kallend 2,150 #176 October 25, 2011 Quote Quote Ummm YOU posted the link to the graph showing warming continuing more recently than 13 years ago. Continuing? It's higher than the 98 peak? I find that hard to believe, As I thought, you didn't bother to look at the graph YOU linked Quote Must suck to have an argument that lame....I can see why you're so bitter. Quote Sucks for the Koch brothers that they funded the study that showed GW is happening. The one that the statisticians are ALREADY blowing holes in? The one that was released BEFORE being peer reviewed? The one whose lead scientist wrote this, just last week? "Are you a global warming skeptic? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be. AND HE THEN GOES ON TO WRITE IN THE SAME ARTICLE: "Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer". and "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that." Did you really think you would get away with such a blatant cherry pick?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #177 October 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteUmmm YOU posted the link to the graph showing warming continuing more recently than 13 years ago. Continuing? It's higher than the 98 peak? I find that hard to believe, given the decided LACK of self-congratulatory threads from you and bill. Must suck to have an argument that lame....I can see why you're so bitter. QuoteSucks for the Koch brothers that they funded the study that showed GW is happening. The one that the statisticians are ALREADY blowing holes in? The one that was released BEFORE being peer reviewed? The one whose lead scientist wrote this, just last week? "Are you a global warming skeptic? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be. AND HE THEN GOES ON TO WRITE IN THE SAME ARTICLE: "Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer". and "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that." Did you really think you would get away with such a blatant cherry pick? So he gives facts about how shitty the temp record recording is, then goes into the sales pitch for his study....which STILL hasn't been pal-reviewed. Too bad the data is still the "value-added" databases that have been so thoroughly massaged by Mann et al.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #178 October 25, 2011 Weaseling again! You were caught out.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #179 October 25, 2011 Quote Weaseling again! You were caught out. Relevance fail again - nobody has claimed there hasn't been warming.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #180 October 25, 2011 QuoteQuote Weaseling again! You were caught out. Relevance fail again - nobody has claimed there hasn't been warming. Still weaseling. We are all on to your tactics, you've been doing it for years.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #181 October 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Weaseling again! You were caught out. Relevance fail again - nobody has claimed there hasn't been warming. Still weaseling. We are all on to your tactics, you've been doing it for years. Haven't changed my argument - maybe you should pick up that dictionary you keep talking about and actually read it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #182 October 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Weaseling again! You were caught out. Relevance fail again - nobody has claimed there hasn't been warming. Still weaseling. We are all on to your tactics, you've been doing it for years. Haven't changed my argument - maybe you should pick up that dictionary you keep talking about and actually read it. It's good that you no longer claim there has been no warming. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4209227;so=ASC;sb=post_latest_reply;#4209227 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4209626;search_string=1998;#4209626 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4121828;search_string=1998;#4121828 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4039000;search_string=1998;#4038436 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4001140;search_string=1998;#4001140 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3967045;search_string=1998;#3967045 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3828994;search_string=1998;#3828994 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3741527;search_string=1998;#3741527 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3741592;search_string=1998;#3741592 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3620086;search_string=1998;#3620086... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #183 October 26, 2011 QuoteIt's good that you no longer claim there has been no warming. No longer? Don't you think you should show where I made that claim in the first place? Your search-fu sucks even worse than your attempt at a strawman...NOWHERE did I say that temps weren't higher than Mann's arbitrary 'baseline' temp. Yesterday, it was 100 degrees. Today, it is 90 degrees. The 'normal' temperature for the day is 80 degrees. With me so far? Ok, here comes the hard part (for you, anyway). Saying that today isn't as hot as yesterday doesn't mean that today isn't warmer than the 'normal' temperature. Now - did you understand that, or do I need to use smaller words or type slower?