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

[SnakeBoy]

I am simply outlining my own reasons for being rather skeptical of the people who tell me "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate".


I haven't seen too many instances of people saying "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate". For the most part the discussion goes...
"Human beings are responsible for climate changes"
"Prove it"
"You're a denier!"
"Ok but can you prove human beings are responsible"
"Look at these pictures of ice melting"
"Prove human beings caused that"
"You're a denier!"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not going to keep looking stuff up. You can probably find the data as easily as I can. I actually got the emissivity wrong for ice and snow. it is actually very high, which makes sense. This means it loses energy fast, and doesn't heat readily. that along with it's high albedo, ice can persist for a long time.

You need to reread the wiki, dimwit. It does not make sense prima facia.

Water acts almost like a perfect black body and behaves differently than most every other molecule. Reflective white things typically have a low emissivity.

If you knew what you were talking about you would talk about specific heat. You said 'it loses energy fast, and doesn't heat readily,' which is wrong but that is to be expected from you. You know nothing more about chemistry than you do physics.

You do not even have the ability to quickly process what you read on wikipedia.

[MannyIsGod]

Its not difficult. Its no more difficult than any number of tasks I don't do on a daily basis because there is no reason to. Its unrewarding and fruitless to debate with someone who will simply dismiss data because he doesn't like it.

If someone such as ElNono wanted to discuss this in detail, I would. My fist instinct in this thread was not to actively participate because I know how you are and how easily you dismiss any information that does not bode well for your predermination due to your insane confirmation bias. Its your repeated formula.

I feel no inner desire to convert those who's minds are already made up - especially when it is readily apparent to most that they don't know what they're talking about. I gave you a chance earlier in this thread but the moment you started saying things such as "I believe" and "I don't trust" without providing actual proof of why this was the case or how the methodology was incorrect I remembered my initial hesitation.

[MannyIsGod]

I haven't seen too many instances of people saying "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate". For the most part the discussion goes...
"Human beings are responsible for climate changes"
"Prove it"
"You're a denier!"
"Ok but can you prove human beings are responsible"
"Look at these pictures of ice melting"
"Prove human beings caused that"
"You're a denier!"

What thread is it that you've been reading?

In any event

The case for AGW in the simplest of ways is as follows:

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions from humans have caused CO2 in the atmosphere to grow by about 30% which has led to the observed increase in temperature globally and will lead to further increases.

The increase in CO2 is well documented and is attributed to humans with a great deal of confidence.

What part of this hasn't been proven?

[coyotes_geek]

The case for AGW in the simplest of ways is as follows:

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions from humans have caused CO2 in the atmosphere to grow by about 30% which has led to the observed increase in temperature globally and will lead to further increases.

The increase in CO2 is well documented and is attributed to humans with a great deal of confidence.


What part of this hasn't been proven?

That part and that part.

[MannyIsGod]

So CO2 is not a known greenhouse gas?
CO2 is not 30% higher in todays atmosphere?
Man has not caused the CO2 rise?

[coyotes_geek]

So CO2 is not a known greenhouse gas?
CO2 is not 30% higher in todays atmosphere?
Man has not caused the CO2 rise?

Making observations is one thing. Proving cause and effect between them is another.

Someone could just as easily make the observations that 10,000 years ago man was not causing CO2 to rise and that 10,000 years ago it got warmer. Does that prove that AGW is BS?

[MannyIsGod]

So which of those are false?

Or you feel they're true but it doesn't matter?

If so then what has caused the observable warming?

[MannyIsGod]

Making observations is one thing. Proving cause and effect between them is another.

Someone could just as easily make the observations that 10,000 years ago man was not causing CO2 to rise and that 10,000 years ago it got warmer. Does that prove that AGW is BS?

If everything was equal 10,000 years ago and it got warmer without CO2 then you might have a case. Now, was everything equal 10,000 years ago?

Does AGW theory seek to address every warming period in the earth's history or just the current one? Can there be different causes for different periods of warming? Is it possible that the warming before was caused differently than the warming today?

[coyotes_geek]

So which of those are false?

None. But that's not the point I was trying to make. Like I said, proving observations is one thing, proving a link between them is another. You asked what part of your simplified version hasn't been proven. That's my answer.


Or you feel they're true but it doesn't matter?

I feel that it doesn't matter if they're true or not.


If so then what has caused the observable warming?

No way to know. Maybe it's us, maybe it's whatever cause the earth to warm 10,000 years ago, maybe it's something else entirely. I will say that I believe whatever it is it's beyond our ability to control it.

