Attention AGW Deniers - Especially Those Acolytes of Dr. Roy Spencer...

[Grumps 3,706]

Patience. Try it. This is an El Niño period.

And......?

You really want to discuss this, do your homework first. Try Roy Spencer's (hisownself) web page and start reading.

Yeah, I did that, and it wasn't quite the revelation you claim it to be. He still thinks AGW is ,if not 'bunk', not the boogyman some want to portray.

Global Temperature Report: Warmest Ever February, driven by El Niño

El Nino's come and go. Meanwhile global temperature continues to rise, contributing to the strength of El Ninos.

And what do you mean "if not bunk". Are you starting to slip from your assertion that it is bunk? Is it a hoax or not?

I can answer the "if not bunk" part. (You know the answer, too, but you like to play games.) It is bunk (hoax) that man-made pollution has been proven to be the cause of increasing global temperatures. It is possible that man-made pollution contributes to the increase of global temperatures. If it is ever proven that man-made pollution is the cause of increasing global temperatures then it would no longer be "bunk". I don't think that AURaptor, or anyone else, has said that AGW is not a possibility.

[cooltigger21 0]

Like I say. Whe the solution stops being giving government more power and control and less freedom, then we can talk. The earth warms and cools. Has since the beginning of time. We have had the ice ages and everything else long before the industrial age and the so called destruction it's brought. We can't let poor people in third world countries have modern electric power because it will contribute to global warming. Meanwhile they cook with materials that are far more harmful to their health than anything AGW could cause.

[homersapien 12,172]

If the,solutions to this 'problem' didn't always involve giving more control of our everyday life to bureaucrats and rolling back our standard of living, I might be more inclined to believe it.

Gibbs Rule # 39 - there is no such thing as coincidence.

That this is a global ( everyone must care ) climate crisis and the ONLY way to solve it is to do pretty much exactly what the Statists have been pushing us towards for over 160 years , and that anyone who doesn't agree is to be mocked, vilified and marginalized, that's just too much coincidence for me to accept.

That's just a long-winded way of saying it's all a scientific hoax.

" Long winded " ?

Yeah, easy to dismiss anything longer than a bumper sticker slogan explanation to just call it ' long winded '.

Yes, long winded. (Using 57 words to state "it's a hoax" is long winded.)

The bottom line to that long winded blather is, it's a "scientific hoax". Correct?

[homersapien 12,172]

Patience. Try it. This is an El Niño period.

And......?

You really want to discuss this, do your homework first. Try Roy Spencer's (hisownself) web page and start reading.

Yeah, I did that, and it wasn't quite the revelation you claim it to be. He still thinks AGW is ,if not 'bunk', not the boogyman some want to portray.

Global Temperature Report: Warmest Ever February, driven by El Niño

El Nino's come and go. Meanwhile global temperature continues to rise, contributing to the strength of El Ninos.

And what do you mean "if not bunk". Are you starting to slip from your assertion that it is bunk? Is it a hoax or not?

As has always been known, Earth's climate does change. Long before the internal combustion engine, wine was being produced in England as the growing season allowed for vineyards to flourish so far north.

If you are attempting a logical argument against AGW, you failed.

[homersapien 12,172]

Patience. Try it. This is an El Niño period.

And......?

You really want to discuss this, do your homework first. Try Roy Spencer's (hisownself) web page and start reading.

Yeah, I did that, and it wasn't quite the revelation you claim it to be. He still thinks AGW is ,if not 'bunk', not the boogyman some want to portray.

Global Temperature Report: Warmest Ever February, driven by El Niño

El Nino's come and go. Meanwhile global temperature continues to rise, contributing to the strength of El Ninos.

And what do you mean "if not bunk". Are you starting to slip from your assertion that it is bunk? Is it a hoax or not?

I can answer the "if not bunk" part. (You know the answer, too, but you like to play games.) It is bunk (hoax) that man-made pollution has been proven to be the cause of increasing global temperatures. It is possible that man-made pollution contributes to the increase of global temperatures. If it is ever proven that man-made pollution is the cause of increasing global temperatures then it would no longer be "bunk". I don't think that AURaptor, or anyone else, has said that AGW is not a possibility.