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #184 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt's good that you no longer claim there has been no warming. No longer? Don't you think you should show where I made that claim in the first place? Your search-fu sucks even worse than your attempt at a strawman...NOWHERE did I say that temps weren't higher than Mann's arbitrary 'baseline' temp. Yesterday, it was 100 degrees. Today, it is 90 degrees. The 'normal' temperature for the day is 80 degrees. With me so far? Ok, here comes the hard part (for you, anyway). Saying that today isn't as hot as yesterday doesn't mean that today isn't warmer than the 'normal' temperature. Now - did you understand that, or do I need to use smaller words or type slower? Who do you think your're fooling (besides yourself)?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #185 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's good that you no longer claim there has been no warming. No longer? Don't you think you should show where I made that claim in the first place? Your search-fu sucks even worse than your attempt at a strawman...NOWHERE did I say that temps weren't higher than Mann's arbitrary 'baseline' temp. Yesterday, it was 100 degrees. Today, it is 90 degrees. The 'normal' temperature for the day is 80 degrees. With me so far? Ok, here comes the hard part (for you, anyway). Saying that today isn't as hot as yesterday doesn't mean that today isn't warmer than the 'normal' temperature. Now - did you understand that, or do I need to use smaller words or type slower? Who do you think your're fooling (besides yourself)? Ok, so you couldn't understand the example.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #186 October 26, 2011 I most certainly understand that you posted a link to a graph showing warming since 1998, yet continue to deny that there has been any (links to your many posts already provided). I most certainly understand that you posted an incomplete quote from Muller in an attempt to suggest he is still an AGW denier when in fact he is not. (Cite previously provided). I most certainly understand that you posted an out of context quote from Trenberth purporting to be the opposite of his actual stance. (Cite previously provided). The amazing thing is that you think you can get away with such intellectual dishonesty when anyone can read your previous posts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #187 October 26, 2011 Quote I most certainly understand that you posted a link to a graph showing warming since 1998, yet continue to deny that there has been any (links to your many posts already provided). I most certainly understand that you posted an incomplete quote from Muller in an attempt to suggest he is still an AGW denier when in fact he is not. (Cite previously provided). I most certainly understand that you posted an out of context quote from Trenberth purporting to be the opposite of his actual stance. (Cite previously provided). The amazing thing is that you think you can get away with such intellectual dishonesty when anyone can read your previous posts. Speaking of intellectual dishonesty...STILL claiming that I've said there's no warming? Tch tch. We're still waiting on the proof, perfesser....chop chop!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #188 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuote I most certainly understand that you posted a link to a graph showing warming since 1998, yet continue to deny that there has been any (links to your many posts already provided). I most certainly understand that you posted an incomplete quote from Muller in an attempt to suggest he is still an AGW denier when in fact he is not. (Cite previously provided). I most certainly understand that you posted an out of context quote from Trenberth purporting to be the opposite of his actual stance. (Cite previously provided). The amazing thing is that you think you can get away with such intellectual dishonesty when anyone can read your previous posts. Speaking of intellectual dishonesty...STILL claiming that I've said there's no warming? Tch tch. We're still waiting on the proof, perfesser....chop chop!! (links to your many posts already provided).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #189 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteWe're still waiting on the proof, perfesser....chop chop!! (links to your many posts already provided). You mean the ones where I *don't* say that there's been no warming? Yeah, about that.... that proves MY point, not yours.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #190 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Can you post a link to something that shows, in the past, where temps lagged CO2 increases? Can you tell us when, in the past, any species pumped 30BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, year after year. So the MWP was due to those damned Vikings and their SUV's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png The attached plot shows 10 reconstructions that indicate that the mwp is NOT as warm as current conditions. In any case the claim that if anthropogenic CO2 doesn't explain every previous change in the climate it can't explain this one is just deliberate ignorance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #191 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWe're still waiting on the proof, perfesser....chop chop!! (links to your many posts already provided). You mean the ones where I *don't* say that there's been no warming? Yeah, about that.... that proves MY point, not yours. You aren't fooling anyone with your weaseling.