253 replies to this topic

[Duquesne Frog]

So in other words you utterly failed in your attempt to rewrite history and disprove the well-established 70's global cooling scare? Wow, big surprise, you are wrong again. Kinda like your delusional claim that I said that PP is "97% abortions" which you couldn't back up either. Maybe one of these days you will make a claim you can actually back up. On second thought, I think I may be waiting awhile for that, lol.

BTW, I am still waiting for you to tell me specifically why the regressions I posted are "meaningless". Pretty bold assessment coming from someone who is too lazy or incompetent (likely both) to do his own research, preferring instead to frantically cut and paste irrelevant google searches to arguments he is losing. So man up for a change and defend your comments with verifiable facts - or just p*ssy out like you usually do.

Wow. Hard to argue with such rationality ...

You've long established that you're not interested in debating the matter dispassionately. You're paranoid and reasonably intelligent, always a dangerous combination, convincing yourself that you and a handful of like-minded paranoiacs have cracked the code on a vast conspiracy involving, literally, tens of thousands of independent scientists who study climate for a living, governments all over the world, the UN, George Soros, and fronted by the brilliantly insidious embodiment of evil that is Al Gore.

Neither Newf nor I (and Newf has worked far harder at it) have any hope of parting you from this faith in the vast conspiracy. You are perfectly capable of dispassionately studying the large number of widely varying across multiple fields of study that all point to a warming planet: changing climate patterns, changing migratory patterns, epidemiology, glacial retreat, rising sea levels, not to mention the actual sea, land and air temperature measurements for which you (and Watts/McKitrick) are inventing a whole new branch of statistical analysis that nobody besides conservative bloggers accepts.

Neither I nor Newf can shove your obnoxious head into the water. So I'm not really trying. Newf is beyond capable at arguing against your statistical magic. And it's patently clear that you're not interested in hearing any arguments otherwise. I pretty much decided to not waste a whole lot of my time with you after you revealed yourself to be a creationist, which pretty well sealed the deal for me that you're far more interested in rationalizing your own personal ideology than dispassionately understanding the science.

And I fully expect you to accuse the accuser here, claim I'm doing the same thing, except in a far more insulting and ad hominem fashion. But I really have very little interest in hurling insults back and forth.

As for the specific claims in this post, aside from the assassination of William Connolley's character, I've yet to see any evidence that indicates he's wrong about his assessment of the "global cooling scare." Afterall, the literature is open. Since we're trying to equivocate the modern warming "scare" with the 1970's cooling "scare" I'm sure you can find the same relative number of tens of thousands of papers from that era, overwhelming the academic research, offering solutions of dumping MORE greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to counter, etc. Should be easy.

As to your "97% abortions" accusation, no one ever claimed you said it, Frisky (and if you haven't noticed there are several on here who seem to have come to the conclusion that you are a bit fast and loose with your claims in a number of areas) likened your stance on PP to that of John Kyl who DID say that 97% of PP was abortions. But since you asked, here again is exactly what you said:

I'm not sure I understand why Komen was funding a group whose primary focus is providing abortions and doesn't even do mammograms. Seems like a bad allocation of funds for a group that is focused on breast cancer. Looks like they will pay the price for it now, unfortunately. They certainly will not get any more donations from me as long as they are funding PP.

Which was shown to you by others (not me) to be false, both in terms of proportion of procedures performed (really false) and in revenue earned (still false).

[NewfoundlandFrog]

..., aside from the assassination of William Connolley's character, I've yet to see any evidence that indicates he's wrong about his assessment of the "global cooling scare." ...

Actually, he's pulled this on a number of authors including Mann, Jones, Schmidt, Santer, etc. etc. etc. . My guess is he has a copy of Inhofe's black list plus others "condemned" on WUWT.

Basically anyone who actually publishes peer-reviewed, original research in relevant sources is a dishonest money-grubbing liar and only WUWT etc. has the truth. For which they presumably get no money.

[Frog79]

True...It has never warmed ever if you take enough care to show how "badly wrong" things are. Of course the fact that you must take such care ought to be indicative. Alternatively you could go to your jr. hi. math book and look up adding a linear trend to a cyclic function.

Gonna pull out the old "since 1973" crap again, eh? Or perhaps you could not cherry pick the last 38 years and look at the last 10,000 which show a cooling trend in spite of alarmists' best efforts to convince us that we are burning up. How a real scientists views global 'warming':

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Gonna pull out the old "since 1973" crap again, eh? Or perhaps you could not cherry pick the last 38 years and look at the last 10,000 which show a cooling trend in spite of alarmists' best efforts to convince us that we are burning up. How a real scientists views global 'warming':

Been there. Done that.

[Frog79]

Actually, he's pulled this on a number of authors including Mann, Jones, Schmidt, Santer, etc. etc. etc. . My guess is he has a copy of Inhofe's black list plus others "condemned" on WUWT.

Basically anyone who actually publishes peer-reviewed, original research in relevant sources is a dishonest money-grubbing liar and only WUWT etc. has the truth. For which they presumably get no money.

Lol, you try to rewrite history with one paper written by the rabid alarmist who got kicked off wiki for dishonest treatment of climate data. OTOH, I can, and have, documented the fact that NASA, the CIA, and dozens of major publications were on board with the global cooling scare back in the 70's.

Do you think maybe you could find a source from someone who has not been barred from moderating climate science articles to back up your crazy claims? Nah, I thought not. ;)

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Lol, you try to rewrite history with one paper written by the rabid alarmist who got kicked off wiki for dishonest treatment of climate data. OTOH, I can, andhave, documented the fact that NASA, the CIA, and dozens of major publications were on board with the global cooling scare. You are getting very desperate indeed.

