'Climate Anger':Last Refuge of the Alarmists

As we see, in the face of the growing embarrassment caused by the "warming haitus:, (which continues, BTW), the Warmistas have increasingly resorted to the Left's Standard Operating Procedure when faced with the logical defeat of their preferred "positions": SHOUT DOWN any opponents. Become increasingly intolerant of opposing views, and start threatening the opposition, with no regard for the previous "Climate Catastrophe " claims having been soundly debunked.



‘Climate Anger': Last Refuge of the Alarmists

By Robert Bradley, Jr.

For purveyors of climate alarm, emotional displays of intolerance are increasingly crowding out reasoned argument. But remember the adage, “hate hurts the hater more than the hated.”

Consider President Obama. At the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on April 25, 2015, the president used the lighthearted occasion to shout at those who doubt his climate-change narrative. “It is crazy! What about our kids? What kind of stupid, shortsighted irresponsible bull,” said the president before a comedian jokingly cut him off.

The current elephant in the room for climate alarmists is the “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming...


...The pause is now the ever greater pause. And even if the global temperature increases to set new record highs, it will be by hundredths of a degree, well below the model-predicted increase. The “pause” is even more a discrepancy with the climate model. “95 percent of climate models agree: The observations must be wrong,” one climatologist humorously wrote...

...
On the political side, Senators Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) began investigating 100 fossil fuel organizations suspected of “funding scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution.”

By “confuse the public,” they mean question the sacred view that climate change will soon compromise the planet. In their view, scientists who contradict the doom-and-gloom climate narrative are a threat to the public and must be discredited as shills of industry.

Another specie of climate desperation leading to anger is exaggerated scientific speculation. In a remarkable display of illogic, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) has managed to link global warming to prostitution—citing, of course, some study. She claims that global warming harms women in developing nations, forcing many into “situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage.”

.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1703231-climate-anger-last-refuge-of-the-alarmists/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the beat goes on, as the Left/UN/Climatistas all continue to pretend that what is actually happening isn't , and that we should all forget about the numerous LIES...oh, I mean..." micalculations", conspiracies to prevent the actual data from being known, and the gall to politically manipulate the perr-review process, etc.

Guess what...people, particularly Americans..AIN'T FORGETTIN'. So we can expect more of the increasingly brutish behavior from our Warmist friends, I assure you.

 

So would your suggestion be to completely ignore the possibility of climate change being a possible problem for the future or should we
take the approach that it should be studied and plans made in case rising sea levels start to threaten coastal populations?

 

My suggestion would be to stop givng the Climatistas billions upon billions in the ridiculous scam/belief that we can change the planet's climate and start spending it on REAL POLLUTION, like heavy metals, etc., in our air, soil and water.

CO2 is damaging nothing.

 

But, of course. The Forum Left's "I could, but I won't" bull(*)(*)(*)(*), again. Sure you could.

Sorry, but the temp data from satellites is clear. The "Big Difference" is your misunderstanding of what the word "facts" actually means. It's not what you so desperately "want" to believe; it's what has been ACTUALLY PROVEN, such as the complete failure of the entire computer-model basis for the Warmist Religion; such as the exposure of the Warmist conspiracy to block empirical data that contradicted their lies from being exposed; such as the exposed Warmist conspiracy to block any dissenting scientists from the peer-review process, etc., ad nauseum.

 

I've posted it before and, if you want, you could easily use Google to find the answer. But you won't and, if by accident you do manage to trip over the facts, I'm sure you'll ignore them just as you did my previous posts. And, whatever you do, DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK!!!!!

 

Click on the link to the study, and see what you get. NOAA has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT...it is a Warmist Propaganda site, not a NOAA study, or article.

Exit Notice

Thank you for visiting a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website. You have chosen to proceed to a non-government website for additional information. NOAA and the U.S. Department of Commerce do not endorse this website or the information, products or services contained therein.

Continue to http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full

NOAA Mobile | Protecting Your Privacy | FOIA | Information Quality | Disclaimer | USA.gov | Ready.gov | Site Map | Contact Webmaster









From your link:

. "Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."



Translation- since the empirical data completely refuted our longtime claims, we "adjusted" how we "analyze" the data:

The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. One of the most substantial improvements is a correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data.

There are NO "VERSIONS" of empirical data. It IS what it IS. There has been NO CHANGE in the empirical data, just how they've arbitrarily decided to "analyze" it.

Same old , lyingass bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

They are making up their OWN NUMBERS...again.

Learn to critically assess what you read.

In addition, I don't care if we do start warming again...it is a NATURAL CYCLE at the END OF AN ICE AGE.

 

DOUBLE AMEN!!!!!

 

The NOAA is about as believable as Obama, the IRS, the State Dept and the BLS. Sorry they've lost all credibility....they just haven't lost the funding yet.

 

Apparently the Climatistas are already folding the tent on their attempted ridiculous "explanation" of the "haitus", the laughable attempt at pretending, "The Oceans Stole Our Warming!!", and are now just trying to "redo" the empirical data, in true Warmist fashion...

 

Quote Originally Posted by Grokmaster View Post
My suggestion would be to stop givng the Climatistas billions upon billions in the ridiculous scam/belief that we can change the planet's climate and start spending it on REAL POLLUTION, like heavy metals, etc., in our air, soil and water.

CO2 is damaging nothing.

Triple Amen !!!!!!

 

As usual, those who deny that humanity has anything to do with global climate change are not presenting any actual peer reviewed scientific studies to support that notion.

I'd like to have a scientific debate on the issue, but that is a wish that I clearly share with exactly none of those denying the connection.

