(12-22-2009 01:22 PM)Guest Wrote:  Can I post this i dare you.

Why are there no alarmists here? keeping them out I bet because you little boys are to scared of some real climate wisdom because you have no truth and just wanna be smart loking.

Those e-mails are stupid atempt by skeptic creeps to hold down the truth that we are in a big warm up.we lived in the warmest decade on record and you deniers will lie in anyway you can to hide it.

i am sure you will delete this post because you have done that many timmes and reason why there are no inteligent coments here since you deniers are afraid of real debate.i have seen it a lot and that is the truth..

i dare ya to post this truth.

Around 1981, I interviewed our air force base weather officer for a nice article about forecasting in our local conditions. I guess I've been an avid science follower since long before that. In fact, I introduced one of your moderators here to science books in the mid-1970s and brought him to his first astronomy club meeting later on. Yet when we talk about global warming, I often encounter strenuous turbulence. I am informed that I am unreasonably ignoring the great evidence etc. It is obvious that I am too lazy to do my homework etc.

If the "guest" post to which I am currently replying is not a fake post, I am surprised.

One might be able to have nice debates with global warming non-deniers
if one leaves out most or all of the bombast, rhetoric, character stuff etc. One other caution.
I used to post at astronomy.net where a lot of my good posts were removed while my dumber ones were left naked without the better ones for cover. The excuse was my terrible manners. Odd. That version of that forum which my computer can view is now sculpted, it seems, to leave that impression. Why would my contributions receive such attention? Surely it is because my thoughts are so influential though wrong. So why is your moderator not proud, at least, of my history of water-frothingor pot-stirring ?
Was it because the nuances and facts involved with my alleged story have slipped right through the net and swum back out into the vast ocean of vapor & stuff?

I was told when I came to this forum that I am welcome to post a few in the guest area but that oh well, the rest of the forum is moderated so, you know... not so much.
So have fun. Temps are above average here.
Electric sun? Iron core sun? I'm not qualified to argue it!
Best wishes
Sincerely
P.S. I also spent a few precious interludes in this fleeting life in conversationally defending evolution from the predations of neo-evolutionists. All in a day's work for a cartoon character

have just submitted a few paragraphs... and
kept a copy on my clipboard
filter out this one if you post the other
or, of course, one may publish both or neither
Cheers

Quote:If the "guest" post to which I am currently replying is not a fake post, I am surprised.

He he,

then you do not get around the forums on the internet that much,since I have seen comments in a similar vein as the one you are curiously obsessed about.They have been that bad.

Quote:I was told when I came to this forum that I am welcome to post a few in the guest area but that oh well, the rest of the forum is moderated so, you know... not so much.

The Guest forum is moderated too.

The difference is that some people (guests) prefer to post once and vanish,while others will join and post a few times and then stop,while a few will join and post regularly if not many.

What will you do?

Quote:One might be able to have nice debates with global warming non-deniers if one leaves out most or all of the bombast, rhetoric, character stuff etc. One other caution.

But of course the common Modus Operandi of a GW non denier comment is usually one of the following: Ad Hominiem,"big oil" funding,irrelevant statements,science is settled,science by consensus,irrational reliance on Climate Models,Unverified IPPC GCM 50-100 year temperature projections,and other silly unproductive comments and so on......

They also have a dogmatic reliance on the IPCC reports,where so few scientists actually did anything in it and continually refer to one of the most hostile and biased science blogs on the planet in Realclimate,where Gavin Schmidt (who is exposed in the climate gate e-mails), Michael Mann (who is exposed in the climate gate e-mails) and others such as Rhamsdorf and Peirrehumbert,who have been recently exposed as being poor scientists.

RealClimate has been exposed to employing extreme moderation,for the purpose of weeding out inconvenient comments,that they are now losing viewers and gaining a bad reputation.It is a sinking ship.

Try Anthony Watts blog instead (which is now the most viewed Wordpress science blog in the world),where your inconvenient comments (if you have any) are almost always posted.

But since most skeptics have accepted that there has been a warming trend since the 1850's and even agree that there has been a slight warming trend since 1979 as per the Satellite data.There has been no credible reason to believe that AGW is happening and the main claims for it has already been shown to wrong.

James Hansen's climate 20 year modeling scenarios he posted in 1988,is wildly wrong.This was covered back in 2008 to show that even his coolest temperature trend is still way high.

