Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 50,407
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37702 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
I've mentioned teleconference for global warming summits several times. Imagine the t-shirts:
My Dad attended the 2015 Global Warming Summit and all I got was this lousy screen cap.
LOL
Remember the global warming conference in 2007 where over 10,000 jets descended on Bali?
Plane-pool anyone?
Too funny!
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37703 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
I cited an article critiquing the peer review process from a medical site, and Hype jumped to a rant on "profit" and the evil oil companies.
It's reflex, they can't help themselves.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37704 Aug 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
So to break it down....gcaveman posted that he went to AL GORE'S climate reality conference....
A contributor at WUWT attended that same Gore "training". His notes:

a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted. I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc. Very bizarre.

b) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.” Quite honestly, there is nothing new here, EXCEPT that there is no trace of the “hockey stick” graph that was so central to “An Inconvenient Truth”!! Amazing, considering how central that was to their arguments!

c) Instead, Al lumps data together year-by-year or decade-by-decade to show an ever increasing rise in temps. He poo-pooed measurement inaccuracies, specifically mentioning UHI effects and saying that the scientists determined these were insignificant.

d) A couple graphs stood out – one showed the documented rise in temperature PRECEDES the rise in CO2 which he brushed aside as “typical variation.” The only hockey stick was one that projected atmospheric CO2 over time, jumping up drastically in coming years. I didn’t have time to write units down, but it was a big jump. It could be a realistic rise with China & India bringing new coal plants online, I’d have to check any citations.

e) Al’s presentation was heavy on his new concept of “dirty weather,” see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/24-h...

To summarize, I didn’t see anything new or ground-breaking in this mess. Most slides were BS, typical “this is due to climate, not weather” type stuff we kick around on WUWT all the time. Hurricane Sandy, torrential rains in Pakistan etc.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-f...

No hockey stick? Temperature rises precede CO2 as “typical variation”?

No wonder the warmists are trying to part company.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37705 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me fix that for you,'The system is favored because it works for those who want to use the peer review standard to stifle dissenting opinions.'
And dum, dum?
Sheesh... go take a time out.
Peer review in science certainly does not "stifle dissenting opinions." It merely insists that they be serious, well-supported, and well-documented.

Things which Denier opinions almost invariably are NOT.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37706 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
A contributor at WUWT attended that same Gore "training". His notes:
a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted. I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc. Very bizarre.
b) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.” Quite honestly, there is nothing new here, EXCEPT that there is no trace of the “hockey stick” graph that was so central to “An Inconvenient Truth”!! Amazing, considering how central that was to their arguments!
c) Instead, Al lumps data together year-by-year or decade-by-decade to show an ever increasing rise in temps. He poo-pooed measurement inaccuracies, specifically mentioning UHI effects and saying that the scientists determined these were insignificant.
d) A couple graphs stood out – one showed the documented rise in temperature PRECEDES the rise in CO2 which he brushed aside as “typical variation.” The only hockey stick was one that projected atmospheric CO2 over time, jumping up drastically in coming years. I didn’t have time to write units down, but it was a big jump. It could be a realistic rise with China & India bringing new coal plants online, I’d have to check any citations.
e) Al’s presentation was heavy on his new concept of “dirty weather,” see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/24-h...
To summarize, I didn’t see anything new or ground-breaking in this mess. Most slides were BS, typical “this is due to climate, not weather” type stuff we kick around on WUWT all the time. Hurricane Sandy, torrential rains in Pakistan etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-f...
No hockey stick? Temperature rises precede CO2 as “typical variation”?
No wonder the warmists are trying to part company.
The conjunction of a 'Wattsupwiththat' front with an 'It'sallAl'sFault' system inevitably causes showers of Denier myth, derision, and jeers.

What you'll never see in fallout from such an event is much in the way of facts, however.:)
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37707 Aug 8, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
Peer review in science certainly does not "stifle dissenting opinions." It merely insists that they be serious, well-supported, and well-documented.
Things which Denier opinions almost invariably are NOT.
Really? I read some emails where "climate scientists" were discussing that very thing.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37708 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"P.S. You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG."
Hee-hee... you're doubling down, I see.
It's been a while since I've broken sentences down, but let's give it a try, shall we?
Removing all the modifiers, here's you're basic statement:
>>You thought there would be room.
A simple statement. Could mean anything.
But let's add to it:
>>You thought there would be room only....
"only"? Use of that word here adds emphasis to "room", as in 'more room'. So you're acknowledging a bigger room.
>>You thought there would be room only for your lies.
A 'bigger room' for what? Lies. But taken in conjunction with 'only' you're saying that more lies are possible in the room. Whose lies? Not mine, you've alleged those already exist. So who else?
Why 'you', course. You're the only person left in the conversation.
>>You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG.
And as if you didn't already trip yourself up, you now admit that the alleged lies in a room are actually part of a larger room stocked with your lies.
Lesson over.
'nuf said
.... except LOL
Trivializing others' answers by using fake grammatical "analysis" like this is simply another form of trolling, something you appear adept at.