Raptor - and apparently you - consider it to be a scientific hoax.

But if you want to start acting rationally by backing off that position it's fine with me. As for it being unproven, there is no serious scientific debate concerning the reality of AGW. The evidence is overwhelming.

If you believe otherwise, you are simply ignoring the scientific case.

[homersapien 12,172]

Like I say. Whe the solution stops being giving government more power and control and less freedom, then we can talk. The earth warms and cools. Has since the beginning of time. We have had the ice ages and everything else long before the industrial age and the so called destruction it's brought. We can't let poor people in third world countries have modern electric power because it will contribute to global warming. Meanwhile they cook with materials that are far more harmful to their health than anything AGW could cause.

Actually, there is no solution. What's done is done. We can keep it from getting any worse by weaning ourselves from carbon-based fuels.

If you can think of a way to do that without involving governments, that's great. The only important thing is that we take action to do it.

The rest of your post is irrelevant and without logic and has already been discussed many times.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Yes, long winded. (Using 57 words to state "it's a hoax" is long winded.)

But that's not what I or Dr Spencer have said. The Earth cools and warms up. Pollution is a true, actual problem. And there unquestionably IS a political angle to the whole AGW agenda.

Too long winded for ya ?

The bottom line to that long winded blather is, it's a "scientific hoax". Correct?

It's funny, because when I tried to discuss evolution w/ a young Earth creationist, they referred to any explanation beyond " The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it " as " paleo - babble " .

And no, as explained above, there's more to it than it being a mere hoax.

Do freaking try and keep up.

[AURaptor 1,137]

If you are attempting a logical argument against AGW, you failed.

I should know better than attempt to be logical w/ you, at all. You're so hell bent in your cult BELIEFS, that all discourse is futile.

[cooltigger21 0]

It's so damned arrogant, which is the core of liberalism, to believe that man can be that harmful to the environment and that us doing our normal everyday activity and advancing is causing harm to the planet..I'll never believe that. The earth, and our existence on it, will end when God decides to end it and not one millisecond before.

[homersapien 12,172]

If you are attempting a logical argument against AGW, you failed.

I should know better than attempt to be logical w/ you, at all. You're so hell bent in your cult BELIEFS, that all discourse is futile.

Are you asserting your post is logically sound?

[homersapien 12,172]

It's so damned arrogant, which is the core of liberalism, to believe that man can be that harmful to the environment and that us doing our normal everyday activity and advancing is causing harm to the planet..I'll never believe that. The earth, and our existence on it, will end when God decides to end it and not one millisecond before.

Thanks for your honesty.

[homersapien 12,172]

Yes, long winded. (Using 57 words to state "it's a hoax" is long winded.)

But that's not what I or Dr Spencer have said. The Earth cools and warms up. Pollution is a true, actual problem. And there unquestionably IS a political angle to the whole AGW agenda.

Too long winded for ya ?

The bottom line to that long winded blather is, it's a "scientific hoax". Correct?

It's funny, because when I tried to discuss evolution w/ a young Earth creationist, they referred to any explanation beyond " The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it " as " paleo - babble " .

And no, as explained above, there's more to it than it being a mere hoax.

Do freaking try and keep up.

If it's a "mere hoax" what's the "more to it"?

[homersapien 12,172]

Interesting article discussing the difference between a reasoned skeptic and a denier.

http://www.davidbrin.com/climatechange2.html

[AURaptor 1,137]

homer - Your frantic , back to back posts, where you first mock and insult me, then immediately try to ask a rational, sincere question... sorry, not playing that game.

[homersapien 12,172]

homer - Your frantic , back to back posts, where you first mock and insult me, then immediately try to ask a rational, sincere question... sorry, not playing that game.

Yeah, I'd be totally surprised - shocked even - if you responded to a rational sincere question.

[AURaptor 1,137]

homer - Your frantic , back to back posts, where you first mock and insult me, then immediately try to ask a rational, sincere question... sorry, not playing that game.

Yeah, I'd be totally surprised - shocked even - if you responded to a rational sincere question.

I've already done so, many times. It amounts to no change in how you respond, so I stopped.

