Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
waldo

Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation

Recommended Posts

Repeatedly, over and over again, years on end, across many, many, MLW threads, we’ve had posers lay down the next latest and greatest “AGW killer”… the next "smoking gun", the next "silver bullet" that presumes to challenge prevailing science and the theory of AGW climate change. Of course, none of these attempts stands up to scrutiny… stands up to subsequent challenge. These MLW fake skeptics are loath to put any semblance of time/energy into actually examining the veracity of their cut & paste disinformation, some of which borders on outright falsification and lies. Of course, nothing has been sweeter than to resurrect past MLW debunking of the same tired old memes that keep being repeated, over and over again.

Inspired by a recent, now few days old shining example, this thread should act as a central targeted point to host the ongoing disinformation… rather than have it obscured and scattered across the plethora of ongoing/repeat threads. To that end, I offer up the following gem from a few days ago to start the thread off. It’s particularly noteworthy in that the OP follows a typical pattern of simply blinding linking to an article without actually offering any personal commentary.

Too bad the useless MSM won't pick up information that is contrary to the alarmists.

So… the OP of the above quote bemoans an apparent lack of mainstream media coverage of what surely would be one of the most monumental findings of recent decades; i.e., that undeveloped countries are emitting more CO2 than developed countries. Certainly, many of the usual suspect denier blogs fell, lock-step, into playing the related study up for all they could falsely milk from it… as for mainstream coverage, I did read an English language translation of like false coverage within a reputable online Japanese/Asian news site… but, yes, it didn’t appear to have any “legs” within western MSM. Go figure!

As for the actual study, On the Benefit of GOSAT Observations to the Estimation of Regional CO2 Fluxes:

The study itself wasn’t focused on emission levels, per se; rather, it looked at regional CO2 sources and sinks as measured by the Japanese JAXA GOSAT satellite… principally looking at improved satellite uncertainty relative to the known limitations of satellite monitoring of CO2 as compared to the more reliable ground-based data sets associated with globally positioned CO2 monitoring sites.

Certainly, it is well documented that across the world, regional seasonal changes in CO2 output exist… for example, the northern hemisphere acts as a CO2 sink in the summer given active photosynthesis and a CO2 source in the winter given respiration and a weaker uptake. The aforementioned study looked at these world-wide regional seasonal flux differences, comparing satellite to ground based measurements, with an emphasis on how the JAXA satellite is closing the uncertainty gap between satellite CO2 measurements as compared to ground-based CO2 monitoring. Equally, of course, the study also extended upon the obvious and well known; i.e., that the greatest amount of overall uncertainty associates to regions with sparse ground-based monitoring… areas where little industrialization exists… areas with low CO2 emissions… areas which precluded the need for concentrated monitoring.

Of course, what the serial disinformation crew did, purposely and knowingly, was to take a snapshot image of graphed regional uncertainty (
uncertainty, not actual emission levels
)… one that actually played to a coincidental timing of a cherry-picked seasonal sink vs. source, to falsely portray that less developed countries emit more CO2 than industrialized nations. That the false portrayal is so numbingly stupid doesn’t matter to the serial disinformers… these false skeptics… these deniers… revel in casting doubt and uncertainty, on any level. Plain and simple, that is their end-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, people will continue to blather on about their opinions, their wishes and their fears, in this age of disinformation. It matters not. The din of foolish bickering humans is drowned out by the roar of calving glaciers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most certainly, this is not the thread for those obsessed with anal line-by-line parsing of SonOfHackergate2.0 emails; however, a cursory glance at that parallel running thread shows one of the usual suspects up to his standard disinformation routine... where he even harkens back to the original Hackergate1.0; specifically:

Out of context, they are misleading... yes it matters.

What do you think when you read a leaked private email from a climate scientist who says it's a travesty that we can't show warming?

