How Bad Is Global Warming?

[DrEvil]

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.

If you do not think those things, why did you just repeat them? You've already implied that Fabians are practically Nazis who support(ed) eugenics with your selective copy-paste from Sheridan's blog.

(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.)

Look in the mirror.

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?

If your last few posts are anything to go by, no, I really really don't.
But hey, what the Hell - give it your best shot anyway.

[brainpanhandler]

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?)

I think you mean the Global Warming, eh? thread:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32878&start=285

DrEvil...I assure you that I would never try to deceive you or anyone else ever....

And I can assure everyone reading this you are a lying piece of shit.

[DrEvil]

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

I'm guessing this does not include your mind.

Here's a couple of questions for you:

1. Do you believe the climate is changing?

2. If yes on (1), do you believe humans are causing it?

3. If none of the above - what do you believe?

Edit: @bph: Thanks. No wonder I couldn't find it

[DrEvil]

Ben said: DrEvil...I assure you that I would never try to deceive you or anyone else ever....

Like when I mentioned your bible prophecies, and you tried to pass it off as if I was joking? And then I linked to your blog where you wrote those things and you never mentioned it again. Like that?

Yeah - you're a shining beacon of truthfulness.*

*May contain sarcasm

[Rory]

What's the story behind the WoodForTrees website - I have only seen it used in the context of climate change denial, and only by the deniers. The site appears to be vaguely impartial in ethos but given the 100% used by denier record makes me doubt that they have accurate data or, that their methodology is legit.

Anthony Watts (paid Exxon shill) references them a lot and I've seen other climate trolls use it on their blogs.

As regards Ben, yeah, hes a proven liar and he has form for posting from some very shady, oil funded blogs and disinfo sites. And Business As Usual msm places like the DailyHate. The biblical, USA=Antichrist stuff was hilarious - that and the dissonance between his whiteboy, eastern mystic shtick and his general Global Growth Economic mantras mark him as a decidedly untrustworthy and unreliable figure. Years of lies and disinformation are on the public record, open for all to see.

[slimmouse]

Ive gotten to the stage where I narrow this AGWBS down to a few simple markers.

Principally, my thinking revolves around the idea that this planet is clearly run by a select few Psycopaths.

They currently own all the money and all the weaponry, and all the media, and all the Govnts.

If you disagree with the above prognosis, then I forgive anyone for believing that the reason we are paying carbon taxes is because we need to save the planet.

For the benefit of I am who I am, I sit very firmly and strongly with Icke here. Whatever you think of AGW, the world is clearly, provably run by Psycopaths.

If you think thats lunacy, then thats your own misguided call.

IMHO that is.

[brainpanhandler]

What's the story behind the WoodForTrees website - I have only seen it used in the context of climate change denial, and only by the deniers. The site appears to be vaguely impartial in ethos but given the 100% used by denier record makes me doubt that they have accurate data or, that their methodology is legit.

That's roughly my take on it when I looked at it last. It seems a website for climate denier trolls to make nifty little graphs with cherry picked data, whether that is it's explicit intent or not.

...

The denier trolls need only create doubt, a much lower burden. Hence lowbrow nitwits are all you will find on that side of the argument. They only have to think just enough to take advantage of the unwitting and naive. Within the context of climate change that is easy to do.

There is a pause. Clearly. Models have not and are not predicting various effects, like the rapid ice loss in the arctic and the ice gains in the antarctic. It's a relatively new field of investigation and wildly complex. Our understanding is evolving. Some here seem to have a basic lack of understanding that that is the way science works.

What is not in doubt is that the long term trends are toward a warming climate and that there is a strong signal in the data of human induced changes which correspond with industrialization and increasing man made ghg emissions.

You'd have to be a complete ignoramus to point to the pause in spite of the continued rise in CO2 emissions and claim that was evidence that anthropogenic climate change is incorrect. There are many other inputs which can and are offsetting the warming of ghg emissions on shorter time scales. This is well known and documented.

The article DrEvil pointed to:

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

... does a good job of delineating some of the current theories which would explain the recent pause in global warming. These are not 'excuses", these are hypotheses. big and obvious difference.

