quote Originally posted by fierobear: He didn't know when to stop. I do.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I know when to let it go.

Quoted for extreme irony. Sometimes "delusional" seems barely adequate to describe your perception of yourself.

Here we are, 61 pages into a thread that you, yourself started, and your position still isn't clear. You alternately argue A) (per the thread title) that the global climate is indeed warming, but that human activity cannot possibly be a contributing factor, and B) that global warming is not occurring after all, in which case the question of human contribution becomes moot. You do like to argue, though.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-23-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Quoted for EXTREME irony. "Delusional" is hardly adequate to describe your perception of yourself.

More bullshit from you. Same old, same old.

I would dig up the thread that proves my point, but I don't want to keep this thread so far off the topic, and I don't feel like dancing on JazzMan's grave. I had already moved on, and got back to r squared correlation. It is YOU that dragged the thread back. Yes, irony indeed.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-23-2013).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I got to the point that I simply stopped responding to him, but he kept pushing. He didn't know when to stop. I do. When someone gets so unpleasant (like flyinfieros) or trolling (like newf), I just don't bother with all that personal crap any more.

Being as objective as possible, you were became personally insulting before newf or flyinfieros did, such as this one to newf:

quote fierobear: For you, simple-minded one. Thanks for the reminder of what a waste of time you are.

BTW, in re-reading older posts in this thread, something I missed that ruins any credibility Watts had:

quote The BEST study received funding from the same special interest group Watts is connected to, the Koch Foundation. The BEST study consulted Watts on the method of analyzing temperature data. The BEST study used a method Watts signed off on. Watts signed off on the method because the study takes into account all arguments raised by skeptics, especially Watts, including your heavily referred to "poor station quality." Watts genuinely thought that using a method he approves to analyze the data would prove him correct so he agreed to support the results. BEST proved Watts and his work completely wrong.

Also, you undermine your own credibility when you post information and graphs such as this that have no scientific backing, other than "they look the same":



And herein lies the problem. The "deniers" have been posting all kinds of information and theories in this thread and they've been repeatedly destroyed. The "deniers" thus keep coming up with new theories and they have been destroyed as well. It would be far more credible to come up with a SINGLE theory and stick with it - not argue that it MIGHT be

sunspot cycle length
solar irradiation
PDO/AMO
Water vapor
Falsified data
Land only temperatures
Al Gore

When so many different theories are being thrown around that are so poorly supported, it seems like "throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks".

quote Originally posted by fierobear: flyinfieros is a classic example of someone engaging in "psychological projection." He will call others "childish" and complain about insults while he is repeatedly insulting.

fierobear, while I'm well aware I've called you everything short of a moron and you've only used my impolite manner to distract and ignore real issues, it is purposely, conscious, convergent behavior. It is helpful for you to see how others perceive you and your manner. You are hardly polite, constantly expressing your opinion with swears, dismissing people and posts as "trolls", "useless", "low life", "stupid", "jackass" or "simple minded" to completely avoid having to answer for what you post. I have expressed my thoughts with blunt honesty but only because I believe perception is 99% of the issue in this thread. If I tend to sugar coat my thoughts or wrap them in anything complicated it's much more likely, you, Moose, and Arn will misperceive what I'm trying to communicate to you. While we may have a heated disagreement underway, you need to know that I do not hold anything against you personally. I have many friends who hold the complete opposite beliefs I do, but I do not hold it against them. People, regardless of what they think or believe, are still good in their heart. At least for me, how you say something will never be more important than what you actually say.

One of the most common tactics I encounter in the political arena is projection, to accuse the other party of what you are guilty. It's interesting psychological projection is categorized as a defense mechanism, but it's actually used as an offense mechanism, putting the other party on defense. It's really no surprise that it's your first tactic. I am the second person that I know of in this thread you have described as a "classic case of projection." Wouldn't it be ironic if this projection was entirely your own? Considering ego defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological strategies brought into play to deny reality.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: ...and he wonders why we don't want to converse with him? flyinfieros reminds me a lot of former forum member JazzMan, who had Asperger's Syndrome. The guy was absolutely CLUELESS about social interaction. He simply couldn't understand why his insulting nature left him with few friends and few people who would converse with him.

You are hardly qualified psychologically profile me. You seem completely ignorant of the fact you accuse me of argument fallacies yet are comparing me to irrelevant former member JazzMan.

If you find the word "Denier" so offensive that you are completely unwilling to communicate with people who use it, perhaps you should chill out on the name calling yourself. I do not believe for a second you are that sensitive, it is just a lousy excuse. I don't get offended when you refer to me as a "Warmist." Calling you a Denier is no different than calling you a Obama Birther, a 9/11 Truther, a Tea Bagger, Occupier, bin Laden Deather, or whatever is just how political groups are segregated in society. For all I know you may be five of those. Any political group that pushes a conspiracy theory ends in "-er" and any leak of information is a "-gate." Or so it seems.

Regardless of how willing you are to openly communicate with me, you do not have to reply to me at all in order for me to expose the rubbish you post. Open minded people who were undecided and read this thread are noticing your underhanded tactics to spread misinformation. You are working very hard to discredit yourself and you do not even realize it yet. Or perhaps you do, and that's why you tend to burry mind changing posts with a barrage of posts.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Speaking of published papers, I wonder what warmists like flyinfieros would say if we offered proof by way of a paper published in a journal where our evidence was the FIRST paper published? You know what the response would be, it would be DISMISSED. Yet the warmists like flyinfieros will accept the publication of the BEST Study with that precise kind of proof and reputation. Now there's a f***ing JOKE.

You're insinuating I would deny legitimate evidence if presented with it for petty reasons, which is absolutely ridiculous. I have never flat out dismissed anything you have posted short of obvious political ignorance. If you offered any proof at all it would be welcomed. Not for monetary reasons but for the people on the planet. Sadly, everything you have posted thus far falls completely apart with a tiny scrutiny.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I guess we'll have to wait not only to see if the ocean data from BEST is published, but if it is published in a journal with any kind of reputation.

You can't find any errors in their data, their methodology, or their software but somehow a publisher discredits everything..? It's obvious from this post it doesn't matter where the study is published, you're going to have issues with the publisher because you have issues accepting the study's conclusions.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: ...I trust this means that he has PROOF of its reputation, not just his word or his imagination. I wonder if LOLCATS is accepting climate papers?

