Can I say “I told you so” yet?

I, and many others that argued this point, were once demonized for pointing out that the Obama administration’s green agenda amounted to all but a war on fossil fuels and would sooner than later result in higher energy prices. Surprise, surprise, now that they have been getting away with murder and any and all abuses of power are ignored or explained away through insane donkey talking points by their shill in the LSM, these green warriors no longer feel any need to hide the fact that they meant to have a war on coal.

Daniel P. Schrag, a White House climate adviser and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, tells the New York Times “a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.” Later today, President Obama will give a major “climate change” address at Georgetown University.

“Everybody is waiting for action,” Schrag tells the paper. “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”

The war on coal has been going on since 2009. Don’t be fooled. They are just finally admitting it was going on. This is part & parcel of the Obama administrations campaign to throw some red meat to their constituency in the hopes of getting their help to deflect from the plethora of scandals the WH is now playing damage control with. At a time where the economy is taking another hit, these fucks are yet again targeting good jobs. Don’t worry: I am sure they will come up with some shovel ready stimulus jobs that will only cost tax payers a million dollars, or more, per unsustainable job created. Just like they did back when they convinced us to let them funnel a trillion dollars to their buddies, special interests, lobbyist friends, and own campaign coffers under the guise of stimulus.

At a time when more an more facts come out showing how ludicrous and stupid the whole man made climate change crisis nonsense is, they are doubling down on the stupid. Get used to European level of unemployment, anemic growth, if any growth happens at all, and even more intrusive control of all aspects of our lives. For our own good of course. Our elite masters know what’s best for us after all.

Comments are closed.

  1. stogy

    I, and many others that argued this point, were once demonized for pointing out that the Obama administration’s green agenda amounted to all but a war on fossil fuels

    Actually, there has been more drilling, mining and fracking under Obama than under any previous administration. The main factor in the “war on coal” has been the fall in gas prices making it less economic than gas. Not administration policy.

    I have been cursing the administration’s rhetoric on fossil fuels as completely hollow. At least Bush was honest about his fossil fuel connections.

    At a time when more an more facts come out showing how ludicrous and stupid the whole man made climate change crisis nonsense is, they are doubling down on the stupid.

    The anti-warming fallacy has pretty much fallen apart. Not even the people paid to tout it seem to believe it any more. And they keep getting caught out for basic scientific mistakes and making shit up. It hasn’t been pretty. Alex: climate change rejection puts you in a fringe group with HIV deniers and 9.11 conspiracy theorists. Nutjobs, the lot of them.

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  2. Seattle Outcast

    Alex: climate change rejection puts you in a fringe group with HIV deniers and 9.11 conspiracy theorists. Nutjobs, the lot of them.

    Wow, talk about not even following the news any more – you have it exactly backwards.

    The “consensus” of AGW has been falling apart publically for nearly a year now, picking up steam like crazy in the last six months, and the last 6 WEEKS has been nothing but “we were fucking lied to man, it’s all a scam!” even coming out of such rags as the NY Times. The press has been bawling like Bill Paxton in Aliens II – “game over man, game over” now that they realize there has been no warming in over a decade and a half. The rats are bailing ship – only the true believers, and those still in it for a buck like Al Gore, are still screaming their Gaia worship at the top of their lungs.

    You might want to go read something in the headlines now and then….

    Thumb up 13

  3. AlexInCT *

    Actually, there has been more drilling, mining and fracking under despite Obama than under any previous administration.

    Fixed that for you.

    The anti-warming fallacy has pretty much fallen apart.

    Only in the mind of AGW cultists and one-world collectivist government types. Real scientists, the ones that believe in the scientific method – 1)Seek answer to a question, 2) Postulate a hypothesis, 3) Predict an outcome, 4) Conduct experiment, and 5) Analyze the results to prove or disprove the hypothesis – and that science never happens by consensus, are currently asking why the fuck all the predictions by the warmists have not just fallen flat, but been completely wrong. You cultists can keep playing the game. Your faith is strong. Real scientists will do the work and eventually prove AGW was as made up as whatever crisis came before it and will follow it so you collectivists can foist a tyrranical one-world government on us all and rob us of our prosperity and freedoms.

    Alex: climate change rejection puts you in a fringe group with HIV deniers and 9.11 conspiracy theorists. Nutjobs, the lot of them.

    I never denied climate change. In fact, my point is precisely that climate has never been static and has ALWAYS changed. Four billion years ago this was a ball of melted rock. A billion years ago it was toxic. Some 600 billion years ago primitive single cell life came about in one of the most hostile environments ever. Temperatures have ranged from super-hot to so cold that they cause ice ages. There has been nothing static about our planets climate. Ever. Shit, everything is in motion and changes. Even the damned continents move.

    Climate changes. That’s a given. And these changes have been driven by our solar system’s orbit in the Milky Way, that giant ball of nuclear fire that pops up every morning, all sorts of radiation from other such celestial entities numbering in the billions, our planet’s oceans and their ability to trap and retain heat/energy, and so many other fundamentally unknown bits & pieces, all playing a complex game, that nobody in their right mind would pretend to be able to predict squat from, based on what little we know. That’s because the whole involves such a complex dance that anyone pretending to understand this hyper-complex process should be rediculed. No model touted by the cultists or otherwise ever generated, accounts correctly for all these items, let alone a fraction of them, and are in fact so heavily biased, on purpose, so they can reach the conclusion the AGW cultists want, that they are meaningless. Not a single prediction made by these models has come to pass. Not even within a 95% margin of error. There is even a belief by some of the luddites trying to save face that it was the banning of CFCs that reversed all the predicted warming. I think it is people with egg on their face looking for an excuse to explain away their shame. And yet, we have a fanatical bunch of luddites pretending to have a lock on this shit. Waterworld has not come, and the luddites are not even baffled or shamed. They are doubling down. Does that remind you of any other such kinds of doomsayers and their predictions? How seriously do we take those types?

    The planet’s number one greenhouse gas, by over 90% is H2O. But since they cannot control that they have manufactured a fake crisis around CO2. See, these cultists believe that people are stupid enough to buy their lies that man producing a fraction of the CO2 that nature does, in a non-static and inordinately complex system, somehow is responsible for something that is as much a given as the sun coming up every morning (climate changes). The fact is that the only guarantee we have is that there is neither the idiotic allusion that there is an optimum temperature or climate condition nor anything other than manufactured consensus that man is causing change.

    But you warmists can keep pretending you have a lock on science, even when you have to manipulate & fudge stuff to create outcomes that have not materialized over time. Only fanatics keep waiting for the end of days when the priest of the church of AGW keeps having to move out the predicted day of doom. AGW is about a lot of faith, and very little real science. The fringe people are the ones still pretending AGW has any validity after the disastrous ass kicking that the AGW cultists and their bullshit have been subjected to by real scientists during the last year or so.

    Thumb up 12

  4. Dave D

    SO: Remember that AGW is a faith-based system. My Christian faith at least has 4000+ years of history on it’s side, not the 30 or so years these clowns have been in existence. And my faith doesn’t try to wreck western capatism/civilization as a stated goal.

