Combustible : The new climate-change eco-fascist campaign video

[MottTheWot]

The climate always changes, it changed thousands of times before humans got here on Earth. The planet has warmed and cooled before any human activity occured and will continue to do so with or without us. It wasn't long ago (the 1970's) that some scientists were of the belief that we were heading into a new Ice Age, now wouldn't that be lovely? Humans barely survived the last one! We're all not going to fry by next Tuesday as the alarmists and their new religion would like us to believe.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You are citing an article in Time magazine that misquoted the science in the first place. What you mean to say (by accurately citing the real paper that article was based on) "judging by long term climate trends, we should be heading back into an ice age in the next~1000 years" Which is what SHOULD be happening, however anthropogenic influence has pushed global temperatures UP while nature is forcing it down...

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti You might as well believe in fairies, the earth has been cooling since 1998. This video once again highlights the despicable lengths climate zealots will go to ostracize and denigrate anyone who does not agree with them. Mother nature is laughing her head off every day knowing fully well she will take back this planet whenever she feels like it. My point about the Ice Age is scientists barely know how to predict this weeks weather let alone Ice ages or climate change.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot Actually, you are completely wrong. Meteorologists know exactly how to accurately predict the weather fairly far out. The problem is that As the atmosphere is non linearly dynamic, it is very sensitive to initial conditions. If we had instruments that could measure weather variables several orders of magnitude better than current, and the computing power for the models, there would be far fewer issues.

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti Warmists whose exaggerations of a fiery earth to scare people into accepting radical plans to cripple economies and restrict freedom. It is the far left ideological commitment to destroy capitalism, the religion of global warming is it's vehicle. Humans place far to much importance on themselves, mother nature rules earth!

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot Tell that to the billions of people on this planet right now who already are suffering because their traditional ways of agriculture and ability to procure water have been taken from them by an increasingly contrived climate. While the first and hardest hit are the poor nations that ethnocentrists such as yourself couldn't care less about, even the industrialized world is suffering. Ground water reserves in the Western US are virtually gone, as are those in Australia.

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti I live in Australia! Ground water reserves are full in some cities and at more than 60-70% in others.

I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains, of ragged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains. A poem written in 1903 by a homesick 19 year girl living in London from memory without the aid of an aerial view of this continent. I laugh loudly as the rain falls again today!

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti Speaking water in Australia, the forth river in Tasmania carries 1,300 Gigalitres of fresh water every year and flushes it into Bass Strait, now that's 3 times more water than Melbourne uses in a year( a city with a population close to 4 million)5 thousand 300 billion litres of drinking water flows out to sea every year there. There is no water shortage in Australia if we really want it! Have you ever noticed how many people actually live in warmer climates? Cold weather kills us more!

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot I'm sorry, you seem to not understand the difference between ground water, usable water resources and transportation. Come back to the discussion when you understand the sheer energy, time and resources needed to treat and disseminate surface water (streams), especially from streams like the Forth that are highly degraded through human land use and pollutant runoff. Your other assessment is also false, as the majority of human population is situated in the mid latitudes.

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti You should come back to the discussion when you cease being a scaremongering alarmist! So you are quite happy to see billions of litres of fresh drinking water spilling out into Bass Strait while a city just 360km away spends $billions on building a desalination plant that is totally unnecessary and has being delayed due to excess rainfall this past year? Your perspicacity is perpendicular to your pomposity on this subject? What's up? Afraid of losing that Government grant?

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot I'm not at all afraid, funding is not as terribly cut throat competitive as you would make it out to be, plus my salary is NOT affected at all by grants, those go to research alone (while there are some, MOST grants do not allow any funds to be used as salary). Now, i don't know how else to tell you that not all stream water is useable as drinking water. Please educate yourself on the intricacies and policy surrounding the production and extraction of safe drinking water.

