Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And here again we have more evidence of their position.
Notice the trend in their postings.
Make a claim, accuse, and dismiss any objection.
Move on to another issue not related.
If you look at their posts and mine, notice how I quote each response, deal with each response and when it concerns data, I respond be it with information that shows their position is not absolute or I ask questions of them to explain (I ask because there are flaws in their claims, and if they do not attend to the questions, it is evidence of avoiding it, ie.. ignorance of the topic).
Also note while I do use sources as evidence, I also explain them in my own words to show I understand such. That I have for the most part a basic grasp of what is being discussed.
note that they do not. If you look closely, you see they link a response, maybe quote it or even quote it and do not link it, while the rest of their "actual response" is simply accusations, dismissal, etc...
There are good folk out there that believe in AGW, they support their positions, they are not devious and they admit that their position is hypothetical, rather an assumptive evaluation or the like.
Do not dismiss these people, they are discussing the science and they know how to differentiate between what is known and what is speculation.
Your posters here, they do not know. You see... if you look in the past posts of those who have been here long enough (not the fly by night antagonists as you see), they have made clear that they are emotionally involved, that the science is simply a vehicle to their ends.
These people believe stretching the truth or ignoring the facts is to your benefit. They actually believe they are saving your lives by doing so. They are holding a position that says they know what is best for you and facts, truth, or proper evidence will not sway them from their goal. You need to be regulated, you need to be told how to live, it is best for the world.
How time goes on and yet its occurrences remain the same. Like climate, it changes constantly and adjusts to various extremes as a matter of natural process and so does human nature in its process of constantly changing to meet the desires it seeks.
Be it witchcraft and the evils of those who they do not understand, or the behaviors of foreign lands to which also spook them, they are emotional servants, seeking the same purpose they always have and that is an emotional attachment to a personal desire.
They are what they are. Opinion is irrelevant, fact is all that matters. Unfortunately, fact gets in the way of their goals and must be twisted or ignored to reach it.
I asked a simple question-do you feel in your postings here to say you know more then the the NOAA, The National Academy of Sciences, NASA & The IPCC ??
You also refute the NSICD (the National Snow and Ice Data Center) information.
It seems that you are another climate change skeptic who has a full and open forum to continue to disseminate faulty data and information to suit a specific agenda. Since current scientific data/empirical information by highly qualified climate scientists -98% to 2% agree that AGW is real- should myself or anyone listen to what you say with any seriousness?
I asked a simple question-do you feel in your postings here to say you know more then the the NOAA, The National Academy of Sciences, NASA & The IPCC ??
You also refute the NSICD (the National Snow and Ice Data Center) information.
It seems that you are another climate change skeptic who has a full and open forum to continue to disseminate faulty data and information to suit a specific agenda. Since current scientific data/empirical information by highly qualified climate scientists -98% to 2% agree that AGW is real- should myself or anyone listen to what you say with any seriousness?
And I asked you a question first. It is customary to answer a question before for asking one.
Since you are playing a game, let me return in kind.
Do you not answer such because you are ignorant of the topic?
Is then your position solely invested in your belief that your sources are correct? If you do not question, are you simply a pawn to be whisked from here to there? Does your opinion or arguments matter when you attend to such or are you simply a amplification of opinion without thought?
Please explain so the good people here can see if you are simply a stool for another opinion or a voice of your own?
If it is a stool, please move closer, my feet are tired and I wish to rest them.
Since current scientific data/empirical information by highly qualified climate scientists -98% to 2% agree that AGW is real- should myself or anyone listen to what you say with any seriousness?
I'm going to say no. Caught him regurgitating a well-known falsehood & not only does he refuse to admit he's wrong, he instead goes on the offensive.
Thus, he's clearly a troll, and is best ignored at this point.
Note how the author actually goes and contacts one of the oft-quoted skeptics, responding that:
I have corresponded with Bob Carter about the data he uses - in articles where he states the temperature trend is negligible or even cooling, he's erroneously using upper troposphere data. See the footnote of (I'm copying it):Where Bob Carter got his data
When I emailed Bob Carter querying about his data in the article above, this was his reply (28 Jun 2007):
"By mistake the graph that was reproduced in the Telegraph article was for the middle troposphere. Though it does not materially affect the argument or conclusions, I am embarrassed by it because it can be made to look as if I was pulling a swiftie - which I wasn't (intending to)."
I'll take Carter at his word that it was an honest mistake, although I've noticed he continues to state satellites show little to no tropospheric warming.
So what do we learn from this?
That people like Bob Carter are following the Exxon Company's modus operandi to a "T" - knowingly try to spread doubt and confusion, even when the data does not support them, and even when alerted to their mistakes, carry on regardless.
What I love most about Nomander is the way he flies in the face of so many realities. That Exxon memo should simply be discarded/ignored, right? I mean hey, why take seriously the claim that a multi-billion dollar company would take steps to protect its business model and natural resource access...
It's not like we have another example of an industry doctoring stats to make a case for their unhealthy product.
Oh, except we do - it's called the tobacco industry, who for years said "Trust us! Our scientists can prove our product isn't addictive and doesn't cause cancer!"
Of course, even worse, it was later found that many of the tobacco companies not only knew nicotine was addictive, but in fact had laboratories tinkering with nicotine levels to make the cigarettes as addictive as possible.
Global wheat markets reeling from Russian droughts, thousands of cattle killed by heat in Kansas, and countless crop acres wiped out by floods in Pakistan are glimpses of what can be expected as the world struggles to battle climate change.
The town of Brinkley AR was struck by a tornado which killed 49 persons and caused 600,000 dollars damage. The tornado, which was two-thirds of a mile in width, destroyed 860 buildings. Entire families were killed as houses were completely swept away by the tornado. Tornadoes killed 64 persons and injured 671 others in Dallas and Monroe counties during the Arkansas tornado outbreak. (David Ludlum) Oh wait this was 1909
[SIZE=-1]During the late morning hours a severe hailstorm struck southeastern Iowa completely destroying crops along a path six to ten miles wide and 75 miles long. The hail also injured and killed poultry and livestock, and caused a total of 2.5 million dollars damage. The hailstorm flattened fields of corn to such an extent that many had to leave their farms in search of other work. It was one of the worst hailstorms of record for the nation. (The Weather Channel)opps 1925[/SIZE]
Extreme heat prevailed across the central U.S. as severe drought raged from Texas to the Dakotas. Record high temperatures were established in sixteen states that summer, including readings as high as 120 degrees in the Great Plains Region. On this particular date, afternoon highs for 113 stations across the state of Iowa averaged 108.7 degrees. (David Ludlum)UUUUMMM1936
You get it? this stuff happens all the time! DO you understand "record" as the highest recorded temps in most of the USA were BEFORE 1940..... USATODAY.com
Thank you my54ford and Chi-town for your input and information- many of us in the US this year have faced increasingly extreme weather
I fear that many Americans have no idea what they and their children will be facing in the years to come.
In this decade the amount of warming will be quicker then the last decade- and that warming will become more pronounced in the summer months. I fear in a few years the American heartland/agricultural belt has heat and drought like they had in Russia this summer.
IMO I see no reductions worth mentioning in Greenhouse gases till 2020 (as weather events become increasingly erratic- as to disrupt commerce and cause rising human suffering) Those reductions will not be enough however to stop the ppm CO2 from surpassing 420 or so by the year 2025.
A good book to read is James Hansen's 'Storms of My Grandchildren' in which he tries to not be an alarmist- but objectively tries to explain what we must do to bring CO2 levels back to or below 350ppm. At this time I see 450ppm by 2035 a real possibility- from there it will be very difficult to stop the rise to 500ppm and a 3.5 Degree C rise in global temperatures- which will totally change the earth by late century.
We are in really deep trouble right now- its fair to say the majority of the media has done a very poor job of informing the public with facts- they have been silenced by their advertisers -- what happened to a free and independent media?
