Death knell for AGW

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
good on ya for continuing your silly-buggar routine. For your continued refusal to simply state your position on AGW, global warming and climate change. You categorically refuse to confirm your denial or assert your acceptance. Instead you're so fixed in your routine you refuse to answer the very questions that would clear up any uncertainly or confusion. I've offered to retract the label denier if it doesn't fit the response you provide to the request you continue to avoid; this request:
You already know that answer to your query, you quoted it in another thread. Now you want to quibble about percentages in an attempt to pigeon hole and dismiss.

You can't support your claim, you refuse to retract, that makes you dishonest.

You have zero integrity here, but on the up side, you are very entertaining, thank you for that.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,260
9,610
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I didn't think your questioning was genuine; in any case, it's a very high-level graphic that speaks to the radiative forcings for the main drivers behind climate change (relative to 1750). If you haven't the wherewithal to speak to the graphic detail/annotation, perhaps spend some time doing a bit of reading/research.



another voice of reason and intelligence heard from!

Dude, I work (at work) a 65hr work week, and make it home for the
weekends, where I have other things to deal with that stack up from
the week, and seasonally, and the aftermath of floods & a fire, and
a second rental home, etc...it doesn't end, & this playing on the
forum is part of my playtime and reconnecting with the world, as I
work in a pit with either no cell & radio service, or one country
station.

It's just the way it is. I have been following the topic, among others,
for several years. As to the wherewithal to speak to the graphic
detail/annotation, perhaps spend some time doing a bit of reading
/research, I'll put it on the list....but it'll be nowhere near the top.

I'm curious about the topic, and know things are changing, as they
have been forever....but maybe more so? I'm not so sure. Still curious.
As far as my questioning being genuine? Well, I'd say, "Bite Me!"
but that isn't in the interest of exchanging ideas and learning some
-thing. On that note, welcome aboard.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
I'm curious about the topic, and know things are changing, as they
have been forever....but maybe more so? I'm not so sure. Still curious.
As far as my questioning being genuine? Well, I'd say, "Bite Me!"
but that isn't in the interest of exchanging ideas and learning some
-thing. On that note, welcome aboard.

I do apologize if I incorrectly took your response as curt/dismissive.

You already know that answer to your query, you quoted it in another thread. Now you want to quibble about percentages in an attempt to pigeon hole and dismiss.

You can't support your claim, you refuse to retract, that makes you dishonest.

You have zero integrity here, but on the up side, you are very entertaining, thank you for that.

in the other thread you spoke of climate change; you said nothing about attribution. Apparently, to you, attaching qualification is "quibbling about percentages". Either you accept the theory of AGW, or you don't accept it; you deny it. Simple. In any case, I won't respond further to you as you refuse to clear up any uncertainty or confusion about your position on AGW, global warming, climate change.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
in the other thread you spoke of climate change; you said nothing about attribution. Apparently, to you, attaching qualification is "quibbling about percentages". Either you accept the theory of AGW, or you don't accept it; you deny it. Simple. In any case, I won't respond further to you as you refuse to clear up any uncertainty or confusion about your position on AGW, global warming, climate change.
You merely join a short list of dishonest people who don't like having their dishonesty exposed.

Thanks for being as entertaining as you were for the time we shared though.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,260
9,610
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I do apologize if I incorrectly took your response as curt/dismissive.

Something is happening, but is it more than what has always been
happening? Is it part of a cycle (we have annual, and lunar, and solar
cycles) on a scale that happens to be greater than the time that we've
been observing and keeping records? A 10,000yr cycle, or 100,000yr
cycle, or much greater?

The fervent nonsense of "Truthers" & "Deniers" as a topic leaves the
realm of debate and crosses into something akin to religion makes my
Spidy Senses tingle and doubt the worth of the contrabution to a debate
regardless of what side of topic one takes.

Really though, with a few exceptions (Tonington, Petros, etc...) most of
us by far here are laymen on this and most subjects scientific on the
Forum. I'm sure your graph/table/whatever means something to you,
but to many others undecided on the subject, and more than a bit
suspicious of the IPCC and it's contrabutions and endorcements
with more of an eye to economics and politics. Two sides to every
debate, and the IPCC has a smell that seems to follow it over time.
No a good smell. I'm curious as to what YOU have to say on the
subject.

Waldo, earlier on and a few pages back, you (though not providing answers
of your own) only wanted to deal with the "relatively recent" re: climate. In my
limited experence on the subject, "relatively recent" re: climate is weather.
Long term weather is climate. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I
understand things at this point.