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti Both the Pieman and Forth rivers have already been dammed for hydroelectricity in Tasmania. So there is no need for a new dam, that's 5,300,000,000,000 billion litres of drinking water flushing into the sea each year. You're beating about the bush while our Government here in Australia has wasted $billions on a desal plant and we now find it's raining all the time...again! Alarmist predictions of rain never falling again like it used too in Australia have proven false.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot Are you mad? No where in the literature has anyone ever suggested a globally warming climate would mean reduced rainfall, as a matter of fact the general consensus at this time is that the exact OPPOSITE is likely. You misunderstand rainfall as being equivalent to drinking water, you neglect the huge expense in treating and transporting surface water and ignore the issues of ground water. I have nothing to say to one as ignorant as you accept to read the actual science.

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti Let me end with this,we are all not going to fry by next Tuesday, or in the next 100 or 200 years for that matter. Yes pipe that water into Victoria and we will never see water shortages again. It's not that deep, it has everything else laying down there so why not a water pipe? You don't even have to pump it, nature will do that for us. Governments here decide to build a desal plant at 5 times the cost of a pipeline and it will deliver less water.Meanwhile our nurses are on strike!

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot And your point is? I don't care what you and your people decide to do. Don't like it? Vote some one else into government. The streams you mentioned are both in Tasmania, across the channel from Victoria. How do you propose piping water across a body of water that size with out inuring huge costs? Not even factoring in the treatment costs at both ends, water testing and monitoring, and further transport to the rest of your country if it ever made it to Victoria in the first place?

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti Cost of Desal plant will be close to $20billion, cost of pipeline including treatment $3billion, the pipeline will produce more water and cost less. Perhaps they could use this saved money for hospitals, education and infrastructure? We have a left leaning Government here, in competent and inept in every way, very similar to the USA currently.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot Those are very fancy made up numbers with no context. A proper Desal plant is built in conjunction with a power plant, That plant generally not only produces the energy for the Desal process, but also to go onto the grid for other purposes. The net cost over the long run decreases, and in some cases can even produce more revenue than the overhead. Water treatment and a massive sub-channel pipeline would never contribute anything other than water.

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti Made up numbers? That is the cost ...fact!

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot No those are single numbers that at bet represent overhead (again, they are out of context, so they are fairly useless). there was no consideration of potential gain, or lack there of from ancillary purposing.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot And you still haven't dealt with the fact that it is physically impossible to collect, treat and disseminate stream water in the quantities you are presuming. Address this before you continue attacking your Desal plant please.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot If this still confuses you, I will lay it out perhaps a bit clearer: Discharge =/= to the potable water that can be retrieved from a stream. Processing capabilities of the treatment plant is the major determinant, except in cases of very low stream flow. No plant(s) in existence can treat and pump the quantities of water you presume possible.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot And your pathetic jab at the U.S. is ill advised. Our unemployment rate is in the percents, rather than the tens of percents found in most "developed" nations. Further, the only real issue with the U.S. economy is the large debt that has accumulated over many decades and through many presidents. Humorously, since (and including) Reagan's presidency, the only presidents to end their terms with major debt were the "fiscal conservative" republicans.

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti When Obama (one of the great orators of our time) actually says and does something with any substance then perhaps i will believe. I'll be long gone before that happens.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot Well to be fair he has already lowered unemployment to below the 10's of percents. There are plenty of other examples, but one such as yourself doesn't care about reality, only your own jaded and twisted feelings and beliefs. I bet the dinosaurs didn't exist too right? they are all made up by evil scientists who just want to control children's television and put pretty fake sculptures in museums.

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti You're getting desperate now as the argument is getting too silly and absurd for me. You talk of reality? The far left live in a unreal world, living life how they'd like it to be not as it really is and there in lies the problem. Attacked by what? That in itself answers my questions.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot You assume I am some how politically affiliated with some form of liberal politics. This is a ridiculous accusation and unfounded. I have not been attacked, nor have you. I fail to see what your problem in understanding AGW is. 

