New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[mistermack]

Where have I heard that before?
Oh yes, whenever the facts are uncomfortable.

Speaking of uncomfortable facts, you seem pretty adept at suddenly turning deaf. Schneibster has provided the link before, but you have yet to utter a word about the data manipulation fraud perpetrated by Roy Spencer.

Schneibster is fanatical about it, and he's quoting a fanatical blog, realclimate.
RealClimate is just rabid, it's totally biased, Michael Mann is at the top of the list of contributors. Not worth even reading.

[Animavore]

Where have I heard that before?
Oh yes, whenever the facts are uncomfortable.

Speaking of uncomfortable facts, you seem pretty adept at suddenly turning deaf. Schneibster has provided the link before, but you have yet to utter a word about the data manipulation fraud perpetrated by Roy Spencer.

Schneibster is fanatical about it, and he's quoting a fanatical blog, realclimate.
RealClimate is just rabid, it's totally biased, Michael Mann is at the top of the list of contributors. Not worth even reading.

Lol! I just myself read it now. I'm not surprised you don't want to read it after how damning it is to your hero. That truth is some hurtful shit.

[mistermack]

Lol! I just myself read it now. I'm not surprised you don't want to read it after how damning it is to your hero. That truth is some hurtful shit.

The truth would be nice, but you won't find it there.
I've never read more blatant bias anywhere. You really must be ultra gullible.

[Animavore]

I'm actually reminded of my creationist friend here. He used to send me links and videos which 'demolished' evolution which I would then read (like I read articles, like Spencor's, critical of global warming) and I would send him a rebuttal (say) from Talk Origins and he would whine, "They're biased. I'm not reading that' (as if what he sent me wasn't). It infuriated me at first but after a while I realised how obstinate and pathetic it was. In the end I decided to stop letting him troll me and closed down any further discussion.

[Animavore]

Lol! I just myself read it now. I'm not surprised you don't want to read it after how damning it is to your hero. That truth is some hurtful shit.

The truth would be nice, but you won't find it there.
I've never read more blatant bias anywhere. You really must be ultra gullible.

How would you know if you haven't read it?

[Animavore]

I wouldn't mind all this but, the others aside, I myself deliberately kept my posts on the Spencor issue and avoided the larger topic of global warming. I posted multiple links (not just realclimate.org) exposing flaws in Spencor's methodology and one showing Spencor's refusal to defend criticism. Mistermack refuses to even read them but the funny part here is conceding this one point is not conceding your whole stance yet Mistermack refuses to do even that! This level of obscene pig-headedness is absolutely anthetical to rational discourse and it's not worth getting apopletic over (you know who you are).
Mistermack's desperate clinging on to one little screed which apparently debunks anthropomorphic global warming is classic barrel-scraping and nothing else, so chill.

[mistermack]

Mistermack's desperate clinging on to one little screed which apparently debunks anthropomorphic global warming is classic barrel-scraping and nothing else, so chill.

I've tried reading stuff from realclimate, but I just have to stop, it's so biased. The others you linked I did make a start, but my bullshit detector was going mad.

The point is that the vast majority people posting work on the subject are either rabidly biased, or in well paid climate science jobs, or both.
Nobody dares to publish anything even remotely critical, because they get sacked or edged out.
That's why I wrote "sacked" about that editor, because it is happening all the time. Sacked, moved on, or just unemployable.
Climate scientists have two choices if they want to keep working. Push AGW, or keep their mouths shut.

[Animavore]

Guess what else happens all the time? Scientists resigning from positions because a fuck up on their part brought themselves or their organisations into disrepute.
And you can't keep falling back on your little "realclimate.org" is biased excuse after I posted links not just from them.

How about instead of blathering on about climate conspiracies you show us Spencor's rebuttal to the rebuttal?
Oh that's right. You can't. Because Spencor said he was "too busy" to make one

[mistermack]

I told you I tried to read your links.
Link something unbiased and I'll read it.

[Schneibster]

Just like the scientist who authored the paper linked to in the OP would say just about anything to make global warming disappear in order to feed his xtian agenda.

Well I'm sceptical about all of it. I present the other side because I don't like this religious attitude that "it's written, so it must be true".
I see they sacked the editor who published it. That's what happens if you blaspheme.
.

In the real world, he resigned because he was embarrassed the article got published in his magazine. Says so in the article.

Just sayin'.

[Schneibster]

What I find disturbing about the IPCC is that their "likelihood" figure of 90% that global warming is man-made is exactly the same as what they gave for their confidence figure for the melting glaciers.

What "confidence figure for the melting glaciers?" Looks like another piece of crankery. Betcha I can debunk it.

It's pretty obvious that at the end of the day, they grab these figures out of the air.

See, when you say things like this, it's extremely cranky. Baez gives a pretty high score on the crackpot index for claiming professional scientists make things up. I could look it up if you like.

What really bothers me about AGW is the reliance on feedback loops, which ARE NOT fully understood at all.

Ummmm, feedback loops are a very well-understood phenomenon in physics. As a matter of fact, in electronics engineering, they are ubiquitous. For example, you can't even begin to study audio power amplifiers until you understand feedback; that's because it's how you keep the power transistors from blowing up. Feedback loops maintain homeostases.

I don't think you understand feedback at all.

When the earth has dived into an ice age in the past, it's been from a point where CO2 has been at it's peak, temperatures were sky high, and the feedback mechanisms should have been operating flat out.

No, they shouldn't. The Milankovitch cycles reduce the insolation before the beginning of an ice age; that's why ice ages start. We've known that since the 1960s. In case you hadn't noticed, it's kinda hard to have feedback when there's no input signal.

See? You don't even understand what feedback is. What are you talking about it for? Did someone who has the right ideology tell you you could say it and the "warmers" wouldn't be able to argue with you?

In spite of that, the TINIEST, most gradual change in irradiation levels, apparently plunged the earth into the deepest ice-age.

Hmmm, last time I checked, the Earth's axial tilt made seasons. Seasons are pretty TINY, right?

Let's say i put the tiniest grain of sand on you every second. I'm sure you'd be just fine after a year, right? How about a million years?

That just couldn't happen, if the proposed feedback mechanisms are as effective as we are asked to believe.

Excuse me? Feedback again? You still don't understand it. I'm pretty unsanguine about your ability to say what could and couldn't happen, when you don't even understand how feedback works.

Just sayin'.

They might well have an effect when the earth is very cold, but if they did, they have always run out of steam when the earth reached the warmest part of the cycle, which is exactly where we are now.

In the real world, we're in the middle of an ice age.

Please stop. It's embarrassing to watch you.

[Animavore]

I told you I tried to read your links.
Link something unbiased and I'll read it.

Lol! By unbiased do you mean something that doesn't point out the holes in Spencor's methodology, his deliberate jimmying of data to get his ad hoc results and the fact that he refuses to defend his own model even when asked by his own supporters?

How about I post a link to Glenn Beck?

[Schneibster]

Ummmmm, do you believe that just because it's written down? I'm sure that the appropriate pressure was brought to bear.
In the end, resignation is "made attractive" and easier all round. It happens all the time.

Which do you think is more likely? People don't resign just for the fun of it.

I don't believe it just because it's written down. I haven't seen evidence for your allegation and I'm calling you on it.

That works; there's also the fact he said so. In the article above.

[Schneibster]

Michael Mann is at the top of the list of contributors. Not worth even reading.

In the real world, Michael Mann was cleared by three different investigations: one by the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation, one by the Inspector General of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and one by seven professors from universities in the US, Britain, and Switzerland. The NSF investigation declared that the hockey stick is "fundamentally sound." I posted a link to the story about it in a thread you ignored. The story is in Bloomberg's business rag, and was picked up by several other national outlets; the New York Times, for example.

Just sayin'.

[Schneibster]

Schneibster is fanatical about it,

The scientific consensus is that CO2 sensitivity is 3°C per doubling. Pretty fanatical, huh? I'm a real loose cannon. I can hardly stand me.