New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

[gerryh]

why do you insist in claiming the denier label is an attack? When I label you a denier I'm simply stating, per your own statements, that you deny certain facets of GW/AGW/CC. Again, not a pejorative... a simple statement of fact.

You called walter a troll and a waste of time. I'm just clarifying as to what a "personal" attack is as per your interpretation of CC rules. What it appears to me, is that as long as you state that your comments are statements of fact, then they can not be considered personal attacks. This would mean that me making a statement of "fact" concerning you, and stating that you are the biggest whining, ignorant, piece of shyte I have ever had the displeasure of running across could not be considered a personal attack as I have stated a fact, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Colpy]

why do you insist in claiming the denier label is an attack? When I label you a denier I'm simply stating, per your own statements, that you deny certain facets of GW/AGW/CC. Again, not a pejorative... a simple statement of fact.

"Denier" is indeed an attack, as you well know.

"Denier" insinuates that the person referred to is "in denial", in other words, is simply uncomfortable with an obvious truth.

But man-made global warming is far from an obvious truth, as the article in the OP makes clear.

As well, "denier" bears the stigma of use in speaking of those who believe the Holocaust did not happen, often referred to as "Holocaust deniers". Calling someone who argues a scientific point a "denier" equates them with the evil of Holocaust denial, as it was fully intended to do.

Yes, "denier" is an insult.

 

[gerryh]

Yes, "denier" is an insult.

Oh no, no, no, no. As long as one makes the statement that they are only telling "facts" then it is not an insult or a personal attack. As I pointed out, stating the "fact" that waldo doesn't have 2 brain cells to rub together, is not an insult or a personal attack. It is just stating a fact. That which is painfully obvious.

 

[taxslave]

By alarmist you mean realist.

Those poor countries had their wealth pillaged by rich countries to begin with.

ROFLMFAO again.

 

[petros]

Oh no, no, no, no. As long as one makes the statement that they are only telling "facts" then it is not an insult or a personal attack. As I pointed out, stating the "fact" that waldo doesn't have 2 brain cells to rub together, is not an insult or a personal attack. It is just stating a fact. That which is painfully obvious.

He doesn't like facts.

 

[taxslave]

It is a fact that waldo is an idiot. SO by calling him an idiot is OK as per his interpretation of the rules.

 

[petros]

Waldo isn't an idiot, it just that everyone else is smarter than he is.

 

[Canbitbill]

Commenters Cool Down like they want the climate to do. As I read here and there it wouldn't hurt if the long range climate were to cool down a bit trend wise. On that score there is agreement and also some agreement that short term variations tend to buck long term trends. Phew. It is nice then to read that globally countries have started to take action to make the long term trend liveable. So commenters Cool Down Homo Sapiens has been around for a while and intends to be here a while longer. In the meantime don't panic but do keep the warning flags raised (Sensibly).

 

[petros]

It's arrogant to think we can control the climate.

 

[waldo]

You called walter a troll and a waste of time. I'm just clarifying as to what a "personal" attack is as per your interpretation of CC rules. What it appears to me, is that as long as you state that your comments are statements of fact, then they can not be considered personal attacks. This would mean that me making a statement of "fact" concerning you, and stating that you are the biggest whining, ignorant, piece of shyte I have ever had the displeasure of running across could not be considered a personal attack as I have stated a fact, as far as I am concerned.

your denier fake outrage is noted! :mrgreen:

I already made reference to your whining, sniveling, pissant reference to the "waste of time"... as I said, that's in relation to Walter's ongoing charade where he continues to post nothing but images of Antarctic sea-ice extent... and he does this while continuing to ignore the repeated questions and challenges put to him in regards that Antarctic sea-ice extent. As concerns the Antarctic, this is now a long-standing Walter routine that is being played out within multiple threads. That sir, that is the "waste of time". The guy refuses to provide anything other than C&P images... and he categorically refuses to take up the repeated questions/challenges put to him. Again, in that regard, as was mentioned, that is the "waste of time"

The troll reference is in relation to the perpetual denier talking point played out around the purposeful denier cherry-pick centered around the significantly anomalous ENSO event of 97-98. That little denier cherry-pick nugget has been repeatedly played out through an assortment of CC threads... so, of course, Walter trots it out yet once again! That sir, that is nothing more than a purposeful troll... one he only brought forward because I just, yet once again, exposed his ongoing Antarctic nonsense. He was clearly ticked and felt the need for a lil' ole troll play.

"Denier" is indeed an attack, as you well know.

As well, "denier" bears the stigma of use in speaking of those who believe the Holocaust did not happen, often referred to as "Holocaust deniers". Calling someone who argues a scientific point a "denier" equates them with the evil of Holocaust denial, as it was fully intended to do.

