Dual statistical standard on RBT: helmet-hating environmentalhypocrisy

Bill Sornson wrote:
Pat wrote:

I have never figured out why the Reactionaries (I refuse to call
these nuts conservatives) think that this is a "liberal hoax" when so
many scientists from other countries agree there is a climate
problem. Did the USA liberals go to all of these other countries and
somehow strong arm the scientists?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

(Another known right-wing source! LOL )

Pat, please stop changing your user name. People plonk you for a
REASON.
Bill "where's Al Gorged going on his private jet /today/?" S.

PS: Google "epa report suppressed" for more Reactionary Stories ROTFL

Bill, PLEASE plonk me! You're a nutter and I don't need any comments from
you anyway. Why don't you go talk to Bill Baka? Two birds of a feather, so
to speak.

Pat in TX

Still Just Me... wrote:
On 30 Jun 2009 22:09:04 GMT, William Asher wrote:

You will be arguing against some pretty well understood
physics, so this is going to take more than bluster on your part. You
might want to crack open a book or two.

I sense another poster moving to the Jute "killfiled for reason" list!

Who is Jute?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Andre Jute asked 5 days ago;

Why is it that pro-helmet statistics are measured against the
very highest statistical standard and found wanting, whereas the
environmental
statistics doctored by Michael Mann with every statistical error known
to man, on which the entire current environmental policy is
based, is defended tooth and nail by the same people?

Isn't it obvious? They see themselves as indestructible and Mother
Earth as frail.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Andre Jute wrote in
:

Why? Global warming is unlikely for historical reasons clear from the
ice core data and from current empirical observation.


But but but, if there can be no global warming, how can the planet
recover from ice ages? The ice core data shows the planet recovers from
ice ages, but you say global warming is unlikely for historical reasons.
I think the problem is that your understanding of climate science is so
thin all you can do is hurl insults and offer up regurgitated common
contrarian arguments available on any number of junk science websites.
You simply can't engage on the science in any detail, you don't have the
language for it.

Here is something you might have said, had you understood the concepts
enough to phrase it correctly:

"The historical record suggests the planet can warm or cool due to
intrinsic variability in the climate system. These variabilities can be
caused by things as subtle as small shifts in seasonal interhemispheric
insolation differences caused by orbital precession. To think that the
increase in longwave radiative forcing from anthropogenic CO2, which is
only 1.6 W/m^2 out of a 375 W/m^2 total downwelling longwave flux, is
significant in the face of the much larger total natural variability in
climate is ridiculous."

Saying that would have suggested you at least understood enough to make a
discussion vaguely interesting (but not really interesting, because even
that statement, which although more correct than what you said (and also
a common talking point among skeptics) is as fundamentally derisible as
your statement excerpted above).

The problem with nearly all contrarian positions is that they can't
answer the question:

"We know from the historical record that very small changes in the
shortwave flux, on the order of 0.1 W/m^2 can have large effects on
global mean temperature. Given that, why would there be no effect from a
radiative forcing from CO2 that is ten times larger?"

Sadly, you lack the basic skills to even think about that question.
You'll probably go back to whinging about the MWP, which even Christy has
given up arguing about.

Like I said, go back to talking to people about spokes and nipples and
tubes. I'll leave you alone from now on. Honest injun.

--
Bill Asher

On Jul 1, 4:50*am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
Andre Jute asked 5 days ago;



Why is it that pro-helmet statistics are measured against the
very highest statistical standard and found wanting, whereas the
environmental
statistics doctored by Michael Mann with every statistical error known
to man, on which the entire current environmental policy is
based, is defended tooth and nail by the same people?

Isn't it obvious? *They see themselves as indestructible and Mother
Earth as frail. *

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

You're wicked, Mike. -- AJ

On Jul 1, 8:19*am, William Asher wrote:
Andre Jute wrote :

Why? Global warming is unlikely for historical reasons clear from the
ice core data and from current empirical observation.

But but but, if there can be no global warming, how can the planet
recover from ice ages? *The ice core data shows the planet recovers from
ice ages, but you say global warming is unlikely for historical reasons. *

I see. You now want to define global warming as any upward temperature
change, rather than one which is excessive, as it has been defined
before. Is that how they do science in your asylum, William Asher?

I think the problem is that your understanding of climate science is so
thin all you can do is hurl insults and offer up regurgitated common
contrarian arguments available on any number of junk science websites. *

Really? Actually, I was sending up the fraudulent environmental
catastrophists in the 1960s when as a precocious teenager with a
column in the Sunday Times I asked once a month to be shown the hole
in the ozone layer. That's pushing a half century ago. There were no
internet websites then, dear Bill, and from your behaviour I doubt
whether you were born then. In their next incarnation, in the
seventies, the same clowns were sceeching that the earth would freeze
and we should warm the oceans, until the global warming maniacs took
over.

You simply can't engage on the science in any detail, you don't have the
language for it. *

Obscure language won't hide the fact that your mind is empty, Bill,
and that you don't have any scientific arguments in support of your
faith in global warming. But I have a perfect command of the
statistics and nothing more is required to prove that there is no
(excessive) global warming, hasn't been any global warming, and can't
be any global warming until we exceed the MWP base, which isn't likely
to happen this century or the next.

