Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[TeyshaBlue]

How in 's name can you show their math is wrong without showing your math?

Holy .

The math doesn't matter.

[Wild Cobra]

How in 's name can you show their math is wrong without showing your math?

Holy .

The math doesn't matter.

The facts simply do not add up.

They still claim around a 0.7C increase by CO2, but have since accepted that soot is about three times stronger in forcing than previously thought, and intentionally left out indirect solar forcing.

How many times must I say this?

Indirect solar forcing in completely missing from the alarmists numbers.

[Blake]

Now keep in mind he has admitted that he has a learning disability.

That would explain a lot

[Wild Cobra]

That would explain a lot

Spurstalk has too many assholes like the two of you, who simply bully anyone you disagree with.

You two are pathetic losers.

[TeyshaBlue]

The facts simply do not add up.

They still claim around a 0.7C increase by CO2, but have since accepted that soot is about three times stronger in forcing than previously thought, and intentionally left out indirect solar forcing.

How many times must I say this?

Indirect solar forcing in completely missing from the alarmists numbers.

They don't add up? You won't even support that with math.

You make the assumption that soot is underfactored, yet you don't bother to make the case with math?

Your opinion, such that it is, is rendered absolutely worthless if you don't bother to substantiate it. Simply pointing at another facet and claiming it's wrong, without bothering to quantify whether the "wrong" has any effect whatsoever is a beyond worthless. It's completely vacant.

[DarrinS]

I'm surprised no one posted Heartland's epic fail of a billboard



There was also one with Charles Manson.


Thankfully, numerous notable skeptics have spoken out against these billboards and it appears that Heartland is promptly taking them down.

By attcking the character of those you disagree with (e.g. by equating them to terrorists, murderers, or holocaust deniers), you don't evelate the debate at all (sorry RG, but you are just as guilty).



A letter from Ross McKitrick to Heartland

Dear Joe:

I just saw the billboards that Heartland is using to advertise the 7th ICCC:

http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/

I am absolutely dismayed. This kind of fallacious, juvenile and inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to enhance your reputation, hands your opponents a huge stick to beat you with, and sullies the reputation of the speakers you had recruited. Any public sympathy you had built up as a result of the Gleick fiasco will be lost–and more besides–as a result of such a campaign. I urge you to withdraw it at once.

Strike the tone in your advertisements that you want people to use when talking about you. The fact that you need a lengthy webpage to explain the thinking behind the billboards proves that your messaging failed. Nobody is going to read your explanation anyway. All they will take away is the message on the signs themselves, and it’s a truly objectionable message.

You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers. Once you have done such a thing you have lost the moral high ground and you can never again object if someone uses that kind of rhetoric on you.

I have just been cc’d on an email from someone who wrote to both my dean and university president, expressing his outrage that a UofG professor is party to such billboards. Had this simply been someone objecting to my speaking at Heartland I could easily have (and would have) defended myself. But notwithstanding that I have tenure and have the full right to speak wherever I want, the fact is that I have to agree with the person — I’m appalled.

I appreciate what Heartland does, and I know this year has been frustrating for you, and your staff may feel like venting. But I can’t be associated with those billboards. I had really been looking forward to participating in this year’s conference, but unless the billboard campaign is immediately suspended I have to cancel my participation.

Yours truly
Ross McKitrick

[MannyIsGod]

Those billboards were brought up in a completely different thread. They don't prove anything past that Heartland is a ty organization but I think a lot of people already knew that.

[MannyIsGod]

The key when dealing with WC is to not give him rein. He is dumb and if you leave him to his own devices he is only going to repeat the exact same . How many times has he repeated the same energy flux figure and the picture now?

If you are going to do that you are just going to end up frustrated. Its the old cliche about arguing with an idiot.

Now keep in mind he has admitted that he has a learning disability. I am guessing that it is autism or just straight up MR. Now one way completely understandable approach is to not go this route because making fun of re s is not exactly kind and their is something to taking the high road. It also will keep wine from whining at you. He is so cavalier as regards to WC.

Anyway, if you are going to go down the other route you have to dictate the conversation. Its not hard to find the logical inconsistencies and when you find them you have to be relentless. He is going to try and evade and switch the subject because even he knows he doesn't know wtf he is talking about.

Don't ask him to explain. Tell him he hasn't and then point out he doesn't get to insert supposition for fact. thats half of his Dr EZ-Bake analysis. Don't give him that rope.