[StAverti]

The only desperation here is your desperation to pretend that your government is wrong, and you are some how all knowledgeable in subjects it is clear you know nothing about. The only reason I humor such ignorance is to make sure people who happen to read such garbage don't have to be subjected to false presumptions alone.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot And if you believe that pointing out the fallacy in your "argument" (it pains me to use that word for this garbage) is some how an "attack" you are just further incompetent in this discourse. I would hate to see you try and publish anything academically if you believe criticism to be an attack.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot With our left leaning Clinton ending his presidency with a surplus..... curious isn't it?

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti And your response to being attacked would've been?

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot Attacked by what?

[MottTheWot]

@MottTheWot How early the fruit is falling this season.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot And yet you continue to avoid the only real issue here. Global average temperatures have risen orders of magnitude faster during the last 200 years than they possibly can through natural cyclicity and variation alone. Our own emissions are no longer guessed at, they are confirmed to be the culprit through sophisticated fingerprinting, chemical book keeping and isotopic analysis. There is no question that human emissions are to blame for the majority of this warming.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot So enjoy your comfy air conditioned life while the millions if not billions of people who don't have such luxuries suffer and die from the effects of climate shifts rendering their ways of life impossible. You sit in front of your computer complaining about a damn desalinization plant, while you have water in your tap, and food on your table. I dare you to walk into a West African village and say what you do on here, you might get a chuckle out of them before they sell you for food.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot Yea, your desal plants would be a lot more useful if they were set up properly, and based on nuclear energy that could also be used to provide excess energy for other purposes, but that has NOTHING to do with the major environmental issues that have arisen around the globe do to the contrived climate that is now making life very hard for the most vulnerable people on this planet. Leave it to an armchair critic to complain about money when many just want food and water to survive.

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti The truth comes out at last once you alarmists use the word 'money'.The world population has doubled in 40 yrs, it is now over 7 billion, what do you want to do, have a cull? When i talk about money, i'm referring to the waste of it and the need for food and water to survive. I live in country of extreme weather conditions, everyone lives on the coast, it's always been a dry, baron place to live.Droughts and floods have always occurred, they will again as it will all over the world.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot Thats silly, Actually Australia wasn't always "dry, barren place", it has at various points been tropical, glaciated, and moderate. Regardless of the less than perfect set up in your country's particular instance, a Desal plant is still extremely useful for the long term. And the point is that droughts AND floods will definitely become more severe and possibly more common place as global temperatures continue to rise.ist,

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti Interesting that bring up Australia's past, how far back do you wish to go? Europeans knew of it's existence for hundreds of years. They kept landing on the West Coast, a dry, baron, lifeless place with no future for human settlement. Not much has changed. it wasn't until the 18th century when they landed on the east Coast and discovered the beauty of the barrier reef and the very hospitable coastline that settlement was made possible.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot I am comfortable taking Australia's past back to the Cambrian if you like, or If you wanna really have fun, back to the Archean.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot Also, I don't ever remember being a "scaremongerer". Yes, people are changing the worlds climate, big deal... Humanity has left its mark on every component of this planet, that is not up for debate. The world won't catastrophically end because of the global climate changes we are producing, but it does make life a lot harder for many many people. Certainly there will also be some people that benefit (e.g. some areas that have not been arable are becoming able to produce food).

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot However, the net result is shaping up to be loss. The effects are already visible, all over the world. The reason why many armchair "skeptics" (i use the word the way most non-scientists would, because all science is skeptical) don't recognize the damage already done is because you aren't the poor African and Asian blokes who can't afford heating and air conditioning, or large scale irrigation and the ability to import their water from elsewhere.

[StAverti]

@StAverti Which is obvious by the fact that you have a computer, internet access, and the time to blow hot air on YouTube instead of struggling all day to feed your family.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot What I believe you meant to say was "it is easier to live in warmer climates, as less energy and resources need to be used to produce food, maintain comfortable living accommodations, and deal with adverse weather that is normally attributed to the mid and high latitudes (although we of course have our own suite of adverse weather conditions that are not necessarily better, simply different).

