Question for AGW Believers: Are you glad you were wrong about the impending doom?

Well I can only answer from the opposite point of view, am I glad that the warming did not occur?

Yes and no, yes because it proves these (jump on the bandwagon the end of the world is nigh) politicians are wrong, and it shows how easy it is to be misled by propaganda.

No because the world would be a better place with a bit of warming, life requires energy to flourish and warmth is energy.

>> in the 5% area of the 95-5% confidence level<<

We, at least, understand the meaning of confidence levels.

How does it make you feel that every mean global temperature for the last 17 years has fallen in either the 0-5% or 5-10% range of the empirical distribution? [It probably does not make you feel anything since you don’t have a fcking clue what that means, either.]

============================================================================

BB –

>> Gryph.....Skeptics are still waiting for Alarmists to come up with "a peer reviewed paper, written by a climatologist, published in a professional journal, that supports [Alarmist's] lame belief" [in CAGW].......AND based on scientific data that has not been falsified, corrupted/manipulated. <<

Not a single piece of data has ever been manipulated, corrupted, falsified, or lost. The paper-record of every temperature measurement, etc., ever used still exists. If there had been any attempt at falsification, nothing would be easier to demonstrate. There is a reason that no such demonstration has ever been provided.

>>The 'hockey stick, tree-ring, climategate email scandals and attempted cover-ups, exposed the corruption that exists in the field of climate science.<<

Those “scandals and cover-ups” do not exist in the real world. They are creations of and exist only in the delusional and dysfunctional brains of scientifically illiterate and intellectually bankrupt Deniers.

If there was a shred of truth in any of your lies, Senator Inhofe would have called a Congressional hearing and yanked every suspect of every alleged misdeed in to be investigated and questioned. That has not happened for the simple reason that Inhofe is not stupid enough to actually put himself in a situation where facts and scientific evidence could be used as evidence.

>>The burden of proof has always been on the Alarmist camp and to date....there has been none!<<

Neither “proof” nor “burden of proof” exists in science. Your ignorance of science dose not count as an argument against science.

You are several years behind the curve. AGW is the accepted scientific theory – just like gravity and electricity. It is now up to Deniers to provide a superior explanatory model (aka scientific theory).

I find the "impending doom" that I'm most worried about is the continued ignorance of science by people such as yourself, and worse than that, so many people seem to revel in their ignorance, like a stupidity badge of honor.

In the United States we have an entire political party based on being stupid--they voted for a "continuing resolution" today that they realize will go absolutely nowhere. Brilliant.

What "impending doom are you talking about" That taxing undesirable things like pollution while giving tax breaks on personal income is going to destroy the economy?

Altering the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change the heat retention levels on earth, only a complete moron would think this has no effect. Although there are plenty on yahoo answers. (not just this section) A few have even argued that earth has a thermostat and that their god has his hand on the thermostat.

Even suggesting that we stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies with our tax dollar (and spend it on science education or helping the poor) is abhorrent in their sick minds.

Edit:

Haha, this is just too funny, there is nothing factually wrong about anything I posted, yet it got 4 thumbs down. Thank you for proving my point yet again, your mental age truly is between 7 and 12

And yes JimZ, You are the one who is clearly lacking the education; For a real world example we can look at Australia where the previous government implemented a carbon tax and cut income taxes at the same time. But that doesn't fit in with your (alarmist) ideology and the medical term for it is cognitive dissonance, I still think the term moron is a better descriptive of the affliction, even though it is politically incorrect.

Furthermore axing the carbon tax as the new government has proposed won’t cut power bills for two years.

And you claim to be a "scientist" Jim Z? Really? Thanks for the laugh though ;)

I am no believer. As a scientists, I steer away from "belief" in anything as much as possible. It is best to look at the evidence and try to assess how likely something is and not to decide which side to believe. Clearly most alarmist believe in their cause as demonstrated by the first two answers.

FSM is a good example of the education you get listening only the to the MSM. We are getting tax breaks on personal income? I guess I better redo my turbotax. We are actually subsidizing so called alternative fuels yet he hates corporations so much he thinks he is punishing them somehow. If Exxon pays more taxes, it is just passed on to FSM to pay. I just don't live my life being jealous or angry about others making profits. It is a sad commentary that we have so many people that do. Those are the ones who should be most embarrassed IMO.

Gryph.....Skeptics are still waiting for Alarmists to come up with "a peer reviewed paper, written by a climatologist, published in a professional journal, that supports [Alarmist's] lame belief" [in CAGW].......AND based on scientific data that has not been falsified, corrupted/manipulated.

The 'hockey stick, tree-ring, climategate email scandals and attempted cover-ups, exposed the corruption that exists in the field of climate science.

The burden of proof has always been on the Alarmist camp and to date....there has been none!

"From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public."

Should you have the false impression that rising levels of anthropogenic CO2 in our atmosphere will somehow defy the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics then I am afraid that you are in for a rude awakening. Should you also have the false impression any agw will be held to within the range that it will have no adverse effects on the majority of life on this planet, then you are in for a rude awakening. Should you have anything other than a "gut feeling" that it ain't gonna be so bad then I would love to see the peer reviewed, scientific studies that would support your gut feeling. Until you can do so then I would advise you to do this - hope for the best, buy prepare for the worst. I would also add that you need to hope that any preparations you would make for the worst would be sufficient.

Personally, I would be elated to discover that the AGWT was all a big hoax perpetrated upon us by lying scientist hoping to gain control of the world through their fear mongering tactics. Somehow I find that difficult to accept. I also find it difficult to accept the mental disconnect that so many have when they prefer to believe the fossil fuel industries when they tell us all is fine. We come in peace. We mean you no harm. ... Except for the fact that Rex Tillerson (Exxon/Mobil CEO) has already stated that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet. He then suggests that we can adapt. He does not say how. He offers none of the company engineers to assist us towards adaptation. He also never says who "we" is. Wait a minute. Rex Tillerson isn't a lying scientist. He is the manger of the world's largest company. He also heads a fossil fuel industry based company. So, why is Rex Tillerson in agreement with climatologist that adding more CO2 into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels will cause the planet to warm? Simple. Rex Tillerson is not stupid. He just hopes that he can convince enough stupid people to allow him to continue with his practices of producing more fossil fuels for us to burn. .. Wait a minute. Doesn't he make a LOT of money when he does this? ... I am just amazed at how many stupid people there are in this world and that the U.S. seems to have the highest per capita numbers of them!!! ... I guess it just goes to show that clinging to an ideology can be a really stupid thing to do!

One last thing to all of you that wish to bash the IPCC. When you watch the video below you will hear Rex Tillerson state that Exxon/Mobil is a part of the review process for the IPCC reports. Kinda puts a lump in your throat doesn't it? Just knowing that one of your favorite stars participates in the review of the IPCC reports that you so heavily question and bring into doubt.

I haven't seen any doom predictions really. Only that there could and likely will be catastrophic events.

You can change the fact that AGW is a reality and that the planet has been warming. I am still waiting for one of you DA deniers to come up with a peer reviewed paper, written by a climatologist, published in a professional journal, that supports denier's lame belief

Your in denial