How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Ben D]

Drew, be patient, the AGW scam is on its last legs and is in the process of going the way of Y2K...

[bardobailey]

I watched Guy McPherson's latest YouTube video talk last night. I don't know what to make of what he has to say. Would anyone here please offer a comment or opinion on his ideas? He has a web site called Nature Bat's Last.

thanks,

bbailey

[justdrew]

Drew, be patient, the AGW scam is on its last legs and is in the process of going the way of Y2K...

why would you choose to say "scam" ?

[Ben D]

Drew, be patient, the AGW scam is on its last legs and is in the process of going the way of Y2K...

why would you choose to say "scam" ?

I will just say what I said to WR on the other thread,..there is no consensus on the science of climate change, even the top AGW climatologists don't agree with each other, but their present and future funding depends on it happening,..the financial ptb have already invested heavily,....carbon trading and all...

[justdrew]

Once again you're lying. Ask Richard Muller about consensus

...about subjects where there is almost total consensus.

Wrong, there is no consensus on the science of climate change, even the top AGW climatologists don't agree with each other, but their present and future funding depends on it happening,..the financial ptb have already invested heavily,....carbon trading and all...

present and future funding depends on it ? No it doesn't. It's science which is done regardless. Just like astronomy, etc.

Just look at what it does in the atmosphere, how in hell could all this extra CO2 NOT cause warming? Explain Richard Muller

[justdrew]

I watched Guy McPherson's latest YouTube video talk last night. I don't know what to make of what he has to say. Would anyone here please offer a comment or opinion on his ideas? He has a web site called Nature Bat's Last.

thanks,

bbailey

this video?

[DrEvil]

Drew, be patient, the AGW scam is on its last legs and is in the process of going the way of Y2K...

why would you choose to say "scam" ?

Because it's what he does. Every time. When faced with arguments or evidence refuting his view on global warming he resorts to straw-men, distractions, personal attacks and insinuations, repetition of flawed or out of context arguments (usually in the form of a graph), presenting nonsense as evidence (like WSJ op-eds or a PowerPoint presentation without the talk that went with it), condescending language and use of smileys, misunderstanding (willfully or not) even the simplest concepts (GOD DAMN LONG TERM TRENDS), or just pretending that he didn't read your post and completely ignoring it.

[bardobailey]

Yeah! That's the one... Then I went to his website and read his two most recent posts and many of the replies. This is pretty frightening stuff. Is it just more alarmist BS? I hope?

[justdrew]

Drew, be patient, the AGW scam is on its last legs and is in the process of going the way of Y2K...

why would you choose to say "scam" ?

I will just say what I said to WR on the other thread,..there is no consensus on the science of climate change, even the top AGW climatologists don't agree with each other, but their present and future funding depends on it happening,..the financial ptb have already invested heavily,....carbon trading and all...

of course they don't agree on every detail, why would they? Name one area of research in which everyone agrees on every detail.

FFS Ben D, you have a science background don't you? How can you think about the processes and not see how this would be a logical outcome of massive CO2 emissions? Why else is all the methane stores getting destabilized?

[Ben D]

Exasperating it is putting the truth and the science right before your eyes and you deny it....it's not about me, it's about the science.

So here is a test for your scientific aptitude,..if you guys don't understand the scientific implications of this post, then please don't just curse me and name call, be specific and explain where you think the science is wrong.

The question to you is,..is the current global temperature within or without the all prior and present predictions of all of the IPCC used computer models?

I confirm the answer to what the graph clearly indicates, but if you think I'm wrong, explain to me your reason,...is that fair?

From the leaked draft the IPCC AR5, you can see the previous and current IPCC model forecasts, ie... FAR (1990), SAR (1995), TAR (2001), and AR4 (2007), against actual temperature...the global temperature as it is now falls below every forecast,...the models are plain wrong, the science is not settled!

Note..the grey area is not a part of the models..

Also note from the actual global temperatures that there has been no increased warming for the last 16 years...and btw while the CO2 levels have been increasing linearly...

[Luther Blissett]

Slightly off-topic:

[Ben D]

Luther, that's not scientific debate, that's trolling!

Address the post or just sit back and leave it to those who would ask pertinent questions.

[fruhmenschen]

www.heatisonline.org


also see



http://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org ... s-gelbspan

[justdrew]

Exasperating it is putting the truth and the science right before your eyes and you deny it....it's not about me, it's about the science.

So here is a test for your scientific aptitude,..if you guys don't understand the scientific implications of this post, then please don't just curse me and name call, be specific and explain where you think the science is wrong.

The question to you is,..is the current global temperature within or without the all prior and present predictions of all of the IPCC used computer models?

I confirm the answer to what the graph clearly indicates, but if you think I'm wrong, explain to me your reason,...is that fair?

From the leaked draft the IPCC AR5, you can see the previous and current IPCC model forecasts, ie... FAR (1990), SAR (1995), TAR (2001), and AR4 (2007), against actual temperature...the global temperature as it is now falls below every forecast,...the models are plain wrong, the science is not settled!

Note..the grey area is not a part of the models..

Also note from the actual global temperatures that there has been no increased warming for the last 16 years...and btw while the CO2 levels have been increasing linearly...

that is a very incomplete view of the heat. excess heat from light reflected back from the greenhouse effect is not all kept in the air surface temps, it flows into the oceans and ice caps.

[Ben D]

Will be interesting to see who will ignore the very latest state of play of the science when put before them and continue with the program and just post AGW scare propaganda, or actually pause to see what the actual scientific facts are from the United Nations IPCC.