The TRUTH about climate change

[Marcel Petrin]

Oh look, a whole bunch of cherry picked, out of context, regional temperature reconstructions that totally misrepresent the conclusions of the researchers. Several of the graphs were even edited.

https://www.snopes.com/400-papers-pu...rming-is-myth/

https://skepticalscience.com/80_grap...ate_myths.html

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...#authors-reply

Richard misrepresents and misinterprets these papers in many instances. For example, NTZ misrepresented a graph from a 2017 paper that intentionally removed the long term global warming trend so researchers could investigate other trends in the record — a fact that went unmentioned in his post. NTZ reported on the graph (below) as if it were evidence that global temperatures were flat, despite the fact that the post had intentionally and explicitly removed that signal

Once again fellow MrCompost, stop posting lies and misrepresentations.

[Creativemind]

90% off the world scientists are not in agreement this is pure fiction and has been debunked . 90% of UN scientists agree big difference when they're trying to push a agenda thru it's called agenda 21 now 30 . All the past climate chicken littles said we would have cities under ocean waters by now all their predictions on their rock solid clad science from late 80's and 90's wrong , but now they expect the gullible to believe all their rock solid clad science predicting the future climate 50-100 years from now are accurate and we will tax the hell out of people to prevent the sun from burning up the planet. Don't let the chicken little cult persuade your thinking or destroy your right for a free and happy life MrCombust because many in life need fear and government to wipe their noses all thru life sadly .

[MrCombust]

90% off the world scientists are not in agreement this is pure fiction and has been debunked . 90% of UN scientists agree big difference when they're trying to push a agenda thru it's called agenda 21 now 30 . All the past climate chicken littles said we would have cities under ocean waters by now all their predictions on their rock solid clad science from late 80's and 90's wrong , but now they expect the gullible to believe all their rock solid clad science predicting the future climate 50-100 years from now are accurate and we will tax the hell out of people to prevent the sun from burning up the planet. Don't let the chicken little cult persuade your thinking or destroy your right for a free and happy life MrCombust because many in life need fear and government to wipe their noses all thru life sadly .

Don't know if they really believe the "consensus", or they're just pretending. It's fake regardless. People should know how fake climate science really is.

[GenWhy?]

Kinda like the whole Ozone thing.

[Edmonton PRT]

Yes, they faked the moon landing, the world is flat and one times one equals two and that all of math is wrong

Time to load you up in the rubber lined van...

[GenWhy?]

Because we're in for a bumpy ride.

[MrCombust]

Top graph shows "record" high temperatures around the world.
Bottom graph shows area NOAA stations cover.
Notice record high temperatures are being recorded where there is no weather station.
(gray areas represent missing data)

"Global warming" is now being manufactured by fudging data.


Two links where you can find these on NOAA's website........
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summa.../global/201606
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servi...ntp/201606.gif
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servi...ntp/201712.gif

[Edmonton PRT]

First off, those are not 'graphs', those are weather data maps.

You claim "Notice record high temperatures are being recorded where there is no weather station."

Obviously you know NOTHING about weather and gathering weather data.

There are thousands of 'weather stations', remote and automatic weather monitoring locations all over the world including remote ocean buoys.

READ THIS
Weather satellites have been available to determine sea surface temperature information since 1967, with the first global composites created during 1970. Since 1982, satellites have been increasingly utilized to measure SST and have allowed its spatial and temporal variation to be viewed more fully. Satellite measurements of SST are in reasonable agreement with in situ temperature measurements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature









Keep posting your lies,disinformation and foolish opinions

Everyone enjoys watching a fool implode.

[KC]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

[MrCombust]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

Admin, the definition of "engage", to a global warming advocate is to "agree" with them. Notice they don't post science or address what I posted. They call names, mock, insult, pretend they're part of a "consensus", and can't stay on point. I have no interest in answering thier nonsensical questions, and I have no obligation to respond to mockery. If they can't directly address what I posted, then so be it, No reply.

[Marcel Petrin]

Notice they don't post science or address what I posted.

I've posted plenty of science. You on the other hand post misrepresentations and outright lies.

[KC]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

Admin, the definition of "engage", to a global warming advocate is to "agree" with them. Notice they don't post science or address what I posted. They call names, mock, insult, pretend they're part of a "consensus", and can't stay on point. I have no interest in answering thier nonsensical questions, and I have no obligation to respond to mockery. If they can't directly address what I posted, then so be it, No reply.

You also refused to reply to my finding of a simple error or typo in your duplicated material, which led me to making flawed remarks which you then mocked.

However a few posts up, you engaged in casual discussion with a person that agreed with you. That appears to be common among people on the slippery slope of creating perceptual silos and subject to confirmation bias.

Moreover, you appear to be seeking absolute agreement from people and when you don’t receive it, you are labelling them as global warming advocates.

Outside of that, materially, I really don’t see how this thread differs from the main thread except for your desire to use a thread as a personal blog.

On the other thread I too have brought forth quite a number of postings to challenge and contradict global warming views, and naturally those posts were critiqued and I seem to recall being labelled a denier by what I’d say are less intelligent posters. Nonetheless that is the reality of utilizing social media tools. It would be moronic of me to think I could post unconventional views and not receive all forms of push-back. That’s why I’m surprised at your apparent oblivious knowledge of public “forum” reality.

Please explain to me how your thread stands out as different that the long standing thread we’ve all used for years now. I’ve started many seemingly odd tightwads based on small nuNces I perceive but nonetheless some of those have been merged with other threads. Some have been closed. That’s just how it is. I simply failed to make my case and so didn’t get my way. As a result I’ve limited my temper tantrums to a few snide remarks and gave moved on - of course - only until an opportunity for another snide remark presented itself.

Admin, tear down this thread wall and MERGE THIS THREAD

[MrCombust]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

Admin, the definition of "engage", to a global warming advocate is to "agree" with them. Notice they don't post science or address what I posted. They call names, mock, insult, pretend they're part of a "consensus", and can't stay on point. I have no interest in answering thier nonsensical questions, and I have no obligation to respond to mockery. If they can't directly address what I posted, then so be it, No reply.

However a few posts up, you engaged in casual discussion with a person that agreed with you. That appears to be common among people on the slippery slope of creating perceptual silos and subject to confirmation bias.

Moreover, you appear to be seeking absolute agreement from people and when you don’t receive it, you are labelling them as global warming advocates.

Outside of that, materially, I really don’t see how this thread differs from the main thread except for your desire to use a thread as a personal blog.

On the other thread I too have brought forth quite a number of postings to challenge and contradict global warming views, and naturally those posts were critiqued and I seem to recall being labelled a denier by what I’d say are less intelligent posters. Nonetheless that is the reality of utilizing social media tools. It would be moronic of me to think I could post unconventional views and not receive all forms of push-back. That’s why I’m surprised at your apparent oblivious knowledge of public “forum” reality.

I'm aware and pretty much agree with you.

But there is nothing wrong with this format. What's wrong is the climate change advocate playbook. It's as predictable as the rain. The playbook is all about pretending everybody agrees with them, and attacking dissent. I'm here to educate and set an example for rational climate change discussion. Who wants to actually discuss the topic when the advocates will come out and attack? Its time this reprehensible behaviour was dealt with. In the past it was allowed, and even encouraged, because most people thought scientists were trying to "save the planet". That sentiment is changing. The "climate science" being discussed on this forum is 20 years out of date and no longer active. All because the advocates are using a 20 year old attack advocacy playbook.
The old thread can die with the old science, and the old playbook.