[MottTheWot]

@StAverti The US dept of energy has just published it's estimates of global carbon dioxide emissions for the year 2010,concluding emissions rose by 6% from 09-10.This is the largest rise yet recorded.In light of 2010 data global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by fully a third since the year 2001,yet global temperatures have not risen during the past decade.If climate change science was categorically correct i could accept it, but it's now become a matter of faith whether you believe or not.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot And as per your suggestion that global temperatures have not risen in the past decade I will simply say that is completely false. While i know you don't actually read the literature, at least read the next IPCC report when it comes out, as the mean global temperature has indeed risen.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot But if you are so instant, please go bottle some of that beautiful water from your streams in Australia and drink away. Perhaps a stint of Giardia would help clear your head a bit.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot And second, there is no need for 100% precision in microphysical meteorology to properly understand climate. You don't need to quantify every turbulent eddy in a stream to know that the stream itself is flowing down gradient... Science has reconstructed climate for hundreds of thousands of years (there is even rudimentary climate data from close to the accretion of the Earth), and scientists know how climate has behaved in the past, and why quite well.

[StAverti]

@MottTheWot It is our understanding of the climate as it has been affected by natural orbital cycles, sun spot and intensity cycles, and geochemical (CO2, CH4, etc) cycles. We also have a very good idea of much of the feedback complexity of the system (through radiative transfer with certain land cover types like snow and ice). We can even quantify the actual effect of natural cycles and forgings on the earth now, which are happening, but don't account for the observed climate. Only OUR CO2 does

[DrDave953]

@StAverti And there's the problem! Radiative forcing! If so-called climatologists had a clue about real systems, they'd realise that radiative losses are the SMALLEST component of surface energy loss.

Obviously, the last link in the chain is radiative loss from the upper atmosphere but that doesn't fit the meme does it?

[DrDave953]

@StAverti Now you're using the Oreskes argument & she was deliberately precise in her search. Other similar searches found many papers suggesting an approaching mini if not full ice age.

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 only a hand full of those papers were model based, If you are too dull to actually read all of them just quit while you are behind. Just look through Nature or Science if you are truly lost. What you fail to grasp is that WE SHOULD BE ENTERING AN ICE AGE, if natural forcing alone were at play. But instead the global average temperature has INCREASED by 1.5 degrees F, or about 1 degree Celsius. Which over the course of 200 years is HUGE!

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 If you are too lazy to actually review the literature, just read a book on Tyndall's work. Sure he did his research around the time of the civil war, but apparently it's taken that long to sink in for some. Or just read Fleming's article... or read anything of value and actually understand it....

Fleming, James Rodger, 1998: Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 194 pp.

[DrDave953]

@StAverti To think we SHOULD be entering an ice age is naive. True I've not read the papers recently but if you can point me to the one that is NOT model based.

A couple of things.

1) no-one is claiming that temperature averages haven't risen.

2) explain why temperature is a good analogue of energy.

We actually have no idea of the total energy in the system. Most of it is in the oceans & we're nowhere near sufficient accuracy to estimate that.

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 1) thanks for proving that point for yoursel

2) The energy incident to the earth IS equal to the energy leaving the earth. Now this is a bit of a trick to explain, but the Earth receives an average of 1200 watts/ m2 TOA, and at a particular art of the atmosphere, it radiates an average of 1200 watts/ m2. The total energy of then is very easy to calculate. And temperature is a good metric for energy because temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of matter (albeit in a ratio)

[DrDave953]

@StAverti Get your average right. TOA is peak 1363w/m2 if I recall correctly, average according to Trenberth is35xw/m2 I can't remember exactly and being ill at the moment can't find the data.

So, temperature is a good analogue for energy? Even if the humidity changes & you don't measure how it changed?

Having worked a long time with glazing. I can tell you that thermal insulation by extra layers is far more effective than anything to do with IR.

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 And having worked a long time with climate, I would just laugh a bit at the fact that you confuse internal system dynamics for net energy flux. Which is understandable, obviously it's us scientists who do a poor job of explaining science. Of course latent heat plays a role in transporting and storing energy, but it does not affect the net flux. and I rounded the solar constant, because alone it is entirely useless in any event.

