The Death of a Hoax

[palerider]

I believe the original statement was about scientists changing their tune, i.e., stating that global warming theory was wrong. The list of scientists who allegedly had done so started out with one who had not.

The issue is not whether the climate is changing. I don't know of anyone who has ever claimed that the climate should be static other than warmers. The issue is whether or not the activities of man are responsible for the present changes. As always, the discussion turns into an argument over semantics with you guys because no actual scientific discussion is possible from your side.

Obviously, I have a life, so don't spend time looking up all of the false flags. One is enough.

Gross hypocricy at its most blatant. You disregard all scientists who are not on board over one who, in reality is not even a false flag but continue to believe after climategate. How much more hypocritical could you possibly be?

Now, it appears, that you're saying that no one is claiming that the climate is not changing. It seems it is you, not the scientists, who are changing their tune.

Not only can you not discuss the topic intelligently, you don't even know what the topic is. The issue, once again, isn't over whether the climate is changing, it is over whether or not man is responsible.

and yet the first name you mention is "on the climate change wagon."

Do you recognize a difference between natural cliamte change and AGW?

The rest of the list, then, is suspect as well.

But all of climate science, in your view, is not suspect after climategate? Interesting.

 

[palerider]

99% of all people who actually study it say its real...even the Bush White Houses study staid its real.

I don't know of anyone other than warmers who argue that the climate should be static. The issue isn't whether or not the climate is changing, it has and always will be changing. The issue is whether or not man is causing the present change. Can you name anything in the present climate that is unprecedented or even approaching the outermost borders of natural variability?

 

[palerider]

Yes, all florescent light bulbs emit small amounts of UV radiation. That's why they use them in tanning beds.

Is that somehow related to global warming?

The mandate that we use them is most certainly related to the AGW hoax.

 

[palerider]

Either you're being dishonest, are having a senior moment, or a reading comprehension problem.... Let's go back to something Pale posted earlier:

Dishonesty, or perhaps abject ignorance is his stock and trade. Unfortunately, the same is true for all warmers as no honest discussion is possible from that side of the argument. If you are going to ride the AGW bandwagon, forfieture of one's honesty is the cost of the ride.

There's a difference between natural climate cycles (Pales position) and Anthropogenic(Man Caused) Global Warming (Your position) - Apparently you just can't tell the difference between the two.

Hard to tell whether being unable to distinguish between the two is dishonesty or ignorance.

 

[palerider]

Now, back to Palerider and his conspiracy theory: He is on record as saying that global warming is not happening.

Perhaps you should ban yourself for gross dishonesty.

Bring forward a post from me, in context, where I am on record saying that global warming is not happening, or apologize to me for misrepresenting my argument.

He has reiterated that position many times on this forum.

More lies. Again, bring forward any post from me where I have gone on record stating that the climate is static, or apologize to me and those to whom you are lying.

If his current position is that it is happening, but is not due to anthropogenic causes, fine. There is nothing wrong with changing one's mind, is there?

Again, bring forward a post from me stating that the cliamte is not changing or admit that you are a bald faced liar. As I have repeatedly stated, an honest argument from your side is not possible. You must misrepresent and lie at every turn. Now you are attributing statements to me that I never made.

Do you believe for an instant that I have ever stated that the climate is not warming when I, in fact, posted a graph that indicated that the earth will in all likelyhood be warming for a very long time to come? Sad thing is that in your mind, you probably do believe it and will continue to believe it even when you see that you can not find any post by me claiming that the climate is not changing.

 

[palerider]

He is on record as saying that global warming is not happening.

Since it is clear that honesty is not your thing, and it is a pretty sure bet that you won't make any real effort to find any post from me actually going on record stating that the earth isn't warming or that the climate isn't changing, I will bring forward the evidence of your baldfaced lies myself.

Here, from a post I made, to you, in 2011.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/thr...mate-change-is-real.14007/page-10#post-178691

I stated from the very beginning that the general trend for the past 14k years has been warming. We are, after all coming out of an ice age. That does not, however, mean that the earth is, at present, warming. While the overall trend for the past 14K years has been warming, that does not mean that all periods during that time have been warming. The little ice age for example which brought the Medieval Warm period to an end lasted till the beginning of the 20th century at which time it began to warm. At present, however, we can't say whether the earth is warming, at a temporary standstill, or cooling. ONCE AGAIN, the margin of error in the temperature record is to large to make any determination and the temperature record has been tampered with to the point that it is useless.

One can't help but note that in the link you posted in an attempt to give credit to your lies the topic of discussion was the lack of warming.

Here, also from 2010 in a discussion with samsara15:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/are-you-scientifically-literate.10719/page-4#post-138386

There is not the slightest bit of evidence that the general warming trend is in the least unusual and the medieval warm period, having been considerably warmer than present strongly suggests that there is not the slightest thing unusual about the overall warming trend we are experiencing now.