[KC]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

Admin, the definition of "engage", to a global warming advocate is to "agree" with them. Notice they don't post science or address what I posted. They call names, mock, insult, pretend they're part of a "consensus", and can't stay on point. I have no interest in answering thier nonsensical questions, and I have no obligation to respond to mockery. If they can't directly address what I posted, then so be it, No reply.

However a few posts up, you engaged in casual discussion with a person that agreed with you. That appears to be common among people on the slippery slope of creating perceptual silos and subject to confirmation bias.

Moreover, you appear to be seeking absolute agreement from people and when you don’t receive it, you are labelling them as global warming advocates.

Outside of that, materially, I really don’t see how this thread differs from the main thread except for your desire to use a thread as a personal blog.

On the other thread I too have brought forth quite a number of postings to challenge and contradict global warming views, and naturally those posts were critiqued and I seem to recall being labelled a denier by what I’d say are less intelligent posters. Nonetheless that is the reality of utilizing social media tools. It would be moronic of me to think I could post unconventional views and not receive all forms of push-back. That’s why I’m surprised at your apparent oblivious knowledge of public “forum” reality.

I'm aware and pretty much agree with you.

But there is nothing wrong with this format. What's wrong is the climate change advocate playbook. It's as predictable as the rain. The playbook is all about pretending everybody agrees with them, and attacking dissent. I'm here to educate and set an example for rational climate change discussion. Who wants to actually discuss the topic when the advocates will come out and attack? Its time this reprehensible behaviour was dealt with. In the past it was allowed, and even encouraged, because most people thought scientists were trying to "save the planet". That sentiment is changing. The "climate science" being discussed on this forum is 20 years out of date and no longer active. All because the advocates are using a 20 year old attack advocacy playbook.
The old thread can die with the old science, and the old playbook.

Forums don’t work that way. You need a blog. (Or a more fun and engaging personality.)

[MrCombust]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

Admin, the definition of "engage", to a global warming advocate is to "agree" with them. Notice they don't post science or address what I posted. They call names, mock, insult, pretend they're part of a "consensus", and can't stay on point. I have no interest in answering thier nonsensical questions, and I have no obligation to respond to mockery. If they can't directly address what I posted, then so be it, No reply.

However a few posts up, you engaged in casual discussion with a person that agreed with you. That appears to be common among people on the slippery slope of creating perceptual silos and subject to confirmation bias.

Moreover, you appear to be seeking absolute agreement from people and when you don’t receive it, you are labelling them as global warming advocates.

Outside of that, materially, I really don’t see how this thread differs from the main thread except for your desire to use a thread as a personal blog.

On the other thread I too have brought forth quite a number of postings to challenge and contradict global warming views, and naturally those posts were critiqued and I seem to recall being labelled a denier by what I’d say are less intelligent posters. Nonetheless that is the reality of utilizing social media tools. It would be moronic of me to think I could post unconventional views and not receive all forms of push-back. That’s why I’m surprised at your apparent oblivious knowledge of public “forum” reality.

I'm aware and pretty much agree with you.

But there is nothing wrong with this format. What's wrong is the climate change advocate playbook. It's as predictable as the rain. The playbook is all about pretending everybody agrees with them, and attacking dissent. I'm here to educate and set an example for rational climate change discussion. Who wants to actually discuss the topic when the advocates will come out and attack? Its time this reprehensible behaviour was dealt with. In the past it was allowed, and even encouraged, because most people thought scientists were trying to "save the planet". That sentiment is changing. The "climate science" being discussed on this forum is 20 years out of date and no longer active. All because the advocates are using a 20 year old attack advocacy playbook.
The old thread can die with the old science, and the old playbook.

Forums don’t work that way. You need a blog. (Or a more fun and engaging personality.)

You're running the playbook and you don't even know it.

Yeah, I get all kinds of advice on how to do what I do. Especially from the advocates. You think what I'm doing isn't working? Posting ACTUAL SCIENCE? Posting the thorough dubunk of the hockey stick graph? Posting about how NASA is lying about climate science?

You think this isn't working?

You're wrong.

We'll have a lot more fun when you can admit the truth. There's no consensus, NASA is lying, and skepticalscience is a farce. You believe in these institutions so you get angry when I tell the truth about them. So do your "friends".

[East McCauley]

Re maps posted in #207 above.

Is it too much to ask that Mr.Combust uses his noggin for a moment?

First off, here is a link to NOAA's complete December 2017 global temperatures report including maps of variance from average in the December 2017 land and ocean temperatures. Notice data from the "missing" weather stations is now available on the maps.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201712

Think about it for a moment. Why would the NOAA engage in a deliberate deception about December 2017 global temperatures when there are hundreds of national and private weather services (including the World Meteorological Association) that track monthly temperature averages in tens of thousands of locations on land and sea?

[Admin]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

Thanks MEdwards for directing me to this post.

KC, I reviewed the thread, and given how this one is so contentious (not like the other one wasn't), plus timestamps, the merged threads would become even harder to read than this one is currently painful to read.

If it is OK with others, I can close the old thread, and keep a link to it on this thread.

[MrCombust]

Think about it for a moment. Why would the NOAA engage in a deliberate deception about December 2017 global temperatures when there are hundreds of national and private weather services (including the World Meteorological Association) that track monthly temperature averages in tens of thousands of locations on land and sea?

What a GREAT QUESTION!!!!

I ask myself that every day.

Even better, "Why is NOAA lying to my school kids?"

Check out NOAA's CO2 experiment for school kids.............

https://forecast.weather.gov/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm

The TRUTH is, CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas and the effect is immeasurable in a small volume, as this report will explain.............

"Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics"

Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns."

http://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10...ournalCode=ajp

[Spudly]

This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.

And 2 weeks on, a very successful troll thread. Lots of people feigning indignation because "MrCombust isn't listening/doesn't want facts/argues in circles/etc." Classic stuff.

[MrCombust]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

Thanks MEdwards for directing me to this post.

KC, I reviewed the thread, and given how this one is so contentious (not like the other one wasn't), plus timestamps, the merged threads would become even harder to read than this one is currently painful to read.

If it is OK with others, I can close the old thread, and keep a link to it on this thread.

As long as you're involved admin.........., this thread would be less contentious if members were to abide by the forum rules and not attack me personally. Maybe you could remind some of the posters that name calling (MrCompost) is a violation of rules, common decency, and decorum.

[noodle]

Hey Admin, given the last post by MrCombust's pretty on-the-nose verbiage matching MrOilers schtick he uses in the political threads about personal attacks can you doublecheck the IPs that they're both posting from? It's starting to smell more & more like a doubled account.

[KC]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

Thanks MEdwards for directing me to this post.

KC, I reviewed the thread, and given how this one is so contentious (not like the other one wasn't), plus timestamps, the merged threads would become even harder to read than this one is currently painful to read.

If it is OK with others, I can close the old thread, and keep a link to it on this thread.

As long as you're involved admin.........., this thread would be less contentious if members were to abide by the forum rules and not attack me personally. Maybe you could remind some of the posters that name calling (MrCompost) is a violation of rules, common decency, and decorum.

Common decency. Wouldn't your refusing to admit to the smallest of mistakes and the consequences of it including your own lack of common decency, also fall under that rule?



Maybe you need to re-read this:

Truncated except from post #64 to start:

The quote you supplied is missing the number 1 after
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.....
" The 1 refers to the footnotes at the bottom of the page.
In the footnotes you will find the supporting documents.

Sorry but the quote I supplied is the quote you supplied.

Moreover, I said that in my post. So why are you saying to me: “The quote you supplied is missing ...”?

Please quote from the supporting documents a quote to justify the pursuit of the 97% consensus that you engaged in in your post above. The NASA quote provided above isn’t sufficient.

