Canada warming at twice the global rate

[AnnaG]

step up! State what you perceive/interpret as 'making shyte up'... what's being "made up"? You won't let this go... let's dance! What shyte do you claim I'm making up? Waiting.......

Well, ok, I admit I exaggerated a little bit: it was not you that made up this AGW business - you lack the intelligence for that - but you are one of the sheeple propounding it. There is not a big difference.

I have no doubt the climate is changing as it always has done and that humans have a detrimental impact, but I am pretty sure that the planet will survive because human impact is not that large nor lasting. Earth's recuperative power vastly overshadows human self-destructive tendencies.

Humans, well, some anyways, tend to be arrogant, and claiming that we have such a large impact is another instance. It follows the idea that our solarsystem is geocentric, people anthropomorphising other species, etc.
I am still waiting for Arctic sea ice to disappear completely like the IPCC or some bunch of arrogant truther wingnuts claimed a few years back.

When was that supposed to happen? 5 or 6 years ago?

 

[waldo]

Well, ok, I admit I exaggerated a little bit: it was not you that made up this AGW business - you lack the intelligence for that - but you are one of the sheeple propounding it. There is not a big difference.

I would expect nothing less from the insultQueen you are! It's quite revealing that this is your ever-present fallback to being challenged!

 

[taxslave]

You manage to talk a lot for someone who says nothing. I wasn't focusing on the past. That's just your way of trying to shut down debate on the subject. Your "consensus" is a joke as well. 97% of 1/3 is hardly a consensus on anything.

To trudOwe that is a landslide.

 

[waldo]

I am still waiting for Arctic sea ice to disappear completely like the IPCC or some bunch of arrogant truther wingnuts claimed a few years back.

When was that supposed to happen? 5 or 6 years ago?

the IPCC made no such claim. Don't hesitate to actually put forward the name(s) of any recognized scientific organizations/groups/institutions that made such a claim. While you're doing that please step-up and provide your causal linkage to the dramatic trending decline of Arctic sea-ice extent/volume...

To trudOwe that is a landslide.

your immature infantile name changing aside, how would you describe moving from '36 seat 3rd party status' to 184 seat majority Liberal government of Canada? At some point you'll need to move on... it's not healthy for you to continue to express your frustrations only to have the Harper loss reinforced and thrown back at you, again!

 

[MHz]

Well in my 60 plus years living in the same area I really can't find much difference in the climate around here .

Where would that be?

no - thank you! Acknowledging unconventional impressions is admirable; however, in the face of such admittance, additional measures are warranted in fostering and projecting your declared informed perception on others. Your burden is noted and I trust you have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the skeptical establishment fiber coming your way. When you shift to the elevated stature of conspiracy application, it is clear you have your work cut out for you... are you're sure you're not chewing off more than you can handle? Are you not concerned that your perceived meritorious position will be undercut by those wags who will surely cast conspiratorial aspersions your way? I trust the charming Gaia recognizes exactly where you're coming from...

equally, Happy Festivus... in the interests of sustainability, leave a few extra trees standing, yes?

You two done? You will give Bloomer a headache in that empty space he seems to have found himself in. It can't be my place as there is always something going on up there.

I'll go with this as being the focal point of 'a clear sign of which way things are going'.

 

[AnnaG]

I would expect nothing less from the insultQueen you are! It's quite revealing that this is your ever-present fallback to being challenged!

A whine? That's all you have to reply with?

Here is a little present for you:

the IPCC made no such claim.

Pay attention, please, I said the IPCC OR some other group of truther wingnuts.

Don't hesitate to actually put forward the name(s) of any recognized scientific organizations/groups/institutions that made such a claim.

There is a thread about it in the science forums. Go for it if you like.

While you're doing that please step-up and provide your causal linkage to the dramatic trending decline of Arctic sea-ice extent/volume...

Why? You propagandists do not give a crap about fact anyways.

Well, it did not take long to come up with the thread about it, so here you are: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/climate-change/75016-summer-may-see-first-ice-29.html

 

[waldo]

A whine? That's all you have to reply with?

no whine... pointing out you're a poser and revert to insult when challenged is not whining

Pay attention, please, I said the IPCC OR some other group of truther wingnuts. There is a thread about it in the science forums. Go for it if you like. Why? You propagandists do not give a crap about fact anyways.

Well, it did not take long to come up with the thread about it, so here you are: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/climate-change/75016-summer-may-see-first-ice-29.html

pay attention, please. I corrected your falsehood in relation to the IPCC... and challenged you to provide a legitimate recognized and authoritative scientific organization/body/institution that has aligned with your false claim. You talk a "facts" game and proceed to drop a 'go fetch link'! :lol: I have no interest in chasing your self-proclaimed "facts"... fact-up, or shut-up!

