Green tax revolt: Britons 'will not foot bill to save planet'

Judged:

1

1

1

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
No. Because I think LessHype is:
A. Uninformed: he hasn't read McKitrick and Michaels paper, and doesn't know that the statistical issues he raises were addressed in their paper.
B. Confused: LessHype seems to have wholly supported the Warming Quack computer models which predicted that the arctic regions would experience the most warming, and THEN changed his story when he realized that there were arctic temperature stations that showed NO temperature warming, which would have meant that the GLOBAL WARMING wasn't really GLOBAL.
In my humble opinion, the McKitrick and Michaels paper is really a 500 pound bomb down the smokestack of the battleship Global Warming. Global Warming is, by definition, "global". If it turns out that there are some sensors that show no warming, some that show one degree of warming, some that show three degrees of warming, some that show five degrees of warming, and even some that show one degree of cooling, than there is no global pattern, and all the variations are arguably local.
If global warming were real, it would be the same all over the globe, or there would have to be a REALLY good explanation why it wasn't.
The Respected Doofinator

Judged:

1

1

1

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds plausible but I know that the evidence that there is warming globally is overwhelming. I remind you that you also think that mass extinctions are caused by magma heating up the oceans directly like a hob on a cooker heating a saucepan. Its a waste of time debating with people who introduce information I know as a fact to be wrong.

Judged:

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, if GW were a due to errors in analysis due to the UHI effect, the 'thermal anomaly' would be coorrelated to urbanisation which is obviously not the case as I pointed out.

Judged:

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Coming from such a total doofus I have to take that as a compliment.
Sum the heat of a box with an ice cube. Wait for the ice cube to melt. While temperature of the atmosphere in the box has gone down, the TOTAL THERMAL ENERGY has not changed.
It is called 'the conservation of energy'. GW is only concerned with the SUM of thermal energy on the surface, which is why it is specified in 'forcings'. Moving heat around by blocking or increasing evaportation does nothing to change the SUM.

Judged:

1

1

1

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds plausible but I know that the evidence that there is warming globally is overwhelming.

Judged:

1

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you answer the criticisms that lesshype bought up about the urban heat effect theory?

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't confuse the perception of "overwhelming evidence" with actual reality.
"Overwhelming perceptions" of just about anything in a mass communication society can be constructed with cash.
People like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Whoopi Goldberg and a zillion other Hollywood airheads are famous for simply being famous. Everyone knows who they are, but few people know how and why they know who they are. Just the fact that people KNOW who they are convinces people that they are somehow important and significant.
Al Gore's former staffer, Carol Browner, was put in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1992, and initiated mammoth government funding of climate research, all directed toward creating alarm about "climate change". 50 billion dollars of government grant money, overwhelming directed to PROVING human caused climate change can create an "overwhelming" distortion of perceived reality.
The Respected Doofinator

Judged:

1

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
Your just wrong I know you to be wrong. I also know your a lier and impersonate teenage girls and make lewd comments on internet. You can declare yourself the winner of this little 'debate' if you will, The real world will take no notice.

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
I gather that this means that the "science" part of the discussion is over.
The Respected Doofinator

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds plausible but I know that the evidence that there is warming globally is overwhelming. I remind you that you also think that mass extinctions are caused by magma heating up the oceans directly like a hob on a cooker heating a saucepan. Its a waste of time debating with people who introduce information I know as a fact to be wrong.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Not even wrong. However, the issue is not changing where thermal energy is located ( by these effects) but the total energy and correct assessment of total thermal energy.
Again, if GW were a due to errors in analysis due to the UHI effect, the 'thermal anomaly' would be coorrelated to urbanisation which is obviously not the case as I pointed out.

Judged:

1

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously, your statment is ignorant and uninformed.
The Respected Doofinator

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
More uninformed crap.
The GW warming anomaly..
http://www.realclimate.org/images/tsurf_e_all...
Clearly shows COOLING in the U.S. east and west coasts where urbanization is concentrated while it shows the strongest WARMING in Alaska where there is no urban.. At the same time, places where there is also no urban such as the McKenzie Valley show strong cooling.
It is clealy seen that without even the need for McKitricks paper there is no coorelation bewteen the GW warming and urbanisation on a scale above the minor shift in heat near urban centers.
It is like making conclusions from statistical analysis of the pixels on your screen without looking at the image.
Please stop lying. It is not useful and may confuse some readers.

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
I gather that this means that the "science" part of the discussion is over.
The Respected Doofinator

The Truth Matters wrote:

<quoted text>
Just putting out other valid scientific theories that have appeared in peer-reviewed papers. It's not my own suppositions. Who is an authority on their validity? Certainly not you.

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
I feel that Liberal love in the air that has given future generations the option of suicide because the earth is dieing for our childre and her children to live on, if they are born at all, on this melting toxic wasteland that will soon turn into a giant lump of carbon (coal). How ironic.
Doof.
I’ll bet a global warmer would believe the coal prediction. Maybe I’ll try. Or, let’s make up some dire predictions or even phoney observations and engage the new greenie posters with it as they come on the forum. Kinda like reverse psychology er deprogramming.

Waz wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasn't talking about global warming. I was talking about your friends personal integrity, or lack of it. This doesn't seem to be a problem for you.