Global Warming Happy Fun-Time

[pickles]

Angelo... please... I am sure you know there was no offense intended, you know by our pm's that i adore your family. i am quite happy for you and your wife in that regard. it just seems a bit hypocritical of you to complain about carbon and CO2 when that is what humans are made of. according to you more people equals more carbon and CO2 and that equals more climate change.

LOL
Then you have these alarmist socialists like Obama, calling carbon dioxide (what we exhale and what plants turn into, you know, OXYGEN) "carbon pollution." Anything to over-regulate and tax "evil big business." Only a small amount of real scientists actually think this, and the rest are hand-picked for their sociological and political beliefs.

People, you need to wake up. Back in the 60s and 70s everyone was abuzz over global cooling. The planet goes through changes, and to me it's funny that anyone thinks little humans can impact the planet that much.

 

[nameless]

Happy fun time.

yup

 

[nameless]

 

[pixelsmith]

The Arctic Rowers who were planning on rowing the northwest passage to bring awareness to the lack of ice do to global warming have called it quits due to..... ICE! Imagine that... dumb asses.

 

[Burnt State]

It's all a conspiracy....

I started reading about the Pyschology of conspiracy theorists, i.e. climate change is a leftist cash grab, or tax focussed, or even a global conspiracy to disempower people, or that 9-11 was the inside job of radical, mass murdering, sadistic Republican and Neo-Con leaders.

One article really summed up the strategies of the conspiracist believer and their argumentative patterns; for example, they are more likely to insult people during the argument, will respond with anger, and are more likely to argue their point more feverishly then those who don't buy into the conspiracy. You can see these patterns in various threads.

Here's some related material for this thread:New Research: The Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists and Climate Change Deniers : The New Yorker

 

[pixelsmith]

It's all a conspiracy....

I started reading about the Pyschology of conspiracy theorists, i.e. climate change is a leftist cash grab, or tax focussed, or even a global conspiracy to disempower people, or that 9-11 was the inside job of radical, mass murdering, sadistic Republican and Neo-Con leaders.

One article really summed up the strategies of the conspiracist believer and their argumentative patterns; for example, they are more likely to insult people during the argument, will respond with anger, and are more likely to argue their point more feverishly then those who don't buy into the conspiracy. You can see these patterns in various threads.

Here's some related material for this thread:New Research: The Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists and Climate Change Deniers : The New Yorker

Only dumb asses read The New Yorker.
Seriously though... do you have anything to back up your CO2 hole regarding the global warming "conspiracy theory"

 

[Burnt State]

We've been through this before. You have a serious case of confirmation bias and I can't say anything scientific or otherwise to refute what you believe. I explained previously that the formation of first year ice blocking the rowers is a sad argument up against historical glacial devastation. You feel that this is just a natural ebb and flow of nature. I hope you get to freeze and revive your brain in the next century to see what human caused planetary devestation looks like.

The only thing left to talk about on this thread is the psychology of conspiracy thinking and evidence of it in action. This type of discussion may take us further into understanding just what it is we all don't know about UFO's and why conspiracies are apt to consume the most precious resource of all - time.

 

[pixelsmith]

We've been through this before. You have a serious case of confirmation bias and I can't say anything scientific or otherwise to refute what you believe. I explained previously that the formation of first year ice blocking the rowers is a sad argument up against historical glacial devastation. You feel that this is just a natural ebb and flow of nature. I hope you get to freeze and revive your brain in the next century to see what human caused planetary devestation looks like.

The only thing left to talk about on this thread is the psychology of conspiracy thinking and evidence of it in action. This type of discussion may take us further into understanding just what it is we all don't know about UFO's and why conspiracies are apt to consume the most precious resource of all - time.

You do realize that glaciers and polar ice are supposed to melt and reform... right? You would not be here if not for climate change... right? Why do you fear a warming planet? Because you are told to? Would you prefer a mile of ice over most of the continents again?