What? Tremberth admits to his buddies that the sceptics are right and there a gap between the measured temperatures and the models? How is that out of context? Knowing that he thinks that they can adjust the data instead of changing the theory does not help his case.

context? Anyone? :lol: Ah yes - good times... back to the future... as addressed previously!

Within the hacked email thread, Trenberth offers a reply where he mentions
, offers local weather anecdotes, names his paper (
An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
) & provides a link to locate it... and then offers the much parroted quote:
From: Kevin Trenberth <[email protected]>

To: Michael Mann <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

Cc: Stephen H Schneider <[email protected]>, Myles Allen <[email protected]>, peter stott <[email protected]>, "Philip D. Jones" <[email protected]>, Benjamin Santer <[email protected]>, Tom Wigley <[email protected]>, Thomas R Karl <[email protected]>, Gavin Schmidt <[email protected]>, James Hansen <[email protected]>, Michael Oppenheimer <[email protected]>

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.

..... it could be just as simple as omitting a single word... oh, like the word, "
increased
" - “
the lack of
increased
warming
”… but a word really unnecessary given the context of the email thread topic/discussion. But hey now!

So what did Trenberth really say... contextually say... in the context of his noted paper reference? The paper where he unequivocally states that long-term global warming is occurring; that the long-term trend shows an upward trend with strong decadal oscillations and that within this trend pattern are many natural variances, each at different timescales… … where the 90s had a greater rate of warming, partially due to the strong El Nino of 1998, while the 2000s have been of slower warming… still warming, but relatively less than the 90s.

The essence of Trenberth’s paper, the one his quote reflects upon (the paper he names/links, after the altered quote being parroted by the denialsphere)… is one that speaks to an assessment of that natural variability in terms of being able to track the natural variability energy that gets rearranged or changed within the climate system. Trenberth’s paper, his explanation of his own hacked email quote… has nothing to do with Riverwind’s continued unfounded slams toward climate models. Trenberth suggests the ability to track natural variances, the energy rearrangements/changes associated with them, is not robust… that developing improved methods of tracking the energy changes associated with natural variance is required… you know – because it might help to account for the “
lack of
increased
warming
” seen in latter years, relative to the 90s.

But hey now! Trenberth’s assertion that improvement in measuring/tracking natural variance energy “flow changes”, surely, can’t be good for the deniers who want to hang their hat on natural variance, if they even admit that global warming is occurring. You know, the denier bunch who themselves can’t provide any support around their natural variance claims… the denier bunch who can’t actually provide any evidence that measures and tracks radiative (heat) flux changes associated with natural variances (the “stuff” Trenberth says needs improvement)... the denier bunch who can’t actually provide any evidence to soundly refute AGW global warming. Surely, the denier bunch can’t be… won’t be… in favour of Trenberth’s assertion that would actually help them make their case in support of natural variance. Noooooo… they would rather anally line-by-line parse emails and sling mud… cause they can!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again... continued disinformation playing out within the current parallel running SonOfHackergate2.0 thread... is there a pattern here? :lol:

I am objecting to the claim that 'hiding the decline' is a normal scientific procedure. It was an attempt to hide adverse results in order to present a 'cleaner' story to public.

ah yes... 'hiding in plain sight'! Just how much mileage can a serial disinformer presume to milk from this particularly egregious effort? Of course, this has reached meme status within the fake skeptic world and we've previously addressed it across numerous MLW threads. I'm particularly partial to the following quote-stream that properly frames the somewhat obscure newsletter cover page from the World Meteorological Organization... that clearly states the supporting peer-review papers that substantiated the basis for the cover graphic... that clearly acknowledges, completely and absolutely, the technique used in creating the cover graphic. Yup... 'hiding in plain sight'!.