And for the language impaired, dictionary definition of the word pause : a temporary stop : a period of time in which something is stopped before it is started again

[Rory]

Ive gotten to the stage where I narrow this AGWBS down to a few simple markers.

Principally, my thinking revolves around the idea that this planet is clearly run by a select few Psycopaths.

They currently own all the money and all the weaponry, and all the media, and all the Govnts.

If you disagree with the above prognosis, then I forgive anyone for believing that the reason we are paying carbon taxes is because we need to save the planet.

For the benefit of I am who I am, I sit very firmly and strongly with Icke here. Whatever you think of AGW, the world is clearly, provably run by Psycopaths.

If you think thats lunacy, then thats your own misguided call.

IMHO that is.

What carbon taxes? Citations, please.

Also - they producers are heavilly subsidized - the gains (for them) far outweigh the costs and for us, we effectively pay subsidized rates for our fossil fuel energy due to the externalities of deferred pollution clean up costs.

I see zero evidence to back up this assertion that climate change is a scam to extort 'carbon taxes'.

None, whatsoever

[brainpanhandler]

Ive gotten to the stage where I narrow this AGWBS down to a few simple markers.

Principally, my thinking revolves around the idea that this planet is clearly run by a select few Psycopaths.

Depends on what you mean by "few". I would guess the number was something like a few tens of thousands of competing interests that occasionally ally themselves with others when it seems to their benefit.

They currently own all the money and all the weaponry, and all the media, and all the Govnts.

More or less. but again I think we are talking about a bunch of competing interests, not some super secret cabal that masterminds all events from the top level of the pyramid.

If you disagree with the above prognosis, then I forgive anyone for believing that the reason we are paying carbon taxes is because we need to save the planet.

Moron. How many times do people have to explain to you that your fear of carbon taxes is absurd? It's like worrying about someone stealing the loose change off your dresser while another gang of thieves rob your bank account. You deserve to be robbed blind, dumbass.

For the benefit of I am who I am, I sit very firmly and strongly with Icke here.

That's to no one's benefit numbnuts, except perhaps Icke. Good god. Are you really that dumb. His picture ought to be right next to the dictionary definition of con artist confidence man. I hope you give him your entire life savings.

Whatever you think of AGW, the world is clearly, provably run by Psycopaths.

FUCKhead. AGW is real. The psychopaths will do everything in their power to make you doubt that it is. Why? because addressing it will effect their bottom line. These issues are inextricably intertwined.

If you think thats lunacy, then thats your own misguided call.

IMHO that is.

I don't think it's lunacy. I think it's stupidity.

[Ben D]

DrEvil...I assure you that I would never try to deceive you or anyone else ever....

And I can assure everyone reading this you are a lying piece of shit.

Oh dear...the 'ignorant of the science' AGW alarmist poopy mouth...c'mon then...show me an example of where I tried to deceive someone.

And it doesn't count to just throw up nebulous claims and assertions without being clear as to precisely what the supposed lie was...throwing mud at me doesn't count. Your problem will turn out to be, like DrEvil, you don't understand what is being said wrt sthe science because you lack the technical understanding to follow the nuance of the discussion.

[Nordic]

Ben D is nothing but a provocateur who gets his rocks off by making people's blood boil.

We're all better off just putting him on "ignore". He's not interested in any actual discussion.

[Ben D]

Ben said: DrEvil...I assure you that I would never try to deceive you or anyone else ever....

Like when I mentioned your bible prophecies, and you tried to pass it off as if I was joking? And then I linked to your blog where you wrote those things and you never mentioned it again. Like that?

Yeah - you're a shining beacon of truthfulness.*

*May contain sarcasm

What is wrong with you...gone crazy? firstly I thought your quip was very clever...and secondly, why would I not like you to link to my blog post...I like it that it gets publicity.

But beyond that, please explain to me and everyone how did my not mentioning your linking to my blog makes me a deceiver? Btw, I was not going to mention the graph discussion again after you admitted to me it was valid...but I may decide to follow it up if it means you think it makes me a deceiver by not doing so.

