Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Skeptics infighting
#1
Hello readers,

I told Derek a solid two months ago that I was going to write this post and I am sure he is wondering if I was ever going to do it well here it is finally and please try not to take it personally since this intended for clarifying what I think is really important.

I have seen in various places on the net and through some private e-mail threads of angry confrontations between "skeptics" that I think goes beyond the pale because it is highly divisive and pointless because it no longer addresses the real problem of warmists hijacking the climate based research of science subjects and the compliant widespread media who helps push the CAWG propaganda despite the abject failure of the AGW conjecture.I just quit a forum where a lot of nasty narrow minded CAWG propagandists abounded and their common replies were deliberate confrontative B.S. It took me 5 weeks to realize that these people never intended to carry on a reasonable argument on anything and therefore it was no longer worth my time visiting again.This is the trail the skeptics are heading into if they keep up with the absurd infighting where they tear each other down much to the delight of the warmist/alarmist camps.

The infighting has divided people right here in my forum where a number of forum members have stopped coming including Richard S. Courtney,Terry Oldberg,John Kehr and Jason_85.It is a loss that I have keenly felt because the voices of skepticism is quieted down to a murmur and the simulating effect of smart people visiting and posting here also winds down.

I am also unhappy with Anthony Watts for his over the top disparaging of so called "fringe site" such as the following he listed at his blog page on the right side part way down the page:

Climate Realists - where they post some of the same articles that Watts post at his own blog.He also post opposing views there as well something Anthony never does.

Talbloke's Talkshop - where he dares to explore the science outside the box.Especially over the solar effects on the Earths climate in various ways rarely discussed elsewhere.

Climate Progress - where Joe Romm does not deserve attention by posting a link to his nasty blog.

Why couldn't he say nothing at all about them in the first place and spare the anger? Why bother with posting the "fringe sites" insults and then put them out for ridicule on his blog that can only promote more divisiveness and anger that is clearly unproductive?

What in the hell prompted him to be like this?

I happen to like Tallbloke Talkshop and Climate Realists blogs and by golly I will continue to visit their blogs for information on the topics that interest me and that includes the so called "fringe" topics they post there.They are creating discussions on topics that Anthony Watts has blocked at his blog and that is why I applaud them for it.

Then there is the churlish response's by many to the there is no greenhouse effect camp of John O'Sullivan and the PSI group along with the Slaying the Sky Dragon blog and Derek Alker.Where they are dismissed as kooks and worse.If it is indeed nonsense it will die out in time and therefore would be a waste of energy to get so angry over it.I know of prominent skeptics who savaged the no greenhouse camp in the e-mail threads including those from Viscount Monckton and Anthony Watts.They were quite upset and requested strongly to be taken off the e-mail list.I know of it because I was part of the e-mail group who read them.Their anger was unnecessary since all they had to do was leave but nooo they had to be nasty nasty about it first before they left the e-mail thread.

However I had to help The Air Vent's blog owner stop Doug Cotton from continuing to thread bomb a couple of threads after he was already banned for his behavior.He would simply change his name and continue on and on and be a jackass in the process.I was in position to help Jeff Condon deal with Mr. Cotton's wayward actions by going through a channel that I have at my fingertip that fixed the problem.I hated to do that but it was creating a lot of animosity there in AND elsewhere that was only going to increase the infighting between differing groups of skeptics on this sore point of topic.

In my own forum I had to slow down a Moderator because he was getting too aggressive in his replies and going outside my DISCUSSION format set up that I wanted to run the forum on in place of the usual squabbling debating format that is common elsewhere.I had to use the PM's and other avenues to reemphasize the idea that THIS forum is supposed to be running on reasonably civil discussion for the purpose of understanding the topics.The Moderator Derek apologized and backed off.Richard Fowler never did back off or accept Derek's apology and that is why he got a warning from me.

Richard Fowler who was embroiled in some of the same ruckus with Derek and myself for his whining in the public area of the forum had to be given an official 20% warning for his refusal to keep his complaints private and to answer me some specific questions he never answered.He never came back after he saw the warning and you know what ..... he EARNED IT for not responding to my reasonable requests.I was fed up with him for muddying the threads up with his off topic rants.