The "decline" in "hide the decline" refers post 1960 divergance which they needed to hide in a graph prepared for the WMO. The trick which was apperantly used in 'Mike's nature paper' was to chop off the adverse data, attach the instrumental record and smooth the result. The net result is a "tidy" graph that looked great for alarmists peddling panic but dishonestly presented the data.
... this WMO cover is the foundation of the ever-burgeoning McIntyre, "never-ending audit". Let's make sure we have the actual newsletter/brochure for reference -
: I invite you to critique the article itself in terms of inaccuracies, particularly as you might infer reflect upon the actual cover... I'll remind you if you fail to bring forward that critique. Of course, as you see, the cover graphic includes direct reference to the 3 related peer-review papers that substantiate it. I also invite you to read the page 2 that includes acknowledgements for the front (and back) covers. Let me take the liberty of actually quoting that page 2 front cover acknowledgment. Of course, let's keep this all in the perspective of those previous IPCC graphics I linked you to... you know, the one's you keep ignoring.
Front cover
: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), {u]
along with historical and long instrumental records.
[/u]
The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at
) and the National Geophysical Data Center (
(Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann, University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the media driven 70's global cooling meme... anyone? :lol:

Many people have heard about how scientists were predicting a long cooling period back in 1975 - but it's interesting to read the original article from NewsWeek, 1975.

How many times do we have to point out that Newsweek is Not a scientific journal? It feels like we have pointed this out a dozen times,

What Newsweek published to sell magazines in the 70s isn't indicative of the science. Even at the time, this was a minority view.

yes, again... a quick MLW search shows that Simple has brought this same meme forward in the past. As follows, a previous MLW post that references a meta study that looked at the actual scientific publications of the 70's, reinforcing that, indeed, as we keep highlighting each and every time the usual MLW suspects bring this 70's global cooling meme forward, it was simply media driven without any scientific consensus/foundation:

at no time was a cooling earth the predominant thought on climate change...even in the 60's or 70's...public hysteria over a couple of magazine articles, even at that time a warming planet was the dominant view... but the idea of a warming planet wasn't very exciting or newsworthy to a scientifically illiterate media and public...

wyly, yet again? We've dealt with this 70's global cooling nonsense previously in other MLW threads... I note the usual suspects have lined up again to attempt to continue to foster this media perpetrated myth. Once more with vinegar, here's the
that most authoritatively speaks to what scientists of the 70's were (not)saying/(not)writing about global cooling:
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This provides a glimpse into the real problem we have in society today, and why I have accepted the fact we are utterly finished, by our own hand. We cannot win the argument, because it is an argument.

We have reached this point in our evolution, kind of like painting ourselves into a corner. We as a society/ culture turned our backs on the old ways and wisdom. In our self-centred attention we do not learn from history. The internet became a fantastic tool with the potential for sharing knowledge and helping people understand each other, but now there is too much information, so that it is impossible to tell the difference between truth and lies. That has become the final "nail in the coffin" for us, that we are paralyzed by the inability to discern truth, and refuse to acknowledge there is a real such thing as right, and wrong. And so now down that road we must go. It is inevitable. I hear it in the whispering trees...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The internet became a fantastic tool with the potential for sharing knowledge and helping people understand each other, but now there is too much information, so that it is impossible to tell the difference between truth and lies. That has become the final "nail in the coffin" for us, that we are paralyzed by the inability to discern truth, and refuse to acknowledge there is a real such thing as right, and wrong. And so now down that road we must go. It is inevitable. I hear it in the whispering trees...

your internet reference is most apropos, particularly as relates to those leading and more prominent “false climate change sceptics” parlaying their own postmodernism science leanings. These false skeptics tout the need to embrace a denying segment of the internet to “counter” their presumed failings of the scientific method.

these false sceptics have concerns that the internet denialsphere isn’t being given it’s just due… isn’t being leveraged enough/appropriately to counter the prevailing science… to counter the vast majority of scientists who overwhelming accept the theory of AGW climate change. These leading and more prominent false sceptics embrace the overt failings of denier blogs – of “blog science”… they prey upon the weak and lazy false sceptics who willingly and feverishly deny their own critical thinking and sheepishly accept and extend upon the most outlandish claims, fabrications, distortions and outright lies disseminated through the internet climate change denialsphere.

