Join The Community

Warning..... Very Strong Language

This is for my buddy Brian.

I fell off my chair laughing but, be warned, the language is foul!!!!

I loved this comment-

Denialism = Crimes against humanity

I'm staying out of this climate change debate, but Brian H said something that I totally agree with: "If you want to see environmental devastation, keep much of the planet poor and desperate."

That's also the cause of many other global issues such as terrorism and disease. On the other hand, as affluence spreads so does the demand for natural resources.

@tobi_ger. Thanks for the links, great information to confront deniers who are open to facts documenting AGW. I will also pass these links on to my colleagues and friends.

Pointman on PC hypocrisy in the press:

It should be possible to object to big government without being labelled as a redneck. It should be possible to ask the question why basic literacy and numeracy rates are now lower than they used to be without being called an educational elitist. It should be possible to discuss concerns about immigration levels without being branded a racist. It should be possible to ask why people are being forced into fuel poverty, when the global temperature hasn’t risen in nearly two decades, without being compared to a holocaust denier.
You see, they’re no longer allowed in the mainstream media (MSM) to hurl gutter level abuse at foreigners, non-whites, non-Christians or most minorities, but if you do happen to disagree with an establishment doctrine; that stricture simply ceases to apply to you. The gloves come off and the rules of civilised discourse are forgotten. You can quite safely be called a racist, redneck, elitist, denier, sexist, flat-earther (thank you for that one from the supposed democratic leader of the free world), a shill, insane, Aryan Nation, a flag fetishist, a paid protester, a conspiracy nut or whatever they need to label you, to simply avoid addressing your awkward questions.

Like all extreme weather stats, floods and tornadoes are on strong long-term decline:

The insurance (especially reinsurance) industry, btw, benefit from maximizing fear of unlikely events. Munich Re is notorious for leveraging hype to maximize profits. Take its warnings with shovelfuls of salt.

I'll take the bait.

The difference between disagreeing and discussing points of reasonable disagreement and denying that our current energy usage path is wrong is stark.

We can discuss the general and specific deterrence of the death penalty along with its morality. We can discuss both points of view on abortion. Both these issues are contentious, elicit emotion and yet I can respectfully disagree with you.

There is no form of conversation we can have as to why we should continue to consume everything in sight at the expense of the planet we pass to those that follow us. Sure, you can pretty much do whatever you want short of uncapping every well on the planet and lighting the spillage on fire and fully live your life with little impact. That does not make it right and it most certainly does not make it acceptable.

There is no gray area here where we can respectfully disagree. You, and all those that advocate consuming everything in sight simply for short term personal gain or blatant stupidity, are simply wrong. Normally, I could care less if you are wrong. It's your life and if you want to foul it up, be my guest. Natural selection will weed you out. In this instance I can not allow the words to be said without pointing out that there is no reason to do it, no justification for the selfishness and no way it can be allowed to continue.

You'll notice that my argument is based on basic sense, not science. There is nothing to debate with common sense; either you posses it or you do not. If you are not capable of seeing the obvious your voice should be removed from the conversation. Your stupidity endangers the place I live and thus can not go unchallenged.

The "science" claims by the AGW proponents fail the most basic requirements: disclosure, honest attempts to test and falsify, etc. The claims are rhetoric, used to attempt to discredit alternatives, in lieu of validation testing. Provide a single instance of proper hypothesis formulation and challenge-testing. It has never happened.

@Everyone who is not Brian
1) Google "climate change hypothesis test challenge"
2) Follow the very first link to this:
3) Volkerise 'buffoon'

@Brian H
As a counter to your Pointman quote (your 3rd post above):

Professor Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide, Australia, from an opinion in 'Australasian Science' from May 2009 (parphrased here from EureakAlert):

"In climate science and policy, those few apparently well-educated people who continue to deny the now vast body of scientific knowledge and analysis on the causes and consequences of global warming are variously called sceptics, denialists, contrarians, delayers or delusionists. Whatever the label you attach to them, they are all cut of the same anti-intellectual cloth[...]

Their business is the dissemination of disinformation, doubt and unscientific nonsense. One of their most regular ploys is to leverage the widespread lack of public appreciation of how science operates."


Brian, in many posts you declared AGW scientists being corrupt and only in for the money (paraphrased).
I'd like to point out that (one of) your favorites, Prof. Curry runs a non-profit company whose software product was primarily developed for a client in the petroleum industry.
No bells going off there then...?

The "body of scientific knowledge" is mostly simulations, and full of holes you could drive a semi thru, blindfolded. As I noted, little or none of it is properly documented (raw data, analysis details, etc.), and the essential good-faith falsification efforts to qualify as actual scientific hypotheses are universally missing.


Wow, that's an amazing statement as the vast majority of researchers currently working in the field of climatology (about 95%) accept the AGW hypothesis based on the data.

Brian wrote it. Not amazing at all :(

That 9x% agreement meme is a feeble delusion. You discredit yourself by citing it. Here's a more honest assessment:
"According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims."