    Thumb up 12

  5. CM

    The war on coal has been going on since 2009. Don’t be fooled. They are just finally admitting it was going on. This is part & parcel of the Obama administrations campaign to throw some red meat to their constituency in the hopes of getting their help to deflect from the plethora of scandals the WH is now playing damage control with.

    You’ve claimed “they’re finally admitting it” before. They can’t always be “finally admitting it” Alex.
    Remember that Obama talked about climate change in his re-election speech – so we all knew something was coming, scandals or no scandals.

    The “consensus” of AGW has been falling apart publically for nearly a year now,

    Perhaps on right-wing political blogs. Not in the scientific climate-change community, where it actually matters. And you don’t need to put consensus in quotes, there is nothing arguable about it. Or improper. It suggests you don’t understand how it’s used.

    The press has been bawling like Bill Paxton in Aliens II – “game over man, game over” now that they realize there has been no warming in over a decade and a half.

    Perhaps it’s not a great idea to get your climate change information from any media outlet which doesn’t understand what ‘climate’ actually means, or how it works. Yes, I realise that means almost all media. But really, claiming “there’s been no warming for 15 years therefore there is no AGW” is woeful.

    You might want to go read something in the headlines now and then….

    Perhaps you should consult the science instead of the ‘headlines’ (let alone what is below the headlines). At least if you have any interest in being properly informed.

    Thumb up 1

  6. Hal_10000

    Real scientists, the ones that believe in the scientific method – 1)Seek answer to a question, 2) Postulate a hypothesis, 3) Predict an outcome, 4) Conduct experiment, and 5) Analyze the results to prove or disprove the hypothesis –

    Gee, that’s precisely what has happened with global warming. The predictions of approximately degrees per century were first made in the 1930’s. Whereas every alternative theory has completely failed.

    I have a post coming up which will address’s SO’s claim that global warming is falling apart.

    Hot! Thumb up 3

  7. CM

    Only in the mind of AGW cultists and one-world collectivist government types.

    So what has happened (in the last 6 weeks)? Please outline it for me. The rest of your post it just a standard list of the usual easily-debunked denier talking-points. I’ve countered most of them before, which you then just ignored, so there is little point me doing it again. But what has changed THIS time (every year it’s apparently the ‘end of AGW’)?

    AGW is about a lot of faith, and very little real science.

    AGW-denial is ENTIRELY faith-based.

    The fringe people are the ones still pretending AGW has any validity after the disastrous ass kicking that the AGW cultists and their bullshit have been subjected to by real scientists during the last year or so.

    That’s the thing about being out on the fringe for so long – after a while you convince yourself that you’re not fringe at all.
    Which scientists? What science? Come on Alex, put some detail where your ideology is. For once.

    Hot! Thumb up 4

  8. hist_ed

    Which scientists? What science?

    Try these:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    Let’s pull some names and quotes:
    Dr Alexander Otto University of Oxford: “The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before”

    James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies: “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

    Meteorologist Hans von Storch : “So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero.”

    For decades we have been told the the science is settled and that we can put faith in computer models and reorder our society based on that faith. Those computer models have been a bit off. James Hansen is now admitting this. A few more years of this and the average gain over the last 30 years will be about the same as the average gain over the last 200 years.

    So CM, Hal and whomever else let me ask this question: How many years of not warming would it take for you to question the AGW theory as it has been broadly presented? 20? 30? 500?

    Thumb up 16

  9. Seattle Outcast

    SO: Remember that AGW is a faith-based system. My Christian faith at least has 4000+ years of history on it’s side, not the 30 or so years these clowns have been in existence. And my faith doesn’t try to wreck western capatism/civilization as a stated goal.

    The only problem I’ve ever had (well, mostly anyway. There are other problems, but none of them truly approach the level of pissed off this one generates) with christians is the fucking door-knocking proselytizers that seem to think they have a special right/duty to annoy me at my home in order to gain converts.

    I’ve always known that environmentalists were actually religious nuts (just like commies, in their faith that it just needs the right people in charge to work) and had zero interest in actual science. That said, gaia worship is just as old, if not older, than any other religion you care to name – this is just the modern incarnation of it.

    Of course, no religion has room for other belief systems – you cannot be a true environmentalist and also be a christian, muslim, jew, fucktard moron scientologist. Jettisoning the old faith for a new one always creates absolute zealots, which is what the modern AGW crowd is mostly about. The rest of it is the constant quest for research funds, social pecking order concerns, and refusal to admit that “theories” aren’t accurate. That gives us such whackjobs, liars and complete frauds as Hanson, Briffa, Gore, and Mann.

    Thumb up 1

  10. Seattle Outcast

    I have a post coming up which will address’s SO’s claim that global warming is falling apart.

    Considering I put you up there with the brainwashed, and have been reading (with great glee and belly laughs) the headlines coming out for the past year, I seriously doubt you’re going to produce anything you haven’t already posted previously or capable of standing critical analysis (just like the whole AGW scam).

    You know, it was in the past two or three years where I read an article written by a guy who was at the conference where several environmental organizations put forth that CO2-induced “Global Warming” was to be the new strategy (since “global cooling” had turned out to be a bust) and cause going forward into the 90’s and beyond. When several of the actual scientists present protested and pointed out that research already conducted fifteen years previous proved otherwise they were told to STFU already and go away: it had already been decided.

    Thumb up 8

  11. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2

  12. AlexInCT *

    The claim that we can put complete trust in climate models is another falsehood.

    Really CM? Because without these models not a single prediction or claim by the cult of AGW would stand a scientific review (not that they do with these incredibly stupid models anyway, but the models are the only vehicle available for the cultists to predict their warming with). Let me repeat it for you: these doomsday scenarios are all based on the projections/predictions that the magic models the AGW cultists produced to make their case and nothing else.

    Anyway, since you make the ludicrous claim that the models aren’t where the “settled science cultists” get their predictions from, care to provide me with the other experiments that can allow them to do these predictions/projections into the future? You better not link any of that discredited and cherry picked nonsense that was debunked after the East Anglia emails showed us they fudged the numbers to make their point, because even if those fake numbers were accurate and pure as snow, they would not provide anyone a vehicle to predict any of the ManBearPig doomsday scenarios.

    Without the models there would be no way for Al Gore to regale us with stories about rising seas and the coming of Waterworld.

    The scientific principle is infallible. When your hypothesis predicts X, your experiment magically delivers that X result (because your experiment is fudged to create that result of all reasons), but then reality doesn’t match your predictions you are at a minimum required to admit you don’t understand the problem and have it wrong, and in the case of AGW, that you fucking lied and fudged the experiment to produce results that you wanted and not what really happened.