I haven't seen you on this board, but I've seen your posts elsewhere, you seem the typical Conservative troll. Not all of them are also Climate Deniers, but evidently you are. All Al Gore's fault, laugh at hockey sticks, e-mail coverups, all the usual jazz?

That'll really make this thread more meaningful.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37709 Aug 8, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
The conjunction of a 'Wattsupwiththat' front with an 'It'sallAl'sFault' system inevitably causes showers of Denier myth, derision, and jeers.
What you'll never see in fallout from such an event is much in the way of facts, however.:)
<sigh>
Somewhere in your babble you're trying to make a point, but no doubt you've lost the context of the discussion at hand and are having the same typical reflex reaction as mentioned above.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37710 Aug 8, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
Trivializing others' answers by using fake grammatical "analysis" like this is simply another form of trolling, something you appear adept at.
I haven't seen you on this board, but I've seen your posts elsewhere, you seem the typical Conservative troll. Not all of them are also Climate Deniers, but evidently you are. All Al Gore's fault, laugh at hockey sticks, e-mail coverups, all the usual jazz?
That'll really make this thread more meaningful.
This thread has been around for a long time. Go back a ways and you'll find Space Blues tying to play trump cards with all kinds of word games.

Do go back and find those, then you'll have some context, and perhaps see that you've jumped the gun on your criticisms.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37711 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
<sigh>
Somewhere in your babble you're trying to make a point, but no doubt you've lost the context of the discussion at hand and are having the same typical reflex reaction as mentioned above.
This is how Chisholm saw your post:

Blah blah blah WUWT blah blah blah blah Gore blah blah blah blah blah.....
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37712 Aug 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is how Chisholm saw your post:
Blah blah blah WUWT blah blah blah blah Gore blah blah blah blah blah.....
Now that is funny.

Reminds me of this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sluggerotoole/15...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37713 Aug 8, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you even read what Mothra posted?
Sure because I have read it 1000 times before, in the meantime you keep posting about counter claims that some flat earth scientist made suggesting we all should keep waiting about addressing climate change because the results are not in yet. If you were making ANY other choice in life based on researching information that you claim to encourage your children to do. Then I'd say 97% in favour of one choice is pretty much a slam dunk don't you think ??
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#37714 Aug 8, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
Never saw your alleged "Pew Research paper," and I'm getting bored with your absurd conspiracy theories anyway.
The IMF and World Bank would have nothing to do with regulation of greenhouse gases and pollution, the only thing they might be concerned in is carbon trading, which I oppose as a means to control warming.
FYI
Sometimes the evidence is hard to see... But not on this occasion.
Makes one wonder if evidence is important to true believers
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#37715 Aug 8, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I'd say 97% in favour of one choice is pretty much a slam dunk don't you think ??
Nope... That would not be very scientific now would it?

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

#37716 Aug 8, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes the evidence is hard to see... But not on this occasion.
Makes one wonder if evidence is important to true believers
I am curious as to how you can look at the following web sites:

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understa...

http://www.ametsoc.org/2012stateoftheclimate....

and say that there is no evidence of AGW. I am looking forward to your response.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37717 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"P.S. You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG."
Hee-hee... you're doubling down, I see.
It's been a while since I've broken sentences down, but let's give it a try, shall we?
Removing all the modifiers, here's you're basic statement:
>>You thought there would be room.
A simple statement. Could mean anything.
But let's add to it:
>>You thought there would be room only....
"only"? Use of that word here adds emphasis to "room", as in 'more room'. So you're acknowledging a bigger room.
>>You thought there would be room only for your lies.
A 'bigger room' for what? Lies. But taken in conjunction with 'only' you're saying that more lies are possible in the room. Whose lies? Not mine, you've alleged those already exist. So who else?
Why 'you', course. You're the only person left in the conversation.
>>You thought there would be room only for your lies. You were WRONG.
And as if you didn't already trip yourself up, you now admit that the alleged lies in a room are actually part of a larger room stocked with your lies.
Lesson over.
'nuf said
.... except LOL
hahaha you should study together with my other sentence. Otherwise you are taking words out of context.

You are the liar. I would never call myself one because I am not a liar.

You are a well-documented liar as a denier. The whole world knows you are a liar.

Oh remember AGW is real; humans are responsible. Yet deniers such as yourself are taking sides with the fossil fuels interests against the science and scientists.

You are decadent to the core.

