"I am a climate skeptic who believes in global warming"

[SkyDekker 1,122]

rushmc

***

Quote

and you are an alarmist

Can you explain why Bill is an alarmist? Other than that he doesn't agree with you?

Has he made any specific predictions that called for alarm? Has he agreed with anybody who made predictions cause for alarm?

Why am I a denier just because he doesnt agree with me?

No because you have specifically stated that you do not believe man has any influence on climate.

You usually follow that up, once faced with facts, that maybe if man has some influence it is so tiny it can be completely discarded.

Hence, you deny that man has any influence on climate.

How does that NOT make you a denier?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

and you are an alarmist

Can you explain why Bill is an alarmist? Other than that he doesn't agree with you?

Has he made any specific predictions that called for alarm? Has he agreed with anybody who made predictions cause for alarm?

Why am I a denier just because he doesnt agree with me?

No because you have specifically stated that you do not believe man has any influence on climate.

You usually follow that up, once faced with facts, that maybe if man has some influence it is so tiny it can be completely discarded.

Hence, you deny that man has any influence on climate.

How does that NOT make you a denier?

these so called facts do NOT settle the science

I use the same tactic HE does but





its different

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Yes that is your reasoning as to why you deny that man has no influence on climate. I happen to disagree with your reasoning, but that is beside the point.

With that reasoning in place, you deny that man has an influence on climate. How does that NOT make you a denier?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Yes that is your reasoning as to why you deny that man has no influence on climate. I happen to disagree with your reasoning, but that is beside the point.

With that reasoning in place, you deny that man has an influence on climate. How does that NOT make you a denier?

you believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Remster 24]

rushmc

***Yes that is your reasoning as to why you deny that man has no influence on climate. I happen to disagree with your reasoning, but that is beside the point.

With that reasoning in place, you deny that man has an influence on climate. How does that NOT make you a denier?

you believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist

Ins't it great when you can redefine words to fit your worldview!

Remster

[SkyDekker 1,122]

rushmc

***Yes that is your reasoning as to why you deny that man has no influence on climate. I happen to disagree with your reasoning, but that is beside the point.

With that reasoning in place, you deny that man has an influence on climate. How does that NOT make you a denier?

you believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist

Uhmm no. I would think when somebody believes that such influence is going to result in some kind of catastrophy, THAT would make someone an alarmist.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

******Yes that is your reasoning as to why you deny that man has no influence on climate. I happen to disagree with your reasoning, but that is beside the point.

With that reasoning in place, you deny that man has an influence on climate. How does that NOT make you a denier?

you believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist

Uhmm no. I would think when somebody believes that such influence is going to result in some kind of catastrophy, THAT would make someone an alarmist.

It does not matter what you think here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Why am I a denier just because he doesnt agree with me?

You are not a denier because you don't agree with me. You are a denier because 1) you deny climate change and 2) you have said you are a denier.

>you believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist

In that case, you posted an article from an 'alarmist'* and said you "can pay attention to this guy." There's hope for you yet!

(* - using your definition)

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Why am I a denier just because he doesnt agree with me?

You are not a denier because you don't agree with me. You are a denier because 1) you deny climate change and 2) you have said you are a denier.

>you believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist

In that case, you posted an article from an 'alarmist'* and said you "can pay attention to this guy." There's hope for you yet!

(* - using your definition)

I can listen to him
He shows a level of tolerance and common sense not shown by many who believe

2
I do not denie that the climate changes
I do not think man has much influnce on said change
And I do not care if an alarmist calls me a denier
Puts us on the same page

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>I can listen to him

Ah, so you listen to alarmists*, and they show tolerance and common sense.

>I do not denie that the climate changes

You have denied it, several times. "No change in 18 years!" "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!"


(* - again by your definition. In the future I will use the term RMC-Alarmist to distinguish them from real alarmists.)

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

***>Why am I a denier just because he doesnt agree with me?

You are not a denier because you don't agree with me. You are a denier because 1) you deny climate change and 2) you have said you are a denier.

>you believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist

In that case, you posted an article from an 'alarmist'* and said you "can pay attention to this guy." There's hope for you yet!

