1 This thing on?  [tap,tap]

2 There is the Church of the Climate Change believers and their Pope/St AlGore.

Then there are the deniers of the Gospel of AlGore who must have their CO2 sequestered to save the planet.

3 As long as it gets me my monaaay, I believe in it.

Obey!

4

(Meanwhile, counting his money again...)

 

 

"Who cares?"

5 Do the true believers seem less strident after the East Anglia leak, or have I just tuned them out?

6 I recognize the irony, inasmuch as they were caused by Bushhitler and refrigerator coils, but the fires are getting worse here, so please spare a thought for those of us in God's Rocky Mountains. Temps in the 100s, wind, no rain today.

7 Fine. If not believing in scientifically unproven AGW = denier. How's about- Belief in AGW = dumbfuck I'll be a "denier". You're a "dumbfuck". Let the reasoned debate commence.

8 Rgb brings the pain in comments, if you go back to his original post, he then follows this accessible post up with another with math. Fyi, I am Jean Parisot over there.

9 The Muslim Brotherhood was now won the Egyptian Presidential election.

No comment yet from John McCain.

10 Shorter Dr. Robert G. Brown: "You people are dicks."

11

Posted by: naturalfake at June 24, 2012 10:24 AM (G9qZk)

 

Seconded. Motion carried?

12 Dont disrespect algore like that.

13 The fires here in CO.  I blame the Sierra club and other groups who sue to block all logging operations.   Thanks to them the pine beetle situation was unreal.   There were a lot of ugly dead trees standing around getting dried to a fine tinder quality.     

14 I live near Duke.  I can't believe someone like Dr. Brown exists in that environment!  I read the whole post and am thrilled by his utter smackdown of Bain and other ACGW "scientists".  Most of the professors I meet from there are pathetically liberal.  Wow.  I am very pleasantly surprised.

15 Why aren't these assholes using their super-genius computer modeling to predict lottery numbers?  And if they were doing it successfully, why would they publicize it?

It is ALL just an elaborate scam.

16 Ace should recruit Willis to ccoblogger

17 I should write that what I mean by "liberal" is that the professors I come in contact with adhere to the strict party line.  Dr. Brown may be a liberal, but he appears to be honest.

18

The Muslim Brotherhood was now won the Egyptian Presidential election.

No comment yet from John McCain.

 

Great.  Look or an attack by the SCOAMF prior to the election.  Bastard.

19 Feymans Cargo Cult lecture would be a good post update

20 We also DENY that human activity is the cause of any large percentage of warming that has or will take place, Incidentally, does anyone disagree that discussing science with a woman is as big a turnoff as there is? The cause of warmer winters in Montreal came up Last night with someone I was interested in, and...

21 5 Do the true believers seem less strident after the East Anglia leak, or have I just tuned them out? It was a capstone, but not the start. I think that NOAA publishing a 600 degree temperature for Egg Harbor, WI a few years ago so as to match the models didn't help the dumbfuck's (thanx naturalFake) cause. Google great lakes 600 degrees

22 I got pissed off a couple years ago when the Skeptical Inquirer did a "the sky is too falling!" stories and used the term "deniers" therein.  Haven't picked up an issue since.  Oh, and the story had one source.  Anyone care to guess what that source was?

If you guessed the fraudulent IPCC report, you win.

23

Another hilarious misuse of would-be insults is referring to skeptics as 'flat-earthers', conjuring up the Columbus-versus-scholars debate in Spain circa 1492. The delicious irony here is that the would-be insulters are the morons. The Spanish court's scholars were correct about the shape and size of the Earth -- it was Columbus who was wrong. Look it up ['Talavera Commission'] -- and then nail them whenever they use the 180-degree-out insult in debates.

 

 

24 If they don't reject the "human caused global warming" nonsense at WWUT, they're fools. There's no evidence - credible or otherwise - that anything of that sort is taking place. All that they have is "well humans are doing all this stuff, it must be having an effect!" And that's not science.

25 The AGW scandal does prove one thing: What a failure our basic science education has been. Without even getting into the heavy math, the fact that the Left wasn't laughed out of the room when they went with: "the science is settled!" is distrubing.