The IPCC 2001 report shows the official 50+ year into the future temperature trend (in a pretty chart) based on the unverified AGW hypothesis,has already failed utterly in the first decade.They had projected a .20C warming when actually the decade over all is a slight cooling trend.

The IPCC chart clearly shows an upward climb through the decade,it is not and already losing credibility,because it was based on the AGW hypothesis.

Ooops.

Quote:I used to post at astronomy.net where a lot of my good posts were removed while my dumber ones were left naked without the better ones for cover. The excuse was my terrible manners. Odd. That version of that forum which my computer can view is now sculpted, it seems, to leave that impression. Why would my contributions receive such attention? Surely it is because my thoughts are so influential though wrong.

Maybe your comments were out of this world?

Quote:So why is your moderator not proud, at least, of my history of water-frothingor pot-stirring ?
Was it because the nuances and facts involved with my alleged story have slipped right through the net and swum back out into the vast ocean of vapor & stuff?

Huh?

You just got here and already you talk of history?

Quote:I was told when I came to this forum that I am welcome to post a few in the guest area but that oh well, the rest of the forum is moderated so, you know... not so much.

You were told that because I did not think you have the guts to actually join and post comments for others to CIVILLY respond to.

That is why I suggested the guest forum where you can post a couple and then run away,leaving us hanging and seeing that yet another AGW believer does not have the guts to hang around long enough to even get the expected abuse you guys seems to believe will come fourth.



Forums are normally moderated.

Quote:So have fun. Temps are above average here.

There will always be times when the temps are above average,they certainly were not in October,December into early January where Miami escaped frost by a slender thread,or did you already forget that?

Quote:Electric sun? Iron core sun? I'm not qualified to argue it!

It is NOT being discussed in this forum.

Quote:P.S. I also spent a few precious interludes in this fleeting life in conversationally defending evolution from the predations of neo-evolutionists. All in a day's work for a cartoon character

It is NOT being discussed in this forum.



Thanks anyway for your Guest post.

Quote:Yet when we talk about global warming, I often encounter strenuous turbulence. I am informed that I am unreasonably ignoring the great evidence etc. It is obvious that I am too lazy to do my homework etc.

You tried abysmally to debunk the Oregon Petition Project,when you gave me a link to a Texan newspaper that purported to show that around 8 or so names are false or fake or something like that ,out of then 17,000 names.After I conceded that around 4 of them may be indeed bad,you still had only 16,996 names left to go.

I was not impressed when you could not see the absurdity of your opposition to the petition.Today there are now over 30,000 names on it,and still there are feeble AGW morons shooting blanks against it.

I think it is because accepting it means you will accept that there was NO consensus at all.A delusion that only hard ass AGW believers still perpetuate today,long after that baloney was exposed as well ....... baloney.

You still to this day have not answered my question on what is the most common "greenhouse" gas.

You still rely on climate models which is not data,which are unverified.

You still rely on consensus,which is what politics are built around.You have forgotten what the scientific method is.

You still think that Barry Commoner,Paul Ehrlich,Carl Sagan,Al Gore, many other eco-morons are still valid,after being wrong so many times over many years.They have all pushed the absurd AGW hypothesis (which is not verified) because it is a way to control people to further their hard socialist/environmentalism way to the utopian ideal so many murderously aspire.

You have no idea what AGW believing scientists really say about the CO2 molecule itself.It is something that already invalidates most of the AGW hypothesis.

When we talked over the last weekend,you showed that you have not been looking at actual sea surface temperature data,and did not even know what ARGOS is.

You have no excuse for being ignorant if you were really doing your "homework".

I gave you a good look at the LINK in this forum,showing that I have been paying attention to real data as being gathered by many prominent groups.You seemed impressed but I doubt you will really look around for long because it will quickly show that there is no AGW baloney going on.

Here is a link to: Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 - 2008

where it will be shown that temperatures in the summer barely gets above freezing for a short time.Go click on year 2007 the year of the much reduced ice pack,where you will see that the temps were not out of the ordinary that summer.Several "peer reviewed" science papers have been published in the last few years you have NEVER heard or read about that explains that it was the change in the winds in the Arctic and increased influx of warm Atlantic waters that reduced the ice cap a lot in one year (2007).It has been recovering for 2 years now and yet your moron hero Al $$$ Gore and other anti science jerks are STILL screaming that it will really soon that the ice cap will vanish.

