Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Hmmmm. The abstract (linked here) states:

Perhaps the paper goes into more detail about which direction the effect takes.

 

So we just need a quote for "cooling since 2002".

I ask because this is a classic denialist trick. Say anything and show a reference that does not support the statement.

 

Oh my god. How cheap and lazy can you be? Just download the paper! You remind me of that guy Drees who conveniently disappeared after that other guy beat him up so bad. You demand that people "show me the evidence!" But you're too lazy to even go look for it Do you really think that the validity of a statement depends upon if Alric from the internet agrees with it? I gave you the link, go download it and do a little reading yourself.

Also, does anyone actually dispute there has been cooling since 2001/2002? Also, did you forget the post using the IPCC's own trending technique? The one where they tried to show a rapid acceleration in warming using cleverly placed trend lines? Hello!?

 

The 'denialists' don't have any leaked E-nails where they admit to using a 'trick', do they?

Here is the press release in reference to the paper in question.
Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming - insciences

From the press release:

Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

 

No, no. The blog comment says there has been cooling not a quote from the paper.

There is no legitimate source that states there has been cooling since 2001.

 

Follow the link for once. This is not a blog, it is a release from the university. I suppose it is standard practice to misquote the scientist and his conclusions in a release?

 

You read it. It is not a quote from the paper but a cited comment by the scientist.

Regardless, NOAA disagrees:

"The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.54 °C (0.96 °F) above the 20th Century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.36 °C (0.65 °F)."
State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2009

 

Exactly You know, the worst "denialists" really are the AGWers. I was recently reading one of their websites dedicated to debunking "deniers." Every post on it was complete garbage and full of, well, fallacies and misdirection. It's so gross because the "real denialists" have indeed promoted AGW to religion status. They are so petrified that if one little hole is shown in their idea that the whole thing becomes wrong.

Well, bad news for you AGWers, there's about a million holes in your idea. The biggest, of course, is that there is absolutely zero evidence that lets us know that CO2 is causing climate change. All we have is a hypothesis: "Does CO2 cause temperatures to rise?" And then data is manipulated to fit it. It is laughably retarded.

I think the greatest thing about ClimateGate is that all the gatekeeping has been exposed, and all of the threats to journals that publish dissenting scientists has been exposed. Finally climatologists with different views than the CRUminals can get published again.

This can finally help stop perpetuating the myth that the science is settled. What a scary, horrible, disgusting hoax that was almost successfully perpetrated upon all of man kind.

 

You are confused by something. It is possible to measure the 2000-2009 decade as the warmest recorded (which means since 1979, in actuality), and STILL have a decline (or cooling trend) during the same period.

Secondly, here is a post from Bob Tisdale with a comprehensive explanation why this 'warmest decade' should not be attributed to AGW:
Countdown to an “unprecedented warm decade” – 2 months to go Watts Up With That?

Yes, it is a post from a *shudder* BLOG. But it is a post as long as most published papers and undergoes 'peer-review' in the comments.

 

Not to mention the awards that WUWT won. It really is fantastic. People from both sides read it and comment. Yes it is heavily "denialist." And I love Steve McIntyre's ClimateAudit.org as well.

I thought Alric would like this, about the IPCC AR4 quoting non peer reviewed literature:

Texas State Climatologist: “IPCC AR4 was flat out wrong” – relied on flawed WWF report Watts Up With That?
chron.Commons Blog | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...acier-melt-down-debate-a-tempest-in-a-teapot/

 

I know that I stated I was 'done' with Icarus - but he wasn't done with me. He even implied (accused?) I was being less than truthful when he failed to recognize the difference between something he thought I said and something I quoted.

Just as payback for an unfair accusation, I will repeat something amusing:

Back in post # 721, Mr. Ickes says:
I am not willing to bet my children's children's children's future on the denial, especially for a few pieces of silver! You ask why folks like me and Shawn get upset. The reason we get upset is because we care about more than ourselves. If I felt that the deniers came to this honestly and with good intentions, I would respect them more, but time and again, they prove themselves to be motivated by self interest,,,, primarily they are unwilling to pay for any change in the status quo.

Funny thing is,, I am almost 60 so I not going to be around all that much longer,,, and I don't even have kids! So what is my ulterior motive?

I pointed this out at the time, but he marched on unfazed. Next he'll tell us any fool denier should know he was talking about goats or virgin births.

 

Sorry, Ufourya, I ripped off your avatar!

 

To which I reply,

I asked you a perfectly straight forward question, " Are you asking us to believe that you have had a change of heart regarding the causes/effects of global warming as a result to the so called "climategate" emails?"

Simple question.

As for my comment about children, once again it is stunning how the concepts of simile and metaphor escape folks like you, (and NP, and RP et al)

 

Wow - so, your reply to Ufourya has *NOTHING* to do with your lie about betting your children's children's children - because you don't have kids! Can you bet things that don't exist? Well, I know you bet on climate science, for which evidence does not exist.