Reputation is an opinion based on perspective. By definition I cannot provide evidence for an opinion.

It is the BEST team's opinion that the journal has a good reputation in the scientific community:
Liz Muller:
"SciTechnol is relatively new, I think their very first publication was only a few years ago. They do have a good and growing reputation in the scientific community, and are part of the new generation of journals that have totally open access and quick turn around times. I expect most important articles will be published in similar open online journals in the not-too-distant future. We chose GiGS because we liked their emphasis on statistics, their quick turn around, and their open and free access."
Source.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I have this interesting fact, though, about this "journal" with the "good reputation". How much of a reputation can a journal gain in less than a year of publication, and with only TWO published papers? LOL, yeah, keep on quoting that BEST study.

I said it was SciTechnol who had a good reputation. I'm well aware it is a new journal.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: There might be more about this "journal" to come. But for now...

I'm sure Denier's are looking for ways to discredit the publisher. It's a pathetic attempt to distract from the real issue which is the content of the study itself. The study has been out since 2011. Denier's have found nothing wrong with the study to disprove it's conclusion. Now they're working to discredit it by way of publisher. That's not science, that's politics.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Here is another misdirection from flyinfieros. Evidently, along with his piss poor arguments, he hasn't even considered what the impact would be if the warmists win, and carbon taxes are put in place. Not only the impact on each of us and our wallets, but on the poor and middle class. But people like flyinfieros can't be bothered to acutally consider the COSENQUENCES of their actions, advocacy or the way they vote. Naw, don't bother a jackass like this with the bigger picture, or unforeseen consequence, they're too busy being caught up in their illusions that they are "saving the planet".

This is a very good example of how delusional you actually are. The only impact of warmest winning, in your mind, is more taxes. You haven't given a second of thought of what will happen to this planet and everything on it if we continue our current course. But according to you, you have given it "a lot" of thought, and "NOTHING" will happen to your family even if it's true. That's really contradictory.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Here, flyinfieros thinks he can have it both ways, and we don't notice. First, he tries to criticize me for "cut and paste" and not posting my own thoughts (opinions)... ...then he criticizes others for posting opinions. So if we post links to papers, we aren't sharing our opinions. If we do post ours or others opinions, we are criticized for posting opinions.

Evidence, by definition, is not an opinion. We are here to discuss evidence. I am discussing facts and evidence. You are forced to rely on opinions because the facts, the evidence, the scientific consensus, and reality, are not on your side.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Oh you mean like Teflon? Teflon was discovered by mistake - as were several other products. Observation is the key to a discovery, understanding 'why' comes later - you would obviously know this if you understood the term 'experiment'. Scientists try different methods BEFORE finding a solution that works - they then sit down a figure out or try to understand why afterwards.

The "discovery" happens when the physics that took place are understood. How can you describe something you know nothing about?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: When you say I haven't answered for r squared, what response are you wanting? I posted what someone calculated, and flyinfieros response was that he basically didn't believe what I posted. So what response are you looking for?

You haven't answered for R Squared at all. You certainly haven't dethroned CO2 at all. Your "game, set, match" argument has more holes than swiss cheese. Fundamentally it's flawed from the start. The reason is temperatures oscillate and CO2 does not. You're comparing oscillations to a gradual rise. ANYTHING that oscillates rather than rise gradually will have a better mathematical correlation than CO2. That's the flawed logic behind the theory.

If the flawed logic wasn't enough sink the theory, real world physics does the rest. The theory is only meaningful if the strong correlations of PDO and solar output are causing the rise in global temperature. Here is the chart you posted that shows the correlations. Physically, it is IMPOSSIBLE for PDO and solar output to be causing the warming anomaly.

PDO remains flat while temperatures rise:

Source.

If you actually read a study YOU cited you'll find it disagrees with your argument completely, especially PDO:
One important result presented here is that each major ocean basin has warmed at nearly all latitudes. A net warming has occurred despite interannual to decadal ariability of the ocean associated with phenomenon such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the North Atlantic Oscillation as well as other such phenomenon. The fact that relative extremes of OHC are a function of latitude and in some cases are at different latitudes in each major ocean basin indicates different ocean, or ocean-atmosphere, responses to the common forcing of the observed increase in greenhouse gases in earth’s atmosphere occurred.

Solar output remains flat while temperatures rise:

Source.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: And THIS is the end game of everything we've been discussing...A president who will go around Congress - your elected representatives, whose responsibility it is to vote on your behalf - and simply implement global warming regulations by dictatorial fiat.

As if he's the first president to use an executive order. I'm sure you were just as upset with Bush's orders.

You should really look at this argument with practical eyes. You accomplish absolutely nothing by denying the significance of the scientific consensus on global warming. Government will use it to enact policy, with or without you. What effect have the Birthers had on Obama's presidency? Absolutely nothing. This is the destiny of denying the science behind climate change just to resist taxes. You should embrace the science and come to the table willing to work on actual solutions to the problem - not just try to deny a problem exists. There is a mountain of evidence you cannot overcome by dragging out an argument as long as possible. Issues aren't as "open" as you hope. There is very solid science and reasoning behind the consensus. For example, what other scientific consensus is hotly debated? The only thing that comes to mind is evolution and that's only because of religion. Surely if the consensus was spreading so much misinformation and bad science you would have multiple examples, not just climate change.

From my time on this planet it is clear the universe finds balance. Nothing is free. There is a balancing negative for every positive force in the universe. Oil and coal companies thought they were pulling all this energy out of the ground for free. We've built our world around energy we found in the ground, burning it, and adding it's waste to the atmosphere. The scientific consensus tells us we are poisoning our atmosphere and our oceans, the true cost of this "free energy." There is no easy answer for what problems are in front of us. Our entire planet's economy is dependent on cheap and plentiful energy. Simply put, it is an addiction we are killing ourselves with. It's an addiction that fuels the pursuit of imaginary worth. Real worth is the life on this planet, a miracle of existence, that's forgot too often for very narrow minded reasons.