I must be that rare skeptic where I have real tolerance of differing views over the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect at all or a small one that has minimal impact on the climate trends.I have been ready to allow these viewpoints to be well aired here with my Moderation support for constructive discussions on them but alas the small greenhouse effect camp seems to avoid my forum completely leaving the No greenhouse effect camps position unchallenged.

I have no problem with these differing views getting the exposure and I like them since they simulate and clarify what we understand but it is a continual mystery to me on why skeptics feel the need to claw each other up so much when the real enemy is not us at all but the hostile socialist environmentalist anti freedom busybody creeps who are bent on controlling the world with their insane policies that are demonstrably wrong from the start.We need to stop the infighting and get back to work contending the absurd doomsday messages the warmist/alarmists are making along with the uncritical media who help them spread the false gospel of the CAWG conjecture that has yet to gain even minimal credibility.This is the real battle we should be fighting for and for our freedom to live responsibly and freely in the future.

We are supposed to be skeptical of the CAWG conjecture and explain why to anyone who are in need of answers to why we do not accept this never verified conjecture and how we can show this clearly.That is what we are supposed to be in the fight for.To educate the unwary and bewildered people out there who have been given for YEARS of mind numbing incomprehensible dooms day babbling from the media that never adds up in their minds.That is the TRUE role of the active CAWG skeptic that should be the PRIMARY effort in pursuit of the battle to free people from the scaremongering racket they have been a victim of and to help restore the long valid Scientific Method that is in tatters these days.

Can CAWG skeptics stop fighting each other over the secondary issues and concentrate on beating the CAWG conjecture loving supporters instead?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
[Image: respect-067.gif]
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#3
I agree.

At the root of the discussion, we have either "alarmists" or "skeptics". Alarmists believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic climate events and skeptics do not.

Doesn't get any simpler than that, in my opinion.

The problem with the discussions appear to me to be twofold: often we allow the discussion to drift away from that primary difference, sometimes to rather obscure items like whether a specific CO2 molecule will be absorbed by a nearby blade of grass or a Yamal tree on the opposite side of the globe; or the other differences between skeptics as mentioned above become disruptive or divisive, seemingly making opponents out of folks with the skeptical viewpoint.

It would be very productive if Skeptics simply discussed the various areas of possible discrepancy within the "Climate Change" arena and only argued the CAGW by CO2 concept. In other words, maintain a high level of civility with fellow skeptics while treating Alarmists, shall we say, a little differently.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#4
I think it is most effective if we concentrated on the failures of the main IPCC claims that CO2 is a major climate driver and that positive feedbacks are supposed to swoop in and cause the huge warming that would doom us in the long run.

The real world climate data shows that NONE of the CAWG is evident or coming in the future because it is simply not a climate driver in the first place and never has been demonstrated in the past Earths history to have happened either.

Skeptics should be spending their main effort to expose the many climate modeling failures of the AGW conjecture by showing the empirical data.It is not that hard to do anymore because we have so many ways to smash the AGW conjecture through various ways to show how irrelevant CO2 really is.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#5
SST, to be honest I am tired to tears of showing, or reading what others have already shown better, that AGW is rubbish.
In respect of the "infighting" it should be considered that much of it is deliberately "engineered".
My apologies for stating that, BUT it is a "possibility" that MUST BE considered.....

Most ordinary people in my opinion already know AGW is wrong, the world ain't warming, and not a single computer climate model prediction has come true.
In that respect "we" are flogging a dead horse.

For instance I plotted these years ago. No one has ever commented on them anywhere...
[Image: Slide10.jpg]

and,
[Image: Slide11.jpg]

Which way will GMT go next, warmer or cooler, or will it stay the same??? AND
WHY will it go in whichever direction it does go.
No one knows.

To me AGW has already been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be utter bull faeces.
EVERYONE who has studied climate at ANY level does know this already,
whether they admit it or not.

The questions remaining are,
1) What is climate (INTERNALLY) really about???
YES, we know it is water BUT HOW???

2) Why did the AGW conjecture "take off" as it did???
YES, we know the answer is politics, "politics" IS the why, BUT
whose "politics" AND with what end in mind???
This is the "motive force" of AGW that can not be ignored, or fail to be considered in discussions of the "science".
Ordinary people may well grasp better that they have been lied to by politicians, and their paid for "scientists", rather than understanding how the complex computer models or "physics of AGW" was blatently WRONG.

3) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - How did the greenhouse effect theory EVER get past "first base"???
The very starting point of GH "theory", P/4 is unphysical,
[Image: PDIVIDEDBY4PLOT.jpg]
AND,
Greenhouse "theory" contradicts itself, at the simplest of levels.
ie, P/4 establishes the principle power is divided by surface area (1368 W/m2 / 4 = 240 W/m2 recieved at earth's surface), YET
for back radiation surface area DOES NOT reduce power (the atmosphere radiates 240 W/m2 both up and down)......
[ie the atmosphere which radiates up and down...ie, twice the surface area]
[Image: Slide23.jpg]

The below plot is how I have tried to illustrate this contradiction "within" GH "theory".
[Image: Slide24.jpg]
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#6
I am not at all distressed by your post.

Big Grin

Here is a paragraph that seems to catch them off guard in the way I attack the CAGW INDIRECTLY by showing what never shows up:

Quote:The real world climate data shows that NONE of the CAWG is evident or coming in the future because it is simply not a climate driver in the first place and never has been demonstrated in the past Earths history to have happened either.

I did this at a political forum that effectively shuts up the resident warmist moron who must know he was creamed by my fact based replies that even included Dr. Jones specific agreement that ALL the warming trends since the 1850's are almost identical to each other.

The last post he never replied to is HERE and it was over a chart he never tried to factually dispute the entire time.

The exchanging replies are HERE starting at post #717 between me and Buzz.

Notice that not once did I try to attack the AGW hypothesis itself because all I have to do is show the lack of warming acceleration they keep screaming about and that the actual temperature trend is well below the IPCC's .20C level for the decade.To show that the AGW signal does not show up at all in the temperature trends.

You do not have to attack the hypothesis itself anymore since all the signs to support the hypothesis never shows up.That is the ball we should be carrying to the warmists these days.

The point is to show that there is no apparent CAWG signal in the temperature trends at all.No unusual warming trend.No warming acceleration.No correlation to the CO2 increase at all.

Inject reality back into their lives and you might wake some of them up.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#7
Derek Wrote:In respect of the "infighting" it should be considered that much of it is deliberately "engineered".
My apologies for stating that, BUT it is a "possibility" that MUST BE considered.....

Absolutely agree with that -
Quote:COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal,[2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

They have been doing it for years - to think it does not apply to climate science or is not a global undertaking would be naive.

I agree with what you both, and others state - focusing on the trojan horse that is CO2 is essential.
Reply
#8
(06-13-2012, 08:06 AM)dev Wrote: - focusing on the trojan horse that is CO2 is essential.

I know that is THE point to get across, BUT it naturally and immediately follows when that point is communicated - Then what???
I think there is already more than enough here re CO2, and yes, I also know we will have to go over it many times again for "newbies".
This was hammered home to me when a Slayer (newcomer) stated to me in a private email that he KNEW the observed increase in global atmospheric CO2 is caused by human activity.........
We have not communicated much since to be honest, AND "we" disagree about P/4.....

My focus is now on the "Then what???".
I strongly suspect the "it" of climate science is, within earth's climate system, the latent heat of water vapour, and
how that interacts with the differences between the dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates.
This is what my latent heat home experiments are aimed at testing / illustrating / showing.
I hope it will strengthen the destruction of AGW from both sides as such.
ie, it ain't CO2, is "this" worthy of further investigation and consideration....
I am now very close to running the experiments and hope the results (raw data) will be posted on this forum within a couple of months.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#9
Hi All,
Since I started the fb group There is no greenhouse effect, it has become increasingly obvious that there is good reason for the sceptics infighting.
The reason, and this has been admitted by several different main stream sceptics, is that they do not know what the actual GH "theory" is......
Unbelievable as such, but it appears true.

I have now had a journal editor and several main stream sceptics say to me that they do not know what P/4 is, nor why it might be important.............
They do not realise that admission MUST mean they do not know what the GH "theory" is at all.
That means they are not sceptics, how can they be, when all they have ever done is query or quibble how the theory is applied to reality, if they do not, have not, and can not question the "theory" in the first place.
They have not a clue what I mean when I say that AGW is the bastard child of GH "theory", which only exists on paper in the first place.
QED - They are not sceptics, they are gate keepers for the consensus, or just plain incompetent.