 

[AnnaG]

no whine... pointing out you're a poser and revert to insult when challenged is not whining

Nope, I only insult fools like you. But I suppose when I tease people I like, it might look like insult.
So, of course it was a whine of yours.

pay attention, please. I corrected your falsehood in relation to the IPCC...

Nope. You put your spin on something I said. I simply corrected you on what I actually said. You can pretend that no-one else can see what I actually said and pretend that your spin is correct, but you would be wrong as usual.

and challenged you to provide a legitimate recognized and authoritative scientific organization/body/institution that has aligned with your false claim. You talk a "facts" game and proceed to drop a 'go fetch link'!

So you are too lazy to even read the OP in that link. Poor, poor pitiful you. :lol:

I have no interest in chasing your self-proclaimed "facts"... fact-up, or shut-up!

It was not self-proclaimed. The OP in that link was not my doing. So, STFU yourself, Peewee.

To quote the OP I linked to, Peewee: "WASHINGTON A leading ice scientist says there's a 50-50 chance that the North Pole will be ice-free this summer, which would be a first in recorded history."

 

[pgs]

Well, ok, I admit I exaggerated a little bit: it was not you that made up this AGW business - you lack the intelligence for that - but you are one of the sheeple propounding it. There is not a big difference.

I have no doubt the climate is changing as it always has done and that humans have a detrimental impact, but I am pretty sure that the planet will survive because human impact is not that large nor lasting. Earth's recuperative power vastly overshadows human self-destructive tendencies.

Humans, well, some anyways, tend to be arrogant, and claiming that we have such a large impact is another instance. It follows the idea that our solarsystem is geocentric, people anthropomorphising other species, etc.
I am still waiting for Arctic sea ice to disappear completely like the IPCC or some bunch of arrogant truther wingnuts claimed a few years back.

When was that supposed to happen? 5 or 6 years ago?

Nature abhors a vacuum .

 

[waldo]

To quote the OP I linked to, Peewee: "WASHINGTON A leading ice scientist says there's a 50-50 chance that the North Pole will be ice-free this summer, which would be a first in recorded history."

oh my! And you have the gall to speak to "the sheeple"... per norm, you and your denier crew, latch on to the statements/projections of single scientists and run wildly with them... offering them up as statements of formal consensus! The way to deal with you and your ilk is exactly what I did - challenge you to put forward the name(s) of legitimate, recognized and authoritative scientific organizations/groups/institutions that support your statements/claims. Imagine that... there are none! But don't let that get in the way of your sheeple-screech!

 

[AnnaG]

oh my! And you have the gall to speak to "the sheeple"... per norm, you and your denier crew, latch on to the statements/projections of single scientists and run wildly with them... offering them up as statements of formal consensus!

Ah, sorry, I said nothing about consensus. And hinting that there is a consensus in the first place is another logical fallacy called "argumentum ad populum".

The way to deal with you and your ilk is exactly what I did - challenge you to put forward the name(s) of legitimate, recognized and authoritative scientific organizations/groups/institutions that support your statements/claims.

That would be argumentum ad verecundium. =)

Imagine that... there are none! But don't let that get in the way of your sheeple-screech!

Atta girl. Keep up with the ad hominems and keep avoiding the topic because you obviously have nothing robust about the topic to say anyways.

Here you go, Baby:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | The Guardian

etc etc etc (About 16,000,000 results to a Google search for "ice-free"+"arctic").

You really are kind of pathetic.

 

[waldo]

You really are kind of pathetic.

what's pathetic is you making 'from the mount' proclamations on logical fallacies... something you clearly do to mask your personal inadequacies and inability to articulate a single damn thought that makes any sense.

what's more pathetic is you drawing upon the likes of the spectacularly failed anonymous denier blogger, one "Steven Goddard"! :lol: Does Locutus know you're attempting to leverage his go-to guy Goddard?

etc etc etc (About 16,000,000 results to a Google search for "ice-free"+"arctic").

how many of those supposed googly results associate with claims made by legitimate, recognized and authoritative scientific organizations/groups/institutions... versus those that associate to wingnut deniers? :lol:

 

[AnnaG]

what's pathetic is you making 'from the mount' proclamations on logical fallacies...

Well then quit whining and point them out. I am all for change and improving myself.

something you clearly do to mask your personal inadequacies and inability to articulate a single damn thought that makes any sense.