[coyotes_geek]

If everything was equal 10,000 years ago and it got warmer without CO2 then you might have a case. Now, was everything equal 10,000 years ago?

Obviously the cavemen weren't cruising around in SUV's back then so no, not everything is equal. Still, that alone doesn't invalidate my point.


Does AGW theory seek to address every warming period in the earth's history or just the current one?

Just the current one. But it's a theory that can never be proven until you can eliminate the causes for prior warming periods.


Can there be different causes for different periods of warming?

Of course.


Is it possible that the warming before was caused differently than the warming today?

Of course. Conversly, isn't it possible that the warming today is caused by the same thing that caused warming before?

[LnGrrrR]

:lol

That was too good to pass up.

:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

I found this, and James Hansen surprises me. I have stated before, that left alone, he will spin what he finds, but here, he must have had others checking his work. I give you A BRIGHTER FUTURE
A Response to Don Wuebbles (Climatic Change, vol. 52, no. 4, 2002)
JAMES E. HANSEN
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY, U.S.A. (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_Hansen_1.pdf)

In other words, Hansen is obviously spinning facts and writing non-peer-reviewed articles when he disagrees with me, but is logical and rational when he writes something I agree with.

[MannyIsGod]

None. But that's not the point I was trying to make. Like I said, proving observations is one thing, proving a link between them is another. You asked what part of your simplified version hasn't been proven. That's my answer.


So, we know that CO2 causes warming through being a greenhouse gas and we know that the concentration has gone up but we can't attribute the warming to CO2 in the absence of any other explanation.

Um, thats some intensely weird logic. Its pretty safe to say that if A causes effect B that when you see effect B you can attribute it to A unless there is another plausible explanation.




I feel that it doesn't matter if they're true or not.


So it doesn't matter if A causes B in order to figure out what is causing B. Sound logic, once again.



No way to know. Maybe it's us, maybe it's whatever cause the earth to warm 10,000 years ago, maybe it's something else entirely. I will say that I believe whatever it is it's beyond our ability to control it.

Of course there's a way to know. You observe what is happening and you look for a cause through known behavior or unknown behavior. Saying there is no way to know is utterly and completely false. How exactly do you think we've figured out everything humans know about the universe to this point?

[MannyIsGod]

Obviously the cavemen weren't cruising around in SUV's back then so no, not everything is equal. Still, that alone doesn't invalidate my point.


It makes your point irrelevant. What causes an event is only analogous to what causes a similar event if the conditions are the same. If conditions ae different then the causes are not the same.



Just the current one. But it's a theory that can never be proven until you can eliminate the causes for prior warming periods.


Guess what - this has been done. AGW stands because what has caused previous warming or cooling - IE changes in solar output - has been ruled out.



Of course. Conversly, isn't it possible that the warming today is caused by the same thing that caused warming before?

Yes, and scientists have considered this in their calculations. Do you guys really think that scientists didn't try to explain this warming through those methods? The view that scientists haven't considered the causes of previous climate changes is incredible to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Its not difficult. Its no more difficult than any number of tasks I don't do on a daily basis because there is no reason to. Its unrewarding and fruitless to debate with someone who will simply dismiss data because he doesn't like it.

If someone such as ElNono wanted to discuss this in detail, I would. My fist instinct in this thread was not to actively participate because I know how you are and how easily you dismiss any information that does not bode well for your predermination due to your insane confirmation bias. Its your repeated formula.

I feel no inner desire to convert those who's minds are already made up - especially when it is readily apparent to most that they don't know what they're talking about. I gave you a chance earlier in this thread but the moment you started saying things such as "I believe" and "I don't trust" without providing actual proof of why this was the case or how the methodology was incorrect I remembered my initial hesitation.
Bullshit.

You just know you lack the intelligence on this subject matter.

[MannyIsGod]

Bullshit.

You just know you lack the intelligence on this subject matter.

K, I lack intelligence.

[Wild Cobra]

What thread is it that you've been reading?

In any event

The case for AGW in the simplest of ways is as follows:

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions from humans have caused CO2 in the atmosphere to grow by about 30% which has led to the observed increase in temperature globally and will lead to further increases.

Can you prove that?

Yes, we have contributed to the sourcing of CO2. nature naturally changes the level of sinking and sourcing. When sinking and sourcing are equal, the atmospheric level stays the same. When sinking exceeds sourcing, CO2 levels drop. When sourcing exceeds sinking, CO2 levels rise.

