Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

The Global Warming Plateau

Recommended Posts

It's already been covered several times, from the now embarrassing temperature change prediction models to the "neat trick" that hides cooling data. Canada's Kyoto FAIL was just another related falsehood in the political and economic space....promises and lies.

enjoy your denial and your fabrications... your unsubstantiated opinion... and your outright refusal to back-up your claims within this threads context of your claimed "falsehoods and theoretical BS".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "SCIENCE IS SETTLED"...and other political musings:

The absence of global warming in the past decade or so was noted as long ago as 2008 by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. According to Lindzen, there had been “no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.”

Lindzen and Curry are among the dissenting scientists that AGW advocates seek to silence with their “settled science” mantra. To re-iterate, this mantra is a political slogan used by those who would use global warming to justify draconian measures to force a shift from fossil fuels to green energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

enjoy your denial and your fabrications... your unsubstantiated opinion... and your outright refusal to back-up your claims within this threads context of your claimed "falsehoods and theoretical BS".

I always enjoy them.....regardless of your opinion. All of your indignant huffing and puffing cannot change the record when it comes to the climate change dance, falsehoods, outright lies, and failed policy initiatives (e.g. Kyoto FAIL).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "SCIENCE IS SETTLED"...and other political musings:

:lol: 2... 2 memes in 1! Are you embarrassed to actually source your article as coming from such a legitimate and reputable denier source as WTFIUWT? Wait... there's a slight wrinkle here - you appear not to be tagging scientists with the "science is settled" meme... rather, you're giving it a political attachment/association. Well done - good on ya!

I always enjoy them.....regardless of your opinion. All of your indignant huffing and puffing cannot change the record when it comes to the climate change dance, falsehoods, outright lies, and failed policy initiatives (e.g. Kyoto FAIL).

so... that's a negative on you actually providing scientific substantiation to your claims - you know, something other than sourced from a denier blog? C'mon, don't be afraid to actually cite/reference something... and give your own interpretation - sure you can! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: 2... 2 memes in 1! Are you embarrassed to actually source your article as coming from such a legitimate and reputable denier source as WTFIUWT? Wait... there's a slight wrinkle here - you appear not to be tagging scientists with the "science is settled" meme... rather, you're giving it a political attachment/association. Well done - good on ya!

I am quite satisfied with the MIT source, as you should be...after all...it's American, right ? Just like the NOAA reference above...always a favorite....from the "denier nation".

so... that's a negative on you actually providing scientific substantiation to your claims - you know, something other than sourced from a denier blog? C'mon, don't be afraid to actually cite/reference something... and give your own interpretation - sure you can! :lol:

I don't need a source for what has already been presented here and in the public domain going back years. Is that what you want...to fight the same battles over when your alarmist side has clearly lost ? Not really a surprise, as the burden was on the alarmists all along, so why not publish a few lies and deceptions along the way, eh? It was worth it, so great was the cause !

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does your repeating the/your "science is settled" meme reinforce it (in your mind)? :lol:

You're the one they tells us that the science is beyond reproach. We're labelled as deniers for questioning said science. So I'm asking you, where was the science predicting this current plateau? And why are there so many unpredictable instances if said science is without question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite satisfied with the MIT source

you really, really need to get your act together. Previously, when repeatedly pushed to have you actually state your position, you finally relented and claimed you accepted it was warming... however, you were adamant that your declared denier status was simply limited to you not accepting the anthropogenic source/principal causal tie for that warming. Now... now... all of a sudden you're emboldened to provide a brazillion times debunked source who, you say, has declared there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistical warming since 1995. We've carried the debunking of the Lindzen nonsense, many times over here on MLW. But c'mon... make up your mind, hey! You either accept global warming... or you don't!!! :lol: My gawd man... how far out on the fringe of the fringe do you have to be... not to accept its warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need a source

no problem! I completely accept that you are unable to present sources and your own personal interpretations of what are your wholly unsubstantiated and unsupported personal opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one they tells us that the science is beyond reproach.

And why are there so many unpredictable instances if said science is without question?

no - no I don't... your weak, failed and lacking arguments invariably cause you to fabricate the statements/positions of others.

We're labelled as deniers for questioning said science.

no - you're labeled a denier because you don't accept the consensus science while failing to provide alternative understanding/scientific findings that presumes to allow you to override the consensus.

So I'm asking you, where was the science predicting this current plateau?

I already responded to your question... if you don't like my answer make up one you're comfortable with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have in the other climate change threads, I won't rehash here.

sure... I vaguely recall you offering up anecdotal type information about, as you say, "deliberate localized weather modification". I must have missed where you've presented accounts of the degree of impact of that localized modification, particularly applying it towards a global impact summation/affect on climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you really, really need to get your act together. Previously, when repeatedly pushed to have you actually state your position, you finally relented and claimed you accepted it was warming... however, you were adamant that your declared denier status was simply limited to you not accepting the anthropogenic source/principal causal tie for that warming. Now... now... all of a sudden you're emboldened to provide a brazillion times debunked source who, you say, has declared there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistical warming since 1995. We've carried the debunking of the Lindzen nonsense, many times over here on MLW. But c'mon... make up your mind, hey! You either accept global warming... or you don't!!! :lol: My gawd man... how far out on the fringe of the fringe do you have to be... not to accept its warming?