    This is like the whole CBO discussion we had on some other thread were I was being told that this year’s prediction from the CBO, which did this without congress passing a god damned budget for now going on 4 years, showed that next year there wouldn’t be another trillion dollar deficit because of some magic. Only problem is you can look back at the last 5 years of predictions and they have gotten it wrong every damned time. The trillion dollar deficit remains and the recovery never happens. Same with AGW warming. Temperatures should have gone up by a full 1/2 degree Celsius by now and the seas aught to be swallowing up real estate, but reality shows a negligible increase in temperature and no sea level rise associated with that either.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. With this track record those that still want to argue that AGW has any scientific ground to stand on are nothing but a thing to laugh at.

    Thumb up 8

  13. CM

    Really CM? Because without these models not a single prediction or claim by the cult of AGW would stand a scientific review

    Of course it would. The science behind AGW theory stands without the models. The consequences do too. The models are simply an attempt to see what is likely to happen, to give us the best opportunity to get ready.

    (not that they do with these incredibly stupid models anyway, but the models are the only vehicle available for the cultists to predict their warming with).

    Very wrong. We have an ever increasing array of historical data. That’s yet another standard load of denier nonsense Alex. Are you going to simply run through them all yet again?

    Let me repeat it for you: these doomsday scenarios are all based on the projections/predictions that the magic models the AGW cultists produced to make their case and nothing else.

    Nope, again, there is a shitload of scientific research looking at what will happen in a wide variety of different fields. Air temperature is just one aspect. But even with the models, there are many, and the IPCC looks a variety and has considered them conservatively.

    You better not link any of that discredited and cherry picked nonsense that was debunked after the East Anglia emails showed us they fudged the numbers to make their point, because even if those fake numbers were accurate and pure as snow, they would not provide anyone a vehicle to predict any of the ManBearPig doomsday scenarios.

    Still waiting for you to demonstrate how they fudged anything. You’ve provided exactly ZERO evidence so far. All you, and others, seem to have are insinuations, allegations and accusations (the holy trinity of your faith it seems).
    Anyway, I thought it was a big no-no to get information from stolen emails? I thought you were just the other day mocking those who suggested Fox should hand over their emails. And yet you decided to try and make hay out of stolen private correspondence. Where are your standards Alex?

    Without the models there would be no way for Al Gore to regale us with stories about rising seas and the coming of Waterworld.

    Plenty of published research on sea-level rise. Gore is irrelevant. Gore is used in an attempt to distract from the fact that predicted sea-level rise comes from reputable leading scientific researchers, following the scientific method of peer-reviewed published research.

    When your hypothesis predicts X, your experiment magically delivers that X result (because your experiment is fudged to create that result of all reasons), but then reality doesn’t match your predictions you are at a minimum required to admit you don’t understand the problem and have it wrong, and in the case of AGW, that you fucking lied and fudged the experiment to produce results that you wanted and not what really happened.

    All just your narrative Alex. You can’t even come close to demonstrating any of this nonsense. You’re also doing that thing of assuming people are unprofessional and committing fraud on a massive scale. Based on nothing but your unbreakable faith.

    This is like the whole CBO discussion…..

    And just like that, just because you can’t achieve perfection, that doesn’t mean you don’t do your best to figure it out, identify the levels of uncertainty, and use that as a basis of determining what action, if any, should be taken. It’s basic planning. Do you never plan ANYTHING in your life because “you can’t predict what might happen so there is no point”?

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    What does it mean when you keep fooling yourself?

    With this track record those that still want to argue that AGW has any scientific ground to stand on are nothing but a thing to laugh at.

    Yeah, the 100+ years (we’ve known about the Greenhouse Theory) and tens of thousands of peer-reviewed published research papers, and complete lack of any alternative explanation all counts for nothing. Because of some ‘track record’ gibberish which doesn’t make sense..
    Now THAT is some serious faith Alex.

    Thumb up 1

  14. CM

    The predictions of approximately degrees per century were first made in the 1930′s.

    Of course the Greenhouse Effect theory goes back to Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Essentially people like Alex are mocking what we’ve known for well over a century.

    ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL: In a paper in 1917, on the depletion of natural resources, he stated that the unchecked burning of fossil fuels would lead to a “sort of greenhouse effect” and global warming.

    http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?&id_nbr=7894

    Shit, if he was wrong then I guess my telephone won’t work anymore either.

    Thumb up 1

  15. AlexInCT *

    Of course the Greenhouse Effect theory goes back to Fourier in 1824.

    Nobody is arguing the green house effect, CM. All of us believe it exists. Anyone that says otherwise is not credible. Our point of contention is that the green house effect is affected far more by man adding CO2 (ignoring nature’s contribution which is far larger), a chemical that is nothing but a trace gas as a percentage of the green house gasses involved, while water vapor, the main gas, and the other effects that have always been responsible for all climate change, get minimized, if not outright ignored.

    What the evidence shows is that all the bullshit predictions by the church of AGW have not come to pass, and that anyone that really believed in science would now go back to the drawing board to rethink their failed hypothesis. Thing is we’re getting none of that. You, Hal, and Sally all are doubling down and telling us that we should keep the faith despite what the evidence is telling us. Hence our point that AGW is a faith and has very little to do with science.

    At a minimum any real scientist would agree that they need to rethink their beliefs when the evidence shows what they expected, especially when according to their own claims we are now producing even more CO2 than their projections relied on, didn’t come to pass. People that value their credibility as scientists will have to admit this problem and concede they got it wrong. Fanatics will do what you are doing. Be it because you refuse to let go of the need to push the collectivist agenda that brought you into the church of AGW in the first place, or because you are simply too embarrassed that you got had by these shysters and would prefer to go down in flames rather than admit you are not as smart as you thought you were.

    There have been plenty of scientists that have been done in by ego. In general they are always the ones that stuck to a belief as the evidence to discredit that theory piled on high. That’s what’s happening to the church of AGW. I have no doubt that there will be some more desperate attempts to revive the dying beast, then they will suddenly discover the next big crisis that can only be solved by an authoritarian and world encompassing collectivist government, and people like you will be right there with them claiming we need to give up our freedoms and modernity to save Gaia, yet again. Not because of any science or real logic, but because you are a believer and are actually driven by your want of the end goal.

    Thumb up 5

  16. stogy

    (ignoring nature’s contribution which is far larger),

    See right here, Alex shows how completely, utterly, stupendously ignorant of climate science he is.

    Alex, if you don’t understand the principle of the carbon cycle (which you obviously do not from your above comment), then you have absolutely no business arguing with anyone about climate change. None. Nothing. Nada. Not a sausage. Bugger all.

    Let me say that again to make it absolutely clear:

    IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CARBON CYCLE, THEN YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS ARGUING WITH ANYONE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE!

    Of course, he’s done this before when he argued that man made global warming violated the second law of thermodynamics and that it was warming on Mars also (despite his own links disputing his conclusions). But I really don’t think we anyone should place any credibility in any of Alex’s truly stupid rants on climate science rejectionism any more.

    And the sad thing is that he boasts of a science degree. I can only conclude that it must have come from a mail order institution. What a fucking joke!

