U.N: Global warming crisis overblown

reply to post by webedoomed


Well said. Perfectly said, actually.
Random person: The sky is blue.
Random person 2: I don't like blue so the sky is orange.

reply to post by Cynic

More's the pity. If you had, you would have reached the same conclusion as we so-called deniers.

Kindly read the studies on solar contributions to system wide climate change, and those which now refute planetary heating in favor of planetary cooling.

Or you can choose to be ignorant and continue to claim that humans have any real contribution to the cause, especially when it is a fact that this a natural process which has happened many times prior to our arrival on the planet.

Peacock out.

Better yet, why don't you read them, post them and open up a discussion? I'm guessing you can't. You'd be much better off if you looked to people like talklikeapirat, 727Sky, theredneck for contrarian points instead of Anthony Watts, Lord Monckton or Rush Limbaugh. They bring science to the table vs nonsensical rantings of ideologues.

swanne

Kali74
They aren't saying we're entering a period cooling and you will see as much when the actual report comes out... if you dare to read it for yourself that is.

edit on 18-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Hm, there hasn't been any major global warming since 16 years. If anything, temperatures went slightly down.

What you mean to say is that there hasn't been major (there has been an increase but it hasn't been catastrophic) surface temperature warming for 16 years. If you can't see why that distinction is important, you don't understand any aspect of climate science.

reply to post by Kali74


Why should I post them.
They are easy to find, do your own homework

reply to post by Cynic


I see my assumption that you are a child is correct. These are your counterpoints not mine, if you legitimately want to stand on them, bring them to the table, otherwise go back to the playground and quit bugging the adults.

reply to post by Kali74


I have lived some 50 plus years and know a troll when I see one.
Do your own search if you dare, but if you don't know how that's you problem.
Once you reach 19 and have done more research, get back to the class.
You are simply wrong on all levels of the discussion.

reply to post by Cynic


I've already posted on these aspects, as I've said.
Find them.

reply to post by Kali74


The title of the external quote is a link to the PDF (no malware warning). You know exactly that i would read every study and try to understand precisely what is being said, before even thinking about quoting from it. I can't say the same about you.

Most of your comment in 727Sky's thread is about slamming the WJS for how wrong they got it and very little about the paper in questions. It's not much what i can take away from the few paragraphs, except that you blame the failure of the full IPCC model ensemble to simulate temperature trends on the lack of funding in climate science. And volcanoes.

After one decade of extensive research and coding, numerous updates and myriads of apologetic studies trying to defend a forecasting tool that is seriously broken, climate models can still not simulate the most important aspects of the climate system.

Acknowledging a serious problem comes before finding a way to fix it. Ironic, isn't it?

Because mostly that it what is presented here. Would you like me to create a second account find these legit contrarian papers and debate myself?

What's a contraian paper? Name-calling wont be enough. If you want to expose a lie, focus on the truth.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

The title of the external quote is a link to the PDF (no malware warning). You know exactly that i would read every study and try to understand precisely what is being said, before even thinking about quoting from it. I can't say the same about you.

Awwww, c'mon be nice. I read the paper.

Most of your comment in 727Sky's thread is about slamming the WJS for how wrong they got it and very little about the paper in questions

That is what the thread was about, was it not? Did WSJ get it right or did they get it wrong?

It's not much what i can take away from the few paragraphs, except that you blame the failure of the full IPCC model ensemble to simulate temperature trends on the lack of funding in climate science. And volcanoes.

In the future I will try to remember that my posts must be written in a manner that satisfies you, rather than the poster I'm replying to. The paper was brought up as a supporting argument, I responded to it as such. But while we're at it... do you suppose that climate research is well funded? The paper proposes that a major flaw with the models used is lack of factoring cooling effects such as volcanoes. Is this supposed to be an indication that climate science has it all wrong because of that, or it is more likely that what it really means is that we're going to be bit much harder in the ass very suddenly when those cooling effects wear off?

After one decade of extensive research and coding, numerous updates and myriads of apologetic studies trying to defend a forecasting tool that is seriously broken, climate models can still not simulate the most important aspects of the climate system.

Apologetic studies?
Point me to one.

What's a contraian paper? Name-calling wont be enough.

What would you like me to call people, especially sciencey people who oppose AGW? I mean for clarity sake, distinctions have to be made, don't they?

If you want to expose a lie, focus on the truth.

But, you don't like it when I do that.

reply to post by Kali74

Awwww, c'mon be nice. I read the paper.

I'm trying. I did not call you denier, yet.

That is what the thread was about, was it not? Did WSJ get it right or did they get it wrong?

In the future I will try to remember that my posts must be written in a manner that satisfies you, rather than the poster I'm replying to. The paper was brought up as a supporting argument, I responded to it as such.

You've pointed me to the thread, saying you already commented on the paper, what i found was very little.
Would you've been satisfied? I'm being honest here, i was kind of expecting an actual discussion about the paper. I should've known better.

