Yep. And it seems that those who do it are blind to what they are doing. Meanwhile they give each other a reach around, slap some palms and whoop it up, confident that they are 100% right.
It’s embarrassing. Especially since a couple of years ago I was doing the same stupid shit.
You were giving yourself embarrassing reach arounds and slappin some palm??? :eek:
-XT
Oh yeah. Pwning deniers left and right. I used to get a stiffy everytime I showed some denier up.
I’m so ashamed now.
I wasn’t skeptical about it at all. I even did the “what’s the use?” phase where I was sure we were all doomed and there was no way to stop the warming, the coral bleaching, the oceans rising, the runaway greenhouse, the methane, the disease and droughts, the horrible storms, the end of the world man.
I was an idiot.
By chance, do you have a Youtube video you want to share and are ‘just asking questions’? Just curious…
-XT
That reminds me. Do you know about this total tool?
He is the crowning achievement of a scientific denier.
Well at least he is sincere. 
Give it up, your CO2 “science” was a stooge for the energy companies, the “luminaries” that they use are the same old discredited skeptics and now mostly deniers. As the cite I made just 2 posts after your swill cite shows, the CO2 “science” .org does not care that they misrepresent the paper that was actually peer reviewed.
You are really deluded, it was from him that I learned to check the published science and dismiss second hand bloggers.
As with the case of CO2science.org the published paper does not say what they wanted, as they say in technical places, Read the F******* Manual, one should read the scientific paper not misleading bloggers.
Then it should be easy to find examples were I was misleading others, lets have them or shut up.
Not when they come with the same baloney and then they double it up by denying that the baloney was already debunked.
Dyson has admitted that he is no longer involved with the current science.
Until that bridge is crossed one has to rely on the best evidence available, as the guy who had to resign from the fallout of the Spence paper said, one paper does not overturn all the previous science.
And that was debunked already, it was not seen as a problem by all the investigations and reviews made after , you are still peddling reheated baloney.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/09/208050/vindicating-climate-science/
Aye, and thanks! It seems like a valid concept to me. I mean, if sea levels rise five centimeters, that’s not catastrophic. If they rise five meters…holy grud! (Say good bye to most of Florida and Cuba!) (And, since this is the Pit…Good Riddance!)
Ahem… Sorry…
Trinopus
Gigo, I came across this and was wondering your stance on it.
I haven’t read the thread today, so my apologies to all if this was already posted.
You can expect another Gish Gallop from Gigo
This isn’t some denier. Or somebody the true warmers can just ignore.
“The global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it… has corrupted so many scientists”
– Harold Lewis
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board
Well, OK they can ignore him, but it just drives home the point.
It’s not that I “only want to run away from it now”. I’ve quite consistently wanted to know what amount of warming you’re predicting, on what timetable, for quite a long while.
And if that doesn’t happen – if the long-wave radiation doesn’t start behaving in that way – then what data, if any, would be inconsistent with your predictions?
[QUOTE=JohnDiFool]
And while we’re on the subject, it’s amazing when I see that some people don’t know when to quit (or even the meaning of the term)-they just all moved their ignorant asses on over here to this thread and continued carrying on like nothing has happened, and the irony is still completely lost on them. GIGO keeps handing them their figurative heads, and yet they keep asking for seconds
[/QUOTE]
I keep asking for GIGO’s specific prediction; he predicts “warming,” and I want to know what warming he predicts on what timetable – and what lack of warming, on what timetable, would falsify his predictions. I carry on like nothing has happened because nothing has happened; he ducks and dives here the same way he did there.
I’m watching almost the exact same thing happen on another forum. The person proposing they are 100% right and “the science is settled” simply refuses to say what the science is, what is 100% settled, what the consensus is.
As a non climate expert, this is what confounds me about anti AGWs. Increase in long wave radiation=warming. The two phrases are interchangeable right?. So are you saying there can be warming(increase in long wave radiation) but no warming? I don’t get it.
The home experiment I linked to earlier shows how greenhouse gasses work. Take an enclosed container, take temp, put CO2 in enclosed container, take temp again and its hotter. Does it matter whether the enclosed container is a 2 liter bottle or an earth, or whether the source of CO2 is dry ice or fossil fuel combustion?
With what we know about the physical properties of CO2, what else would he predict? What would you predict would happen with higher levels of CO2?
Possibly the reason you are confounded is that you have been misled about what exactly is in controversy. I am an “anti” and yet I fully concede that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are likely to cause an increase in global surface temperatures.
See, “global warming” is really a compound hypothesis. Warmists assert that (1) increased CO2 levels are likely to result in an increase in global surface temperatures AND (2) any such increase will be significantly amplified because of water vapor feedback.
I hope that clears up your confusion.
I’m asking what amount of warming he’s predicting.
Is he predicting a rise in temperature (of a certain number of degrees, or tenths of a degree) over a given span of years (or decades)? Can he specify a length of time during which a lack of warming (or, perhaps, cooling) would falsify his predictions?
Or, when he predicts “warming,” is he merely predicting that “there will be an increase in long-wave radiation, but the global temperature may stay the same for decade after decade after decade after decade – or possibly decrease for decade after decade after decade after decade; who knows?”
I’m not the one making a prediction. GIGO predicts warming – for the reasons you name – and yet refuses to answer much the same question you’re asking: what, exactly, does he predict will happen? What data would be incompatible with his “warming” prediction? Does he predict a one-degree rise or a three-degree rise in temperature by 2050? Would a tenth-of-a-degree rise (or a one-degree drop) falsify his claims? Or, as I was saying, is it that he’s predicting no rise in temperature at all when he predicts “warming”?
First, it is Fox news, even before this thread and on this one we already do know that their position is to seed doubts on the issue.
But then I was also aware of what FOX even points at:
The context shows that he resigned because of his opinions, not because the facts were telling him.
A former darling blog of the conservatives: little green footballs, former as it did noticed how off the deep end many conservatives are going in their efforts to deny science and other things, comments thus:
Incidentally he already had made known that he was an skeptical scientists, but as been noticed already here, skeptical scientists know also the score, specially when they are not willing to submit papers that support their now fading views.
This is just like Hal Lewis resigning before, the enthusiasm seen by bloggers for this “new” resignation (old news as he already told us he did not like where the consensus was going)
So, unimportant.
A gish gallop can be taken care of by point out at one single link that does not show Ghat you are talking about, do you have any?