So MrCombust, I note that you haven’t apologized for your misquote and then your attempt to put that one on me. Very interesting, and insightful.

Notice the raging arrogance of the climate change advocates. KC posts fake science, cartoons, he can't find the quote on the very page I provided a link for, he makes up gobbledy-gook about "trends", he ignores my post debunking John Cook's consensus then posts John Cook's consensus, he doesn't "have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute", then he asks me for an apology.

What a hoot these unflinching faithful's are. This is why I don't wish to engage them. They will ask questions I already posted about, they will make points unrelated to my posts, they will argue without researching, they will point to their favourite liar blogs and expect me to be crushed by their fake science.

If I do not respond to their posts it's not because I can't, it's because climate change discussions quickly end up being a quagmire of semantics as the faithful make one error after another and/or use liar blogs to support their position.

And the all time favourite tactic of climate change advocates..........switch definitions of "climate change" from one sentence to the next. I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change" in a future post. If "climate change" is sometimes confusing to you, it's because it's intentionally confusing. I will apply a proper, rigorous, scientific analysis of different definitions of "climate change" as they frequently use it erroneously, and interchangeably. Once you understand the frequent misuse of the term "climate change" it will clarify things a great deal, and you will see how poor their arguments really are. You can see how the term was misused in the "consensus" statements....... "97% of scientists believe climate change is happening". Well, no kidding!

Please take a minute to review the quote you used in your post #46. My failure was to not go back to your earlier post and then to double check the two different versions you provided against a verifiable source in order to sort out which one was the correct NASA quote.

You say: “the faithful make one error after another”. The error I made followed up on your error which out of your hubris you tried twice now to put on me rather than simply apologizing. You need to look in the mirror as you criticize others while you make errors yourself.

I’ll copy and paste the quote from your post #46 here adding bolding:

“Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show
that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/”

[MrCombust]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

Thanks MEdwards for directing me to this post.

KC, I reviewed the thread, and given how this one is so contentious (not like the other one wasn't), plus timestamps, the merged threads would become even harder to read than this one is currently painful to read.

If it is OK with others, I can close the old thread, and keep a link to it on this thread.

As long as you're involved admin.........., this thread would be less contentious if members were to abide by the forum rules and not attack me personally. Maybe you could remind some of the posters that name calling (MrCompost) is a violation of rules, common decency, and decorum.

In addition Mr Admin........... I'd just like to say being an admin is a thankless job. Having to involve yourself with childish squabbles every day. I can't believe you haven't already blocked my IP just for being so troublesome (right or wrong). So far, you guys are top notch. So if nobody else does, let me say Thank You.

[KC]

Admin, shouldn’t this thread now be merged with the ‘do you believe in global warming thread’? From the start it seemed like it would be the same sort of discussion and I think it is.

However MrCombust really should have just started a blog as he/she has been quite clear about not engaging in debates with participants that hold different views.

Thanks MEdwards for directing me to this post.

KC, I reviewed the thread, and given how this one is so contentious (not like the other one wasn't), plus timestamps, the merged threads would become even harder to read than this one is currently painful to read.

If it is OK with others, I can close the old thread, and keep a link to it on this thread.

As long as you're involved admin.........., this thread would be less contentious if members were to abide by the forum rules and not attack me personally. Maybe you could remind some of the posters that name calling (MrCompost) is a violation of rules, common decency, and decorum.

In addition Mr Admin........... I'd just like to say being an admin is a thankless job. Having to involve yourself with childish squabbles every day. I can't believe you haven't already blocked my IP just for being so troublesome (right or wrong). So far, you guys are top notch. So if nobody else does, let me say Thank You.

I'm sure everyone agrees. Nonetheless - the childishness is obviously not going away.

[KC]

This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.

And 2 weeks on, a very successful troll thread. Lots of people feigning indignation because "MrCombust isn't listening/doesn't want facts/argues in circles/etc." Classic stuff.

I hope you're not referring to my challenges for an apology. If you see that as "feigning indignation" I'm failing at my whole attempt to highlight the hypocrisy of MrCombust - who jumps at any perceived factual error but can't admit to one him/herself.

[noodle]

Minor discrepancies between scientists' findings? Invalidate everything!
Major discrepancies in disingenuous claims? WHY ARE YOU ARGUING SEMANTICS!?

[Spudly]

This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.

And 2 weeks on, a very successful troll thread. Lots of people feigning indignation because "MrCombust isn't listening/doesn't want facts/argues in circles/etc." Classic stuff.

I hope you're not referring to my challenges for an apology. If you see that as "feigning indignation" you're missing my whole attempt at highlighting the hypocrisy of MrCombust - who jumps at any perceived error.

I'm not specifically, but y'all took the troll's bait, kept feeding it, were rebuffed in your attempts to "highlight its hypocrisy", and are now asking for an apology. Maybe, "feigning" isn't the right word - but y'all asked to be triggered, troll gave it you plenty, repeatedly, and y'all come back for more. Troll wins, troll will keep winning as long as it's being fed. Trolls want attention more than facts or an "education."

[Spudly]

Hey Admin, given the last post by MrCombust's pretty on-the-nose verbiage matching MrOilers schtick he uses in the political threads about personal attacks can you doublecheck the IPs that they're both posting from? It's starting to smell more & more like a doubled account.

Post #2 in this thread, 2 weeks ago:

MrOilers, is that you?

[KC]

This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.

And 2 weeks on, a very successful troll thread. Lots of people feigning indignation because "MrCombust isn't listening/doesn't want facts/argues in circles/etc." Classic stuff.

I hope you're not referring to my challenges for an apology. If you see that as "feigning indignation" you're missing my whole attempt at highlighting the hypocrisy of MrCombust - who jumps at any perceived error.

I'm not specifically, but y'all took the troll's bait, kept feeding it, were rebuffed in your attempts to "highlight its hypocrisy", and are now asking for an apology. Maybe, "feigning" isn't the right word - but y'all asked to be triggered, troll gave it you plenty, repeatedly, and y'all come back for more. Troll wins, troll will keep winning as long as it's being fed. Trolls want attention more than facts or an "education."

I was asking for an apology as a test for credibility. However I don’t mind feed trolls. When the Microsoft Help Desk called me, I always tried to help them find what they were looking for, no matter how long it took. Too bad I was using an Apple but I tried to help via screenshots. And sometimes when I receive unsolicited calls offering me great deals, I try to return the favour telling them how lucky they called because I too have something great to sell them ( old couch, old trailer or whatever precious item I happen to have needing a new home.)

[MrCombust]

This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.

And 2 weeks on, a very successful troll thread. Lots of people feigning indignation because "MrCombust isn't listening/doesn't want facts/argues in circles/etc." Classic stuff.

I hope you're not referring to my challenges for an apology. If you see that as "feigning indignation" you're missing my whole attempt at highlighting the hypocrisy of MrCombust - who jumps at any perceived error.

I'm not specifically, but y'all took the troll's bait, kept feeding it, were rebuffed in your attempts to "highlight its hypocrisy", and are now asking for an apology. Maybe, "feigning" isn't the right word - but y'all asked to be triggered, troll gave it you plenty, repeatedly, and y'all come back for more. Troll wins, troll will keep winning as long as it's being fed. Trolls want attention more than facts or an "education."

KC, in case you don't know............, you're being attacked by spudly for showing the slightest semblance of courtesy to a climate skeptic. The more you rationally discuss climate science, the more you will be attacked, and not just by spudly. I've convinced more than one that climate science is a fraud. As soon as the rabble sees somebody turn, the attack starts. I know you're not convinced, nor are you a skeptic, but you can see how the playbook goes. If you really want to learn about climate science you'll have to leave these guys behind. They're babbling about stuff that has long been debunked. I haven't even started on the latest "evidence", but it's as much of a farce as the long dead hockey stick graph.