To ignore the fact that other things control sinking and sourcing is not understanding the problem. It is you, who are making things up from lack of understanding.


The increase in CO2 is well documented and is attributed to humans with a great deal of confidence.

Nobody disputes that CO2 has increased. Nobody disputs that we probably contribute about 8 GtC annually. However, what if we never did add CO2 to the atmosphere, and the levels increased any way? Is it possible that Henry's law, and the fact that the ocean contains more than 50 times more carbon of the carbon cycle than the atmosphere possible the cause? How have you ruled out that CO2 does not lag temperature? Did you know that the solubility of gasses in water decreases as temperature increases?

You see, the problem is, this is a complex system. Nothing stands alone. If temperature is increasing outside of the influence of CO2, then CO2 will increase simply by the increasing temperature. If the oceans maintained the same equilibrium as we emitted it, they would sink about 98% of what we emit. That would mean that we only contribute 0.16 GtC annually, or increase CO2 levels by only about 0.08 ppm annually. It would take 12 years to increasing the atmospheric content by 1 ppm *if* the ocean was able to maintain that 50+:1 ratio. It's not that simple either.


What part of this hasn't been proven?

What you outlined is not proof. I can show you a chart that correlates the number of pirates with global temperature. Isn't that the same thing you're talking about? Observed effect drawing a conclusion to possible unrelated facts?

[Wild Cobra]

Does AGW theory seek to address every warming period in the earth's history or just the current one? Can there be different causes for different periods of warming? Is it possible that the warming before was caused differently than the warming today?
There lies the problem with your Dogma. You acknowledge that natural climate changes occurred in the past, but refuse to accept that what is happening today may also be natural.

Ever see the solar cycles calculated? Here's an interesting one:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/solarvariationsandformula.gif

Now what dopes that do when we consider eccentricity of the earths orbit too? can you even tell me why eccentricity has a global warming effect? Hint... Kepler's laws...

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/eccentricity.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

That was too good to pass up.
And I agree. With anything in science, you are a skeptic first, else a fool.

[Wild Cobra]

So, we know that CO2 causes warming through being a greenhouse gas and we know that the concentration has gone up but we can't attribute the warming to CO2 in the absence of any other explanation.

No. We know that it causes some warming. The problem is that the AGW crowd wants to attribute more than can reasonably be attributed to it. That is why I wish to see their math on it.

Correlation does not equal causation, yet that is what it amounts to with their proof.

wiki: Correlation does not imply causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_causation)


"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for causation and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation).

[DarrinS]

http://d6657288.u30.websitesource.net/images/Global%20temperatures%20&%20CO2%20Friends%20of%20Science.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

http://d6657288.u30.websitesource.net/images/Global%20temperatures%20&%20CO2%20Friends%20of%20Science.jpg

Please note everyone that the green (CO2) level goes up and down, with a general upward trend. Why does it go up and down one might ask? Well, it's simple. It goes down when the ocean cools and up when it warms. Notice it's an annual trend, following the seasonal temperature change.

[DarrinS]

Please note everyone that the green (CO2) level goes up and down, with a general upward trend. Why does it go up and down one might ask? Well, it's simple. It goes down when the ocean cools and up when it warms. Notice it's an annual trend, following the seasonal temperature change.


Yep. The same CO2 trend was occuring from 1940 to 1970 while the temperature dropped. A THIRTY YEAR PERIOD.

The dashed line is most likely a smoothed average of CO2.


http://www.zanzig.com/miscpix/crichton2.jpg

[DarrinS]

The global temp anomaly from 1940 to 1970 is why the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in the 1970's was that we needed to be worried about global COOLING.

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/big-freeze.jpg

[DarrinS]

Newsweek article from 1975





There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

[Wild Cobra]

Well Darrin.

I think we can constantly remind them, but they are children from the University's of Indoctrination. I don't think they will ever acknowledge the truth.

[DarrinS]

Well Darrin.

I think we can constantly remind them, but they are children from the University's of Indoctrination. I don't think they will ever acknowledge the truth.


Funny thing is, climate change would occur even if the Earth had no human population. So, really, the AGW crowd are the climate change deniers.

[Wild Cobra]

Funny thing is, climate change would occur even if the Earth had no human population. So, really, the AGW crowd are the climate change deniers.
LOL...

Yes I know. That's why in this thread I keep referring to their point as the pseudo science.

[MannyIsGod]

Can you prove that?