[DrDave953]

@StAverti I am not confusing anything, you are misinterpreting. It's atmospheric dynamics that do the hard work at the surface with radiation finishing the job TOA.

If the Solar constant were constant, that would be true.

Would that it were. We don't understand all the dynamics of solar irradiation yet and you've already written them off. You don't even bother to look at spectral shift.

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 I don't follow... we have a veritable fleet of highly precise satellite sensors monitoring the sun and TOA at all times, and you still think we don't know the impacts of solar dynamics? There ARE NO ATMOSPHERIC DYNAMICS with out solar radiation.... Where do you think the energy comes from?

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 What I will say about long wave radiation being reradiated by "GH" gases, when you calculate the average global temperature ignoring the "IR", you get an average global temperature of around 258K. You seem like you might be keen enough to understand what is wrong with that value

[DrDave953]

@StAverti I don't even acknowledge a global average temperature as a valid metric of anything. If you're referring to BB radiation as opposed to grey body...

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 You are just spewing garbage now, Global average temperature is instrumentally recorded. If you are referring to the calculations for global energy flux and the derivation for surface temp a black body approximation actually works very well with minimal error, (less than 2 degrees K). The same calculations with grey body models verify this.

[StAverti]

@StAverti but regardless those calculations are just proof of concept now a days, the empirical data stands as far more valuable at showing the same thing.

[DrDave953]

@StAverti I didn't say you can't average all those temperatures, I said it's not a VALID metric of anything. Subtle difference, perhaps you are a climatologist after all, subtlety is a weak point.

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 I fail to see how a 1 degree centigrade increase in global temps is subtle, when it generally takes natural drivers alone at least an order of magnitude longer to warm or cool the earth by a full degree celsius

[DrDave953]

@StAverti You still can't see it can you? Heat your oven to 200°C, place your face above the door & open it. I nice pleasant 200°C blast of AIR with very little energy!

Energy moves around. If a humid area cools by 1°C, to compensate an arid area would have to warm much more. THAT's why temp is an invalid metric!

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 Not sure what you are insinuating, as a generally most climatologists are very good at characterizing subtitles in our data.

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 Hell, I would give you credit if you pointed out the lag in our understanding of clouds, but you at least gotta keep it relevant man...

[DrDave953]

@StAverti Which part of atmospheric dynamics did you misunderstand? Clouds are a major part of that.

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 Not quite, Convective complexes yes, but those we understand VERY well. It's the clouds themselves regardless of dynamics that need to be better understood. Global circulation is 97% driven by solar radiation (with a few percent from some other energy sources).

[DrDave953]

@StAverti If we truly understood convective complexes, we'd be a lot closer to understanding clouds.

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 I'm sorry, but this is silly. The meteorological models that are currently used capture micro, meso and synoptic scale convective complexes almost perfectly. The only real question is the nature of areal cloud cover and type in a warmer climate.

[DrDave953]

@StAverti Have you ever actually READ what you post?

If what you said was true meteorologists could confidently predict past two weeks in the future!

The whole point is, we DON'T understand & the models capture a microcosm.

[DrDave953]

@DrDave953 Oh. Incidentally. If you're involved in a flood control/reservoir operation. I hope you follow history rather than models. Let's face it, models didn't do too well at Wivenhoe when they should have reduced levels to 70% or lower prior to the storm.

Brisbane could have been spared a lot of grief!

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 In any event, some of us have to work. Thank your lucky tax dollars that you've got people who can handle science with out dogmatically attacking everything scientists say. Now if you'll excuse me i have to go make sure you all have enough water to not die off all at once, I mean its not like the worlds water supplies are rapidly decreasing or something...

[DrDave953]

All I proved with saying that temp averages have risen is that temp averages have risen. It says nothing of energy. Note if the pole increase in temp, a very small, (in comparison), decrease in the temperate zones will compensate.

[StAverti]

Glad you all can take a joke (obviously this spot was intended to be darkly humorous). But seriously, get a life. There is no science that supports a view that the current climate is unaffected by anthropogenic activity. You can cry all you want but the science points to the human burning of fossil fuels as the major force behind the observed warming at a global scale. Sorry chaps, perhaps now is a good time for a laugh.