Here is something you might have said, had you understood the concepts
enough to phrase it correctly:

"The historical record suggests the planet can warm or cool due to
intrinsic variability in the climate system. *These variabilities can be
caused by things as subtle as small shifts in seasonal interhemispheric
insolation differences caused by orbital precession. *To think that the
increase in longwave radiative forcing from anthropogenic CO2, which is
only 1.6 W/m^2 out of a 375 W/m^2 total downwelling longwave flux, is
significant in the face of the much larger total natural variability in
climate is ridiculous."

Why should I ever want to say crap like that? To belong to your ever
more isolated church of believers in global warming despite the
contrary scientific evidence? I don't think so. I don't associate with
fools and liars.

Saying that would have suggested you at least understood enough to make a
discussion vaguely interesting (but not really interesting, because even
that statement, which although more correct than what you said (and also
a common talking point among skeptics) is as fundamentally derisible as
your statement excerpted above). *

You're the one saying it, not me. Laugh at yourself; it will be the
first sign of maturity we have seen.

The problem with nearly all contrarian positions is that they can't
answer the question:

"We know from the historical record that very small changes in the
shortwave flux, on the order of 0.1 W/m^2 can have large effects on
global mean temperature. *Given that, why would there be no effect from a
radiative forcing from CO2 that is ten times larger?"

We know no such thing. You cannot even prove that CO2 leads
temperature rise, another fact crucial to your belief in (excessive --
heh-heh!) global warming; the ice record shows the temperature rise
leads CO2 increase.

Your paragraph immediately above is merely a wishful restatement of
the nonsensical precautionary principle. "Why would there be no
effect" is not a scientific answer but an unanswered question, without
a time schedule for an answer, and a trail of lies by Michael Mann and
the entire IPCC establishment to discredit any attempted answer in
advance as the politically inspired damage limitation of already
disgraced apparatchiks.

Sadly, you lack the basic skills to even think about that question.

And that's your entire remaining argument, that I'm supposedly not
smart enough to understand what you say? I've heard better arguments
from the Moonies. At least they were more attractive people than you,
William Asher, if equally, stupidly, smug in their faith in the
impossible.
*
You'll probably go back to whinging about the MWP, which even Christy has
given up arguing about. *

The Medieval Warm Period is there, and no amount of sneering and lying
can hide the fact that for four centuries the earth was warmer than it
is now or was at any time during the last century -- and that this
proves that the global warming scare is a fraud.

Like I said, go back to talking to people about spokes and nipples and
tubes. *I'll leave you alone from now on. *Honest injun. *

I think you'd better run away before you give me too many more chances
to expose your vacuity. You're another in the line long who've
presented themselves on RBT as champions of global warming, claiming
to be scientist and proving instead to be fools and knaves. Some
earlier caught-out liars you're joining include Chung, who lied about
statistics, and Weinberg who lied about history, and the whole raft of
little scumbags who simply flung abuse.

Bill Asher

A fool, a posturer, a liar. I know at least half a dozen religious
practitioners who all know more science than Bill Asher.

Andre Jute
Don't the global warmies have anyone with brains to present their case?

In article ,
William Asher wrote:

Andre Jute wrote in

:

Why? Global warming is unlikely for historical reasons clear from
the ice core data and from current empirical observation.


But but but, if there can be no global warming, how can the planet
recover from ice ages? The ice core data shows the planet recovers
from ice ages, but you say global warming is unlikely for historical
reasons. I think the problem is that your understanding of climate
science is so thin all you can do is hurl insults and offer up
regurgitated common contrarian arguments available on any number of
junk science websites. You simply can't engage on the science in any
detail, you don't have the language for it.

Here is something you might have said, had you understood the
concepts enough to phrase it correctly:

"The historical record suggests the planet can warm or cool due to
intrinsic variability in the climate system. These variabilities can
be caused by things as subtle as small shifts in seasonal
interhemispheric insolation differences caused by orbital precession.
To think that the increase in longwave radiative forcing from
anthropogenic CO2, which is only 1.6 W/m^2 out of a 375 W/m^2 total
downwelling longwave flux, is significant in the face of the much
larger total natural variability in climate is ridiculous."

Saying that would have suggested you at least understood enough to
make a discussion vaguely interesting (but not really interesting,
because even that statement, which although more correct than what
you said (and also a common talking point among skeptics) is as
fundamentally derisible as your statement excerpted above).

The problem with nearly all contrarian positions is that they can't
answer the question:

"We know from the historical record that very small changes in the
shortwave flux, on the order of 0.1 W/m^2 can have large effects on
global mean temperature. Given that, why would there be no effect
from a radiative forcing from CO2 that is ten times larger?"

Sadly, you lack the basic skills to even think about that question.

Among other questions. "Andre Jute"" finds it much easier to pretend to
expertise than to develop expertise.