Yes, we have contributed to the sourcing of CO2. nature naturally changes the level of sinking and sourcing. When sinking and sourcing are equal, the atmospheric level stays the same. When sinking exceeds sourcing, CO2 levels drop. When sourcing exceeds sinking, CO2 levels rise.


Wow, thats brilliant. So when more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere levels drop? Brilliant, simply brilliant. Levels haven't dropped. Pretty safe to say that absent any other explanation CO2 levels have increased from human behavior. This isn't debated.



To ignore the fact that other things control sinking and sourcing is not understanding the problem. It is you, who are making things up from lack of understanding.

Nobody disputes that CO2 has increased. Nobody disputs that we probably contribute about 8 GtC annually. However, what if we never did add CO2 to the atmosphere, and the levels increased any way? Is it possible that Henry's law, and the fact that the ocean contains more than 50 times more carbon of the carbon cycle than the atmosphere possible the cause? How have you ruled out that CO2 does not lag temperature? Did you know that the solubility of gasses in water decreases as temperature increases?


So its coming from the oceans? Then explain why the CO2 content in the oceans has not dropped.



You see, the problem is, this is a complex system. Nothing stands alone. If temperature is increasing outside of the influence of CO2, then CO2 will increase simply by the increasing temperature. If the oceans maintained the same equilibrium as we emitted it, they would sink about 98% of what we emit. That would mean that we only contribute 0.16 GtC annually, or increase CO2 levels by only about 0.08 ppm annually. It would take 12 years to increasing the atmospheric content by 1 ppm *if* the ocean was able to maintain that 50+:1 ratio. It's not that simple either.

What you outlined is not proof. I can show you a chart that correlates the number of pirates with global temperature. Isn't that the same thing you're talking about? Observed effect drawing a conclusion to possible unrelated facts?

I didn't say it was proof. I said it was proven. But once again, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Yes, you could make a chart correlating pirates but you'd just be pointing out what Scott did. The main difference between pirates and CO2? One is a greenhouse gas, one is not.

If your contention is that CO2 is being released from the ocean then I'd love to see some figures saying that the CO2 content in the ocean has dropped.

[MannyIsGod]

There lies the problem with your Dogma. You acknowledge that natural climate changes occurred in the past, but refuse to accept that what is happening today may also be natural.

Ever see the solar cycles calculated? Here's an interesting one:


Now what dopes that do when we consider eccentricity of the earths orbit too? can you even tell me why eccentricity has a global warming effect? Hint... Kepler's laws...


So, your theory is the warming is caused by solar? Too bad the output from the sun hasn't changed in the warming period enough to account for the warming. If you have information that the sun has increased output in that period enough to account for the warming then I'd like to see it.

Oh wait, you're theory is that its related to the orbit and tilt of the axis? Which is it? Anyway, if you have proof this the case then please post it.

And, above you spoke about making ridiculous correlations to unrelated events yet you post multiple graphs grasping at different straws just to that effect.

Interesting.

[MannyIsGod]

http://d6657288.u30.websitesource.net/images/Global%20temperatures%20&%20CO2%20Friends%20of%20Science.jpg

That graph is an excellent example of pseudo science. Perfect example actually.

[MannyIsGod]

Yep. The same CO2 trend was occuring from 1940 to 1970 while the temperature dropped. A THIRTY YEAR PERIOD.

The dashed line is most likely a smoothed average of CO2.


http://www.zanzig.com/miscpix/crichton2.jpg

Already explained to you but you chose to ignore the explanation.

[MannyIsGod]

The global temp anomaly from 1940 to 1970 is why the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in the 1970's was that we needed to be worried about global COOLING.

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/big-freeze.jpg

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

10% of papers in the 70s talked about cooling. 10% isn't a consensus except when you want it to be. The number that talked about warming? 60%

So, 6 times as many papers discussed and projected warming yet the consensus was cooling?

Interesting.

[MannyIsGod]

Funny thing is, climate change would occur even if the Earth had no human population. So, really, the AGW crowd are the climate change deniers.

This particular instance of climate change wouldn't. Thats the point.

However, you've made it quite a few posts without a youtube. I'm impressed on that front.r

[DarrinS]

With all the "overwheming evidence" to support AGW, a sci-fi docudrama by a Nobel-winning ex vice president, and a more than willing mainstream media, you'd think that more than a third of the population would believe that humans cause climate change.

Why is getting harder and harder to sell this ROCK SOLID science?

[MannyIsGod]

Is the amount of people who believe global warming relevant to the scientific basis for it? You amazing me with your skill at bringing up the irrelevant.

