Outright deniers of global warming are no worse than those who accept it, but refuse to take action

Apr 28, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Daily Kos

Media Matters created a video mosaic of the dumb bunnies at Foxaganda spouting nonsense on global warming.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of28
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
PHD

Smithville, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Outright deniers of global warming are no worse than those who accept it, but refuse to take action

Not true both deniers and those who accept the scientific science fiction do take action. They all pay more tax dollars to support their scientific science fiction tax dollar extraction from the real tax payers.
Corbin

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

In the 15 years since Kyoto, greenhouse emissions have gone up. Nevertheless, temperatures have gone down. Try again, Media Matters. And next time, let's try not to be such bullies!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Corbin wrote:
In the 15 years since Kyoto, greenhouse emissions have gone up. Nevertheless, temperatures have gone down. Try again, Media Matters. And next time, let's try not to be such bullies!
We have a prime example here of how outright deniers are worse.

Temperatures have of course risen over the last 15 years.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Outright denial is a game of Chinese whispers, with interpretations of interpretations echoed round the internet until they become outright rubbish.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

AGWs such as those in the above article are extremists. The 'live' at the far end of the AGW scale and therefore don't see the forest from the trees.(they could be in a tree, there are liberals who do that, true)

Scientists worth their degree are thoughtful people who spend a lot of time doing research and experiments.

The more work they do, the more information they find and in this case they are finding information that is contrary to their original premise.

That's ok, it's science.

Scientists? they are people too. Some are good, others not. There will always be someone who holds on to an idea long after any reasonable expectation of it validity is long gone. Look up snowball earth, a couple of years ago someone made a documentary and put it on history.

After plate tectonics, snowball pretty much went away for the general scientific communtiy, but like climate change, there are still a few scientists but mostly media (history channel) looking to sell air time that still presents it as possible.

If you're a liberal of the AGW type, then snowball earth is right up your alley. A looming disaster covering the entire earth in ice is just too good to resist.

It's a personality type, the superman. Bringing the news to the world that is going to save them from the potential disaster.

Thankfully not all people have that personality type.

But the writers at 'Daily Kos' have it in spades. You know, birds of a feather flock together.

Best you get your information from scientists, not journalists.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Fair Game wrote:
Outright denial is a game of Chinese whispers, with interpretations of interpretations echoed round the internet until they become outright rubbish.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
Let's look at a bigger picture.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

How about last month March 2013 was .53*C warmer than the 1951 to 1980 time period.

What's interesting, March 2013 was .57*C warmer than the 1881 to 1910 time period.

A difference of .03*C from the mid century data to the beginning of our record data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

If there is anyone on the threads who denies that is has warmed since the end of the LIA, please state your case.

Most accept warming since the end of the LIA. Given the choice, few would go back to the LIA temps. Be careful what you wish for, the next 30 years may just give it to you.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Missed my expanded wood for trees graph.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fun Facts wrote:
AGWs such as those in the above article are extremists. The 'live' at the far end of the AGW scale.
There are those at both ends of the scale. Yet the middle forecasts by the majority of the climatologists suggest major problems and significant risks, which you are constantly downplaying but tactics such as this 'convert it to politics' nonsense.
Fun Facts wrote:
Best you get your information from scientists, not journalists.
Pot, Kettle Black. Not sure where YOU get your posts from, but they never contain science.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/02/23/2...
"M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1C"

The SCIENCE keeps showing more problems and bigger risks. YOU are a denialist on the fairly extreme end.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Fun Facts wrote:
Missed my expanded wood for trees graph.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php...

"Cooking the books" as usual by cherry picking 1998 ( a very warm year due to La-Nina ) as the starting point and the coolest recent year as the end. Intellectually dishonest but you know that, and keep trying to manipulate the public preception. So many have caught on to your tricks though, you have no real impact.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php...
"Cooking the books" as usual by cherry picking 1998 ( a very warm year due to La-Nina ) as the starting point and the coolest recent year as the end. Intellectually dishonest but you know that, and keep trying to manipulate the public preception. So many have caught on to your tricks though, you have no real impact.
Oh so not true, my graph starts in 1990 so it picks up both the cooling of the Pinatubo eruption (1991) as well as the super el nino (1998) and it's end is current.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
Check NOAA