For example, here he is babbling about linear functions and feedbacks while throwing out figures. Its dumb. Point out specifically how he doesn't understand and how its because he does not have the capacity to understand. He didn't even bring up specific heat for example/

Another example is the spectral absorption chart. WC likes to dumb things down and when he does you cannot just let it pass. In this case he tries to make claims on the ocean based on a fresh water single state absorption chart. With that same brain he talked about how it was all going to be limited to the top and evaporate. that particular take was mindnumbingly stupid.

the list goes on. as he continues and meanders through his stupidity just catalog it. Don't argue with him just catalog it, post it and laugh. You are not going to reason with stupid.

Its just not worth addressing it. When someone can't understand principles such as the conversation of energy its pretty pointless.

I'll just save myself the frustration that it ultimately leads to. Its my fault for even engaging in it. The problem is that even when I just laugh at it, there's a big part of me that wants to explain why its wrong which inevitably leads to me just banging my head against a keyboard in an effort to make someone who has obviously demonstrated either a lack of ability or will to understand come to terms with the actual science behind it.

[DarrinS]

Its just not worth addressing it. When someone can't understand principles such as the conversation of energy its pretty pointless.

I always thought it was the conservation of energy. Hmmm. Who knew?

[MannyIsGod]

There's a reason I didn't study English.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its just not worth addressing it. When someone can't understand principles such as the conversation of energy its pretty pointless.

I'll just save myself the frustration that it ultimately leads to. Its my fault for even engaging in it. The problem is that even when I just laugh at it, there's a big part of me that wants to explain why its wrong which inevitably leads to me just banging my head against a keyboard in an effort to make someone who has obviously demonstrated either a lack of ability or will to understand come to terms with the actual science behind it.

I agree its not worth addressing. I long ago started taking the tactic of addressing everyone other than WC as my audience when responding to his posts. You are not going to get him to understand. He doesn't want to understand and its more than likely that he lacks the capacity to understand.

That's why I still respond to them despite him having me on ignore. Most of his comments can be summed up with the Russell quote:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Simply try and relate why hes wrong with an audience of average intelligence in mind rather than trying to get through to the lackwit. On a personal note, I have learned quite a lot from your discourse with him towards the science just as i am sure have others. Do not let stupidity discourage you.

[Wild Cobra]

They don't add up? You won't even support that with math.

You make the assumption that soot is underfactored, yet you don't bother to make the case with math?

Your opinion, such that it is, is rendered absolutely worthless if you don't bother to substantiate it. Simply pointing at another facet and claiming it's wrong, without bothering to quantify whether the "wrong" has any effect whatsoever is a beyond worthless. It's completely vacant.

I have supported it before. How mant times do I have to pull out the numbers? Just look at the IPCC numbers from the AR4, they are there.

Oh this. I'm not going to repeatedly look up and link the same material year after year.

I'm getting pissed at you all, and not in the mood.

I have to leave for a few hours and I need to get this off my mind for a bit, but I will say this.

The experts have agreed soot is 3 times previously thought.

They only account for direct solar forcing changes, completely ignoring the indirect forcing. Instead, they include the indirect in their increased greenhouse gas number.

If there was no sun, there would be no greenhouse effect. Increase the solar irradiance, and the forcing for for greenhouse gasses increases.

They only include the direct 0.12 watts/sq meter for the solar increases. There is added surface warming which is added fuel for the greengouse effect. In the end, the change in solar irradiance accounts for almost 1 watt of direct and indirect forcing, at the levels the IPCC and other AGW alarmists agree that the sun has intensified.

They hide this extra forcing in the greenhouse gasses and claim it's because of CO2!

I have shown in the past how the solar changes have an effect, but apparently, you guy's faith in AGW requires you to dismiss things of this nature.

By for a few hours.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The experts have agreed soot is 3 times previously thought.

Just to address this as he bases his entire position on this. I have no idea what quan ies of CO2 versus carbon chains the study he references talks about but basically what it boils down to is that if you take an amount of pure carbon and irradiate it and do the same with CO2, the carbon will retain 3 times as much energy as the CO2.

Its not 3 times as much as previously thought, its 3 times as much as CO2. What he neglects to mention is that 1) the study is talking about atmospheric carbon and 2) carbon has a very short lifetime in the climate system. It deposits and gets washed away as its heavier than air. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very very long time as in more that 8 decades.

The way the dumbass would paint it, the entire arctic is black with soot. Thats what he supposes but as has been pointed out, the effect has been quantified in studies and his supposition does not trump that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From what I can gather below is the study that currently has the highest forcing attributed to BC and I have quoted the abstract.