"Relatively recent" re: climate seemed to be an oxymoron, is all.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The inclusion of "relatively recent" is their way of locking the conversation to a specific time period that supports their position. While excluding any and all data that shows similar patterns in the past.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
It's a simple request for you to assert your denial... or to project your acceptance.

I accept your unwillingness to answer the request: this request: "Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change."

that's right; I stated the label denier is simply a matter-of-fact label. I don't view it as a pejorative labeling. You clearly take exception to its use/attachment... for someone who claims not to be a denier.... oh wait, is that your claim? I can't really determine your position since you're in heavy avoidance of a most simple and basic request; this request: "Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change."

you claimed I incorrectly labeled you as a denier. I've asked you repeatedly to assert your acceptance... to deny your denial. Instead you play this silly-buggar game claiming dishonesty. You've been given multiple opportunities to clear this up; again: "Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change"




I'd like you to answer your own question, mind you, I have already asked that same question, basically, and not received a direct answer.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
as I said when I first came on board... the low-brow level of discourse on this board is quite significant. Your comments and your inability to control your abuse/insult is quite telling. But then again, deniers gonna hate!

Yep. I'm a denier, and proud of it. By your definition, anyone with any sense of healthy scientific scepticism is.........the only other options are con artist and/or idiot.

Which are you?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Yep. I'm a denier, and proud of it. By your definition, anyone with any sense of healthy scientific scepticism is.........the only other options are con artist and/or idiot.

Which are you?





Idiot.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Gerry, Gerry.......if you've got something that faintly resembles a significant comment, MAKE IT, instead of just being a useless shythead.


You asked a question with 3 possible answers. I picked one. What's your problem?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Yep. I'm a denier, and proud of it. By your definition, anyone with any sense of healthy scientific scepticism is.........the only other options are con artist and/or idiot.

Which are you?

legitimate skepticism is the cornerstone of science. Someone who can make a legitimate case for their skepticism is a genuine skeptic. Being in denial, for the sake of denial, does not make one a skeptic... it makes you a fake-skeptic. My collective assessment of your posts, particularly your 'top 13 gems' suggests to me you're not a genuine skeptic. Since you proclaim you're proud to be a denier, enjoy!


clearly, you're the king of insults and personal attacks around here.

Waldo, earlier on and a few pages back, you (though not providing answers
of your own) only wanted to deal with the "relatively recent" re: climate. In my
limited experence on the subject, "relatively recent" re: climate is weather.
Long term weather is climate. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I
understand things at this point.

"Relatively recent" re: climate seemed to be an oxymoron, is all.

relatively recent associates, typically, to post-industrial; more pointed emphasis targets accelerated warming from ~1970 on. The strictest definition of climate, per the WMO, associates to a time period greater than 30 years... typically the time period to ensure natural variability is dealt with.

You merely join a short list of dishonest people who don't like having their dishonesty exposed.

Thanks for being as entertaining as you were for the time we shared though.

your continued refusal to answer a simple request, the following request, speaks to the only dishonesty at play here - yours.
unless you unequivocally state that you accept anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuel emissions as the principal causal tie behind global warming/climate change you are a denier... you have a degree of denial. Again, it's a label; one not intended as a pejorative. It's simply a matter-of-fact labeling. It's quite simple. SImply confirm your denial or assert your acceptance: :Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change:

...but to many others undecided on the subject, and more than a bit
suspicious of the IPCC and it's contrabutions and endorcements
with more of an eye to economics and politics. Two sides to every
debate, and the IPCC has a smell that seems to follow it over time.
No a good smell. I'm curious as to what YOU have to say on the
subject.

in balance, given your self-expressed naivety on the subject, I am curious how you arrived at your "not a good smell" assessment of the IPCC, particularly as the physical science basis and technical summary reports steer clear of any direct economic/political attachments. I chose that IPCC graphic for it's summary value... I could have provided you like representation from an assortment of other organizations.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
But Enough About the Planet, Let's Talk About Me...

