Global Warming: Overestimated

[_Tarski]

Climate change denial consists of organized attempts to deny, downplay, or dismiss the science and scientific consensus on climate change, its significance, and relation to human activity. Typically, these have the rhetorical cadence of legitimate scientific debate, but do not adhere to the actual principles of that legitimate scientific debate. This ideologically and politically motivated movement is directly associated with the energy lobby, and free-market think tanks.
There is also a deep vein of conspiracy thinking which sees climate science as some form of socialist movement. The evidence for this amounts to little more than the fact that public efforts to curb pollution have inconvenienced industry or some corporation’s pocket book.

Climate change denialism is quite different from skepticism, which is an essential part of the scientific enterprise. The fact is that there are now no lnger any truly credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying physical theory, or the major projections of global climate change and its partial roots in recent human activity.

The insane part of all this is that the boisterous and pompous claims of Droopy (or his sources) are essentially directly opposite to reality. More insane is that they accuse those they argue against of exactly the kind of thing that they themselves are guilty of in spades. It is a bizarre world of anti-knowledge. They are essentially screaming “stupid” into the collective faces of our brightest and most careful thinkers and scientific geniuses (by the way, relativity denialists still laugh loudly at Einstein’s idiocy). These scientists are also typically mild mannered highly ethical individuals uninterested in money. They actually care about truth and science and have done so typically since they were just kids--which is why they chose a science career over a business career.
For example, Droopy asserts that XYZ are discredited when in fact his fringe sources are the ones who have been either discredited or in some recent hopeful cases have made a switch away from denialism.
In short, far from being dead as Droopy claims, climate change science has reached a consensus on major issues that is firmer than ever.
To say that AGW is a dead idea is about as true as saying that the HIV virus theory of AIDS is dead.

Droopy and his ilk are not only wrong, they are wildly wrong. Just about every sentence Droopy utters on the topic of climate is 100% false and the falsehoods concern things that matter (like scientific facts and consequences for health, public safety, democracy, business, and humanity in general).

Droopyesque denialism is quite immoral and despicable. It is also idiotic.
Few things make me hope there is a God more than the idea of immoral denialists and Randian profit/selfishness worshiping dumbasses like Droopy having their asses handed to them by The Almighty. Alas, I fear they will continue to disseminate darkness and poison without consequence and if they turn out to have been fools more than liars, then they will likely never know the truth. It is horrible to think that perhaps all that will happen is that their delusion filled neurons will eventually simply stop firing and for them massive delusion will be replaced by massless void.

[_Darth J]

Droopy and his ilk are not only wrong, they are wildly wrong. Just about every sentence Droopy utters on the topic of climate is 100% false and the falsehoods concern things that matter (like scientific facts and consequences for health, public safety, democracy, business, and humanity in general).

Talk to him about the legal system some time.

[_Tarski]

Talk to him about the legal system some time.

Not being into law, I can only imagine.

But, he has a talk-radio education so what can you expect.

[_bcspace]

Add the University of Oslo to Tarski's list of those who fail to do obeisance to the Dear Leader.

[_Droopy]

Climate change denial consists of organized attempts to deny, downplay, or dismiss the science and scientific consensus on climate change, its significance, and relation to human activity.

Too bad there's not a shred of empirical scientific evidence in any earth science discipline supporting the AGW hypothesis. Too bad also that the entire IPCC scenario and its worthless model outputs have been shown to be utterly inconsistent with what we know nature is and has been doing this century. It has not warmed during the last decades of the 20th century in the way or to the extent the models predicted. That is the reality.

Further, the "consensus" that there is any such thing as dangerous, let alone catastrophic human caused global warming is a flat-footed prevarication amplified through media hype that never existed and does not now exist except within the deeply intellectually and politically compromised world of "climate science," and many scientists within the various disciplines that actually study climate empirically have never agreed to the "consensus" view (as if science is done by consensus at all and not by following the evidence wherever it leads).

Typically, these have the rhetorical cadence of legitimate scientific debate, but do not adhere to the actual principles of that legitimate scientific debate.