As I have said, there is a mountain of evidence "Deniers" will never overcome. The mountain grows taller every day. The rate at which climate change will impact our planet varies depending on who you're listening to. While "Denier's" prefer to use the extreme examples like Al Gore, anyone able to see the impact of collapsing ecosystems and the role they play on Earth and their relationship to humans knows the outcome will be horrible. Ecosystems are already dying due to human activity. Some of the oldest ecosystems on Earth, coral reefs, are dying out due to warming oceans and CO2 making the oceans more acidic yet they're home to 25% of all marine species with many species undiscovered.

"Denier's" love to say 'all' "Warmist" predictions haven't come true. If you look at the real picture of what an overwhelming majority of scientists are saying you'll see their predictions are coming true and consistent each other. Surface temperatures are rising around the globe. Surface temperatures in the United States are also rising. Sea levels are rising. Oceans are warming. Snow cover is retreating. Glacier volume is shrinking. Atmospheric CO2 levels are 35% higher than any time in the last 800,000 years with 80% of the increase coming from fossil fuels. There is no evidence of a better match for the increase in temperature than CO2. Nothing even comes close to being in the ball park.

Resisting the all evidence because you want to preserve addiction is just silly. The addiction will come to an end, one way or another, with or without you.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: And herein lies the problem. The "deniers" have been posting all kinds of information and theories in this thread and they've been repeatedly destroyed. The "deniers" thus keep coming up with new theories and they have been destroyed as well. It would be far more credible to come up with a SINGLE theory and stick with it - not argue that it MIGHT be sunspot cycle length solar irradiation PDO/AMO Water vapor Falsified data Land only temperatures Al Gore When so many different theories are being thrown around that are so poorly supported, it seems like "throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks".

Hey - Al Gore is on your side.

As for your other comments – the climate is very complex, even has been admitted by your side (I have posted that) and there are many factors that could be affecting the increase in temperature, to simply say that 1 thing is only responsible is going way out on a limb. There have been published papers (indicated in earlier posts) that say that there just might be some other factors in the mix – there have been several scientists (including a Nobel prize winner) that have gone on record on the non-anthropogenic side.

Are you saying that we should simply ignore these findings because they simply cannot be a possible cause and man is to blame period?

Why is the government and other parties still pouring billions of dollars into this research to prove man is to blame when you all say it is very obvious?

Science has been in many instances and will continue to be:

quote "throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks".

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose:

Absolutely, the climate is very complex. I am not suggesting CO2 is 100% responsible for climate change, but it has a scientific basis for causing climate change and the data points in this direction.

The alternatives (PDO/AMO, sunspot cycles, etc) are either unsupported by the data or don't have a strong scientific backing. Sure, it might be possible that sunspot cycle lengths are related to climate on Earth, but how? What is the scientific explanation of how the two are related, or more importantly, what the causal relationship is between the two?

Even if there is some natural warming occurring (which the data does not show) the rate of warming is 4-5x faster than ever historically recorded. This would be unprecedented and it would be foolish, IMO, to write this off as natural variation when its never been seen before.

Actually, there is a known correlation between Sun activity and weather on earth, as well as climate fluctuations.

The relationship has a delay factor with the earth "catching up" to the sun's various changes.

You can read up on it at spaceweather

This is the relationship mapped out



compare the chart above the one below



Right when Global Warming hype was at it's peak, the sun was gearing up and reached it's peak from about 1998 through to 2004. You can see in the US temperature chart that there is a strong correlation.

Of course sunspot activity has fluctuated over many years

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: 01-23-2013 11:12 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Mickey_MooseClick Here to visit Mickey_Moose's HomePageClick Here to Email Mickey_MooseSend a Private Message to Mickey_MooseEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: And herein lies the problem. The "deniers" have been posting all kinds of information and theories in this thread and they've been repeatedly destroyed. The "deniers" thus keep coming up with new theories and they have been destroyed as well. It would be far more credible to come up with a SINGLE theory and stick with it - not argue that it MIGHT be sunspot cycle length solar irradiation PDO/AMO Water vapor Falsified data Land only temperatures Al Gore When so many different theories are being thrown around that are so poorly supported, it seems like "throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks". Hey - Al Gore is on your side. As for your other comments – the climate is very complex, even has been admitted by your side (I have posted that) and there are many factors that could be affecting the increase in temperature, to simply say that 1 thing is only responsible is going way out on a limb. There have been published papers (indicated in earlier posts) that say that there just might be some other factors in the mix – there have been several scientists (including a Nobel prize winner) that have gone on record on the non-anthropogenic side. Are you saying that we should simply ignore these findings because they simply cannot be a possible cause and man is to blame period?

If you look at the science and the consensus that is out there you would see that they are not claiming what you attribute to them.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Why is the government and other parties still pouring billions of dollars into this research to prove man is to blame when you all say it is very obvious?

Most science has moved on from whom or what might be to blame but there are still people who can't/won't accept it.

Why would pouring billions into researching a global concern seem wrong?

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Actually, there is a known correlation between Sun activity and weather on earth, as well as climate fluctuations. The relationship has a delay factor with the earth "catching up" to the sun's various changes. You can read up on it at spaceweather This is the relationship mapped out compare the chart above the one below Right when Global Warming hype was at it's peak, the sun was gearing up and reached it's peak from about 1998 through to 2004. You can see in the US temperature chart that there is a strong correlation.

There are problems with that correlation. First, why would increased sunspot activity for 20 years lead to increased temperatures for 10? Also, what is the mechanism (scientifically) that would make sunspots raise Earth temperatures, but 13 years later?

Second, that graph is suspect. It only shows Jan-Oct temperatures for the United States (which reeks of cherry picking the data). Why exclude November and December? Why exclude years since 2009? Why exclude the rest of the world? So more specifically, why would sunspots lasting for 20 years cause temperature increases in the United States between Jan-Oct, only for 10 years, but 13 years later? I don't buy it. Its a weak correlation, but with no meaningful causation.

Also why have climates become warmer over time, even though sunspots go through distinct cycles? Thus, even if sunspots do affect climate in some way, it wouldn't be the cause of continual "global warming". This is the same problem with the PDO/AMO theory - its cyclical, with a mean about zero. Yet climates have been getting warmer.

quote Originally posted by newf: Most science has moved on from whom or what might be to blame but there are still people who can't/won't accept it. Why would pouring billions into researching a global concern seem wrong?