 

if this is real as you say then would you agree to a tax on people having more than two children? Seeing as how man is the problem...more man = faster rate of warming

 

I have. And after a lot of reading over many years, I've found deniers are wrong.

I am so glad to know that the vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong; their data doesn't say what it does say; that you are right; there is no need to worry; and your beach property in Florida will be there long after you are gone. <sigh> Never mind.

 

lol. No matter how many times you've done it before no matter how many times you've posted it before, it's still not credible. But amusing. Keep reading. (Vast majority: Good one!)

 

It wouldnt be the first time.

Big Bang...Phlogiston...Earth as the Center of the Universe etc etc.


Face it Grizz, some things are simply too advanced for a young race like ours to have the answers to. In the meantime we want to fill in somekind of answer to satisfy ourselves, so we do...only to revise that later when we actually learn more.

We have a long way to go before we really know much about Planetary Climates. Perhaps after we finally get to another planet to make a comparison, we'll start to learn what the norms are for planets like ours.

Anyone believing this garbage today is naive. I put 0 stock into there actually being any "experts" in this field.

 

???? "Peer reviewed"??? What a joke.

- - - Updated - - -

You apparently didn't bother to read your OWN LINK " <sigh> nevermind."

 

Question; We just experienced days of rainy weather. I wasn't able to golf for weeks & my veggie garden was decimated. I became upset. Now, would that be classified as "climate anger" or "weather anger"? It's confusing. One day I hear you can't use the weather when discussing climate change, but then the next day some weather event happens somewhere and it's blamed on climate change. Very confusing.

 

Let me clear it up: If you are a Warmist...it is clearly "CLIMATE ANGER", as the obvious cause is "Climate Change".

If you are not a Climatista, it's the Earth Gaia punishing you for being a denier.

 

The point is, we just don't know. Scientists can put up models for both sides of the argument but nothing is 100%. Humanity has nothing to go on in reality. Remember we have only been industrialised for about 300 years, the last 100 years industry has accelerated to where it is now.

I just say,, tread warily.

 

We know that the warming taking place now in nothing like the initial warming at the start of the end of the last Great Ice Age...and humans had no part in that either...other than to adapt.

 

It isn't credible because your political beliefs say it isn't, not because the facts say that it is. Those facts come not only from the vast majority of climate scientists, but others from many fields that substantiate what they are saying. Those who object (deny) what is happening fall into three general categories:

(1)A very tiny few scientists who attempt to use their knowledge to disprove the majority, not unlike Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's alternate theory, or Lord Kelvin's theory that the earth was, according to his thermodynamic calculations, between 24 and 400 million years old - both were swept away by facts piled on top of facts, not all coming from their particular specialties.

(2) Those with vested interests ($$$$) in keeping the present system of unbridled use of coal, oil, etc. that produce massive amounts of CO2 emissions. If controls were enacted to limit those emissions, it would but into their present profits. To maintain those profits, they invest billions in alternate (faux) theories of warming, or outright denials of it, to continue present operations. They also invest heavily in politicians and parties who want their money for campaigns and have no problems in selling the country's future or their souls to obtain it.

(3) Those who object to more controls, not because of the science, but because of their political affiliation. To that end, they are perfectly capable of setting aside, or dismissing, any relevant facts which would disprove their denialism, because that would put their political beliefs at risk. Most of these people have limited or poor scientific educations, leaving them easy to manipulate due to their political leanings.

By lumping the "Big Bang" theory in with the religious believe of the Earth as the center of the universe? Oh, I'd like to hear that one.

It's been a long time since our kids grew up and had kids of their own. Older daughter moved to Texas and began her family; younger one lives not too far away (other side of town) and we get to see her 4 years old son several times a week. Just watching him grow from that squalling little red mess to where he is not never ceased to amaze me, particularly how quickly he learns. So it is with people. We've come a long way, have much farther to go if we don't kill ourselves off, and are watching our knowledge increasing every year at what seems like lightening speed. We look at what we knew yesterday and find that it's been added to, changed or deleted when new facts and data come along, and there is no end in sight. There are those who would embrace that, and seek to add to it; those who would throw out all kinds of anchors for whatever reason(s) to stop/retard it. I put myself in the first category and have never had a problem dumping what has been disproven for that which has.

Laozi: A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step We have taken may steps, but have many more to go and have gotten far closer to our answer(s) than had we never taken that first step. That is our nature - call it curiosity, if you will, coupled with a mind capable of interpreting it, and you now know why we can never turn back.

See my sig.

 

Damn...

 

Correctly lumping them together as examples of an answer being "filled in" to placate until more knowledge comes along. Theres alot of reading out there about the Big bang theory, and how it is starting to not hold up.

Heres a snip from one, that I found very interesting. Of course, this could simply be more of the same...a theory that seems to fit based upon what we know now..and subject to change. But, thats why i mentioned it along with AGW, as they both fit this criteria.
We cannot claim to know for certain on either. We simply do not know yet, our science isnt there.

Anyway, I thought this was interestig, theres many more if you are interested.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/


This part is my favorite. Sounds EXACTLY like the AGW fairy tale going on now.

Thats how one "lumps" them together, as I did.

 

Exactly. And Grizz's link is another example of the Climatistas contaminating the empirical temp data, by "altering their analysis" of the data, which has not changed. Warmists just cannot accept that there are no "versions" of the empirical data.

 

Warmists also cannot believe that there are things that mankind really has no possibility of knowing. Good lord..."experts" in the field of planetary climates. As if during our various visits to all manners of life supporting, Earth-Similar planets for the last millenia, we've catalogued and compared, and know for a fact what is normal and what is not.

No thanks.
Some things you can just tell that we would have no legitimate way to know for sure.