The consensus community has never adhered to principles of legitimate scientific debate. Never. The entire debate over the last twenty years has been marked by gross intellectual dishonesty, fudging and hiding of data, media smear campaigns, the corruption of the peer review process by a tiny cabal of petty, self-interested ideologues, the gross politicization of the scientific process, the abandonment of empirical field science for computer modeling, feverish, anti-intellectual, scientifically illiterate media hysteria egged on by self-interested climate alarmist scientists themselves, deep intellectual corruption within climate science introduced by vast oceans of politically interested government grant money, and the Lysenkoization of the entire enterprise by the IPCC, which is not and never has been a scientific body but is a political organization driven by unbridled hubris and a bloodshot-eyed hunger for power.

This ideologically and politically motivated movement is directly associated with the energy lobby, and free-market think tanks.

The classic dodge of the climatists when cornered - the ad hominem circumstantial. This is all Tarski has, and ever has had, and all those of his ilk rubbing their hands over the possibilities of "global governance" and "sustainable development" have ever had.

In the first place, its only marginally true. In the second, its absolutely natural and normal that those targeted for economic destruction and induction into the brave new green world (all of us) by the Anointed would desire to fight back with sound argument and scientific studies of their own. Given the massive uncertainties that have always been associated with DAGW theory, its conclusive lack of empirical support, and the now well understood scientific fraud lying at the base of the entire edifice, solid counter-evidence has not been at all difficult to produce.

There is also a deep vein of conspiracy thinking which sees climate science as some form of socialist movement. The evidence for this amounts to little more than the fact that public efforts to curb pollution have inconvenienced industry or some corporation’s pocket book.

Its fascinating and at the same time nearly unbearably tragic to see a true drone at work in its hive. An otherwise fine mind is, indeed, a terrible thing to waste. The "watermelon" nature of much environmentalism, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union and breakup of its empire is well understood and well documented. But, of course, if you're out of the historical and political loop, you're out of the realm of serious discussion.

The fact is that there are now no lnger any truly credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying physical theory, or the major projections of global climate change and its partial roots in recent human activity.

Now, you're simply lying outright for the cause here, Tarski, or you are vacuously ignorant of the actual state of the science across a number of physical and natural science disciplines all intimately connected to the study of climate.

There is a massive counter-consensus, if you will, argument among competent and distinguished climate/earth scientists and has been for a long time. Its well documented and established at this point. Happily, while the climatists continue to play climate computer games with their models and compare their outputs to those of other models, there are still people actually doing empirical science, and nothing they've discovered, and continue to discover, supports the garbage in/garbage out consensus of the IPCC and the government bought and paid for "climate science" coven.

The insane part of all this is that the boisterous and pompous claims of Droopy (or his sources) are essentially directly opposite to reality.

In which case, you can provide me with one, single, empirical piece of evidence for DAGW theory, can't you? I've been asking this of you for years, and all I've ever seen thus far is a tail tucked between pumping rear legs. Let's see if you can ante up now, Tarski. Whats the empirical, observational, verifiable scientific evidence that humans are or could cause the planet to warm, or alter the global climate dynamics of earth, in any measurable or meaningful way, let alone in a way that poses some kind of danger to the earth or to humanity?

Let's go over the facts as they stand at present, shall we?

1. Changes in CO2 concentrations cannot account for the wide variability in climate that we know, empirically, the earth has gone through in recent historic times, including the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the MWP, and the LIA. Further, all of these natural variations are completely harmonious and understandable within the context of the well understood Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.

2. The so-called greenhouse theory does not explain the actual temperature variations that have occurred during the last century.

3. The models have been completely wrong. The actual massive increases in industrial CO2 during the 20th century have not produced the predicted dire warming. Indeed, nothing like this has actually occurred in nature, and now, settled in a nearly 20 year cooling trend, the GCM's look like nothing more than extremely expensive Sony Playstations.

4. Consensus theory predicts that warming generated by human CO2 will begin and be most intense at the earth's north and South polar areas. This has not and is not occurring. Temperatures around the Arctic, Greenland, and the seas around them are somewhat colder today then they were in the 1930s.

5. The UHI has thoroughly polluted and corrupted the modern surface temperature record so heavily relied upon by climatists, made even worse by a rather massive reduction of surface data from northern latitudes, including the loss of some three quarters of an original 6,000 stations, many North of the United States/Canadian border. Numerous peer-reviewed studies estimate a warming bias in surface temparature data of between 30% and 50% due to UHI and land use changes.