    Hot! Thumb up 4

  17. AlexInCT *

    Alex, if you don’t understand the principle of the carbon cycle (which you obviously do not from your above comment),

    I know that when 95% or more of greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and that the people, like you, that pretend CO2, but specifically CO2 created by man, is such a factor, currently are too busy wiping egg of their face, because not a single one of their predictions have come true, that they don’t have a clue about it either. Water vapor is by far the most efficient infrared energy absorber. CO2 is not. That’s why with CO2 rising at nearly 50% more than the AGW cultists predicted, we have seen rises in temperature that amount to noise.

    IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CARBON CYCLE, THEN YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS ARGUING WITH ANYONE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE!

    You can bold it, put it in 50 point font, color it, and all that. My point that the idiots that pretend to understand it obviously don’t, still stands. How often must it be pointed out that considering how wrong they have gotten things anyone still pretending these people have a leg to stand on is insane? And I will stress that you are even dumber for still clinging to it.

    The fact is that the people that claimed to understand the CO2 cycle got every prediction they based on it wrong. So based on that the conclusion, the only conclusion, is that they have no clue what they are talking about. If you valued science you would STFU now and let the adults do the work to figure out the facts.

    Thumb up 7

  18. stogy

    I know that when 95% or more of greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and that the people, like you, that pretend CO2, but specifically CO2 created by man, is such a factor, currently are too busy wiping egg of their face, because not a single one of their predictions have come true, that they don’t have a clue about it either.

    You did it again! You’re a joke. You do not understand even the most basic principles of climate science. You couldn’t have demonstrated it better. You have nothing intelligent to say on this topic if you cannot understand how the carbon cycle works.

    If you get all of your information from anti AGW sites, you are going to end up knowing less than nothing. Here’s a fine example:

    (ignoring nature’s contribution which is far larger),

    You have said some pretty stupid things in the past, Alex, but this would have to be a contender for the most stupid. You might as well have written it in black marker across your forehead that you know absolutely nothing.

    OK, Back to this:

    I know that when 95% or more of greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor

    I never said water vapor wasn’t a warming gas. Nor has anyone else I know who is interested in climate science. The point is really what is driving the increase in water vapor (hint; it doesn’t just come out of thin air, you know). If you could find me a competent climate scientist that has ignored water vapor in their analysis, you might have a point. But there aren’t any. Because ignoring it would make them a laughing stock. But saying “you forgot vapour” is another sign you really haven’t a clue what science is or has actually been done.

    The fact is that the people that claimed to understand the CO2 cycle got every prediction they based on it wrong.

    Actually, they’re pretty much right on target (once you factor in ENSO and a few other things, such as cherry picking of the start date). Which you would know if you knew something. But you don’t. As you keep on demonstrating clearly over and over again.

    Thumb up 2

  19. AlexInCT *

    You did it again! You’re a joke. You do not understand even the most basic principles of climate science.

    Actually I understand what the priests of AGW passed off as climate science better than you do. I will remind you that I predicted it was wrong, based on rigged models, rigged data, false premises, puerile nonsense, and creating output that would serve a political purpose. Even now, the solution with these idiots remains a political one.

    The observations over the last 15 years, despite higher CO2 output than these people used to make their doomsday predictions, have proven me right, and people that believe like you, wrong. There is no denying that the predicted 1/2 to 3/4 degree Celsius not only hasn’t happened, but the 0.06% increase we have noted amounts to nothing but statistical noise in the grand scheme of things.

    If you really believed in science and the scientific principle, you would basically agree that the AGW hypothesis was incorrect and that it was time to go back to the drawing board, or at least, drop the whole thing. And yet, here you are trying to pretend that I am the one lacking understanding, despite my education as an engineer and some decades of work using logic, reasoning and the scientific principle to get things done. You remain focused on a theorem that has now proven to be wrong, and act as if I am the one that lacks understanding because I do not share your faith.

    Those obsessing over CO2 are idiots. For years they have been told there was massive evidence that what they believed was not right and that it would not play out as any of their predictions. Those that spoke up were demonized by people like you and accused of being shills for oil, deniers, and stupid for fighting the consensus science that promised a political solution to a problem that clearly, if it needed to be solved at all, needed a complex engineering one. Kind of the same way you are desperately trying to demonize me rather than address the fact that, based on scientific observation, the cultists and their hypothesis are obviously wrong.

    Save face and accept your kind got it wrong and move on. Come back in a few years and tell us how unless we give government the power to redistribute wealth and take away more of our freedoms we will be killed by some other natural catastrophe caused by man. Maybe you can say we need to have that one-world government to prevent mimes from taking over the planet or something….

    Thumb up 5

  20. CM

    Presumably Alex would be fine eating dinner with (only) 5% being cyanide. In his death throes he’ll no doubt complain that the chicken (1/4 of the meal) must have been undercooked.

    stogy is 100% correct Alex – all you do in these discussions is remind us all of your complete ignorance. Water vapor etc has not even remotely been ignored. Anyone that says that is simply not credible.

    You also catastrophically fail to explain how it’s not your side that’s relying entirely on faith.

    What the evidence shows is that all the bullshit predictions by the church of AGW have not come to pass,

    What the evidence shows is that almost everything determined within the scientific research is happening. As Obama said in his speech, people are living with the effects of climate change.

    …anyone that really believed in science would now go back to the drawing board to rethink their failed hypothesis. Thing is we’re getting none of that. You, Hal, and Sally all are doubling down and telling us that we should keep the faith despite what the evidence is telling us. Hence our point that AGW is a faith and has very little to do with science.

    Where is the science wrong? Where does the science say that warming of the air temperature shall be linear, otherwise everything is wrong? You’re being irrational. AGW theory is all about science. Refusing to accept it involves nothing but faith.

    People that value their credibility as scientists will have to admit this problem and concede they got it wrong.

    I’m still waiting for you to explain what anyone got wrong.

    Fanatics will do what you are doing.

    And again, you seem to be looking into a mirror when you make these accusations. You are the fanatic here. You have nothing but your Holy Trinity. When you get called to produce the detail, you always have nothing.

    The fact is that the people that claimed to understand the CO2 cycle got every prediction they based on it wrong.

    Fascinatingly ridiculous.

    Thumb up 2

  21. CM

    Actually I understand what the priests of AGW passed off as climate science better than you do.

    Then why do you continually insist on demonstrating the exact opposite?

    I will remind you that I predicted it was wrong, based on rigged models, rigged data, false premises, puerile nonsense, and creating output that would serve a political purpose.

    And where exactly were you proved correct?

    The observations over the last 15 years, despite higher CO2 output than these people used to make their doomsday predictions, have proven me right, and people that believe like you, wrong.

    How are you not too embarrassed to post such obvious nonsense? Particularly directly after a claim to know so much. Astonishing.

    If you really believed in science and the scientific principle, you would basically agree that the AGW hypothesis was incorrect and that it was time to go back to the drawing board, or at least, drop the whole thing.

    That makes no sense.

    Thumb up 0

  22. CM

    A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.

    Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
    As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
    Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
    The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html

    See also: http://skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

    Meehl (2013) is an update to their previous work, and the authors show that accelerated warming decades are associated with the positive phase of the IPO. This is a result of a weaker wind-driven ocean circulation, when a large decrease in heat transported to the deep ocean allows the surface ocean to warm quickly, and this in turn raises global surface temperatures.
    This modelling work, combined with current understanding of the wind-driven ocean circulation, implies that global surface temperaures will rise quickly when the IPO switches from the current negative phase to a positive phase.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Looming-Climate-Shift-Will-Ocean-Heat-Come-Back-to-Haunt-us.html

    Thumb up 2

  23. hist_ed

    So CM, can you provide us with any links from ten years ago or so to someone who said that the ocean might suck up all the heat?

    As I said on the other thread (can we consolidate somehow?) this doesn’t categorically disprove AGW. It dos show that the public faces of the theory (Gore, IPCC, Hansen, 98% of reporters hundreds of others) have been representing a certainty that either wasn’t (so they were lying) or shouldn’t (so they were incompetent) have been there.

    The science is not settled. If it is not settled in this one particular, can you honestly make the case that in every other particular it is?

    And what do we do with the dissenters? The scientist who didn’t and don’t agree with the theory? Shouldn’t we stop comparing them to flat earthers? Calling them idiots?

    Thumb up 6

  24. CM

    So CM, can you provide us with any links from ten years ago or so to someone who said that the ocean might suck up all the heat?

    Why? What would that suggest? We’ve known for a long time that the ocean plays a significant part in the carbon cycle (acting as a sink). And that at least the top of the ocean has been warming.

    It dos show that the public faces of the theory (Gore, IPCC, Hansen, 98% of reporters hundreds of others) have been representing a certainty that either wasn’t (so they were lying) or shouldn’t (so they were incompetent) have been there.

    I strongly disagree. If heating is currently being absorbed by the deep ocean (and if global surface temperatures rise quickly when the IPO switches from the current negative phase to a positive phase) then neither will have been the case. People seem very quick to dismiss the entire theory for no good reason. It’s not surprising I guess, they’re well practiced at straw-grasping (every year there is a new theory which apparently spells the end for AGW theory).
    You also still need to define what ‘certainty’ you’re talking about. Yes, we can be certain that the planet will continue to get warmer. But the speed or warming and where it might stop is uncertain and if you believed otherwise then I’d start getting your climate change information from somewhere else (preferably somewhere which doesn’t pretend any of this has been, or is going to be, a linear progression – I mean that’s Climate Science 101 really).

    The science is not settled.

    It’s interesting that it’s those who think AGW theory is nonsense who keep using that term. Do you realise it’s (supposedly) a quote from Gore taken out of context. I say “supposedly” because there is a single account from an obscure online media outlet which paraphrases what he said in a speech about the two main things we do know with a large amount of certainty – that the planet is warming quickly, and that we are playing a significant role in that warming. Deniers, from that point on, claim it about anything and everything. And yet in climate science certainty is discussed all the time and scientists go out of their way to be careful about it. The irony is that Mann’s hockey-stick was ground-breaking in how it brought uncertainty to the fore.

    If it is not settled in this one particular, can you honestly make the case that in every other particular it is?

    See above. The question doesn’t work.

    And what do we do with the dissenters? The scientist who didn’t and don’t agree with the theory? Shouldn’t we stop comparing them to flat earthers? Calling them idiots?

    Depends entirely on the quality of the dissent. People who think it’s all a load of nonsense (and therefore subscribe to ridiculous theories involving mass fraud and conspiracy) should simply be laughed at. Scientists who can demonstrate that previous research is wrong should publish their findings and alter the currently held theory (in whatever specific area it is).

    Thumb up 2

  25. CM

    So CM, can you provide us with any links from ten years ago or so to someone who said that the ocean might suck up all the heat?

    Some of this is over 10 years old.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2-3.html

    The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earth’s heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods.

    Thumb up 1

  26. Section8

    The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

    No what has lulled people into a “false” sense of security is hearing how it’s going to get hotter and hotter, that air surface temperatures would keep climbing. To even question this and talk about other variables was just Flat Earth Society nonsense. It was repeated ad nauseum. So when it didn’t materialize as advertised, and a new argument pops up out of the blue of well you should have known the oceans heating at 800 meters down is what really meant is going to generate a certain amount of WTF?

    Thumb up 6

  27. CM

    No what has lulled people into a “false” sense of security is hearing how it’s going to get hotter and hotter, that air surface temperatures would keep climbing.

    How has that lulled people into any sort of security? Surely it should have done the opposite (well, other than those who don’t let anything penetrate their brains that might be inconsistent with their political ideology).
    If people dismiss everything because the increase isn’t linear then they weren’t really paying attention to begin with. Or they’re deliberately listening only to idiots in order to subsequently dismiss everything as wrong.

    To even question this and talk about other variables was just Flat Earth Society nonsense.

    Of course there are a number variables – yet again, no reputable scientists or anyone accurately reporting on science would dispute that. Almost all work in climate science involves a number of variables – how could it not? What is ‘Flat Earth Society’ nonsense is to deny warming, and to deny that humans are having a significant influence on the current warming. We are very certain about those. We can measure the energy imbalance, the warming, and we can detect our fingerprints in the C02. It all fits. Nothing else does. Even remotely.

    I’m not sure why people want to try and conflate that with the uncertainty about the rate of warming, or the falsehood that every single year, or over a batch of cherry-picked years, must be warmer than the last (and if that doesn’t happen the whole theory is fucked). That’s just ridiculous. As outlined, almost all warming occurs in the ocean. Up until recently, in the upper ocean.

    So when it didn’t materialize as advertised,

    Again, who advertised linear air temperature warming?

    and a new argument pops up out of the blue of well you should have known the oceans heating at 800 meters down is what really meant is going to generate a certain amount of WTF?

    It shouldn’t generate any such thing. People should undertake their own independent research and find out what the climate community has been looking into for years. That would be a logical thing to do. But they don’t, because they’re lazy and it’s easier to simply say “see, told you it was all bullshit”, even though it underlines how they’re not looking for answers at all, they’re looking to further an irrational narrative.

    Thumb up 1

  28. stogy

    No what has lulled people into a “false” sense of security is hearing how it’s going to get hotter and hotter, that air surface temperatures would keep climbing.

    So how do you reconcile this with the imbalance in the earth’s energy budget? If it isn’t warming, where is the missing energy going?

    Thumb up 1

  29. Section8

    If people dismiss everything because the increase isn’t linear then they weren’t really paying attention to begin with. Or they’re deliberately listening only to idiots in order to subsequently dismiss everything as wrong.

    You are correct. The idiots were expecting linear. The smart people where saying hockey stick. My bad. All this heat must cause amnesia too. Maybe they should put some funds into that.

    Again, who advertised linear air temperature warming?

    At minimum it was linear. Hockey stick was more common. You really want to pretend no one was on board? Might as well wrap up the conversation now due to lack of integrity.

    People should undertake their own independent research and find out what the climate community has been looking into for years.

