Discussion:
Watts Backpedals from "Pause" Talking Point In Anticipation of El Nino
(too old to reply)
Bret Cahill
2014-06-06 15:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."

Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.


Bret Cahill
Tunderbar
2014-06-06 15:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
gordo
2014-06-06 16:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
Post by Bret Cahill
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Tunderbar
2014-06-06 17:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gordo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni�o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
gordo
2014-06-06 19:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
I can show where he lied about his funding thanks to Dr. Gleick the
gift that just keeps giving.
Tunderbar
2014-06-06 20:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gordo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.

A lot of people were disappointed with Muller, including a lot of highly respected scientists.
Post by gordo
I can show where he lied about his funding thanks to Dr. Gleick the
gift that just keeps giving.
Then show me. Link. Cite. I'm calling you on this one.
gordo
2014-06-07 03:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.
A lot of people were disappointed with Muller, including a lot of highly respected scientists.
Post by gordo
I can show where he lied about his funding thanks to Dr. Gleick the
gift that just keeps giving.
Then show me. Link. Cite. I'm calling you on this one.
It has been posted too many times for me to worry about you calling me
on it. Fact; Watts said he would accept the BEST findings and he lied
because he does not accept them. Fact he claimed he received no
funding from dirty coal but the revelations from Dr. Gleick proved
otherwise. Get your fellow denier Chompsky to do the internet mining
for you, if you do not know how to do it.
Tunderbar
2014-06-20 16:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gordo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.
A lot of people were disappointed with Muller, including a lot of highly respected scientists.
Post by gordo
I can show where he lied about his funding thanks to Dr. Gleick the
gift that just keeps giving.
Then show me. Link. Cite. I'm calling you on this one.
It has been posted too many times for me to worry about you calling me
on it. Fact; Watts said he would accept the BEST findings and he lied
because he does not accept them. Fact he claimed he received no
funding from dirty coal but the revelations from Dr. Gleick proved
otherwise. Get your fellow denier Chompsky to do the internet mining
for you, if you do not know how to do it.
Nope. Not good enuf.
Bret Cahill
2014-06-20 18:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
. . .
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
As Walter Cronkite pointed a "lie by omission" is still a lie.
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.
A lot of people were disappointed with Muller, including a lot of highly respected scientists.
Post by gordo
I can show where he lied about his funding thanks to Dr. Gleick the
gift that just keeps giving.
Then show me. Link. Cite. I'm calling you on this one.
It has been posted too many times for me to worry about you calling me
on it. Fact; Watts said he would accept the BEST findings and he lied
because he does not accept them. Fact he claimed he received no
funding from dirty coal but the revelations from Dr. Gleick proved
otherwise. Get your fellow denier Chompsky to do the internet mining
for you, if you do not know how to do it.
Nope. Not good enuf.
Even using the word "pause" in land or surface temps tacitly admits that the 600 mW / m^2 imbalance in radiation has been accumulating somewhere else, in the ocean and undocumented melted land ice and will, as certain as conservation of energy, eventually reappear in land / surface temps with a vengeance.

This is why Watts back pedaled so furiously on the "pause." He suspects the "pause" is over and will no longer be useful for HFUD.

The real question is why deniers were even using the word "pause" in the first place. Deniers should have been using the word "cessation."

A pause implies that it is a temporary event, a cherry picked time range that will not make it through the low pass filter that matters when it comes to public policy on CO2 management.
Bret Cahill
2014-06-08 18:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.
ROTFLMAO! Even deniers like to point out Watts' back pedaling!

No wonder Obama can make game changing steps for CO2 emissions!

Keep up the good work!
Wally W.
2014-06-08 18:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.
ROTFLMAO! Even deniers like to point out Watts' back pedaling!
No wonder Obama can make game changing steps for CO2 emissions!
Keep up the good work!
Duh!

What are the economic consequences for *you* in those "game changing
steps for CO2 emissions"?