Note how the author actually goes and contacts one of the oft-quoted skeptics, responding that:
I have corresponded with Bob Carter about the data he uses - in articles where he states the temperature trend is negligible or even cooling, he's erroneously using upper troposphere data. See the footnote of (I'm copying it):Where Bob Carter got his data
When I emailed Bob Carter querying about his data in the article above, this was his reply (28 Jun 2007):
"By mistake the graph that was reproduced in the Telegraph article was for the middle troposphere. Though it does not materially affect the argument or conclusions, I am embarrassed by it because it can be made to look as if I was pulling a swiftie - which I wasn't (intending to)."
I'll take Carter at his word that it was an honest mistake, although I've noticed he continues to state satellites show little to no tropospheric warming.
So what do we learn from this?
That people like Bob Carter are following the Exxon Company's modus operandi to a "T" - knowingly try to spread doubt and confusion, even when the data does not support them, and even when alerted to their mistakes, carry on regardless.
What I love most about Nomander is the way he flies in the face of so many realities. That Exxon memo should simply be discarded/ignored, right? I mean hey, why take seriously the claim that a multi-billion dollar company would take steps to protect its business model and natural resource access...
It's not like we have another example of an industry doctoring stats to make a case for their unhealthy product.
Oh, except we do - it's called the tobacco industry, who for years said "Trust us! Our scientists can prove our product isn't addictive and doesn't cause cancer!"
Of course, even worse, it was later found that many of the tobacco companies not only knew nicotine was addictive, but in fact had laboratories tinkering with nicotine levels to make the cigarettes as addictive as possible.
LOL!!!!!! Well done, Nomander
They are down..on the canvas..struggling but unable to get up before the last count. So in an act of hysterical desperation, they attempt a diversion of our attention to the evils of tobacco companies as a foundation for their argument! It just doesn't get any more comical!!
I'm going to say no. Caught him regurgitating a well-known falsehood & not only does he refuse to admit he's wrong, he instead goes on the offensive.
Thus, he's clearly a troll, and is best ignored at this point.
No, you did not discuss my position, you took the position of another and linked a contest to it while completely disregarding the questions I posed in my own response.
You keep avoiding dealing with my responses, and are beginning to act like the other poster, making a claim, posting a link, ignoring a response, and then moving on to another claim and link.
What is it you caught?
First, in order to lay claim to something, you must first quote where you claim I am wrong. Then you need to attend to that claim or question with proper support.
It appears you and your partner in crime are simply applying gorilla tactics to dismiss and discredit without actually being responsible to the discussion itself.
Thank you my54ford and Chi-town for your input and information- many of us in the US this year have faced increasingly extreme weather
I fear that many Americans have no idea what they and their children will be facing in the years to come.
In this decade the amount of warming will be quicker then the last decade- and that warming will become more pronounced in the summer months. I fear in a few years the American heartland/agricultural belt has heat and drought like they had in Russia this summer.
IMO I see no reductions worth mentioning in Greenhouse gases till 2020 (as weather events become increasingly erratic- as to disrupt commerce and cause rising human suffering) Those reductions will not be enough however to stop the ppm CO2 from surpassing 420 or so by the year 2025.
A good book to read is James Hansen's 'Storms of My Grandchildren' in which he tries to not be an alarmist- but objectively tries to explain what we must do to bring CO2 levels back to or below 350ppm. At this time I see 450ppm by 2035 a real possibility- from there it will be very difficult to stop the rise to 500ppm and a 3.5 Degree C rise in global temperatures- which will totally change the earth by late century.
We are in really deep trouble right now- its fair to say the majority of the media has done a very poor job of informing the public with facts- they have been silenced by their advertisers -- what happened to a free and independent media?
*chuckle*
You didn't read very closely of my54fords response did you?
Go back and read it again and pay close attention to the of those events and their dates.
It conflicts with your assessment. That is, you cite a "growing" frequency of events of , but the fact is, there is not evidence of such as the poster pointed out to you.
Maybe a little more time is needed for you in actually reading what a poster is saying? Maybe?
Classic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