6. The mid-tropospheric "hot spot" in the tropics that model theory predicts should exist if human generated CO2 is appreciably warming the earth does not exist.

7. C02 rise always and in all known cases for which we have paleoclimatological evidence lags global temperature rise and fall. It never precedes planetary warming.

Droopy and his ilk are not only wrong, they are wildly wrong. Just about every sentence Droopy utters on the topic of climate is 100% false and the falsehoods concern things that matter (like scientific facts and consequences for health, public safety, democracy, business, and humanity in general).

You're nothing but a pathetic shill for your ideology, Tarski, and you, like so many others in the warminst cult, have sold your intellectual souls to the dark god of hubris, and that god demands a vast quantity of human sacrifice to placate its thirst for power and control. Ironically, you are, in reality, a science denier, and typical of the rot that has now bled from the humanities and social sciences into the hard sciences.

Few things make me hope there is a God more than the idea of immoral denialists and Randian profit/selfishness worshiping dumbasses like Droopy having their asses handed to them by The Almighty.

Or, you could just follow the most prominent cult-leaders of your movement and call for Nuremberg-style trials of the likes of me for "high crimes against humanity" (James Hansen) and for high treason (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.). Mr. Kennedy also said that fossil fuel companies are "criminal enterprises" who's mangers should be "in jail...for all eternity."

Then there's former Clinton administration official, Joe Romm, who said, "an entire generation that will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds."

David Suzuki has called for people like me to be "thrown into jail."

You see, Tarski, AGW has never been about science, but about ideology and policy, which is why its a political issue at all and why the level of discourse from people such as yourself has never been scientific in nature at all but polemical, emotive, apocalyptic, agitated, frantic, hysterical, and vitriolic, and why the mental set behind such discourse is neither scientific or open and democratic in nature, but fascistic, totalitarian, and anti-liberal.

[_bcspace]

Don't confuse Tarski with the facts Droopy. He has a hard enough time as it is differentiating between GW and AGW.

[_Tarski]

Don't confuse Tarski with the facts Droopy. He has a hard enough time as it is differentiating between GW and AGW.

You are full it BC. I know the difference. I also know that until recently, you wingnuts were denying any kind of significant climate change.
We have already begun to see the next step (showing up on FOX etc.):

Step 1. There is no global warming. The whole thing is a hoax.
Step 2. There is global warming but it is not influenced by human beings. AGW is a socialist hoax.

Next step:
Step 3. There is global warming and maybe it is influenced significantly by human activity but there is nothing we can do about it anyway since India and China will not cooperate. It's too late so we may as well live it up while we can (i.e. can us John Galts get back to our main purpose: profit at any cost?)


BC-cut 'n past-Space,
I don't think a person who thinks there is a planet near a special star Kolob that is the home of an all powerful hairy, nippled, meat eating, bloodless, primate has enough good judgement to enter into any conversation about what is real and what isn't. Add to that your general scientific illiteracy and well,.....

by the way, I listen to Limbaugh and Hannity for a laugh almost every day so I know that all you do is repeat here what you hear there.
Have an original thought!

[_subgenius]

[_Droopy]

Don't confuse Tarski with the facts Droopy. He has a hard enough time as it is differentiating between GW and AGW.

I think we should ask him to differentiate between global warming, anthropogenic global warming, dangerous/catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and climate change. I'm also interested in the common term "climate change denial," as if anyone in the climate realist movement is denying what's been going on since the Cambrian period.

Its ironic, after all of Tarski's fulminations, that the effects of trying to prevent alleged catastrophic global warming, far from being a gift to our children and grandchildren, would be most likely conceived of in a future time as perhaps the greatest body of crimes against humanity ever perpetrated, and it will be the poor - and most severely, the Third World poor - who's faces will be ground upon by wealthy, decadent, effete Western liberal elites and the masses of swarming, pubic educated, affluent, low information citizens who feed and care for them.

[_Droopy]

The real, plausible horror we face now, is that the climatists are about to do again to the Third World what Rachel Carson and the movement she inaugurated did to them 50 years ago.

Only Mao yet holds a higher record of grave-digging.