There is nothing wrong with pouring billions into a global concern, but is pouring billions into a carbon tax or credits really a good use of the money vs. pouring into a REAL solution? What good is buying carbon credits if you are still going to pollute just as much? You are not solving anything. Same with carbon capture - has anyone really studied the long terms effects of pumping CO2 underground for storage or are just leaving to the future population to deal with it should a problem arise?

What about finding a REAL solution to the worlds garbage and e-waste? The current solution is to bury it, dump it in the ocean or ship it to a 3rd world country and let them deal with it (as if they have the resources - just corrupt politicians lining their pockets and don't care that their country is a garbage can).

But there seems to be a lot of money being spent on studying the cause and feeling sorry for the 'drowning' polar bears.

Also to add - "global warming" is happening on other planets in our solar system (although NASA and others are not calling it that), why should the earth be immune - so could there be something else in play here as well?

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-23-2013).]

Reality check -- Here is the hierarchy of fundamental scientific issues, as I see them:

1) Is the global climate (not weather!) actually warming? If so, how much and how fast?

If so:
2) Does human activity affect the existence or rate of warming?

If so:
3) Is human activity a significant factor? Is it the dominant factor?

If so:
4) What mitigation is reasonable ... or even possible? What are the social and economic implications? What are the consequences of doing nothing?


At each stage the sole political question is, "At this level of knowledge, what should we do about it?"


All of the argument I see in this thread (and most elsewhere) concerning the science seems to be stuck oscillating between questions 1) and 2), and the status-quo political answer at each stage seems to be, "Nothing!"

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-23-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: There is nothing wrong with pouring billions into a global concern, but is pouring billions into a carbon tax or credits really a good use of the money vs. pouring into a REAL solution? What good is buying carbon credits if you are still going to pollute just as much?

Carbon credits, if used as a revenue-neutral program, would reduce CO2 emissions because people (and companies) respond to financial incentives. I agree with you, though, that governments should not force companies to buy carbon credits up front, as this just disguising a tax.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Carbon credits, if used as a revenue-neutral program, would reduce CO2 emissions because people (and companies) respond to financial incentives. I agree with you, though, that governments should not force companies to buy carbon credits up front, as this just disguising a tax.

Would they reduce? It may be cheaper for them to just buy credits than to upgrade their equipment that pollute less.

I have also seen governments also offer 'rebates' on electric/hybrid cars, but when you crunch the numbers it is still a more expensive alternative. Hardly an incentive if you look at the bottom line - they are mainly feel good cars.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Would they reduce? It may be cheaper for them to just buy credits than to upgrade their equipment that pollute less. I have also seen governments also offer 'rebates' on electric/hybrid cars, but when you crunch the numbers it is still a more expensive alternative. Hardly an incentive if you look at the bottom line - they are mainly feel good cars.

Sure, in some cases companies would just eat the cost and continue to emit high volumes of CO2. In aggregate, though, companies would now have some incentive (as opposed to zero incentive) to reducing CO2 emissions, and CO2 emissions will drop.

Regarding electric/hybrid vehicles - at risk of seriously getting off topic here - they're still a new technology and haven't hit full stride yet. I think we'll see hybrids and EVs really breakthrough and become mainstream in the next ten years, as long as energy prices remain high.

The Volt for instance is still a 1st generation system. At fuel prices around $4/gal it would break even after about 10 years. The next generation should be considerably cheaper and more efficient - we will see.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Would they reduce? It may be cheaper for them to just buy credits than to upgrade their equipment that pollute less. I have also seen governments also offer 'rebates' on electric/hybrid cars, but when you crunch the numbers it is still a more expensive alternative. Hardly an incentive if you look at the bottom line - they are mainly feel good cars.

Agreed many of the current "solutions" are not viable nor do much to solve the issue. Fact is Oil is cheap (no matter what many might say) and it's in certain peoples best interest to continue to use it.

quote Originally posted by newf: Agreed many of the current "solutions" are not viable nor do much to solve the issue. Fact is Oil is cheap (no matter what many might say) and it's in certain peoples best interest to continue to use it.

Plus the fact that oil is used in nearly everything that is manufactured today (including the actual manufacturing).

quote Originally posted by FlyinFieros: If I tend to sugar coat my thoughts or wrap them in anything complicated it's much more likely, you, Moose, and Arn will misperceive what I'm trying to communicate to you. While we may have a heated disagreement underway, you need to know that I do not hold anything against you personally. I have many friends who hold the complete opposite beliefs I do, but I do not hold it against them. People, regardless of what they think or believe, are still good in their heart. At least for me, how you say something will never be more important than what you actually say.

You appear to be making an effort communicate on a more reasonable level. You will find that I will respond in kind, if you do.

quote I am the second person that I know of in this thread you have described as a "classic case of projection."

Because the mannerisms are the same, that's why.

quote You are hardly qualified psychologically profile me. You seem completely ignorant of the fact you accuse me of argument fallacies yet are comparing me to irrelevant former member JazzMan.

Because your approach, socially, has been eerily similar. A combination of technical discussion punctuated with pejoratives, and done in lengthy posts.

quote If you find the word "Denier" so offensive that you are completely unwilling to communicate with people who use it, perhaps you should chill out on the name calling yourself. I do not believe for a second you are that sensitive, it is just a lousy excuse.

I give what I get. You want to have a decent conversation, then do so. And it isn't about sensitivity, it is that I've dealt with enough unpleasant people that I'll fire back for a while, and when it gets out of hand, I'll just stop communicating with those types of people. Life is too short for that crap.

quote Regardless of how willing you are to openly communicate with me, you do not have to reply to me at all in order for me to expose the rubbish you post. Open minded people who were undecided and read this thread are noticing your underhanded tactics to spread misinformation.

It is your OPINION that what I post is rubbish because that is what you have convinced yourself that it is.

I post the stuff from Watts' site because it has commentary, but the articles I post have LINKS to the original material. The commentary points out the salient portions, and the articles are well linked to the source. I don't have time to read every climate paper, but folks like Watts seem to. Also, many papers are behind pay walls.

