Harvard On Global Warming Alarmists.mp4

[JDMarine89]

We can't stand for this. We all know Man-Bear-Pig THRIVES in warm climates! If we don't stop this we are all doomed.

[judomagyar]

@JDMarine89

Also the Asian CatBear will come to America and eat all the milk and honey.

We need to send in the marines...

[Antithropocentric]

Your video title is bogus. This is not "Harvard" (in general) speaking, just a known AGW denier, Sallie Baliunas, who also spoke against man-made ozone depletion (typical pattern with these people). She does not specialize in climatology, and her cohort, Willie Soon is a documented fossil fuel shill.

Of course, you'd only quote her and not all the other scientists who haven't sold their souls to right-wing ideology or claim to have expertise in areas they don't specialize in.

[judomagyar]

Ad hominem attack. How is that working for you?

WIKIPEDIA: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

I LOOKED AT THE TEMPERATURE DATA AND IF YOU USE THE RIGHT SCALE,, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.

Climate has been changing. With or without humans.

[Antithropocentric]

@judomagyar, chronic science-deniers fall into a category of people who actually deserve ad-hominem attacks. They refuse to accept ANY evidence that counters their free-market zealotry, and are thus punks.

CO2 both follows and drives temperature. It's a complex thing, which climatologists understand, but can't be adequately explained in a Limbaugh sound-byte. This video on YouTube explains it fairly well, if you choose not to ignore the explanation. Search for: "The "Temp Leads Carbon" Crock"

[judomagyar]

@Antithropocentric

I am very familiar with Peter Sinclair’s propaganda videos and they are full of logical fallacies and half-truths. The Vostok Ice core data clearly shows that temperature changed first, and CO2 concentration followed.

The lag is around 800 years.

[Antithropocentric]

@judomagyar, Sinclair merely presents what the climatologists are saying. You didn't even bother to watch the video, I'm sure. There is a concise article on the SkepticalScience site under "CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?" but you'd also shrug that off as a conspiracy.

That's why you're a global warming DENIER. No amount of evidence will matter, just the beloved free market doing whatever it wants, ignoring signs from nature and driven by the usual greed. We've been there before.

[Antithropocentric]

@judomagyar, your comment "Climate has been changing. With or without humans" lack serious context. We are HERE and it is NOW. Previous warm periods (which climatologists documented, not Rush Limbaugh) never occurred with so much complex infrastructure at stake.

I doubt you'd question science if the consensus predicted a major asteroid threat in 2042 (or whenever). That's because you can't blame asteroids on human behavior. AGW-denial is just a selfish response to criticism of human gluttony.

[judomagyar]

@Antithropocentric "We are HERE and it is NOW"

A ot of people got out of highschool without understanding the significance of scale.

You need to use the right scale for the right measurment inorder to meke sense of it.

The AGW church simply uses the wrong scale, a few decades instead of thousands of years.

This is a tragic failure of the educational system. It is like using kilometers to measure th distance between two atoms.

[Antithropocentric]

@judomagyar, RE "the AGW church," how does physics (i.e. the thermodynamics of heat-trapping gases) qualify as a "church" of any kind? What exactly is religious about simply facing evidence?

I'm sure you take science for granted in many other areas of your life. But it just happens to be flawed when it questions resource gluttony, eh? Funny how that works.

Look at the strong correlation between Creationism and global warming denial (e.g. Rick Perry) and explain why THAT is not CHURCH-related.

[judomagyar]

@Antithropocentric No you pulled a straw man on me!

WIKIPEDIA: .....Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement.

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar "The AGW church simply uses the wrong scale, a few decades instead of thousands of years"

I thought one of the deniers favorite arguments was "no warming since 1998". That uses a decade of temperature instead of thousands of years.

[judomagyar]

@demdanglibruls

Pointing out the no change in the last decade or so is merely a way to demonstrate that the AGW people's argument fails even on their own decades long scale.

Got it?

See wwwDOTdrroyspencerDOTcom/lates­t-global-temperatures

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar Speaking of churches and blind faith, Roy Spencer himself is a creationist. I usually am not a fan of ad hominem, but pushing such an idiotic brand of woo makes me already doubt his credibility. RS noted the discrepancy between troposhere and surface warming. Since then, a lot of papers have been published on the topic. The problem was due to an error in the measurement instruments as well as a few methodological problems by RS. Since then, deniers have latched on to his research and

[judomagyar]

@demdanglibruls "Roy Spencer himself is a creationist."

Hmm...

Newton believed in god and alchemy, so his laws are wrong. Right?