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

#37718 Aug 8, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope... That would not be very scientific now would it?
I keep looking at your comment to try and figure out what kind of logic you are using.

Are you saying that the 3% are correct and that the 97% are incorrect?

I am looking forward to your response.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#37719 Aug 8, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
A contributor at WUWT attended that same Gore "training". His notes:
a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted. I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc. Very bizarre.
b) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.” Quite honestly, there is nothing new here, EXCEPT that there is no trace of the “hockey stick” graph that was so central to “An Inconvenient Truth”!! Amazing, considering how central that was to their arguments!
c) Instead, Al lumps data together year-by-year or decade-by-decade to show an ever increasing rise in temps. He poo-pooed measurement inaccuracies, specifically mentioning UHI effects and saying that the scientists determined these were insignificant.
d) A couple graphs stood out – one showed the documented rise in temperature PRECEDES the rise in CO2 which he brushed aside as “typical variation.” The only hockey stick was one that projected atmospheric CO2 over time, jumping up drastically in coming years. I didn’t have time to write units down, but it was a big jump. It could be a realistic rise with China & India bringing new coal plants online, I’d have to check any citations.
e) Al’s presentation was heavy on his new concept of “dirty weather,” see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/24-h...
To summarize, I didn’t see anything new or ground-breaking in this mess. Most slides were BS, typical “this is due to climate, not weather” type stuff we kick around on WUWT all the time. Hurricane Sandy, torrential rains in Pakistan etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-f...
No hockey stick? Temperature rises precede CO2 as “typical variation”?
No wonder the warmists are trying to part company.
So, your info comes from a "contributor at WUWT". So that's second or third hand news, and from a "contributor at WUWT", too, meaning we know it's ssooooo unbiased.

Here's what this eyewitness saw:

a) The only thing bizarre is this guys take on a rather ordinary conference.

b) The hockey stick graph was mentioned and shown, but not dwelled upon, because the results of that graph have been duplicated so many times that it is indisputable. It's no longer Mann's graph; it is representative of all the climate research that has been conducted.

c) Don't know what this guy is talking about, and I doubt he does either.

d) See c) above.

e) Yes, dirty weather is a new phrase, as opposed to climate change, which is not.

There were new slides and the latest information in the scientific literature. There were speakers on the health, business, and faith aspects of climate change. There were lessons in psychology and communication in the climate debate. The conference was informative and well-structured. Someone who belongs to the WUWT club would obviously see it differently.

And nothing, not peer-review arguments, not investing strategies, not even Al Gore or denialism changes the fact that the Earth is warming, we are causing it, and we can do something about it...if we act.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37721 Aug 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>hahaha you should study together with my other sentence.

[irrelevant blather omitted]
<crickets>

Not worth much a read, less a reply.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37722 Aug 8, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, your info comes from a "contributor at WUWT". So that's second or third hand news, and from a "contributor at WUWT", too, meaning we know it's ssooooo unbiased.
Here's what this eyewitness saw:
a) The only thing bizarre is this guys take on a rather ordinary conference.
b) The hockey stick graph was mentioned and shown, but not dwelled upon, because the results of that graph have been duplicated so many times that it is indisputable. It's no longer Mann's graph; it is representative of all the climate research that has been conducted.
c) Don't know what this guy is talking about, and I doubt he does either.
d) See c) above.
e) Yes, dirty weather is a new phrase, as opposed to climate change, which is not.
There were new slides and the latest information in the scientific literature. There were speakers on the health, business, and faith aspects of climate change. There were lessons in psychology and communication in the climate debate. The conference was informative and well-structured. Someone who belongs to the WUWT club would obviously see it differently.
And nothing, not peer-review arguments, not investing strategies, not even Al Gore or denialism changes the fact that the Earth is warming, we are causing it, and we can do something about it...if we act.
Based on your reply, I'd say he nailed the "religious cult programming".

Change the channel.

<click>

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min sonicfilter 1,173,342
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 4 min KiMerde 51,371
Michelle Obama refuses to wear veil in Saudi Ar... 8 min ChicagOpinion 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 18 min Rogue Scholar 05 183,848
Toni Braxton's abortion 1 hr Rogue Scholar 05 1
A New Place For Talent...Australia 2 hr Shoutline 1
Review: JW Property Management Service Inc 4 hr J Wiley 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr andet1987 98,986
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:04 am PST

NFL10:04AM
Richardson was suspended for two Colts playoff games
ESPN10:58 AM
Colts won't commit to RB Richardson for 2015
Yahoo! Sports11:49 AM
League conducts nearly 40 interviews into 'deflate-gate'
Yahoo! Sports11:50 AM
NFL: No decision yet on deflated balls
NBC Sports12:54 PM
Grigson goes silent on NFL investigation into Patriots