[bobzimmerfan]

@StAverti The point being made here is that there is an eco-fascist attitude toward those who doubt the dogma. The message is believe or die, and not just through climate change. Eco-fascists have called for the tattooing, gassing, blowing up and burning of doubters. I dont think that's funny. Recently it has been announced that if one is a doubter, one has lost their right as a sentient human being. That is unnacceptable I'm afraid. Too far. It's eco-fascism.

[StAverti]

@bobzimmerfan Lay off the narcotics friend. There is no dogma or call for such ridiculous treatment. Perhaps what you meant to say was that some subcultures that already adopt similar attitudes to what you describe have embraced anthropogenic global warming to further their causes? That would be a true statement, however science provides an incredibly strong empirical basis for AGW, so no, not really ANY dogma.

[StAverti]

@bobzimmerfan And to be fair, if you can't look at the literature, review the basics of climate, understand the forces that drive climate at varying temporal scales, and understand that this is a problem, then yea you really aren't much of a sentient being. Sorry but that title implies thought, which clearly is lacking in anyone who could disregard the locus of scientific knowledge for no reason besides not liking what the vast majority of professional climate scientists know to be true.

[DrDave953]

@StAverti Point me to ONE part of the "literature" that proves AGW, let alone CAGW.

I've been looking for a while now.

And I mean PROOF, not assertions as found on the penultimate page of Caillion et al the first paper to identify the circa 800yr lag of CO2 to temp.

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 Here you go, I will provide a very FEW papers to help you grasp a small bit of the good science that has been done: "Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans" Tim P. Barnett,David W. Pierce and Reiner Schnur Science 13 April 2001: Vol. 292 no. 5515 pp. 270-274.

[DrDave953]

@StAverti Models.

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 "Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model under updated emissions scenarios"T. C. Johns, J. M. Gregory, W. J. Ingram, C. E. Johnson, A. Jones, J. A. Lowe, J. F. B. Mitchell, D. L. Roberts, D. M. H. Sexton and D. S. Stevenson, et al. Climate Dynamics

Volume 20, Number 6, 583-612, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-002-0296-y

[DrDave953]

@StAverti Models.

Need I go on? Model results are not!! DATA!

[StAverti]

@DrDave953

"Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia" M E Mann, P D Jones,Geophysical Research Letters (2003)Volume: 30, Issue: 15

"Holocene climate variability" Paul A. Mayewskia, Eelco E. Rohlingb, J. Curt Stagerc, Wibjörn Karlénd, Kirk A. Maascha, L. David Meekere, Eric A. Meyersona, Francoise Gassef, Shirley van Kreveldg, Karin Holmgrend, Julia Lee-Thorph, Gunhild Rosqvistd, Frank Racki, et.al . Steigl Quaternary Research

Volume 62, Issue 3 2004

[StAverti]

"Natural and anthropogenic climate change: incorporating historical land cover change, vegetation dynamics and the global carbon cycle" H.D. Matthews, A.J. Weaver, K.J. Meissner, N.P. Gillett and M. Eby. Climate Dynamics, Volume 22, Number 5, 461-479, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-004-0392-2

[DrDave953]

@StAverti What is re-analysis if not a model?

None of those papers actually show anything extraordinary occurring either.

I believe Mann et al STILL use the Tiljander proxy inverted too.