You'll probably go back to whinging about the MWP, which even Christy has
given up arguing about.

Like I said, go back to talking to people about spokes and nipples and
tubes. I'll leave you alone from now on. Honest injun.

A good plan, Bill. As you've no doubt discovered, "Andre Jute" is a
blowhard idiot and not worth the waste of time to engage him.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
In article ,
William Asher wrote:

Like I said, go back to talking to people about spokes and nipples and
tubes. I'll leave you alone from now on. Honest injun.

A good plan, Bill. As you've no doubt discovered, "Andre Jute" is a
blowhard idiot and not worth the waste of time to engage him.

Tim, I'm pretty surprised that you're taking crazy Asher's side in this. The
fact is that Andre isn't saying anything but that the world knows how to
take care of itself. I've been pointing out that the wavelength of
light/energy that CO2 blocks off with sufficient density of gas reached its
maximum long ago and that additional CO2 doesn't cause additional heating.

What's more, as the sun is in a cooling period there is less of that
wavelength available to trap in the first place.

Loonies like Asher will continue to shout "Global Warming" until they
suddenly start shouting "Global Cooling" as if they'd done that from the
beginning.

On Jul 1, 3:36 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
Loonies like Asher will continue to shout "Global Warming" until they
suddenly start shouting "Global Cooling" as if they'd done that from the
beginning.

Loonies like William Asher already shouted "Global Cooling" in the
seventies until suddenly in the eighties they started shouting "Global
Warming". Back then these lunatics wanted us to heat the oceans...
That would really have been intolerable in the nineties when we
actually had a brief upward temperature trend.

I like the way politicians, becoming belatedly aware that global
warming is scientifically a subject not much more respectable than
teleportation, but liking the opportunity it gives them to appear
decisive, is subtly changing the subject to "sudden climate change".
Soon, following Asher's lunatic weaseling, it will just be "climate
change" (up, down, sideway, upside, downside, even a tiny hardly
perceptible amount) that they want spend trillions on "preventing".

Andre Jute
The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. it still will
long after Man is gone.


On Jul 1, 3:36*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message

...

In article ,
William Asher wrote:

Like I said, go back to talking to people about spokes and nipples and
tubes. *I'll leave you alone from now on. *Honest injun.

A good plan, Bill. *As you've no doubt discovered, "Andre Jute" is a
blowhard idiot and not worth the waste of time to engage him.

Tim, I'm pretty surprised that you're taking crazy Asher's side in this. The
fact is that Andre isn't saying anything but that the world knows how to
take care of itself. I've been pointing out that the wavelength of
light/energy that CO2 blocks off with sufficient density of gas reached its
maximum long ago and that additional CO2 doesn't cause additional heating..

What's more, as the sun is in a cooling period there is less of that
wavelength available to trap in the first place.

Loonies like Asher will continue to shout "Global Warming" until they
suddenly start shouting "Global Cooling" as if they'd done that from the
beginning.

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
In article , William Asher
wrote:

Like I said, go back to talking to people about spokes and nipples
and tubes. I'll leave you alone from now on. Honest injun.

A good plan, Bill. As you've no doubt discovered, "Andre Jute" is
a blowhard idiot and not worth the waste of time to engage him.

Tim, I'm pretty surprised that you're taking crazy Asher's side in
this. The fact is that Andre isn't saying anything but that the world
knows how to take care of itself. I've been pointing out that the
wavelength of light/energy that CO2 blocks off with sufficient
density of gas reached its maximum long ago and that additional CO2
doesn't cause additional heating.

And you're obviously wrong, since the measured data contradicts your
claims.

What's more, as the sun is in a cooling period there is less of that
wavelength available to trap in the first place.

And yet global warming continues, showing the potency of the greenhouse
effect. The danger here is what happens when the sun resumes it's
normal cycle of variations in total solar irradiance- which should be
about now, the normal cycle being 11 years and the minima being reached
in IIRC 2008.

Loonies like Asher will continue to shout "Global Warming" until they
suddenly start shouting "Global Cooling" as if they'd done that from
the beginning.

Sorry, Tom, the data indicates that "global warming" (which is more
complex than simply warming equally all over the world, something that
many people who oppose the existence of climate change don't seem to be
able to handle) is a real phenomenon and that the magnitude of the
effect is actually much greater than has been seen, precisely because
the sun has been moving into its lowest output (total solar irradiance)
throughout the time we've been looking at global warming. Another
factor is high atmosphere particulate pollution which has also offered
some reduction in the effects of global warming by blocking sunlight.

Interestingly, there were immediate rapid measurable global temperature
changes in the days following 9/11 when air travel was severely
curtailed around most of the world. Temperatures began to change within
hours of the grounding of the world's commercial aircraft fleet.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sc....climate/index.
html

So much for human activity not being able to have an effect on the
environment. Our actions have an immediate, daily effect that can be
measured.

It's funny how some people prefer the opinions of the right wing
whackjob blogosphere to facts. Well, I suppose being exonerated is an
immediately comforting thing, except that it then renders one powerless
and leaves one at the mercy of the world.