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

Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation

Recommended Posts

Yep. I think that about sums it up. When you have 100% belief in something as tenuous as the theory that humans are the driving force behind Climate Change......well, that really is religion....and yes, quite sad.

Simple, take back that MLW fake skeptic throne you used to reign... fight back the usurping wanabees. Now I realize you're still smarting over my most recent responses to you in this thread... don't hold it against me that I showed your frivolous claim of "significant" 40-70's cooling wasn't so... "significant". Don't be hurtin just cause I dissed your nonsensical position on climate sensitivity. Take back your rightful throne Simple!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Waldo, does it appeal to you to show your detractors real skepticism ? So why not post summaries of such arguments ?

Then, at least, Sharkman and KeepItSimple will get exposure to the types of arguments that they should be providing...

In any case, it's just calling people names at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absurd to insist that Waldo should give a counter-argument to his own points, simply because those who disagree with him have no scientifical basis for their claims!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absurd to insist that Waldo should give a counter-argument to his own points, simply because those who disagree with him have no scientifical basis for their claims!

He "shouldn't" do anything he doesn't want to. At this point the thread, and the discussion in general, is dead. Waldo has expressed admiration for skepticism so I invite him to try something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He "shouldn't" do anything he doesn't want to. At this point the thread, and the discussion in general, is dead. Waldo has expressed admiration for skepticism so I invite him to try something new.

I did respond to your earlier suggestion... here: Manny captures it quite succinctly with the emphasis on fake skeptics failing to present a scientific basis for their claims, which effectively are nothing more than parroting the denialsphere blogs or the mainstream industry hack churnalists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

satire?... unfortunately not... the following economist's grasp on the consequences of unrestrained global warming is quite illuminating and reflective on a certain group of practicing fake skeptics. He polishes it off with a bow to some unknown... but expected... geo-engineering panacea - oh my! In praise of Dirty Energy

I hold these positions

- Climate Change is almost certainly real

- Humans are almost certainly causing it with carbon emissions, deforestation and domestication of animals

- There will be large environmental costs associated with climate change include a very rapid increase in extinctions

- There are likely to be major population dislocations because of climate change

- There are likely to be major agricultural shifts because of climate change.

Nonetheless, we should pursue the development of fossil fuels as rapidly as possible including looking for ways to streamline regulation in North American regarding fossil fuel production.

Why?

The Immediate Concerns.

- We are in the midst of a long Aggregate Demand slowdown in the Northern Hemisphere. This could be alleviated in part by increases in investment demand. Encouraging the exploration of fossil fuels provides this investment demand. It is like free stimulus for the economy.

- We have a serious dearth of high paying jobs for middle-brow men in this country. Energy extraction, refining and transport provide a potential attractor for these men. Otherwise we will face serious social consequences from watching the wage of these men fall to minimum wage and an increase in permanent joblessness.

- Global growth is constrained by natural resources at the moment, chief among them energy. The speed at which the entire globe can grow is limited by the availability of energy sources and puts us in a rare zero-sum fight over growth. No, this is not a permanent state of affairs even without fossil fuels. High energy prices will induce development both in energy saving and the production of new sources. But, this could take a very long time and produce a high tension period lasting potentially for over a decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He "shouldn't" do anything he doesn't want to. At this point the thread, and the discussion in general, is dead. Waldo has expressed admiration for skepticism so I invite him to try something new.
I don't know if you are serious and really believe waldo or you are trying to bait him. The fact is waldo's endless drivel about 'fake sceptics' is simply a talking point he uses to denigrate anyone who disagrees with him. As far as I am concerned he has no comprehension of what skepticism means and it is rather pointness to try and convince him to be sceptical. He is not here to debate, think and learn. He is here to peddle alarmist propoganda. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if you are serious and really believe waldo or you are trying to bait him. The fact is waldo's endless drivel about 'fake sceptics' is simply a talking point he uses to denigrate anyone who disagrees with him. As far as I am concerned he has no comprehension of what skepticism means and it is rather pointness to try and convince him to be sceptical. He is not here to debate, think and learn. He is here to peddle alarmist propoganda.