Did you try the primary scientific literature you stated actually promulgated the "scare"? Oh wait, you don't do that.

[Frog79]

Wow. Hard to argue with such rationality ...

You've long established that you're not interested in debating the matter dispassionately. You're paranoid and reasonably intelligent, always a dangerous combination, convincing yourself that you and a handful of like-minded paranoiacs have cracked the code on a vast conspiracy involving, literally, tens of thousands of independent scientists who study climate for a living, governments all over the world, the UN, George Soros, and fronted by the brilliantly insidious embodiment of evil that is Al Gore.

Neither Newf nor I (and Newf has worked far harder at it) have any hope of parting you from this faith in the vast conspiracy. You are perfectly capable of dispassionately studying the large number of widely varying across multiple fields of study that all point to a warming planet: changing climate patterns, changing migratory patterns, epidemiology, glacial retreat, rising sea levels, not to mention the actual sea, land and air temperature measurements for which you (and Watts/McKitrick) are inventing a whole new branch of statistical analysis that nobody besides conservative bloggers accepts.

Neither I nor Newf can shove your obnoxious head into the water. So I'm not really trying. Newf is beyond capable at arguing against your statistical magic. And it's patently clear that you're not interested in hearing any arguments otherwise. I pretty much decided to not waste a whole lot of my time with you after you revealed yourself to be a creationist, which pretty well sealed the deal for me that you're far more interested in rationalizing your own personal ideology than dispassionately understanding the science.

And I fully expect you to accuse the accuser here, claim I'm doing the same thing, except in a far more insulting and ad hominem fashion. But I really have very little interest in hurling insults back and forth.

As for the specific claims in this post, aside from the assassination of William Connolley's character, I've yet to see any evidence that indicates he's wrong about his assessment of the "global cooling scare." Afterall, the literature is open. Since we're trying to equivocate the modern warming "scare" with the 1970's cooling "scare" I'm sure you can find the same relative number of tens of thousands of papers from that era, overwhelming the academic research, offering solutions of dumping MORE greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to counter, etc. Should be easy.

As to your "97% abortions" accusation, no one ever claimed you said it, Frisky (and if you haven't noticed there are several on here who seem to have come to the conclusion that you are a bit fast and loose with your claims in a number of areas) likened your stance on PP to that of John Kyl who DID say that 97% of PP was abortions. But since you asked, here again is exactly what you said:



Which was shown to you by others (not me) to be false, both in terms of proportion of procedures performed (really false) and in revenue earned (still false).

Somebody has their panties in a wad, lol. Nice rant though. So where is your explanation as to why my regressions are 'worthless'? You made the accusation. Now back it up or shut the f* up. At least you admitted that you were delusional when you said that I said that PP was '97% abortions'. Apology accepted.

You and Newfie sure know how to sling insults but neither of you can back up any of your bogus claims. But I guess that is what you do when you lose arguments on the internet, right?

[The Uniballer]

Somebody has their panties in a wad, lol. Nice rant though. So where is your explanation as to why my regressions are 'worthless'? You made the accusation. Now back it up or shut the f* up. At least you admitted that you were delusional when you said that I said that PP was '97% abortions'. Apology accepted.

You and Newfie sure know how to sling insults but neither of you can back up any of your bogus claims. But I guess that is what you do when you lose arguments on the internet, right?

Classy

[Frog79]

Did you try the primary scientific literature you stated actually promulgated the "scare"? Oh wait, you don't do that.

From Newsweek, 1975:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Now you tell me if that kind of rhetoric, which was common in the 70's when it was getting colder, constitutes a 'scare'. Anyone who was active in the scientific community in the 70's, such as myself, knows the truth. You, on the other hand, only know what you read on junk science blogs.

[Frog79]

Been there. Done that.

So then you don't deny that we have been cooling for over 10,000 years? Very good. We are making progress here.

[FriskyFrog]

Newsweek is not primary scientific literature. Since you were active in the 70s scientific community, I'm sure you will have no trouble sharing actual peer reviewed research publications from that time.

[RSF]

Wow. The jackasses seemed to have discovered parthenogenesis......

[Duquesne Frog]

Classy

Clearly, I'm the one with his panties in a wad ....

[NewfoundlandFrog]

From Newsweek, 1975: ...

So blame Newsweek, not the primary scientific literature.

[Frog79]

Newsweek is not primary scientific literature. Since you were active in the 70s scientific community, I'm sure you will have no trouble sharing actual peer reviewed research publications from that time.

Such as?

[FriskyFrog]

Such as?

Exactly.

[Frog79]

So blame Newsweek, not the primary scientific literature.

The primary scientific literature like a single paper written by a guy who got kicked off wiki for dishonest scientific practices? Yeah, that's got a lot of credibility.

[Frog79]

Exactly.

If you need a 'primary scientific literature' to know what global climate alarmism is then you really are beyond help on this subject. I'm guessing you are not aware that the peer review process is pretty worthless anyway, esp. now that the climategate emails documented that it was being used to silence opposition to The Cause.

[FriskyFrog]

If you need a 'peer reviewed paper' to know what global warming alarmism is then you really are beyond help on this subject.

If you think Newsweek is in any way representative of legitimate scientific consensus then you really are beyond help on this subject.

[RSF]

If you think Newsweek is in any way representative of legitimate scientific consensus then you really are beyond help on this subject.

Dilettante.....