of course, the anti-science brokers leverage the internet to subtlety, to overtly… to covertly influence false sceptics and, ultimately, the mainstream – see Heartland Institute, see Cato Institute, see Koch Brothers, see George C. Marshall Institute, see Competitive Enterprise Institute, see GWPF, see etc., etc., etc.

now... your projection is more pessimistic than some; although, certainly, at times, it seems the outright stupidity of fake skeptics overwhelms. Your emphasis on truth is key - truth will/does win out. The only real question is how much damage can/will the fake skeptics bring to bear, particularly those types who play upon a "Concern Troll" theme... the type who grudgingly "accept" the science... falsely "accept" the science... with an aim intent to draw out the timeline for action - delay is their game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the media driven 70's global cooling meme... anyone? :lol:

oh my! Apparently so... from another concurrently running MLW thread that presumes to disinform using Wiki (no less)

By minority view, I'm talking about a minority of climate scientists. It was a fringe idea, as are UFOs crystal power and the like.

Pure revisionist history:
The first director of the unit was Professor Hubert Lamb.[6] He had led research into climatic variation at the Met Office and was chair of the UN's World Meteorological Organisation, which already studied climate trends and the effect of pollution upon them.[6]
He was then known as the "ice man" for his prediction of global cooling and a coming ice age
but, following the UK's exceptionally hot summer of 1976, he switched to predicting a more imminent global warming.[6]

The director of CRU was NOT some fringe scientist. People may have disagreed with him but attempting to characterize the belief in a coming ice age as fringe is dishonest.

of course, even a cursory check/review will realize the wiki quote acknowledgment has been "conveniently" tailored. In actuality, Hubert Lamb did project a coming ice-age (as many scientists did/do)... in the context of 10,000 years from now. Of course, those attempting to parlay the false media driven 70's global cooling meme, also "conveniently" conflate a 70's extension of global cooling, on a decadal scale, with extended millennium spans of time. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an interesting point of departure... one that reinforces caution when disinformation ala Wiki runs strong, runs deep! Per the aforementioned post that presumed to disinform about CRU/Hubert Lamb using a referenced Wiki article:

... from another concurrently running MLW thread that presumes to disinform using Wiki (no less)

It is on wikipedia with a link to the source. Is that not enough?

of course, those that manipulate Wiki for their disinformation purposes/agenda, either haven't the wherewithal to recognize that edit history typically showcases any underlying contention in the referenced articles, or... they just don't care about contention within an article. Last Wiki edit "wins", particularly when casting doubt and uncertainty is the fake skeptics game. Within this referenced Wiki article's edit history, we see a fairly robust exchange between Wiki contributors over the use/inclusion of the term "ice man" and how the Wiki article falsely portrays Hubert Lamb's view on a glaciation cycle timeframe with his concerns over imminent global warming ... as follows, a couple of choice quotes from various contributing editors within the article's Wiki edit history:

CW, this rare titbit of arcane data about Lamb has no place in a short article about a college unit. You know it. It doesn't belong. It doesn't even flow with the text; it stands out like a sore thumb. Deniers and sceptics are always saying how "warmists" used to be in panic about a new ice age, and now they're panicking about heat... you must think we were born yesterday. Your motives are transparent.

This is misleading and taken out of context. If you check the source, you will see that the "cooling" prediction refers to the normal ice age/glaciation cycle, on the order of 10000 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah yes, well played... they just keep coming! :lol: From another concurrently running MLW thread:

.....OK to clearly state that there
WAS
significant cooling from the 40's to the 70's - in spite of rising CO2.