    Well if you would have brought up the fact over the last few years that we’d see a slow rise or flat temperatures with a high level of deep ocean warming I’d be all for understanding your independent research.

    Fact is we are learning, and there are plenty of variables. The drastic action of those with political ideologies such as yourself based on models that are very questionable at this stage may very well cause more problems than the predictions that may or may not even remotely pan out. Something you might want to consider some time.

    Thumb up 6

  30. stogy

    Well what does the hockey stick show? (hint: contrary to what you just said, it isn’t designed to be an accurate means of depicting of recent temperature increases).

    Awesome comeback. I’m so proud of you.

    It’s not my fault you don’t understand the basic science despite your obvious willingness to make pronouncements on it.

    Thumb up 2

  31. CM

    Awesome comeback. I’m so proud of you.

    He’s right though. That’s what it demonstrates.

    As I said, and you ignored, google image the key words and you’ll get results that show a range of possible future temperature increases. Nothing linear. I really don’t know why you’re still trying to make such a claim.

    Well if you would have brought up the fact over the last few years that we’d see a slow rise or flat temperatures with a high level of deep ocean warming I’d be all for understanding your independent research.

    Yeah, don’t go depending on me for your climate science (so you can then say I failed to mention something – that’s no sort of argument!). Look at what the research is saying. None of it says if there is a lull in terms of increasing surface air temps for 15 years, then everything is fine. None. What it does say is long term trends matter, because climate is long term (generally accepted to be over a 30 year span, not 15 years as that still be largely skewed by natural variations). There will NEVER be a linear rise. What we had in the 1990’s was almost a linear rise upwards. To the point where anything but a continuation of that same linear rise would naturally make people not paying attention (or seeking to pass on misinformation) claim what they are claiming now. The science also suggest that the energy inbalance remains, despite the lack of linear air surface temp rise, and that it’s most likely explained by the deep ocean taking more heat. That’s the logical place for where it has gone, and as I have mentioned, there is now actual research to support that.

    Fact is we are learning, and there are plenty of variables.

    Of course, and nobody reputable is claiming anything different. Why on earth do you think they are? But that doesn’t mean the world isn’t warming, and that there will be significant consequences. That is now unavoidable. But we can decide to stop making it worse, and choose how to adapt. Or we can keep denying it all and put it off (i.e. roll the dice with the planet) because it doesn’t match our political beliefs. Only one of those is a rational response.

    The drastic action of those with political ideologies such as yourself based on models that are very questionable at this stage may very well cause more problems than the predictions that may or may not even remotely pan out. Something you might want to consider some time.

    Thanks for the invitation to consider that. I already do, all the time. But I can’t speak for extremists, and I certainly don’t represent them. What specific drastic action do you mean?

    And it’s at this point in discussion (where the denial talking points have been explained/debunked) where this usually descends into comments like:

    Might as well wrap up the conversation now due to lack of integrity.

    Something you might want to consider some time.

    Which is always a shame but seemingly inevitable.

    It’s not my fault you don’t understand the basic science despite your obvious willingness to make pronouncements on it.

    This is always the problem. Why on earth do so many people make all these bold claims (along with the usual insinuations, allegations and accusations) which do nothing but show up their lack of understanding? Why do that to yourself?

    Thumb up 3

  32. Section8

    Yeah, don’t go depending on me for your climate science (so you can then say I failed to mention something – that’s no sort of argument!)

    I’m sorry, I was looking to you since you understand the science, and no one else but Stogy and your fellow travelers do. Again my bad. I figured since you obsess over this topic who better to inform us.

    But hey, I and no one else here is very smart. You guys are the geniuses, but yet you guys post your stuff over and over again expecting different. Brilliant. Anyhow might want to take your shit elsewhere, or you two can rub one out with each other.

    Thumb up 6

  33. Xetrov

    So how do you reconcile this with the imbalance in the earth’s energy budget? If it isn’t warming, where is the missing energy going?

    Aliens are stealing it.

    Thumb up 4

  34. AlexInCT *

    Again, more evidence that you don’t really understand the science.

    I am now convinced that progressives don’t really understand or know what scence is or is about….

    No wonder they think consensus science is good science, while the scientific method should not apply to their pet projects.

    Thumb up 5

  35. stogy

    I am now convinced that progressives don’t really understand or know what scence is or is about….

    Alex, you’ve been wrong on numerous points in this thread. And climate change contrarians would also have trouble with most of the things you’ve said (which only confirm your lack of scientific literacy).

    The carbon cycle is a basic principle of climate science, accepted by both climate scientists and the few remaining contrarian climate scientists. If you are arguing against its influence, then you need to say why pretty much everyone who has a clue, or even half a clue, or even a tenth of a clue, is wrong.

    Thumb up 1

  36. stogy

    But hey, I and no one else here is very smart. You guys are the geniuses, but yet you guys post your stuff over and over again expecting different. Brilliant. Anyhow might want to take your shit elsewhere, or you two can rub one out with each other.

    So the answer is a hissy fit? Take your toys and go home?

    Cause that exactly what has been happening across the world of climate change rejectionism this week.

    Anthony Watts didn’t like the results of the latest State of the Climate Report from NCDS. So he very cleverly analyzed the results and came up with a discrepancy! All very good and well, but once it was pointed out to him that he had completely misinterpreted the data, because actually different institutions use different baselines, he took his toys and went home. Rather than examining it again, he attacked the institutions for having different baselines – despite the fact that they are producing data for their own analytical purposes (most of this takes place in the comments, btw).

    This is the standard of climate change rejectionism. It doesn’t matter what the argument is, or how well it fits with anything else that has been posted. If it questions the orthodoxy, it leads. I actually posted a comment on the Watts blog one day pointing this out, and was told in reply: it doesn’t matter whether it contradicts what we posted yesterday. It’s up to the scientists to prove our arguments false, not us to produce a uniform theory”. This is certainly not science. It’s blog science though (this last link really explains the process well).

    Thumb up 2

  37. stogy

    Sorry – this doesn’t seem to fit into one comment. But here is some of the rest:

    Look, Section 8 forget all this. Don’t believe me or anyone else posting here. Really. Start with what the scientists are actually saying, and look at how they do their work. Once you actually do this, a lot of the rubbish that is said about climate change science starts to crumble. And really look at what the “sceptics” are saying, and look at the responses to the sceptics. And you start to reach a really different conclusion. Look at what conservative climate change scientists are saying. Look at what the World Bank is saying. Look at what Reagan Republicans are saying. Look at what the insurance industry is saying. Look at what conservative parties in other countries are saying. Look at what some conservatives in the US are saying. From a former Bush WH staffer:

    I understand the skepticism that exists (I shared in it, in fact, until I began to explore this matter in a more systematic way). I would therefore urge people to read the careful work of Richard Muller, who was skeptical that global warming has taken place but has now concluded it is real (for more, see here). One might study this report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICPP). Alternatively, read this report by the National Academy of Sciences, which is trustworthy. (The science academies of Britain, China, Germany, Japan, and other nations all believe there is strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.) In 2006, the Climate Science Program, a federal program under the direction of the Bush White House and sponsored by agencies including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.” There are several others I could cite.

