Need help, please. Knuckle-dragger husband of a friend of mine sent me this:

[calimary]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/01/was-2014-really-the-warmest-year-ever.php

Claiming to look at ice samples and other "records" of eons ago: "Rebuttal to yesterday's articles in many newspapers. Personally, I am more impressed by data from twelve thousand year old ice core samples than temperatures gathered from the year 1880. Again the global alarmists are foiled by facts."

I clicked on the link...

"The Earth’s actual temperatures over the last two decades, even as measured by NOAA and NASA, have been well outside the bounds of the models’ predictions. This is why IPCC, the United Nations’ organization of global warming lobbyists, downgraded its temperature predictions in its most recent report. The models have failed.

The bottom line is, don’t buy the hype. The real scientists are not the politically-motivated hysterics."

This dude is such a Neanderthal that one of his recent emails - when you clicked on it - showed either a very well-drawn or photographed gun - pointed directly at you. You were literally looking down the barrel of it. I was so horrified I deleted it before even attempting to read further. This guy disgusts me. I'm glad to say that when they come down to L.A. (they live in Alaska), he despises me so much he refuses to accompany his wife (my friend) when she walks up to our house to stop in for a minute. Won't even deal with me. That's okay, I don't WANT his ass in my house or anywhere near me! They share a single email address so there's no way I can communicate with her without him seeing it. A REAL Creep. He makes teabaggers look like normal, reasonable, sentient beings. He makes ted cruz look like Albert Schweitzer and michele bachmann look like Mother Teresa. I'm afraid I won't be seeing much of my friend anymore. She's pretty well infected, and since her remaining family members have moved out of the area, there's no reason for her to come visiting in the old neighborhood anymore. I regret that, but I'm feeling at this point that it's just gonna have to be a write-off. I can't reach her, and as long as she stays with him, she's infected with that mindset. He's a SCARY guy.

Just wanted to give you guys a heads-up of how the Dark Side is attempting to beat back the increasing evidence and reporting about the REALITY of climate change.

And I would appreciate some rebuttals to this too. I noticed that they do link to other "brainiacs" like hugh hewitt, michelle malkin, Pox Noise, and the Weekly Standard among others. Birds of a feather.

[dembotoz]

1. click on the source about us link

bunch of lawyers
no science

the article author would not know real science if it bit him on the ass

[gratuitous]

2. My two cents, for what it's worth

Keep e-mailing your friend, knowing that Hubby Meathead is also reading. Tailor part of your message to his knuckle-headedness. Ain't no law against having some fun at his expense.

[Sedona]

3. I have heard

but can't remember where...

Recent volcanic activity has blocked a percentage of sunlight and slowed the warming. Something the models couldn't have predicted.

Its a place to start...



On edit a quick search produced this and many other sources

http://www.capitalotc.com/volcanic-activity-is-slowing-down-global-warming-study-shows/27757/

[Botany]

4. The science is done

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx

end of story

BTW you might ask him if he ever took a chemistry class because on of the
universal gas laws that is >200 years old shows that the more CO2 in a body
of gas the more heat that body of gas will hold. I think it is either Boyle's or
Charles Law and it has never been shown wrong.

send em this movie ... a must see
http://play.starflixmovie.com/play.php?movie=1579361

Although one problem is that because of their political and or religious thoughts
some people will never believe in climate change until their world ends.

[sweetapogee]

17. a few comments

not sure I want to walk through a mine field and I certainly do not want to offend.

However, two things that I would say. First, it is not a good idea to call anything "settled science" because to do so limits the desire to look for deeper understanding. As an example, our current understanding of the position of electrons around the nucleus is (as you know) not a precise orbit (as was once not long ago thought) but instead it's a "cloud" with various energy levels and sub levels where the electron might be found and that might explain things like ion-ion attraction or molecular shape but is anyone really totally certain? No one has the ability to see the electrons in their cloud.