[East McCauley]

Think about it for a moment. Why would the NOAA engage in a deliberate deception about December 2017 global temperatures when there are hundreds of national and private weather services (including the World Meteorological Association) that track monthly temperature averages in tens of thousands of locations on land and sea?

What a GREAT QUESTION!!!!

I ask myself that every day.

If it's such a GREAT QUESTION try answering it rather than changing the topic.

[KC]

This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.

And 2 weeks on, a very successful troll thread. Lots of people feigning indignation because "MrCombust isn't listening/doesn't want facts/argues in circles/etc." Classic stuff.

I hope you're not referring to my challenges for an apology. If you see that as "feigning indignation" you're missing my whole attempt at highlighting the hypocrisy of MrCombust - who jumps at any perceived error.

I'm not specifically, but y'all took the troll's bait, kept feeding it, were rebuffed in your attempts to "highlight its hypocrisy", and are now asking for an apology. Maybe, "feigning" isn't the right word - but y'all asked to be triggered, troll gave it you plenty, repeatedly, and y'all come back for more. Troll wins, troll will keep winning as long as it's being fed. Trolls want attention more than facts or an "education."

KC, in case you don't know............, you're being attacked by spudly for showing the slightest semblance of courtesy to a climate skeptic. The more you rationally discuss climate science, the more you will be attacked, and not just by spudly. I've convinced more than one that climate science is a fraud. As soon as the rabble sees somebody turn, the attack starts. I know you're not convinced, nor are you a skeptic, but you can see how the playbook goes. If you really want to learn about climate science you'll have to leave these guys behind. They're babbling about stuff that has long been debunked. I haven't even started on the latest "evidence", but it's as much of a farce as the long dead hockey stick graph.

If you think back to the 1980s you’ll recall that from the start there’s been outright denial by vested interests that human caused global warming was possibly a real threat. It’s been an uphill climb by scientists to test the theories and all along there’s been challenges their findings. So now that large amounts of information is flooding out about findings every day, it’s jndersts that a lot of people will believe that the balance of evidence must support the global warming side.

However to the average person acceptance of one side of another has always been a matter of faith over a distant threat. (Like eating fat causing many evils for the body). No one though, not even governments have made substantive changes to behaviours. Little nuisances like carbon taxes, changing power generation balances, etc are just about meaningless in terms of the big picture. So basically we can pick sides and fight away but as always, we are safe from life altering changes until actual near unalterable threats are upon us and right in everyone’s face.

As for spudly. Little gets by anyone here. Some of us are old guys and gals and so we’ve spent our lives invokved in such opinionated banter. Enjoy.

[MrCombust]

This troll-thread is going to make me want to plead to Admin to update VBulletin to whatever latest version offers thread-Ignore.

6 posts by MrCombust since joining 3 days ago, all of them climate squawking.

And 2 weeks on, a very successful troll thread. Lots of people feigning indignation because "MrCombust isn't listening/doesn't want facts/argues in circles/etc." Classic stuff.

I hope you're not referring to my challenges for an apology. If you see that as "feigning indignation" you're missing my whole attempt at highlighting the hypocrisy of MrCombust - who jumps at any perceived error.

I'm not specifically, but y'all took the troll's bait, kept feeding it, were rebuffed in your attempts to "highlight its hypocrisy", and are now asking for an apology. Maybe, "feigning" isn't the right word - but y'all asked to be triggered, troll gave it you plenty, repeatedly, and y'all come back for more. Troll wins, troll will keep winning as long as it's being fed. Trolls want attention more than facts or an "education."

KC, in case you don't know............, you're being attacked by spudly for showing the slightest semblance of courtesy to a climate skeptic. The more you rationally discuss climate science, the more you will be attacked, and not just by spudly. I've convinced more than one that climate science is a fraud. As soon as the rabble sees somebody turn, the attack starts. I know you're not convinced, nor are you a skeptic, but you can see how the playbook goes. If you really want to learn about climate science you'll have to leave these guys behind. They're babbling about stuff that has long been debunked. I haven't even started on the latest "evidence", but it's as much of a farce as the long dead hockey stick graph.

If you think back to the 1980s you’ll recall that from the start there’s been outright denial by vested interests that human caused global warming was possibly a real threat. It’s been an uphill climb by scientists to test the theories and all along there’s been challenges their findings. So now that large amounts of information is flooding out about findings every day, it’s jndersts that a lot of people will believe that the balance of evidence must support the global warming side.

However to the average person acceptance of one side of another has always been a matter of faith over a distant threat. (Like eating fat causing many evils for the body). No one though, not even governments have made substantive changes to behaviours. Little nuisances like carbon taxes, changing power generation balances, etc are just about meaningless in terms of the big picture. So basically we can pick sides and fight away but as always, we are safe from life altering changes until actual near unalterable threats are upon us and right in everyone’s face.

As for spudly. Little gets by anyone here. Some of us are old guys and gals and so we’ve spent our lives invokved in such opinionated banter. Enjoy.

Nice speech. What "balance of evidence" are you talking about? You got more evidence than what you posted from skepticalscience?

[MrCombust]

Think about it for a moment. Why would the NOAA engage in a deliberate deception about December 2017 global temperatures when there are hundreds of national and private weather services (including the World Meteorological Association) that track monthly temperature averages in tens of thousands of locations on land and sea?

What a GREAT QUESTION!!!!

I ask myself that every day.

If it's such a GREAT QUESTION try answering it rather than changing the topic.

Link to Namibia climatological data............
1948 latest available data.

http://library.noaa.gov/Collections/...a-Climate-Data

[Highlander II]

Wow, closure of that weather recording station in the 1940s is a sure sign of a conspiracy 70 years later.

[KC]

Cause?

'This game is not over yet:' Arctic researcher has hope we can turn corner on climate change | CBC News

Excerpt:

His research work has largely focused on the history of ancient ice sheets, ocean and lake sediment, ocean currents and sea levels, and has helped provide a long-term perspective on changing global climate.

It's like watching a time-lapse movie, he says, and it's made one thing crystal clear to him — "what we're seeing now is pretty unprecedented."
...

"It's been there for — we know — at least 12,000 years, and it's starting to melt," he said. "There are many, many examples [where] you could say, 'this is not the same old, same old.' This is brand new and it's urgent."

'Baffin just set me free'

England remembers his first trip North, more than 50 years ago. ...”




http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/...file-1.3890017

[Medwards]

Think about it for a moment. Why would the NOAA engage in a deliberate deception about December 2017 global temperatures when there are hundreds of national and private weather services (including the World Meteorological Association) that track monthly temperature averages in tens of thousands of locations on land and sea?

What a GREAT QUESTION!!!!

I ask myself that every day.

If it's such a GREAT QUESTION try answering it rather than changing the topic.

Of course MrCombust complete skirts this question.... The whole world is on this climate change conspiracy, and only MrChumpost and his brigade of tin-foil hat internet warriors know what the TRUTH is. We should believe what these warriors are telling us, not what respectable, well established scientists and climatologists have been telling us for 40+ years.

[MrCombust]

Cause?

'This game is not over yet:' Arctic researcher has hope we can turn corner on climate change | CBC News

Excerpt:

His research work has largely focused on the history of ancient ice sheets, ocean and lake sediment, ocean currents and sea levels, and has helped provide a long-term perspective on changing global climate.

It's like watching a time-lapse movie, he says, and it's made one thing crystal clear to him — "what we're seeing now is pretty unprecedented."
...

