Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Regardless of the source of the quotes, isn't the relevant and important point whether the quotes are correctly attributed to proponents of the AGW position? Or is this another violation of your own rule not to attack the messenger but challenge the message? You do quote from skeptical science, albeit "rarely."

They are out of context. Contextomy and cherry picking data seems to be the stock and trade of your compatriots.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Alley used the whole data set. It is his.

You forget I recreated the graphs. 3 sets. ALL the data, Alley's SUBSET and "Jo Nova's" SUBSET.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Bingo...
For totalitarianism to survive a 97% consensus isn't enough, because that 3% is dangerous to maintaining the lie. So there is absolutely no room for dissent. Remember how dissent was once called patriotism? Now it is attacked, you can lose your job, your career, have your kids taken away by CPS and be charged with a hate crime for daring to say the emperor has no clothes.

Plenty of frightening examples of this one throughout modern and ancient history, but I could swear it's also reminiscent of . . . what was it called . . . oh yeah -- McCarthyism.

I'm pretty sure I prefer the full airing of opinions envisioned by such now apparently anachronistic watersheds of individual rights as espoused in the First Amendment. A free marketplace of ideas which will produce the best path forward for democratic societies. (No offense to L-E, of course, for using the words "free" & "marketplace" in the same sentence).

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Only an idiot uncritically copies the quote mined...

Heh...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Regardless of the source of the quotes, isn't the relevant and important point whether the quotes are correctly attributed to proponents of the AGW position? Or is this another violation of your own rule not to attack the messenger but challenge the message? You do quote from skeptical science, albeit "rarely."

Have a look at LE's critique of the Christine Stewart Franken - quote.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You forget I recreated the graphs. 3 sets. ALL the data, Alley's SUBSET and "Jo Nova's" SUBSET.

What sub set from Alley?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

They are out of context. Contextomy and cherry picking data seems to be the stock and trade of your compatriots.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Well Jack, whether true or not, I don't think it's all that credible to accuse only the side you disfavor of contextomy and cherry picking. And before you demand that I "show you" or "prove" similar tactics on the side you favor, it would be far more effective for you to take a bit of time away from your vast library to demonstrate your point.

Usually the credibility of the proponent is more convincing than the merits of whatever proposition he/she is trying to advance.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What sub set from Alley?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Originally Posted by jackdale

Cherry pick and press to fit. Got it.

It is instructive that Alley's own graph shows long term warming.



Figure out why I referenced Jo Nova?

20 thousand years of a 50 thousand year data set. Of course his paper was discussing the Younger Dryas period (I think - can't afford to to buy the full paper) so this makes sense.

On the other hand, your claim that "It is instructive that Alley's own graph shows long term warming" is mind boggling considering the overall downward trend since Egyptian Empire times which can be clearly seen even at the low resolution of Alley's graph.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Without UN resolutions there could be no invasion of Iraq. It's an historical fact.

Oh for heavens sake. Google "fig leaf", "saving face", or "covering ass". That's all you need to know about that UN "resolution" and why it passed.

But the inept UN could have prevented it.

Absolutely the UN couldn't have prevented it. You know this.

Do we really have to do this? What's next - 9/11?

If the world had access to safe, cheap energy that used an unlimited fuel supply there would be no reason to fight wars in the Middle East. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Something to agree upon. One less thing to fight wars over, for sure. Thank you.

Only fusion makes that offer to mankind. I cannot understand why liberals/greens/progressives turn their nose up when they hear it. They say things like "decades to develop" or "a trillion $ to perfect".

I don't know any liberals/greens/progressives who oppose fusion.

The question remains - why hasn't fusion been developed aggressively? I don't think it's as easy to make it feasible as you think it is, else somebody in the world would have got to it already.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

...the attempt to silence our own favorite watermaker guy and full-time liveaboard sailor (on a mooring no less) by threatening to publish negative and of course bogus business reviews on the internet.

This is serious enough that if it happened, it should be raised with an admin and the offending party sanctioned. Mentioning it here, but with no identification... Kind of shitty to wield it as some sort of argument against anyone here that's pro-AGW, don't you think?

All of which begs the question: If the science is in fact so "settled," they why all the extreme measures to counter any dissent?

I respectfully point you to the massive, amplified and well-orchestrated campaign against the finding of AGW.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well Jack, whether true or not, I don't think it's all that credible to accuse only the side you disfavor of contextomy and cherry picking. And before you demand that I "show you" or "prove" similar tactics on the side you favor, it would be far more effective for you to take a bit of time away from your vast library to demonstrate your point.

Usually the credibility of the proponent is more convincing than the merits of whatever proposition he/she is trying to advance.

Christine Stewart was quoted by the Calgary Herald from an editorial interview related to her work at Kyoto. The context of her quote was that interview where she said a number of things. Among them were:

'No matter if the science is all phony,there are collateral environmental benefits', and

'as minister of the environment, I am very worried about global warming', and

'Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world'.