by Mark Steyn
November 3, 2014



I've been off the Big Climate beat out promoting my new book this last fortnight, so when this came wafting into my in-box the other day I read it carefully three or four times just to be certain it wasn't an ingenious parody:
Climate Depression Is For Real. Just Ask A Scientist.
By "climate depression", they don't mean a low-pressure system off Labrador. Rather, the massed ranks of climate scientists are depressed because nobody's listening to them - well, nobody except President Obama, the Prince of Wales, the European Union, John Kerry, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jessica Alba, etc. Reporter Madeleine Thomas lays out the grim toll "climate depression" can take:
Two years ago, Camille Parmesan, a professor at Plymouth University and the University of Texas at Austin, became so "professionally depressed" that she questioned abandoning her research in climate change entirely.
Parmesan has a pretty serious stake in the field. In 2007, she shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for her work as a lead author of th...
Whoa, whoa, hold up there. Professor Parmesan shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore? Who knew? Certainly not the Nobel Institute in Oslo nor the King of Norway. Be that as it may, Ms Thomas continues:
In 2009, The Atlantic named her one of 27 "Brave Thinkers" for her work on the impacts of climate change on species around the globe. Barack Obama and Mark Zuckerberg were also on the list.
Despite the accolades, she was fed up. "I felt like here was this huge signal I was finding and no one was paying attention to it," Parmesan says. "I was really thinking, 'Why am I doing this?'" She ultimately packed up her life here in the States and moved to her husband's native United Kingdom.
"Native United Kingdom"? Her climate depression was so severe she was reduced to moving to Britain? Good grief. But it could have been worse:
From depression to substance abuse to suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder, growing bodies of research in the relatively new field of psychology of global warming suggest...
Wait a minute. The "psychology of global warming" is a "field"? Why, yes:
For your everyday environmentalist, the emotional stress suffered by a rapidly changing Earth can result in some pretty substantial anxieties.
For scientists like Parmesan on the front lines of trying to save the planet, the stakes can be that much higher... "I don't know of a single scientist that's not having an emotional reaction to what is being lost," Parmesan is quoted saying in the National Wildlife Federation's 2012 report, "The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States: And Why the U.S. Mental Health Care System is Not Adequately Prepared."
Is there a name for what these afflicted climate scientists are suffering from?
Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist based in Washington, D.C. — and co-author of the National Wildlife Federation's report — calls this emotional reaction "pre-traumatic stress disorder," a term she coined to describe the mental anguish that results from preparing for the worst, before it actually happens.
With all due respect to Dr Van Susteren, I don't believe she coined the term "pre-traumatic stress disorder". That coinage spread like wildfire five years ago as a befuddled media tried to explain why Major Nidal Hasan gunned down dozens of his comrades at Fort Hood. From November 2009, NPR's Tom Gjelten:
That's right, Steve. You know, you referred to the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. There's - almost seems to be a phenomenon that you could maybe call a pre-traumatic stress disorder.
Indeed. I referenced the pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in my book After America (pp 168-169). If it seems mildly unsettling to find climate scientists claiming to be suffering from the same condition advanced for Major Hasan, don't worry: They're unlikely to wind up on a table firing wildly and yelling, "Allahu Akbar!" Instead, they're being urged to yell ...well, I'll let Brentin Mock spell it out:
"Forgive my language here, but if scientists are looking for a clearer language to express the urgency of climate change, there's no clearer word that expresses that urgency than ****," Mock writes. "We need scientists to speak more of these non-hard science truths, no matter how inconvenient or how dirty."
Climate scientists, don't let pre-traumatic climate depression ruin your life! Instead of being reduced to a pitiful husk emigrating to the United Kingdom like a jihad wannabe heading off to ISIS, stand on a street corner and roar "F*CK!" at passers by.
As I said, I initially worried that this might be a brilliant parody of Big Climate's terminal narcissism, but, if so, it's not the first. From The Sydney Morning Herald:
Nicole Thornton remembers the exact moment her curious case of depression became too real to ignore. It was five years ago and the environmental scientist – a trained biologist and ecologist – was writing a rather dry PhD on responsible household water use...
Thornton had always been easily upset by apathy towards, and denial of, environmental issues. But now she began to notice an oddly powerful personal reaction to "the small stuff" – like people littering, or neighbours chopping down an old tree.
She found herself suddenly and strongly enveloped by unfamiliar feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, anger and anxiety... "That's when I lost hope that we would survive as a species. It made me more susceptible to what I call 'climate depression'."
Dr Thornton has now formed a support group for fellow sufferers of climate depression. There's no awareness-raising ribbon, just an awareness-raising tree-ring you can wear round your neck like a millstone.
Susie Burke, of the Australian Psychological Society and Al Gore's Climate Reality Project, adds:
"We can be very sure that many people in the field of climate change are distressed – highly distressed – and it can have a significant psychosocial impact on their wellbeing," Burke said.
That's interesting to know. As part of his amended complaint against me, Nobel fantasist Michael E Mann accuses me of "intentional infliction of emotional distress":
98. As a result of the actions of defendants, including , inter alia, besmirching Dr. Mann's reputation and comparing him to a convicted child molester. Dr. Mann has experienced extreme emotional distress.
99. As a result of the actions of defendants, the chara cter and reputation of Dr. Mann were harmed, his standing and reputation among the community were impaired, he suffered financially, and he suffered mental anguish and personal humiliation.
But, according to Dr Burke and Dr Van Susteren, Michael E Mann works in a field so prone to "extreme emotional distress" and "mental anguish" it has its own condition, which is to the climatology departments of the developed world what Ebola is to Liberia. Who's to say he wasn't already suffering from Pre-Traumatic Climate-Depression Warming-Pause Disorder? We may have to have Dr Van Susteren examine Michael Mann in court...
By the way, the most revealing passage in that Sydney Morning Herald piece is this:
Six years ago, a dehydrated 17-year-old boy was brought into the Royal Children's Hospital, refusing to drink water. He believed having a drink would somehow contribute to the global shortage of potable water, and became the first diagnosed case of "climate change delusion".
This kid is the real victim of Mann and his Big Climate ideologues. There has been no global warming since the lad was in kindergarten, but the poor boy doesn't know that - and he's been so terrorized by the climate alarmists into believing that advanced western lifestyles are the cause of all the world's woes that he's terrified even to run the cold tap and have a glass of water. This kid is really a victim of child abuse. But that brings us back to Jerry Sandusky, and I wouldn't want to cause Michael E Mann anymore "emotional distress"...
I can understand why the disinclination of reasonable persons to listen to the likes of professors Parmesan and Mann might produce in them a bad case of "climate depression". One way to avoid that might be to cease passing oneself off as a Nobel Laureate when one is no such thing, and to cease demonizing those who disagree with Big Climate absolutism with cheap emotive sneers like "denier". In other words, try behaving like - what's the word? - scientists. Jo Nova:
If you have to resort to namecalling, and can't define your terms in English (who denies there is climate?), there's a message in that. You've picked the wrong career.
As Dr Judith Curry concludes:
Whining scientists aren't going to help either the science or their 'cause.'

