How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Ben D]

Obsolete as in: New data accounts for the "missing" warming, which, as it turns out, wasn't missing after all.

DrEvil...I assure you that I would never try to deceive you or anyone else ever....this is a case of your lacking the technical understanding of what the graphs and data represented. The data and graphs I provided are not obsolete...there are no new data accounts, you are grasping at straws in desperation.

It is true that there are attempts by the AGW alarmist community to explain to the faithful to ignore the implication of the graphs showing the pause as the heat went missing from the temperature data records for various reasons....but that is not a refutation of the continuing authenticity of the data I posted, that is a refutation of the implication that the lack of warming means the predicted CO2 induced warming didn't happen.

And that is a whole new subject!

So my graphs stand...and an apology is in order if you have any sense of integrity.

[Iamwhomiam]

I don't know, slim, but I haven't noticed any shills posting here lately, though we sure do have our share of those who favor the right wing policies of their oppressors, the ruling class, and that only serves to support the present power structure, effectually strengthening it by enabling its philosophy to fester.

Ironically, some choose to call others, like me, blinded enablers of power and I'm actually working quite successfully to protect your health, which is not in the interest of those whose policies you seemingly blindly support.

All I do know is that if my great grandchildren asked me why they became ill, I could at least tell them I tried my very best to protect their health and I'm sorry that I hadn't.

I'd also tell them there are more selfish dumb shits in this world then she'd believe and that she should not waste her time time to educate those with no interest in expanding their knowledge, but to give all the time possible to those who show a desire to learn, for there you will find your time rewarded.

Ben, I do again have to go, but it's important to continue in this manner, politely. Certainly if we who hold many vastly different beliefs can discuss the topic politely, as we have learned to do, I'm sure others can as well, bleeding bitten lips and all. ~ later

[slimmouse]

IAWIA.

Serious thanks this time for your considered reply.

But, with due respect, and in the context of any RI conversation that interests me, all of this "right wing/left wing " stuff sounds so disturbingly familiar.

Can we go another way?

[Rory]

So, as the great global warming debate continues, so does my chuckling at the sheer fucking stupidity of it all.

If any single member of this forum truly believes that in 2014 we are technologically incapable of producing clean renewable energy sources, then so be it.

What did Mike Ruppert say about money?

Many of the same people around here dont seem to get that either.

How bizzarre.

Dr Evil may be onto something after all. Maybe there are "shills" in our midst.

Kudos, Doc.

What do you mean in the above bolded?

What are these energy sources that could replace oil's EROEI? Even coal's energy ROI is untouchable with current renewables tech.

Is there a single renewable device class that is itself manufactured in an entirely renewable life cycle?

From what I've seen with my own eyes and knowing the energy production sector at more than a casual level of interest, there is nothing there to carry us into a post fossil future - at current rates of consumption. And, instead of conserving our resources to cushion the coming decline, we are doubling down by producing more CO2 as they run out (or become technicaly irritrevable).

And Business as Usual (and sometime prophet of biblical end times/eastern yogic guru fusion), Ben wants us to ignore the writing on the wall and to produce more of the thought processes that have created this climate crisis. And to use nuclear, and go to the stars and other fantasy thinking.

Technology will not save us from ourselves. Technology has trapped us and will accelerate our descent.

[DrEvil]

Obsolete as in: New data accounts for the "missing" warming, which, as it turns out, wasn't missing after all.

DrEvil...I assure you that I would never try to deceive you or anyone else ever....this is a case of your lacking the technical understanding of what the graphs and data represented. The data and graphs I provided are not obsolete...there are no new data accounts, you are grasping at straws in desperation.

It is true that there are attempts by the AGW alarmist community to explain to the faithful to ignore the implication of the graphs showing the pause as the heat went missing from the temperature data records for various reasons....but that is not a refutation of the continuing authenticity of the data I posted, that is a refutation of the implication that the lack of warming means the predicted CO2 induced warming didn't happen.

And that is a whole new subject!

So my graphs stand...and an apology is in order if you have any sense of integrity.

Read it: http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... goes-being

[Ben D]

Obsolete as in: New data accounts for the "missing" warming, which, as it turns out, wasn't missing after all.

DrEvil...I assure you that I would never try to deceive you or anyone else ever....this is a case of your lacking the technical understanding of what the graphs and data represented. The data and graphs I provided are not obsolete...there are no new data accounts, you are grasping at straws in desperation.

It is true that there are attempts by the AGW alarmist community to explain to the faithful to ignore the implication of the graphs showing the pause as the heat went missing from the temperature data records for various reasons....but that is not a refutation of the continuing authenticity of the data I posted, that is a refutation of the implication that the lack of warming means the predicted CO2 induced warming didn't happen.

And that is a whole new subject!

So my graphs stand...and an apology is in order if you have any sense of integrity.

Read it: http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... goes-being

DrEvil....you couldn't be that dense could you? ...the article is not challenging the validity of the graph and data I posted...in fact it is the very basis of the narrative, from the AGW alarmist perspective, for the reasons for the pause.....there is no one challenging the graph showing the pause, not even the AGW climate scientists themselves....



Ok...got that..understand?

Now so far as the msm article is concerned, this is old news and a covers a totally different subject as I said to you in my last post, that of explaining to the faithful the reason the warming has paused....and everyone of the AGW alarmist excuses can be clearly refuted by the skeptics if you want to look for it.

[DrEvil]

Obsolete as in: New data accounts for the "missing" warming, which, as it turns out, wasn't missing after all.

