Man Based Global Warming....

I really enjoy the Daily Show.... but seriously, you're the sicko - such a callous disregard for human suffering, outstanding arrogance in the face of overwhelming evidence. You ought to be ashamed - absolutely ashamed.

 

Ashamed of the truth? I think not Fibber. I care deeply about the environment. Unfortunately, the environmental movement has been largely co-opted by irrational zealots (like you) who want to focus on one non-problem, catastrophic global warming. Well my friend, most of the evidence, rationally viewed, demonstrates it is just not happening to any catastrophic degree. Meanwhile, there are real problems. And billions upon billions of dollars in research are diverted to AGW while the real issues like loss of habitat, species diversity, and the sorry state of the world's oceans are largely ignored.

So again I ask Fibber, which are the "lies" I told about temp. trends, sea ice, etc? I provided evidence that demonstrate these are not lies at all, but the truth. Where is your evidence that demonstrates these are lies? You keep skirting this question. I wonder why. LOL.

 

I'm certainly not a supporter of taking IPCC claims, or any claims, when the understanding of that data takes lots of hard, unbiased work. My point was that way too many discussions are based on analogy or "so and so says blah, blah, blah and he is a guru". The mutually beneficial discussions are over actual data and results.....which is never clear cut.

 

Well, I think Fibb222 has reached the tipping point and has slipped into the void of incoherency. I feel sorry for him and would like to help. Rather than confront him with evidence contrary to his opinions, we should do the opposite and help support him:

Oh. My. God. Global warming causes the Atlantic to become less salty:

Global Warming Makes Sea Less Salty | LiveScience

Oh. My. God. Global warming causes the Atlantic to become more salty:

Saltier North Atlantic should give currents a boost - environment - 23 August 2007 - New Scientist

 

You really should not read too much into those media sources. It is similar to reading supermarket tabloids. Livescience is NOT a peer reviewed journal, it is simply a media source for frontier science, not consensus science. Same goes for New Scientist. Magazines like those are exactly why people are so often confused on a particular scientific subject.

 

More help for Fibb222:

Oh. My. God. Global Warming cuases melanoma cancer:

Global Warming - Health

Oh. Wait. Sorry Fibb, Good news, Climate change to decrease melanoma:

Melanoma cases likely to decline - national | Stuff.co.nz

 

Hey! Don't be a spoil-sport. We're trying to help someone out here.

 

You, on the other hand, are not a liar. You actually believe in what you are saying. Tim's the smart one, and really needs to come clean. People can forgive a dolt, but liars never prosper.

 

Oh. My. God. Global warming brings Vampire moth to Finland:

News - Environment: Vampire moths spotted in Finland

 

Ouch. This is really serious, Fibb222, Global warming makes poison ivy more itchy:

Itchier poison ivy tied to global warming - Environment- msnbc.com

 

Oh, the humanity! Fall leaf displays dulled by global warming:

A Season A Tad Off Color, And Here's Why - New York Times It's the NY Times, it must be true!

Oh, Wait! Darn it, more good news. Global warming the cause of spectacular fall display:

Are these colours caused by global warming? | Science | The Guardian It's the Gaurdian. It must be true!

 

The worst news of all. I must go mow the yard. Damn that global warming! (Attention F8L - attempted humor warning - I have absolutely no peer-reviewed data that support the contention I must mow more frequently due to this man-made menace.)

 

What about the comments in an old Newsweek that climate change was responsible for the deadly Indian Ocean tsunami of December 24, 2004?

They were quoting civilians, not folks who should know, but added nothing to counter any reader misunderstanding.

 

Come clean? I provided evidence for my statements. So far, you have not. And by the way, my evidence is from quite reputable sources (NASA, Cryosphere Today, etc.).

So please Fibber, why don't you quit calling me a liar and answer the question: about what am I lying and where is your evidence to counter my claims? Please counter my claims - supported by evidence previously provided - that arctic sea ice has recovered nearly to the 1979-2000 mean, that antarctic sea ice is near an all time high, that global temperatures are flat to declining for most of this decade, and sea surface temps have declined for most of this decade as well.

So please, if you are going to call me a liar, why don't you prove it? If you can't dispute my claims, then I guess we all know who the real liar is, Fibber.

 

I've learned to avoid threads with denialists because most of them are pathological liars.

 

Wow Shawn, what a deep contribution to the discussion. You apparently are no better than Fibber - just knee jerk calling people liars, with no supporting evidence.

I'm still waiting for Fibber, or you, to point out the "lies" or errors in the data I have provided. If arctic and antarctic sea ice were well below normal, sea surface temperatures were increasing, and global temperatures increasing for the past decade, you would be pointing that out as evidence of global warming.

The fact that none of these indicators is moving in a direction that provides evidence of global warming is a real conundrum for shrill AGW proponents like you. When evidence runs counter to your belief set but you refuse to accept it Shawn, then by definition it is you who is the "denialist" and "pathological liar".

 

Those who have uncritically placed their belief in AGW proponents from Al Gore, Jim Hansen and the IPCC on down have forced themselves into the untenable position of being unable to defend their views as the evidence mounts against them.

As is the case with all true believers, they have only their belief to fall back on. Having invested much time and effort announcing and defending their belief, they are loath to admit error and instead strike out blindly at those who speak the truth. This is quite natural, nothing extraordinary. In the end they disappear from the debate and refuse to participate, much less admit they were wrong. (Shawn)

For those willing to look into the critical role politics has played in the formation of the IPCC and the tainted promulgations from that body:

The inconvenient lies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"The IPCC mandate is to examine human causes of climate change. However, you cannot determine the human effect if you do not know the cause and extent of natural climate change. You cannot determine the effect if you leave out major components of the climate system and make assumptions that contradict natural evidence. As a result they have publicly determined with a 90% certainty that human CO2 is the cause of temperature change. Now events have caught up with them - their sins have found them out. My Grandmother wouldn’t be surprised nor should the public once they understand what is going on behind the so—called science."

Dr. Tim Ball

A whole series of very informative articles is accessable from this link:

UN’s IPCC preying on people’s ignorance

The true believers will, predicatably, attack the man rather than the information. Oh, My. God. He's a conservative. The horror!

 

Take a QUIZ:

Climate Quiz Imagery :: Climate change is real

 

I agree re: Shawn and Fibb. It's kind of the childish "liar, liar, pants on fire" name calling followed by "I'm going to take my toys and go home". Not a lot of depth there or any evidence to support their views.

Regardless, Ball's criticism of the IPCC and AGW is spot on. If we don't well understand the cause, effect, and magnitude of natural climate drivers, it's quite a leap of faith - and really, that is what it is - faith - to ascribe consequences to a trace gas like CO2 a century down the road. One would think that at least Shawn, with an apparent engineering mind and background, would appreciate this.

My other main criticism of the IPCC is that it exists as a political body with a political mission. As Lindzen notes, the "thousands" of IPCC "climate experts" are really more like dozens with any true expertise on climate, and even they are easily over-ridden by those who hold the political reins. That is why a number of high profile climate scientists have distanced themselves from the IPCC process. And many (if not most) who remain, as Lindzen has also noted, are often no better than "routine weather functionaries" from Tanzania or whatever other random place. They are no more climate experts than is your typical American TV weatherman - and perhaps less so.

 

This thread is a lot more enjoyable with the ignore feature, ROTFLMAO