Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??

[OrchardDweller]

sorry - had missed this

4. OrchardDweller, can you acknowledge that when Barry invoked the fact that 90+ percent of scientists agree about anthropogenic global warming, your response--a list of articles about surveys of the opinions of ordinary people, not scientists--was irrelevant to the discussion and, in fact, an evasion of the issue he brought up?

I wasn't responding to what you say I was responding to. I was responding to being "out of step".

Regarding the 90% of scientists, it's not true. It's been covered, I believe here:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...-Agenda/page5&

Here's something else that's handy:
https://epw.senate.gov/public/index....b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Here's something that's new:
https://www.examiner.com/human-right...-control-video

There's been tons of info on frauds connected to all this global warming. But like I said before, despite the info that's been posted here, a core group here continues to push global warming and our need to cut our carbon footprint.

Or do you really imagine that the opinion of the average Joe Sixpack on the street constitutes some kind of evidence about the validity of a scientific theory (keeping in mind that millions of those folks don't even believe in evolution)?

No, I don't believe that "the opinion of average Joe Sixpack on the street constitutes some kind of evidence about the validity of a scientific theory". I was responding to being out of step. But I wouldn't care if I were out of step anyway. Columbus was out of step.

“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” - Gandhi

I also didn't address something else that Barry mentioned. Doesn't mean I wasn't evading the issue though. But he might want to do a search on tetanus vaccinations + sterility.

But what does it all matter? Everyone has left this thread to go discuss how they can cut their fossil fuel usage?????
It doesn't matter if we're being sprayed with aluminum and barium. Or that the vaccines they push are killing people worldwide. Or that we're in multiple unconstitutional wars that's making the world hate us. Or that our rights are being taken away. Or even that unelected UN "officials" are lying to us about swine flu and global warming. Let's just get back into that comfort zone and talk about cutting our carbon footprint and imagine that we're all doing something for the betterment of mankind. Al would be so proud.

[Barry]

...
I also didn't address something else that Barry mentioned. Doesn't mean I wasn't evading the issue though. But he might want to do a search on tetanus vaccinations + sterility...

I'm already sterile

[OrchardDweller]

I'm already sterile

Ok Barry, that's fine. Just thought you (and others) would be interested.
Does that graphic you used indicate that you won something?

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul is a fascist and he would be much worse than Bush was. His racist, pro-corporate son, Rand, is even worse!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

This is the kind of reprehensible man that you endorse:
""Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life", "an unshakable foe of abortion", and believes regulation or ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level". He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception; his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters." Paul takes a critical view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it was unconstitutional and did not improve race relations.""

And the appalling list of his "record" just goes on and on!

Please stop supporting such a fascist, religious fanatic, backward individual! It is offensive and disgusting! You should be ashamed of yourself. When you get older you will know better.

Edward

That would be the Constitutional position, as the federal government has no authority to dictate to the states on issues like abortion. According to the 10th amendment, issues not listed in section 1 should be handled on the state level, or by the people.

Regarding Dr. Paul's personal view on when life begins, it should have no bearing on what states would do. In fact, following the Constitution would remove any power that Ron Paul might have regarding abortion if he were to win the presidency. I seriously doubt Ron Paul would violate the Constitution and get involved in abortion like this administration has by taking money in taxes, even from the half of the population who believe abortion is murder, to fund abortions. By the way, Dr. Paul has delivered 4,000 babies. I would consider the opinions of this smart and humane man. But I have an open mind.

[Barry]

Ok Barry, that's fine. Just thought you (and others) would be interested.
Does that graphic you used indicate that you won something?

Yes, my freedom!

[Zeno Swijtink]

Maybe not the warmest, but likely in the top three. - Zeno

***

Press Release No. 904
For use of the information media
Not an official record

2010 in the top three warmest years, 2001-2010 warmest 10-year period

2 December 2010 - Cancun/Geneva (WMO) - The year 2010 is almost certain to rank in the top 3 warmest years since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2010 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.55°C ± 0.11°C1 (0.99°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. At present, 2010’s nominal value is the highest on record, just ahead of 1998 (January-October anomaly +0.53°C) and 2005 (0.52°C)2. The ERA-Interim3 reanalysis data are also indicating that January-October 2010 temperatures are near record levels. The final ranking of 2010 will not become clear until November and December data are analysed in early 2011. Preliminary operational data from 1-25 November indicate that global temperatures from November 2010 are similar to those observed in November 2005, indicating that global temperatures for 2010 are continuing to track near record levels.

Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C above the 1961-1990 average, 0.03°C above the 2000-09 average and the highest value ever recorded for a 10-year period. Recent warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic; the Saharan/Arabian, East African, Central Asian and Greenland/Arctic Canada sub-regions have all had 2001-10 temperatures 1.2 to 1.4°C above the long-term average, and 0.7°C to 0.9°C warmer than any previous decade.

Surface air temperatures over land were above normal across most parts of the world. The most extreme warm anomalies occurred in two major regions. The first extended across most of Canada and Greenland, with mean annual temperatures 3°C or more above normal in parts of west Greenland and the eastern Canadian Arctic and sub-Arctic. The second covered most of the northern half of Africa and south Asia, extending as far east as the western half of China, with annual temperatures 1 to 3°C above normal over most of the region. Many parts of both regions had their warmest year on record, including large parts of northern Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and southwest Asia (with Turkey and Tunisia having their warmest year on record), as well as much of the Canadian Arctic and coastal Greenland. Four of the five sub-regions4 which are wholly or partly in Africa (West and Southern Africa, the Saharan/Arabian region and the Mediterranean) are on course for their warmest year on record, along with South and Central Asia, and Greenland/Arctic Canada. Temperatures averaged over Canada have also been the highest on record.

Only limited land areas had below-normal temperatures in 2010, the most notable being parts of western and central Siberia in Russia, parts of southern South America, interior Australia, parts of northern and western Europe, eastern China and the southeast United States. It was the coolest year since 1996 for the northern European region, and since 1998 for northern Asia, due mainly to below-normal temperatures during the winter. A number of northern European countries are also likely to have their coolest year since 1996, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Norway.

cont. at https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentr...pr_904_en.html

[Barry]

Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/o...siberia&st=cse
By JUDAH COHEN
Published: December 25, 2010
Lexington, Mass.

THE earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside. Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.

All of this cold was met with perfect comic timing by the release of a World Meteorological Organization report showing that 2010 will probably be among the three warmest years on record, and 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record.

How can we reconcile this? The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes. Last winter, too, was exceptionally snowy and cold across the Eastern United States and Eurasia, as were seven of the previous nine winters.

For a more detailed explanation, we must turn our attention to the snow in Siberia.

Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling. And though it is well documented that the earth’s frozen areas are in retreat, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice does not explain why the world’s major cities are having colder winters.

But one phenomenon that may be significant is the way in which seasonal snow cover has continued to increase even as other frozen areas are shrinking. In the past two decades, snow cover has expanded across the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Siberia, just north of a series of exceptionally high mountain ranges, including the Himalayas, the Tien Shan and the Altai.

The high topography of Asia influences the atmosphere in profound ways. The jet stream, a river of fast-flowing air five to seven miles above sea level, bends around Asia’s mountains in a wavelike pattern, much as water in a stream flows around a rock or boulder. The energy from these atmospheric waves, like the energy from a sound wave, propagates both horizontally and vertically.

As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.

The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.

The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.

That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century. Most forecasts have failed to predict these colder winters, however, because the primary drivers in their models are the oceans, which have been warming even as winters have grown chillier. They have ignored the snow in Siberia.

Last week, the British government asked its chief science adviser for an explanation. My advice to him is to look to the east.

It’s all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it.

Judah Cohen is the director of seasonal forecasting at an atmospheric and environmental research firm.

[someguy]

Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming

Flashback: Global Warming Alarmists Said Snow In Britain Would Be a Thing of the Past


“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”
London Independent
Dec 20, 2010 (originally posted Monday 20th March 2000)


Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.


Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.


The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.


Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.


However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".


"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.


The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.
Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]East [COLOR=blue ! important]Anglia[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.


Michael Jeacock, a [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Cambridgeshire[/COLOR][/COLOR] local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".


Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]climate [COLOR=blue ! important]change[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.
Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Netherlands[/COLOR][/COLOR], says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.


"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.


David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Climate [COLOR=blue ! important]Prediction[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.


The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".


Not any more, it seems.



https://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...st-724017.html


Do any of you seriously still think these people have any idea what they are talking about???????