 

[Burnt State]

as i said, we've been on this loop before - you said those things already here and i countered already - you didn't buy it.

yes there should be give and take in the glaciers, but not disappearance and devastation. while some might like a warm planet i for one would find the acidification of the planet, and the global famine that follows, not to mention nightmarish extreme weather, to be mostly disturbing. please go back in the thread to see a more extended discussion. i know that you are very content in your way of thinking - that is how the conspiracist thinks. i know that you think the rest of us are sheep suckling at the teats of environmentalists and leftist politicians, that we've been brainwashed by Gaia propaganda etc. because that is also the conspiracist's mind at work.

so now just stop to think for a brief moment, in the fullness of natural and unnatural processes, what if we're not the ones being brainwashed and you are, and your voice is the voice propping up the true profiteers of short term gain in exchange for planetary destruction? tell me, what does that look like? can you see that possibility - no, because your own lens of certainty (also conspiracist thinking) can not allow for alternate truths to exist, no matter how sensible they are.

but consider this, as we have been down this loop before. do you wonder at all about the same pat answers you give each time, the lack of nuance, just the parroting of the voice of the neo-con that screams, "Deregulate! Deregulate! The planet's just fine, doing what it's always done! Those dead fish, those dramatic shifts in weather, the rising flood waters - don't you worry. We can turn tar-sand poison pools of waste into ecological parks (though that still hasn't happened) and we can frack and frack without consequence - it's only water, it's only rock - what could go wrong?! Trust me - we are here to make your life better, and make more jobs....yadda...yaddaa...yaddaa!" Because that's what i hear behind those pat answers. You might not realize that, because there couldn't possibly be overt intention or proof of disaster or anything like that at all, because we are the dumb asses.

there is no where to go here. i wonder if memory loss is also a part of conspiracist thinking, or lack of thinking, or is the mind just programmed to ignore anything that sounds like someone else' truth? one person's truth is another's mythology.

let the laughter begin.

 

[Muadib]

I love how Pixel presents a choice between the planet being under a sheet of ice or embracing global warming as being great for mankind, as if these are our only two choices in the matter. Global warming is not great for mankind, as has been shown many times in this thread. What a ridiculously simplistic (almost to the point of stupidity...) way of looking at things, yet he doesn't seem to mind presenting the same dumb arguments and nonsensical, ham handed attempts at convincing us that global warming is just wonderful, over and over and over again. It doesn't have to be 100% one way or 100% the other way, there is a middle ground that is better for the planet and everyone who lives on it, even if Pixel refuses to see it.

 

[pixelsmith]

I love how Pixel presents a choice between the planet being under a sheet of ice or embracing global warming as being great for mankind, as if these are our only two choices in the matter. Global warming is not great for mankind, as has been shown many times in this thread. What a ridiculously simplistic (almost to the point of stupidity...) way of looking at things, yet he doesn't seem to mind presenting the same dumb arguments and nonsensical, ham handed attempts at convincing us that global warming is just wonderful, over and over and over again. It doesn't have to be 100% one way or 100% the other way, there is a middle ground that is better for the planet and everyone who lives on it, even if Pixel refuses to see it.

Global warming is indeed wonderful. Maybe you have not noticed that plants and animals prefer warmth over cold. We are lucky to be living during a "middle ground", it was not always that way. It has been colder and warmer with or without humans living here.
And just to clarify there is a big difference between global warming and anthropogenic global warming.

 

[pixelsmith]

The IPCC now admits their climate models were wrong!... Scientists around the world are now predicting a global cooling trend.

For many years have I called BS on AGW and have been ridiculed here beyond belief. The human caused global warming scam is in its final death throws. The new IPCC report will be out soon and they will have to spin it in their favor somehow but the bottom line is there is NO catastrophic global warming coming due to anthropogenic influences and the climate models have been totally wrong. Period.

Please form the Apology to Pixelsmith line here.. Angelo you can be first.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Poor Pixel. He doesn't cite a source because it's already been thoroughly debunked - by the very scientists a few certain tabloids were claiming to quote. In a nutshell, a The Daily Mail wrote something almost entirely fictional that was purported to have come from "leaked" documents. That story was later copied almost wholesale by The Telegraph. The scientists they claim to be quoting, though, have insisted no such statements were ever made and that the evidence for global warming is irrefutable. Instead, it appears some would-be journalist simply mixed-up some numbers in an earlier report in order to make a sensationalist headline.