as I said, you are the poster-boy for fake skepticism. You have been repeatedly requested, many, many times over, to provide an alternate principal causal link/tie for GW/CC, one other than anthropogenic sourced CO2... your response... crickets! You deny the science - your so called 'brand' of skepticism is nothing more than skepticism for denial sake.

you can't argue the science; you've never been able to. Your forte is to distract from the science, to lobby for no action/for delay, to downplay absolutely anything that speaks positively of the progress of sustainable energy, to shill for BigOil, to denigrate climate science proper, to broadly attack the character/reputation of climate scientists, at large, to incessantly parrot the denialsphere, to continually devolve into conspiracy on multiple levels... and... to play the victim while liberally dispensing your personal brand of TimG denigration - following are your words from posts just within this thread... just this thread! - clearly, your brand of so-called skepticism on full display!

"fanatical whack job like you...; You are religious fanatic...; exposes you for what you are: a fanatical propagandist that has no interest in the science...; the tenets of your IPCC religion...; being an idiot screaming...; alarmists peddling panic...; peddle alarmist propaganda...; criticize their church".

you presume to suggest a comprehension of, as you say, "what skepticism means". And yet, not once that I can recall, have you ever... ever... directly, or even indirectly, questioned/challenged another MLW "skeptic". You appear quite content to let the most egregious disinformation and outright lies stand, for no other reason than they cast 'doubt & uncertainty'... and that is your principal game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you can't argue the science; you've never been able to.
You are deluding yourself. I have argued the science many times. The trouble with you is when you realize you have no rational response you change the topic and start hurling ad homs. This response is a perfect example of you running like a dog when you have no argument.

My argument in this case is pure science: i.e. there is no information content in that data that would allow Mann to calibrate that data using regression. This is based on an understanding of what regression is and how it works. It does not require a "paper" to support it any more than saying 2+2=4 does not require a "paper" to support it. It is part of the basic knowledge that you should have if you wish to discuss this topic. If you wish to argue that my understanding of these basic concepts is wrong then you need to construct an argument that shows exactly how regression could work with such data. The trouble is you can't do that because don't understand the concepts or you do understand and you know I am 100% correct so you choose to change the topic.

In either case, I have tried to argue with you by following your endless diversions but I have decided it is a waste of time. If you demonstrate that you are capable of staying on topic then I would continue to 'argue the science'. Until then, I have better things to do.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it's good, it's an indication that the denier/conspiracy world has nothing left

to offer...the debate CC/AGW is essentially over, whats being debated now is how quickly changes will occur, how severe will be the damage and what can be done to lessen the damage...

This.

Why argue when the same points have been repeatedly countered on this board and the scientific community.

The deniers left are willful deniers who won't be convinced. If you want to argue with a brick wall, then arguing with a denier is just as good.

There are still areas of dicussion, like what steps we should be taking to curb our negative effect toward climate change. Then we can argue what degree of efforts is necessary, whether we should be using technology to solve the problem, whether capitalism fits with an environmental model to prevent the human race from killing itself to begin with, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are deluding yourself. I have argued the science many times.

look no further than this thread... just a few posts back. Typical of you "arguing the science", is you dropping "ta da" links to papers touting the impacts of black carbon/land use... or dropping wide-open google scholar search links; when you're challenged to qualify your black carbon/land use "ta da's" you scurry away. Or this, the ongoing epitome of you "arguing the science":

You have been repeatedly requested, many, many times over, to
provide an alternate
principal
causal link/tie for GW/CC, one other than anthropogenic sourced CO2
... your response... crickets!