Are you slopping at the trough of the AGW scam in some way? If not,
you should not be rejoicing over "game changing steps for CO2
emissions."
Bret Cahill
2014-06-08 23:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.
ROTFLMAO! Even deniers like to point out Watts' back pedaling!
No wonder Obama can make game changing steps for CO2 emissions!
Keep up the good work!
Duh!
What are the economic consequences for *you* in those "game changing
steps for CO2 emissions"?
Those with small carbon footprints need not worry much.
Post by Wally W.
Are you slopping at the trough of the AGW scam in some way?
No conflicts here other than being like the cows in the Chic-Fil-A ads.
Post by Wally W.
If not,
you should not be rejoicing over "game changing steps for CO2
emissions."
They'll create jobs and innovation in labor intensive green tech.
Wally W.
2014-06-09 04:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.
ROTFLMAO! Even deniers like to point out Watts' back pedaling!
No wonder Obama can make game changing steps for CO2 emissions!
Keep up the good work!
Duh!
What are the economic consequences for *you* in those "game changing
steps for CO2 emissions"?
Those with small carbon footprints need not worry much.
Post by Wally W.
Are you slopping at the trough of the AGW scam in some way?
No conflicts here other than being like the cows in the Chic-Fil-A ads.
Post by Wally W.
If not,
you should not be rejoicing over "game changing steps for CO2
emissions."
They'll create jobs and innovation in labor intensive green tech.
"labor intensive green tech" ... AKA: plowing with a stick.
<http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/ethiopia-southwest-ethiopia-omo-river-an-high-res-stock-photography/125208383>
Bret Cahill
2014-06-09 04:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.
ROTFLMAO! Even deniers like to point out Watts' back pedaling!
No wonder Obama can make game changing steps for CO2 emissions!
Keep up the good work!
Duh!
What are the economic consequences for *you* in those "game changing
steps for CO2 emissions"?
Those with small carbon footprints need not worry much.
Post by Wally W.
Are you slopping at the trough of the AGW scam in some way?
No conflicts here other than being like the cows in the Chic-Fil-A ads.
Post by Wally W.
If not,
you should not be rejoicing over "game changing steps for CO2
emissions."
They'll create jobs and innovation in labor intensive green tech.
"labor intensive green tech" ... AKA: plowing with a stick.
<http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/ethiopia-southwest-ethiopia-omo-river-an-high-res-stock-photography/125208383>
That guy may have me beat.
Wally W.
2014-06-09 05:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.
ROTFLMAO! Even deniers like to point out Watts' back pedaling!
No wonder Obama can make game changing steps for CO2 emissions!
Keep up the good work!
Duh!
What are the economic consequences for *you* in those "game changing
steps for CO2 emissions"?
Those with small carbon footprints need not worry much.
Post by Wally W.
Are you slopping at the trough of the AGW scam in some way?
No conflicts here other than being like the cows in the Chic-Fil-A ads.
Post by Wally W.
If not,
you should not be rejoicing over "game changing steps for CO2
emissions."
They'll create jobs and innovation in labor intensive green tech.
"labor intensive green tech" ... AKA: plowing with a stick.
<http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/ethiopia-southwest-ethiopia-omo-river-an-high-res-stock-photography/125208383>
That guy may have me beat.
What guy? Read the caption.

You question whether you have a larger carbon footprint than her?

No one should have a carbon footprint that small. Greenies want to
stop development. It is but one evil aspect of their agenda.
Bret Cahill
2014-06-11 06:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Ni?o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
. . .
Post by Wally W.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Post by gordo
Post by Tunderbar
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts. As opposed to you agw morons who make all kinds of unsubstantiatable wild ass guesses then have to try to hide the fact that you were all dead wrong about it all. He never has to contend with that kind of stuff like you guys have to on an ongoing basis.
Tunderbar statement about Watts is my laugh of the day.
Can you refute what Watts said?
I can show where he lied about accepting BEST no matter the outcome.
That was predicated on Muller actually being honest in doing the study and honest in the conclusions and honest in presenting the conclusions.
ROTFLMAO! Even deniers like to point out Watts' back pedaling!
No wonder Obama can make game changing steps for CO2 emissions!
Keep up the good work!
. . .
Post by Wally W.
No one should have a carbon footprint that small.
Deniers trying pseudo populism need to remember Watts' back pedaling.
Super Turtle
2014-06-14 19:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Wally W." wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...