(* - using your definition)

I can listen to him
He shows a level of tolerance and common sense not shown by many who believe

2
I do not denie that the climate changes
I do not think man has much influnce on said change
And I do not care if an alarmist calls me a denier
Puts us on the same page


Polly want a cracker???

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>I can listen to him

Ah, so you listen to alarmists*, and they show tolerance and common sense.

>I do not denie that the climate changes

You have denied it, several times. "No change in 18 years!" "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!"


(* - again by your definition. In the future I will use the term RMC-Alarmist to distinguish them from real alarmists.)

Ah
Back to that
so
In what context do you view this?
Data shows little to no change (in average global temps at least) for nearly 18 years
I can view that as no change
Where as you view a 0.02 change as something sigmificant
Maybe a difference in perspective?

And of course you are now dancing with terms
When you use the term climate change, are you referencing man made climate change? Or just natural climate change?
Of course most of us know that the term "climate change" was coined just so those like you, can use it to dance in and out of the topic to create confusion
I get it

And the only reason I use the term alarmists is so I can play your game
You love calling others who disagre with you, denieirs. (when your not overtly twisting thier words to create more confusion)
I thought maybe that name calling was in the rules of the game
Or
are there different rules for differnt players?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Another thing!

I can come up with NEW studies rather regularly
Studies based on data
Like this one

Quote

New UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature Data Show No Global Warming for More Than 18 Years

So we have, yet again, more reason to question the conclusions of th alarmists

We know that CO2 levels are rising
So, by your posts we should also have signicant increases in global temps, correct?
But we are not
Mulititudes of excuses have been put forth. All that I know of have been debunked. You know those papers that claim the ociean is hiding the temps and such.

And remember, Anthony Watts, the owner of the web sight I will link here, is and alarmists !

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/29/new-uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-data-show-no-global-warming-for-more-than-18-years/

Quote

uest Post by Bob Tisdale

Dr. Roy Spencer introduced the updated and much corrected UAH atmospheric temperature data in his blog post Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade. The new temperature anomaly data for the lower troposphere, mid troposphere and lower stratosphere are presently in beta form for comment. That is, they’re not official…yet. I suspect the update will not go over well with the catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming crowd. Links to the version 6.0 beta data are at the bottom of Roy’s post, which also contains a detailed discussion of the updates. So if you have questions, please ask them at Roy Spencer’s blog through the above link. This post is a simple data presentation.

The version 6.0 beta temperature anomaly data for the lower troposphere used in this post are here.

In this post, we’ll take a quick look at the new UAH version 6.0 beta lower troposphere temperature anomaly data, comparing it to:

the current UAH version 5.6 data
the RSS lower troposphere temperature data.
But first…

BASED ON LINEAR TRENDS, THE NEW UAH LOWER TROPOSPHERE TEMPERATURE DATA SHOW NO WARMING FOR 18+ YEARS, LIKE RSS

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

And remember, Anthony Watts, the owner of the web sight I will link here, is and alarmists !

lol

[billvon 2,400]

>In what context do you view this?

On a long scale, over decades.

>Data shows little to no change (in average global temps at least) for nearly 18 years
>I can view that as no change
>Where as you view a 0.02 change as something sigmificant
>Maybe a difference in perspective?

First a difference in data. 18 years ago (1997) the average temperature was .52C/.94F above average for 1901-2000. Last year the average temperature was .69C/1.24F above average. That's a difference of .3F, not .02 (F or C.)

(Or if you really meant 17 years, going back to 1998, then the difference is .09F, again not .02, C or F.)

(Go here:https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php if you'd like to check for yourself)

Second a difference in timing. If there is a really hot (or really cold) month it matters little. If there is a really hot (or cold) year it's more significant but not a climate change identifier. But if decades show a warming trend, then it is significant from a climate perspective. And the warmest decade on record was 2000-2009. The second warmest was 1990-1999. The third warmest was 1980-1989. And so on. That's why we know we are seeing a long term increase in temperatures.

Next year might only be the third warmest on record. Or it might be the warmest by a large margin again, due to this year's odd El Nino. Again, that doesn't matter. What does matter is that we are again on track to have the warmest decade in recorded history.

