Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Personally I am offended with ufourya's avatar, but I have never complained about it. It just shows where his bias lies.

 

Alric, are you being intentionally thick or can you really not follow the messages in that post?

Again the link: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

Follow Briffa's proxy reconstruction:









And not even to mention the other "trick":

http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike’s-nature-trick/

No matter how you look at it, it is deceitful, and this proof was uncovered in the CRU emails.

These evidences directly disprove your statement that "Nothing contained in the e-mails, however, suggests that global temperature records are particularly inaccurate or, worse, that they have been manipulated to show greater warming."

How much more proof do you need? He exactly said that he truncated part of Keith Briffa's reconstruction and added the temperature data on, in order to hide the decline. Wow.

You are 100% wrong.

 

Interesting how Copenhagen degenerated into a rant against capitalism while demanding payment from those same capitalists! Oh wait, that was the core of the message all along.

So we hand over 100's of billions to these pathetic dictators so they can stop climate change? Who knew that fattening the bank accounts of dictators was the key to climate change all along? We should have skipped all the so-called science and just written the checks. Why can't these dictators just stop climate change (formerly known as global warming) out of the goodness of their hearts? Can these idiots order up less snow? How about controlling the wind? Sunspots? Volcanoes?

No amount of money can have any effect whatsoever or, once again, we would do it out of the goodness of our hearts. In spite of all of our efforts to warm the planet, we just have not been able to even accomplish that.

If these people were serious, we would have more nuclear power plants.

 

Another bridge heard from under.

And your post has so much more impact because it is all bold.

Sort of like most of the yelling going on in denialist circles, yell louder to drown out any evidence that is contrary to your own bias!

 

Bold is just easier for us with poor eyesight to read. I was actually whispering. ALL CAPS IS YELLING! Yelling could never drown out any so called evidence anyway. Only the "scientists" themselves deleted all their data (evidence) to "save room".

NOW STAY ON TOPIC.

 

I believe we already proved that deniers can't read, from another thread:

"I think we have discovered the problem. Deniers can't read!

Skruse wrote: "The 4th IPCC report is linked to 30,000 peer-reviewed published articles," and Tim read "please show us the link for the "30,000 scientists".

And now you confirm it: "Bold is just easier for us with poor eyesight to read"

I guess the bulk of the climate science was printed too lightly. Now it makes sense.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the advice about staying on topic!

 

So it was a handful of "scientists" who wrote 30,000 articles and peer reviewed each other? If anyone wants to take part in the multimillion dollar gravy train governmental grants and subsequently the "peer review process", they better not present any conflicting evidence or opinions whatsoever.

This is not even close to science, but don't tell anyone. Just hush up and make your check out to Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro etc.

 

Oh, that's a classic! If they only printed those peer reviewed articles in bold with ALLCAPS then the blind, deaf, and dumb (but unfortunately not the mute kind...) skeptics would understand. :cheer2:

 

Yeah I read every word. That's one twisted interpretation you got there - way to really miss the point.

 

Ok everyone. You can now ignore malorn. It's official. He thinks the earth has been cooling since 1999. Hahahahaha..

 

What is odd is that you have equated a Democracy with a Republic:

Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority.

​

We live in a Republic - in case you have forgotten the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

While Tim points out we do indeed (Americans anyway) life in Republic.
There is indeed a significant difference between the two, primarily a republic's ability to protect the minority.

But semantically, it is not incorrect to call a republic a democracy. In essences, all republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics. The distinction is that a "democracy" implies free elections.

A republic is a form of democratic government. "Democracies can fall into all kinds of forms, including republics, direct and representative democracies and parliamentary systems (which are also a form of representative democracies)

So, much as some might like to ridicule Politburo for not knowing the difference, one cannot conclude from his post that he doesn't know the difference, it is indeed Tim that has revealed his ignorance.

In case anyone thinks I just swallowed a civics teacher, let me just suggest the following link: An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

And a quote from it:
"\This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding."

 

Uh, people are actually arguing that if the tree ring record is so wrong it cannot match the MEASURED (instrumental) record, then it seems a bit odd to trust it at all. That is the reason why these thoroughly disreputable scientists endeavored to 'hide the decline' indicated by the tree ring proxies.

I am amazed that this is not obvious to anyone who reads the evidence. But then, if the truth is not one's objective....

 

Going back to science. Instead of looking into peoples motivations to present data the way the did I asked myself "could there be a scientific reason why the Briffa recent data was not included"? It is clearly not necessary to remove it for the argument to remain, so why?

And here it is. A Nature paper by Briffa himself nonetheless that explains how the tree rings he studies may overestimate temperature resulting in higher proxy temperature data.

Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes : Abstract : Nature

"The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated."

"During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen."

It appears that if anything past temperatures were likely lower than currently estimated.

 

It was asserted that in a democracy we have "a few people making rules for everyone". While this is technically true, the rule making is constrained by our Constitution (well, it used to be anyway, recent and present occupants of the legislative and executive branches excluded).

The Constitution serves to protect the rights of the minority from the (potential) tyranny of the "majority". That is the point I was trying to make.

Sorry if it was not clear - but clearly you either did not read, see, or follow my link - since you posted the exact same link.

 

Somehow?

The very origin and definition of politburo come from the Soviet Communist Party and I 'somehow' equate it with communism.?

I did not attack you, I asked a question. Why would you chose this as a screen name? I'm still interested, if you care to share. If not, I am left to draw my own conclusions.

An ad hominem attack is generally meant to indicate that one cannot find fault with the message, so attacks the messenger instead. If you really feel my question is an attack on you personally, I will withdraw it.

Politburo (political body) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

 

I have a bias for the truth.

 

Did you ever find those repeatable experiments that lead to conclusive results that you claimed existed? You make fun of people for making reading errors, but at least they didn't make-up egregious lies.

 

It's really funny. When you look at these threads, the only people posting data and making points are those who are skeptical to global warming. Everyone who supports it is mucking up the thread. Especially your two posts in the other thread, where you just call me a troll, despite that I conclusively proved you wrong in your assertion that there was zero evidence of foul play in the ClimateGate emails.

Fibb222, first you post an article that doesn't even support what you are trying to say, and now you are wrong again. Well, perhaps 2001/2002 are better starting points for our recent cooling. Please stop spreading misinformation.

 

Oops - wait up. Do you admit you were completely wrong about the HadCRU emails?