To answer you're question, however, its because most people are like you Darrin. Ignorant and idiotic. Kinda like how someone can look at a period where there are 6 times fewer scientific papers stating an outcome and call it a scientific consensus.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is reminiscent of the capacitor debate.

Then partschanger really did not know what he was talking about so he kept on regurgitating the thing about how capacitors work in series. I guess he read it in a wiki; he certainly hosted enough graphs from wikipedia on his webspace and spammed us with them.

Here it is more of the same. He has found a little nut that he thinks he understands, in this case the ocean as a carbon sink, --or at least he thinks he can fake like he understands-- and he again blathers on and on about it.

In some contexts it might be relevant but in this case its really not and when you try and return to the salient issues he just blathers on accusing one of not understanding.

partschanger really embodies the essence of pseudoscience: you take a little bit of true scientific knowledge, mis or under-represent it so you can conclude some bullshit and then pass it off under a deluge of bluster.

[Wild Cobra]

With all the "overwheming evidence" to support AGW, a sci-fi docudrama by a Nobel-winning ex vice president, and a more than willing mainstream media, you'd think that more than a third of the population would believe that humans cause climate change.

Why is getting harder and harder to sell this ROCK SOLID science?

All this proof, yet he has still failed to provide any of it.

[DarrinS]

WC and I attack the "science", while Manny and FuzzyLumpshit attack us. Interesting.

[Winehole23]

Not really.

[RandomGuy]

With all the "overwheming evidence" to support AGW, a sci-fi docudrama by a Nobel-winning ex vice president, and a more than willing mainstream media, you'd think that more than a third of the population would believe that humans cause climate change.

Why is getting harder and harder to sell this ROCK SOLID science?

Appeal to popularity logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.

Given that a proportion of the population also believe in magic crystals, a 6,000 year old earth, can't find the US on the map, the only thing such statements "prove" is the abysmal lack of science education in the US.

[RandomGuy]

WC and I attack the "science", while Manny and FuzzyLumpshit attack us. Interesting.

You don't actually "attack the science". That would require data and peer-reviewed research, which has yet to be produced.

All I have really seen here is logical ad hominem fallacies, among others. There is a difference.

[RandomGuy]

I haven't seen too many instances of people saying "human beings are absolutely not responsible for any changes in earths climate".

Either you are guilty of selective memory or you are not paying attention.

[DarrinS]

You don't actually "attack the science". That would require data and peer-reviewed research, which has yet to be produced.

All I have really seen here is logical ad hominem fallacies, among others. There is a difference.



Temperature reconstructions that create hockey sticks from red noise are suspect. Do you disagree? That reconstruction by Michael Mann (ala Mike's "nature trick" fame) was once prominantly displayed in the IPCC reports. Of course, Penn State fully exonerated Mann (so surprise there).

Tell me, RG, do you think Alfred Wegener was a pseudoscientist? His theory of continental drift was certainly not the consensus view at the time.

[MannyIsGod]

All this proof, yet he has still failed to provide any of it.

The proof can be easily located in the IPCC reports. I'm not reinventing the wheel - I'm telling you the scientists are right.

[MannyIsGod]

WC and I attack the "science", while Manny and FuzzyLumpshit attack us. Interesting.

Yes, I attack your inability to know that 60% > 10%. If you attacking the science is you presenting myth after myth then continue. Its the most easily rebutted science I've ever come across.

[MannyIsGod]

Appeal to popularity logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.

Given that a proportion of the population also believe in magic crystals, a 6,000 year old earth, can't find the US on the map, the only thing such statements "prove" is the abysmal lack of science education in the US.

Most people can't name the vice president yet I'm supposed to give them enough credit to understand AGW. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Temperature reconstructions that create hockey sticks from red noise are suspect. Do you disagree? That reconstruction by Michael Mann (ala Mike's "nature trick" fame) was once prominantly displayed in the IPCC reports. Of course, Penn State fully exonerated Mann (so surprise there).

Tell me, RG, do you think Alfred Wegener was a pseudoscientist? His theory of continental drift was certainly not the consensus view at the time.

Mann's work was fine. Since his earlier work the hockey stick has shown up in every data source we have. Its always there because the warming is happening.

It is undeniable this planet is warming.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf


Temperature records studied below that show the hockey stick

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html
http://www.martinkodde.nl/glacier/data/bibliography/1810995712675.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html

[Wild Cobra]

Not really.
You're right. I'm losing interest. Nothing substantial here from the opposing team, and the game is a blowout.