-Someguy

[podfish]

Flashback: Global Warming Alarmists Said Snow In Britain Would Be a Thing of the Past
Do any of you seriously still think these people have any idea what they are talking about???????
-Someguy

yep.
well, not the "global alarmists" necessarily. But the scientists... I don't believe them uncritically, but I listen to what they have to offer. The public face of this "debate" is all noise by now. I guess I'll make that point once in a while. The science itself, and challenges to it, are often interesting. "I told you so" links don't add much without pro & con context.

[Speak2Truth]

There are several noteworthy factors currently at work.

As NASA reported in 2009, reduced solar activity is cooling the Earth's upper atmosphere.

NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth's Upper Atmosphere (2009)
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...rmosphere.html

Because the Earth lacks a "greenhouse effect" to prevent convection, the cooler upper atmosphere increases convective cooling of the surface, resulting in the record cold temperatures being reported in so many areas of the world, with negative effects such as coral bleaching, record snowstorms and power outages.

However, the brief earlier warming period warmed a great deal of ocean water that is still carrying that heat energy around, preventing the cooling from becoming a rapid (and deadly) downward spiral like that experienced from 1945 to 1980.

The resurgence of El Niño means that 2010 could yet be the hottest year on record
https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/j...-uk-big-freeze

What happens when the current El Nino effect ends?

If the reduction in solar forcing is not reversed, could we face yet another deadly cooling period?

What surprises me about all this is that in many public discussion forums, folks assert the record cold is a symptom of global warming. They're clearly not paying attention to the atmospheric physics driving all this and are instead performing like puppets in the game of "blame every change on global warming".

[Speak2Truth]

One more notion for consideration: "since record keeping began" generally refers to modern, technological systems such as surface temperature monitoring stations and more recently satellites.

This form of record keeping began during the deadly cold period of 1945 to 1980. Obviously, as we recover from that, we will be recording warmer and warmer temperatures.

Scientific record keeping of temperature variations began in earnest largely because of:

TIME Magazine (1974): Another Ice Age?
https://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...944914,00.html

Time Magazine (1976) Environment: Forecast: Famine?
Global cooling causing massive crop failures, drought.
https://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...945635,00.html

The Cooling World - 1975 Newsweek warning of coming Ice Age
https://www.debunkglobalwarming.info/coolingworld.pdf

1970 - predictions of coming disaster, Ice Age, by Earth Day Organizers
https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...ay-apparently/

The cooling was severe, sparking warnings such as:

• By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson

• The world will be “…eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.

• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.


• “By the year 2000…the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.


Sound familiar?

Al Gore asserted in his film "Inconvenient Truth" that in 1982 he began the effort to impose a carbon tax. Whether it is cooling or warming, that is the real agenda: TAKE YOUR MONEY.

IPCC Official Ottmar Edenhofer: World climate summit, Cancun, is actually about distribution of the world's resources
https://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-i...ds-wealth.html

[OrchardDweller]

The head of the IPCC had to admit last year that they were WRONG.
I guess some here missed that story.

Times of London March 27, 2010:
UN climate change chief says sorry — and switches to neutral

The outspoken chairman of the UN’s climate change body is to adopt a neutral advisory role and has agreed to stop making statements demanding new taxes and other radical policies on cutting emissions.

In an interview with The Times, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, apologised for his organisation’s handling of complaints about errors in its report.

He also apologised for describing as “voodoo science” an Indian Government report which challenged the IPCC’s claims about the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers...

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...cle7078140.ece

[Dixon]

The head of the IPCC had to admit last year that they were WRONG.

Your intro, OrchardDweller, gave me the impression that the IPCC head had said they were wrong about global warming and he was now neutral on that issue. But when I read the article you linked to, it became clear that that's not the case at all, so I thought I'd post this little clarification; I'm sure you wouldn't want our fellow Waccobites to be misled.

The neutrality referred to by IPCC chair Dr. Rajendra Pachauri referred only to the issue of his having made policy recommendations. He has decided to be neutral in terms of supporting any particular policy recommendations, and to just report the scientific findings. There is no indication in the article that he has changed his position about anthropogenic global warming at all.

Presumably he caught flak from powerful factions (probably corporations and their government stooges) for his policy recommendations. Ironically, the recommendations mentioned in the article are, IMHO, good ideas! To wit: "Last year, he called for higher taxes on aviation and motoring, said people should eat less meat, and proposed that hotel rooms should have electricity meters to charge people extra for using air conditioning. " The suggestion about eating less meat would be enormously helpful in a lot of ways (and I'm speaking as a carnivore), and the other suggestions would help to focus the costs of polluting emissions more squarely on the worst offenders, plus would probably have the useful effect of decreasing motoring.