[StAverti]

"Identification of anthropogenic climate change using a second-generation reanalysis"

BD Santer, TML Wigley, AJ Simmon, et.al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2004

[StAverti]

"Signature of recent climate change in frequencies of natural atmospheric circulation regimes" S. Corti, F. Molteni, & T. N. Palmer. Nature 398, 799-802 (29 April 1999)

[StAverti]

"Modern Global Climate Change" Thomas R. Karl and Kevin E. Trenberth Science 5 December 2003:

Vol. 302 no. 5651 pp. 1719-1723

[StAverti]

"Efficacy of climate forcings"J. Hansen, M. Sato,R. Ruedy,L. Nazarenko,A. Lacis, G. A. Schmidt,G. Russell

I. Aleinov,M. Bauer,S. Bauer,N. Bell,B. Cairns,V. Canuto,M. Chandler,Y. Cheng,A. Del Genio,G. Faluvegi,E. Fleming,A. Friend,T. Hall,C. Jackman,M. Kelley,N. Kiang,D. Koch,J. Lean,J. Lerner,K. Lo,S. Menon,R. Miller,P. Minnis,T. Novakov,V. Oinas,Ja. Perlwitz,Ju. Perlwitz,D. Rind,A. Romanou,D. Shindell,P. Stone,S. Sun,N. Tausnev,D. Thresher,et.al.JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110,

[DrDave953]

@StAverti EVERY ONE of those papers is models and assertions!

[StAverti]

@DrDave953 Oh and just for fun (as i recall you mentioning this) CO2 has historically both trailed warming and presaged it. Think about that for a minute in terms of global climate before pretending that some how throws a wrench in the works.... OF COURSE CO2 can trail some warming, Other factors also affect climate, and when the earth warms for any reason, there are feedback loops that can further warm or dampen the warming. This particular feedback involves Carbonate weathering / deposition...

[StAverti]

@StAverti But I'm not going to tell you how it works, go actually learn about the climate and then perhaps you can at least construct a reasonable criticism.

[PerStrand]

I saw that, on the original video of the global warming skeptic spontaneous human combustion, comments have been blocked.

Why am I not surprised!

First role for these greenies, never ever get into a debate with skeptic about the detail of the science, counter attack with name calling instead.

[huntera123]

I am completely tired of AGW true believers and their need to kill people who dare to disagree with them.

[DarthManBearPig]

My apologies, I made a mistake in my earlier comment.

I credited a name, ( Mike Gambino) as being the possible poster of the video. I was wrong, he is not, but is possibly associated with it.

The YT user thomasgrand1966 appears appears to be the poster of the video, and is the one who is shouting down all intelligent debate and insulting anyone who dare questions him. I think a message to Youtube about his actions are in order?

My apologies for the mistake.

[DarthManBearPig]

What a horrible video! Not only does it stick to the ususal myths and attacks perpetrated by people who blindly follow the AGW theory, but it supplies no evidence whatsoever. No intelligent life here, huh.

Plus, The original poster of the video, ( and possibly the creator,), Mike Gambino, has been sending emails and taunting people who dare to disagree with his violence-inducing video. What an amoral little person.

[TheTempestSpark]

Here's my original comment that I posted before comments were disabled on the original.

“Empirical scientific proof (through their own propaganda) of how misanthropic, anthropological global climate change enthusiasts actually are.

This is what happens kids when people run out of rational scientific arguments.”

[bradleyfikes]

Thanks for reposting this! The original poster disabled comments after he got too much dissent on his death-wish propaganda.

[Sueezedtight]

The more desperate they become, the more strident the cries of dismay and the remonstrations against those that would prefer facts to innuendo, blame and model-generated "projections".

Fortunately, we will save our tax dollars to use them to bail out banks and rich financiers rather than using the money to help people mitigate whatever natural climate changes occur. No wonder we are in such a mess, look at how we deal with what is clearly a situation of influence-peddlars feathering their beds.

[DrDave953]

With the Forbes article claiming

“If you’re one of these self-proclaimed “skeptics” who still deny that man caused this mess and that man must fix it, then you’ve sacrificed your credibility as a sentient human being”.

The de-humanising process is almost complete.

[01248163264128256512]

All hail the re-birth of Inquisition - now also in green... ¬¬

[thomasgrand1966]

I think he burned up because he was getting a little heated up doing his best Rush Limbaugh impersonation. BTW Death is funny, especially if your a jerk. Ask Mel Brooks.

[halfasheep]

This is up there with the Scientology initiation video.

Personal death was part of the message in the final scenes.

I put up on YT but Scientology got it taken down :-(

cheers

[jamesarongray]

typical