The second is none of the various gas laws in themselves really proves climate change. As scientists we have to look at the data and make our calculations based on that. The universal gas law (PV=nRT), or Dalton's (partial pressure...Pt=P1+P2+P3...) could be used to explain a rise in T but there are 3 (or more) other variables in the equation (univ) that are used form our answer. Question: In the lab, can we get an increase in T in the products of a combustion reaction without an increase in CO2? I would answer that question with a yes. Can we get an increase in P without an increase in CO2? Again, yes is my answer. If any of the variables (pressure, volume, moles) change, so will the T. Not every chemical reaction on the planet is at STP. And I'm not challenging the validity of the gas constant but i personally think it's a bad idea to use the constant as a sledgehammer. You might disagree and have good reasons and that is your right. But look at how many scientific givens have been revised or outdated as our understanding increases.

The current college level inorganic textbooks that I'm familiar with discuss climate change but don't spend a whole lot of time talking about it in practical terms. Why you ask? Because in MY OPINION, there is no such thing as settled science. We must look at the data and do so with an open mind.

Do I think we have to be careful with our CO2 levels? Yes of course. But, and this is a big but, any combustion reaction as you know has as it's product H2O and CO2. Combustion reactions are as old as the planet. CO2, as you know, has it's place in the system of things. I'm not yelling at you or anyone else just pointing out the fact that when we debate with deniers we should really know what we are talking about because not all of them are stupid (only most of them). Some of them might know more chemistry that we do. So, let us be the ones with the open minds and use scientific data properly for a better planet.

As you can tell I'm not a fan of verbal wars. It is not my intention to offend or come across as a know it all as there are certainly holes in my understanding and I really want to have the open mind of which I speak of.

[Botany]

18. We have tens of millions of data points from ice cores* all of which support .....

.... global climate change models and it can be seen as the result of the burning of fossil fuels along with
understanding the physical chemical properties of CO2 vs O2** (if you place a container of CO2 and
container of O2 with the same volume and at the same temperature as the container of CO2 in the sun the
container of CO2 heats up faster and holds heat longer), or that the rise in atmospheric CO2 can be seen
after the start of industrial revolution in both ice cores and in tree rings or that Charles' Law has never been
proven wrong or that we have melted the north pole or that in 2013 in over 10,000 peer reviewed science articles
that concerned global climate change only 2 authors did not agree that it is caused by are burning of
fossil fuels and their by product of warmer temps that have caused the melting of the permafrost which in
turn has caused the release of methane gas which is also a greenhouse gas or that Norfolk, VA now floods
all the time because of higher sea levels because the ice caps and glaciers are melting or that sitting about
2 miles from where I am right now is the work of Dr. Lonnie Thompson of OSU's Byrd Polar research center
and his work is rock solid in this field.

"The scientific literature since 1991 contains a mountain of evidence confirming man-made global warming as
true and no convincing evidence that it is false. Global warming denial is a house of cards."
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming


* http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm 400,000 years of data from Vostock ice cores linking temps.
to global CO2 %s using the isotopes of Oxygen 16 and Oxygen 18 (I think those are the critters)

** the molecular weight of CO2 and O2 is settled science

BTW many college chemistry text books do not discuss climate change because that is not what is being studied
in that class but they do discuss molecular weights and Charles' Law

[sweetapogee]

19. variation

on some other theme.
Have a nice day!

[Blue Owl]

5. Tell him 15 minutes could save him 15% or more on car insurance

Geico: So easy a caveman could do it

[CrispyQ]

13. ~snort!

[calimary]

15. BEST POST YET!!! We have a winner!!!

That's fucking HILARIOUS!!!!!!

You just made my entire DAY, Blue Owl!



Of course, I could make my own day every time I invite her over and fill her with all that demonic "libtard" stuff that she otherwise will never have a chance to hear! Every time she comes over to our house, I suspect he fears I'm a corrupter and doesn't want HER near me either! I have long enjoyed cozying up with that thought.