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a prime example here of how outright deniers are worse.
Temperatures have of course risen over the last 15 years.
WRONG!!!!
Check Noaa and you will see that the avg. temp of the globe has fallen by 2 deg. over the last 15 years
So, before you want to down somebody, get your facts together before you argue, because now you look just plain stupid
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php...
"Cooking the books" as usual by cherry picking 1998 ( a very warm year due to La-Nina ) as the starting point and the coolest recent year as the end. Intellectually dishonest but you know that, and keep trying to manipulate the public preception. So many have caught on to your tricks though, you have no real impact.
"...you have no real impact" LOL

Me personally, no I have no real impact on the global warming debate. My only impact is to research the science and present what I have found.

But I do get a kick out of all the times you have told me I'm irrelevant. They are almost always, as is demonstrated today, a result of you not even reading/looking at what I posted.

Not too worried about your 'feelings' of my relevancy.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Check NOAA wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG!!!!
Check Noaa and you will see that the avg. temp of the globe has fallen by 2 deg. over the last 15 years
So, before you want to down somebody, get your facts together before you argue, because now you look just plain stupid
Do you think you can post a link to prove that?

I think you're the one who's going to be looking stupid when you can't.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Fun Facts wrote:
Missed my expanded wood for trees graph.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NCDC_Esc...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Fair Game wrote:
I used a ten year interval for this graph so it won't look like the Skeptical science graph with the variable intervals.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/f...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so not true, my graph starts in 1990 so it picks up both the cooling of the Pinatubo eruption (1991) as well as the super el nino (1998) and it's end is current.
Nice trick and a rapid response. Yet the graph shows 1998 as the start year. Which is why you found the results you wanted.

The prior graph, more honest because it includes over thirty years (the minimum for climate research using AIR temperatures) has a proper trend line.

The 'escalator' reference shows you you do the trick.

Busted again..
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
"...you have no real impact" LOL
Me personally,
yes. YOu personally. You have written to many spams, scams and misdirections. You are well known to be a dishonest troll and the consequence is that nobody listens to you.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
My only impact is to research the science and present what I have found.
Misdirection, cherry picking and obscure papers by weak researchers while ignoring the BASIC SCIENCE is just one reason why you have lost all impact. If science and scientists were so biased towards one particular outcome, THEY would have no legitimacy either.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
But I do get a kick out of all the times you have told me I'm irrelevant. They are almost always, as is demonstrated today, a result of you not even reading/looking at what I posted.
As I can tell you the start date on your graph at "woodfortrees' and you cannot, it suggests that I pay more attention to the references than you do. YOU just look till you find something that you feel backs what you want. I look at the actual details and apply critical thinking skills.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not too worried about your 'feelings' of my relevancy.
I was stating a fact. You are obvioulsy trying to turn this into 'ad hominem' by saying that my opinons don't count. That is as clear an indication of the difference between our posts as ever.

The FACT is that air is subject to 'noise' from climate oscillations which can change the rate at which heat from the sun is transferred to the atmosphere so it must never be looked at over short periods (a fault you select). The more useful measure of 'global average surface temperature' is the total thermal content of the surface (oceans and land). The 'air at 2 meters above land' is useful, because it is based on widely distributed sensors and a data network, but not definitive of the surface temperature over short periods.

tinyurl.com/cczqzaf
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice trick and a rapid response. Yet the graph shows 1998 as the start year. Which is why you found the results you wanted.
The prior graph, more honest because it includes over thirty years (the minimum for climate research using AIR temperatures) has a proper trend line.
The 'escalator' reference shows you you do the trick.
Busted again..
Oh so not true. This is the graph I posted.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...

If you want to see 30 years here it is.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
yes.
As I can tell you the start date on your graph at "woodfortrees' and you cannot,
Once again, here's the graph I posted. I understand you mush scroll up a bit to see the dates at the bottom of the graph, but if you do you will see the date 1990.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I was stating a fact. You are obvioulsy trying to turn this into 'ad hominem' by saying that my opinons don't count.
Are you just figuring that out? Less, you post some of the, trying to put is nicely, most inovated ideas, don't know where they come from, don't really care.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of28
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••