Oh, you have trouble following what I say? I will try keeping to single syllable words for you then.

what's more pathetic is you drawing upon the likes of the spectacularly failed anonymous denier blogger, one "Steven Goddard"! :lol: Does Locutus know you're attempting to leverage his go-to guy Goddard?

And the logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad hominem" erupts once again from you but this time it is not pointed at me. Goddard was quoting NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally who said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012 ...." so if you want to attack someone with ad hominems, you should be arguing with Jay Zwally.

Like I said, you really are pathetic.

ooops My bad, I used way too many multi-syllabic words.

how many of those supposed googly results associate with claims made by legitimate, recognized and authoritative scientific organizations/groups/institutions... versus those that associate to wingnut deniers? :lol:

You would like to know, then YOU go count them.

How about making the topic
about the topic
rather than making the topic about me,
Peewee?

hehe (I am a poet and I know it).

 

[waldo]

Goddard was quoting NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally who said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012 ....

:lol: what's to argue? The guy was speaking to the 2007 melt rate. Did that 2007 melt rate continue into subsequent years? Why would you presume to use a 2007 statement that projects upon a 2007 condition... a condition that's not met completely through subsequent years... and use that statement as a testament to a failed ice-free projection? The condition, the rate, wasn't met in subsequent years... an intellectual sound mind, or even you, should recognize the projection doesn't hold under the condition not being met. Again, standard denier practice on your part! Well done.

 

[AnnaG]

:lol: what's to argue? The guy was speaking to the 2007 melt rate. Did that 2007 melt rate continue into subsequent years? Why would you presume to use a 2007 statement that projects upon a 2007 condition... a condition that's not met completely through subsequent years... and use that statement as a testament to a failed ice-free projection? The condition, the rate, wasn't met in subsequent years... an intellectual sound mind, or even you, should recognize the projection doesn't hold under the condition not being met. Again, standard denier practice on your part! Well done.

And once again, you spin your way around. I think I might just call you "Wiggly Piggly" because of your propensity to wiggle around what was actually said.
The comment I made that seemed to have sparked this tirade of yours was something like, "We are still waiting for an ice-free Arctic, which was supposed to have happened some 5 or 6 years ago". My comment about 5 or 6 years ago was just a guess. I tend to forget specifics sometimes. Either way, these "climate scientists" seem to keep spewing predictions that fail to come to fruition .... a LOT.
Personally, as much as I have respect for scientists, I really do know think they know as much about climate as laypeople seem to think they know.

BTW, if I cannot articulate a single coherent thought, as you suggested, you seem to manage replying to my posts easily enough so they cannot be all that inarticulate, turnip.

 

[Glacier]

There are just too many climate change predictions that have turned out to be false that it's easier to count the number that have actually turned out to be true.

 

[PoliticalNick]

There are just too many climate change predictions that have turned out to be false that it's easier to count the number that have actually turned out to be true.

Yep! Even Waldo should be able to count to zero!

 

[waldo]

And once again, you spin your way around. I think I might just call you piggly wiggly because of your propensity to wiggle around what was actually said.
The comment I made that seemed to have sparked this tirade of yours was something like, "We are still waiting for an ice-free Arctic, which was supposed to have happened some 5 or 6 years ago". My comment about 5 or 6 years ago was just a guess. I tend to forget specifics sometimes. Either way, these "climate scientists" seem to keep spewing predictions that fail to come to fruition .... a LOT.
Personally, as much as I have respect for scientists, I really do know think they know as much about climate as laypeople seem to think they know.

my precious! Responding to and challenging you on your statement/claim is not a tirade... it was a useful exercise to further expose your denial and tactics therein. I expect going forward you will be more cautious in how you make your grand leaps. Signed: waldo - the ever vigilant scrutineer of the denialati

 

[AnnaG]

There are just too many climate change predictions that have turned out to be false that it's easier to count the number that have actually turned out to be true.

That is no exaggeration, for sure.

my precious! Responding to and challenging you on your statement/claim is not a tirade... it was a useful exercise to further expose your denial and tactics therein. I expect going forward you will be more cautious in how you make your grand leaps. Signed: waldo - the ever vigilant scrutineer of the denialati

and another argumentum ad hominem. Go figure.

BTW, I do not deny climate change. That would be inane. I do think, however, that human impact on climate is not as large as people think. But I have mentioned that before and the last time I mentioned it was only a few posts ago. But you can call me a "denier" if it makes your soother taste better.

 

[waldo]

Yep! Even Waldo should be able to count to zero!

:lol: that's a bold statement! No... NO scientific projections have come to fruition? None? Oh my! There's a long list of scientific disciplines at play in relation to climate change... nobody, no one, no group, no organization, not a single source ever made a projection/prediction that was met?