[Ben D]

Ben D is nothing but a provocateur who gets his rocks off by making people's blood boil.

My friend Nordic....it may seem like that to you...but the fact is the AGW true believers just hate anyone posting anything other that pro-AGW propaganda here at RI. This thread would be dead long ago if all skeptics were banned so only the faithful could engage in a circle wank...what's more I am really interested in the climate studies and follow it closely, so am able to bring to the table up to date facts that challenge the AGW meme.

[Ben D]

What's the story behind the WoodForTrees website - I have only seen it used in the context of climate change denial, and only by the deniers. .

Golly Rory...do I have to do everything for you...now if you, DrEvil, and others would learn to use it as a tool in verifying the graphs used by journos in msm media, you would not be so ignorant of the actual climate reality and thus we could avoid a lot of unnecessary exchange to get to the facts.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/

Seeing the Wood for Trees

Welcome to WoodForTrees.org. This site hosts some C++ software tools for analysis and graphing of time series data, and an interactive graph generator where you can play with different ways of analysing data.

These tools could in theory be used for any time series but the main rationale for their existence is for analysis of historical climate data. The idea is to allow you to go to the source data and look for answers to questions like:

Has the Earth got warmer recently?
Is it still getting warmer?
Is CO2 the only explanation for what has happened?
Are there solar cycles involved?
Are there other influences we don't understand yet?
If so, how much do they account for?
What is likely to happen next?

It's not the place of this Web site (or anyone else) to tell you the answers, even if I could! This is just a tool to help you dig into the data to help you form your own opinions. Whatever you decide the most important thing is that you learned what the issues in analysis are and how to test your ideas against real data.
----
Charity Tip Jar

Charity Tip Jar for the Woodland Trust 1st January 2012:

A number of people have kindly suggested I provide a 'tip jar' as a reward for keeping WFT running, but I've always been uncomfortable with taking any payment myself because it's crucial that WFT is seen as independent of any agenda-driven funding.
However, I've decided to open a Charity 'tip jar' in favour of the British Woodland Trust. Please visit JustGiving.com/WFT if you find WFT useful and would like to provide encouragement.

Many thanks,

Paul

As regards Ben, yeah, hes a proven liar and he has form for posting from some very shady, oil funded blogs and disinfo sites.

So Rory...same goes for you..put up or shut up....show me explicitly where I have lied....not just making a nebulous claim, but a specific unambiguous example.

[Ben D]

There is a pause. Clearly. Models have not and are not predicting various effects, like the rapid ice loss in the arctic and the ice gains in the antarctic. It's a relatively new field of investigation and wildly complex. Our understanding is evolving. Some here seem to have a basic lack of understanding that that is the way science works.

What is not in doubt is that the long term trends are toward a warming climate and that there is a strong signal in the data of human induced changes which correspond with industrialization and increasing man made ghg emissions.

You'd have to be a complete ignoramus to point to the pause in spite of the continued rise in CO2 emissions and claim that was evidence that anthropogenic climate change is incorrect. There are many other inputs which can and are offsetting the warming of ghg emissions on shorter time scales. This is well known and documented.

You can't be serious when you imply that the models are imperfect on the one hand while the 17 years pause continues, and then say there is no doubt the warming will continue in the long term. The models did not predict the pause...they predicted continuous warming over these last 17 years...so until and unless the models produce reliable long term projections, they are in question by reasonable folk.

Most skeptics are not ignoramuses, they acknowledge the warming effect of CO2 emissions, but they question the degree of forcing of CO2 factored into the models....even the IPCC admits there may be less forcing than previously thought. They also know, along with most scientists, that natural climate change is a factor the models can't predict with accuracy at this stage...so as the pause proves...computer model projections are imperfect and thus we can't know what the long term future will bring.

All those possibilities in the Economist article are just that...possible factors mitigating the CO2 forcing...every dick can have an opinion but reality trumps predictions.

Think about it...there had not been any warming for 10 years before I joined RI, and I have been posting here on RI for about 7 years ... and still the AGW alarmists here go ballistic because I refer them to the fact of the 17 years and counting continuing pause....one wonders really who should be called the deniers?