Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You

Sorry but I'm here to discuss a subject not each other. Once again have a nice day.

 

My favorite Global Warming lie:

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

 

:facepalm:

The claim that "these are the best arguments 'alarmists' make" is wrong.

The bat-death numbers are not wrong; they are simply irrelevant.

The idea that a heat-wave 40 years ago proves or disproves global warming is wrong.

Correct. A single heat wave neither proves nor disproves global warming.

The temperature trendline, however, clearly proves global warming.

Now, please concede the three points I made.

 

Strawman number one. Nobody said bat deaths was a best argument.
Strawman number two.The OP attempts to disprove global warming.
Strawman number three. Temperature trendline. The OP makes no argument one way or the other about temperature trendline.
Strawman number four. Attempting to shift argument from is man changing climate to does climate change. Nobody "denies" that.

Now try to focus. The OP is about lies told by Alarmist attempting to alarm others. Get it now? Maybe you would if you actually read it which you have so far refused to do. I have firewood to split and stack and while I'm doing that you can take a few hours to read the other nine lies. Good luck and good day.

 

Bats dying by wind power is very extremely important to me. I hate mosquitos and other pest insects.

And those solar dishes concentrating a beam that vaporizes birds -- I don't like that either.

And acre upon acre upon acre of solar panels making what was once beautiful land ugly -- I don't like that either.

 

From your OP:

While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make.

The article's first response to the bat deaths in Australia is to talk about how wind power kills lots of bats. Only then does it move on to discussing past temperatures. So how is that NOT claiming the bat deaths are one of the "very best" arguments?

I would add that even if you ignore the bat deaths and focus on past heat waves, somebody claiming a single heat-wave proves or disproves global warming is also nowhere close to being one of the "very best" arguments, because climate scientists repeatedly emphasize that it's almost impossible to conclusively connect any single weather event with global warming.

In other words, your OP is setting up strawmen and knocking them down.

Um, what? From your OP:

Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmist playbook

Admittedly, I am mixing up claims in the article in your OP and claims you yourself have made.

You wrote in Post #16: Fact remains you can't deny that it was hotter in Australia forty years ago

Oh, there are still plenty of people who deny warming is happening. But if you agree that the planet is warming, then you should have no problem agreeing with that point.

 

These arguments is plural your assertion that bat deaths is the best argument is a straw man. There's nine more lies you refuse to even read.

Umm what? Yes the article says there is no crisis and exposes the lies trying to manfacture one.

Planet has been warming since the last ice age ended and that's not the AGW debate that's the strawman. Debate is if man's warming the planet.

So that's it? That's your best shot to dismiss the OP?
Better luck next time

 

You said it, in the thread title and your first sentence. You parroted a fraudulent story and got called on it. Rather than admit how you fell for a scam, you're telling a bigger lie. Your OP could have originally been excused out of ignorance, but now you've graduated to deliberate dishonesty.

So why are you still pretending your bogus link really listed the "10 most powerful global warming assertions"?

Do you regret your role in pushing the fraud, or do you only regret getting caught?

Why haven't you responded to two of your points being shredded? People took the time out to address your trolling. You should be grateful.

Nobody is ever obligated to address a whole Gish Gallup. To refute it, it's only necessary to point out that is a Gish Gallup. Gish Gallups are the tactic of propaganda parrots. You use them regularly.

If you do locate your courage, we'll be here waiting to debate. Just pick a single point from your list, and describe the issue in your own words. After all, if you can't even be bothered to describe a point yourself, it's wildly hypocritical of you to demand that everyone respond with detailed essays.

However, you won't debate. Everyone knows your pattern. You'll now cry about how you "win" because everyone is being so mean to you. That's another way that you troll and run from honest debate.

 

I'm here to talk about issues not eachother bit nice try. Pick any lie the AGW cult tells listed in the OP and tell me how it's not a lie. Then we will have something to debate but don't try to derail the thread and troll me into a pissing contest. I won't bite.


Edit: I looked back at your quote and sure enough I said it. My error. I should have said and probably meant to say the best argument not a best argument. On that subject though feel free to to discount the bat deaths as an AGW lie and example of hypocricy.

 

Deleted

 

Here here!