26 So he is saying that he does believe in AGW just not to the degree that the 'experts' claim? It is my understanding that we know that there can be GW but that we are not at all certain as to what the the responsibility of man was in connection to that warming. I find much of modern political science is great at making theories and lousy at testing them. They are terrific at making computer models that ensure they get the outcomes that they theorized. In the end it is really not science at all...IE AGW

27 A note to you wingnut deniers, TS Debby isn't being caused by gay marriage, it's being caused by high barometric pressure

Huh? ... oh ... ok, LOW barometric pressure. But I'm still a sophisticated screenwriting genius with witty insights

Pass me the mushrooms, please

28 24, What about land use changes, deforestation, urban heat islands, ... human induced changes may be lost in the noise in a global scale, but they exist locally. One of the funnier exchanges is the warmists attempts to deny urban heat islands using "secret" Chinese data.

29 Man is causing global warming. That there's funny I don't care who you are. Oh we can poison rivers and streams and such. And there are folks evil enough to do it if they think they can get away with it and it will enhance their bottom line. But for the cause of global warming and cooling phases you only need to look to that big ball of fire in the sky. Geez, I'm a moron and even I know that.

30 Not only do I deny "Anthropogenic Global Warming", I deny "Global Warming" as the term implies that current and projected future temperatures are out of line with historical norms.

They are not.

The left are all jacked up about it because they honestly think in their hubris that man can control the weather, and so we must do something to protect their precious coastal enclaves.  You never see any predictions that St. Louis is going to be under water from rising oceans, but boy to they worry about New York and Los Angeles.

The entire thing is bullshit on stilts.  Conservation is one thing.  The current state of the environmentalist movement is lunacy.

31 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

32 I am so going to freeze your asses.

33 I still say the global warming hysterics are doing more damage to the cause of fighting pollution than anything in the history of environmentalism. If you cry wolf enough, people don't just stop believing you, they stop believing there even can be a problem. You get backlash by humiliated people who believed you and went along with your lies.

34

>>Why aren't these assholes using their super-genius computer modeling to predict lottery numbers? <<

 

More to the point, how are those models of the stock market coming along, hmmm? The stock market is, in principle, capable of being modeled, unlike lottery numbers. God knows there's lots of money if you can do it, and therefore lots of money and resources available to those who want to try. But so far ... bupkis.

 

But they'd have us believe that a group of malodorous grad students farting around without experience or serious expertise (I've directed grad students, and trust me, I know whereof I speak) can model the climate? Sure. That'd be like some nursing students performing neurosurgery.

35 When the AGW cult collapses in a few years the folks behind it will have an explanation ready (the Sun cooled down just the right amount to offset AGW), and will have a new cause to promote. It is all about money, power and central control of resources and people. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

36 "Morsi will sound conciliatory and such but will leverage this victory to increase pressure on the military and to exercise greater control than whatever formal power he winds up." Sounds like somebody else we know.

37 Ack. Wrong thread. How'd that happen. Stupid.

38

Not scientific I know but as a pilot, I never cease to be amazed by the insignificance of man...From just a few thousand feet and ten to twenty miles even huge metro areas fade into the background.  Fly west of the mississippi and there are tens of thousands of square miles virtually untouched by man.  We truly are insignificant beings on the surface of the earth.  Moreover, since the oceans cover two-thirds of the surface of the earth, then its clear that man fades to something like sub-atomic particles in comparison to the vastness of the earth...The idea that we are impacting the climate which is produced by the earth, Sun, ocean system is absurd.

39 By the logic of the AGW Alarmists, if you could show one surviving Jew then obviously the Holocaust didn't happen. It's SCIENCE!

40 I thought the prospect of Guam tipping over was bad.  Hell the entire Erf is going to tip over now.  My advice?  Start drinking heavy right now.
http://tinyurl.com/7o7ou7r

41 The shakedown artists at the recent RIO+20 conference actually made out fairly well.  $175 Billion dollars.  More proof that there's a sucker born every minute.
http://tinyurl.com/83nu93z

42

The "denier" bit doesn't tell us anything that Climategate didn't - it's another distraction while there so many obvious things get overlooked.

 

Climategate showed us, first and foremost, that these were not a well-intentioned and honest scientists who were desperate to try to spare mankind from calamity. Instead, it showed a group of self-appointed "saviors" who were desperate to try to make stubbornly uncooperative data look like it matched their claims, illegally withholding their data in an attempt to avoid anybody exposing their funny business, and who were just as desperate to try to silence anybody who might question them, or put forward an alternative theory.