>When you use the term climate change, are you referencing man made climate
>change? Or just natural climate change?

Climate change includes AGW, which is man made warming due to greenhouse gases and land use changes.

>And the only reason I use the term alarmists is so I can play your game
>You love calling others who disagre with you, denieirs.

No, there are very few people I refer to that way. I refer to you that way primarily because you call yourself a denier, and secondarily because the one common characteristic of all your posts is denial.

Lawrocket? I argue with him all the time. He's certainly not a denier. Winsor? Again, not a denier. Nor is the guy who you quote in the OP above.

(However, if the term "denier" really offends you, I am willing to change the term to "denialist" which apparently is a more PC term.)

>I thought maybe that name calling was in the rules of the game
>Or are there different rules for differnt players?

Nope.

What about you? Are the rules different for this guy you quoted in your first post, just because you agree with him? Or do you just make up rules as you go along?

[Remster 24]

SkyDekker

Quote

And remember, Anthony Watts, the owner of the web sight I will link here, is and alarmists !

lol

That clarifies things.

Remster

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>In what context do you view this?

On a long scale, over decades.

>Data shows little to no change (in average global temps at least) for nearly 18 years
>I can view that as no change
>Where as you view a 0.02 change as something sigmificant
>Maybe a difference in perspective?

First a difference in data. 18 years ago (1997) the average temperature was .52C/.94F above average for 1901-2000. Last year the average temperature was .69C/1.24F above average. That's a difference of .3F, not .02 (F or C.)

(Or if you really meant 17 years, going back to 1998, then the difference is .09F, again not .02, C or F.)

(Go here:https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php if you'd like to check for yourself)

Second a difference in timing. If there is a really hot (or really cold) month it matters little. If there is a really hot (or cold) year it's more significant but not a climate change identifier. But if decades show a warming trend, then it is significant from a climate perspective. And the warmest decade on record was 2000-2009. The second warmest was 1990-1999. The third warmest was 1980-1989. And so on. That's why we know we are seeing a long term increase in temperatures.First, define what is long term to you. Second, we have an observed decade with little if any warming according to the most accurate sensors we have. And, as lawrocket has stated, the temp increases are in question depending on which data set you prefer to use. The other thing, you seem to think that the data collected in the span of a life time is enough to indicate what is normal for the planet. I do not.

Next year might only be the third warmest on record. Or it might be the warmest by a large margin again, due to this year's odd El Nino. Again, that doesn't matter. What does matter is that we are again on track to have the warmest decade in recorded history.By your definition.

>When you use the term climate change, are you referencing man made climate
>change? Or just natural climate change?

Climate change includes AGW, which is man made warming due to greenhouse gases and land use changes.here is how you cover all the bases. you muddy the water by throwing this all together. You interchange natrual variation with what you think is influenced by man. You can not explain why the planet has had times of higher CO2 levels and temps and you dismiss these facts as something not to be considered. But they need to be considered. Why? If you do not consider those past data points then how can you claim that changes that are similar to what has happened in the past, are not just another natural variation? When I have asked this before you have stated that yes, it is true this has happened in the past but, not at the rate we are seeing today. Well, I just posted another link from Duke U that shows rapid climate change HAS happened in the past.

>And the only reason I use the term alarmists is so I can play your game
>You love calling others who disagre with you, denieirs.

No, there are very few people I refer to that way. I refer to you that way primarily because you call yourself a denier, and secondarily because the one common characteristic of all your posts is denial.Bill, I go with th e punches. This is no differnent than the hating Obama comment you distorted

Lawrocket? I argue with him all the time. He's certainly not a denier. Winsor? Again, not a denier. Nor is the guy who you quote in the OP above.

(However, if the term "denier" really offends you, I am willing to change the term to "denialist" which apparently is a more PC term.)

>I thought maybe that name calling was in the rules of the game
>Or are there different rules for differnt players?

Nope.

What about you? Are the rules different for this guy you quoted in your first post, just because you agree with him? Or do you just make up rules as you go along?

The guy in the op does not think that man is making enough of an effect on the planet to really worry about
I think it is less than that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

The guy in the op does not think that man is making enough of an effect on the planet to really worry about

By your definition that makes him an alarmist.

