rejection of climate change theory closely linked to conspiracy ideation

Said study has twice failed to pass review. Even its own coauthor says Muller's data doesn't support his final conclusions. Suddenly peer-review doesn't mean anything to warmmongers when it isn't in their favor.

 

BTW I've looked at this junk science. Its an online survey done by someone named Lewandowsky in Australia. Here is the thing he went to warmmonger blogs like Deltoid to pull his sample. As of the insane warmmongers are even going to answer the questions honestly. That is like going to the democratic nation convention pulling people at random and they say I'm a racist, I'm a homophobe, I hate women, and I'm a republican. This study was just more bull(*)(*)(*)(*) by the desperate warmmongers who know that they are losing.

 

1. Look, shroom. YOU are the guy, who deflected valid reference, to "climate change deniers," to your "global warming deniers," and then you instruct us, to read your non-existent "Anthropological Global Warming."

FYFI: The correct term is ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming. But when someone is referring to climate change, that isn't when you get out the Archie Bunker dictionary and order up some anthropology.

And a Professor of Religion who notices what is going on and devises good media is to be ignored, when he reports extinctions, for what reason? Isn't he "anthropological" enough? Isn't his report on possible human endangerment "anthropological?" When one of your posts isn't completely corrupt, we'll know.

2. There have been 5 mass extinction events. Mass Extinction Event 6 is preceded, by the fastest rise of CO2 and other GHGs, in geologic history AND in the study, of mass extinction events, all preceded, by a rapid rise, in CO2.

You may be referring, to die-offs, but since you are a ranter, who doesn't ever link, to anything on the internet, we have no way of sorting you out.

3. For the Quaternary Ice Age, polar ice caps are the norm, and that goes back 2.58 m.y. You don't mind saying, which capless times you are referring to, so we can see if they should apply, to either the QIA or the Pleistocene or Holocene Epochs, or to today's approach, to the Anthrocene Thermal Maximum?

4. Right, like shroom rhymes, with doom and gloom. What is it, with your failure to reference or provide links? At least define a search. But all you do is rant, deflect, and when you deflect enough, out come the Archie Bunker words.

5. OK, you are welcome to link to anything geological, to prove you can read what is written, when we compare whatever AGU Journal or NOAA or Nature or SciAm or Wikipedia or whatever you link to, when you get around to reading something, instead of just shrooming. When you reference your findings, you might write something that isn't simply ridiculous.

 

And a lot of this is speculation, and has been going on for tens of thousands of years already. It did not just pop up in the last hundred or so years. We have gone from polar bears liginv on Manhattan Island, to living at the Northern edges of the continent. We have gone from megafauna living all through North America to their complete die-off thousands of years ago.

The number of extince animals is staggering, and will continue to rise. Even with all the efforts given to preserve, many will simply be unable to adapt. That is simply the way things are. And other animals will likely evolve and take their place. And some areas that were lush become lifeless. 2,000 years ago Death Valley was a large inland marsh, with a thriving ecosystem. Today, it is largely dead.

And this is very convient. You pick one of the coldest periods in geologic history, and use this as your baseline. And this is part of the very problem I have with most of these claims.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

You look at periods of a few thousand years, or a few hundred thousand years, I look at scales of tens and hundreds of millions of years.

To you, this is the temperature scale:



However, this is what I look at:



And as your baseline, you may notice that you have chosen one of the coolest periods in geologic history since the "Snowball Earth" period around 650 mya.

Insult all you like. But as I said, I look at a time scale much more vast then you do. And I have said so for a while now. You talk in terms of the current era, I look at a great many of them.

And call them what you will, die-offs, extinctions, often each is just as drastic as the other, the only difference is that normally in one there is a set event that causes it (volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, drastic shift in climate), and the other is slower. But the results are still the same thing.

That after all is why they are called "Extinction Events". K-T was an asteroid impact. T-J was a combination of the breakup of Pangea, an asteroid impact, and massive vulcanization. P-T (the worst mass extinction of all time) was the death of over 95% of sea life, and 70% of surface life, and most also believe this to be a combination asteroid-vulcanization event (although many also claim it was the creation of Pangea in the first place that caused it).

But even trying to call this die-off "Extinction Level" is stretching the definition greatly. The majority of such animals died off thousands of years ago, and will continue to die off. But one thing is fairly consistant in these die-offs. It is generally the most specialized animals that died, and often the largest ones. Indian Giraffes, multiple species of Elephants, sloths, in fact, most megafauna did not survive long after the current glaciation started to end. And interestingly enough, the continents that suffered the greatest dieoffs (Asia, Europe, North America) were also the continents with the greatest glaciation. While in Africa and southern Asia, areas with no glaciation had very few dieoffs, and the megafauna lives on to this day.

Man caused global warming die-offs, or simply victims of inability to adapt to the changing natural climate of the area? I bet on the second one.

 

If I'm to accept it as a fact, I must accept the extrapolations from the temperature record by "climate scientists" as accurately representative of the heat content of the biosphere in the last century and a half. This I must do despite the fact that we only have ~30 years of satellite-enhanced surface temp data, and despite the fact that temp data for the oceans, which have at least 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, is even more sparse.

Global tyranny. You're welcome.

 

Well, "Global Warming" itself is a reality, of this there is no doubt. Otherwise we would still have glaciers covering the top half of North America, Europe and Asia. The Mojave Desert would still be grassy plains, forests would still cover the Middle East, and North Africa would still be a wetlands filled with crocodiles.

It is just that many try to claim this warming is the fault of humans, and I believe it is just a continuation of the warming our planet has been seeing for the last 30,000+ years.