Spare us from yet another alarmist fit....the point of the "denier"/MIT reference was to highlight laughable assertions that the "science is settled". That you refuse to recognize this technical and political mistake is consistent with previous alarmist rhetoric.

I have never denied warming.....I embrace it as a wonderful thermodynamic opportunity ! Adapt or die. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already responded to your question... if you don't like my answer make up one you're comfortable with!

No, the question remains unanswered, as always, but that's OK. We understand......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - you're labeled a denier because you don't accept the consensus science while failing to provide alternative understanding/scientific findings that presumes to allow you to override the consensus.

Consensus is anti-science. Not providing an alternative doesn't change the absolute fact that the "consensus" has been wrong nearly 100% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....the point of the "denier"/MIT reference was to highlight laughable assertions that the "science is settled". I have never denied warming.....I embrace it as a wonderful thermodynamic opportunity ! Adapt or die. :P

ok - good... you're consistent then... you still maintain you accept warming - just not it's principal causal link to anthropogenic sources.

of course, in your bizarro world way, with a thundering 'ta-da' pronouncement, you drop your link/quote (with increased font and bold-highlighting) to emphasize a renowned profile denier's (resoundingly debunked) claims that, 'it hasn't warmed... that there has been no statistically significant warming'. You now claim that, as you say, "it was to highlight laughable assertions that the science is settled"! So - when challenged on your link/reference, you now claim/confirm not to accept/believe your own linked/reference's claims concerning warming. Well done!!! :lol:

No, the question remains unanswered, as always, but that's OK. We understand......

no - as I stated, the question was answered. Would you like me to re-quote the posting sequence?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus is anti-science.

no - consensus is the accepted prevailing science of the day. It prevails since it hasn't been overturned/replaced/updated by other new-found scientific understanding/findings. But please, please... explain yourself - for once at least! Explain why you claim that consensus is, as you say, "anti-science"?

providing no (reputable and non-debunked) alternative to the consensus while fostering/projecting fake-skepticism/denial... that simply reinforces, "denial for denial's sake"! Is that you Bryan - is that your position... "denial for denial's sake"? Why not come out from the shadows, hey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok - good... you're consistent then... you still maintain you accept warming - just not it's principal causal link to anthropogenic sources.

I don't care what the "causal link" is or what alarmist guessers tell us what the "causal link" is. I believe in BTUs, not alarmist BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if we ignore climate issues, I think we can all agree that fossil energy has to go simply due to economic, health and environmental reasons. The change need not be gradual though. The world is currently subsidizing fossil energy to the tune of Two Trillion Dollars annually. Shifting that same funding to renewable sources will very quickly put us well on the way to solving our energy and pollution problems. Despite the money and connections of the fossil energy industries, common sense is starting to prevail anyway. This story made me smile: World’s Biggest Coal Company Turns to Solar Energy to Lower Utility Bill

Fossil fuels have to go because they are non-renewable resources.

Subsidies are tax breaks basically. So they are essentially taxes the government never collected. They aren't a cost.

Before I answer about the coal company turning to solar energy I will say I haven't read it. So I am only guessing that the reason is only because the solar energy company is heavily subsidized. Solar energy is definitely not cheaper to produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - consensus is the accepted prevailing science of the day. It prevails since it hasn't been overturned/replaced/updated by other new-found scientific understanding/findings. But please, please... explain yourself - for once at least! Explain why you claim that consensus is, as you say, "anti-science"?

providing no (reputable and non-debunked) alternative to the consensus while fostering/projecting fake-skepticism/denial... that simply reinforces, "denial for denial's sake"! Is that you Bryan - is that your position... "denial for denial's sake"? Why not come out from the shadows, hey?

It is pretty simple, waldo. If you need a consensus the science is not settled. The truth needs no consensus. If a consensus is necessary it remains simply theoretical.

Edited by Pliny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subsidies are tax breaks basically. So they are essentially taxes the government never collected. They aren't a cost.

no - energy subsidies may take the form of tax breaks... they may also be direct cash transfers, or rebates, or they impact market access in terms of pricing or cost reductions, or they may be broad price controls, or trade restrictions, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty simple, waldo. If you need a consensus the science is not settled. The truth needs no consensus. If a consensus is necessary it remains simply theoretical.

consensus does not have a "need" attachment; again, in this context, consensus is the prevailing science of the day. It prevails since it hasn't been overturned/replaced/updated by other new-found scientific understanding/findings. Why are you also playing up the "science is settled" meme?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care what the "causal link" is or what alarmist guessers tell us what the "causal link" is. I believe in BTUs, not alarmist BS.

enjoy your blustering "denial for denial's sake"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

enjoy your blustering "denial for denial's sake"!

OK....I will. Please continue to carry water for the alarmists using data from my "denier nation".

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.


×
×
  • Create New...