 

Let's take an easy one, #4, the one about sea level rise.

Your source claimed that sea level rise is not accelerating. Your source lied.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating
---
Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.
---

Your source claimed that Antarctic ice sheets are growing. Your source lied.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
---
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is an important indicator of climate change and driver of sea-level rise. Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modelling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017
---

Your source seems to claim that combined Arctic and Antarctic Sea ice levels are steady. Your source lied. Both Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice levels are now decreasing.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html



3 claims, 3 lies. The point? James Taylor, paid Heartland shill, gets paid well to lie about everything, so that's what he does.

All the lies he told there have been debunked repeatedly. It's trivial to debunk them. It just takes time. And we don't have to take that time to debunk the whole list each time some true believer denier cult acolyte breathlessly posts them again. We only need debunk one claim, to show the speaker is lying, which discredits everything he says. Being that Taylor has been proven to be a liar, everything he says is now assumed to be a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise. From now on, you'll be required to provide evidence proving Taylor is _not_ lying before any of his wild claims will be accepted.

 

That's a good one alright.

 

Thank you for your efforts. We could have a battle of sources and call eachothers sources liars but what you see is there's a lot of different info on this subject and that's why many of us are reluctant to follow the AGW cult over the Koolaid cliff. The links to the verify the statements in the OP are in the OP but here they are again.

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1?code=cerf-site

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

And as an added bonus


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

Note that this article is from 2015. It matches up perfectly with mamooth's chart. Antarctica saw record high ice levels a few years ago only to have record lows today.

 

Err not to put a fine point on this, But do you actually know what the chart Mamooth posted is actually about???

Clearly the chart posted does nothing to support the position as it represents nothing of those positions. READ the Title of the chart for an indication. Once you realise it is NOT indication of ice mass or volume you will understand why it does not support the claims.

Honestly, this is one of the reasons AGW claim is disillusioning for those who can ill afford. Posting pretty pictures in an attempt to show some sort of support for an argument without actually understanding what they are posting or what they are claiming…

 

So global warming started three years ago? LOL The ice sheet ebbs and flows and every time it ebbs you scream global warming while every time it flows you say so what, just weather.

 

Because of the complexity of ocean currents and many other variables Antarctica is seldom used in modelling or prediction...the opposite pole is far easier and dependable in this regard as it has much easier access and obstructed ocean flows as well as far less ice mass to deal with. All indicators for arctic ice/temperature fluctuation point to thinner and less Ice changing albedo which has created a positive feedback loop now effecting land masses adversely. As we are currently in the beginning stages of what is likely to be relatively dramatic and geologically instantaneous climate changes any "Forecasting" is at best based on limited data and changing bases.
That said, it is mostly impossible to ignore the very many signs of atmospheric and planetary warming during a time in our orbit that should have a cooling effect.

 

Yes I do. If you track my posts on climate change you'll know that this isn't my first rodeo.

 

I'm just saying the NASA link you posted supports the position of that chart. Antarctica experience record high sea ice extents that were immediately followed record low extents. The NASA article does not call out the present record low extents because they occurred after the publication date.

By the way, why are you posting stuff from NASA? I thought you held the position that they disseminate fake data and that they are frauds. No? Am I thinking of someone else?

 

Your source, paid Heartland shill James Taylor, is a liar. That's not debatable. In stark contrast, none of our sources lie. The two sides are completely different that manner.

What I read from that is how we're here to discuss the topic, while you're here to toss insults.

Cherrypicking fallacy. Most studies show acceleration, but you cherrypick the one that agrees with you and don't even mention that the others exist. I, OTOH, go with the consensus science.

A dead link. You clearly don't even look at the sources you reference. You just BELIEVE.

Cherrypicking fallacy again. Zwally disagrees with every other study, yet you focused entirely on Zwally, and didn't mention what the consensus science said.

 

We certainly understand it. What did you think it was about?

A fine attempt at a goalpost shift. However, I still scored decisively on the real playing field. Paid Heartland shill James Taylor said that total sea ice extent was decreasing, and he referenced an _extent_ map (though the link is dead now) to supposedly prove it.

In reply, I posted a graph showing extent is down for both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, meaning Taylor was wrong. Even prior to the 2017 Antarctic plunge, Taylor was still wrong, as the combined Arctic/Antarctic sea ice total was still decreasing. Note that we both referenced extent. I'm comparing apples to apples.

The topic, as defined by Taylor, was extent, but, best I can tell, you're saying the topic is volume. So, first you've got an apples vs. oranges fallacy going. And second, it's a silly thing to complain about, as volume is very closely related to extent. I could find volume graphs that show the same combined sea ice decrease.

So, I think I proved my point conclusively with hard evidence. If you think otherwise, please explain yourself.

Antarctica is interesting. Back in 1991, Dr. Suki Manabe, the father of global warming computer modeling, predicted that Antarctic sea ice levels would first increase, due to freshwater runoff from the continent making freezing easier, but would later decline, as warming ocean waters overwhelmed the freshening effect. That's what we've seen happening. So, another stunning success for AGW theory.

 

So clearly you don't, thanks for that. I didn't want to waste my time talking with somebody who simply avoides the reality .

 

Well I could run about demanding you show exactly how this supported your premise of how this chart supports total amount of sea ice decrease your increase or mass or density but from your next comment we see you just picked a pretty picture that you thought supported your agruement and posted it as hard fact... IT IS NOT.

Honestly, I don’t know what goal posts I am shifting but the fact remains you posted a graph laying claim to what it indicates and I am pointing out your incorrect. I decided to do so because so many people post charts claiming this and that of them and a majority are exactly what you posted here.


Now to your corroborating evidence, Ego the link, NO link can be provided to show this chart represents anything to do with ice density, mass or even trend as it is a chart that is about the accuracy of measurement, not measurement. SO your score on the real playing field is not the point you make but a point of either attempting to be deceptive or flat out ignorance. You can let us know later.

No you posted a chart YOU think shows that and claimed it demonstrates somebody else is wrong. The fact is, your chart does nothing of the sort.


You posted a chart of Artic/Antarctic standardized anomaly and trend cross referenced with Artic/Antarctic standardized anomaly.


SO you do know that this chart is a chart of anomalies between measurements of subjective predictions and observations??? Now I know you are now going to hang onto the principle that these anomalies are based in some sort of fact and you can posts links and claims that you think shows the truth of your claim. The fact remains, this chart is a chart of anomalies.

Now I know you are also going to say it shows trends of the anomalies being an indication of the reality but again, that to would be fabrication. As it shows a trend of anomalies not actual measurements.

OK, so can you please explain how fabricating evidence as facts is more than deceptive behaviour???
Again, when people try to pass off lies and innuendo was facts to support an argument, all you do is set it back. Which as I originally posted, when you use lies you lose crediblity and support.

 

Oh, so this is a test?

This is not a chart showing ice density, mass, or volume. The chart is plotting extents. That is a different metric with different units. Note that densities have units of mass per volume (like kg/m^3). And extents have units of area (like km^2).

Quick quiz...

When sea ice melts does it raise or lower the sea level? Why or why not?

Why is sea ice extent an important metric to track?

That chart shows exactly what mamooth and the entirety of the scientific community claims. I think it is you who are confused as to what this chart is.

That's not correct. Like, not even close. This an anomaly chart alright, but it has nothing to do with predictions. The words "standarized" and "anomaly" have special meanings. Standarized is used in the context of the standard deviation calculation. Anomaly is used in the context that the data is relative to something. Specifically the chart is plotting the standard deviation of observations and only observations relative to the 1980-2010 mean. No predictions whatsoever are included in this chart. This chart represents exactly what has been observed to have occurred at both poles. This is pure reality.

Umm...this chart is showing reality. It is showing actual measurements scaled in terms of "standardized anomalies" or in units of standard deviations relative the 1980-2010 mean.

What evidence has been fabricated? You can download the raw data at the following link and see for yourself. Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents are at record lows. Specifically, the 12 month moving average of both are more than 2σ below the mean That is a fact. That is reality.

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/sea-ice-tools/

Usually I give people a pass when they get things wrong, but in your case I'm calling you out on this because of your arrogance. You accuse us of misinterpreting and not understanding what we're looking at and you summarily botch the whole thing.