"It's been there for — we know — at least 12,000 years, and it's starting to melt," he said. "There are many, many examples [where] you could say, 'this is not the same old, same old.' This is brand new and it's urgent."

'Baffin just set me free'

England remembers his first trip North, more than 50 years ago. ...”




http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/...file-1.3890017

So the climate is different from what is was 12,000 years ago? Gee, what a shock. That's evidence it must be man made? Are you serious?

[MrCombust]

Think about it for a moment. Why would the NOAA engage in a deliberate deception about December 2017 global temperatures when there are hundreds of national and private weather services (including the World Meteorological Association) that track monthly temperature averages in tens of thousands of locations on land and sea?

What a GREAT QUESTION!!!!

I ask myself that every day.

If it's such a GREAT QUESTION try answering it rather than changing the topic.

Of course MrCombust complete skirts this question.... The whole world is on this climate change conspiracy, and only MrChumpost and his brigade of tin-foil hat internet warriors know what the TRUTH is. We should believe what these warriors are telling us, not what respectable, well established scientists and climatologists have been telling us for 40+ years.

If there's no climate conspiracy why is NASA lying? Why is NOAA lying to school kids? Why are fake graphs of CO2 and temperature posted on websites by NOAA, NASA, liar blogs, and others? Why are there so many fake surveys with fraudulent 97% consensus results? Why is NASA and NOAA always fudging the data? Why is the response to asking questions always an attack? If the "science" is so clear and convincing why do I need a PhD to understand it? If predictions of warming are based on sound science, why are they all wrong already? Why are liar blogs, like skepticalscience, lying to people on just about every page?

What happened to good, old fashioned, honesty?

[Edmonton PRT]

ONLY you claim they are lying.

The truth is that you know NOTHING about weather and gathering weather data and the simple fact that scientists, (something you are NOT) have used satellites for 50 years to measure a variety of environmental climate factors including temperature. You failed to respond to my post #208 where I proved that you have no knowledge of how data is gathered from the air and sea at various depths.

Your claim that the loss of a single weather station in Namibia in 1948 as proof that there is an international climate change conspiracy is laughable. In fact, I laugh in your face.

I trust that you will continue to ignore facts.

[Medwards]

Think about it for a moment. Why would the NOAA engage in a deliberate deception about December 2017 global temperatures when there are hundreds of national and private weather services (including the World Meteorological Association) that track monthly temperature averages in tens of thousands of locations on land and sea?

What a GREAT QUESTION!!!!

I ask myself that every day.

If it's such a GREAT QUESTION try answering it rather than changing the topic.

Of course MrCombust complete skirts this question.... The whole world is on this climate change conspiracy, and only MrChumpost and his brigade of tin-foil hat internet warriors know what the TRUTH is. We should believe what these warriors are telling us, not what respectable, well established scientists and climatologists have been telling us for 40+ years.

If there's no climate conspiracy why is NASA lying? Why is NOAA lying to school kids? Why are fake graphs of CO2 and temperature posted on websites by NOAA, NASA, liar blogs, and others? Why are there so many fake surveys with fraudulent 97% consensus results? Why is NASA and NOAA always fudging the data? Why is the response to asking questions always an attack? If the "science" is so clear and convincing why do I need a PhD to understand it? If predictions of warming are based on sound science, why are they all wrong already? Why are liar blogs, like skepticalscience, lying to people on just about every page?

What happened to good, old fashioned, honesty?

Why do you continue to skirt the questions being asked to you?

[MrCombust]

Fudges to NASA's GISS temperature record from two dates. January 1910 gets sequentially colder, while January 2000 gets sequentially warmer. The past gets colder, the present gets warmer. These fudges are only in the 2008-2016 period, the fudging started before 2008, and has continued after 2016. The development of the internet allowed this constant fudging to be tracked.

[Edmonton PRT]

Avoiding questions again?



You post graphs without sources and misread the data. What does January 1910 have to do in relation to the graph?

The truth is that you know NOTHING about weather and gathering weather data or even understand or know how to interpret the charts you post.

[Medwards]

^ Finally, some TRUTH on this thread. Well done Edmonton PRT.

[Medwards]

MrCombust probably believes the earth is flat too. NASA and NOAA are lying to us!

[MrOilers]

If you're not familiar with "climategate", the IPCC was hacked and e-mails between the scientists were released to the public.

Yes, and 8 different inquiries found no significant wrongdoing.

Did you read the emails? Their content was incredibly damning.

[noodle]

Did you forget which of your accounts you were logged in as?

[Medwards]

Did you forget which of your accounts you were logged in as?

did Admin ever get back to you?

[Gemini]

Did you forget which of your accounts you were logged in as?

Yup, that there tells a story. If you guy are posting under different accounts I'm out of this forum.

[Medwards]

MrCombustMrOilers. See ya later Gemini, thanks for all your great contributes. You will be missed by some, I suppose, not me though.

So long, farewell!

[Gemini]

*I'd rather read Mr. Oilers contributions than your immature rantings. I'd like to sent you a pink pussy hat with matching satin pink shoes with kitten heels but don't know where to send them.

[Medwards]

*I'd rather read Mr. Oilers contributions than your immature rantings.

My immature ranting? That's pretty rich when you add:

I'd like to sent you a pink pussy hat with matching satin pink shoes with kitten heels but don't know where to send them.

[Gemini]

^Both of those posts are how I feel though. I see it's hard for you as it does not fit your narrative.

[Medwards]

go on... tell us how you really feel.

[Marcel Petrin]

If you're not familiar with "climategate", the IPCC was hacked and e-mails between the scientists were released to the public.

Yes, and 8 different inquiries found no significant wrongdoing.

Did you read the emails? Their content was incredibly damning.

What part of "8 different inquiries found no significant wrongdoing" or any scientific misconduct whatsoever is hard for you to understand? But oh lawdy, they were mean to professional denialists! The humanity!

[MrOilers]

What makes those inquiries trustworthy to you?

The dialogue in those IPCC emails admitted, straight up, that they needed to fudge the numbers and hide conflicting evidence to make the data look worse than it was. They were being pressured to publish alarming reports! And this was the IPCC, the absolute figurehead of the entire man-made climate change in the world. Billions in international aid goes into various initiatives based on the results of these reports! Those email leaks was the moment I lost all trust in climatologists and the United Nations as a whole. They proved beyond a doubt that scientists were being financially pressured to report data that shows their predetermined outcome. All for money.

Maybe you will forgive the IPCC like some other scientists have, but I don't think they deserve it.

[MrOilers]

Did you forget which of your accounts you were logged in as?

did Admin ever get back to you?

What?

Some people told on me because they think I am posting under the name MrCombust?



That's awesome!

[Edmonton PRT]

*I'd rather read Mr. Oilers contributions than your immature rantings. I'd like to sent you a pink pussy hat with matching satin pink shoes with kitten heels but don't know where to send them.

Gemini, you are such a sexist *****

[MrCombust]

What makes those inquiries trustworthy to you?

The dialogue in those IPCC emails admitted, straight up, that they needed to fudge the numbers and hide conflicting evidence to make the data look worse than it was. They were being pressured to publish alarming reports! And this was the IPCC, the absolute figurehead of the entire man-made climate change in the world. Billions in international aid goes into various initiatives based on the results of these reports! Those email leaks was the moment I lost all trust in climatologists and the United Nations as a whole. They proved beyond a doubt that scientists were being financially pressured to report data that shows their predetermined outcome. All for money.

Maybe you will forgive the IPCC like some other scientists have, but I don't think they deserve it.