Pixel, you'll want to take a notes. This is how you quote from an article to back your claim and cite the source:

Scientists take the Mail on Sunday to task over claim that warming is half what IPCC said last time

The Mail on Sunday yesterday claimed the international climate community is conceding the world hasn't warmed as much since the middle of last century as previously thought. We ask climate scientists what they make of the story.

A major new report on the state of the climate is due imminently from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An involved process of review by experts and governments worldwide is coming to a close, and the first part of the report is set for release at the end of next week.

Last week, a draft summary of the document was leaked to journalists. In yesterday's Mail on Sunday, climate skeptic journalist David Rose claims to have seen information in the summary which "reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong".

The Mail on Sunday piece is entitled 'World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we said'. It follows a series of other articles Rose has written for the Mail on Sunday recently which, taken together, suggest that the fundamentals of climate science are being thrown into doubt.

The Telegraph quickly repurposed the Mail on Sunday article under the headline, 'Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong'. Meanwhile, The Australianwent a step further with a story headlined 'We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC'.

Rate of warming not halved

The Mail on Sunday gives the story a generous double page spread, and repeats many of the same arguments Rose has made in previous pieces. So let's focus on what's new - the central claim of the article that scientists have cut their assessment of warming since the middle of last century by half.

The Mail on Sunday says:

"Back [in 2007], [the IPCC] said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius every decade … But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12 Celsius per decade - a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction"

Dr Richard Allan, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, tells us this statement is quite simply wrong. He says Rose has mixed up the numbers in the last IPCC report.

"The main claim by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday is that rate of global warming since 1951 has been halved since the last IPCC report. This is completely incorrect."

In 2007, the IPCC said the rate of warming since 1951 had been not 0.2 but 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. If the new report says 0.12 degrees Celsius, as the Mail on Sunday suggests, this is a very minor revision of 0.01 degrees.

Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University, who is quoted pretty heavily in the piece, posted a comment below the article pointing out Rose's error. He said:

"Neither the IPCC in 2007 nor the current crop of climate models ever suggested that the world has been, or should have been, warming at 0.2 degrees per decade since 1951. So the headline should have been "Global warming is just 92 percent of what we said it was", on an apples-for-apples comparison."

And Dr Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at Reading University, tells us:

"The trend over the past 50 years [the Mail on Sunday] says is in [the new IPCC report] is almost identical to the [last report in 2007] so the article's headline and premise that global warming is half of what was said ... is incorrect."

So where does the 0.2 degree per decade figure come from? Richard Allan tells us it does appear in the last IPCC report, but refers to a 15-year period in the run up to the report's release, not the warming per decade since 1951. He says:

"The 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade figure relates to an observed warming over the period 1990-2005 which clearly cannot be compared with the period since 1951".

So the two figures Rose compares are not measuring the same thing. As the Met Office's Richard Betts tweeted yesterday: "Rose created a headline by misrepresenting [the 2007 IPCC report]."

For the full article, please read: Scientists take the Mail on Sunday to task over claim that warming is half what IPCC said last time | Carbon Brief

Pixel, in the future, it would behoove you to not quote from tabloids - even if you think you're being sneaky by not citing the tabloid - especially when it's so easy to go directly to the source.

We'll be awaiting your apology for wasting our time.

 

[pixelsmith]

My source was the IPCC leaked report. Like I said the IPCC will try to sanitize it but facts are facts. The models are wrong. The IPCC knows it. They also now realize their claims about antarctic sea ice decline was WAY off as well.

Your apology is accepted RL.

 

[pixelsmith]

Their claims about melting Himalayas was wrong, increased hurricanes was wrong, etc etc etc... they actually have not gotten anything right that I know of.. The only thing that has worked in their favor was many of them getting rich and they enjoyed MANY nice vacations on our dime. I am saddened that you feel good about supporting corruption RL.