    The point is that these reports are sober, measured and serious. They make a scientific, not a polemical, case for AGW. It’s possible they are wrong. But their case has been made in a persuasive and empirical manner.

    (The comments on Lindzen underneath are well worth reading)

    And:

    It is not surprising that Liberals and NDPers and Greens have this issue on their policy agendas. After all, climate change is obviously a “left of centre” problem and requires “big” government as part of the solution. Mr. Inglis’s central point is that such a view is entirely wrong. Real conservatives favour relatively free markets, but they also believe that markets only generate the best outcomes when all relevant costs are incorporated into firms’ pricing decisions and consumers’ purchasing decisions. Markets only generate sensible prices for goods and services if they reflect all of the costs that matter, and real conservatives see damage to the environment as an essential cost to consider. In short, real conservatives see climate change as a reason to modify the price system through appropriate taxes or subsidies, and then let the market generate the best outcomes.

    Thumb up 0

  38. stogy

    Last part (I promise) And contrary to some of the assertions made above, I don’t want a left-wing big government spending solution to the problem of climate change. I think markets are the perfect place to sort this out – based on the real unsubisidized costs of energy and management of waste products (including carbon). But the GOP and at least half of the Dems have been so completely bought by the fossil fuel lobby that nothing is going to happen unless the cycle of money is broken. The larger truth is that jobs growth in renewable energies and energy efficient refits is one of if not the largest source of job growth in the US. And is mostly if not entirely paying for itself through increased energy efficiency.

    The Pentagon also actually wants solar because it means less dependence on vulnerable and extended fuel transport lines, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and greater mobility. But big oil is fighting this tooth and nail in Congress.

    Thumb up 0

  39. stogy

    We need conservative solutions to climate change. Otherwise I think the liberals will seriously fuck things up by throwing money at the problem. But we need to understand the issues first, and to stop the flow of money that is distorting the debate.

    There’s a little more, but I can’t get it to post (too many links?). I’ll try in the morning.

    Thumb up 0

  40. CM

    Well said stogy, you’ve nailed it.
    Apart from being caught out in that credibility-destroying lie. ;-)

    Alex, as stogy said, you need to explain why AGW is wrong. You never do, you just keep repeating the same obvious nonsense (which is always easily shown to be nonsense). You then just stick your fingers in your ears and start repeating mantras. You’ve yet again misrepresented how the term ‘consensus’ has been used.
    I actually believe you know full well that what you’re posting is nonsense. But as you cannot yet reconcile it with your rigid ideological stance on EVERYTHING, you don’t feel you have a choice. That’s the problem with holding rigid ideological stances.

    Thumb up 1

  41. AlexInCT *

    Alex, you’ve been wrong on numerous points in this thread.

    I forgot you and CM are the authority on what is right and what is not by consensus. I apologize for my stupidity..

    /sarc off

    Oh Stogy, that one gave me one heck of a good laugh.

    Alex, as stogy said, you need to explain why AGW is wrong.

    Actually I don’t have to do any such thing, CM, despite how desperate you idiots are to pretend otherwise. See, the beauty of the scientific method and its principle is that all anyone has to do is prove your hypothesis is flawed, only once, and that proof has to stand scrutiny or not be proven be faulty or based on falsehoods, to discredit it. That CO2 argument that the AGW hypothesis is based on has been discredited on numerous times, but this latest one simply sets the bar so high that there is no refuting that the AGW CO2 heating hypothesis is faulty.

    You cultists might think you are real clever by demanding I explain why AGW is wrong, but you seem to be immune to the facts, logic, and proof. I believe by now we all have repeatedly pointed out that not a single of the AGW predictions have come true, even when you allocate a 95% margin of error, which basically means your hypothesis that man made carbon emissions will cause drastic temperature rises and so on, is now burned on the ash heap of history. Even worse, the proof presented is so damaging, because even with CO2 levels far higher than those used in your AGW predictive models, we have seen a temperature rise that amounts to naught but noise. There is no way to disprove these measurements and what they mean for the CO2 hypothesis. In real science, the kind where the scientific principle rules the day and not some bullshit leftard practice, I win and your kind goes back to the drawing board.

    You and Stogy can keep acting like you and the other adherents of the church of AGW and the one-world-global government wealth redistributionists have a leg to stand on. I hope the lot of you AGW cultists do even more of that. Defend the indefensible. Demand those of us that show you the proof do more showing, and ignore the data, facts, and the obvious conclusions. All it will serve to do is to burn into the mind of anyone that actually values the scientific principle and science how fucking idiotic anyone that went along with you AGW cultists and your nonsense really are. More and more people are realizing your kind are going by faith and not by science, and that is just the best outcome that I can dream of. It aught to burry this idiotic movement and prevent it from resurrecting the collectivist agenda for at least a few more decades.

    Please keep it up! I, and the others that value science, for real, relish the death throes.

    Thumb up 4

  42. CM

    I forgot you and CM are the authority on what is right

    I can’t speak for stogy but I’ve never claimed anything of the sort. To the contrary, I tell people to go and do their own independent research. So that’s yet another claim easily shown to be false.

    …has been discredited on numerous times

    Yes, we well aware that you believe so. What we’re asking for you to do (over and over, and reasonably) is to demonstrate it. Rather than just to claim it (after all, anyone can claim anything – see what Poosh writes as Exhibit’s A through M). A lack of surface air warming over a specific 15 year period does no such thing. It’s silly to claim that it does. Even sillier to try and keep that claim going.

    That CO2 argument that the AGW hypothesis is based on has been discredited on numerous times, but this latest one simply sets the bar so high that there is no refuting that the AGW CO2 heating hypothesis is faulty.

    That statement in no way reflects reality, as I am sure you are aware. AGW theory isn’t based solely on CO2 either of course, but we all know that too.

    You cultists might think you are real clever by demanding I explain why AGW is wrong

    Nothing clever about asking you to support your claims. Or about providing links to discussions about current research into deep ocean warming. Nothing cult-like about using science in discussion to counter a complete misunderstanding/ignorance of science. Yet again, it’s your fringe extremist position that fits the requirements of a cult or religion. Your ‘cult’ claim makes no actual sense, as I keep pointing out (and you keep failing to address).

    I believe by now we all have repeatedly pointed out that not a single of the AGW predictions have come true

    You keep saying it but you’ve yet to demonstrate it. I can keep claiming that you fuck chickens but that doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times I try. So come on, again, put your money where your mouth is and give us some specific examples.

    Even worse, the proof presented is so damaging, because even with CO2 levels far higher than those used in your AGW predictive models, we have seen a temperature rise that amounts to naught but noise.

    Which “proof” are you talking about (you do realise proof is for mathematics, evidence is for science, don’t you)? I have yet to see you explain how the research into deep ocean warming (explaining where the ‘missing’ energy is going) is wrong. Or, if you don’t believe there is any ‘missing’ energy, how that is wrong. Which is it, and how/why? Otherwise you’re just throwing up your Holy Trinity as a replacement for an argument. Again.