I find that most layman alarmists are data free believers.

[quote]Yet when we talk about global warming, I often encounter strenuous turbulence. I am informed that I am unreasonably ignoring the great evidence etc. It is obvious that I am too lazy to do my homework etc.

(01-18-2010 09:48 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  You tried abysmally to debunk the Oregon Petition Project,when you gave me a link to a Texan newspaper that purported to show that around 8 or so names are false or fake or something like that ,out of then 17,000 names.After I conceded that around 4 of them may be indeed bad,you still had only 16,996 names left to go.

This isn't going to work. That is not an accurate report of our exchange.

(01-18-2010 10:48 PM)aw shucks Wrote:  

Quote:Yet when we talk about global warming, I often encounter strenuous turbulence. I am informed that I am unreasonably ignoring the great evidence etc. It is obvious that I am too lazy to do my homework etc.

[quote='Sunsettommy' pid='3270' dateline='1263876525']
You tried abysmally to debunk the Oregon Petition Project,when you gave me a link to a Texan newspaper that purported to show that around 8 or so names are false or fake or something like that ,out of then 17,000 names.After I conceded that around 4 of them may be indeed bad,you still had only 16,996 names left to go.

This isn't going to work. That is not an accurate report of our exchange.

This was from the e-mail exchanges we had about 9 years ago,so excuse me if it only 95% + correct.

I notice that as usual you still do not answer this question:

"You still to this day have not answered my question on what is the most common "greenhouse" gas."

This after 9 years or so.

LOL

It is plain that even from your anonymous position,you still can not bring up the best AGW talking points you could test us with.

I wonder if you have any?

(01-19-2010 07:10 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  This was from the e-mail exchanges we had about 9 years ago,so excuse me if it only 95% + correct.

I notice that as usual you still do not answer this question:

"You still to this day have not answered my question on what is the most common "greenhouse" gas."

This after 9 years or so.

LOL

It is plain that even from your anonymous position,you still can not bring up the best AGW talking points you could test us with.

I wonder if you have any?

It seems plain, aw shucks has no point to bring.

Well it appears that this guest has already left the room,despite that we were civil and even wanted him to provide an AGW hypothesis supporting statement statement to push us,with and still hide behind the guest status.

Quote:It is plain that even from your anonymous position,you still can not bring up the best AGW talking points you could test us with.

Quote:I wonder if you have any?

Nope he has none probably because he does not know what they are.

Oh and still fails to deliver on a 9 year long unanswered question.

It is obvious that he knows that he does not know and is a coward to admit it.

The thing that irritates me is that people like him will say anything to deny the veracity of the Oregon Petition,even to the point of making a statement like this:

Quote:This isn't going to work. That is not an accurate report of our exchange.

And then vanish.

He knows we discussed it years ago and wants to avoid it again with this evasive tactic.

That is why he is profoundly wrong since he refuses to see the actual existence for what it is and the absurdly feeble attacks against it by many AGW believers,means they know it is something they hate,since it is so darn inconvenient!

I went over this with a Robin Grant at JoNova Last fall,where he uses the argument that the Petition is not verifiable and that many signatories are fabricated.

Of course I challenged him to prove it and he never showed a single example of anyone having their name put on the list without their actions of putting it there.

Then he trots out the same tired old claim that this guest poster did,that some names are fakes and so on.This was refuted years ago but they continue to be stuck in the fake name baloney,which was only around 10 or so names,this out of 30,000!

bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

Robin irritated Jo herself,who has a husband,David Evans who is on that Petition list because he filled out the application and sent it in.Yet Robin continues to be a close minded person looking really stupid in the process,since their arguments against the Oregon Petition have long been shown to be idiotic.

I keep waiting for the shoe to drop on the Petition,but it never happens and now I do not think it will.

The guest knows he has nothing substantial against the Petition and is slithering his way out,with a lame reply.

It has been 5 days since this dude posted this "I am going to scram now since I know I can not begin to spar with Tommy" comment:

Quote:This isn't going to work. That is not an accurate report of our exchange.

It is a common "I am going to run away from you" comment I have seen many times before.AGW believers just like Al $$$ Gore knows they have nothing to debate with from their position,so they quickly run away.