What I would like to hear from you, Orch, is some acknowledgment of the fact that even if there is no such thing as global warming, those suggestions are good ideas! Or do you think that relatively unbridled emission of toxic pollutants into the environment is a good tradition that should continue unhampered?

In an interview with The Times, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, apologised for his organisation’s handling of complaints about errors in its report.

This is correct. Specifically: "On the IPCC’s tardiness in responding to complaints and correcting errors — such as its claim that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — he said: 'Our response has been much too late and much too inadequate.' "

He also apologised for describing as “voodoo science” an Indian Government report which challenged the IPCC’s claims about the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers...

This too is correct.

Thanks for posting that link, Orch. I hope my clarification has been helpful.

[Dixon]

Bingo! I have found what appears to be an excellent source of info which addresses pretty much all of the climate change skeptics' arguments, including, I think, all of the objections brought up herein by OrchardDweller, someguy, and others. The site is at:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
I haven't had time to read much of it yet, but it has lots of articles, many of them available in "Basic", "Intermediate" and sometimes "Advanced" versions. There's plenty of scientific info, with charts and graphs as needed. It's simple to find topics, clearly laid out, fun to read, and comprehensive. So, OrchardDweller and everyone, I urge you to go to the link above, check out the "Most Used Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Really Says" section in the left-hand margin, and look up the rebuttal to each argument, for starters. Have fun!

[DynamicBalance]

What I would like to hear from you, Orch, is some acknowledgment of the fact that even if there is no such thing as global warming, those suggestions are good ideas! Or do you think that relatively unbridled emission of toxic pollutants into the environment is a good tradition that should continue unhampered?

It's come to my attention that Someguy accidentally posted under my account. I'm going to repost his message under his account. Sorry for the confusion, and have a great day!

-Laurel

["Mad" Miles]

Hey there "global warming debunkers", when you deny validity to those who you disagree with, because they haven't met your challenge to show what they're doing to help the environment, you're making a nonsensical argument.

We're all free adults here. If someone wants to present their green bona fides here, they can. And if others choose not to recite some "loyalty oath" to the environment, that's their right.

Demanding something from someone you disagree with, isn't a very effective pursuasive technique. The only thing debators have the right to demand from their opponents, is proof.

You are the ones making the claims against man-made global warming. Therefore it is you who are beholden to us, your audience, to support your claims with "facts".

Demanding to see the badges of those who say you haven't done so, at least not by providing credible sources, isn't your right or privilege. You're not the new sheriff's in town. And we're not your charges. You're the ones doing the debunking, it's up to you to prove it. So far I'm not convinced.

Anecdotes, rumors, fear-mongering, stoking the hysteria and dumping masses of repetitive and unsubstantiated blather, do not an argument make. At least not sound ones.

And I don't have to prove anything to you. Even when I question your sources and logic. You're the ones making the assertions. Just back them up with credible evidence, and leave us to decide if you've made your case or not. We owe you no proof that we're as "good" at saving the planet as you "are".

Just because someone doesn't respond to a request, or a demand, doesn't mean they couldn't if they chose to. It means they're not interested in being called on the carpet by self-appointed arbiters of ecological correctness.

Or maybe they have lives in which their responsibilities and choices of entertainment, are much more compelling than engaging in repetitive, sterile and unending debates.

Debates in which, after sufficient time, it is clear the other side will never accede, to a change their opinion, or admit that their obsessions are unfounded, biased, irrational or delusional.

But hey, we all get to think whatever we want, we just shouldn't expect others to agree with us, especially when all we've done is to hector them with the same old, same old.

Ultimately the global warming issue will be "resolved" by climatological events. And if the political will to make changes in our production of CO2 isn't mustered sufficiently, that's all that will happen.

Because the forces arrayed against a proactive approach are so powerful, your fringe culture has little or nothing to do with what governments and corporations decide, and what masses of individuals and communities do as well. All of your cries of conspiracy, lies and corruption aren't going to be part of the equation that determines outcome.

But as I find myself saying here on waccobb.net more often than not, Hey, knock yourselves out!

It's worked so well for the hard left orthodox Marxists over the last hundred and fifty years, why shouldn't you use the same methods? The methods I'm referring to are the rhetorical ones. Hammering the same idea over and over in the court of public opinion.

The one party murderous dictatorships? Not so much. Except China's doing pretty well. At least on the surface.

[OrchardDweller]

Your intro, OrchardDweller, gave me the impression that the IPCC head had said they were wrong about global warming and he was now neutral on that issue. But when I read the article you linked to, it became clear that that's not the case at all, so I thought I'd post this little clarification; I'm sure you wouldn't want our fellow Waccobites to be misled.
Thanks for posting that link, Orch. I hope my clarification has been helpful.

Thanks. No misleading needed. Truth is my friend. I spread the truth. Link was provided to the news story. Everything else is others' assumptions.

[OrchardDweller]

So, OrchardDweller and everyone, I urge you to go to the link above, check out the "Most Used Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Really Says" section in the left-hand margin, and look up the rebuttal to each argument, for starters. Have fun!

I have other things to do. I know of more important issues to post about. But others are free to do whatever they want.

[OrchardDweller]

What I would like to hear from you, Orch, is some acknowledgment of the fact that even if there is no such thing as global warming, those suggestions are good ideas! Or do you think that relatively unbridled emission of toxic pollutants into the environment is a good tradition that should continue unhampered?

Dixon,

Those that I expose are not environmentalists. They do not care about the environment. Or about us (except in their desire to control us). So my exposing these criminals who try to force their unelected one world government agenda upon us does not mean I don’t care about the environment. I do.

I think you are being fooled by a tactic that is sometimes referred to as the Either/Or Falicy. If I criticize Obama, I must be for McCain. Other examples: Democrats vs Republicans, Darwinism vs. Creationism, Zionism vs Anti-Semitism, You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists...

Again, you're free to focus on whatever you wish, but I am not interested in going back and forth on these matters. There are more important issues for me, and my time on here is limited.

[OrchardDweller]

But it's not only about making billions and controlling our lives. There appears to be a much darker side...








Gates uses the "Either/Or Fallacy" trick. He presents it as a case where it’s one or the other. Why don’t we have ‘both’ as a choice - let grandma live and keep the jobs? Other Either/Or Fallacies: Democrats vs Republicans, Darwinism vs Creationism, Zionism vs. Anti-Semitism, "You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists"....

Bill's father, William Gates Sr, was head of Planned Parenthood, a reworking of the American Eugenics Society with connections to Hitler. Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger wrote:
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."


https://www.associatepublisher.com/e...gates,_sr..htm
https://www.eadshome.com/MargaretSanger.htm
https://www.all.org/abac/eugen02.htm

https://beforeitsnews.com/story/340/...oundation.html
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...cle6350303.ece
https://www.calgaryherald.com/busine...132/story.html
https://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-...er-population/
https://www.naturalnews.com/028887_v...ill_Gates.html
https://www.infowars.com/eugenicist-...rg-conference/
https://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-...f-the-iceberg/

and
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40811501/

[someguy]

What I would like to hear from you, Orch, is some acknowledgment of the fact that even if there is no such thing as global warming, those suggestions are good ideas! Or do you think that relatively unbridled emission of toxic pollutants into the environment is a good tradition that should continue unhampered?

Hey Dixon, OrchardDweller and I have said what we would do to stop polluting our planet. You and the other alarmists here have not..... And frankly I'm disgusted with all of you who spout all this compassion for the environment but won't even tell us what your doing to take care of it.

BTW eat more meat not less! As long as it is grass-fed. It will be better for all of our health in doing so.

[Barry]

Hey Dixon, OrchardDweller and I have said what we would do to stop polluting our planet. You and the other alarmists here have not..... And frankly I'm disgusted with all of you who spout all this compassion for the environment but won't even tell us what your doing to take care of it.....

Let's not turn this into a green pissing match.

[Hotspring 44]

Let's not turn this into a green pissing match.

Barry, That is a

[Dixon]

https://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...st-724017.html

Do any of you seriously still think these people have any idea what they are talking about???????

someguy, you have quoted one article from a decade ago in which a few people make predictions that haven't (yet) come to pass. It looks to me like you make a couple of logic mistakes here:

1. You seem to think that these folks predicted that there'd be no snow in Britain by 2010. They did not. The closest to that I saw in your quotes was the phrase "within a few years" which, in the climate change context, could easily mean decades, and you're ready to ridicule them on the basis of your assumption that they're wrong after only 10 years. Your bias is leading you into the realm of what the Critical Thinking community refers to as "Intellectual Unfairness". And note that provocative phrases from the article such as "snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" are the wording of the newspaper hack who wrote the article, not of the scientists quoted in the article.

2. You seem to want to pretend that the pronouncements of a couple of people in this article (and maybe a few more in other articles) represent the consensus among the community of those who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming (AGW), apparently thus to fallaciously discredit that position. But even if we assume, as you wish, that these guys were wrong, that doesn't reflect on the entire community of those who recognize AGW.

Again and again I see from you AGW deniers the same fallacy: cherry-picking claims from a few people which you perceive as mistaken (and which in some cases may actually be mistaken) and wanting us to conclude that these people represent the whole AGW community, and/or that their having made a mistake about some detail refutes AGW. I'm starting to get the impression that some of you are closed-minded ideologues rather than reasoning in good faith here.

[Dixon]

Speak2Truth, you repeat the same fallacy I'm seeing from other Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) deniers here: you cherry pick some mistaken predictions or wrong claims from a few people and apparently want us to think that those claims represented the position of the whole AGW community and that you've somehow refuted AGW by mentioning them. A first-year logic student would laugh at your use of such anecdotal arguments. It also doesn't help matters any that you cite stories from the popular press, such as Time and Newsweek, which are not dependable reflections of scientific consensus.

For instance, you link to several mistaken predictions from the 1970s about an ice age or extreme cooling which they expected by now. But in fact, the vast majority of climate scientists in the 70s were predicting global warming. There's a short but informative article on this at
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice...termediate.htm
Among other things, it says "A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case." I recommend reading that short article. You will see that it demolishes your argument here.

Al Gore asserted in his film "Inconvenient Truth" that in 1982 he began the effort to impose a carbon tax. Whether it is cooling or warming, that is the real agenda: TAKE YOUR MONEY.

Your fallacy here is in assuming that the fact that some approaches to the global warming issue involve taxation means that taxing us is the "real agenda". Leaving aside the tangential issue of whether this or that particular tax is a good idea, how have you ruled out other, less negative assumptions about the motives of those who propose such taxes, such as their honest conclusion that we're facing a real problem which will require some taxation as a response? You sound like one of those anti-tax zealots. If so, you're entitled to your ideological position, but don't let it distort your reasoning with needlessly negative assumptions about others' motives when you haven't reasonably ruled out less sinister motives.

IPCC Official Ottmar Edenhofer: World climate summit, Cancun, is actually about distribution of the world's resources
https://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-i...ds-wealth.html

Good! The imperialistic countries, notably the USA, have way more than their share of the world's resources, due mainly to their absolutely brutal exploitation of so-called Third World peoples, through slavery, genocide, military and economic machinations, first colonial and now neo-colonial. It's about time we gave a little back to those cultures we've ripped off to assuage our greed. Let's get busy with the more equitable redistribution of resources. Those who assume that any policy that decreases their wealth in favor of someone poorer is bad are reasoning self-centeredly.

[Dixon]

I have other things to do. I know of more important issues to post about. But others are free to do whatever they want.

Orch, elsewhere on this thread you have characterized yourself as a friend of Truth, and open-minded. Now, suddenly, when I have provided you with links to concise rebuttals of your talking points, you "have other things to do". Up until this moment, you've had plenty of time to take potshots at those you disagree with, posting tons of anecdotal arguments and not-very-relevant links, but when someone comes along with compelling counter-arguments and the data to back them up, you suddenly have no time for the discussion. Thus you reveal yourself as a closed-minded ideologue rather than an "open-minded" "friend of truth". Pathetic.

[Dixon]

Hey Dixon, OrchardDweller and I have said what we would do to stop polluting our planet. You and the other alarmists here have not..... And frankly I'm disgusted with all of you who spout all this compassion for the environment but won't even tell us what your doing to take care of it.