Here, from a 2008 discussion with 9sublime:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/global-warning-is-very-real.1734/page-7#post-29939

Put your brain to work for just a moment. The ice started melting back some 14,000 years ago because the earth began to warm up. The present warming cycle began 14,000 years ago with no help at all from mankind.

Does it come as some surprise to you that the warming cycle that the earth is in would speed up as the worst of the ice age is left behind? Does it really surprise you, in any way, that the earth would warm faster as the ice melts back further and further and is there any reason to suspect that since the ice has melted back some 2,000 miles, that the trend would cease when you consider that throughout the earth's history, the presence of ice is not normal. Look at this chart. It is accurate and reflects the climate cycles that the earth has been through.

Here, from a discussion in 2007 with bunz:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/gore-wins-nobel-peace-prize.1958/page-3#post-24580

I have posted this before, but I am going to post it again because I believe it is important that people realise that the warming trend we are in is perfectly normal. This simple (but accurate) chart shows the general climactic trends of the earth for the past 600 million years or so. You will note that for the bulk of history, the mean temperature has been so warm that you might not even have found ice at the top of Danali or Everest and as you can see, the period of cold that we have lived in has lasted longer than is normal. If you want to make an argument that the facts will support, argue that we are holding up global warming, not that we are causing it.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/gore-wins-nobel-peace-prize.1958/page-3#post-24629

Of course global warming is happening. No one that understands the science would say that it isn't. We aren't causing it, however, and putting money into trying to stop a global change is even more idiotic than spending money in an effort to stop a local natural event like an earthquake, or a tornado, or a hruricaine. We know what is coming, and honest scientists know that we aren't causing it.

From a 2010 discussion with orogenicman:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/thr...ed-by-conservatives.11504/page-16#post-144761

For anyone who has taken a good long look at paleohistory, the present warming cycle is not surprising in the least. My bet is that the average joe hasn't and really wouldn't even know where to begin, even in the internet age. I mean really, if you look at the graph I gave you earlier describing the climate history of the earth back as far as possible, if you were going to make a bet on what the long term temperature trend will be, would you put your money on warming or cooling?

From a 2010 discussion with citizen:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/bullet-to-the-head-of-the-agw-hoax.10561/page-7#post-136318

By the way, global warming is not false. Neither is global cooling or climate change in general. What is false is that mankind has anything at all to do with either.

Here, from a 2007 conversation with jeffbiss:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/thr...s-wind-and-solar-farms.1453/page-2#post-15665

Hello? The fact is that the temperature has been rising since the earth began to come out of the ice age that we are presently in. The ice has melted back over 2,000 miles and sea level has risen 900 feet since the present warming trend began. Your harping on a degree in the past 100 years is patently silly when put in the context of history.

From a 2007 conversation with mruniverse:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/global-warming.687/page-12#post-5658

There are those who say that the ocean (particularly the north atlantic) is the most effective carbon sink but since warm water can’t hold carbon as well as cool water, and the earth is in a natural warming trend, its ability to hold carbon is being diminished.

Should I go on? Because I can if you wish. Ad nauseum. Contrary to your lies, I am on record, over and over and over, stating that the climate is changing and that the history of the earth tells us that the general trend for the very long term future is going to be warming.

So now that stand before the forum a proven liar, act like a grown up and apologize to me for misrepresenting my position, in essence calling me a liar, and lying to all those who might read your post and actually believe what you had to say.

 

[Gipper]

It is not appropriate to discuss who was banned or why in open forum. Sorry, Gip, but that one had to be deleted. If you want to know why a particular member was banned, you can PM me, but I can tell you that no one has been banned, at least not by me, except for continued personal attacks.

Why don't you apologize to the banned member and beg her to return to the forum? That would be the gentlemanly thing to do and it would prove my conclusion that your liberal bias affected your decision to ban her, wrong.

 

[PLC1]

Perhaps you should ban yourself for gross dishonesty.

Bring forward a post from me, in context, where I am on record saying that global warming is not happening, or apologize to me for misrepresenting my argument.



More lies. Again, bring forward any post from me where I have gone on record stating that the climate is static, or apologize to me and those to whom you are lying.




Again, bring forward a post from me stating that the cliamte is not changing or admit that you are a bald faced liar. As I have repeatedly stated, an honest argument from your side is not possible. You must misrepresent and lie at every turn. Now you are attributing statements to me that I never made.

Do you believe for an instant that I have ever stated that the climate is not warming when I, in fact, posted a graph that indicated that the earth will in all likelyhood be warming for a very long time to come? Sad thing is that in your mind, you probably do believe it and will continue to believe it even when you see that you can not find any post by me claiming that the climate is not changing.

That was the position you took earlier. It really doesn't matter enough to me to go back and comb through your posts of the past, but I do remember this question having been asked before. No matter, I'll just ask it again:

Your current position is:

A. Global warming is not happening.
B. Global warming is real, but human activities play no part in it.

Just post A or B, no need for a long winded statement.

