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

Full story: Newsday 51,578
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#47581 Jun 8, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
About HotWhopper
I'm a sixties-something woman with an interest in climate science. I have a Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours) and an MBA and work as a freelance consultant.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/about-us.html
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
Once again, using warmists own standards to make them look foolish.
LOL
You only make yourself look foolish.

It is the argument that is important, not the qualifications of the person arguing.

In this case, HotWhopper is perfectly correct that Roy Spencer is cherry picking to manipulate the results.

Based on the evidence presented- which of course you have totally ignored.

Ad hominem an appeal to authority: two logical fallacies: pretty much your standard.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#47582 Jun 8, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>

It is the argument that is important, not the qualifications of the person arguing
My, my, my... warmists of another day have different arguments.

Where are your outcries about said blogger's qualifications? Her PHD's? Her peer reviewed studies?

<crickets>

And that is just more examples of the hypocrisy of the warmists.

I know, I know... it's tough to keep track of all the moving 'standards' of the "consensus", "settled" science, so I'll do it for you. No problem for me... I do enjoy showing warmists contradicting themselves.

Now if they'd only start holding themselves accountable...

btw, first comes the acknowledgement on your part of the folly of the warmists arguing "credentials", and your recriminations of those warmists using said tactics, then, when demonstrated, will be the merit of her argument.

I'm not going to bother debating a child who taunts "run away" in a game where the rules change on whim.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#47583 Jun 8, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You only make yourself look foolish.
It is the argument that is important, not the qualifications of the person arguing.
Oh yeah... warmists have been dismissing arguments for years based on "credentials" ... have they all been "foolish"?

LOL

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#47584 Jun 8, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
My, my, my... warmists of another day have different arguments.
Where are your outcries about said blogger's qualifications? Her PHD's? Her peer reviewed studies?
<crickets>
And that is just more examples of the hypocrisy of the warmists.
I know, I know... it's tough to keep track of all the moving 'standards' of the "consensus", "settled" science, so I'll do it for you. No problem for me... I do enjoy showing warmists contradicting themselves.
Now if they'd only start holding themselves accountable...
btw, first comes the acknowledgement on your part of the folly of the warmists arguing "credentials", and your recriminations of those warmists using said tactics, then, when demonstrated, will be the merit of her argument.
I'm not going to bother debating a child who taunts "run away" in a game where the rules change on whim.
Do you actually have anything to say about the validity of the dates and period chosen by Roy Spencer?

No, thought not.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#47585 Jun 8, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah... warmists have been dismissing arguments for years based on "credentials" ... have they all been "foolish"?
LOL
I've been dismissing arguments for years based on the evidence, and you've been consistent in ignoring these posts.

All we see is your little bob tail bobbing up and down as you run away, little rabbit.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#47586 Jun 8, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you actually have anything to say about the validity of the dates and period chosen by Roy Spencer?
No, thought not.
Hmm... let's see... have a "conversation" with someone who won't acknowledge any fault in reasoning in the past, as an adult would?

You've a ways to go demonstrate you can handle it.

Ball is in your court... gonna play or take it home to Momma?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#47587 Jun 8, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been dismissing arguments for years based on the evidence, and you've been consistent in ignoring these posts.
All we see is your little bob tail bobbing up and down as you run away, little rabbit.
Actually, I don't "debate" with those who change the rules midstream. The arguments you're making now on the nature of 'argument' is one I've realized and posted about for years.

So glad you've caught up to my enlightenment.

Now.. it's up to you to show you're worth the debate. You've dug a deep hole, so get to work!

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#47588 Jun 8, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
About HotWhopper
I'm a sixties-something woman with an interest in climate science. I have a Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours) and an MBA and work as a freelance consultant.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/about-us.html
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
Once again, using warmists own standards to make them look foolish.
LOL
If you are going to tout Roy Spencer's views on global warming, at least look at his track record. He has been shown lacking in the vast majority of his studies by competent climatologists. Of course that would make no difference to a died in the wool denier or the George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), Rush Limbaugh (Rushes favorite climatologist), or even Senator Inholfe. He has been proven wrong so many times on his off the cuff climate studies.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#47589 Jun 8, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to tout Roy Spencer's views on global warming, at least look at his track record. He has been shown lacking in the vast majority of his studies by competent climatologists. Of course that would make no difference to a died in the wool denier or the George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), Rush Limbaugh (Rushes favorite climatologist), or even Senator Inholfe. He has been proven wrong so many times on his off the cuff climate studies.
It's past time his grant reviewers fail his science grade.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#47590 Jun 8, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you actually have anything to say about the validity of the dates and period chosen by Roy Spencer?
No, thought not.
Do you have any validity of the bunk Al Gore spewed about polar bears..........you loons are a hoot.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#47591 Jun 8, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to tout Roy Spencer's views on global warming, at least look at his track record. He has been shown lacking in the vast majority of his studies by competent climatologists. Of course that would make no difference to a died in the wool denier or the George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), Rush Limbaugh (Rushes favorite climatologist), or even Senator Inholfe. He has been proven wrong so many times on his off the cuff climate studies.
Once again, oh thick one, you need keep up with the conversation.

Warmists have been saying that "experts" should be the ones speaking on the subject, not bloggers. I was demonstrating to the Green Troll that using warmists standards his blog post 'rebuttal' should be dismissed.