You might like this from the University of Guelph..............
"Backgrounder for McIntyre and McKitrick "Hockey Stick Project"

"Our research shows fundamental flaws in the "hockey stick graph" used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to argue that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium. The original hockey stick study was published by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and his coauthors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. The main error affects a step called principal component analysis (PCA). We showed that the PCA method as used by Mann et al. effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns. Even from meaningless random data (red noise), it nearly always produces a hockey stick. "

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...background.pdf

[Marcel Petrin]

What makes those inquiries trustworthy to you?

Most of them were conducted by independent scientists who would have had no reason to participate in a further conspiracy and cover up. What makes them untrustworthy to you?

The dialogue in those IPCC emails admitted, straight up, that they needed to fudge the numbers and hide conflicting evidence to make the data look worse than it was.

This is a blatantly false misrepresentation of what was actually being discussed in those emails. Read the inquiries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Science_A ssessment_Panel

The UEA's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, welcomed the panel's findings. Describing its report as "hugely positive", he stated that "it is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice."[94] He criticised the way that the emails had been misrepresented, saying that "UEA has already put on record its deep regret and anger that the theft of emails from the University, and the blatant misrepresentation of their contents as revealed both in this report and the previous one by the Science and Technology Select Committee, damaged the reputation of UK climate science."[95] The UEA issued a statement in which it accepted that "things might have been done better." It said that improvements had already been undertaken by the CRU and others in the climate science community and that the University would "continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained."[96]

And this was the IPCC, the absolute figurehead of the entire man-made climate change in the world.

Thank you for demonstrating you don't even know what you're talking about. The "climategate" controversy had nothing to do with the IPCC. The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was hacked and emails were stolen. Yes, the IPCC reports use research published by the CRU, as well as basically every other climate research organization on the planet, of which there are dozens or hundreds, given that the IPCC reports are supposed to synthesize the sum total of climate science. But in this particular case, the IPCC had nothing to do with it.

So again, thank you for demonstrating your impressive ignorance.

Those email leaks was the moment I lost all trust in climatologists and the United Nations as a whole.

You lost trust because of a bunch of misrepresented, private communications? Again, why do you think that the 8 inquiries in to the matter that found no scientific misconduct whatsoever don't matter? Oh right, because they don't coincide with the bubble of ignorance you're quite happy living in.

They proved beyond a doubt that scientists were being financially pressured to report data that shows their predetermined outcome. All for money.

This is simply ridiculous. First of all, see above about the blatant misrepresentation. Second, because if you "follow the money" in this regard, it quite clearly leads to paid denialists like Fred Singer, who were doing the same thing 30 years ago in regards to tobacco and nicotine and their addictiveness and links to cancer. The exact same "experts for hire" are working away on climate change today, and you're falling for it. I mean, we're talking about the global energy industry that is worth trillions, vs a field of scientific study that might receive a billion or two per year in funding. It's ludicrous that you think that somehow scientists are faking climate change "all for money", when they are up against an entrenched industry that is literally 5-6 orders of magnitude larger.

Here is a great documentary and/or book on Fred Singer and his scum bag fellow "paid experts":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

[MrOilers]

Cut the insults.

[noodle]

Stop insulting our intelligence with your dishonesty & we'll stop mocking you for being so obviously & intentionally ignorant.

[MrOilers]

Since I don't like repeating myself, I refer back to the discussion that I (and Marcel Petrin) had back in 2010:


http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...highlight=ipcc


Re-reading what I posted then is interesting, because it all still holds up today.

[Medwards]

Did you forget which of your accounts you were logged in as?

did Admin ever get back to you?

What?

Some people told on me because they think I am posting under the name MrCombust?



That's awesome!

Hey Admin, given the last post by MrCombust's pretty on-the-nose verbiage matching MrOilers schtick he uses in the political threads about personal attacks can you doublecheck the IPs that they're both posting from? It's starting to smell more & more like a doubled account.

Obviously, you've got selective reading disorder... which explains a lot of your posts lately.

[Medwards]

Since I don't like repeating myself, I refer back to the discussion that I (and Marcel Petrin) had back in 2010:


http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...highlight=ipcc


Re-reading what I posted then is interesting, because it all still holds up today.

Nobody likes repeating themselves, but it seems you selective read what suites your agenda/bias. Why should anyone re-read what you wrote in 2010, when in 2018, you still ignore responses to what you wrote today, or yesterday, or ever?

[seamusmcduffs]

Cut the insults.

Is calling something you said "ridiculous" an insult now? Because that's all I can find in Marcels post remotely close.

[KC]

Long before the worst of any global warming occurs - or doesn’t occur - I’m counting on the made-made hostilities like we see on c2e to trigger a nuclear winter to interrupt the debate somewhat.


And it will probably come before MrCombust can ever admit to making an error while trying to point out the errors and biases of others. In fact MrCombust’s behaviour likely serves as evidence of the inevitability of many a nuclear winter scenario.

[seamusmcduffs]

^You sound like someone who's trying to recruit people to a cult, not someone who's here to debate science.

[MrCombust]

^You sound like someone who's trying to recruit people to a cult, not someone who's here to debate science.

Climate change isn't based on science, it's based on advocacy. Your posts are good example of that.

[MrCombust]

Long before the worst of any global warming occurs - or doesn’t occur - I’m counting on the made-made hostilities like we see on c2e to trigger a nuclear winter to interrupt the debate somewhat.


And it will probably come before MrCombust can ever admit to making an error while trying to point out the errors and biases of others. In fact MrCombust’s behaviour likely serves as evidence of the inevitability of many a nuclear winter scenario.

KC, you are a climate change skeptic. You just don't know it. I've seen it before. People who don't fully accept the mantra, but go along with the advocacy. I've seen people argue climate change with animated vehemence, that don't believe it. You don't understand what "climate change" really is, nor what a "skeptic" really is. Once you clearly understand both, you may realize you're a skeptic. I say that because I've told people they're skeptics before, and it only made them angrier.
One thing you're NOT is an advocate like the other posters here. You posted above "Little gets by anyone here". Well, I'm driving a bus through their campground and they pretend it doesn't exist. Advocates pretend there's a consensus and everybody agrees with them, they ignore the lies, they ignore the fraud, they seldom bother to look anything up, they don't question what they're told, they post liar blog links like they're the gold standard in science, and most of all, they attack dissent and dissenters.


You may not see yourself as a "skeptic" yet, but you're certainly not like the advocates here. Try to understand what a "skeptic" is, we do not dispute "science", we dispute FAKE science. "The earth has warmed" is science, "If the earth has warmed it must be because of man made CO2", is FAKE science.

[MrCombust]

No one knows how much warming has really occurred anymore. NOAA, NASA, and others are all "adjusting" the data. The past always gets colder, the present always gets warmer. "Record high" temperatures are now as caused as much by fudging the data. You can argue about the validity of the fudges, but what you can't do is say it isn't happening. Here's a graph of NOAA's latest fudge as presented on their website for all to see..............

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/defa...and-trends.png

[OffWhyte]

Funny how some people are so quick to embrace everything from ballistic missiles to Viagra and all the other outputs of the scientific process that suit their needs yet they simultaneously reject other outputs that don't suit their ideology.

[Marcel Petrin]

Funny how some people are so quick to embrace everything from ballistic missiles to Viagra and all the other outputs of the scientific process that suit their needs yet they simultaneously reject other outputs that don't suit their ideology.

Very true, and unfortunately it cuts both ways. See the left and GMO's, for example.

[OffWhyte]

Funny how some people are so quick to embrace everything from ballistic missiles to Viagra and all the other outputs of the scientific process that suit their needs yet they simultaneously reject other outputs that don't suit their ideology.