The trouble with you is when you realize you have no rational response you change the topic and start hurling ad homs.

ad homs? Talk about delusion - yours; like I said, a small sampling of your best, just from within this thread:

... to play the victim while liberally dispensing your personal brand of TimG denigration - following are your words from posts just within this thread... just this thread! - clearly, your brand of so-called skepticism on full display!

"fanatical whack job like you...; You are religious fanatic...; exposes you for what you are: a fanatical propagandist that has no interest in the science...; the tenets of your IPCC religion...; being an idiot screaming...; alarmists peddling panic...; peddle alarmist propaganda...; criticize their church".

This response is a perfect example of you running like a dog when you have no argument.

no - that is another perfect example of you attempting to railroad this thread with your McIntyre fanboy obsession - the post links I provided in your "example" speak for themselves and clearly have laid down your "argument" for the absolute nothingness, that it is. As always, you, as you say, "run like a dog", whenever asked to answer for the absence of any formal McIntyre response - one that would forever put to rest his never-ending fraudit undertaking. Again, crickets!

In either case, I have tried to argue with you by following your endless diversions but I have decided it is a waste of time. If you demonstrate that you are capable of staying on topic then I would continue to 'argue the science'. Until then, I have better things to do.

I accept your capitulation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are still areas of dicussion, like what steps we should be taking to curb our negative effect toward climate change. Then we can argue what degree of efforts is necessary, whether we should be using technology to solve the problem, whether capitalism fits with an environmental model to prevent the human race from killing itself to begin with, etc.

clearly.

per MLW norm, whenever those areas of discussion ensue, the fake skeptics interject and rally their cause to call into question any suggestion of, 'curbing our negative affect toward climate change'... outside of their absolute denial of the science, calls of a "new world order" and wealth distribution will surface - socialism!!! Threads typically devolve into denigrating the IPCC, climate science, scientists - conspiracy ramblings will surface. At best, you will see a segment of the fake skeptics offer token acceptance of the negative impacts of CC/AGW (see Concern Troll); however, they will then proceed to argue vigorously about uncertainties and will insist adaptation is the only recourse... an 'adapt-R-Us' only approach... one that usually ends in raising trumped up economics and disinformation about current technologies and mitigation strategies/opportunities.

Edited by waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
look no further than this thread... just a few posts back. Typical of you "arguing the science", is you dropping "ta da" links to papers touting the impacts of black carbon/land use... or dropping wide-open google scholar search links;
Anyone who wants to learn about forcings other than CO2 can read those links. I also referenced Pielke Sr. blog. My point was proven (that anthropogenic causes do not necessarily mean CO2) and there was no point trying to argue with a denier like you who seeks to pretend that those influences do not exist.
no - that is another perfect example of you attempting to railroad this thread with your McIntyre fanboy obsession
The only person who is obsessed with McIntyre is you. I have not mentioned him or posted links to his blog in a long time. You are the one you keeps bring him up whenever I nail your squirming butt to wall. You demonstrate you have no argument whenever you bring up McIntyre in response to a post that made no mention of McIntyre.

As for my comments on this thread: that was in response to your 'fake sceptics' crap. If you you want to run around calling people 'fake sceptics' I will remind people that you are nothing but a religious fanatic when it comes to CO2.

Lastly, I gave you a couple chances to actually argue the science on Tiljander on this thread. You refused. You changed the topic and started hurling ad homs. If you want to believe you 'won' because you had the last word then go for it. No one who actually reads the posts believes it.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who wants to learn about forcings other than CO2 can read those links. I also referenced Pielke Sr. blog.

why your dance... why your evasion? Flat out you won't... you can't... provide a CC/GW principal cause alternate, one other than CO2. So, you distract, you obfuscate, you disinform. I challenged you to put up the numbers and make a case for what you postured as the "significance" of black carbon/land use over CO2... again, your response - crickets! C'mon, arguing the science guy... is there a problem you won't... you can't provide a CC/GW principal cause alternate, one other than CO2?