[AFTiger 282]

Scientific Elitism Is Fundamentally Destructive To Science

Melanie Phillips’ article in The Times was highlighted with other information on WUWT that speaks to the loss of integrity in climate science and science in general. It is well-stated and germane but overlooks part of a larger problem that pervades the history of science. It involves a group that establishes themselves as the authority on a particular area of science. They then attack anyone who questions their prevailing wisdom. They control the curriculum in schools and universities and extend their control through professional societies. They establish themselves as a scientific elite who reject an idea and/or the author, thus blocking the very essence and dynamism of science. It is another form of “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) knew that most scientists would accept without question their claims because they were the scientific elite. Most elitists in the AGW crowd were the new fangled computer modelers. I watched the takeover of climatology by the modelers. They quickly became the keynote presenters at conferences. Pierre Gallois summarized the situation with what is still true for most people today.

If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/05/scientific-elitism-is-fundamentally-destructive-to-science/

[homersapien 12,172]

Scientific Elitism Is Fundamentally Destructive To Science

Melanie Phillips’ article in The Times was highlighted with other information on WUWT that speaks to the loss of integrity in climate science and science in general. It is well-stated and germane but overlooks part of a larger problem that pervades the history of science. It involves a group that establishes themselves as the authority on a particular area of science. They then attack anyone who questions their prevailing wisdom. They control the curriculum in schools and universities and extend their control through professional societies. They establish themselves as a scientific elite who reject an idea and/or the author, thus blocking the very essence and dynamism of science. It is another form of “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) knew that most scientists would accept without question their claims because they were the scientific elite. Most elitists in the AGW crowd were the new fangled computer modelers. I watched the takeover of climatology by the modelers. They quickly became the keynote presenters at conferences. Pierre Gallois summarized the situation with what is still true for most people today.

If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.

http://wattsupwithth...ive-to-science/

Classic denialism. It's a global takeover by elitist scientists. :-\

I'd like to see the author explain why the arctic ice is melting.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Ice melts, it expands. Not a crisis.

[homersapien 12,172]

Ice melts, it expands. Not a crisis.

Yeah, the proverbial frog immersed in a pot of warming water said the same thing.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Ice melts, it expands. Not a crisis.

Yeah, the proverbial frog immersed in a pot of warming water said the same thing.

That myth has been debunked, actually, though it does make for a nice talking point.

And frogs talk ?

[AFTiger 282]

Another alarmist pillar collapses – Greenland melting due to old soot feedback loops and albedo change – not AGW

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/03/another-alarmist-pillar-collapses-greenland-melting-due-to-old-soot-feedback-loops-and-albedo-change-not-agw/

[homersapien 12,172]

Ice melts, it expands. Not a crisis.

Yeah, the proverbial frog immersed in a pot of warming water said the same thing.

That myth has been debunked, actually, though it does make for a nice talking point.

And frogs talk ?

Please look up "proverbial". :-\

And really, you want to change the focus of debate to my use of a proverb?

What a perfect example of your disingenuous, diversionary style (aka weaseling).

[homersapien 12,172]

Another alarmist pillar collapses – Greenland melting due to old soot feedback loops and albedo change – not AGW

http://wattsupwithth...change-not-agw/

Nice try, but if you consult the actual article, http://www.the-cryos...10-477-2016.pdf , you will find the following statements in the abstract:

"Analysis of MAR outputs indicates that the observed albedo decrease is attributable to the combined effects of increased near-surface air temperatures, which enhanced melt and promoted growth in snow grain size and the expansion of bare ice areas, and to trends in light-absorbing impurities (LAI) on the snow and ice surfaces."

And then:

"Albedo projections through to the end of the century under different warming scenarios consistently point to continued darkening, with albedo anomalies averaged over the whole ice sheet lower by 0.08 in 2100 than in 2000, driven solely by a warming climate."

In other words, the decrease in albedo is being exacerbated by global warming. It is not proposed as an alternative mechanism but a concurrent one.

The discovery of another interactive mechanism hardly disproves AGW. In fact, it's these inherent possibilities that might accelerate the effects of warming.

This is a good example of how sites like WUWT distort the actual science for their political purposes.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Cmon, and miss a chance @ posting a clip of a singing frog ?

Lighten up Francis