That's better, I needed a rant........
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#10
(06-03-2012, 05:21 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: ... [Skeptics infighting] ... is highly divisive and pointless because it no longer addresses the real problem of warmists hijacking the climate based research of science subjects and the compliant widespread media who helps push the CAWG propaganda despite the abject failure of the AGW conjecture. .... This is the trail the skeptics are heading into if they keep up with the absurd infighting where they tear each other down much to the delight of the warmist/alarmist camps.

.... I am also unhappy with Anthony Watts for his over the top disparaging of so called "fringe site" such as the following he listed at his blog page on the right side part way down the page
....

To at least put a positive perspective on this, it is basically all the proof in the world anyone needs to show there is independent thought and a sheer lack of 'larger issue' coordination happening among skeptics. If there is any one thing that does need to be pointed out to the disinterested public, it's that the promoters of AGW are unified in their purpose, which is not really to support their science, but is to marginalize skeptic opinion in the public eye by any means possible.

I'd never noticed the "Transcendent Rant" section in the links of Watts' site before. Yes, it doesn't look so great to use the word 'rant', and from various conservative viewpoints I've seen in skeptic opinion (blogs & personal emails), I'd advise avoiding that since it only hands ammo over to the AGW promoters ..... but even still, that isn't necessarily too terrible because we can hammer the point that such "character flaw" ammo - as I pointed out here - is all the AGW promoters have as a fallback defense of AGW. They can't defend the science, so they wipe out critics. What frustrates me is that the more vocal 'celebrities' in the skeptic side don't recognize the golden opportunity at hand to shred the credibility of the AGW promoters by exposing how weak the smear tactic really is.

It's simply a matter of time before the overall public sees through the smear to what lies beneath, and with a sharpening of the skeptic narrative to not only point out faulty AGW science and the opposition's reliance on smear tactics, this will come about.
Reply
#11
Russell Cook wrote,

Quote:To at least put a positive perspective on this, it is basically all the proof in the world anyone needs to show there is independent thought and a sheer lack of 'larger issue' coordination happening among skeptics. If there is any one thing that does need to be pointed out to the disinterested public, it's that the promoters of AGW are unified in their purpose, which is not really to support their science, but is to marginalize skeptic opinion in the public eye by any means possible.

If they spend that much time trying to marginalize skeptic opinion then they have already failed because the public and even scientists are now reacting with scorn and skepticism some new because of the bilge they get from the often nasty AGW believers and the over the top media fear mongering garbage.

Skeptics only needs to ask for the evidence to support their AGW claims.The promoters of the AGW has long lost the scientific argument and they know it because of the shift in recent years to beat up on skeptics who ask reasonable questions and question their AGW conclusions.Because they know that AGW conjecture is dying because of the many blows given to it by the skeptics they have moved to the CAGW conjecture where it is indicative that those who still follow it have serious critical thinking problems because it is simply an extension of the original and long vitated AGW conjecture.

Rolleyes

Their pool of AGW scientists remains the same or getting smaller while the number of scientists who are skeptical of the AGW conjecture in some way is growing every year.

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm


Updated July 23,2012

It seems that most of the AGW garbage is coming from just a very small group that includes the usual rogues gallery of people like Dr. Mann (who is now sue happy) Dr. Hansen (who is spending his off time adjusting his temperature charts one way) Dr. Schmidt (who is a Hansen poodle) and Dr. Trenberth (who is still looking for the unobserved,unverified missing heat). Then a few NON scientists like Al Gore (who gets rich off his scaremongering) Ray Harrabin (a BBC stooge for the warmist group) Bill Nye (Maybe he is a scientist but have never realized it) and more who are obviously lacking critical thinking skills.

They now often call us names and push the stupid big oil funding canard and mostly avoid answering or pushing the B.S. around the many valid comments put to them.They now try to demonize skeptics in the public arena and it is becoming evident that the public is slowly catching on to the fact that the AGW supporters are the ones who are full of baseless crap with their incessant fear mongering and stupid attacks on skeptics.

The AGW believers refuse to accept the possibility that the AGW conjecture was long ago proven to be without merit and they realize it anyway because they now push the CAGW garbage in its place.An even worse position to take because it is so blasted absurd and has never happened in the last 600 million years.