Yes, "denier" is an insult.

complete nonsense! Yet another denier talking point attempting to associate the term denier to the Holocaust. Should I call Godwin's Law? :mrgreen: The word denier is not exclusively co-opted by any single group, any single interest. In the AGW/CC context, denier is simply a label, one that is not an insult, one that is not name-calling, one that is simply a matter-of-fact categorization of non-belief in the prevailing understandings within science. The label denier is a quite matter-of-fact part of the understood lexicon within the discussion/debate surrounding AGW/CC.

 

[petros]

Denier!!

 

[waldo]

But man-made global warming is far from an obvious truth, as the article in the OP makes clear.

this is not the first time... it won't be the last time... that you show you know nothing about the subject matter. However you choose to interpret the OP articles interpretations put forth by the 2 Cato Institute deniers... they are not denying, as you say, "man made global warming"... they are simply taking the published paper and leveraging it to claim the higher sensitivity levels associated with, as you say, "man made global warming" won't be reached. Of course, they do so based on a single paper from a single scientist who self-acknowledges that his paper has yet to receive any comment/challenge from other scientists. You know, those many, many scientists around the world also doing research on atmospheric aerosols and their related radiative forcing components.

whatever, as you say, "far from obvious truth" you're presuming upon... you'll need to try something else beyond this thread's OP and it's related article's reference to that published paper. :mrgreen:

Oh no, no, no, no. As long as one makes the statement that they are only telling "facts" then it is not an insult or a personal attack. As I pointed out, stating the "fact" that waldo doesn't have 2 brain cells to rub together, is not an insult or a personal attack. It is just stating a fact. That which is painfully obvious.

one fact, not an insult, is that you are a denier.

It is a fact that waldo is an idiot. SO by calling him an idiot is OK as per his interpretation of the rules.

ya see... I could come back and lay down a long string of targeted insults at you. Would we be any further ahead?

I've asked you recently, I'll ask again... try not to ignore it this time:

do you interpret this board's moderators want the overt insults to continue to be posted by members... do you also interpret that this board's moderators are encouraging this ongoing insult exchange? Is that why you continue to throw insults at other members?
​

 

[gerryh]

one fact, not an insult, is that you are a denier.

Wrong, again.

do you interpret this board's moderators want the overt insults to continue to be posted by members... do you also interpret that this board's moderators are encouraging this ongoing insult exchange? Is that why you continue to throw insults at other members?
​

No, for all 3 questions.


Making an insult "overt" does not make it any worse than a "veiled" insult. YOU have used both. YOU have received back what you have given.

 

[skookumchuck]

Give us some accurate predictions regarding AGW waldo, no cut and paste, just your predictions please and thank you.

 

[petros]

Wash
Rinse
Repeat

 

[Zipperfish]

This is the eleventh-seventh study that was declared the nail in the coffin of global warming. Globe keeps arming tho. whaddup widdat

Oh no, no, no, no. As long as one makes the statement that they are only telling "facts" then it is not an insult or a personal attack. As I pointed out, stating the "fact" that waldo doesn't have 2 brain cells to rub together, is not an insult or a personal attack. It is just stating a fact. That which is painfully obvious.

Walter seems quite bright. But rampant ideology has killed many a keen intellect.

 

[mentalfloss]

I've always been of the opinion that there is a link between C02 and climate change, but that the science on the scope of damage is in its infancy.

This is probably because we are still at a point where we need to convince people of the link in the first place, but articles like this are promising in that the denier crew are finally beginning to accept that link so now they have shifted their defense to minimizing the severity of damage.

With that in mind, we are now beginning to discuss what kind of policy is appropriate to meet the needs of a sustainable climate without having some adverse effect on economic policy.

 

[pgs]

I've always been of the opinion that there is a link between C02 and climate change, but that the science on the scope of damage is in its infancy.

This is probably because we are still at a point where we need to convince people of the link in the first place, but articles like this are promising in that the denier crew are finally beginning to accept that link so now they have shifted their defense to minimizing the severity of damage.

With that in mind, we are now beginning to discuss what kind of policy is appropriate to meet the needs of a sustainable climate without having some adverse effect on economic policy.

What is a sustainable climate ?

 

[captain morgan]

This is the eleventh-seventh study that was declared the nail in the coffin of global warming. Globe keeps arming tho. whaddup widdat

As each day passes, there are more and more of the (self declared) 98% consensus that flee the sinking AGW ship

but articles like this are promising in that the denier crew are finally beginning to accept that link so now they have shifted their defense to minimizing the severity of damage.

Maybe you should actually read the article, it suggests that there is not the kind of strong link that you want to believe exists

With that in mind, we are now beginning to discuss what kind of policy is appropriate to meet the needs of a sustainable climate without having some adverse effect on economic policy.

Easy, seeing how there is no real link between CO2 emissions and AGW/CC, there is no need to establish an economic policy on something that humanity has no input into.

Hope that helps

 

[Walter]

...we are still at a point where we need to convince people of the link in the first place....

What a pile of crap. What happened to the 97%? If the AGW/CC crowd would stop crying. "Wolf!" at every raindrop or hot day, or if any of their "models" actually reflected reality, they may be more convincing in their argument.