"labor intensive green tech" ... AKA: plowing with a stick.
<http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/ethiopia-southwest-ethiopia-omo-river-an-high-res-stock-photography/125208383>


Brilliant! - this is exactly what will occur if greens get their way.

Without carbon based energy, we have to go back to using slaves to feed
people.

Super Turtle
Super Turtle
2014-06-14 19:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
They'll create jobs and innovation in labor intensive green tech.
Right, just like how this worked out in Spain. They reach a record 57% in
youth unemployment.

Spain's 'Lost Generation': Youth Unemployment Hits 57 Percent
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/spain-lost-generation_n_3344183.html

Of course Spain spent billions and billions on green programs - such
investment was supposed to be the country's future savior and again the
claim was jobs will come!

You cannot possible be more stupid based on examples of country's that have
poured billions into green black holes - the result time after time is
widespread poverty and no jobs.


Super Turtle
Bret Cahill
2014-06-06 22:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tunderbar
Post by Bret Cahill
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Watts has never had any problem with speaking the truth and basing his statements on actual real world facts.
If that were true why is Watts backpedaling?
Luke.
2014-06-06 16:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:05:22 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
What a dishonest piece of shit. If he's saying an El Nino this year
would skew temperature data higer, then he should admit the 1998 El
Nino skewed temperatures abnormally high. When you see 1998 as the
outlier it is, the "warming pause" disappears.
Post by Bret Cahill
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
Bret Cahill
Super Turtle
2014-06-06 19:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how
many years and months have passed without significant global warming.
Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - bring the long period
without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that
catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along,
etc., etc."
Gee, a solid frank statement, and you folks think such a statement is
backpedaling?

Too funny! - no wonder you folks NEVER stated or talked about no warming for
17 years?

So good solid honestly is now backpedaling? Well, don't you just PERFECT
embody the IPCC and Gore's of the world.

So NEVER state anything in public that you feel will weaken your position?
Sorry, us skeptics care about the truth - even if it not helping our cause!

This is what makes us different from the daily lying scumbags that post
about CAGW here day after day.

I mean day after day, year after year (for nearly 18 years), you ALL
failed to mention this pause?

The REAL question is why should we trust a science community that has FAILED
for
17 years to tell the public we not see warming for 17 years?

The VERY fact of being political correct is the VERY reason for rising
skepticism here.

Even the climate gate emails spoke about this pause and not seeing the
warming expected.
In fact it surprising that the skeptic community did not "key in" on this
email.
In fact its ONLY VERY recent has the skeptic community made this 17+ year
pause WIDELY known.

The result has been HUGE GAINS in the public growing skepticism about CO2
being so "evil"

Last week a well known and brilliant skeptic Dr. Ross McKitrick spoke on
this issue.

The best news? He CLEARLY stats that the pause is NOT the real issue here.
The BIG issue is the 17 year failure (and continued failure) of models.

In a nutshell, the sensitivity CO2 in those models is wrong and is not
anything close to IPCC claims.

Even if some return to warming occurs (gee, it not been doing that for 17
years!), the observed NO WARMING has VERY MUCH diverged from models - in
fact as Ross points out they have diverged by MAJOR amounts and the kind of
warming required to make up for the 17 year pause will have to be
significant and be significant for MANY years. In fact the really cherry
statement?

So much warming will have to occur to re-align with models, that is next to
impossible! So in this way we can safely state that models have failed.

I believe it was another 2 years, and at that point it will not become
reasoned possibility that temperatures will re-align to current IPCC models.

As for a strong El Nino?
Given that temperatures are already lagging behind 1998 for this time of
year, with such a late start it unlikely that we see much of anything record
wise this summer.

However, the diverge from models is a GROWING problem and models simply
reflect observed temperatures WORSE BY THE DAY!!!

Video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IiX8JDbLhh8

Super Turtle.
S***@hotmail.com
2014-06-07 01:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
there will be unprecedneted records, but as many in coolth,
considered globally, and that is no warmal globing
;that is a simple lack of trig & Snell's laW
Post by Super Turtle
Given that temperatures are already lagging behind 1998 for this time of
year, with such a late start it unlikely that we see much of anything record
wise this summer.
However, the diverge from models is a GROWING problem and models simply
reflect observed temperatures WORSE BY THE DAY!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IiX8JDbLhh8
Super Turtle.
Bret Cahill
2014-06-11 15:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Super Turtle
Post by Bret Cahill
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how
many years and months have passed without significant global warming.
Another strong el Ni�o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period
without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that
catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along,
etc., etc."
Gee, a solid frank statement,
A solid back pedaling statement.
Post by Super Turtle
and you folks think such a statement is
backpedaling?
With an impending El Nino hyping the "pause" looks like it's going to now turn around and bite deniers on the fanny.

Payback is a b----, ain't it?
Bret Cahill
2014-06-13 17:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Super Turtle
Post by Bret Cahill
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how
many years and months have passed without significant global warming.
Another strong el Ni�o could - at least temporarily - bring the long period
without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that
catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along,
etc., etc."
Gee, a solid frank statement,
A solid back pedaling statement.
Post by Super Turtle
and you folks think such a statement is
backpedaling?
With an impending El Nino hyping the "pause" looks like it's going to now turn around and bite deniers on the fanny.
Payback is a b----, ain't it?
<crickets>
Super Turtle
2014-06-13 23:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Super Turtle
Gee, a solid frank statement,
A solid back pedaling statement.
Really? Backpedaling means that someone has reversed a public position on
some matter.

So, if you think this is backpedaling, from what position is Watts
backpedaling on?

You have to quote and state where/when/what the position is being changed by
the skeptic community or in this case Watts?

So what position is Watts changing or backpedaling on? You have to quote and
show the original position of Watts, and then now how he changing that view?
Post by Bret Cahill
With an impending El Nino hyping the "pause" looks like it's going to now
turn around and bite deniers on the fanny.
I see no back peddling, but I have no reason to trust you or IPCC or the EPA
that failed to inform the public of no global warming for 17+ years.

Once again, you think a simple and frank statement is backpedaling - in fact
it just shows your love for dishonest people and withholding information in
general.

You actually think that making a simple statement is some how backpedaling?
Wow, you love of hiding facts and hatred of the trust shines bright here!

Backpedaling = some statement or change or heart or having to eat crow on a
previous position - what previous position about Watts are you talking
about?

You have to provide a quote from Watts under a correct given context support
any kind of backpedaling has occurred here.

Super Turtle
Luke
2014-06-14 13:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:13:56 -0600, "Super Turtle"
Post by Super Turtle
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Super Turtle
Gee, a solid frank statement,
A solid back pedaling statement.
Really? Backpedaling means that someone has reversed a public position on
some matter.
So, if you think this is backpedaling, from what position is Watts
backpedaling on?
You have to quote and state where/when/what the position is being changed by
the skeptic community or in this case Watts?
So what position is Watts changing or backpedaling on? You have to quote and
show the original position of Watts, and then now how he changing that view?
Post by Bret Cahill
With an impending El Nino hyping the "pause" looks like it's going to now
turn around and bite deniers on the fanny.
I see no back peddling, but I have no reason to trust you or IPCC or the EPA
that failed to inform the public of no global warming for 17+ years.
Once again, you think a simple and frank statement is backpedaling - in fact
it just shows your love for dishonest people and withholding information in
general.
You actually think that making a simple statement is some how backpedaling?
Wow, you love of hiding facts and hatred of the trust shines bright here!
Backpedaling = some statement or change or heart or having to eat crow on a
previous position - what previous position about Watts are you talking
about?
You have to provide a quote from Watts under a correct given context support
any kind of backpedaling has occurred here.
He's implicitly admitting there is no "pause" whether he's honest
about it or not. If he intends to downplay temperatures this year
because of a possible El Nino, then he must downplay 1998. If you
downplay 1998, suddenly there is no "pause".
Super Turtle
2014-06-14 18:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Luke
Post by Super Turtle
You have to provide a quote from Watts under a correct given context support
any kind of backpedaling has occurred here.
He's implicitly admitting there is no "pause" whether he's honest
about it or not.
No he is not.
Post by Luke
because of a possible El Nino, then he must downplay 1998. If you
downplay 1998, suddenly there is no "pause".
No, that not the case at all. I see you failed basic math here.

No one would use a simple slope from 1998 (well, ok a uneducated nut whack
job like you are!).

You start from today and go backwards.
You can now find several data sets showing cooling for the last 9 years.
In case you failed basic math, 1998 is 16 years ago.

And you don't find warming going back for 17 years using regression - no
one would suggest using a simple slope here.

You would be a fool to start at 1998 and no one is suggesting to cherry pick
some end point like that.

I have to wonder if you even graduated high school with such a stupid
statement on your part.

We not cherry picking 1998 - we starting from today and going back.

We don't have to even go back to 1998 - 1998 could have been a huge up or
huge down spike 1 year.

You start from today, and go back using linear regression.

You don't even have to touch or go back to 1998 you silly fool.

The difference here is we care about the truth and your side does not.

Why trust the climate community that for 17 years in a row failed to mention
no warming?

Why do you make such a act of faith in a community that continues to fly Al
Gore
around to speak on your sides behalf? And the problem is not Al Gore, but
the science
provided to Al Gore by your dishonest community that was used to make his
film.
The science community has to either stop supporting Al Gore and stop looking
the other way at their errors, or correct those errors.

I just don't get how you folks can come here day after day to spew out crap
and support such dishonest people.

Where are your posts discussing the pause? Oh right, say nothing and hope
people are ignorant?

You true colors shine bright - and it is the color of being dishonest.

Super Turtle
Luke
2014-06-20 13:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:59:25 -0600, "Super Turtle"
Post by Super Turtle
Post by Luke
Post by Super Turtle
You have to provide a quote from Watts under a correct given context support
any kind of backpedaling has occurred here.
He's implicitly admitting there is no "pause" whether he's honest
about it or not.
No he is not.
Post by Luke
because of a possible El Nino, then he must downplay 1998. If you
downplay 1998, suddenly there is no "pause".
No, that not the case at all. I see you failed basic math here.
No one would use a simple slope from 1998 (well, ok a uneducated nut whack
job like you are!).
You start from today and go backwards.
You can now find several data sets showing cooling for the last 9 years.
In case you failed basic math, 1998 is 16 years ago.
And you don't find warming going back for 17 years using regression - no
one would suggest using a simple slope here.
You would be a fool to start at 1998 and no one is suggesting to cherry pick
some end point like that.
I have to wonder if you even graduated high school with such a stupid
statement on your part.
We not cherry picking 1998 - we starting from today and going back.
We don't have to even go back to 1998 - 1998 could have been a huge up or
huge down spike 1 year.
You start from today, and go back using linear regression.
You don't even have to touch or go back to 1998 you silly fool.
The difference here is we care about the truth and your side does not.
Why trust the climate community that for 17 years in a row failed to mention
no warming?
Why do you make such a act of faith in a community that continues to fly Al
Gore
around to speak on your sides behalf? And the problem is not Al Gore, but
the science
provided to Al Gore by your dishonest community that was used to make his
film.
The science community has to either stop supporting Al Gore and stop looking
the other way at their errors, or correct those errors.
I just don't get how you folks can come here day after day to spew out crap
and support such dishonest people.
Where are your posts discussing the pause? Oh right, say nothing and hope
people are ignorant?
You true colors shine bright - and it is the color of being dishonest.
First, *I'm* not the one doing the cherry picking, It's *you* guys who
are hyping the 17 year "pause".

Second, 17 years is already too short to draw conclusions about
trends. Generally you need at least 30 years. Anything less would be
even more meaningless. In fact you can find several decade-ish long
"pauses" in the last ~150 years, but the long term trend is up.

Third, Al Gore derangement syndrome stopped being cool years ago.
Post by Super Turtle
Super Turtle
Tom P
2014-06-21 14:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Super Turtle
Post by Luke
Post by Super Turtle
You have to provide a quote from Watts under a correct given context support
any kind of backpedaling has occurred here.
He's implicitly admitting there is no "pause" whether he's honest
about it or not.
No he is not.
Post by Luke
because of a possible El Nino, then he must downplay 1998. If you
downplay 1998, suddenly there is no "pause".
No, that not the case at all. I see you failed basic math here.
No one would use a simple slope from 1998 (well, ok a uneducated nut
whack job like you are!).
You start from today and go backwards.
You can now find several data sets showing cooling for the last 9 years.
In case you failed basic math, 1998 is 16 years ago.
And you don't find warming going back for 17 years using regression -
no one would suggest using a simple slope here.
You would be a fool to start at 1998 and no one is suggesting to cherry
pick some end point like that.
I have to wonder if you even graduated high school with such a stupid
statement on your part.
We not cherry picking 1998 - we starting from today and going back.
We don't have to even go back to 1998 - 1998 could have been a huge up
or huge down spike 1 year.
You start from today, and go back using linear regression.
You don't even have to touch or go back to 1998 you silly fool.
The difference here is we care about the truth and your side does not.
Why trust the climate community that for 17 years in a row failed to
mention no warming?
Why do you make such a act of faith in a community that continues to fly
Al Gore
around to speak on your sides behalf? And the problem is not Al Gore,
but the science
provided to Al Gore by your dishonest community that was used to make
his film.
The science community has to either stop supporting Al Gore and stop looking
the other way at their errors, or correct those errors.
I just don't get how you folks can come here day after day to spew out
crap and support such dishonest people.
Where are your posts discussing the pause? Oh right, say nothing and
hope people are ignorant?
You true colors shine bright - and it is the color of being dishonest.
Super Turtle
Anybody using the words "regression" and "17 years" in the same sentence
doesn't understand statistics.
R Kym Horsell
2014-06-21 16:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom P
Post by Super Turtle
Post by Luke
Post by Super Turtle
You have to provide a quote from Watts under a correct given context support
any kind of backpedaling has occurred here.
He's implicitly admitting there is no "pause" whether he's honest
about it or not.
No he is not.
Post by Luke
because of a possible El Nino, then he must downplay 1998. If you
downplay 1998, suddenly there is no "pause".
No, that not the case at all. I see you failed basic math here.
No one would use a simple slope from 1998 (well, ok a uneducated nut
whack job like you are!).
You start from today and go backwards.
You can now find several data sets showing cooling for the last 9 years.
In case you failed basic math, 1998 is 16 years ago.
And you don't find warming going back for 17 years using regression -
no one would suggest using a simple slope here.
You would be a fool to start at 1998 and no one is suggesting to cherry
pick some end point like that.
I have to wonder if you even graduated high school with such a stupid
statement on your part.
We not cherry picking 1998 - we starting from today and going back.
We don't have to even go back to 1998 - 1998 could have been a huge up
or huge down spike 1 year.
You start from today, and go back using linear regression.
You don't even have to touch or go back to 1998 you silly fool.
The difference here is we care about the truth and your side does not.
Why trust the climate community that for 17 years in a row failed to
mention no warming?
Why do you make such a act of faith in a community that continues to fly
Al Gore
around to speak on your sides behalf? And the problem is not Al Gore,
but the science
provided to Al Gore by your dishonest community that was used to make
his film.
The science community has to either stop supporting Al Gore and stop looking
the other way at their errors, or correct those errors.
I just don't get how you folks can come here day after day to spew out
crap and support such dishonest people.
Where are your posts discussing the pause? Oh right, say nothing and
hope people are ignorant?
You true colors shine bright - and it is the color of being dishonest.
Super Turtle
Anybody using the words "regression" and "17 years" in the same sentence
doesn't understand statistics.
Anyone that keeps talking about "pause" doesn't seem to be able to run
a simple web program and/or understand the output:

Comparing GISTEMP and CRUT4 since 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/mean:20/normalise/plot/gistem
p/from:1998/mean:20/normalise/trend/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1998/mean:20/normalise/
plot/crutem4vgl/from:1998/mean:20/normalise/trend

Two groups doing different things get pretty much the same result.
GISTEMP is land/sea with polar adjustments; CRUT4 is land only variance smoothed.
--
John Christy thinks the coming El Nino will give us a new temperature
record, since it is superimposed on a warmer baseline than the super
El Nino of 1997-98. I'm not convinced, since we are in the cool phase
of the PDO, which favors weak El Ninos (like 2009-10).
-- A Watts, 10 Jun 2014
Bret Cahill
2014-06-14 16:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Super Turtle
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Super Turtle
Gee, a solid frank statement,
A solid back pedaling statement.
Really? Backpedaling means that someone has reversed a public position on
some matter.
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."

-- wuwt

Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.


Bret Cahill
Super Turtle
2014-06-14 18:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Super Turtle
Really? Backpedaling means that someone has reversed a public position on
some matter.
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how
many years and months have passed without significant global warming.
Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - >bring the long
period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that
catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along,
etc., etc."
-- wuwt
So where is Watts changing some position he had in the past?

He not backpedaling, but is certainly calling you folks a bunch of
cry-babies.

The pause for 17+ years still exists, and Watts and et. al still agree that
such a pause existed.

In fact really good temperature data shows cooling for about 9 years in the
USA

So if it has not rained for 20 days, and then I tell you on the 21 day it
rained by your logic that is a change in my position and I am backpedaling?

Boy, do you have screwball of a brain for such stupid logic and thinking.

No wonder you come here day after day to dump your lies and shit in this
group.

Can you possible reason and think any more stupid on your part?

if there is prize for lack of brain power you most certainly win first prize
to try and spin this as some backpedaling on a given statement and position.

Super Turtle
Bret Cahill
2014-06-14 19:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Super Turtle
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Super Turtle
Really? Backpedaling means that someone has reversed a public position
on
some matter.
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how
many years and months have passed without significant global warming.
Another strong el Ni�o could - at least temporarily - >bring the long
period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that
catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along,
etc., etc."
-- wuwt
So where is Watts changing some position he had in the past?
Why couldn't Watts have mentioned this 2 years ago when deniers first started hyping a "pause?"

Instead Watts sat on his duff, even encouraging deniers to hype "the pause" until the Kelvin wave appeared in the Pacific and Watts knew the cherry picked pause scam was up.

It was time to resume State III denierism ("look at all the yellow fin tuna off British Columbia") and Stage IV denierism ("species die all the time; gotta die of sumthin'.")
josephus
2014-06-17 13:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Super Turtle
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Super Turtle
Really? Backpedaling means that someone has reversed a public position on
some matter.
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on
how many years and months have passed without significant global
warming. Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - >bring
the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will
screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were
right all along, etc., etc."
-- wuwt
So where is Watts changing some position he had in the past?
He not backpedaling, but is certainly calling you folks a bunch of
cry-babies.
The pause for 17+ years still exists, and Watts and et. al still agree
that such a pause existed.
In fact really good temperature data shows cooling for about 9 years in
the USA
So if it has not rained for 20 days, and then I tell you on the 21 day
it rained by your logic that is a change in my position and I am
backpedaling?
Boy, do you have screwball of a brain for such stupid logic and thinking.
No wonder you come here day after day to dump your lies and shit in this
group.
Can you possible reason and think any more stupid on your part?
if there is prize for lack of brain power you most certainly win first
prize to try and spin this as some backpedaling on a given statement and
position.
Super Turtle
THAT IS SO MUCH HOCUM.

THE LAST TIME IT WAS STABLE WAS IN ONE OF MY DATA SETS. IT WAS
STABLE FROM 1920 TO 1960 AND WAS INCREASING EVERYWHEEE ELSE.

JOSEPHUS
Desertphile
2014-08-28 02:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:05:22 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years
and months have passed without significant global warming.
That would be zero. All human-caused warming has been significant.
Post by Bret Cahill
Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without
warming to an end.
What long period without warming?
--
"The ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state, such as the one we now have, is a
gullible dolt unable to tell truth from bullshit." -- _Age_of_Ignorance_ by Charles Simic
gordo
2014-08-28 16:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:06:32 -0600, Desertphile
Post by Luke.
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:05:22 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years
and months have passed without significant global warming.
That would be zero. All human-caused warming has been significant.
Post by Bret Cahill
Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without
warming to an end.
What long period without warming?
The long period where Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets Incredible
rate of polar ice loss alarms scientists.
Bret Cahill
2017-08-12 18:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
"Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Niño could - at least temporarily - bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc."
Stage I and Stage II deniers will have lost their "pause" talking point and Stage III denierism ("look at all the rain California is getting") and Stage IV denierism ("gotta die of sumthin'") will make a comeback.
<crickets>

Loading...