What I was complaining about was too many skeptics were less and less beating up on the AGW believers poor science position and and more on each other over usually small differences over the role of the CO2 effect and what not.

Doing this make us STOP being a real skeptic because we are no longer giving much attention to the AGW conjecture itself as put fourth by the likes of Dr. Mann,Hansen and Trenberth.

Believe it or not Alan Siddons and John Kehr is on the same side as regarding the significance of the so called greenhouse effect.Alan says there NO is such GE effect while John K. says there is some but both agree it is not a cause of Global warming.

I have no problem with it because the main thrust in my opinion is to expose the AGW conjecture as being unsupportable and thus vitiated science claims that have failed the few TESTABLE claims it has made in the last 20 years.

Skeptics should be beating up the AGW science garbage and the supporters behind it with valid science and reasoning skills to show why they should stop bullshitting the public anymore.

This is why I personally do not bother John Kehr,Derek Alker or Alan Siddons about the differences they have because they have my highest respect for their efforts and their desire to promote a credible position on the topic.They are welcome here as two of them have already been here making their contributions and I learned from it.

Even if John Kehr is wrong about having a small CO2 effect his way would carry much further with the public because he is saying yes there is a small CO2 effect but does not cause global warming.Thus slapping down the CO2 effect is a big deal charade and we get back on track with credible climate science research.

If Alan Siddons is right he will not go much beyond a circle of supporters anyway because he is butting against long held beliefs as postulated by Dr. Arrhenius and Tyndale of 100+ years ago that CO2 effect is real and a real concern for our day as pushed by CAGW believers today.

Recall that Dr. Crichton pointed out that it can take decades or even over a century before a "consensus" position can be overturned.

It would take years for a better explanation to take hold and displace an idea that has lasted for more than 100 years.We do not have time for that because the war against the AGW conjecture is NOW!

Skeptics are individualists for a good reason and that is why they can be skeptical.Being in a group think as skeptics can become a liability and thus feel trapped and lose their skepticism as a whole and be another drone in a group.This is why I have avoided being in some special membership group and even able to help moderate a large climate blog despite some of the stuff as posted by the blog owner there that I do not agree with.

This is why I allow a variety of variable positioned comments that are reasonably civil and respectful to allow constructive discussions to take place here.Thus people are still individuals and therefore can learn and understand at their own pace despite some disagreements that inevitably arise from a complicated subject under discussion.

Skeptics by nature have differences over the varying role of the AGW effect while AGW believers have a very specific position on what to believe.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#12
Michael Mann – never fully investigated, thus never exonerated

My CENSORED comment:

Quote:sunsettommy says:
October 24, 2012 at 6:28 am

[sorry, that's one article I won't link to - Anthony]

LINK


Angry


I am unhappy with Anthony Watts because he censored a comment I tried to post.It was censored because the location of the link leads back to John O'Sullivan blog but I think Anthony has crossed the line for me here because what I posted had nothing to do with what Anthony dislike so much.It was a comment posted in support of Christopher Horner and his guest post.

Anthony is so upset that he is willing censor even me despite that I was on topic and civil because he hates the position of the "Slayers" group on the Greenhouse Effect or the lack of it that much to do it and I think he is wrong here.I never expected that he would do that as it was civil,on topic and SUPPORTIVE of the guest post writer.

Where is the rationale for the deletion?

Here is ANOTHER comment that was approved by one of his Moderators who has not been instructed to delete links that lead back to O'Sullivans blog,

Breaking: Mann has filed suit against NRO

Quote: sunsettommy says:
October 24, 2012 at 6:08 am

People,

I think you should reconsider the discovery process as being an easy process in this lawsuit because it appears that Dr. Mann and his lawyers have planned ahead on this lawsuit by getting a biased Judge to preside over the case.

Here is this sobering article from John O’Sullivan who thinks this might turn out to be a difficult trial:

Michael Mann Gets “Most Biased” Judge for Key US Global Warming Trial

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/...ing-trial/

LINK

His moderator sure had no problem with the source link.But it might vanish if Anthony sees it and have a fit and censor it and then tell the moderators to stop all future attempts to use O'Sullivan as a source.I think every one will suffer from this loss if he does that.