    There is no way to disprove these measurements and what they mean for the CO2 hypothesis. In real science, the kind where the scientific principle rules the day and not some bullshit leftard practice, I win and your kind goes back to the drawing board.

    Disprove a measurement? WTF?
    Sorry, but you ‘win’ absolutely nothing. But it does tell us a lot that you think this is about you winning anything. As if that matters. Strange how you’re always arguing against ‘us’, you’re never actually engaging in a discussion about science at all.

    You and Stogy can keep acting like you and the other adherents of the church of AGW and the one-world-global government wealth redistributionists have a leg to stand on.

    Many many many legs. You won’t find us relying on the Holy Trinity.

    I hope the lot of you AGW cultists do even more of that. Defend the indefensible.

    By which you mean present and discuss the science while you rant ideological nonsense and make empty claim after empty claim.

    Demand those of us that show you the proof do more showing, and ignore the data, facts, and the obvious conclusions.

    Any decent evidence, supporting with argument that makes a lick of sense, would be an improvement. Preferably something that stands on its own, rather than being completely propped up by extreme political ideology. I’m not looking for ‘proof’, as that’s for mathematics, not science.

    All it will serve to do is to burn into the mind of anyone that actually values the scientific principle and science how fucking idiotic anyone that went along with you AGW cultists and your nonsense really are.

    I’m willing to bet not.

    More and more people are realizing your kind are going by faith and not by science,

    Where do you get your numbers for that? Same place as everything else?

    and that is just the best outcome that I can dream of. It aught to burry this idiotic movement and prevent it from resurrecting the collectivist agenda for at least a few more decades.

    Nothing we don’t hear every year. As predictable as the sun rising is the annual announcement that “this will finally be nail in the coffin for AGW theory”. We’ll see.

    Please keep it up! I, and the others that value science, for real, relish the death throes.

    I’ll be here all week. Please try the salad bar.

    Thumb up 2

  43. stogy

    Oh Stogy, that one gave me one heck of a good laugh.

    You got caught out, Alex. No one who understands the carbon cycle would have made such a stupid comment. You have no place in this discussion because you don’t know enough about the science to comment.

    You claim to be a scientist? It’s time to man up and actually be one.

    I can’t speak for stogy but I’ve never claimed anything of the sort. To the contrary, I tell people to go and do their own independent research. So that’s yet another claim easily shown to be false.

    I completely agree. Following science of climate change is a hobby for me, but I don’t claim to have any expertise. But I know enough to point out schoolboy level errors when I see them.

    Please keep it up! I, and the others that value science, for real, relish the death throes.

    I’ll be here all week. Please try the salad bar.

    You’re mostly on your own, I’m afraid. Next week I am visiting an area (in unnamed South Asian country) where salt water is intruding into the water table, and making wells unusable. This is caused at least partly by rising sea levels, but also by changes in annual rainfall patterns.

    Thumb up 1

  44. stogy
    Last part (I promise)

    Liar.

    Yeah. I kept having to break it into to smaller and smaller parts to get it post. Too many links?

    Since you requested it, here’s a bit more:

    Look, Section 8, forget all this. Don’t believe me or anyone else posting here. Really. Start with what the scientists are actually saying, and look at how they do their work. Once you actually do this, a lot of the rubbish that is said about climate change science starts to crumble. And really look at what the “sceptics” are saying, and look at the responses to the sceptics. And you start to reach a really different conclusion. Look at what conservative climate change scientists are saying. Look at what the World Bank is saying. Look at what Reagan Republicans are saying. Look at what the insurance industry is saying. Look at what conservative parties in other countries are saying. Look at what some conservatives in the US are saying. Here’s a former Bush WH staffer:

    I understand the skepticism that exists (I shared in it, in fact, until I began to explore this matter in a more systematic way). I would therefore urge people to read the careful work of Richard Muller, who was skeptical that global warming has taken place but has now concluded it is real (for more, see here). One might study this report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICPP). Alternatively, read this report by the National Academy of Sciences, which is trustworthy. (The science academies of Britain, China, Germany, Japan, and other nations all believe there is strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.) In 2006, the Climate Science Program, a federal program under the direction of the Bush White House and sponsored by agencies including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.” There are several others I could cite.

    The point is that these reports are sober, measured and serious. They make a scientific, not a polemical, case for AGW. It’s possible they are wrong. But their case has been made in a persuasive and empirical manner.

    (The comments on Lindzen underneath are well worth reading)

    And:

    It is not surprising that Liberals and NDPers and Greens have this issue on their policy agendas. After all, climate change is obviously a “left of centre” problem and requires “big” government as part of the solution. Mr. Inglis’s central point is that such a view is entirely wrong. Real conservatives favour relatively free markets, but they also believe that markets only generate the best outcomes when all relevant costs are incorporated into firms’ pricing decisions and consumers’ purchasing decisions. Markets only generate sensible prices for goods and services if they reflect all of the costs that matter, and real conservatives see damage to the environment as an essential cost to consider. In short, real conservatives see climate change as a reason to modify the price system through appropriate taxes or subsidies, and then let the market generate the best outcomes.

    Thumb up 0

  45. CM

    You claim to be a scientist? It’s time to man up and actually be one.

    Alex is an engineer. I’ve not seen him claim to be a scientist.

    Following science of climate change is a hobby for me, but I don’t claim to have any expertise. But I know enough to point out schoolboy level errors when I see them.

    I could have written that myself.

    This is caused at least partly by rising sea levels, but also by changes in annual rainfall patterns.

    Apparently that’s impossible, as surface air temps haven’t continued to rise in a linear fashion over a a 15 year period. You blithering idiot.

    Thumb up 2

  46. stogy

    Alex is an engineer. I’ve not seen him claim to be a scientist.

    Sorry. I remember in April he wrote something about having studied advanced chemistry. I was assuming he had at least a passing familiarity with the scientific method. My bad.

    Thumb up 0

  47. CM

    Once you actually do this, a lot of the rubbish that is said about climate change science starts to crumble.

    And it doesn’t take very long. At all.

    Thumb up 0

  48. CM

    Real conservatives favour relatively free markets, but they also believe that markets only generate the best outcomes when all relevant costs are incorporated into firms’ pricing decisions and consumers’ purchasing decisions. Markets only generate sensible prices for goods and services if they reflect all of the costs that matter, and real conservatives see damage to the environment as an essential cost to consider. In short, real conservatives see climate change as a reason to modify the price system through appropriate taxes or subsidies, and then let the market generate the best outcomes.

    This is the point I keep hammering – it’s the reason why this is such a litmus test for anyone on the right. Not only do many refuse to accept the solid and non-controversial science, they’re actively arguing to maintain enormous market distortion across the entire economy.

    Sorry. I remember in April he wrote something about having studied advanced chemistry. I was assuming he had at least a passing familiarity with the scientific method. My bad.

    You could well be right. I don’t recall it, but then it’s very difficult to keep up with his claims.

    Thumb up 1