Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion?

[Greatcloud]

Again, the way things are is that the vast majority of scientific papers on climate change and related topics, if they take a stand on the primary cause of it at all, is that they suggest the cause is human activities. Specifically that most of the warming from the mid-20th century on is primarily caused or influenced by human activities. It is not mutually exclusive that the vast majority of items in a set have a characteristic and that a number of them smaller than a majority do not.

Do you know how mind numbing and boring your posts are ? So the fact that the material was doctored in favor of the alarmists did not even register with you. Well I am sure most people who read it will see just how desperate the alarmists are.

 

[Greatcloud]

Here is another instance of alarmists doctoring the data.

Alarmists Change the Data to Support Global Warming Claims | Power Line

 

[Greatcloud]

The data here is overwhelming in scope what a magnificent report !

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

Do any alarmists still say there is no debate ?

 

[eclipsenow]

I will have the last laugh when the temperatures continue to drop globally. The sunspot cycle # 25 with virtually no sunspots and the 200 year cycle of a slowdown of the suns deep currents and a La Nina all coming together create cooling. You may in the face of that evidence say AGW is still valid but you will be in a shrinking select group of fanatics. Even climate scientists are recounting there former stance:

Really? This early? I told you all this would happen.
Denialist asserts A.
Science supporters refute A.
Denialist asserts B.
Supporters of real science refute B, and ask about A.
Denialist rinses and repeats this pattern through arguments C, D, and E, but before you know it he's back to A again.

In this manner, he never has to actually *deal* with that pesky business of the refutation of A. He just waits until it's time to repeat it again.

In the meantime, EVERYONE'S SUPERANNUATION IS THREATENED!

Whether or not you agree with the science of climate change, you OWE it to yourself to look into this major development in climate 'alarmism' strategies (which I TOTALLY support!) and react to it. Selfishly. That is, PROTECT YOUR SUPER and GET OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS WHILE YOU STILL CAN!

I'm not kidding: your super *really* is at risk! Whether or not you accept the science of climate change, you *owe* it to yourself, and your retirement, to look into this new campaign because chances are, it DIRECTLY threatens your super! AMERICAN CITIES are selling all their fossil fuel shares! This thing could snowball in just a few years. If certain coal field upgrades and train lines are not built in the next few years, they may *never* be built.

EG: "A dozen more cities and municipalities in the United States have passed policies on fossil fuel divestment. Bill McKibben suggested to Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore that Sydney should follow the lead of San Francisco and Seattle."

Do the Maths: Bill McKibben argues for divestment

 

[Greatcloud]

Eclispenow i'm sorry you are not going to get an A B C D dialog with me ,you are not the only one who posts here. What bothers me about your posts is you get off topic too often.

Here this is my favorite of recent posts ,refute it if you can.

Here is some eye opening material about the 97% consensus on peer reviewed papers. Please read.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims - Climate Change Dispatch

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...nge Dispatch&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13709578392196

typical if the evidence is not there make it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

The scientist is saying here that most climate models are wrong.

From what I see, the only thing they are saying could be wrong is the thermohaline cycle and its reactions to global warming. Nowhere do they cast any doubt on the claims that increased CO2 will cause warming, and yet you claim this is an anti-AGW paper.

 

[Loudmouth]

Eclispenow i'm sorry you are not going to get an A B C D dialog with me ,you are not the only one who posts here. What bothers me about your posts is you get off topic too often.

Here this is my favorite of recent posts ,refute it if you can.

Here is some eye opening material about the 97% consensus on peer reviewed papers. Please read.

After you have already been caught claiming papers are skeptical of AGW when they are not?

 

[Greatcloud]

I maintain that the paper in question is going against the theory by disputing a part of it. There are other papers that are more anti-agw why do you ignore those ? Speaking of ignore why do you ignore the fact that the 97% number was false and that information is finally getting out ?

I don't care what the correct figure is for the number of peer reviewed papers that are anti-agw but to falsely doctor the data is very wrong.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13709578392196

 

[Loudmouth]

I maintain that the paper in question is going against the theory by disputing a part of it.

Then you maintain a falsehood.

I don't care what the correct figure is for the number of peer reviewed papers that are anti-agw but to falsely doctor the data is very wrong.

You mean like the doctored data for those supposed 1,100 anti-AGW papers?

 

[Tomk80]

I maintain that the paper in question is going against the theory by disputing a part of it.

And with that, you demonstrate that you do not care at all whether the statements you make are actually true. And with that, you can be safely ignored by anyone who does actually care about whether statements are true or not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Again, the way things are is that the vast majority of scientific papers on climate change and related topics, if they take a stand on the primary cause of it at all, is that they suggest the cause is human activities.

And even if human activities weren't the primary cause, nobody can deny that they're contributing to the problem -- which is enough of a reason to seek and implement solutions.

 

[pjnlsn]

And even if human activities weren't the primary cause, nobody can deny that they're contributing to the problem -- which is enough of a reason to seek and implement solutions.

indeed!

 

[Greatcloud]

Then you maintain a falsehood.

Fine then it was a poor choice of words ,what I mean to say is that these are papers for the skeptical side of the argument.

You mean like the doctored data for those supposed 1,100 anti-AGW papers?

It was 11,000 papers that are peer reviewed not 1,100. As I said above they are papers for the skeptical side all 11,000 of them,none are pro alarmists or neutral in nature all are arguing for some part of the skeptical side.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was 11,000 papers that are peer reviewed not 1,100. As I said above they are papers for the skeptical side all 11,000 of them,none are pro alarmists or neutral in nature all are arguing for some part of the skeptical side.

So a paper that says that anthropogenic global warming may have different effects on the thermohaline cycle than what we would expect is actually arguing against anthropogenic global warming? Really?

That is the lamest thing I have ever heard.

 

[Loudmouth]

Greatcloud,

Let's see if you can answer some very simple questions.

Does CO2 absorb heat and emit it back towards the Earth?

 

[Greatcloud]

So a paper that says that anthropogenic global warming may have different effects on the thermohaline cycle than what we would expect is actually arguing against anthropogenic global warming? Really?

That is the lamest thing I have ever heard.

What you fail to mention is that this paper also says that most of the climate models are wrong, this is very skeptical in nature and certainly not alarmist or neutral. All these 1,100 peer reviewed papers are skeptical in nature that cannot be denied.

 

[eclipsenow]

Eclispenow i'm sorry you are not going to get an A B C D dialog with me ,you are not the only one who posts here. What bothers me about your posts is you get off topic too often.

I'm just pointing out to everyone here that you keep changing the topic, and just asserting whatever you want to, come what may. Rinse and repeat.

For instance, you just rinsed and repeated your assertion about ocean and sun cycles that will lead to cooling. Forget the fact that we've already been there, done that, and shown the peer-reviewed science says no.

A, B, C, D....

back to A.

Fun, ain't it?

 

[Smidlee]

What you fail to mention is that this paper also says that most of the climate models are wrong, this is very skeptical in nature and certainly not alarmist or neutral. All these 1,100 peer reviewed papers are skeptical in nature that cannot be denied.

I think those 1,100 peer reviewed papers are part of the plot. Scientist loves stuff that can't really be proven so they continue to get research money. A few skeptics helps keep the debate going which keeps the money coming in.

Now there is no doubt we are seriously polluting the water as we are already seeing the results of birth defects not only in fish and frogs but in humans as well. With so many taken medicine like birth control and hormones it's eventually leaks into the water. (It's harder to get research money to prove mercury is bad for the environment since it's a no brainer.)

Then there are detergents which is no longer necessary. I remember watching "Beyond 2000" in the early 90's of a man who invented a washing machine that used 1/3 of the power and 1/3 water and no detergents. According to "Beyond 2000" detergents companies made sure his invention would never saw the light of day.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you fail to mention is that this paper also says that most of the climate models are wrong,

No, it says that models of the thermohaline currents and their reaction to greenhouse warming are wrong . . . maybe. It never questions greenhouse warming. It only questions what will happen to ocean currents as a result of greenhouse warming.

Your source is actually using an article that never questions the reality of greenhouse warming as an article that argues against greenhouse warming. That's pretty pathetic. Really, read it:

"Most global climate models simulate a weakening of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) in response to enhanced greenhouse warming. Both surface warming and freshening in high latitudes, the so-called sinking region, contribute to the weakening of the THC. Some models even simulate a complete breakdown of the THC at sufficiently strong forcing. Here results are presented from a state-of-the-art global climate model that does not simulate a weakening of the THC in response to greenhouse warming."

 

[Loudmouth]

Greatcloud,

Let's see if you can answer some very simple questions, or if you will continue to avoid it.

Does CO2 absorb heat and emit it back towards the Earth?