I give him support on Facebook and elsewhere to respect his wishes that he does not want to deal with the topic of NO Greenhouse Effect.But now that he is developing an irrational reaction to censoring civil on topic comments I have to wonder how far he will react the next time I have the gall to use John O'Sullivan's information on anything BESIDES the part that he made clear he does not want to see at all and you know what Anthony I was doing that already not bothering you over it but you still censor me anyway!

Now I have been moderated irrationally on it and I have NOTHING to do with the behind the scenes stuff where Anthony is reacting angrily with the Slayers camp on their position on the Greenhouse Effect.I wonder if I will become a target over it because I am sympathetic with their cause and willing to give them a voice here if they chose to do so.I have allowed Richard C. Courtney,John Kehr and Richard Fowler to post contrary position on the Greenhouse Effect that clearly differs with the Slayers group.

This is what bothers me about some skeptics who does this immature stuff because it does not help the over all skepticism cause which is to highlight the feeble activities of the CAGW believing camp on their science and legal claims.

:thumbdown:


It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#13
Hence I keep saying, politely, that WUWT is not a science blog, however much they and he try to pretend otherwise.
Many respected main stream so called climate science sceptics are as bad as, if not worse than the "consensus" not only on GH "theory" but latent heat, radiative physics, etc, etc, etc, in fact anything that questions GH full stop.

More are realising this every day from their actions.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#14
[Image: Quibblers.jpg]
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#15
Scientists now have revealed that the data and numbers were engineered to favor the global warming believers.
Reply
#16
(09-14-2016, 03:42 AM)EricRomm Wrote: Scientists now have revealed that the data and numbers were engineered to favor the global warming believers.

Yes it has been shown using their own charts and data sets many times HERE
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#17
I'm just sitting back and eagerly awaiting everyone's spin on this next Grand Solar Minimum we are just now entering.  I wonder how whey will manage to work around a nice  drop in global temperatures?   This will not be easy to fudge.  

I wonder if the upcoming one will be another Dalton, or perhaps Maunder Minimum?   Its going to be funny to watch all of the assholes and elbows.  Wink
Reply
#18
While I agree with the basic thrust of of the "cooling" sun,leads to a cooler world.It is not that straightforward because there are other factors in play, that can mute it or draw it out into years,before it can show up distinctly.

David Archibald,goes overboard with his cooling sun quickly leads to big drop in temperature mantra.He has been wrong over an over on it,it is one of the few areas warmists rightly have a field day on.I wish he would STOP making outlandish cooling predictions.The same with others who push the rapid quick cooling is around the corner, that will go on and on. It isn't that simple as the climate system has built in lags in it muting the sharp changes,which are often of short duration to amount to much anyway.

Until the underlying Modern Warming trend cause finally comes to an end,it will continue to be a warming world even with a currently cooling sun,which has always been of a cycle or two long and then increasingly warmer again.There has to be a systematic change from a CENTURIES long warming trend to a Cooling one such as the Dark ages or the LIA cooling,when there was indeed an underlying cooling phase in place.

Based on past credible proxy data of the last few thousand years,the EDDY Solar phase change maybe coming very soon,which would reach the minimum around 500 years from now (as it was at the beginning of the LIA), that will lead to a change from a centuries long warming phase INTO a centuries long cooling phase. That is what we should be looking for,NOT salivate over a short solar cycle change, which will only promote a temporary cooling temperature trend. Since it appears we may have reached the Modern Warming PLATEAU by the peak of the Eddy solar cycle, There will be a reduction in warming trends,devolving into a cooling trend in the coming centuries.

The Book The Neglected Sun, shows the importance of LONG term Solar changes that runs in long cycles,especially the Eddy and Halstatt cycles,that are the main engine of long term temperature trends from cold to warm back to cold.

The strong and numerous El_Nino's of the last century,indicate that the world is slowly moving from a warming world to a cooling one, as the accumulated "heat" from the Ocean waters is more rapidly leaving to outer space. Numerous El-Nino's is a sign of a cooling world. The Ocean waters is the BANK,where the Sun is making the deposits into,that can accumulate or deplete according to long term solar cycle changes. 

During the Holocene climate Optimism,El-Nino's were weak and rare,which is not surprising as it was the WARMEST time during the inter glacial period.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)