Black carbon in soot is the dominant absorber of visible solar radiation in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon, although distributed globally, are most concentrated in the tropics where solar irradiance is highest. Black carbon is often transported over long distances, mixing with other aerosols along the way. The aerosol mix can form transcontinental plumes of atmospheric brown clouds, with vertical extents of 3 to 5 km. Because of the combination of high absorption, a regional distribution roughly aligned with solar irradiance, and the capacity to form widespread atmospheric brown clouds in a mixture with other aerosols, emissions of black carbon are the second strongest contribution to current global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions. In the Himalayan region, solar heating from black carbon at high elevations may be just as important as carbon dioxide in the melting of snowpacks and glaciers. The interception of solar radiation by atmospheric brown clouds leads to dimming at the Earth’s surface with important implications for the hydrological cycle, and the deposition of black carbon darkens snow and ice surfaces, which can contribute to melting, in particular of Arctic sea ice.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dip...chael_2008.pdf

RG talks about how psuedoscientists take one fact and then overemphasize it to rule out other facts. That's what the idiot would have you believe: that the importance of BC makes CO2 emissions irrelevant, but as you can see scientists actually quantify the impacts.

[RandomGuy]

I'm surprised no one posted Heartland's epic fail of a billboard

There was also one with Charles Manson.

Thankfully, numerous notable skeptics have spoken out against these billboards and it appears that Heartland is promptly taking them down.

By attcking the character of those you disagree with (e.g. by equating them to terrorists, murderers, or holocaust deniers), you don't evelate the debate at all (sorry RG, but you are just as guilty).

A letter from Ross McKitrick to Heartland

You know that you are not interested in a "debate". No evidence or argument will change your opinion. You know it, and I know it.

Since you are not interested in a debate of any kind, what is there to elevate?

If CO2 isn't really doing anything,that will become harder and harder to ignore, and easier and easier to prove.

As we learn more, you will have to construct a larger and larger conspiracy in order to sustain your dogmatic belief that CO2 is harmless and we aren't doing anything.

How big will this conspiracy have to get before you realize it was a fantasy?

I wonder.

[RandomGuy]

From what I can gather below is the study that currently has the highest forcing attributed to BC and I have quoted the abstract.



http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dip...chael_2008.pdf

RG talks about how psuedoscientists take one fact and then overemphasize it to rule out other facts. That's what the idiot would have you believe: that the importance of BC makes CO2 emissions irrelevant, but as you can see scientists actually quantify the impacts.

"LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" (that we don't know how to economically extract) "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE" "LOOK AT ALL THIS OIL IN THE SHALE"

[RandomGuy]

There's a reason I didn't study English.

I kind of like conversations of energy.

[DarrinS]

If CO2 isn't really doing anything,that will become harder and harder to ignore, and easier and easier to prove.

As we learn more, you will have to construct a larger and larger conspiracy in order to sustain your dogmatic belief that CO2 is harmless and we aren't doing anything.

You sure kicked that strawman's ass

[RandomGuy]

You sure kicked that strawman's ass

Then by all means, outline what you believe to be the case.

Do you, or do you not agree that:

CO2 is harmless to the global climate

climate scientists are covering up evidence of this

Humans are not causing increases in CO2

[Blake]

Oh this. I'm not going to repeatedly look up and link the same material year after year.

I'm getting pissed at you all, and not in the mood.

why is everyone else so intellectually dishonest

[Wild Cobra]

Then by all means, outline what you believe to be the case.

Do you, or do you not agree that:

I'll make a few remarks about this post.

CO2 is harmless to the global climate

It's all about levels. We simply don't know at what level CO2 actually causes harm. Evenm if it warms the earth, it may be more beneficial than harmful. More precipitation changing the deserts to usable lands for example.

At some point, it will affect more sensitive animals like birds, but we are talking radically higher levels than what is projected.

Humans are not causing increases in CO2

We might not be...

I will still stand by my contention that the solar warming of the ocean is changing the balance that CO2 has between the ocean and atmosphere. I will contend that we would have almost as high of levels today if we sere still in the stone age. I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

[RandomGuy]

I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

So, the fact that the increases are accelerating with our fossil fuel usage is just a coincidence?

I would remind you that the ulative total of human emissions is doubling every 10-15 years.

[RandomGuy]

I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

"at most".

That is the upper boundary to your belief about this.




The e seems pretty unprecedented and sustained.

Is there some other event that explains this?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...increasing.htm


You should get out there and do some measuring to support that upper boundary.

I'm sure that the scientific community would like to get a better handle on how they are wrong.

[DarrinS]

Then by all means, outline what you believe to be the case.

Do you, or do you not agree that:

CO2 is harmless to the global climate

climate scientists are covering up evidence of this

Humans are not causing increases in CO2

You keep trying to misrepresent my views. Quit being a dishonest .

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=2739
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=2859


Maybe you should post those in your sig so you don't forget (again).