Very true, and unfortunately it cuts both ways. See the left and GMO's, for example.

Absolutely agree. The hypocrisy in either case betrays their ignorance.

[MrCombust]

Funny how some people are so quick to embrace everything from ballistic missiles to Viagra and all the other outputs of the scientific process that suit their needs yet they simultaneously reject other outputs that don't suit their ideology.

Very true, and unfortunately it cuts both ways. See the left and GMO's, for example.

Absolutely agree. The hypocrisy in either case betrays their ignorance.

Sooooooo, if I believe in ballistic missiles and Viagra, I'm an ignorant hypocrite if I don't believe in global warming?????????

Really? That's your point??????

And Marcel jumps in to tell you how right you are?

So weird.

[seamusmcduffs]

^So you are an advocate for science when it benefits you, but as soon as it becomes inconvenient you fight it tooth and nail, even though you have admitted to not understanding it. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

[KC]

Long before the worst of any global warming occurs - or doesn’t occur - I’m counting on the made-made hostilities like we see on c2e to trigger a nuclear winter to interrupt the debate somewhat.


And it will probably come before MrCombust can ever admit to making an error while trying to point out the errors and biases of others. In fact MrCombust’s behaviour likely serves as evidence of the inevitability of many a nuclear winter scenario.

KC, you are a climate change skeptic. You just don't know it. I've seen it before. People who don't fully accept the mantra, but go along with the advocacy. I've seen people argue climate change with animated vehemence, that don't believe it. You don't understand what "climate change" really is, nor what a "skeptic" really is. Once you clearly understand both, you may realize you're a skeptic. I say that because I've told people they're skeptics before, and it only made them angrier.
One thing you're NOT is an advocate like the other posters here. You posted above "Little gets by anyone here". Well, I'm driving a bus through their campground and they pretend it doesn't exist. Advocates pretend there's a consensus and everybody agrees with them, they ignore the lies, they ignore the fraud, they seldom bother to look anything up, they don't question what they're told, they post liar blog links like they're the gold standard in science, and most of all, they attack dissent and dissenters.


You may not see yourself as a "skeptic" yet, but you're certainly not like the advocates here. Try to understand what a "skeptic" is, we do not dispute "science", we dispute FAKE science. "The earth has warmed" is science, "If the earth has warmed it must be because of man made CO2", is FAKE science.

Whether (no pun intended) it’s true or false, why the deep interest and time devoted to it?

I see it as something to hedge against and move on while the actual record of measurements builds and as the scientists continue to study it, in light of the actual measurements.

So if in the meantime we change up our way of life slightly, so what. Spend a hundred of million or trillions on flawed science? Sounds bad but it’s nothing. The US dumped a trillion in fighting in the Middle East. Societies blow through trillions of dollars on crazy things all the time. It’s just how it is. Why get so immersed in this debate of the day?

Moreover why expend huge effort here on c2e debating with non-scientists who’s opinions don’t matter in the slightest. If you change every c2e reader’s mind you still won’t have accomplished anything but a huge waste of your personal time and energy. We all know that TRUTH because we all do it here. Our opinions on here about global and such issues are essentially worthless in terms of invoking change of any kind. (Eg read the Trump threads.)

Even our opinions, statements and arguments about the simplest most local issues are near worthless in their ability to change anything at our local level. If you aren’t having fun here, really, what’s the point? A forum is just a sounding board to bounce thoughts off of or to serve some personal desire (feel good, feel smart, work out beliefs or ideas, build a knowledge base, record nonsense for posterity, practice debate, get something off our chests, to try to control or devalue or bully others, whatever - but not to change ideas or behaviours of anyone of importance.)

I see massive environmental damage occurring in the short term, the immediate future that is being ignored as so much mental focus gets inexplicably placed on the global warming debate.

[Gemini]

Interesting to hear that Germany is still clearing land to make way for the coal mining industry. Germany being a EU country and the EU setting standards for emissions and also attended the Paris Climate Initiatives. I guess Germany thinks it can be a part of an organization that can tell other countries what output of emissions they can have but then they are still doing this.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/1...b01e1a4b1a2d89

[noodle]

Apologies for the differing graphs, but I don't wanna waste any more effort on refuting a fallacy, AGAIN.



Alberta: 82% fossil fuel fired generation.

Germany: 52% fossil fuel fired generation

So while Germany is not perfect, they're still way ahead of us. But I guess unless you're practically perfect in every way a la Mary Poppins you need to keep your big yap shut.

(Strange that Gem doesn't ascribe to this same theory about her own big yap...)

[Edmonton PRT]

Nice to see that Alberta has install so much generating capacity.

The counterpoint is that generating capacity does not determine net output of any source. If the wind only blows 25% of the time, 9% drops to 2.25%.

[noodle]

Good catch. That's installed capacity, while the German one is actual output.

Here's an Alberta output one from https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd...ls/ab-eng.html



9% capacity, but 7% of actual output, making us look worse compared with Germany.

(My bad for not doublechecking the graphs)

[Edmonton PRT]

Hydro is worse, dropping from 5% to 3% in rough numbers, only 60%

I am amazed that wind would ever be over 50%. If true, 75% is quite outstanding

[noodle]

https://www.aeso.ca/grid/forecasting...r-forecasting/

Lots of great info about the grid & what's actually happening via the AESO site.

[MrCombust]

No mention of climate change in the state of the union address........, Trump is selling coal again, CO2 is at an all time high, 2017 the hottest year on record, Trump approves the pipeline XL but notice.............. not a peep about climate change from the Democrat rebuttal............

"Democrats Ignore Climate Change In State Of The Union Rebuttal"

"The Democratic Party omitted any mention of climate change in its rebuttal Tuesday to President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address.In his speech, Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) didn’t bring up global warming, sea-level rise or the surge in global greenhouse gas emissions, which threaten to become worse as the Republican White House ramps up fossil fuel production to unprecedented levels"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0ae29f08c0a7c

[norwoodguy]

Interesting to hear that Germany is still clearing land to make way for the coal mining industry. Germany being a EU country and the EU setting standards for emissions and also attended the Paris Climate Initiatives. I guess Germany thinks it can be a part of an organization that can tell other countries what output of emissions they can have but then they are still doing this.

Germans have a rather negative view towards nuclear energy with power generation declining from 25% of the total in 2011 to just 14% in 2017 according to this article from the Nuclear Power Association. Coal has declined since 1990 but according to the link there are no plans to phase out coal from its current 40% proportion. Go figure.

Canada in comparison derives less than 20% of its electricity from hydrocarbons and around 9% from coal. Over 60% is from renewable sources. Source: National Energy Board

[OffWhyte]

No mention of climate change in the state of the union address........, Trump is selling coal again, CO2 is at an all time high, 2017 the hottest year on record, Trump approves the pipeline XL but notice.............. not a peep about climate change from the Democrat rebuttal............

"Democrats Ignore Climate Change In State Of The Union Rebuttal"

"The Democratic Party omitted any mention of climate change in its rebuttal Tuesday to President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address.In his speech, Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) didn’t bring up global warming, sea-level rise or the surge in global greenhouse gas emissions, which threaten to become worse as the Republican White House ramps up fossil fuel production to unprecedented levels"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0ae29f08c0a7c

So the Democrats (with a few exceptions) are a bunch of self-serving entitled genuflecters subservient to corporate America? This is not news. And this certainly does not in any way invalidate climate change.

[MrCombust]

Science or silence? My battle to question doomsayers about the Great Barrier Reef...........................