The wiggling around of warmists to attempt to spin reality into something that aligns with their religious fervor is amusing to watch, but I think they should just adopt Jack's approach. Deny the facts and pretend that doesn't make you look like a complete loon.

Climate change is not based on scientific rigor, which is why warmists default to ad hominem attacks, like Jack does, or questioning the source and finding some alternate source on the Internet, like Lake's appeal to Yahoo Answers of all places for the truth. Doesn't change reality, which just isn't going their way.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Have a look at LE's critique of the Christine Stewart Franken - quote.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I didn't find it all that convincing the first time, but at your request I gave it another read. Here it is again in toto so I don't get accused of contextomy & cherry picking.

But first, here's the quote in question, and the issue is whether the comment is properly attributed to the Canadian minister:

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

My wee antennae always jump and twitch when Canada is mentioned. So I went looking for verification.

I found about a bazillion denier/"skeptic" sites carrying it verbatim, natch. Trying to find a real cite for this quote (dating to 1998) was much harder.

The closest I got to a cite was to some evidence of controversy which linked to here, which is allegedly an archive of the source editorial from the Calgary Herald, again unverified.

The quote attributed to Stewart here is:

"No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits." [spelling errors theirs]

There's also an indirect link to an editorial the Financial Post which repeats the above, then in another paragraph quotes Stewart as saying, in the same meeting with the Herald:

'Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.'

(and again I can't verify online what she actually said to the Herald, short of writing or calling them I guess)

Now hey, I'm not that comfortable that she may have made these two statements. I suspect that if pressed at the time, she would have to confirm that these are not official positions of the Canadian government of the time. But we don't have a full transcript of this alleged meeting with the editorial board of the Herald, so we have not much context, either.

Anyway - these two, as-is, are pretty embarrassing to the pro-AGW position. But no, let's splice'em together with an ellipsis:

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

... and this 18-year old, poorly-sourced Franken-quote now lives forever, unchallenged, as gospel truth in the liturgy of the devout denier.

It took me less than half an hour to get to this point.

So you want me to take the data and conclusions from all these same anti-AGW sites as being equivalent or superior to that from the IPCC, or NOAA, or NASA? Riiight.

As much as it pains me, let's give L-E the benefit of the doubt (for a brief moment ) and assume the two quotes were improperly and unfairly spliced together. The first says there are "collateral environmental benefits" even if the science "is all phony." The second says CC provides "the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." So even if viewed separately and distinctly, the minister is stating that the science of CC is a positive means of pursuing other environmental objectives, as well as a socio-political change. Fair characterization of the comments thus far?

If so, and assuming these statements were actually made, and regardless of whether they are read spliced together or apart, there can be no denying that the intent is to use CC science as a tool "to bring about justice and equality in the world," generally code for wealth redistribution.

Wasn't this exactly Delfin's point? And regardless of your own agenda, are you really denying that this isn't the agenda of at least a number of pro-AGW factions?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This is serious enough that if it happened, it should be raised with an admin and the offending party sanctioned. Mentioning it here, but with no identification... Kind of shitty to wield it as some sort of argument against anyone here that's pro-AGW, don't you think?

No, it's kind of shitty to wield it against anyone on account of their political or other views. But our different take on this says it all as far I'm concerned.

I respectfully point you to the massive, amplified and well-orchestrated campaign against the finding of AGW.

And I would point you to the science on both sides of the AGW issue, and ask why you -- especially as a layman -- are still convinced the pro-AGW position is so "settled."

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Have a look at LE's critique of the Christine Stewart Franken - quote.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

And why are we picking on poor Christine Stewart? She didn't say anything different than a US Senator, a prominent IPCC official, an Assistant Secretary of State or a number of other warmists have stated during unguarded moments. Anyone who believes that leftists don't see one upside of the AGW scam as the justification for distributionist policies is just an idiot, to coin a phrase.

Present company excepted, of course. Heck, this nonsense even has a name - Climate Justice. Perhaps you've never heard that term, Jack, and that explains your statement of faith? If so, let me help expand your knowledge just a teenie bit: Let me google that for you.

Or not.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

20 thousand years of a 50 thousand year data set. Of course his paper was discussing the Younger Dryas period (I think - can't afford to to buy the full paper) so this makes sense.

On the other hand, your claim that "It is instructive that Alley's own graph shows long term warming" is mind boggling considering the overall downward trend since Egyptian Empire times which can be clearly seen even at the low resolution of Alley's graph.

As a layman, it seems to me the issues on the merits boil down to (a) has our current alleged warming exceeded that which was experienced during the pre-industrial Medieval Warming Period, and (b) is our current trend out of sync with other pre-industrial, intermediate warming/cooling trends since the Little Ice Age and/or MWP.