If you disagree with the conclusion, that is one thing, but your tactic of discrediting the source while ignoring the fact that the articles are linked to the original material is simply wrong.

Also, I posted the links directly from Watts' site several times, instead of the original links, on purpose, to see if you would take the bait (making the false argument about Watts site, and ignoring the linked material) and you did.

quote You're insinuating I would deny legitimate evidence if presented with it for petty reasons, which is absolutely ridiculous. I have never flat out dismissed anything you have posted short of obvious political ignorance. If you offered any proof at all it would be welcomed. Not for monetary reasons but for the people on the planet. Sadly, everything you have posted thus far falls completely apart with a tiny scrutiny.

Sure you have. I've posted MANY peer review, published papers, and you just dismiss them because they disagree with your conclusion.

quote You can't find any errors in their data, their methodology, or their software but somehow a publisher discredits everything..? It's obvious from this post it doesn't matter where the study is published, you're going to have issues with the publisher because you have issues accepting the study's conclusions.

I have, and I've posted as such. I will have more to post in the future. I might not even wait until BEST is published in a *real* journal, not some mail order science mart in India.

quote Reputation is an opinion based on perspective. By definition I cannot provide evidence for an opinion.

You made a statement that SciTechnol has a good reputation. You either can back that statement up with something, or you cannot. So far, you have not.

Is THIS your proof?

quote It is the BEST team's opinion that the journal has a good reputation in the scientific community: Liz Muller: "SciTechnol is relatively new, I think their very first publication was only a few years ago. They do have a good and growing reputation in the scientific community, and are part of the new generation of journals that have totally open access and quick turn around times. I expect most important articles will be published in similar open online journals in the not-too-distant future. We chose GiGS because we liked their emphasis on statistics, their quick turn around, and their open and free access." I said it was SciTechnol who had a good reputation. I'm well aware it is a new journal.

So, one of the AUTHORS of the paper, of which it evidently couldn't find a publisher in any established journal, is your proof of its reputation? If I posted something like that, you'd be all over it with ridicule and you know it.

SciTechnol has NO reputation. I've read quite a few comments on how SciTechnol is spamming researchers, is publishing papers without permission, and then invoicing the authors. The evidence is anecdotal, which is why I haven't posted it. I did post some information about it recently, though, and the word wasn't good.

SciTechnol has no documented good reputation, only the words of one of the authors of a paper that seem to have been unable to find a publisher anywhere else. Again, if I posted that kind of proof, you'd laugh it off.

quote 'm sure Denier's are looking for ways to discredit the publisher. It's a pathetic attempt to distract from the real issue which is the content of the study itself. The study has been out since 2011. Denier's have found nothing wrong with the study to disprove it's conclusion. Now they're working to discredit it by way of publisher. That's not science, that's politics.

There's that projection again. You made a statement you can't back up, about a journal that appears to be a joke, yet you attempt to turn it around on me. No dice, pal, I'm not letting you get away with it.

quote This is a very good example of how delusional you actually are. The only impact of warmest winning, in your mind, is more taxes. You haven't given a second of thought of what will happen to this planet and everything on it if we continue our current course. But according to you, you have given it "a lot" of thought, and "NOTHING" will happen to your family even if it's true. That's really contradictory.

I have given PLENTY of thought to it, over 5 plus years. The so called evidence that temperatures are hotter than ever record, and that man is responsible, is insufficient. So far, NONE of the supposed "disasters" that were supposed to be happening are in fact happening. All the scare stories about weather, hurricanes, tornadoes and the like are bullshit, and there is ample proof to back that statement up.

I strongly object to being taxed for something that isn't a problem. THAT is much more of a threat to my family than alleged global warming.

quote You haven't answered for R Squared at all. You certainly haven't dethroned CO2 at all. Your "game, set, match" argument has more holes than swiss cheese. Fundamentally it's flawed from the start. The reason is temperatures oscillate and CO2 does not. You're comparing oscillations to a gradual rise. ANYTHING that oscillates rather than rise gradually will have a better mathematical correlation than CO2. That's the flawed logic behind the theory.

Is your objection the use of R Squared, or the math that the author used? If you can falsify his math, then do so. If you can't, then stop making this claim that R Squared is wrong, the conclusion is wrong, and that I haven't answered for it. The burden of proof is on YOU to disprove what the paper presented, not me. And no, you can't present another paper as proof. Prove that math in that paper is wrong, if you can. That's how falsification works.

FYI, this graph doesn't have the proper attributions. What is the source of the temperature and PDO data? "Skeptical Science" is not a sufficient answer.

quote PDO remains flat while temperatures rise: Source.

quote f you actually read a study YOU cited you'll find it disagrees with your argument completely, especially PDO:

You seem to have missed the point of this. Repeating:

New paper finds world's oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over past 55 years

A paper published today (May 16, 2012) in Geophysical Research Letters finds the oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over the 55 year period from 1955-2010. According to the authors, this resulted in a sea level rise of 0.54 mm per year [only 2.12 inches per century] and corresponds to 0.39 Watts per square meter of the ocean surface. However, the IPCC claims the increase in CO2 from 1955-2010 'should' have warmed the oceans by 1.12 Watts per square meter [5.35*ln(389.78/312) = 1.12 W/m2]. Thus, even if one assumes all ocean warming is due to increased greenhouse gases, the IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of almost 3 times [1.12/0.39]. [This is why Trenberth can't find his "missing heat"-it never existed in the first place]. In reality, greenhouse gases cannot warm the oceans at all because they radiate infrared which only penetrates the surface of water a few microns to cause evaporative cooling.

=================================

Deep ocean 'missing heat' causing sea levels to rise 1/5 of 1 inch per century

A paper published online today (FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2011) examines temperature measurements of the deep oceans that have been performed 2 or more times at 28 sites between 1980 and 2010. The paper concludes that warming of the global deep ocean abyss is contributing 0.053 mm/yr or 1/5 of 1 inch per century to global sea level rise.

Alarmists such as Kevin Trenberth et al claim the "missing heat" generated by greenhouse gases has somehow gone to the deep ocean, bypassing detection by satellites in the atmosphere or by thousands of ARGO floats monitoring the upper 1000 meters of the oceans. If the "missing heat" has teleported to the deep oceans, this paper suggests it is causing a trivial influence on global sea levels.

==================================

quote Solar output remains flat while temperatures rise:

Until recently, it appeared that TSI might be insufficient to explain the temperature rise. I recently posted a new paper that suggests that TSI plus some kind of feedback may be affecting temperature sufficiently to explain the affect on climate. I'll repost it.

quote As if he's the first president to use an executive order. I'm sure you were just as upset with Bush's orders.

The Bush argument is a red herring. But find me a single quote from Bush where he said he intended to go around Congress.

quote You accomplish absolutely nothing by denying the significance of the scientific consensus on global warming.

This is an oft-repeated argument, and it is a fallacy. It is called "argument from authority", in addition to the fallacy that "scientific consensus" has any real meaning in science. It doesn't matter how many scientists agree. Science is NOT done by vote. Science does not gain credibility with the number of scientists who agree. Something is either true or false, and must be verifiable or falsifiable by experimentation. Climate science has focused too tightly on "CO2 is the cause, and the science is settled" and not enough on all other temperature forcings in nature.

quote Surely if the consensus was spreading so much misinformation and bad science you would have multiple examples, not just climate change.

Sure, I have one. Piltdown Man.

quote Simply put, it is an addiction we are killing ourselves with. It's an addiction that fuels the pursuit of imaginary worth. Real worth is the life on this planet, a miracle of existence, that's forgot too often for very narrow minded reasons.

"Addiction" is a nonsense term driven by people with a political or radical environmental agenda, used to describe our society's need for oil or some relatively cheap and abundant source of energy. To be a modern, technical and comfortable society, we need energy. Currently, oil is the best source for that energy. Natural gas is also similarly useful and abundant (oil's abundance is not so much any more). Until we have a viable alternative, shutting down the oil, natural gas and coal industries would be a disaster that would dwarf anything that global warming alleges to cause.

quote As I have said, there is a mountain of evidence "Deniers" will never overcome. The mountain grows taller every day.

Oh, there's a mountain alright, and it is growing. But it is the bovine feces of "consensus science", being paid for a by governments that want to use global warming as an excuse to create monumental new taxes.

quote Denier's" love to say 'all' "Warmist" predictions haven't come true.

We like to say it because it is true. I have posted the projections from both the IPCC and NASA's James Hansen (going back over 20 years) about how warming *should* have accelerated already, and they are both off by a mile. That is because the feedbacks I mentioned were projected to be happening by now, and simply haven't. We've heard plenty of lamentations from scientists about how they "can't account for the lost heat in the ocean," or Hansen's recently released statements about how he had to admit that temperatures have been flat for 5 years, and so on. That is because their projections have been grossly inaccurate.

quote There is no evidence of a better match for the increase in temperature than CO2. Nothing even comes close to being in the ball park.

There is PLENTY of evidence for climate forcings other than CO2. I've presented such evidence before, and will continue to present it.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You seem to have missed the point of this. Repeating: New paper finds world's oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over past 55 years A paper published today (May 16, 2012) in Geophysical Research Letters finds the oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over the 55 year period from 1955-2010. According to the authors, this resulted in a sea level rise of 0.54 mm per year [only 2.12 inches per century] and corresponds to 0.39 Watts per square meter of the ocean surface. However, the IPCC claims the increase in CO2 from 1955-2010 'should' have warmed the oceans by 1.12 Watts per square meter [5.35*ln(389.78/312) = 1.12 W/m2]. Thus, even if one assumes all ocean warming is due to increased greenhouse gases, the IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of almost 3 times [1.12/0.39]. [This is why Trenberth can't find his "missing heat"-it never existed in the first place]. In reality, greenhouse gases cannot warm the oceans at all because they radiate infrared which only penetrates the surface of water a few microns to cause evaporative cooling. ================================= Deep ocean 'missing heat' causing sea levels to rise 1/5 of 1 inch per century A paper published online today (FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2011) examines temperature measurements of the deep oceans that have been performed 2 or more times at 28 sites between 1980 and 2010. The paper concludes that warming of the global deep ocean abyss is contributing 0.053 mm/yr or 1/5 of 1 inch per century to global sea level rise. Alarmists such as Kevin Trenberth et al claim the "missing heat" generated by greenhouse gases has somehow gone to the deep ocean, bypassing detection by satellites in the atmosphere or by thousands of ARGO floats monitoring the upper 1000 meters of the oceans. If the "missing heat" has teleported to the deep oceans, this paper suggests it is causing a trivial influence on global sea levels..

So is that what a blogger surmised and cherry picked from the paper? What conclusions did the paper actually make?

Do you have access to the original published papers?


Here's some data from the author of the paper you cited as evidence against Climate Change etc.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-24-2013).]

quote Originally posted by newf: So is that what a blogger surmised and cherry picked from the paper? What conclusions did the paper actually make? Do you have access to the original published papers?

The fact that you asked this question strongly suggests that you did bother really reading what I posted. You and flyinfieros repeatedly make that mistake.

Look again and see if there might be something that could lead you beyond the "blog".

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The fact that you asked this question strongly suggests that you did bother really reading what I posted. You and flyinfieros repeatedly make that mistake. Look again and see if there might be something that could lead you beyond the "blog".

The fact that you said this strongly suggests that YOU didn't bother clicking your own links to read the paper. Unless of course you are using one of these options.


From the website linked from the denier blog...

quote Options for accessing this content: If you have access to this content through a society membership, please first log in to your society website. If your institution is on this list, you should login via openAthens. If it is not, please login via Athens Login via other institutional login options http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/login-options. You can purchase online access to this Article for a 24-hour period (price varies by title) If you already have a Wiley Online Library or Wiley InterScience user account: login above and proceed to purchase the article. New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-24-2013).]

quote Originally posted by newf: The fact that you said this strongly suggests that YOU didn't bother clicking your own links to read the paper. Unless of course you are using one of these options.

The relevant information is right in front of you. No need to get through the pay wall.

Thank you Fierobear. That is a significant paper. It explains a whole lot.

Arn

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The relevant information is right in front of you. No need to get through the pay wall.

Nice try.

So now we don't need the actual paper and are expected to trust the denier blogs cherry picked opinion?