The only person who is obsessed with McIntyre is you. I have not mentioned him or posted links to his blog in a long time. You are the one you keeps bring him up whenever I nail your squirming butt to wall. You demonstrate you have no argument whenever you bring up McIntyre in response to a post that made no mention of McIntyre.

yes, in the past you liberally dropped links to climatefraudit, with abandon... you only stopped because your parroting became so transparently obvious, when you were continually called on it. In like circumstances, what you do now is quite hilarious; you posture with a sense of presenting "your own arguments"... all the while, you're simply continuing to sycophantically project your hero... continuing to parrot McIntyre, nothing more, nothing less. I appreciate your extreme frustration in not being able to account for the absence of any formal published McIntyre response... by the way, how's that "McIntyre reconstruction" coming along, anyway? :lol:

I appreciate your frustration in being confined to living out your fake skeptic la vida loca via the denialsphere... that you find solace in a vicarious projection of your hero, McIntyre! :lol:

Lastly, I gave you a couple chances to actually argue the science on Tiljander on this thread. You refused.

yes, I refused... to allow you another opportunity to jack another thread; instead, I simply replayed you the relevant prior post links that clearly and absolutely show the nothingness of your puffery; again, see here and here:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why your dance... why your evasion?
Evasion? I was responding to Michael when you jumped in with your strawman. My point was anthropogenic forcings are not limited to CO2. I made that point. The exact contribution to each is a complete unknown since attribution studies of any form are largely glorified guesswork. What is the point arguing with you when I believe the correct answer is 'we don't know'?
yes, in the past you liberally dropped links to climatefraudit, with abandon... you only stopped because your parroting became so transparently obvious, when you were continually called on it.
The only person who is obessed with McIntyre is you. You seem to be unable to stop talking about him. I wonder why? Perhaps it is because you fear he is largely correct and you are afraid of him.
yes, I refused... to allow you another opportunity to jack another thread;
Yet another evasion. When you are beat you are full of excuses to avoid admitting it. If I am so obviously wrong it should be easy to explain how one can use regression with data that is so contaiminated that the apparent sign of the correlation during the calibration period is the opposite of what the physics say it should be. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evasion? I was responding to Michael when you jumped in with your strawman. My point was anthropogenic forcings are not limited to CO2. I made that point. The exact contribution to each is a complete unknown since attribution studies of any form are largely glorified guesswork. What is the point arguing with you when I believe the correct answer is 'we don't know'?

hardly a strawman... it was quite pertinent, indeed. Again, you won't, you can't answer - you can't provide a principal alternate causal tie to GW/CC, one other than CO2. So... you evade, you bluster, you distract. My offering up the many times repeated challenge to you (which you always run from), was in direct response to you stating the IPCC overplays CO2 and underplays/ignores other forcings (like the black carbon/land use blind links you dropped and scurried away from). Most certainly, if you throw down a most definitive statement on 'over-play/under-play', one you fail to support/substantiate, you should expect to be called on it. And I did... I challenged you to put up the numbers; again, your response? Crickets... along with your standard evasion, bluster, distraction.

The only person who is obessed with McIntyre is you. You seem to be unable to stop talking about him. I wonder why? Perhaps it is because you fear he is largely correct and you are afraid of him.

you're simply parroting the guy; you haven't an independent thought. Most certainly, when you continue to beak-off with his failings, you can expect to be reminded just where your like failings originate.

Yet another evasion. When you are beat you are full of excuses to avoid admitting it. If I am so obviously wrong it should be easy to explain how one can use regression with data that is so contaiminated that the apparent sign of the correlation during the calibration period is the opposite of what the physics say it should be.

answers are readily available in the two links of prior posts I keep repeating... enjoy: here & here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, you won't, you can't answer - you can't provide a principal alternate causal tie to GW/CC, one other than CO2.
Actually, I pointed to several. What you are obessesing about is the relative contribution of each compared to CO2. I say we don't know and the studies that make claims are largely unreliable guesswork because the unknowns are huge. You can't prove me wrong or even show that I am likely to be wrong.
answers are readily available in the two links of prior posts I keep repeating
There are no responses in those posts. I gave you a specific challenge: explain how one can use regression with data that is so contaminated that the apparent sign changes in the calibration period. Simply repeating Mann's blather does not address this point because I am using the basic principles of regression to show that Mann is lying.