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #192 October 26, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Can you post a link to something that shows, in the past, where temps lagged CO2 increases? Can you tell us when, in the past, any species pumped 30BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, year after year. So the MWP was due to those damned Vikings and their SUV's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png The attached plot shows 10 reconstructions that indicate that the mwp is NOT as warm as current conditions. And the ice record shows that it *was* warmer. Quote In any case the claim that if anthropogenic CO2 doesn't explain every previous change in the climate it can't explain this one is just deliberate ignorance. *laughing* Sure thing, skippy, once y'all show that CO2 actually drives the temperature - is "man-made CO2" somehow exempt from the historical 800 year lag between temps and CO2? Oh, and don't forget to explain how levels well below 500ppm are somehow going to push us over the eco-chondriac 'tipping point' when levels were several times *higher* than that during the past with no 'runaway temperature gain'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #193 October 26, 2011 QuoteYou aren't fooling anyone with your weaseling. You aren't fooling anyone with your lame attempts to divert.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #194 October 26, 2011 Mike – I think you are not explaining yourself. I’ll put my response to it: “The fact that CO2 doesn’t explain every previous change in climate is a good reason to decline to attribute recent change in climate solely to anthropogenic CO2 increase and to the exclusion of all other factors. The factors that played a role in other increases in temperature possibly play a role in the increase in temperature that we currently are seeing.” I was actually hoping to get some response to the stuff I wrote about the ice sheet. But the flame war ensued... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #195 October 26, 2011 Quote Mike – I think you are not explaining yourself. I’ll put my response to it: “The fact that CO2 doesn’t explain every previous change in climate is a good reason to decline to attribute recent change in climate solely to anthropogenic CO2 increase and to the exclusion of all other factors. The factors that played a role in other increases in temperature possibly play a role in the increase in temperature that we currently are seeing.” That's not much different than what I said, absent the sarcasm, of course. ( ) Quote I was actually hoping to get some response to the stuff I wrote about the ice sheet. But the flame war ensued... Your ice sheet info was a good argument, I thought...and I apologize to you for my contribution to the flame war...but I'm not going to let kallend mischaracterize my statements.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #196 October 26, 2011 You know, I've learned some good things in this thread and it got me thinking a lot. There's been good stuff coming from both sides. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #197 October 26, 2011 Quote You know, I've learned some good things in this thread and it got me thinking a lot. Yes, there's been some good stuff in this thread, including your last posts. I'm really looking forward to get those papers from the library.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #198 October 26, 2011 This might interest you, Scooby.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #199 October 26, 2011 Quote Quote Mike – I think you are not explaining yourself. I’ll put my response to it: “The fact that CO2 doesn’t explain every previous change in climate is a good reason to decline to attribute recent change in climate solely to anthropogenic CO2 increase and to the exclusion of all other factors. The factors that played a role in other increases in temperature possibly play a role in the increase in temperature that we currently are seeing.” That's not much different than what I said, absent the sarcasm, of course. ( ) Quote I was actually hoping to get some response to the stuff I wrote about the ice sheet. But the flame war ensued... Your ice sheet info was a good argument, I thought...and I apologize to you for my contribution to the flame war...but I'm not going to let kallend mischaracterize my statements. Irony score 10/10. You were well and truly caught weaseling on the Muller article (among many other things).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #200 October 26, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Mike – I think you are not explaining yourself. I’ll put my response to it: “The fact that CO2 doesn’t explain every previous change in climate is a good reason to decline to attribute recent change in climate solely to anthropogenic CO2 increase and to the exclusion of all other factors. The factors that played a role in other increases in temperature possibly play a role in the increase in temperature that we currently are seeing.” That's not much different than what I said, absent the sarcasm, of course. ( ) Quote I was actually hoping to get some response to the stuff I wrote about the ice sheet. But the flame war ensued... Your ice sheet info was a good argument, I thought...and I apologize to you for my contribution to the flame war...but I'm not going to let kallend mischaracterize my statements. Irony score 10/10. You were well and truly caught weaseling on the Muller article (among many other things). More mischaracterization? Quelle surprise, it's all your side has left.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