Take a reading class while you're leaning to write.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#47592 Jun 8, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>It's past time his grant reviewers fail his science grade.
And Little Sir Echo chimes in with a 'nothing' contribution... but does manage to puff out more of that evil CO2 into the atmosphere.

Hypocrite.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#47593 Jun 8, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, oh thick one, you need keep up with the conversation.
Warmists have been saying that "experts" should be the ones speaking on the subject, not bloggers. I was demonstrating to the Green Troll that using warmists standards his blog post 'rebuttal' should be dismissed.
Take a reading class while you're leaning to write.
It is apparent that both you and Roy need to be dismissed.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#47594 Jun 8, 2014
Washington DC wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone knows that data is poorly observed, poorly documented and poorly archived.
And those that rely on it to form their opinions are poorly informed.
So in other-words you are saying there are literally 1000's of dumb scientists running around globe telling us a message that is flawed. While on the other hand a small bunch of deniers are blessed with this insight that the rest of the population don't have.

When you are ideologically blind it's total, remember the GFC in 2008 and the policies put in place to allow this fraud to be carried out on a world wide scale. Rather than acknowledging this was a huge mistake, you guys push for more of the same. Less government rules meaning anyone can go cowboy. This is just one example of BS flawed ideology that ignores facts, whether it's war, climate or finance. You make up your mind this the road to travel on even tho it leads to a dead end solid concrete wall. You keep going down the same road, it's like a genetic flaw that is akin to being a retard.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#47595 Jun 8, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is apparent that both you and Roy need to be dismissed.
Not surprising that warmists cannot live by their own standards.

Hypocrisy on a new level.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#47596 Jun 8, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
And Little Sir Echo chimes in with a 'nothing' contribution... but does manage to puff out more of that evil CO2 into the atmosphere.
Hypocrite.
You and "Roy" FAIL!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#47597 Jun 8, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
So in other-words you are saying there are literally 1000's of dumb scientists running around globe telling us a message that is flawed.
Actually, there are very few "scientists" saying much at all. Most let their science speak for them, but warmists divine little nuggets of "truth" from their work, extrapolate, and exaggerate and run off to a willing media with big end of the world predictions.

For example...

Antarctica climate alarmism frenzy revisited – ill-informed, exaggerated and erroneous media claims galore

During May three new scientific papers appeared addressing results of studies of Antarctica ice loss which sent the alarmist media into a feeding frenzy of ill-informed, exaggerated and erroneous print and broadcast climate reporting panic.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/27/antarct...

Be brave and read it. You'll see what the studies said, and how the media reported, or rather, misreported them.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#47598 Jun 8, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, there are very few "scientists" saying much at all. Most let their science speak for them, but warmists divine little nuggets of "truth" from their work, extrapolate, and exaggerate and run off to a willing media with big end of the world predictions.
For example...
Antarctica climate alarmism frenzy revisited – ill-informed, exaggerated and erroneous media claims galore
During May three new scientific papers appeared addressing results of studies of Antarctica ice loss which sent the alarmist media into a feeding frenzy of ill-informed, exaggerated and erroneous print and broadcast climate reporting panic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/27/antarct...
Be brave and read it. You'll see what the studies said, and how the media reported, or rather, misreported them.
Scientists are NOT salespeople, by nature most of them are nerds so the ones that aren't they have to sell their message for the rest. So that's where you have the David Suzuki's, Bill McKibben's, Chris Flannery's & the Al Gore's of this world. Big Oil on the other hand can hire anyone they want to say anything they please, science never comes into it.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#47599 Jun 8, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists are NOT salespeople, by nature most of them are nerds so the ones that aren't they have to sell their message for the rest. So that's where you have the David Suzuki's, Bill McKibben's, Chris Flannery's & the Al Gore's of this world. Big Oil on the other hand can hire anyone they want to say anything they please, science never comes into it.
Where do scientists get their money?
Los Angeles

Chatsworth, CA

#47600 Jun 8, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
So in other-words you are saying there are literally 1000's of dumb scientists running around globe telling us a message that is flawed. While on the other hand a small bunch of deniers are blessed with this insight that the rest of the population don't have.
When you are ideologically blind it's total, remember the GFC in 2008 and the policies put in place to allow this fraud to be carried out on a world wide scale. Rather than acknowledging this was a huge mistake, you guys push for more of the same. Less government rules meaning anyone can go cowboy. This is just one example of BS flawed ideology that ignores facts, whether it's war, climate or finance. You make up your mind this the road to travel on even tho it leads to a dead end solid concrete wall. You keep going down the same road, it's like a genetic flaw that is akin to being a retard.
Their own website says " that data is poorly observed, poorly documented and poorly archived" lol

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.

Texas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bubbles from glacier ice turn up the noise in A... 3 hr Hal 1
Notaries providing illegal immigration services... 8 hr Jamestheduke21 3
Texas lawmaker married five times files error-f... 11 hr Belle Sexton 43
How to party like a conservative 14 hr Messed Up Mess 6
How Texas Became a Conservative Evangelical Pow... 14 hr Messed Up Mess 1
Recent editorials from Texas newspapers Wed indict TED CRUZ 1
Fiesta de La Feria 2015 Wed JAEsquivel 1
More from around the web