IOW - the only response that can refute my claim is one that uses the basic principles of regression to show that it is false. You can't do that if you actually understand regression because you know I am right and that Mann is lying. Of course, it is also possible that you are way over your depth and don't have a clue what I or Mann is talking about. If this is the case then your are just another useful idiot spewing propoganda you do not understand.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I pointed to several. What you are obessesing about is the relative contribution of each compared to CO2. I say we don't know and the studies that make claims are largely unreliable guesswork because the unknowns are huge. You can't prove me wrong or even show that I am likely to be wrong.

in your last post, you've just now used the label, "useful idiot"... your label. Accordingly, any, "your label", can presume to mention alternate forcings... like black carbon and land use. The real "dodging trick", your dodging trick, is mentioning those alternates while also accusing the IPCC of underplaying them in significance, while equally accusing the IPCC of overplaying the significance of CO2. That is what you stated... while offering nothing to support or substantiate the under-play/over-play accusations. Equally, your dodging trick won't go near the word I continue to emphasize - i.e. principal (as in, alternate principal causal tie, one other than CO2).

most certainly, most definitely, speaking to the, as you say, "relative contributions" is not an "obsession"... it is key. It is so key, you won't go near it... you continue to run from identifying the principal forcing contribution within the relative forcing contributions. You are so absolutely predisposed to not accepting CO2 as the principal contributor that, regardless of merit, you will flog anything/everything that isn’t CO2… you of the, ‘anything but CO2 camp’!

your latest reply offers up another point of departure note; i.e., that fake skeptics will make unsupported/unsubstantiated claims while boldly stating that they can’t be proved wrong or even shown to be likely wrong… and, they will do this while at the same time vehemently protesting that they argue the science. While making their unsupported/unsubstantiated claims, these fake sceptics will pronounce studies and consensus they reject as, “unreliable guesswork with large uncertainties”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hardly a strawman... it was quite pertinent, indeed. Again, you won't, you can't answer - you can't provide a principal alternate causal tie to GW/CC, one other than CO2.

Methane has been shown to have a much more effect on forcing than CO2. I think even you said this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that fake skeptics will make unsupported/unsubstantiated claims while boldly stating that they can’t be proved wrong or even shown to be likely wrong… and, they will do this while at the same time vehemently protesting that they argue the science.
Real skeptics understand that science is always uncertain. Real skeptics understand that different claims have different levels of uncertainty given the assumptions that have to be made. Real skeptics understand that there is no data that would allow scientists to estimate the magnitude of the non-CO2 forcings because their interactions are extremely complex and poorly understood. Real skeptics understand the consequence of this lack of data means that all attribution studies are speculative hypothesis that could be proven wrong in the future. Real skeptics understand that sometimes saying "we don't know" is ONLY legitimate scientific position to take.

I take it from your continued refusal to explain how regression can be used with contaminated data is an implicit admission that you know I am right or you really don't have a clue what regression is and you are useful idiot spreading lies to protect your precious Mann.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your latest reply offers up another point of departure note; i.e., that fake skeptics will make unsupported/unsubstantiated claims while boldly stating that they can’t be proved wrong or even shown to be likely wrong… and, they will do this while at the same time vehemently protesting that they argue the science. While making their unsupported/unsubstantiated claims, these fake sceptics will pronounce studies and consensus they reject as, “unreliable guesswork with large uncertainties”.
Real skeptics understand that science is always uncertain. Real skeptics understand that different claims have different levels of uncertainty given the assumptions that have to be made. Real skeptics understand that there is no data that would allow scientists to estimate the magnitude of the non-CO2 forcings because their interactions are extremely complex and poorly understood. Real skeptics understand the consequence of this lack of data means that all attribution studies are speculative hypothesis that could be proven wrong in the future. Real skeptics understand that sometimes saying "we don't know" is ONLY legitimate scientific position to take.

clearly, you outright dismiss studies/consensus that don't fit your fake skepticism. You emphasize uncertainties, a lack of data (no data), complex interactions, poorly understood interactions... that it's all just, as you say, "speculative hypothesis/guesswork"... and that, as you say, "sometimes saying we don't know is the ONLY legitimate scientific position to take". And yet... and yet... in spite of all this back-peddling away from the repeated challenges for you to provide an alternate principal causal tie (one other than CO2), while providing no support/substantiation, you have no difficulty, no qualms, no reservations, no concerns in accusing the IPCC of over-playing CO2, while under-playing all other forcings. Truly... fake skepticism at its finest! :lol:

I take it from your continued refusal to explain how regression can be used with contaminated data is an implicit admission that you know I am right or you really don't have a clue what regression is and you are useful idiot spreading lies to protect your precious Mann.

what was it you just said a few posts back... oh, right... here it is:

If you want to believe you 'won' because you had the last word then go for it.

oh wait... last word!
:lol:
answers are readily available in the two links of prior posts I keep repeating... enjoy:
&

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methane has been shown to have a much more effect on forcing than CO2. I think even you said this.

as a current forcing... no; current atmospheric concentrations of methane are significantly lower than CO2 and the (chemical) lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is significantly lower than CO2. In terms of potency... yes; most certainly, by weight, methane is roughly 20 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere as compared to CO2. The real concern with methane is the warming feedback mechanism causing permafrost melt and the release of 'suspended' carbon and the more potent methane. I posted the following earlier in this thread:

further to my reinforcement on the significant impacting positive feedbacks with implications to a high(er) sensitivity... a study in Nature -
, just published:
As the Arctic warms, greenhouse gases will be released from thawing permafrost faster and at significantly higher levels than previous estimates, according to survey results from 41 international scientists published in the Nov. 30 issue of the journal Nature.

Permafrost thaw will release approximately the same amount of carbon as deforestation, say the authors, but the effect on climate will be 2.5 times bigger because emissions include methane, which has a greater effect on warming than carbon dioxide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a current forcing... no; current atmospheric concentrations of methane are significantly lower than CO2 and the (chemical) lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is significantly lower than CO2. In terms of potency... yes; most certainly, by weight, methane is roughly 20 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere as compared to CO2. The real concern with methane is the warming feedback mechanism causing permafrost melt and the release of 'suspended' carbon and the more potent methane. I posted the following earlier in this thread:

So what is the rate of methane being released into the atmosphere? If it is 20x lower than CO2, then according to your own words, it is just as dangerous. Am I correct here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what is the rate of methane being released into the atmosphere? If it is 20x lower than CO2, then according to your own words, it is just as dangerous. Am I correct here?

the most current number I find, albeit short-term, suggests an increasing rate of 5.9 +/- 1.6 ppb/yr of atmospheric CH4 between 2007-2011. The roughly 20x number I mentioned is actually closer to 25 (within a more standard comparatively selected 100 year time frame period... see global warming potential (GWP)). GWP is a relative 'heat trapping' metric with a calculation that uses like mass quantities of CO2 compared to other GHG gases in question... say CH4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just a lurker, and I probably lean more to the skeptical side of this debate, but lets say that man made global warming is a reality..... why couldn't we come up with something as simple as a 3 cent per litre alternate fuel research tax ? I don't think something as small as that would have the negative impact on our economy that a flat carbon tax would that would be funneled to other countries without any real benefit to Canada.... we could tackle the problem ourselves and reap the benefits here... we have a lot of smart people in this country so why can't we as a country come up with our own system and quit arguing over the science and just move forward....

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...