A good reason why the rare skeptic versus alarmist DEBATE always result in a win for the skeptic camp.We deal with reality,such as empirical data,and they deal with Virtual reality,such as climate models.

He is my brother and I love him,but he is a hopeless AGW believer who does not even know what the hypothesis is.

I have told two of my other brothers about this forum several times and not even a hint from them that they ever looked here.

This after two years!

Hi All,
SST, I doubt I am not the only one that finds what you report above as both very familiar, and very saddening.
Elsewhere I remember reading a post by someone who's name I forget at present that effectly said,
The subject of global warming has become so polarised and political rather than truth based that
I have lost, and will continue to loose friends and family over it.

It is a sad scenario many of us here and elsewhere will know only too well.
In my own family I have been described by different members as,
" against any orthodoxy "
" genius "
" right wing "
" eccentric "
" political rather than scientific "
" your in denial of the science "
" preaching "
" facist "
" just wrong "
etc, etc, etc.

Some of the above are complimentary, some insulting, and some none committal.
I am lucky to have such a wide range of views within my family,
I doubt many are as lucky.

Over Xmas I watched some of the animated cartoon Happy Feet,
http://www2.warnerbros.com/happyfeet/
in that there is a major scene where the father and son have a massive arguement,
including the mother, it ends with the son leaving the colony.

I have had that arguement in a nearly word perfect "repetition" with my father of that very scene,
several times now.

WOW!

Well then I am fortunate that my brothers have not been calling me names over it,even the brother who guest posted here,has not done that.

He is simply too timid to discuss it,and has used any excuse to leave a discussion quickly as you saw so vividly here.It is in my opinion indicative of his lack of confidence in his AGW beliefs,and that he knows I have been on this topic for many years.

I have been irritated with the guest poster in the past,because he has shown a bad habit of using a lot fallacious arguments,such as:

The argument from authority,
Consensus claims,

among his most popular ones.

Someday he will regain this idea of a "scientific method" and realize that the AGW hypothesis utterly fails it.

My family is "used" to talking things over, even if they get a bit heated..
What I forgot to mention is that at least one fervent supporter of AGW has completely changed "sides" from our discussions.

So, I have 35 left to go...
Not neccesarily all family though...........

I was hoping to find both common sense and science here. Seems I may have struck lucky. I read Derek's thread 'THE question for "luke warmers".' and can see his point. It's been obvious to me for some time that not just CO2 behaves differently in the "real" world than in the laboratory.

I'd suggest that rarefied CO2 in a glass tube might well absorb and re-radiate IR, but as a trace gas in the atmosphere has no time to behave in this way, and virtually immediately gives up excess energy in molecular collisions, warming the atmosphere in the less exciting but conventional way. I've read this on several scientific websites and blogs, along with the scientific rationale.

I've registered here,and I'm awaiting confirmation

(05-28-2010 03:53 PM)Guest Wrote:  I was hoping to find both common sense and science here. Seems I may have struck lucky. I read Derek's thread 'THE question for "luke warmers".' and can see his point. It's been obvious to me for some time that not just CO2 behaves differently in the "real" world than in the laboratory.

I'd suggest that rarefied CO2 in a glass tube might well absorb and re-radiate IR, but as a trace gas in the atmosphere has no time to behave in this way, and virtually immediately gives up excess energy in molecular collisions, warming the atmosphere in the less exciting but conventional way. I've read this on several scientific websites and blogs, along with the scientific rationale.

I've registered here,and I'm awaiting confirmation

Welcome guest!

I may have deleted your registration since I have nothing currently available to approve on my list.If I did delete you I apologies for that.



Can you please try again?

Hello and welcome Guest, please reregister as Sunsettommy suggests.
Please allow us a little lee way we do get a lot of spoof registrations..
Sometimes wheat is thrown out unintensionally with the chaff.

Please let us know when you are here, the more the merrier.
AND, the more varied and therefore better the discussions.

I think you sound one who will bring may good points and counter points to such discussions.

I've registered as MostlyHarmless - got the same message as last time:

Thank you for registering on Global Warming Skeptics, MostlyHarmless

Hope it "sticks" this time!

MostlyHarmless has "stuck" this time.
Welcome aboard.

Just noticed I didn't reply to your welcome - too busy browsing elsewhere on this BB (lurking is too dark a word!) to see this. Thank you.

Thank you for persevering.
I'm throughly enjoying the discussions btw.