Be sure and keep on denying even after the tipping point has been reached and we are dealing with a catastrophic climate change. My god! Have you no concern whatsoever? Just go on as you have because you don't want to change no matter what the cost. At some point it becomes a moral issue, not just a comfort zone for you.

Are you completely nuts or simply uninformed?

What catastrophic climate change?

All the doom and gloom spread by Al Gore and the IPCC 10 years ago has not happened.

Look outside, it is still winter out there and a record winter at that.

Arn

Long Term Global Warming Trend Continues
Posted by the NASA Earth Observatory on January 16, 2013

Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) say 2012 was the ninth warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The ten warmest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998. The last year that was cooler than average was 1976. . . .

The average temperature in 2012 was about 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.55°C (1.0°F) warmer than the mid-20th century base period. The average global temperature has increased 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880, and most of that change has occurred in the past four decades. . . .

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, the first year of the GISS temperature record. By 1960, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory, was about 315 parts per million. Today, that measurement exceeds 390 parts per million. . . .

The continental U.S. endured its warmest year on record by far, according to NOAA, the official keeper of U.S. weather records. NOAA also announced that global temperatures were 10th warmeston record by their analysis methods.

“The U.S. temperatures in the summer of 2012 are an example of a new trend of outlying seasonal extremes that are warmer than the hottest seasonal temperatures of the mid-20th century,” NASA GISS director James E. Hansen said. “The climate dice are now loaded. Some seasons still will be cooler than the long-term average, but the perceptive person should notice that the frequency of unusually warm extremes is increasing. It is the extremes that have the most impact on people and other life on the planet.”

http://earthobservatory.nas...TD/view.php?id=80167

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-25-2013).]

It would be interesting to see each member's response is to Marvin's questions. They're good homework questions.

I doubt anyone but "warmists" contribute considering we're the only ones who can get past the first question, but I'll go first.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Reality check -- Here is the hierarchy of fundamental scientific issues, as I see them: 1) Is the global climate actually warming?

Yes.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: If so, how much and how fast?

The BEST study shows we've warmed 1.5*C in the last 250 years with 0.9*C in the last 50 years alone (source). The BEST study confirmed the results of previous studies of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU and really discovered nothing new- the planet is indeed warming with a significant portion of warming occurring after 1950.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: If so: 2) Does human activity affect the existence or rate of warming?

Yes. According the BEST study, the changes in land surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes (cooling effect) and greenhouse gas emissions (warming effect).

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: If so: 3) Is human activity a significant factor? Is it the dominant factor?

Human CO2 emissions is the dominant factor. There is zero evidence of a better match. There are lots of "maybes" from the "Denier" side but no evidence, just conjecture.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: If so: 4) What mitigation is reasonable ... or even possible?

The first step is to stop digging a hole, we need to reduce emissions and stop destroying natural carbon sinks. We need to switch to alternate energy and renewable energy as soon as possible. The majority of our power should come from nuclear energy with renewables to supplement. Iceland runs 100% of their country on renewable and Brazil gets more than 85% of their energy from renewables. Switching to natural gas is also a very good idea. While it still emits CO2 from combustion, it emits 30% and 45% less than oil and coal respectively and would work well for transportation until the car/truck market matures. Fossil fuel based power stations should be forced to phase in some type of carbon capture system. We also need to increase the efficiency of products we use every day in order to conserve more energy, for instance switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs over incandescent.

Of course there are people who oppose all of that, even energy efficient light bulbs.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: What are the social and economic implications?

Here are some implications that I see.

While it's hotly debated, there are an increasing number of peer reviewed and published papers that attribute increased extreme weather frequency to climate change. Here are one, two, and three examples published in the "prestigious scientific journal", Nature.

Heat waves are a major health issue during the summer and generally require people to stay indoors and run the AC and therefore use more energy. Heat strokes are expected to rise due to climate change (source). While I'm aware there are other more major factors at play I found the following statistic interesting: There were only .18 football and heat related deaths per year from 1931-1959. After global warming "starts", this number jumps a magnitude of 14 times from 1960-2011 with 2.6 per year (source). The CDC also reports more deaths in recent years due to working in hot environments (source).

Here in the south lakes are very popular recreation in the summer. Due to the increased heat and drought most of our lakes are drying up. Anyone with a microscope who has studied ponds, rivers, or lakes notices a massive bloom of amoeba in the summer months. With "longer" summers, warmer water temperatures, and stagnate water exposure to dangerous amoeba will be more common. We have already had to close lakes due to dangerous amoeba levels. Also due to "longer" summers and shorter winters we have had a massive outbreak of West Nile virus, with Texas getting 1/3 of all cases in the US. I found the following graphics interesting due to correlations of record temperatures and concentrated outbreaks of West Nile, especially northern states.

Source.


Source.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: What are the consequences of doing nothing?

Depends on who you ask. The "Denier's" claim there will be nothing but benefits from climate change. However if you look at what's currently happening in the ocean to our reefs under very minor warming, you can expect the rest of the ecosystems to follow. Ecosystems millions of years old are crashing and will continue.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: At each stage the sole political question is, "At this level of knowledge, what should we do about it?" All of the argument I see in this thread (and most elsewhere) concerning the science seems to be stuck oscillating between questions 1) and 2), and the status-quo political answer at each stage seems to be, "Nothing!"

I agree. It's kind of like tackling the debt, spending, or social security shortfalls. Neither party is interested because both benefit, while the tax payer gets the bill for their warfare and welfare. It's all lip service and blame someone else.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: There are problems with that correlation.

Agreed, but don't count on him seeing it.

He's posted that before and I debunked it, the graphs aren't related at all, they just "look the same."

quote Originally posted by fierobear: It is your OPINION that what I post is rubbish because that is what you have convinced yourself that it is.

It is my opinion that most of what you post is rubbish. But it is a fact that most of what you post is debunked when looked at closely.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I post the stuff from Watts' site because it has commentary, but the articles I post have LINKS to the original material. The commentary points out the salient portions, and the articles are well linked to the source. I don't have time to read every climate paper, but folks like Watts seem to. Also, many papers are behind pay walls.