so... significant mid-century cooling? Significant? Really? Only in fake skeptic world would an approximate 0.1°C temperature decrease... across the total 1940-1975 period... only would that level be deemed "significant". Of course, whether today or mid-century, total forcings account for observed temperature trends. Fake skeptics seem to have an aversion to 'big picture' long-term trends, particularly when in disinform mode. In actuality, anthropogenic sourced CO2 warming during that 1940-1975 period did occur... in the order of 0.4°C global warming. That "significant" 0.1°C cooling simply reflects upon the overall 0.5°C cooling during that overall trending period. (0.5°C global cooling - 0.4°C global warming => 0.1°C cooling trend - wow! Just wow... how "significant"!).

equally, ask a fake skeptic to qualify... to attribute cause(s) to that 0.1°C cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Can we say, pollution based global dimming due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosol emissions? Sure we can! Post war rapid industrialization relying principally upon unfettered coal burning and on a complete absence of industrial regulation... there you go.

so... along comes the 70's emphasis on cleaning up industrial pollution... clean air acts... sulphate emission regulation... cleaner refined fuels, etc. Lo and behold, post 1975 to present day we see an approximate 0.2°C global warming per decade, as attributed to anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions. Go figure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another example of a very lame article from the MSM... disinformation of another kind! Have the media no decent science writers left?????

in any case, as I've offered many times in the past, it's a single paper (here)... and like any paper, it will need to stand-up to peer-response. The following is a good article/interview of one the paper's co-authors. Near the end of the article a Q&A brings forward significant identified caveats underlying the papers conclusions; most notably, their approach in combining/reconciling land and sea surface data, model limitations and, in particular, their utilization of a new and unchallenged Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) temperature reconstruction... the co-author advises the papers lower sensitivity conclusion is directly attributed to their lower (warmer) LGM temperature reconstruction (one significantly lower than that utilized within previous sensitivity studies).

early 'informal' comments have begun to come forward; a most notable one here: from a preeminent scientist recognized for his work in modeling/sensitivity analysis.

and... of course... this lower sensitivity paper has become the 'darling' of the fake skeptic bunch - the same guys who relentlessly attack temperature reconstructions and continually malign climate models. Apparently... these fake skeptics have no problem with this studies reconstruction or it's modeling! Go figure! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide a link on Lamb's theories ? The link on the wiki page TimG provided didn't work.

TimG's linked wiki article's source reference link works for me... here (p. 285):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put things in perspective - those downward-revised temperature projections are based on a doubling of CO2 - that might increase temperatures by 2.0 degrees. At the rate we're going - about two PPM per year, that would take almost two hundred years. Do you really think that we're going to be driving cars in 50 years that have to be filled with gas? Just look at the accellerated science of the last 100 years - the last 50 years - and project that forward. Even if we continue to use fossil fuels - engines will be more efficient as will emission controls and other remediation. "Dirty" fossil fuels are becoming cleaner every year.

Edited by Keepitsimple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another example of a very lame article from the MSM... disinformation of another kind! Have the media no decent science writers left?????

You make me laugh. You exhibit the same behavior as those you accuse of in others. A person can agree with you in principle but if they dispute your version of the truth by one iota, they are committing heresy.

I can accept that there is global warming and that C02 emissions generated by human activity are a factor in that warming but only a fool would believe that climate science temperature estimates for decades into the future are accurate to within tenths of a degree or the full extent of their consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To put things in perspective - those downward-revised temperature projections are based on a doubling of CO2 - that might increase temperatures by 2.0 degrees. At the rate we're going - about two PPM per year, that would take almost two hundred years. Do you really think that we're going to be driving cars in 50 years that have to be filled with gas? Just look at the accellerated science of the last 100 years - the last 50 years - and project that forward. Even if we continue to use fossil fuels - engines will be more efficient as will emission controls and other remediation. "Dirty" fossil fuels are becoming cleaner every year.