 

you could have been a subject in the study!

 

which means that, despite the abundance of evidence from the scientific community, you are hanging on to a set of beliefs that you prefer for some reason

 

conspiracy theorist?

 

i don't know anything about anthropological global warming .... can you tell me more about that?

 

I actually consider myself a "conspiracy" theorist. I use quotations because that is the most accepted term, despite all the negative connotation.

I mean even Ronald Reagon, John F. Kennedy and other prominent figures have doubted the numbers provided during the Holocaust. But to deny such figures labels one a conspiracy theorist.

Similarly to the events of September 11th. If you believe the government had at least some knowledge of the events beforehand you are considered a conpiracy theorist.

I do however, accept climate change evidence. The evidence is readily available.

 

1. In your partly unintelligible rant, you poorly reference one of my posts, to do another of your typical take-offs, in some logical fallacy frolic.

You failed to notice the five previous mass extinction events, all at least 65 m.y.a., or the PETM, 56 m.y.a. You poorly referenced my M.E.E.6 claim, which is borne out, by an accelerating modern extinction rate, caused by AGW, ACC, and human introduced species.

Your extremely marginal rant, about this species and that species with no links is pure deflection.

2. What is your rant about? The "Quaternary Ice Age," to which I referred, started 2.5 m.y.a. You picked the Medieval Warm Period. That wasn't even the Holocene Thermal Optimum.

Your dunce-post includes a 2000 year graph, which you somehow attribute, to me. How did you arrive at this? "M.y.a." refers, to MILLION YEARS AGO. Get sciencey, dude. Quaternary I.A. started 2.5 MILLION YEARS AGO, not 2000.

3. You know what? The reason you feel "insult" is you identify with your own ridiculous logical fallacy orgies, with failed references and incoherent rants, so I have to decipher English RWNJ, to decide what logical fallacy you are proposing. OK, you found a graph, showing a lot of temperature averages, of 25 C. Do you have even part of a clue, where the Anthrocene Thermal Max is going to max out?

4. What's the T-J? The PERMIAN-TRIASSIC or P-T extinction event, 250 m.y.a. is the one, associated with the breakup, of Pangea. Get to Wikipedia, before you post something completely ridiculous.

We already know all you do is make stuff up. "You this, me that." What a load of juvenile-level fantasy.

5. The modern projected extinction rate and climate change are accelerating.

When you want to get all sciencey, go out and read lotsa stuff, and link to something. Try it. You might also reference any posts, to which you reply.

I use numbers. See how that works? Like, 1-5, Quaternary is a mill and a half, etc. NOT blah, blah, this is you, 2000 years, this is me, back to the Precambrian. You haven't even read the posts, about the 5 known mass extinctions, which are at:

http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...melt-harbinger-mass-extinction-event-6-a.html

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

"Insult all you like." OK, you don't like being told, how you can't read or write, very well. In fact, you can't read or write, but your sure can shove logical fallacies! Who can keep up with your nonsense, but some professional?

 

So you believe that the 'downside of doing SOMETHING' is global tyranny? There's nothing in between for you? It's either do NOTHING or have global tyranny? You certainly pertain to the OP...

 

To test the varacity of this "study" a skeptic blog asked much the same question if its readership.

According to that survey the majority of warmmongers are conspiracy theorists while skeptics tend not to believe in conspiracy theories.

Does that mean anything? No. It simply means that pulling a sample from the other sides blogs isn't a very representative sample and this guy should be fired for wasting taxpayer money.

 

And just a reminder skeptics are conspiracy theorists and AGW skepticism is a product of a well funded conspiracy of the fossil fuel industry. Warmmongers are absolutely insane.

 

Sure, in that sense it's just as real as global cooling; but of course I'm only talking about the last century or so.

The term only has meaning relative to some sort of numerical benchmark such as the number of joules contained in the biosphere at any given time. We cannot make any credible claims about warming unless we can credibly claim to be able to calculate that number with reasonable accuracy, and if there is some reason to be confident in our ability to do so, I haven't come across it.

No, just someone who understands that anything perceived as a clear and present danger to our species can only be addressed at a global level, and that those who are gullible enough to believe action must be taken because they are so assured by authority figures are also gullible enough to submit to governance under rules which are founded not on principles accessible to everyone such as the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but on what amount to the haruspications of Ephors in lab coats, which not even 1000 people on the planet will even pretend to understand. Not only will we be governed by climate models which are incomprehensible to pretty much everybody, but those models will change as often as our lab-coated guardians say they must; and of course at some point the driving force behind model changes will shift from the desire for accuracy to the desire to keep the populace mystified - assuming, of course, that we haven't already passed that point.

See above.

 

this was a scientifically conducted study - not a poll on a denier site.

 

climate models are not incomprehensible to scientists, and in my experience, scientists are very keen to try to explain them in terms the non scientifically minded can understand.

 

you mean AGW denialism.

if they were sceptics, they would question the validity of denier claims

 

When you are a true believer, you never question the validity of the AGW claims. Nice going pointing that out.

 

thats a great signature line: Only a closed mind is certain.


read it sometime.

 

I am not surprised you would try to claim a skeptic doesn't have an open mind when you continually prove yourself a true believer, the very living definition of a closed mind.

 

lols ... why are you so accepting of the denialist claims if you are a sceptic?

I don't claim to be a sceptic. I see no need to doubt the evidence when it is reinforced from numerous sources from many different disciplines.

 

True believers have no doubt despite the lack of evidence of the claims. Thanks again for helping me out on this.

 

so, would you define youreslf as a true believer of the denialist faith?