But Enough About the Planet, Let's Talk About Me... :: SteynOnline

Well, I guess the debate over whether these people are con artists or idiots is hereby settled.

They are both.

Oh, my emphasis.

 
Last edited:

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Yep. I'm a denier, and proud of it. By your definition, anyone with any sense of healthy scientific scepticism is.........

Oh I don't think that's true. Denying the well-reserached radiative properties of a carbon dioxide molecule isn't skepticism.

AS for Mr. Steyn, he is a wonderful debator, But all of his rhetorical hyperbole will not change the capacity of a carbon dioxide molecule to absorb and emit in the infrared spectrum.

It's what I call the Inverse Tinkerbell Theory--the idea that if enough people just don't believe in it, then it can't be true.
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
No one cares about global warming cause it's just a side effect of what nature intended for us to do.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,260
9,610
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
in balance, given your self-expressed naivety on the subject, I am curious how you arrived at your "not a good smell" assessment of the IPCC, particularly as the physical science basis and technical summary reports steer clear of any direct economic/political attachments. I chose that IPCC graphic for it's summary value... I could have provided you like representation from an assortment of other organizations.

OK. I do not have a scientific background, but do have a nose for bullshyte.
Generally, if a post needs to contain insults or name-calling it just tells me
that it can't stand on its own without the insults or name-calling and thus
can just be dismissed.

Same with overly complicated explanations as that just tells me that the
answer is either not what the poster truly wants to answer or really doesn't
understand the answer themselves to explain it simply, so must rely on a
"baffle them with bullshyte" method.



The above applies to any subject and anyone posting about it, regardless of
the side they take in any debate.

As far as the IPCC goes, there are two sides to every debate, and the whole
"settled science" thing that doesn't seem so settled, and the 90+% whatever
of scientists thing that also was blown out'a proportion among many other
claims that have blown up or been disproven too my satisfaction have made
me suspicious of the claims and endorsements of the IPCC over time.

The IPCC is a political (& in turn economic) body who's continued existence
is dependent on Climate Change being proven as man-made, so it doesn't
seem to benefit from being unbiased if presenting both sides of the issue may
lead to its own demise. That makes me suspicious of IPCC claims especially
following some of the scandals over the last few years. The UN is a political
(& in turn economic) body, and the IPCC being a division of the UN, it can't
fall too far from its lineage.

I am not completely naive on this topic, but have keep an open mind to both
sides of the debate, and do not claim to know all the answers, because I don't,
and neither does anyone else.
 
Last edited: