Here are some more such pairs.
"Mars, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto are warming."
"All planets are warming."
"The Sun has a strong influence on climate."
"Global warming is caused by the Sun."
"Solar activity is declining."
"Earth is going to get cold because solar activity is declining."
"Global warming will cause sea levels to rise."
"Alarmists are claiming that the entire world will be under water."
The main problem between liberals and realist is realist view a situation and comprehend the entirety of that situation and if there is a problem, determine a course of action that will solve the problem. Liberals look at a situation and interpret the situation in pieces with no regard for the big picture and their solution is biased towards if it makes them feel good about themselves. None of your statements have any context to them and without that they mean almost nothing.
"There has been no statistically significant warming in this time period" does not mean there has been no warming in this time period. It certainly doesn't mean the scientist making the statement aren't privy to the all the right data, haven't had enough time between collecting the data before they start determining it should be "corrected" up, or that the warming is hidden somewhere that is undetectable.
"We need to phase out our use of fossil fuels as soon as practical" certainly doesn't mean we need to immediately stop using all fossil fuels regardless of the cost or consequence; but, I'm not sure what it means. What the hell is "practical" in the face of the impending future of doom presented by alarmist? Is it practical for some redneck anti-science liar denier to be driving his gas guzzling SUV, to the lake so he can pull his inbred children and toothless wife (half-sister) behind his gas guzzling boat in an inner-tube, on a Sunday after they all spent the day praising their stupid god while peoples lives are being destroyed? Is it practical for you to suffer with a heat wave just so I can play Call of Duty? How the hell does raising the price of energy to force poor people to reduce their consumption (hell there are more of them anyway and the way they chant we are the 99% they're certainly prime for treating them what to do like a flock of sheep anyway right?) but as long as you can afford to destroy the atmosphere you can use fossil fuel energy regardless if your using it for "practical" purposes.
I know you love analogies so I'll give you one even a college student can understand. Liberals have ran into a crowded movie theater after seeing smoke (coming from concession exhaust system on top of the building) yelling fire. Unfortunately he was trampled when the crowd was escaping. Everyones back in the theater now (a little shook up after killing a guy who thought the building was on fire, but stupid is as stupid does right) and they aren't amused by this new liberal yelling the fire is coming but their is still time please don't trample me.
The issue of AGW is only political because liberals have once again misinterpreted reality, found a problem that doesn't exist, and have come up with solutions that won't work to fix the problem even if it did exist.
jim z –
You’re a fcking liar.
>>Most scientists probably believe human emissions of CO2 may lead to warming. <<
Reality: Most climate scientists DO believe that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 IS causing warming.
>>"There has been no statistically significant warming in this time period"<<
>>Alarmist interpretation: CO2 must be warming the Arctic leading to cooling and climate change yada yada yada<<
Reality: There has been no statistically significant warming in this time period at the 95% certainty level – (note, however, that it is significant at the 90% certainty level).
In any case, the time period is too short and the test results are equivocal because the Degrees of Freedom = n (years) – 1 (for each population statistic that has to be estimated). Further, the time period being tested is shorter than the signal frequency,
>>Alarmist interpretation: "CO2 is the only factor that influences climate"<<
Reality: That has NEVER been said by anyone other than lying Deniers.
>>Alarmist interpretation: We determine what is practical and since fossil fuels are evil and corporations are bad, we need to get rid of them without regard to economic consequence because we have scientists on our side.<<
Reality: (1) inanimate objects cannot be “evil” – that is a human-defined trait (2) the continuing use of fossil fuels will result in significant climate change. This, combined with the fact that (1) fossil fuels supplies are not infinite (2) even if we could continue to enjoy unlimited and inexpensive fossil fuels, our power grid cannot carry the load and needs to upgraded (this is not an option); (3) we are better off upgrading the grid to the 21st century rather than trying to modify early-20th century technology which won’t hold for more than a decade or two, anyway.
>>Alarmist interpretation: Human emissions of CO2 will increase poison ivy and poison oak and cause crops to be less nutritious yada yada yada<<
Reality: Warm temperatures cause the growing season to begin earlier – which causes accelerated juvenile period growth – which reduces per/plant yields (an empirical fact that has already been observed).
>>Alarmist interpretation: That's OK we have hundreds of others and we should be able to find one that fits our needs.<<
Reality: Models are experiments that study different aspects of the climate system, so it is impossible to map the results from different experiments onto some other “desired” result. The models are able to predict climate behavior over periods with adequate real-world observations with high degrees of certainty (i.e., STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT). Results of projections into the future will take decades to assess – so it is not possible to evaluate their accuracy (which also means that you have no clue how well they work).
>>"AGW can cause seemingly contradictory changes, such as more snow in certain areas"<<
>>I seem to have already addressed that one above.<<
No, you did not mention that this – along with the prediction of increasingly severe events – has been a part of AGW theory as long as there has been an AGW theory. These are – and have always been – an integral part of AGW theory. To claim otherwise is an admission of total ignorance regarding climate science and AGW theory.
Here are a few misconceptions from alarmists.
Most scientists probably believe human emissions of CO2 may lead to warming.
Alarmist interpretation: Scientists all agree that humans are causing catastrophic warming.
Well let's just use yours.
"There has been no statistically significant warming in this time period"
Alarmist interpretation: CO2 must be warming the Arctic leading to cooling and climate change yada yada yada
"CO2 is a major influence on global temperature, and is currently the force driving warming"
Alarmist interpretation: "CO2 is the only factor that influences climate"
Interestingly we provided the same interpretation.
"We need to phase out our use of fossil fuels as soon as practical"
Alarmist interpretation: We determine what is practical and since fossil fuels are evil and corporations are bad, we need to get rid of them without regard to economic consequence because we have scientists on our side.
"Plants need CO2, and often do better in CO2 enriched atmospheres
Alarmist interpretation: Human emissions of CO2 will increase poison ivy and poison oak and cause crops to be less nutritious yada yada yada
"This model incorrectly predicted that aspect of climate"
Alarmist interpretation: That's OK we have hundreds of others and we should be able to find one that fits our needs.
"AGW can cause seemingly contradictory changes, such as more snow in certain areas"
I seem to have already addressed that one above.
To a greenie your examples are pure heaven. They show the absurdity with which the greenies abuse the English language to their own benefit.
Take this for example:
<"There has been no statistically significant warming in this time period"
"There has been no warming in this time period">
These are examples of minimizing a greenie being wrong. These sound like something James Hansen would say publicly. Privately he would say as found in the following article:
http://joemiller.us/2012/08/busted-leake...
"But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”"
So you see, most of the greenie language has built in 'damage control'.
Take for instance, Jeff M. When I called up:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
And show him that I used raw data and stayed away from El Nino in 1998, he still refuses to say the earth is cooling in the last decade. He says it is 'redistribution' of the heat. 'Redistribution of wealth' is one of the tenets of Communism. Could 'redistribution of heat' be the same?
Real scientists study facts. Phony scientists just manipulate words.
“He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals
Saul Alynsky was no friend of the US Constitution.
So we can clearly see that it is the intent of the greenie movement to get their vile agenda through, not by scientific means, but to control the language.
The difference is those of us who can think about a statement and consider it reasonably taking in pros and cons and excepting that nothing is black or white, compared to the extremist's and alarmist view that AGW is a religion and any words against it is blasphemy.
"Let's help the little dears out, shall we?"
No thanks. But if you want to "explain" to neo-Nazi nitwits the difference between
"We don't know exactly how many died in the Holocaust" and
"The Holocaust is an Israeli hoax"
waste your time to your heart's delight.
Some of the denialists here seem to have problems with reading comprehension. Let's help the little dears out, shall we?
I'm going to list several pairs of statements. Please explain the differences between the first and second sentence of each pair.
"There has been no statistically significant warming in this time period"
"There has been no warming in this time period"
"We need to phase out our use of fossil fuels as soon as practical"
"We need to immediately stop using all fossil fuels, regardless of the costs or consequences"
"Plants need CO2, and often do better in CO2 enriched atmospheres"
"More CO2 is always good for plants"
"This model incorrectly predicted that aspect of climate"
"Climate models are useless"
"CO2 is a major influence on global temperature, and is currently the force driving warming"
"CO2 is the only factor that influences climate"
"AGW can cause seemingly contradictory changes, such as more snow in certain areas"
"AGW can explain any and all unusual weather regardless of location, timing, et cetera"
Any similar statement pairs you care to contribute and explain? Any other thoughts?