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar You are the one who is creating straw man images of people who accept the vast body of evidence as a member of a "church" of some sort. I just pointed out that Spencer is the one promoting blind faith. Unlike religion, AGW is falsifiable and can be tested.

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar conveniently ignored the new research on the problem, which has been corrected since then. Now the deniers ignore the research that debunks the "satellites don't show warming" claim.

[judomagyar]

@demdanglibruls "new research"?

Are those the same people who sabotaged the Glory Satellite?

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar Wow-see exactly what I mean? Simple conjecture becomes the Truth in the denier movement. As far as we know nobody sabotaged the Glory Satellite- You are making this into a massive conspiracy.

Probably, like BEST, the project would show warming-and of course deniers would scurry to find an issue with it. it is rather convenient of them for it to have been a failure.

[judomagyar]

@demdanglibruls "asfar as we know, nobody sabotaged the Glory stellite"

Sure, but isn't it strange that two of these blew up? As Cicero said: "Cui bono?



[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar Despite scientists best efforts, rockets still fail. It is pretty convenient to the deniers. BEST showed warming and verified accuracy of previous temperature stations. The deniers couldn't accept this, so they went back to the old BSing tactics they're famous for. Probably the satellite would show the exact same trend. It's pretty lucky for the deniers, though.

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar A mini ice age by 2035? What source did that come from?

[judomagyar]

@demdanglibruls "mini ice age by 2035?"

see: Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg,

Piers Corbyn of weatheraction. Joe bastardi.

just to keep the list short.

Basically, solar activity will determen our climate.

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar You guys remind me of a broken record. The same "scientists" cited over and over again. Piers Corbyn is that crank who believes he can predict the weather months into the future-his predictions aren't usually correct. He made bets on the weather outcome- and lost over 500,000 pounds due to his wildly inaccurate predictions.

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar Bastardi- Oh yeah, the guy who said NSIDC was a "fraud", because he failed to read the graph correctly. He resigned from accuweather. I wonder why. Abdusamatov using the same argument that solar variation is causing the warming-it is notable that this "scientist" has failed to publish any scientific papers on this. This myth has been repeatedly debunked- the sun has shown a cooling trend in the last 30 years but the warming trend has continued.

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar So its ok to cherry pick a decade and use that if you're a denier but not if you're a climatologist? Double Standards.

[judomagyar]

@demdanglibruls

1) don't call me a denier, else, I will call you a denier.

2) CO2 is not a major forcing under standard.

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar You are a denier. Denial is:

refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like.

You refuse to accept AGW despite the vast body of scientific evidence that proves it. You are a denier. I am not denying AGW theory. You are.

[judomagyar]

@demdanglibruls You are the denier. You refuse to consider any other alternative.

We are at the beginning of a paradigm change in climate science.

Just like the discovery of Helicobacter pylori changed the treatment of ulcers, the new mwthods of forcasting by Pierce Corbyn will force a paradigm change. hav an open mind.

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar Piers Corbyn new methods of forecasting? He is like a weather fortune teller: "give me money, i'll tell you want you want to hear."

He simply believes he can predict the weather months into the future- like many fortune tellers, he creates extremely vague predictions, and creates a lot of them-much like a fortune teller "shotguns" by throwing a whole lot of vague predictions at the gullible person.

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar do have an open mind- just like any casual layman, when I first stumbled upon this debate, I thought AGW wasn't true-the more I heard, the more I realized that the deniers were repeating the same arguments, the same scientists, the same few papers- I looked them up- the papers were frauds, misunderstood by deniers, or not really papers. The scientists were the same- experts for hire, weather cranks infamous for their inaccuracy, simply taken out of context, or not scientists at all

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar Piers corbyn's count of peer reviewed papers that take a negative position on AGW: 0.

That's very odd considering he's supposed to force a "paradigm change". If he wants to be taken seriously by scientists, he should publish papers on how AGW is wrong, not hide in places where he is immune to criticism.

[demdanglibruls]

@judomagyar You are correct: water vapor has the largest direct contribution to the GH effect, but co2 is released by humans by factories, cars, etc. The co2 still has a large effect, which causes an increase in warming.

[judomagyar]

@demdanglibruls "The co2 still has a large effect,"

Well, we have around 10 times more H2O in the air, CO2's alledged effect is blown out of proportion.

[papertigero]

Pity about the rightlinx overlay. It detracts from the message, and biases people needlessly.

[judomagyar]

@papertigero Ididn't even noticed the logo. sorry.

Well, climate and CO2 does not have a party affiliations. :-)