While I agree with "Mad" Miles and others who consider your implied question irrelevant to the current discussion on the reality or unreality of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), I also think that your question is an important one. So, without letting you retreat into this tangent as an evasion of the AGW question, I'm happy to answer the question "What do I do to stop polluting our planet?'
The short answer is: "More than the average American, but not nearly enough." The longer answer: "I do my recycling pretty faithfully. I donate my used bags to the Food Bank. I don't buy much stuff, and when I do buy something, it's mostly 2nd hand; most of my clothing, for instance, is from thrift shops. I consolidate my car trips, bundling 2 or 3 or 5 tasks into one trip rather than several. I try to be conservative in my electricity and gas usage. I support environmentally friendly policies and candidates, for instance, voting against measures that would increase single car traffic, such as highway improvements, and for responsible public transportation measures. I encourage environmental responsibility in those around me, such as by my rants on Wacco." That's all I can think of right now. You may very well do better than me. If so, I salute you.

BTW eat more meat not less! As long as it is grass-fed. It will be better for all of our health in doing so.

Wrong! Sure, grass-fed is better than corn-fed, and lots better than cows fed on dead cows. But like most USAmericans, I have too much fat in my diet; I'd definitely be better off with less meat, even if we're talking about the organic meat without all the weird hormones and stuff. And less meat means less arable land wasted growing grains for livestock, when using that land for plants to feed humans would increase its productivity something like 10-fold, thus allowing us to wipe out most hunger globally. Also less meat means lots more water available for people instead of livestock, lots less greenhouse gases from livestock farts and feces, lots less deforestation and soil erosion, lots less heart disease, cancer and other illnesses associated with meat diets, etc. etc. Not to mention, lots less suffering of animals who are needlessly neglected and brutalized while being raised and slaughtered.

[Dixon]

I've found an even better link to brief, authoritative articles on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It's a different page at the same site. This page lists 139 arguments against AGW with a link to a rebuttal for each one. It's at:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[someguy]

While I agree with "Mad" Miles and others who consider your implied question irrelevant to the current discussion on the reality or unreality of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), I also think that your question is an important one. So, without letting you retreat into this tangent as an evasion of the AGW question, I'm happy to answer the question "What do I do to stop polluting our planet?'
The short answer is: "More than the average American, but not nearly enough." The longer answer: "I do my recycling pretty faithfully. I donate my used bags to the Food Bank. I don't buy much stuff, and when I do buy something, it's mostly 2nd hand; most of my clothing, for instance, is from thrift shops. I consolidate my car trips, bundling 2 or 3 or 5 tasks into one trip rather than several. I try to be conservative in my electricity and gas usage. I support environmentally friendly policies and candidates, for instance, voting against measures that would increase single car traffic, such as highway improvements, and for responsible public transportation measures. I encourage environmental responsibility in those around me, such as by my rants on Wacco." That's all I can think of right now. You may very well do better than me. If so, I salute you.

Wrong! Sure, grass-fed is better than corn-fed, and lots better than cows fed on dead cows. But like most USAmericans, I have too much fat in my diet; I'd definitely be better off with less meat, even if we're talking about the organic meat without all the weird hormones and stuff. And less meat means less arable land wasted growing grains for livestock, when using that land for plants to feed humans would increase its productivity something like 10-fold, thus allowing us to wipe out most hunger globally. Also less meat means lots more water available for people instead of livestock, lots less greenhouse gases from livestock farts and feces, lots less deforestation and soil erosion, lots less heart disease, cancer and other illnesses associated with meat diets, etc. etc. Not to mention, lots less suffering of animals who are needlessly neglected and brutalized while being raised and slaughtered.

I commend you for stating what you do to reduce your fossil fuel pollution. Good for you. If your looking for some more ways to decrease your pollution, you can adopt some of the myriad of things suggested on this other thread. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...ht=#post126414

However, you are completely wrong in your assessment of beef. We'll just leave it at that since you seem as religious about that subject as you do about global warming, and I doubt any information will sway your religious beliefs. Good luck with that!

[podfish]

We'll just leave it at that since you seem as religious about that subject as you do about global warming, and I doubt any information will sway your religious beliefs.

where did -that- come from? I've seen this tactic in the evolution "debate", where people who believe there's divine instigation equate their religious thinking to that of people who accept the logic-driven Darwinian theories. It's just a tactic to dismiss their opponent, and a false association in most cases. Sure, people aren't perfectly logical and may believe things that aren't as well supported by evidence as they suppose. The key difference is that religious thinking openly accepts some ideas on faith; logical thinking allows for the beliefs to be challenged by evidence. Why accuse Dixon of that???