[Wild Cobra]

Either you are guilty of selective memory or you are not paying attention.
Example please.

[Wild Cobra]

The proof can be easily located in the IPCC reports. I'm not reinventing the wheel - I'm telling you the scientists are right.
What section and paragraph have I missed please. I have the SAR, TAR, and AR4 at my fingerprints saved on my HD.

[Borat Sagyidev]

I am a conservative white male who hates everyone else

I've not met bigger loser in my life, even in Kazakhstan. You try and break record for most stupid man?

You play on internet all days. Find a woman, you can use my sister.

[RandomGuy]

Temperature reconstructions that create hockey sticks from red noise are suspect. Do you disagree? That reconstruction by Michael Mann (ala Mike's "nature trick" fame) was once prominantly displayed in the IPCC reports. Of course, Penn State fully exonerated Mann (so surprise there).

Tell me, RG, do you think Alfred Wegener was a pseudoscientist? His theory of continental drift was certainly not the consensus view at the time.

After reading the wiki article, I do not think Alfred Wegener was a pseudoscientist.

That you are attempting to link the denial of AGW to the "downtrodden", but valid, ideas of the past is also a hallmark of pseudoscientists as given in the OP.

In the end, new data arrived showing that Mr. Wegener's theory was correct in most respects.

We will similarly gather data year after year on our climate.

What will you do/think if/when that data continues to support AGW?

How big will you have to posit the conspiracy to advance this theory and discredit denial to be, before it collapses under the weight of implausibility?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.martinkodde.nl/glacier/data/bibliography/1810995712675.pdf

Don't you find the weighting odd for the different areas measured on page 677?

[DarrinS]

It is undeniable this planet is warming.





LOL @ Manny that he thinks anyone denies this.

Oh, and by the way, science does not progress by consensus. It progresses by shattering consensus.

[Wild Cobra]

It is undeniable this planet is warming.

Those who keep saying that when we agree start sounding like idiots. Nobody denies that the planet has warmed. Will you stop making statements we agree with as if we don't? It also proves you are not listening to us. As long as you are not open to other views, and fail to hear what others actually say, the truth will always elude you.

[MannyIsGod]

Don't you find the weighting odd for the different areas measured on page 677?

:lol no. How much of the earth's surface does the southern hemisphere cover?

[Wild Cobra]

LOL @ Manny that he thinks anyone denies this.

Oh, and by the way, science does not progress by consensus. It progresses by shattering consensus.
No shit, that is true. If we never challenged popular beliefs in sciences, we could still be living like Neanderthals.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL @ Manny that he thinks anyone denies this.

Oh, and by the way, science does not progress by consensus. It progresses by shattering consensus.

You deny the hockey stick which is the graphic representation of the warming. Science progresses by coming to a consensus. Sometimes its expected, other times not. If you can provide scientific proof to shatter this consensus then please do so.

[MannyIsGod]

No shit, that is true. If we never challenged popular beliefs in sciences, we could still be living like Neanderthals.

Challenge them - with scientific proof. Not with "I don't believe" "I don't trust".

[MannyIsGod]

Those who keep saying that when we agree start sounding like idiots. Nobody denies that the planet has warmed. Will you stop making statements we agree with as if we don't? It also proves you are not listening to us. As long as you are not open to other views, and fail to hear what others actually say, the truth will always elude you.


You deny the hockey stick which is the graphic representation of the warming. Science progresses by coming to a consensus. Sometimes its expected, other times not. If you can provide scientific proof to shatter this consensus then please do so.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol no. How much of the earth's surface does the southern hemisphere cover?
Problem is the assignment makes it appear they are using only one dataset. How many data points from the SH are they using? Did the cherry pick the one that makes their point or not?

Too much surrounding the AGW dogma is closed to the facts. Too many unanswered questions.

[Wild Cobra]

You deny the hockey stick which is the graphic representation of the warming. Science progresses by coming to a consensus. Sometimes its expected, other times not. If you can provide scientific proof to shatter this consensus then please do so.
I don't trust the temperature readings since they apply a formula to change the raw data, use ones that are in temperature islands, and discard the ones that are still in true natural setting.

[RandomGuy]

LOL @ Manny that he thinks anyone denies [the planet is warming].


Should I find all those "oh my god its snowing, look how silly those global warming alarmists are" threads?

I also seem to remember you specifically attempting to argue just that.

Do you want to dare me to find those posts too?

[Wild Cobra]

Challenge them - with scientific proof. Not with "I don't believe" "I don't trust".
Why isn't it enough to say "show me your evidence?" And I mean the at the root level.