notwithstanding examples of continued ongoing rapid accelerated CO2 emissions like the 2010 6% record increase in CO2 levels, as is the fake skeptics way, you completely ignore 'longer-term' amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks... like ice sheet melting, migrating vegetation, GHG release from soils/tundra/ocean (most notably methane emissions from melting tundra). Counter to your overt dismissive position, there is certainly no shortage of fake skeptics... along with a few legitimate guys... who have previously attempted to make a case for lower sensitivity - none of those previous studies have prevailed through scientific peer-response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
another example of a very lame article from the MSM... disinformation of another kind! Have the media no decent science writers left?????
You make me laugh. You exhibit the same behavior as those you accuse of in others. A person can agree with you in principle but if they dispute your version of the truth by one iota, they are committing heresy.

your linked BBC article is a poor representation of the paper; aside from that, have another read of my post where I take the time to actually offer legitimate criticism/caveats of the paper (including that from one of the paper's own co-authors, no less).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see Waldo is flailing away with posts on his own topic. Yawn..... ;)

Simple... this thread is your opportunity to showcase your self-proclaimed 'legitimate' skepticism. Unfortunately, even in the early days of this thread, there are already two examples of recent day instances where you've shown your actual false skeptic self:

-
firstly
, we have you starting off presuming to offer a contradictory premise where you, with the grandest lack of specificity, labeled 1940s-1970s global cooling as... "significant"... particularly in relation to rising CO2 levels. Of course, as is the fake skeptic way, you neither qualified "significant", nor did you even attempt to attribute said "significant" cooling... or what brought us out of the "significant" cooling. Of course I was quite content to highlight your consistency with past MLW threads where you have shown no understanding of temperature trending, where the actual degree of "significant" cooling amounted to only 0.1°C cooling over the entire 1940-1975 period, where you avoided any correlation of temperature to total forcings, where you avoided any causal attribution for either the "significant" 0.1°C cooling over the entire 1940-1975 global cooling or the post-1975 0.2°C
per decade
warming. In contrast to you, I actually offered causal ties to both the 1940-1975 & post-1975 periods... you could actually take a stab at attempting to be a real skeptic by assigning your own inferred alternative attributions. You could that, right?

-
secondly
, we have you taking a nonsensical position against climate sensitivity. You weren't even speaking to a challenge of low(er) versus high(er) sensitivity; rather, your comments outright challenged the timing on reaching a doubling of the pre-industrial 280ppm CO2 concentration level. You incorrectly (falsely) presume on a linear versus accelerated response to CO2 doubling. You completely ignored positive feedback mechanisms on any level and the effect they have on the direct 1.2°C direct warming associated with a doubling of CO2. I responded to your relatively 'longer-term' time frame by highlighting the 'longer-term' amplifying carbon-cycle positive feedbacks you completely ignored/discounted... like ice sheet melting, migrating vegetation, GHG release from soils/tundra/ocean (most notably methane emissions from melting tundra). Equally, you, of course, also ignored the 'shorter-term', faster feedback mechanisms like water vapour and ice-melting albedo.

as you say Simple... just who is flailing here... other than you? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yah know, one thing about the whole GW debate, it is pretty funny at times! :D

really? Although your comment is rather ambiguously targeted, a quick cursory check of your MLW past immediately pops out a couple of gems where you proclaim, "warming peaked in 1998", and that we're, "probably entering a normal cooling trend". Now, granted... these are your past statements and you may no longer hold such arcane positions; accordingly, it's a bit difficult to properly frame your above quote... you know, say... are you speaking to funny ha-ha, or... funny rapartee, or funny sarcastic, or.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really? Although your comment is rather ambiguously targeted, a quick cursory check of your MLW past immediately pops out a couple of gems where you proclaim, "warming peaked in 1998", and that we're, "probably entering a normal cooling trend". Now, granted... these are your past statements and you may no longer hold such arcane positions; accordingly, it's a bit difficult to properly frame your above quote... you know, say... are you speaking to funny ha-ha, or... funny rapartee, or funny sarcastic, or.....

Now that there could be really hilarious! You are soooo serious about finding out which kind of funny I am expressing! And the first thing you do is dig into my past to see what my past associations with the topic at hand are. You, my friend, are practicing religion and you don't even know it. I hope you find fulfillment in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...