[billvon 2,400]

>First, define what is long term to you.

Decades. See above for the same answer, which you missed the first time.

>Second, we have an observed decade with little if any warming according to the most
>accurate sensors we have.

Incorrect. The last decade was the warmest on record by far.

>And, as lawrocket has stated, the temp increases are in question depending on which
>data set you prefer to use.

No. The same trend is in all the data sets. You can quibble over whether the increase is .12C or .15C per decade but no data set, anywhere, shows no change.

>The other thing, you seem to think that the data collected in the span of a life time is
>enough to indicate what is normal for the planet.

There is no such thing as "normal." There have been global ice ages. There have been periods where the surface of this planet could boil water.

However, we are living now, and thus changes now affect us and our children. Saying "well, the surface was 300C a few billion years ago, so what's 5C of changes now?" is asinine.

>The guy in the op does not think that man is making enough of an effect on the planet
>to really worry about

And you have defined such a person as an "alarmist." Is everyone who disagrees with you an alarmist?

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>First, define what is long term to you.

Decades. See above for the same answer, which you missed the first time.

>Second, we have an observed decade with little if any warming according to the most
>accurate sensors we have.

Incorrect. The last decade was the warmest on record by far.

>And, as lawrocket has stated, the temp increases are in question depending on which
>data set you prefer to use.

No. The same trend is in all the data sets. You can quibble over whether the increase is .12C or .15C per decade but no data set, anywhere, shows no change.No, this is not true

>The other thing, you seem to think that the data collected in the span of a life time is
>enough to indicate what is normal for the planet.

There is no such thing as "normal." There have been global ice ages. There have been periods where the surface of this planet could boil water. then how do you know for sure what is happening now is not just another varition in cliamate caused by nature? I will answer this, you dont

However, we are living now, and thus changes now affect us and our children. Saying "well, the surface was 300C a few billion years ago, so what's 5C of changes now?" is asinine.

>The guy in the op does not think that man is making enough of an effect on the planet
>to really worry about

And you have defined such a person as an "alarmist." Is everyone who disagrees with you an alarmist?

you are the one who like to tag names on people
you tell me

I am just following your lead

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

you are the one who like to tag names on people
you tell me

I am just following your lead

I think people are asking you to state what you think yourself, in stead of following along with what other people think.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Quote

you are the one who like to tag names on people
you tell me

I am just following your lead

I think people are asking you to state what you think yourself, in stead of following along with what other people think.

My term alarmist are for those who would state that we need to change and change fast or man kind will suffer

In the end, the climated change push has two main drivers
The biggest being more goverment regulations that bring them more money
The other are those who think they have to use goverment to push others to live as they (the tree huggers) to live as they think we should (but rarely do themselves) To me, they are puppets of those pushing this for the money

I do not think the author is an alarmist
He does not believe the changes will have much of any of a negative affect

Bill is an alarmist because he calls me a denier

I guess that is what I get for thinking on my own

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>No, this is not true

Then post a link to the dataset that shows no warming over the past three decades.

>you are the one who like to tag names on people . . . .you tell me

?? You posted your definition of an alarmist above. Were you lying? Or did you change your mind in four posts?

> then how do you know for sure what is happening now is not just another varition in
>cliamate caused by nature?

Because increasing AGW gases leads to more retained heat. This is confirmed science. Retaining heat increases temperatures. Again, confirmed science. The temperature is increasing at a rate commensurate with the retained heat. Both science and observation. Hence, it is not just another "varition in cliamate caused by nature."

[billvon 2,400]

RushMC a few hours ago: "believing that man does have an influence makes you an alarmist "

The author believes that man does have an influence. He agrees with the "well established methods to estimate how greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat, and that doubling of CO2 will reduce the heat leaving the planet by a little more than 3.5 watts per square meter."

RushMC: "I do not think the author is an alarmist."

I don't think you understand your own posts.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

My term alarmist are for those who would state that we need to change and change fast or man kind will suffer

Then you and I agree on that term now. Though I have to say I find it a little odd your definition changed within a couple of posts. What happened?

Quote

Bill is an alarmist because he calls me a denier

And the definition changed again for you....