Within this context that first paper is - in your words - outdated and bull fecies.
It's data is from end of 2007 within a single organisation (APEGA, Alberta, CA), many of whose members work in the petrol industry, and mixes public with professionals' opinions and does not represent a "majority of scientists" at all. It itself even agrees that there is a scientific consensus!

Referencing an article from the Heartland Institute is sarcastic. That dreadful POS of a political, religous, money-fed organisation has no credibility in my book.

The latest consensus study across scientific papers is here:
Quote: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

That is scientific consensus.

If it's science, consensus is irrelevant.

IAC, the consensus you're talking about is achieved in the instances you mention by a trick of wording. The assertion as agreed to with the implied word "any" inserted: Humans are causing ANY global warming. However minute and insignificant their influence is. The same trickery is used in switching between the statistical and secular meanings of the word "significant", by the way. To statisticians and scientists, it means probably not due to chance. It does not mean material or important, yet that is how it's pushed to the public.

As Judith Curry wrote last October:

"The manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science, elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus, and motivating actions by the consensus scientists and their supporters that have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC."

Sure Brian H...let's fry up our plant....let's convert every corner of our planet into North Africa Shara desert or Arizona dry land and expect everything to be hunky dory!! BTW, did you know north Africa and Arizona were at one time as fertile as Kansas or Iowa??

....meant fry up our PLANET, not plant.........

If you haven't realized yet - you will NEVER change Brian's opinion. Just stop wasting your time arguing with him - there is no point.

Americans' Concerns About Global Warming on the Rise - Gallup, April 8, 2013

A new Pew poll on global warming - NCSE, April 4, 2013
From the referenced source article, a section "Opinions about Global Warming" states:
"Currently, 69% say there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades. Among those who see evidence of global warming, more say it is caused mostly by human activity (42% of the public) than by natural patterns in the earth’s environment (23%). Nearly three-in-ten Americans (27%) say there is no solid evidence of warming."

Americans Think the Climate Is Changing and Support Some Actions - Duke University, Feb. 2013

Climate Change Denial Is Affecting Education - NCSE, Jan. 5, 2012

Heavy PR push, won't last long. The nonsense is too blatant.
"The world is a bit warmer. The carbon dioxide levels of the atmosphere are increasing. Plants are doing better than before because of the higher carbon dioxide[32]. The sea is rising in a barely detectable way. Climatic disasters are no worse than previously. The animal kingdom is being squeezed by the growth of a single species, us, but that has nothing to do with global warming.

And that is why there is a climate of scepticism."

Your fairy tale was already refuted to be the actual nonsense:

Climate change will cause widespread global-scale loss of common plants and animals
- University of East Anglia, May 2013

Climate change helps then quickly
stunts growth, decade-long study shows

- Northern Arizona University, April 9, 2012

Drought Drives Decade-Long Decline in Plant Growth
- NASA, August 2010

New study links wildfires and climate change
- July 30 2012

@Brian H....please Brian H don't make me post quotes from folks who still think the earth is Flat..........that's what ur engaging in....getting quotes from fringe elements in any subject is pretty easy.

u mean it's not?

UEA is so deep into pushing the BS it kicked off that it has no credibility. As for drought, it comes from cooling, which dries the atmosphere. Warming expands viable plant habitat.
Human output is undetectable noise.

The strong temperature increase that followed the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) of about 18,000 years ago has melted enough ice to raise SL by 120 meters (400 feet). The rate of rise was quite rapid at first and controlled by the melting of the huge ice sheets covering North America and the Eurasian land mass. These disappeared about 8000-5000 years ago; but the WAIS continued to melt, albeit at a much lower rate -- and it is still melting at about the same rate today. Other, smaller WAIS-like ice sheets may have existed in the Antarctic, but have already melted away.
The principal conclusion is that this melting will continue for another 7000 years or so, until the WAIS disappears -- unless another ice age takes over before then. Moreover, there is nothing that we can do to stop this future sea level rise! It is as inevitable as the ocean tides -- as long as the Holocene (the present warm interglacial period) survives. Fortunately, coral reefs will continue to grow, as they have in the past, to keep up with SL rise. The rest of us will just have to adapt -- as our ancestors did some 10,000 years ago. At least, we are better equipped to deal with environmental changes.

For the less mathematically sophisticated, some friendly fire:

Briah H.....slow down, I am starting to think u r in the coal business......

Global greens develop stupid, horrible, expensive, counterproductive climate policy agendas, and then try to use the imprimatur of “science” as a way to panic the world into adopting them. All too often, in other words, they fall prey to the temptation to make what the science says “clearer than truth” in Acheson’s phrase, in order to silence debate on their cockamamie policy fixes. A favorite tactic is to brand any dissent from the agenda as “anti-science.” It is not only a dishonest tactic; it’s a counterproductive one, generating new waves of skepticism with every exaggeration of fact.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen