Can "stardusty" defend his skepticalscience.com slander, or admit his bias based error? Answer is NO. (7/20/16)

DougC - Here’s a place you might want to spend more than a few hours on... http://www.skepticalscience.com/
… but it is still just a somewhat toned down scare site
Why are you calling SkepticalScience.com a "scare site" ? Using the word indicates you think they are extremist and untrustworthy. dusty, in the good old days you'd be slapped across the face with a gauntlet and a defensible explanation or apology would be demanded, expected and received. SkepticalScience] is a source for authoritative, reliable information about what is being published within the climate science community. What makes it especially great is that it's geared towards the intelligent layperson. It has also become one of the easiest accessible archives of climate science papers. An incredible resource for learning about actual climate science understanding. But you gotta gratuitously trash-talk the people, watt's up with that? >:-( Okay, that was rhetorical, of course I understand why the dusties despise them, they represent constructive education and striving towards understanding, that's like their mortal enemy. Ain't it dusty? SkepticalScience's articles provide clear descriptions, including links to the original work being discussed, so anyone can look at it first hand if they want. Their concise articles are followed by well moderated civil comments dialogue, sometimes they get quite interesting, even contentious, but alway along the lines of a "constructive debate" where you come out of it better informed, rather than more confused. Your words sound like that of a sniveling drunk with a grudge. Please sir, can you defend your words with actual links and rational complaints or are you simply echoing what you've been told to believe? Let's have it dusty, defend your accusation with some facts, particulars, links. :smirk:

Your goals were misleading, your tactics were deceiving and you would not stay on subject. Dusty on the other hand used basic logic. You did your best to bury the logic with a ton of crap. But in the end, it is hard to beat the truth no matter how much name calling and off subject data you use. You lost the debate, now are you licking your pride with this posting? Didn’t you understand anything Dusty pointed out?

No climate change denier can defend their claims in scientific terms because the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of human created catastrophic climate change.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
That's why all the climate change deniers here are really up to are personal attacks and mindfuks. You know, like any of your garden variety psychopaths would do when you consider how many people are already dying and having their lives destroyed by this ever growing disaster. Skeptical Science and the thousands of genuine researchers in the fields associated with planetary studies are reflecting the facts. Deniers are reflecting the contempt the fossil fuel sector feels for the rest of humanity, basically when any of them post here when you read between the lines all they're really saying is, "I hate you all, fuk you." I say, "Right back at you you soulless freaks."
Your goals were misleading, your tactics were deceiving and you would not stay on subject. Dusty on the other hand used basic logic. You did your best to bury the logic with a ton of crap. But in the end, it is hard to beat the truth no matter how much name calling and off subject data you use. You lost the debate, now are you licking your pride with this posting? Didn’t you understand anything Dusty pointed out?
Yes Mike, everyone understands the OP question. The problemt is that it is a true but misleading question. Polar glacier melt are not directly connected to humans, that is true. But that is an irrelevant question because polar glaciers mostly end up in the ocean, and for one, are responsible for the Gulf Stream.
Study: Gulf Stream slower than ever before and an entire ecosystem "If the slowdown of the Atlantic overturning continues, the impacts might be substantial," Rahmstorf said in a statement. "Disturbing the circulation will likely have a negative effect on the ocean ecosystem, and thereby fisheries and the associated livelihoods of many people in coastal areas. A slowdown also adds to the regional sea-level rise affecting cities like New York and Boston."
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/03/23/Study-Gulf-Stream-slower-than-ever-before/4131427138384/ These are the *important* results of polar warming. Thus the question as posed is misleading people away from the real dangers of polar melting. To say that glacial melt doesn't affect the human earth's water supply is a true but silly statement which has nothing to do with the real problem, which will be felt globally. The hubris that it won't affect humans is just wrong and very shortsighted. It will affect all life on earth, in ways we cannot even imagine. It is just a disguised claim that GW is nothing to worry about. Are you a denier also? If so, do you also believe the current concerns in climate sciences is a waste of time and we should just ignore it?
The Perfect Mixture, In Kenai Fjords National Park, the presence of phytoplankton is evidenced by the deep green color of the water. The phytoplankton is the food source for many of the zooplankton, or "animal plankton." An abundance of phytoplankton gives rise to an abundance of zooplankton. Some zooplankton and invertebrates are grazers, feeding strictly on phytoplankton or algae. The presence of great numbers of phyto and zooplankton bring the larger consumers to the fjords to feed. Consumers which eat other animals are referred to as predators or carnivores. They come in all shapes and sizes, from the zooplankton to creatures like the humpback whale that travel 2,700 miles from their winter breeding grounds to take advantage of the rich waters of this ecosystem. Organisms at the very top of the food chain, such as orcas, are known as apex predators. From the primary producers to the apex predators, the fjord estuary ecosystem is a varied and rich network. This complex web of life flourishes here because of the unique physical setting created where the glacial streams meet the sea. Understanding the links between the abiotic and biotic elements found in the fjords helps us to appreciate this unique ecosystem and understand our own role as visitors and stewards.
https://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/fjord-estuary-ecosystem.htm From a religious viewpoint, could it be that God is displeased with man's activities and excesses and is in the process of teaching us a little lesson. It won't be the first time that God punished man for his follies. I seem to remember another great flood and locusts. Prayer didn't help then, and it won't now, unless we mend our ways, if it is not already too late.
Your goals were misleading, your tactics were deceiving and you would not stay on subject. Dusty on the other hand used basic logic. You did your best to bury the logic with a ton of crap. But in the end, it is hard to beat the truth no matter how much name calling and off subject data you use. You lost the debate, now are you licking your pride with this posting? Didn’t you understand anything Dusty pointed out?
What the hell are you babbling about? Read the first comment, it is pretty damned clear. No changing goals or any of that jazz. If for once you folks could step out of your internal echo-chamber and actually listen to what's being said of asked, we'd all be way better off. Oh and let me point out as usual lots of word diarrhea, but without any attempt to seriously describe his complaint with specifics, or clarifications.

No kidding, “stay on topic”, what a load of denier BS.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
To say what the deniers here are claiming is scientifically unsupported is a huge understatement. Out of almost 14,000 peer-reviewed articles there were only 24 that weren’t in agreement with its reality, its cause - us - and how serious it is. That’s 0.17% of the science is in support of what these idiots keep claiming and 99.83% in agreement with what CC, DarronS and the rest of the people here posting the actual evidence have been saying.
That in the face of just how much money has been spent by the fossil fuel lobby to distort that science. So on the one hand we have centuries of science and data that supports just how real and dangerous climate change forced by human activity truly is. And on the other there is a vast echo chamber as described by CC. In that echo chamber you have the worlds puniest intellects who’s voices are being amplified 100 times or more to be heard over the completely compelling EVIDENCE of just how real and serious climate change is.

Let’s put this in perspective, the people who claim to know it all about Anthropogenic Global Warming and how it’s no big deal and who are not just asking but demanding that people who want to talk about the actual risk shut up, with psychotic comments like this;

stardusty psyche - I don’t know whether to characterize you as a frightened child, paranoid delusional, or a person panicked into acceptance of authoritarian nightmare political imprisonments. You want to imprison people for their opinionated speech. Are you an American citizen? If so, I must say, not much of one. No, not in this greatest of all nations, I won’t have it, and nor will the majority of my fellow Americans. So you can take your dreams of rescinding our great 1st amendment and put is where the sun don’t shine. “our species itself may go extinct." What the fuck are you even going into hysterics about? We are the most adaptable large species in the entire history of life on Earth. The planet is on course to warm a few degrees and the sea is likely to rise a couple hundred feet. How does that even remotely suggest all human beings will perish? Get a grip on your histrionics. You might die of a self inflicted heat failure but our species will not end because temperatures rise a few degrees and the sea rises a couple hundred feet. Get a grip man, you are wailing like a stupid little bitch.
Are doing it based on 0.17% of the evidence. They're basically trying to shout down those who are demanding we act on what 99.87% of the evidence says we must do to protect ourselves. It's why the entire world got together last year and agreed that it was time to stop listening to the criminally insane.

Trumpism

Your goals were misleading, your tactics were deceiving and you would not stay on subject. Dusty on the other hand used basic logic. You did your best to bury the logic with a ton of crap. But in the end, it is hard to beat the truth no matter how much name calling and off subject data you use. You lost the debate, now are you licking your pride with this posting? Didn’t you understand anything Dusty pointed out?
You wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you in the ass. BTW, where's that citation for the IPCC definitions of Global Warming v Climate Change?
MikeYohe - 13 June 2016 07:50 AM Your goals were misleading, your tactics were deceiving and you would not stay on subject. Dusty on the other hand used basic logic. You did your best to bury the logic with a ton of crap. But in the end, it is hard to beat the truth no matter how much name calling and off subject data you use. You lost the debate, now are you licking your pride with this posting? Didn’t you understand anything Dusty pointed out?
What you and Dusty don't seem to understand that both Alpine and Polar Glaciers are vital to life on all of earth. To say we don't get our drinking water from the poles is a meaningless and misleading statement, even if it is true. Actually we are currently mining the No. Pole for bottling drinking water. There is even a proposal to drag some icebergs to the continent, because they contain millions of gallons of the purest water, precisely because the lower ice formed long before man came along to screw it up.
Write4U - What you and Dusty don’t seem to understand that both Alpine and Polar Glaciers are vital to life on all of earth
Nope, Antarctica has only been covered with ice for 20 to 30 million years. It was inhabited by life before that, unlike now when almost all life is gone from Antarctica. If Antarctica melts life will move back in, it always does.
To say we don’t get our drinking water from the poles is a meaningless and misleading statement, even if it is true.
I am so sorry to be misleading you with truth. WTF?
Actually we are currently mining the No. Pole for bottling drinking water
Ridiculous. Ice on the North pole is sea ice, which retains significant amounts of salt.
There is even a proposal to drag some icebergs to the continent, because they contain millions of gallons of the purest water
Completely impractical. The energy costs are much too high. Vast amounts of water simply flows out to sea from our nations rivers. Pipelines are far more practical than some crackpot scheme of towing icebergs around.
precisely because the lower ice formed long before man came along to screw it up
New ice is not "screwed up". If it were your precious alpine glaciers would be no good, nor would snow pack melt, or ground water recharge from snow melt.

What an asshole, nitpicking while we’re all being subjected to the worst catastrophe in history and it hasn’t even got nearly as bad as it will.
Whether it’s massive wildfires that have become much more frequent and deadly worldwide, much more frequent killer heatwaves, megastorms that used to happen every 30 or 100 years coming every few years to wars with a climate change component and so much more. And much much worse to follow BASED ON THE SCIENCE, see above you idiot, you represent the 0.17% confidence faction.
But this complete psychopath acts like it some sadistic game…

CC - lease sir, can you defend your words with actual links and rational complaints
You had some goofy link with the usual drivel about glaciers. I don't recall where it is because I don't spend effort memorizing nonsense. Tell you what, find the link from that site that somehow in your mind refutes my assertion that glaciers on the inhabited continents are not essential to human water consumption and I will debunk it.
2. Icebergs are "calved" or form when a piece of a glacier or other land-based ice sheet breaks off. The glacier is made from compacted snow, which is fresh water.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/waterchemistry/f/Are-Icebergs-Made-Of-Fresh-Water-Or-Salt-Water.htm
World’s Purest Water “Without a doubt, the cleanest water I have ever come across" Steve Timuss, CANTEST Professional Analytical Services, Vancouver, Canada. What impressed a man whose business is water testing is the purity level of GLACE Rare Iceberg Water. Water purity is defined by its TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) content, measured in parts per million (ppm or mg/L). To classify as “pure", water must have less than 10 ppm. Virtually the only way to achieve that level of purity in unfiltered water is by melting ice or snow which has never touched ground. GLACE Rare Iceberg Water, harvested directly from the icebergs, is so exquisitely pure it measures only 5 ppm or even less. Quite simply, you will never have experienced anything like it.
http://www.icebergcanada.com/worlds-purest-water.htm
DougC - What an asshole, nitpicking
Oh I am sorry about requiring statements to be true and accurate prior to my acceptance of them.
Write4U - 2. Icebergs are “calved" or form when a piece of a glacier or other land-based ice sheet breaks off. The glacier is made from compacted snow, which is fresh water.
I am also very sorry you are obviously the victim of our educational system failure because you do not know 4th grade geography. I will give you a little remedial lesson. There is no land at the North Pole. Now run along and get out your globe and study it for the next lesson.
DougC - What an asshole, nitpicking
Oh I am sorry about requiring statements to be true and accurate prior to my acceptance of them.
But you are exempt from such scrutiny? See above how wrong you were. But I'm sure you'll weasel your way out of that one, as you do with every false or meaningless statements you make.

This is what catastrophic global warming looks like already.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/killer-heat-grows-hotter-around-the-world/

Millions of people around the world are experiencing a scorching summer, as records are broken and thermostats climb this week in parts of Europe. Temperatures in Paris and Brussels exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit at a time of year when 70-degree weather is the norm, according to Accuweather.com. In Bandar-e Mahshahr, Iran, temperatures climbed to 115 °F last week. The temperature, together with high humidity, felt like 163 °F to hapless people directly exposed to the weather, according to Accuweather.
That is the second-highest known “heat index" value ever recorded, said Maximiliano Herrera, a climatologist and weather aficionado who maintains one of the world’s most comprehensive datasets of extreme temperatures. The highest heat-index value ever recorded was 174 °F in 2003 in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, he said. The highest air temperature in an inhabited area was recorded in Gotvand and Dehloran, Iran, and Turbat and Sibi, Pakistan, in the 1990s, when the thermostat climbed to 127.4 °F (53 degrees Celsius), Herrera said. In June, Pakistan experienced a heat wave so severe that more than 1,229 people died. A month earlier, temperatures in parts of India climbed up to 113 °F, killing at least 2,500 people.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/intense-rain-bursts-rise-with-heat-forecast-more-flash-flooding/
The heaviest rain bursts within a storm happen when it’s warmest, according to new research that suggests rising temperatures could exacerbate flooding as intense downpours are concentrated into smaller windows. The analysis by two Australian engineers shows that storms are becoming more unruly. They’re prone to fits of faster rainfall during condensed periods of severity, and lessening rainfall during calmer, cooler times within the same event.
http://time.com/3959260/climate-change-wildfires/
Increasingly hot and dry climates, the result of global climate change, have led to a worsening of wildfires around the world, according to new research. In turn, wildfires are aggravating climate change by killing trees that could absorb carbon in the atmosphere. The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, finds that fire season has gotten longer for more than quarter of the Earth’s vegetated surface from 1979 to 2013. Overall, across the globe, fire weather season increased by nearly 19%. The trend occurred on all continents where wildfires occur except Australia.
http://www.livescience.com/49727-more-tornadoes-global-warming.html
Researchers examined how global warming will affect severe weather during the heart of tornado season — March, April and May. They found that while the yearly tornado total will climb by 2080, the number of tornadoes will also vary wildly from year to year. That's because sometimes, the weather will get stuck in a pattern that favors tornadoes, and sometimes, conditions will stymie stormy weather, according to the report, published Jan. 15 in the journal Climatic Change. "We see this trend in a lot of extreme weather," said lead study author Victor Gensini, a severe storms climatologist at the College of DuPage in Illinois. "Changes in the jet stream are causing the jet to break down and get stuck in these blocking patterns," Gensini said. "It just so happens it could be in a favorable pattern for tornadoes or a really bad pattern [for tornadoes]."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/
Drought, which is being exacerbated by climate change and bad government policies, has forced more than a million Syrian farmers to move to overcrowded cities. Water shortages, ruined land and corruption, they say, fomented revolution. Lack of work, along with ensuing violence, has prompted many Syrians to flee to Turkey and then cross the ocean to Greece. Hundreds of adults and children have drowned along the way. Climate scientists say Syrian droughts will become more frequent and severe, a trend that could expand across the Middle East and the Mediterranean region.
So far from the nice gentle transition to a slightly warmer world that the psychopath above keeps telling us is nothing to worry about, millions of people worldwide are being hammered by global warming already. Climate change isn't a nice smooth process, it's highly chaotic and people get caught in the destruction, up to 300,000 are dying a year already and things are still in the early stages. How screwed in the head do you have to be to not care about this, it's obvious these deniers know the facts, they have to to counter them so consistently. What they don't give a flying F about is how much misery and destruction of human lives this is causing already, they just want to turn into some sociopathic zero sum game where they're 100% right and the rest of us are 100% wrong. Even though the science and all the real world evidence says the exact opposite. There's a word for people who fundamentally lack the ability to care about anything but themselves, it's psychopath. Which is why it applies so accurately to someone who would lie about this unfolding disaster that is entirely human made.
Oh I am sorry about requiring statements to be true and accurate prior to my acceptance of them.
Your entire position on this issue is deeply dishonest and you pay not the slightest attention to anyone pointing that out like the psychopath you so obviously are. People are already dying in the hundreds of thousands a year because of human created global warming and you're playing psychotic games to make it seems like none of this matters at all. It obviously doesn't to you, but as I keep pointing out that's not because you have the slightest clue what you're posting on, it's because you fundamentally lack a conscience. Otherwise you wouldn't being playing this sick game. Look above psycho, your position is basically supported by no evidence.

Those of us posting on how concerned we are about this issue aren’t doing so because it might be a serious disaster at some point in the future. We’re doing so because the effects of global warming are here already. It’s deeply insulting to be basically told to shut the hell up by assholes who have no evidence to back up their arrogance when many of us are talking about matters of life and death…already here.
Not giving a damn about anyone else isn’t the virtue deniers have obviously convinced themselves it is.