But while we're at it... do you suppose that climate research is well funded? The paper proposes that a major flaw with the models used is lack of factoring cooling effects such as volcanoes. Is this supposed to be an indication that climate science has it all wrong because of that, or it is more likely that what it really means is that we're going to be bit much harder in the ass very suddenly when those cooling effects wear off?

No, i don't think money is a problem at all. Stratospheric aerosol was only one aspect discussed, other factors that could potentially have had a warming effect are also explicitly mentioned.

When this debakel is over. Climate science will need to work hard to regain credibilty. It will be a very happy day for me when this credibilty is restored.

Apologetic studies?
Point me to one.

Here's one that you yourself linked to (to the article discussing the paper that is). In an exchange with me.

ars technica

It took me ages to find a PDF back then, turns out i forgot bookmark the link. I'll find it later, should be interesting to compare the two studies.

Remember the advice you gave in 727Sky's thread?

From the thread

I suggest always reading a paper cited in an article or blog for yourself, don't trust anyone else to interpret it for you... it's rare that they get it right.

What would you like me to call people, especially sciencey people who oppose AGW? I mean for clarity sake, distinctions have to be made, don't they?

I guess - "Scientists i don't agree with and that's why i need to call them names, although i'm not one myself, but distinctions have to be made" - is too long. Try 'scientists' only, that's what they are and focus on the science.

But, you don't like it when I do that.

I actually like it very much.

Kali74
reply to post by Cynic

 

I've already posted on these aspects, as I've said.
Find them.

I could produce the link, but you already know where they are.
Your consistent requests for proof are simply a bait and switch to divert attention elsewhere.
S*it or get off the pot, I refuse to do your work for you.
Cheating on the exam is frowned upon you know.

1104light
reply to post by jdub297

 

What an insane rant. Either it is real or not. We need to be on the same planet to go further.

Until you join us on THIS planet it might prove hard to go further.

Only one person prattling on out of me and you, I get a feeling it isnt me.
I wasnt talking about Al Gore, so why(in a post addressed to me) are you talking about Al Gore?

And talking of insanity, all I can say is, people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.


And onto the subject of "computer models".
Any scientist or "educated type" that really thinks they can factor the variables required to predict future weather patterns is an IDIOT. We can barely predict the weather for next week let alone years into the future. The failure of the weather to follow our vastly limited "computer models" proves this time and time again. But hey if that makes me crazy, Ill wear my badge with pride.
With whats considered "normal" these days, Im proud to be abnormal.

reply to post by talklikeapirat

I'm trying. I did not call you denier, yet.

Signifying adjectives are just that, but so that your anger be warranted I'll just call them doo-doo heads from now on.

You've pointed me to the thread, saying you already commented on the paper, what i found was very little.
Would you've been satisfied? I'm being honest here, i was kind of expecting an actual discussion about the paper. I should've known better.

I wasn't pointing you actually, just indicating I had read the paper. Discussing that paper should probably be done in it's own thread, ya?

When this debakel is over. Climate science will need to work hard to regain credibilty. It will be a very happy day for me when this credibilty is restored.

I don't know why you see it as a debacle, or something to lose credibility over. I don't recall climate science coming out of the gate with statements of perfection. I see that paper as a means of progress.

Here's one that you yourself linked to (to the article discussing the paper that is). In an exchange with me.

In what way was that an apology for anything?

Remember the advice you gave in 727Sky's thread?

Advice I follow or I wouldn't have given it.

I guess - "Scientists i don't agree with and that's why i need to call them names, although i'm not one myself, but distinctions have to be made" - is too long. Try 'scientists' only, that's what they are and focus on the science.

Doo-Doo heads.

reply to post by Cynic

I could produce the link, but you already know where they are.
Your consistent requests for proof are simply a bait and switch to divert attention elsewhere.
S*it or get off the pot, I refuse to do your work for you.
Cheating on the exam is frowned upon you know.

You're wanting me to bring your own talking points to the thread for you.
Grow up.

reply to post by Kali74


I have already done that.
Get a life.

Cynic
reply to post by Kali74

 

I have already done that.
Get a life.

It's sad that you think you have. You say there are studies that prove your talking points but refuse to accept the responsibility of bringing them to ATS yourself, you want me to do it for you. Not happening, put up or shut up.

reply to post by Kali74


Au contraire honey bunny.
I refuse to do your homework,
Ask your science teacher for them.

Kali74

Cynic
reply to post by Kali74

 

I have already done that.
Get a life.

It's sad that you think you have. You say there are studies that prove your talking points but refuse to accept the responsibility of bringing them to ATS yourself, you want me to do it for you. Not happening, put up or shut up.

Maybe you should both just shut up, it seems you have derailed the thread enough with your petty bickering.
Get a room goddammit.

reply to post by Cynic


Ridiculous troll is ridiculous.

reply to post by Kali74


OK, you win.
www.wnd.com...
Now bugger off.