[RandomGuy]

Too much surrounding the 9-11 official theory dogma is close to the facts. Too many unanswered questions.

Didn't have to change too many words there to illustrate the common MO, did I?

9-11 truthers, not unlike OV and yourself, want everything perfectly, 100% explained, while ignoring the fact that there will be ambiguities and even contradicting evidence while studying complex systems and events.

That is the way I have come to view many in the "denier" movement, and I am not alone in that observation.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't trust the temperature readings since they apply a formula to change the raw data, use ones that are in temperature islands, and discard the ones that are still in true natural setting.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't have to change too many words there to illustrate the common MO, did I?

9-11 truthers, not unlike OV and yourself, want everything perfectly, 100% explained, while ignoring the fact that there will be ambiguities and even contradicting evidence while studying complex systems and events.

That is the way I have come to view many in the "denier" movement, and I am not alone in that observation.
Well, I noticed I wrote "close" instead of "closed" as intended. I edited that. As for the 9/11 debate, first off that's a different thread, and the science is on the side that the buildings did fall from structural weakening and heat combined. There is nothing scientifically that can show these in error. We continually find scientific flaws with the AGW work.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
There you go again, laughing instead of addressing the point.

[DarrinS]

You deny the hockey stick which is the graphic representation of the warming. Science progresses by coming to a consensus. Sometimes its expected, other times not. If you can provide scientific proof to shatter this consensus then please do so.


Wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, scientific theory's logical end is not wide acceptance.

:lol

[DarrinS]

Should I find all those "oh my god its snowing, look how silly those global warming alarmists are" threads?

I also seem to remember you specifically attempting to argue just that.

Do you want to dare me to find those posts too?



I post anecdotal evidence to make fun of AGW alarmists, who constantly use anecdotal evidence to support their cause.

That said, there hasn't been statistically significant warming in the last 15 years. Hell, even Phil Jones admits that.


Has the Earth warmed in the past century? Yes.
Is that warmth unprecedented? I don't think so.
Given the hundreds of factors that affect climate, is human-produced CO2 the PRIMARY cause of this warming? I don't think so.

[MannyIsGod]

There you go again, laughing instead of addressing the point.

Oh I'm sorry, you had a point? One day you'll understand my point: I don't care what you don't trust, I care what you can prove.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm ready to call this a win for us Darrin. We keep asking questions they are unable to respond to in any meaningful way.

[MannyIsGod]

I post anecdotal evidence to make fun of AGW alarmists, who constantly use anecdotal evidence to support their cause.

That said, there hasn't been statistically significant warming in the last 15 years. Hell, even Phil Jones admits that.


Has the Earth warmed in the past century? Yes.
Is that warmth unprecedented? I don't think so.
Given the hundreds of factors that affect climate, is human-produced CO2 the PRIMARY cause of this warming? I don't think so.


:lol

[MannyIsGod]

I'm ready to call this a win for us Darrin. We keep asking questions they are unable to respond to in any meaningful way.

Win for Team WC! Hooray!

When you declare it will you have a press release?

[MannyIsGod]

No warming in the past 15 years. Nope. Darrin said so.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

[DarrinS]

Yes, scientific theory's logical end is not wide acceptance.

:lol

Hopefully, the goal of science is to find the truth, and not just to find support for their particular pet theory.

[MannyIsGod]

Hopefully, the goal of science is to find the truth, and not just to find support for their particular pet theory.

What happens when science finds the truth Darrin? Does consensus form once something is proven?

[DarrinS]

:lol

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/postimage/Soon_CO2_vs_temp.jpg

[DarrinS]

What happens when science finds the truth Darrin? Does consensus form once something is proven?

Like eugenics?

[MannyIsGod]

Like gravity. Like any number of scientific principles proven and widely accepted once they were proven.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/postimage/Soon_CO2_vs_temp.jpg


No warming in the past 15 years. Nope. Darrin said so.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

[Wild Cobra]

I don't trust the temperature readings since they apply a formula to change the raw data, use ones that are in temperature islands, and discard the ones that are still in true natural setting. :lmao
Tell me. Why is the thermometer readings the only one that
sharply rises after 1970? Why do they all start leveling off
at about 1990 except the thermometer readings?


http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/_res/AR4_F6_10b.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

Pretty sure all rise sharply

[DarrinS]

Like gravity. Like any number of scientific principles proven and widely accepted once they were proven.