Then, please stick to one position. It really gets confusing when you shift back and forth.

 

[palerider]

That was the position you took earlier. It really doesn't matter enough to me to go back and comb through your posts of the past, but I do remember this question having been asked before. No matter, I'll just ask it again:

More lies. I never took any such position. I have shown you quotes by me stating clearly that the earth is, and has been in a warming trend for millennia datng back as far as 2007 when I first joined this forum.

Your current position is:

A. Global warming is not happening.
B. Global warming is real, but human activities play no part in it.

My position has always been that the global climate is, and has always been changing but the activities of man are not responsible. Even your question is dishonest as it suggests that my position has at some time been different. I have shown you posts dating back to my earliest time on this board stating the same thing as I am stating today.

Then, please stick to one position. It really gets confusing when you shift back and forth.

My position has not shifted and I have proven it with posts from my earliest time on this board stating exactly what I am stating today. Even when you are shown proof of your dishonesty, you continue in your lies. Again, since you stand before the board, a proven liar, be a grown up and apologize to me and all those whom you have decieved for your dishonesty.

 

[palerider]

Why don't you apologize to the banned member and beg her to return to the forum? That would be the gentlemanly thing to do and it would prove my conclusion that your liberal bias affected your decision to ban her, wrong.

Little chance of that. I have just proven that he has lied and misrepresented my position and he won't even apologize for that. Perhaps I will be banned for proving his dishonesty.

 

[Gipper]

Little chance of that. I have just proven that he has lied and misrepresented my position and he won't even apologize for that. Perhaps I will be banned for proving his dishonesty.

Don't be so hard on our old buddy. He likely does not comprehend or understand your position.

 

[PLC1]

More lies. I never took any such position. I have shown you quotes by me stating clearly that the earth is, and has been in a warming trend for millennia datng back as far as 2007 when I first joined this forum.



My position has always been that the global climate is, and has always been changing but the activities of man are not responsible. Even your question is dishonest as it suggests that my position has at some time been different. I have shown you posts dating back to my earliest time on this board stating the same thing as I am stating today.



My position has not shifted and I have proven it with posts from my earliest time on this board stating exactly what I am stating today. Even when you are shown proof of your dishonesty, you continue in your lies. Again, since you stand before the board, a proven liar, be a grown up and apologize to me and all those whom you have decieved for your dishonesty.

We had this same conversation on another thread. At the end, I posted, "So, we agree on one thing at least, that global warming is real. The only difference is that you think human activities have nothing to do with it."

and, at that time, you were quite adamant that we did not agree on that point.

But, no matter. It seems we're in partial agreement now, at least. No need, then, to bring up the tired old points about whether glaciers are/are not melting, etc.

What other tired old points can we bring up? Oh yes:

Carbon dioxide is/is not a greenhouse gas, and
Every scientific organization on Earth is engaged in a vast conspiracy to put one over on us about the A in AGW.

so, maybe we can go from there.

 

[dogtowner]

he didnt agree due to a very early point he.made that the purported increase was within the stated margin of error.

 

[PLC1]

he didnt agree due to a very early point he.made that the purported increase was within the stated margin of error.

Correct.
so, does that mean he does or does not agree that global warming is real? Now, he's saying that it is. Before, not so much, could just be withing the margin of error.

Not that it matters. No one is ever going to change his mind, anyway. It's just interesting to see how this issue can be twisted to support a conspiracy theory.

and, it really doesn't matter whether or not it is acknowledged to be accelerated by man's activities. It's not like we're going to do anything about it anyway.

 

[palerider]

We had this same conversation on another thread. At the end, I posted, "So, we agree on one thing at least, that global warming is real. The only difference is that you think human activities have nothing to do with it."

and, at that time, you were quite adamant that we did not agree on that point. [/qiuote]

No, and again, you dishonestly take the conversation out of context. At that time, as is true today, any claim of warming is far smaller than the margin of error.

But, no matter. It seems we're in partial agreement now, at least. No need, then, to bring up the tired old points about whether glaciers are/are not melting, etc.

Glaciers have been melting and advancing for 14K years. The have thus far melted back nearly 2000 miles. What's your point? That some small melting now is "unprecedented"?

Carbon dioxide is/is not a greenhouse gas, and
Every scientific organization on Earth is engaged in a vast conspiracy to put one over on us about the A in AGW.

Since there is no greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science it stands to reason that there can be no greenhouse gasses. Do feel free to describe the mechanism by which you believe it can trap heat within the atmosphere. And do try to find a better explanation than the completely uphysical and impossible bit of drivel you offered up last time.

As to conspiracy, again, you are being dishonest. It is my position that a few climate scientists early on set out to defraud and since then, climate science has been the victim of an error cascade resulting from that flawed initial hypothesis being taken as fact. You simply don't have anything like honesty in you do you?