But let's look at your question you just asked:

Ufourya's post:

Ufourya posts the TEXT and a LINK to an article discussing a person who's belief in global warming was changed by ClimateGate.

You then wrote:

And then I wrote to you:

You see how ridiculous this is, Icarus? You can't even follow along in a thread. You can't even read a post and follow the link. This is absurd. You aren't debating global warming - you are debating your inability to read thoroughly. You keep making ridiculous statements and changing the subject and asking nonsense questions. And every single time it is due to your failure to read.

So, Icarus, you've thoroughly bored us with your inability to follow along. Maybe we can shift gears and talk about things you know about. Perhaps you want to tell us some old stories from the Civil War? Or when you had to walk 10 miles through the snow to go to school? Or the time you played a round of golf with Abraham Lincoln?

 

Yea, but these guys will argue that there's "no proof that it is man caused" and therefor we need not do anything about it. EVEN if you are misguided enough for what ever reason to think this true, it seems pretty silly to not look to do what we can do to mitigate the issue going forward.

Clearly there no chance at reason with these guys, the best we can hope for is to limit their ability to do damage with sane perspective.

Part of their technique is to dazzle with misleading/misinformed charts/graphs/blogs etc, and then fail to answer simple questions. When confronted they feel the need for personal attack, and to turn up the volume in an attempt to drown out the conversation.

All one need do is follow the change in tenor of NVP over the course of this thread to see how these guys work. (In the interest of full disclosure, I too have on occasion gotten angry made comments that were perhaps out of line and of a personal nature. The difference between my and others is that I have only done it in response to personal attacks directed at me, AND I have been involved with the forum longer than most of those that attack me.)

Please tell me what I did to deserve comments such as this nice one from NvP: #840 "Unfortunately you still argue out of your rear."

Or #843 :"Don't you have a Bingo game to go play at some rec center?"

Or from the post just before this:

"Wow - so, your reply to Ufourya has *NOTHING* to do with your lie about betting your children's children's children - because you don't have kids! Can you bet things that don't exist? Well, I know you bet on climate science, for which evidence does not exist."

Now mind you I don't take any particular offense at such comments as I realize the calibre of the folks making them, but I think that they do little to further any meaningful dialog, and indeed they serve the purpose intended effectively closing the door to meaningful dialog. These people are most happy when they drive away folks that have the temerity to object to what they are saying. It is a thug/brownshirt/bullying technique that works pretty well in driving away any reasonable opposition to their position. Grind 'em down and hope they will go away, bully the next one, so that at some point no one has the energy or courage to go up against these guys. The web allows this to happen pretty easily since we are mostly anonymous, although I had the courage to give my name, and Ufourya seldom misses a chance to ridicule it.

As evidenced by the comments about "good riddance" to Fibb or Shawn Clark, or wishing that Alric would go away! The people driven away have not been driven away because of the veracity of your (collective) arguments, but by the frustration of realizing that there are better ways to spend our time, rather than trying to converse with folks who have no interest in conversing.

To some great extent, the reason I stick around is one small attempt to counter the bullies voices. They may yet drive me away, but they won't in any real sense beat me. That said, if good, honest people remain silent, and don't speak out against these types, they may well win, and the results for OUR children's children's children are not rosy.

 

NVP
Since clearly all you wish to do is bully/yell, I shouldn't bother with yet another response, since you don't bother to read anyway, but, I say again:

"To which I reply,

I asked you a perfectly straight forward question, " Are you asking us to believe that you have had a change of heart regarding the causes/effects of global warming as a result to the so called "climategate" emails?"

Simple question.

As for my comment about children, once again it is stunning how the concepts of simile and metaphor escape folks like you, (and NP, and RP et al)"

 

To be honest, I think you are a know-nothing and I enjoy watching you fail each and every post you make. You keep talking about "we" as if you are part of some great effort to challenge the "denialists." I challenge you to find one post that you have ever made that contains legitimate scientific data that supports anthropogenic global warming.

 

Clearly you are trolling. You asked that question to Ufourya.

I've been on the internet a very long time. It is rare to come across someone who consistently fails as hard as you. Each of your posts is more damning to global warming than a thousand ClimateGates. I feel that each of your posts makes as much sense as a dog doing algebra.

 

Mann is such a piece of poop:

Michael Mann averaging error demo Climate Sanity

 

Indeed I did ask the question of Ufourya, and for some reason you felt the need to chime in. So I repeated the question in case you couldn't figure out what I was asking of whom, to which you repeated it again a couple of times again! Who is the troll?

And speaking of dogs doing algebra, this is another of your learned, mature posts: " Mann is such a piece of poop:"

Wow, a 3 year old masquerading as a man! I'm impressed!

And I'm so glad to bring you enjoyment. I wish you were concerned enough about the issue to actually do something for positive change, rather than just prattle about.

Which is worse in a theoretical sense, being a know nothing, or being a deliberate slinger of misinformation?