"PROFESSOR Peter Ridd is a physicist at James Cook University who has dared to question scientific findings that purport to show the Great Barrier Reef is in trouble. Specifically, he has been formally censured by the University and told to remain quiet about the matter – or risk his job."

"The reef is supposedly almost dead from the combined effects of a warming climate, nutrient pollution from Australian farms, and smothering sediment from offshore dredging.Except that, as I have said publicly as a research scientist who has studied the reef for the past 30 years, all this most likely isn’t true.
And just for saying that – and calling into question the kind of published science that has led to the gloomy predictions – I have been served with a gag order by my university. I am now having to sue for my right to have an ordinary scientific opinion.

The problems I am facing are part of a “replication crisis” that is sweeping through science and is now a serious topic in major science journals. In major scientific trials that attempt to reproduce the results of scientific observations and measurements, it seems that around 50 percent of recently published science is wrong, because the results can’t be replicated by others.


And if observations and measurements can’t be replicated, it isn’t really science – it is still, at best, hypothesis, or even just opinion. This is not a controversial topic anymore – science, or at least the system of checking the science we are using, is failing us."

“The basic problem is that we can no longer trust the scientific organizations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies … the science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated and this is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions and the fact is I do not think we can any more,”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...rier-reef.html

[BoyleStreetBoy]

You're conflating Dr Ridd's denial of dying coral reefs with global warming denial. It's not the same. He doesn't even fully deny the studies of James Cook University, rather he says "...all this most likely isn't true."

Even in the links provided in the article, such as the excerpt from his book Climate Change: the Facts 2017 he makes no denials relating to climate change.

His whole fight is about academic truth: he's refuted the findings of a University that receives government funding for reef studies. How does that in any way negate the veracity of studies done on climate change?

What are you going to post next to support your argument? A Marine Biologist who questions the validity of String Theory research at her University?

[MrCombust]

"The Union of Concerned Scientists" website is just another blog of misinformation and lies. It's a shame that scientific organizations cannot be trusted when it comes to climate change. Even the most prestigious scientific organizations have succumbed to the climate thugs and their fake science. Standing up to the climate thugs gets you threatened, mocked, attacked, funding cuts, sued, and whatever other pressure can be applied to get you to submit to the cult. The Union of Concerned Scientists is no prestigious scientific organization, but at least in calling themselves "scientists", they should at least try to be scientific. Watch climate skeptic Tony Heller school The Union of Concerned Scientists on basic logic, basic science, and above all.......... THE TRUTH.

Notice the opening frame before the video even starts..........400 feet of sea level rise is "natural", but suddenly, in the last 50 years, 14 INCHES is MAN MADE.

[KC]

You're conflating Dr Ridd's denial of dying coral reefs with global warming denial. It's not the same. He doesn't even fully deny the studies of James Cook University, rather he says "...all this most likely isn't true."

Even in the links provided in the article, such as the excerpt from his book Climate Change: the Facts 2017 he makes no denials relating to climate change.

His whole fight is about academic truth: he's refuted the findings of a University that receives government funding for reef studies. How does that in any way negate the veracity of studies done on climate change?

What are you going to post next to support your argument? A Marine Biologist who questions the validity of String Theory research at her University?

No response from MrCombust. Not surprising. A propaganda machine best operates without response to such appeals to logic and reason.

[seamusmcduffs]

Climate Thugs.... that's a new one.

[MrCombust]

Nobody knows global warming stopped 20 years ago because the media, NASA, NOAA, and the liar blogs won't report it. Take a look at the UAH satellite data. In the 90's, during the global warming heyday, temperatures were rising rapidly. Everybody thought CO2 was doing it, and there was the proof. We were all going to die. But then, the warming stopped. You can see a well known climate cycle called El Nino in 1999, and again in 2017. El Nino is a short lived warming burst and the current one is in the process of fading. Other than that, there's been no significant warming for 20 years. Let's be honest, 10ths of degrees of warming over decades doesn't prove anything.

UAH satellite data link..........
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

[Medwards]

MrCombust is ignoring posts again, and continue to push his lies which have been debunked several times already, but MrCombust willingly ignores it ! What a swell guy!

[KC]

Nobody knows global warming stopped 20 years ago because the media, NASA, NOAA, and the liar blogs won't report it. Take a look at the UAH satellite data. In the 90's, during the global warming heyday, temperatures were rising rapidly. Everybody thought CO2 was doing it, and there was the proof. We were all going to die. But then, the warming stopped. You can see a well known climate cycle called El Nino in 1999, and again in 2017. El Nino is a short lived warming burst and the current one is in the process of fading. Other than that, there's been no significant warming for 20 years. Let's be honest, 10ths of degrees of warming over decades doesn't prove anything.

UAH satellite data link..........
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

“Everybody thought CO2 was doing it, and there was the proof. We ...”

Prove to me that “ everybody thought CO2 was doing it”. One, global warming itself was being hotly debated in the 90s, so the use of “everybody” is clearly wrong, maybe an attempt at a lie or a statement out of pure ignorance or hyperbole. Two, even entities down to local utilities were factoring in El Niño in demand and load impacts so it’s not as if El Niño was just discovered in the 1990s. Three, global warming research has long studied several gases and not just stating that CO2 was “doing it”. On the above statement alone, it would seem that you are the “lying” poster trying to rewrite recent history as if none of us were there.

[seamusmcduffs]

That's some pretty poor logic you got going there. If we're going by El Ninos 1982-83 was a strong El Nino year, so was 91-92. So why aren't they showing up on the graph? Those years are still relatively average compared to the temperatures in your graph from 2000-2018, in fact from 2002-2007 the temperature is consistently warmer than those El Nino years. You can't just look at two years and decide that it's just warm because of the El Nino. Stop cherry picking data to suit your narrative and look at the bigger picture.

http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

[MrCombust]

Here's the Sierra Club president testifying as an expert on the impacts of climate change. But why is he testifying as an expert? He is clueless, and suffers humiliation when asked basic questions about the "science". Eco groups push climate change for their own agenda, and they pretend to be experts. But what they're really doing is using climate change as a platform for promotion.

This video is not pretty.

[KC]

It’s a collection not a compendium.

[Medwards]

MrCombust still offering his own truth while deflecting/ignoring the questions ask of his version of the truth. sorry, I meant TRUTH...

[MrCombust]

MrCombust still offering his own truth while deflecting/ignoring the questions ask of his version of the truth. sorry, I meant TRUTH...

I welcome questions, and/or discussion. Most of the questions posed to me start with calling me names, followed by grievous errors in logic and the scientific method. Then the crap posted is supported by some liar blog, as if "skepticalscience" was the gold standard in climate science. You, yourself posted a graph by a comedian and wanted me to "discuss" its validity. Climate advocates set a very bad example when it comes to cohesive, logical, intelligent discussion.

That's why I say "global warming" isn't based on science, it's based on advocacy. And the (self admitted) advocates here set a good example of that.

Anybody wants to "discuss" this topic, and get a reply, need to do better than name calling, cartoon graphs drawn by comedians, and liar blogs.

[Medwards]

You're conflating Dr Ridd's denial of dying coral reefs with global warming denial. It's not the same. He doesn't even fully deny the studies of James Cook University, rather he says "...all this most likely isn't true."

Even in the links provided in the article, such as the excerpt from his book Climate Change: the Facts 2017 he makes no denials relating to climate change.

His whole fight is about academic truth: he's refuted the findings of a University that receives government funding for reef studies. How does that in any way negate the veracity of studies done on climate change?

What are you going to post next to support your argument? A Marine Biologist who questions the validity of String Theory research at her University?

No response from MrCombust. Not surprising. A propaganda machine best operates without response to such appeals to logic and reason.

yup