 

[pixelsmith]

The latest IPCC report will say that this cooling trend will continue and NOW we are not going to die from global warming for 30 - 60 years. They are cherry picking the future with a 0.000 batting average. These are the political people that RL, Muadib, Angelo and others are getting their "science" from. Even when the IPCC admits their models are wrong these people still want to BELIEVE. Give it up. The earth cools and warms no matter if humans are here or not. Always has always will.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

My source was the IPCC leaked report. Like I said the IPCC will try to sanitize it but facts are facts. The models are wrong. The IPCC knows it. They also now realize their claims about antarctic sea ice decline was WAY off as well.

Your apology is accepted RL.

You want me to apologize for you?

OK, I'm sorry you can't actually read what clearly refutes your claim. I'm truly sorry that your reading comprehension skills are sub-par, causing me to wonder if you actually graduated from school. I'm appalling sorry that you keep wasting our time quoting from mid-market tabloids which make claims without any supporting evidence, whereas you won't read from the actual sources, including those who they claim to be quoting. I'm amazed and sorry that an adult as old as yourself does not know how to quote and cite sources, probably because you know that in doing so, we will more easily be able to refute your claims. Mostly, I'm genuinely sorry that you think you're contributing to any intellectual conversation.

Some of us choose to live in an evidence-based world. By all means, you can live in whatever world you choose, but it is not a flaw on our part if we aren't victims to every unsubstantiated claim. Seriously, if you're quoting from a "leaked report," you need to show that leaked report. Otherwise, you truly are a ship without a rudder - and one who is being tossed by mercies of every whim which sees the light of day.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Their claims about melting Himalayas was wrong, increased hurricanes was wrong, etc etc etc... they actually have not gotten anything right that I know of.. The only thing that has worked in their favor was many of them getting rich and they enjoyed MANY nice vacations on our dime. I am saddened that you feel good about supporting corruption RL.

You mean, the "leaked" report which has yet to see the light of day? Where is this mysterious report? The source I cited clearly shows that a sensationalist would-be journalist mixed up some numbers and didn't understand what he was reading - and the scientists from whom he allegedly quoted made it clear that the report was fictional.

Let me ask you this: If there is any truth to your claims, why the hell did it take an admitted mid-market tabloid to break the story?

Chew on that for a bit.

 

[pixelsmith]

You mean, the "leaked" report which has yet to see the light of day? Where is this mysterious report? The source I cited clearly shows that a sensationalist would-be journalist mixed up some numbers and didn't understand what he was reading - and the scientists from whom he allegedly quoted made it clear that the report was fictional.

Let me ask you this: If there is any truth to your claims, why the hell did it take an admitted mid-market tabloid to break the story?

Chew on that for a bit.

Pretty funny stuff you post. The tabloid did NOT break the story. The report has been in the hands of reputable scientists for a while now.
I suggest you chew on your own regurgitation.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

It speaks volumes that you're quoting from this particular tabloid, especially when they provide no collaborating evidence. Let's see how often they've been successfully sued since 2001:

2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[88]
2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[89]
2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[90]
2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[91]
2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the Tamil diaspora protests in 2009.[92]
2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser to Cherie Blair and Tony Blair, Carole Caplin received "substantial" libel damages over claims in the Mail that she was about to reveal intimate details about her former clients.

Daily Mail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, a tabloid that's successfully been sued for damages 6 times over the past 12 years is a wonderful thing to cite.

Poor Pixel, let me give you a few hints:
1. It's best not to use a tabloid as a source for scientific events.
2. If that tabloid is sued, on average, every other year for libel, they won't be considered a reputable source.
3. An intelligent opinion will look at all facts, rather than the ones which support previously-held notions. If you cannot read solid evidence which refutes your claims, your claims have no value.

I don't have time to keep arguing these facts with you, especially as you cannot be bothered reading actual scientific evidence rather than tabloid fodder. Some of us have work to do, so I see no point in arguing with those who cite questionable - and invisible - sources. Of course, you are welcome to believe whatever you choose. You should still keep in mind that some of us will always prefer the evidence-based world.