How are you a skeptic if you're not skeptical of Watts himself? You just blindly take his word for it because it fits your agenda. If you haven't read the paper yourself you shouldn't post it. You have a history of posting papers that do not agree with your general principal, just one cherry picked sentence that's usually taken out of context.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: If you disagree with the conclusion, that is one thing, but your tactic of discrediting the source while ignoring the fact that the articles are linked to the original material is simply wrong.

You're confused on why I discredit Watts as a source. You consider Watts reliable because he reads these studies for you and gives his own interpretation of why they cast doubt, but never disprove, climate change. It's Watt's interpretation that I have issues with.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Also, I posted the links directly from Watts' site several times, instead of the original links, on purpose, to see if you would take the bait (making the false argument about Watts site, and ignoring the linked material) and you did.

Anyone on this forum is capable of reading Watt's site themselves. You do not need to quote, word for word, with none of YOUR input whatsoever, and copy and paste an entire blog post into this thread. We care what YOU think. Not what Watts thinks.

Just posting an article with none of through thoughts what so ever as "bait" shows bad character. You leave it as an exercise to the reader to GUESS what you think about it. Why don't you just be up front and tell us what you think about it?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Sure you have. I've posted MANY peer review, published papers, and you just dismiss them because they disagree with your conclusion.

Post examples. I have debunked practically everything you've posted.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: There's that projection again. You made a statement you can't back up, about a journal that appears to be a joke, yet you attempt to turn it around on me. No dice, pal, I'm not letting you get away with it.

I fully expect you to kick and scream about a journal when you can't discredit the science. That's politics and it's what this thread is all about.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: So far, NONE of the supposed "disasters" that were supposed to be happening are in fact happening. All the scare stories about weather, hurricanes, tornadoes and the like are bullshit, and there is ample proof to back that statement up.

Then post your proof.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I strongly object to being taxed for something that isn't a problem. THAT is much more of a threat to my family than alleged global warming.

I suspect you only feel this way because you expect to be dead by the time anything bad starts to happen.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Is your objection the use of R Squared, or the math that the author used?

The fact you ask this question means you still do not understand why your "game set match" theory is flawed. I'm not saying the math doesn't work. I'm saying it's absolutely meaningless correlation because it's not present in the real world.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: FYI, this graph doesn't have the proper attributions. What is the source of the temperature and PDO data? "Skeptical Science" is not a sufficient answer.

"The relevant information is right in front of you"

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You seem to have missed the point of this. Repeating:

Do you even read what I post? I read that, I really did. But I have a feeling you didn't read the paper you cited, just someone else's interpretation again.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Until recently, it appeared that TSI might be insufficient to explain the temperature rise. I recently posted a new paper that suggests that TSI plus some kind of feedback may be affecting temperature sufficiently to explain the affect on climate. I'll repost it.

We already visited this. It turned out you were wrong and just taking NASA scientists out of context again. Your arguments have a lot of "maybes" but never anything definate.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Sure, I have one. Piltdown Man.

That's a poor example. It's easy for one person to lie and deceive for awhile. However, you suggest the ENTIRE scientific community, thousands and thousands of people, are conspiring in a climate change hoax. That's not in proportion to your example.

Is that your only example of the scientific consensus being wrong?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: "Addiction" is a nonsense term

What do you call the dependence on oil then?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, there's a mountain alright, and it is growing. But it is the bovine feces of "consensus science", being paid for a by governments that want to use global warming as an excuse to create monumental new taxes.

Then put forth solution that aren't based on governments making revenue.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: or Hansen's recently released statements about how he had to admit that temperatures have been flat for 5 years

It was actually 10 years. What's hilarious is you attacked me (bottom of this post) for stretching your argument to what I thought you meant by it, then later it turns out I was right (top of this post). Sounds like I stole your bait and left that hook dry.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: There is PLENTY of evidence for climate forcings other than CO2. I've presented such evidence before, and will continue to present it.

You constantly say you've posted evidence of whatever. I've only seen you post rubbish that I have debunked. So what is this evidence you're talking about?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: ... explains Dorthe Dahl-Jensen and adds that the bad news is that if Greenland’s ice did not disappear during the Eemian then Antarctica must be responsible for a significant portion of the 4-8 meter rise in sea levels that we know occurred during the Eemian. This new knowledge about past warm climates may help to clarify what is in store for us now that we are facing a global warming.

Funny how you didn't put any of that in bold. It may not have been Greenland but apparently Antarctica is responsible for the 13-26ft rise in sea levels due to the same warming.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-25-2013).]

Another big news story on this morning about climate change. I am going to make an occasional post in this thread from time to time because it is almost criminal to have a thread urging everyone to just turn their back on what is happening. We have already gone too long doing practically nothing to avert a catastrophe that we are causing. Yes climate change will happen regardless of human activity, but what we are doing will cause it to happen way faster and way more dangerous.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Another big news story on this morning about climate change. I am going to make an occasional post in this thread from time to time because it is almost criminal to have a thread urging everyone to just turn their back on what is happening. We have already gone too long doing practically nothing to avert a catastrophe that we are causing. Yes climate change will happen regardless of human activity, but what we are doing will cause it to happen way faster and way more dangerous.

It would be criminal to"do something" when nothing is required. Criminal is wasting huge amounts of money.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: It would be criminal to"do something" when nothing is required.

Inventors everywhere ... tremble! The Oracle has spoken. Every invention in history would be "criminal," because they were not strictly "required" at the time.

quote Criminal is wasting huge amounts of money.

Dictionary publishers everywhere ... quake! The Oracle has spoken. "Criminal" has been redefined.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Dictionary publishers everywhere ... quake! The Oracle has spoken. "Criminal" has been redefined.

It seems you are just being a smartass again, because I have trouble believing you are dumb enough not to know the difference between an inventor coming up with a new idea and a government mandate on taxing and spending.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-28-2013).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: It seems you are just being a smartass again ...

Being called a smartass by you is always a singular honor.

quote ... I have trouble believing you are dumb enough not to know the difference between an inventor coming up with a new idea and a government mandate on taxing and spending.

I don't presume to know what you intended, so I can only respond to what you actually wrote.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-28-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I don't presume to know what you intended, so I can only respond to what you actually wrote.

I made the statement as plain and simple as was necessary. If you don't understand it, then there's nothing I can do to help you.