Comments on: Where is the media on the incredible warming and extreme weather of February? http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:24:56 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: regeya http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-10959 regeya Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:42:19 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-10959 Looking back at this, a full month later (I was obsessing over whether or not America would be plunged into another Great Depression at the time) it's funny to watch the argument here. Some claim cooling, some claim warming, some claim the warming is causing cooling, some that cooling is causing warming. How about y'all get along and just say 'climate change'? And let's stop ignoring the important issues--we humans just keep on polluting. Surely we're having a negative effect somewhere. Well, it can be proven that we do have a negative effect, but it's not 100% provable that we're having a profound effect on the environment. But that's no excuse to keep on polluting as usual. Just the fact that we're making the air and land toxic should be enough to persuade us to change--no need to obsess over climate data, just leave that to the climatologists, economists, and farmers to worry about. Looking back at this, a full month later (I was obsessing over whether or not America would be plunged into another Great Depression at the time) it’s funny to watch the argument here.

Some claim cooling, some claim warming, some claim the warming is causing cooling, some that cooling is causing warming. How about y’all get along and just say ‘climate change’? And let’s stop ignoring the important issues–we humans just keep on polluting. Surely we’re having a negative effect somewhere. Well, it can be proven that we do have a negative effect, but it’s not 100% provable that we’re having a profound effect on the environment.

But that’s no excuse to keep on polluting as usual. Just the fact that we’re making the air and land toxic should be enough to persuade us to change–no need to obsess over climate data, just leave that to the climatologists, economists, and farmers to worry about.

]]> By: Patrick49 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9880 Patrick49 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:29:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9880 Joe, If you haven't cut and run you might respond to:. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html Looks like the IPCCC can't handle or explain the recent leveling out of global temperature since 1998, an event which you claim hasn't happened but the IPCC apparently recognizes as happening. By the way there has been no response on the questions raised on March 19th. Just a reminder. Joe,
If you haven’t cut and run you might respond to:.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/ story/ 0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Looks like the IPCCC can’t handle or explain the recent leveling out of global temperature since 1998, an event which you claim hasn’t happened but the IPCC apparently recognizes as happening. By the way there has been no response on the questions raised on March 19th. Just a reminder.

]]> By: Patrick49 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9810 Patrick49 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:47:13 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9810 "Already debunked. On this website." is a classic example of hubris- overbearing pride or presumption arrogance, haughtiness, hauteur, high-handedness, lordliness - overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner. There are 400 scientists who diasagreed in a documented approach to Congress as well as 19,000 scientists, engineers and technical individuals who signed an anti-Kyoto statement on Professor Seitz's website. “Already debunked. On this website.” is a classic example of hubris-
overbearing pride or presumption
arrogance, haughtiness, hauteur, high-handedness, lordliness – overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner.
There are 400 scientists who diasagreed in a documented approach to Congress as well as 19,000 scientists, engineers and technical individuals who signed an anti-Kyoto statement on Professor Seitz’s website.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9716 Joe Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:50:40 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9716 The deniers aren't Einstein or Bohr. Stop kidding yourself. We didn't stop warming in 1998. Already debunked. On this website. The deniers aren’t Einstein or Bohr. Stop kidding yourself. We didn’t stop warming in 1998. Already debunked. On this website.

]]> By: Patrick49 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9713 Patrick49 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:02:08 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9713 Apparently you missed completely the Einstein/Bohr reference which was intended to highlight the civil tone in scientific debates in the past which has been the debased by the GW alarmists resort to personal attacks, name calling, ie deniers, nonsense remarks and a superiority complex which supports the Manns and Hansens who refused to open and share their data and methodology with the scientific community. Had either of these gentleman worked for me while providing questionable information or erroneous data for 6 years or longer that resulted in massive investments they would have either been fired or promoted into positions where they could do no harm. Apparently you missed completely the Einstein/Bohr reference which was intended to highlight the civil tone in scientific debates in the past which has been the debased by the GW alarmists resort to personal attacks, name calling, ie deniers, nonsense remarks and a superiority complex which supports the Manns and Hansens who refused to open and share their data and methodology with the scientific community. Had either of these gentleman worked for me while providing questionable information or erroneous data for 6 years or longer that resulted in massive investments they would have either been fired or promoted into positions where they could do no harm.

]]> By: Patrick49 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9687 Patrick49 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:02:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9687 Since the global temperature peaked in 1998 according to recent observations, could the model projections be wrong? I have raised the following question with a number of GW alarmist, including Al Gore nd the Royal Society without a response. Perhaps you can provide answers. Question1 -has any projection used by the IPCC or other GW advocates forecasted, predicted or otherwise foreseen a cooling period or a little ice age in the future? Question 2 -could any of the current computer models with their climate theories, complex assumptions, complex climate models and positive feedback loops forecast, predict, or foresee a cooling period or litttle ice age in the future? Question 3 -since a rather steady state CO2 content had little or no effect on the earth's cyclical climate for 10,000 years and the recent warming trend has moderated since 1998 while the atmospheric CO2 increased are the repeated iterations of the computer models falsifying the role of CO2 in the earth's climate? Repeated iterations of the Mandelbrot set equation drives the results to infinity or zero. it is possible that the GW computer simulations drive the result to ever higher temperatures just by how the assumptions on the CO2 effect are designed, weighted and looped , isn't it. Since the global temperature peaked in 1998 according to recent observations, could the model projections be wrong? I have raised the following question with a number of GW alarmist, including Al Gore nd the Royal Society without a response. Perhaps you can provide answers.
Question1
-has any projection used by the IPCC or other GW advocates forecasted, predicted or otherwise foreseen a cooling period or a little ice age in the future?
Question 2
-could any of the current computer models with their climate theories, complex assumptions, complex climate models and positive feedback loops forecast, predict, or foresee a cooling period or litttle ice age in the future?
Question 3
-since a rather steady state CO2 content had little or no effect on the earth’s cyclical climate for 10,000 years and the recent warming trend has moderated since 1998 while the atmospheric CO2 increased are the repeated iterations of the computer models falsifying the role of CO2 in the earth’s climate? Repeated iterations of the Mandelbrot set equation drives the results to infinity or zero. it is possible that the GW computer simulations drive the result to ever higher temperatures just by how the assumptions on the CO2 effect are designed, weighted and looped , isn’t it.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9674 Joe Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:31:54 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9674 Enough, Patrick. My writing was NOT garbled. You said the (well-known denier) website Climate Audit still believes (incorrectly) that the Hockey stick has been debunked. I wrote: "Gosh — a website that denies science … wait for it … still denies science! I’m shocked." Nothing garbled there. I know I'm not Einstein. But apparently you think Steve McIntyre is Bohr. NOT! Of course AGW is falsifiable. Sadly for the human race, all the recent observations have vindicated it -- indeed, as I've written, they all tend to be on the high end of model projections. Again, I'm not going to keep responding to your nonsense. You seem to be a Delayer-1000, unless you have a plan to avoid 1000 ppm. Enough, Patrick. My writing was NOT garbled. You said the (well-known denier) website Climate Audit still believes (incorrectly) that the Hockey stick has been debunked. I wrote:

“Gosh — a website that denies science … wait for it … still denies science! I’m shocked.”

Nothing garbled there.

I know I’m not Einstein. But apparently you think Steve McIntyre is Bohr. NOT!

Of course AGW is falsifiable. Sadly for the human race, all the recent observations have vindicated it — indeed, as I’ve written, they all tend to be on the high end of model projections.

Again, I’m not going to keep responding to your nonsense. You seem to be a Delayer-1000, unless you have a plan to avoid 1000 ppm.

]]> By: Patrick49 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9668 Patrick49 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:28:22 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9668 Joe, Apparently your reading and comprehension skills are as garbled as your writing. Einstein didn't call Bohr a denier of science, he debated him openly, in public and it was front page on the NY Times. Today the GW alarmists efforts are aimed at censoring , closing down any and all debate and by refusing to debate bona fide scientists who challenge with scientific facts the still unproven role of mankind in the cyclical warm period that was experienced up to 1998. GW alarmists refuse to accept that their view is only a theory and "a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable". Is the human caused global warming theory falsifiable? Has it been shown to be falsifiable? Is the theory that CO2 causes global warming falsifiable? Saying that a scientist is a denier is easy, proving it is more difficult Joe,
Apparently your reading and comprehension skills are as garbled as your writing. Einstein didn’t call Bohr a denier of science, he debated him openly, in public and it was front page on the NY Times. Today the GW alarmists efforts are aimed at censoring , closing down any and all debate and by refusing to debate bona fide scientists who challenge with scientific facts the still unproven role of mankind in the cyclical warm period that was experienced up to 1998.
GW alarmists refuse to accept that their view is only a theory and “a theory that explains scientific observations; “scientific theories must be falsifiable”. Is the human caused global warming theory falsifiable? Has it been shown to be falsifiable? Is the theory that CO2 causes global warming falsifiable? Saying that a scientist is a denier is easy, proving it is more difficult

]]> By: Bob B http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9660 Bob B Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:50:04 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9660 Joe, they are not deniers of science. They keep on showing data and hard facts and the warmingistas still show emotion Joe, they are not deniers of science. They keep on showing data and hard facts and the warmingistas still show emotion

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9656 Joe Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:32:16 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/11/where-is-the-media-on-the-incredible-warming-and-extreme-weather-of-february/#comment-9656 I agree that Climateaudit.org makes no sense. Who cares if they don't put up a white flag. They are deniers of science. I agree that Climateaudit.org makes no sense. Who cares if they don’t put up a white flag. They are deniers of science.

]]>