...snip...

Read it: http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... goes-being

DrEvil....you couldn't be that dense could you? ...the article is not challenging the validity of the graph and data I posted...in fact it is the very basis of the narrative, from the AGW alarmist perspective, for the reasons for the pause.....there is no one challenging the graph showing the pause, not even the AGW climate scientists themselves....



Ok...got that..understand?

Now so far as the msm article is concerned, this is old news and a covers a totally different subject as I said to you in my last post, that of explaining to the faithful the reason the warming has paused....and everyone of the AGW alarmist excuses can be clearly refuted by the skeptics if you want to look for it.

Do you have a source for that graph that is not Anthony Watts? The man is an incompetent liar, and not a climate scientist. See the whole "It's the sun, stupid" debacle around p. 20 or so of this thread.
(You know what I'm talking about right? The bit where you managed to come to the exact opposite conclusion of what the science was actually saying, just like Watts did?)

And yes, the article is challenging the validity of the graph you posted. That's what the article is about.
You didn't read it did you?

[Ben D]

Do you have a source for that graph that is not Anthony Watts?

Haha....fishing can be fun but tiring after a while, you are putting up such a futile fight against the facts,...and with such a burden of ignorance of being not even familiar with RSS....no wonder you have no understanding whatsoever of what is being explained to you.

The data source of the graph is RSS and is plainly shown on the top of the graph...all climate scientists use it, the UN IPCC, NOAA, etc., including those that frequent WUWT which is where I lifted it from. But hey...I could have just as easily made up a graph for the same period using RSS data as source as I have done with the one below....look at the graph and note the source of the data and that is in fact the same graph as the one lifted from a WUWT post.

If you want to avoid having egg on your face in future, always check for source on the graph itself, never ever use graphs that don't show the source, but there are really no credibility problems in lifting graphs from anywhere so long as the source is shown and is scientifically valid.



My poor DrEvil....my grapple hook is poised...concede?

[Sounder]

conniption posted a vid with Thomas Sheridan on the psychopathology thread. I do not often watch long vids because I prefer to read. But I really enjoyed that vid and had generally good feelings about Thomas as I was watching. While watching it occurred to me that Thomas was just the sort of person that AGW serves as inoculation from for considering the disruptive ideation that folk like Thomas produce.

Because I could relate so well with what Thomas was saying, I was fair confident that he would carry similar sentiments to mine in regard to AGW.

Indeed he does.


http://thomassheridanofficialblog.blogs ... mment-form

By the end of the Great War of 1914-1918, one organization that was very influential on the global stage and whose actions and implementations directly led to the rise of the totalitarianism of both Fascism and the Bolsheviks was the Fabian Society. Based in London and formed in 1884, and which still exists and remains influential in global politics to the present day, this think-tank was and still is essentially an aristocratic cult out of which formed the British Labour Party, the London School of Economics and the influential New Statesman journal, as well as having a huge influence on the creation of the League of Nations in 1919.

The Fabian ideology is driven by incremental social Darwinism and scientific socialism, and until the 1940's did nothing to hide their totalitarian psychopathic agenda. In fact, they openly boasted about their horrific agenda which, today, is now hidden behind a façade of celebrities and climate change fronts. The same aristocratic families which championed the ethos and rise of both National Socialism and the Bolsheviks are very much still moving the Fabian rudder and maintaining their utopian course behind the scenes just as much as they ever have as you read these very words.

[DrEvil]

It was about bloody time someone invoked Godwin's Law in this thread.
(Protip: Comparing your opponents to Nazis is generally considered a last desperate attempt by people who don't have any actual arguments.)

@Ben: Fine, so your source for the graph is valid. You're still ignoring everything else I said.

[Sounder]

It was about bloody time someone invoked Godwin's Law in this thread.
(Protip: Comparing your opponents to Nazis is generally considered a last desperate attempt by people who don't have any actual arguments.)

Yes, it's best to discount all history of the last century if you wish to support Fabians.

[Sounder]

Also Dr. Evil, what you think is not very interesting given that we already know about that.

It would be more interesting to hear from someone that takes Thomas Sheridan seriously.

Maybe from someone that still 'believes' the AGW propaganda but also realizes the depth of pathology in our current expressions of culture.

How would that dissonance be reconciled?

[DrEvil]

It was about bloody time someone invoked Godwin's Law in this thread.
(Protip: Comparing your opponents to Nazis is generally considered a last desperate attempt by people who don't have any actual arguments.)

Yes, it's best to discount all history of the last century if you wish to support Fabians.

And there you go again with Godwin's law, insinuating that I support the Fabians, and by extension being a fan of national socialism and eugenics and probably a psychopath to boot. What does this have to do with climate change?

Do you have any actual arguments to support your position on climate change?

[Sounder]

And there you go again with Godwin's law, insinuating that I support the Fabians, and by extension being a fan of national socialism and eugenics and probably a psychopath to boot. What does this have to do with climate change?

It’s impressive how reliably I can count on others to say what I think. While I do not think those things, I am willing to say, with confidence, that strong ‘believers’ in CC are enablers of a Fabian agenda.

(These things happen mostly unconsciously and are a large generator for the misery in many peoples lives as they desperately suppress dissonance in the name of upholding their conscious model in an effort to maintain the validity of their self-identity.)

Do you have any actual arguments to support your position on climate change?

Well I have many Dr. Evil, but you do not really want to hear about them, do you?

[Sounder]

If nobody's minds are ever changed, can it really be said that a discussion is even happening?