[KT2000]

6. what I heard is the richest man

in the world started this climate change business. He is currently living in China - as a recluse.

Once someone puts something out there, it is picked up by all the RW bloggers and other media. Then, it becomes true.

[AngryAmish]

7. Help?

Block him. Make the nytimes bread for tomorrow. Life is too short.

[GreatGazoo]

12. +1 "life is too short"

[jimlup]

8. This link may be helpful for you

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

and I also found helpful

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/models-are-unproven/

I've encountered this argument myself on the web. It is just sophisticated enough to sound legitimate but it isn't. It picks on the fact that climate science is an evolving science and cherry picks the parts it wants to use to make the alleged point. They ignore everything counter to their argument which appears to be that "Global Warming is paused and the models didn't predict it." While there appears to be some legitimate concern that the atmospheric models have not tracked the expected temperature increase during the last 15 years the problem is that all scientific indications are that the world is still warming and warming at the predicted rate. The state of the science now is that scientists are beginning to understand how the atmosphere and the ocean are coupled.

While we can be thankful that there has been something of a plateau in atmospheric warming this has not happened in the oceans. The oceans are warming at an alarming rate and the ice sheets are continuing to show alarming losses.

The trouble with the BS argument that your Neanderthal (sorry Neanderthals - you're probably actually better than this!) friend of your husband is that they come off appearing "scientific" because they are first to pesent the so called "trouble with the model's" scientifically and they can reference charts and models (I've attempted to check these as I've seen references to the alleged models. I have not been able to verify the legitimacy of the source nor have I found a solid debunking of this specific argument.) If pushed, they will ultimately come down to an argument about legitimacy of sources. They will claim that their climate denial sources which exploit changes in the scientific understanding over time and cherry pick results are the true science. You on the other hand will reference the IPCC and 97% (actually probably more at this point) of the world's climate scientists who are in fact the real experts on this matter.

I wish skepticalscience.com or realclimate.com would take on this argument specifically and really provide some legitimate references to help debunk it as it does seem to have a life on the web (not in actual science but the casual observer wouldn't be able to tell that.)

I guess maybe the easiest rebuttal point is to say that when the say "the Earth's actual temperature" they are dead wrong. The are discounting the oceans and the oceans which have been warming at the anticipated rate and hold most of the Earth's heat capacity by far.

Hope that helps! Some of these knuckle draggers will never grasp it but we can help keep them from contaminating others with their false science.

[calimary]

16. Thanks, jimlup! Yeah, I guess what I really wanted was some help sorting out the thoughts

and something simple enough that this nutcase could understand. There's a lot of goop and toxic sludge and other assorted pig-slop to try to wade through. However, I realize he will NOT understand. It's "the principle" thing. He will NOT see the other side. Just has summarily ruled it out. Anything I'd say would be suspect.

Plus, on our side, there's just so huge an amount of important and relevant information to sift through also - it's hard to know where to start.

But I figure it this way - I went back and skimmed the link again, and on the column on the right-hand margin I spotted "breitbart.com" as one of the "respected" resources and other good companion links. Seems to me anything that references breitbart.com answers its own question. Tells you all you need to know. Swiftly classifies this in the "Don't Even Bother" category.

And yes, jimlup, this helps, too!

ALL of this is helpful, frankly.

[obliviously]

9. You need help to refute a knuckle dragging Neanderthal?

What does this make you?

[CrispyQ]

14. That was uncalled for.

[pamela]

10. Ignore it.

Why engage with someone like that at all? You could give him irrefutable proof that everything he said is wrong and he would ignore it and just move onto the next ignorant thing to send you. Ignore it. Delete it. Ignore him.

I would also send your friend an invitation to her own gmail account and let her know that you will be blocking the joint account.

[bhikkhu]

11. At this point, knuckle-dragging throwbacks aren't even interesting

"somebody is wrong on the internet" - yawn...