, you, or anyone. If anyone did, it was me.

3. Don't be so sensitive, it's the internet

4. Did you ever find the one post you contributed that cited an article and provided useful commentary on it?

 

I made mention of the fact that I was concerned about global warming for the sake of my children's children's children, and I noted with irony, ( believe I even said it was ironic!) that I didn't even have kids. It was you in your infantile way who suggested that you didn't wish to be like me at near 60 with no kids and no one to love me, (sic) to which I responded that I was enjoying the holiday season with my adopted son,and was missing my wife's son (my step son)

I realize that the internet is a harsh place, but for the most part this forum is an exception, except in the cases of folks like you and Ufourya.
I choose not to play that way, if that is the way you guys need to score points, so be it. Just don't go crying to Mommy and Daddy the way others have when someone hits back!

I suggest that if this is the only way you guys can make a point, perhaps you are more bereft of meaningful ideas than usual.

 

Very clearly (and demonstrably so) some folks here fail to read and/or understand the posts of other persons - perhaps they malevolently pretend to be intellictulally challenged. It is unproductive to attempt civil discourse with these individuals. One spends all one's time re-explaining points that remain not understood. Then, in thanks for laboriously explaining point after point, one is repeatedly misquoted and/or vilified for imagined slights.

This is the modus operandi of obstructionist trolls, not those seriously interested in the truth.

 

If this is directed at me, please inform where I have misquoted you repeatedly.

"one is repeatedly misquoted "

 

How about when Ufourya quoted someone else in an article, and provided the link to the article, and you started asking him some stupid question because you thought the quote he posted was him writing?

Pretty sure that's a misquote

I agree with Ufourya. I think you and Alric are pretending to be so intellectually challenged.

 

Pointing out where one makes a claim, then reverses it, then adds information to bolster the initial claim, is not an attack on life choices, family or anything other than the claimant's veracity or apparent lack of such.

Examining one's own inconsistencies would be more fruitful than demanding answers to imagined scenarios.

 

In Canada Mark Steyn was hauled before a 'human rights commission' for accurately quoting someone else in a publication. He and the publication, Maclean's, spent considerable time and effort defending themselves.

In December 2007, the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) filed Human Rights Commission complaints against Steyn and the magazine in three different jurisdictions, charging them with “exposing Muslims to hatred and contempt†for, among other things, accurately quoting a Norwegian imam who boasted that Muslims were breeding “like mosquitoes.â€
Pajamas Media Mark Steyn vs. the ‘Sock Puppets’

This is a tactic leftists, statists and other miscreants use to make truth-tellers shut up. Fortunately Steyn and Maclean's won as the commission withdrew the suit, but the commission couldn't refrain from defaming them anyway in rendering the decision.

 

I think you are wrong so that makes 3. I gave up on trying when people from the deny camp became rude and abusive. In my opinion that was the point at which the denialist's lost.

 

I noticed we've had two pages of alarmists venting but no one addressed the point you highlighted.

Anyway,

CRU’s forecast: UK winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event” Watts Up With That?

 

Because as you've been told many times local weather is a separate question and field
from climatology.

Even assuming that what you read on some guy's blog is correct, this argument has no impact on the global warming discussion.

I rarely comment but to debunk denialists claims but I hope people can see how the entire denialist argument is based on ad-hominems and blogposts (except sometimes TimBikes).