 

You even have the IPCC - a political entity! - playing a central role, and Al Gore - a politician!! - as its High Priest. The climate models they tout have yet to provide ANY meaningful predictions!! It's silly to even talk about science in the context of AGW. What little real science that might exist is too immature to be useful in the real world - it's a joke, yet it's the ONE part of "science" they call "irrefutable".

 

The important points that "get lost" are too numerous to mention, but includes things like not proving how the Earth warming a little would even be bad (it never has been). You don't even have to get into "the weeds" of this to show that employing extreme measures to control CO2 emissions is societal suicide with no net benefit, whatsoever. This is about politicians seizing power by taking advantage of a large number of "useful idiots" who are so desperate to feel good about themselves that they'll buy into this crap.

43

most of the skeptics do not “deny” AGW

 

Uh - to echo a few above, I sure do.  And I also deny GW.  As noted by another commenter, there is no known "normal" temperature for Earth - but even more basic than that, what is "global average temperature", anyway?  Even conceptually it's a very dubious idea - pragmatically, how does one "measure" it?

 

This is one more reason I find the whole AGW debacle so dark and utterly discouraging.  Even the "skeptics" - well a lot of them, including hard science types - don't seem to practice much analytical rigor themselves, they also insert gigantic and implausible assumptions into their analysis.  Of course they still easily dismantle the sophomoric silliness that is AGW "theory" and modeling - which underlines just how idiotic it is.

 

Every time I see a "skeptic" "concede" some amount of "forcing" in global climate, I yell at the screen (literally or metaphorically) WTF???  "What is global average temperature?  What is 'normal" global average temperature?  What is the documented mechanism for small CO2 changes affecting global temperature?  Demonstrate the troposphere or atmosphere acts like a 'greenhouse' - ever, and exactly how.  Without a very concrete, specific, and high-confidence theory and accompanying model of exactly how global weather is created, how can you assert that CO2 changes have any effect?"

 

And the questions go on and on - all fundamental.  None of them answerable with current knowledge or theory.  Hell, even the "data" that show no warming (satellite stuff, I believe) since 1998 is dubious.  How do we know that data tells us anything useful?  The "data" that exists otherwise is laughable - a few decades at most, for a tiny number of locations on the Earth's surface, with nothing even close to that for ocean temps, upper atmosphere, etc etc.  Proxy data from pre-history is sketchy and doesn't allow much in the way of detailed conclusions, other than ..... EARTH HAS BEEN MUCH WARMER AND MUCH COOLER AND WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW OR WHY!

 

Geez.  Leave aside all the spectacular, jaw-dropping, unbelievable corruption and unscientific behavior (faking data, withholding access to data, punking peer review, engaging in the whole gamut of discount Lysenkoism that defines "climate science).  Just look at the utter collapse of scientific and logical standards here.  Of course it's across the board - just look into the august reasoning of the US judiciary for the last several decades for another important institution of advanced civilization that's just been tossed on the trash heap by low intellect and low ethical standards (and an astonishing level of insane bigotry and power-madness).

 

On a practical level, today's American - especially the "educated" one, especially the fashionably "centrist" or "liberal" one - has become effectively quite stupid, imperiling not just their own welfare but that of others.

 

Oh, and to echo the pilot's comments above.  Man is a fly-speck on Earth.  There is very, very, very little that man can do that has permanent or widespread importance for the Earth.  Perhaps nothing, in fact.  Were the sardines fished out of Monterrey Bay?  Uh, no - oops, they just were in a multi-decade cycle where they went elsewhere.  What's the worst documented damage in Prince William Sound from the Exxon spill?  Oops - the steam-cleaning of the beach environment.  That is, THE "CLEAN-UP"!

 

The Cuyahoga River famously caught fire in the 70s.  How long did it take for it to restore itself to a much more natural state? 

 

There really isn't any hope here.  Even "skeptics" are incredibly misinformed and lazy and driven by the need for social acceptance to posit all sorts of evil externalities that 1) require a fraction of the current regulation to control 2) from a cost-benefit point of view justify very little in the way of intervention, and 3) are far from "permanent" or disastrous for man.  From second-hand smoke to asbestos in acoustic ceilings (removed while wet) to miniscule impacts of human behavior on sparse and tough ecosystems, there is little in today's hymnal of politically-correct environmental awareness and even occupational safety that isn't bunk.   The pendulum is so far out of whack that for it to even return to the center will take a century.

 

44 I "read the whole thing" and learned a lot.