You REALLY think AGW is proven? :lol

The word "consenus" is ONLY brought up when the science is not strong enough.

Would anyone really think to say that there is a consensus that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius?

[RandomGuy]

[Science does not progress by arriving at a consensus.]
Science progresses by:



1.Define the question
2.Gather information and resources (observe)
3.Form hypothesis
4.Perform experiment and collect data
5.Analyze data
6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Either data supports a given hypothesis or it doesn't.

Replication and retesting is done and either something works out or it doesn't.

That you want to argue about "consensus" or not misses the point.

Sometimes there is broad consensus, especially when the data is fairly clear, other times there isn't.

For your assertion to work, you would have to "shatter the consensus" that Planks Constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s as is generally held.

Do you think science will advance by "shattering this consensus", Darrin?

[MannyIsGod]

You REALLY think AGW is proven? :lol

The word "consenus" is ONLY brought up when the science is not strong enough.

Would anyone really think to say that there is a consensus that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius?

And yet there is a consensus that the boiling point of water is 100. So, as I said, the ultimate end in the scientific process is consensus.

[Wild Cobra]

Seems to me that this model of solar activity fits the temperature reconstructions used by the IPCC very good:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/RSJsolartrend.jpg (http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html)

[RandomGuy]

I post anecdotal evidence to make fun of AGW alarmists, who constantly use anecdotal evidence to support their cause.

That said, there hasn't been statistically significant warming in the last 15 years. Hell, even Phil Jones admits that.


Has the Earth warmed in the past century? Yes.
Is that warmth unprecedented? I don't think so.
Given the hundreds of factors that affect climate, is human-produced CO2 the PRIMARY cause of this warming? I don't think so.

Ah... satire. Ok, Withdrawn. Satire is fair game for political forums. :lol (mean that very good-naturedly)

BUT

AGW does not hold that CO2 is the primary cause of warming, merely that warming trends would be lower without our emissions.

If you can't properly state the theory you are attempting to discredit, another eerie similarity with 9-11 truthers, you aren't helping your case. It shows you don't really understand the underlying science or what is being put forth.

[DarrinS]

For your assertion to work, you would have to "shatter the consensus" that Planks Constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s as is generally held.

Do you think science will advance by "shattering this consensus", Darrin?


I'll use something related to AGW.

What's the climate sensitivity to CO2? Is there a consensus about that?

[RandomGuy]

I'm ready to call this a win for us Darrin. We keep asking questions they are unable to respond to in any meaningful way.

Declaring victory and going home is another trait in common with Truthers who think they got the shills with their probing insights. Keep digging.

[MannyIsGod]

That figure is produced by a person who thinks the IPCC ignores cloud albedo. They don't.

[Wild Cobra]

BUT

AGW does not hold that CO2 is the primary cause of warming, merely that warming trends would be lower without our emissions.

True, but lacks specificity. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels wouldn't be much difference if we emitted no CO2. The AGW crowd completely ignores Henry's Law. I see only one factor that if we could keep all other factors equal, we would be able to see measurable results from. That is the particulate pollution we emit. Things like the sulfurs blocking sunlight, causing cooling. Black carbon causing warming. I honestly believe from everything I have seen, that CO2 is only a weak greenhouse gas. It causes some warming. However, if the oceans didn't warm from solar changes, there would be only a very small addition in the air from the extra CO2, as the oceans would sink about 98% of it. The same goes with other well mixed greenhouse gasses.

[DarrinS]

A good read.


In Support of Skepticism





"Most institutions demand unqualified faith;
but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue." (Merton, 1962)


Most scientists acknowledge the importance of making science relevant and useful in policy making, while recognizing that policy is not, and should not be, based on science alone.

In recent decades, investigations of major environmental issues such as climate change, acid rain, smog, and hypoxia have resulted in the conduct of complex integrated assessments. Such assessments organize information for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of policy making.

In policy making, especially in a political arena, consensus building is a key ingredient. In attempts to make science relevant and useful, the politics of democracy tend to promote, even in some cases demand "scientific consensus." However, as a "community of belief" develops, skepticism is no longer regarded as a virtue. In a civilization that is founded on science, this is an unfortunate state of affairs and detrimental to our future.

In order to appreciate this concern, it is necessary to revisit the central role of skepticism in science. Let us start with a dictionary definition of skepticism. Webster's Dictionary defines skepticism as: "A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit." The Greek root of skepticism is identified as "skepticos", which means "thoughtful, inquiring."

For centuries, science has been founded on well-established methods of scientific investigation, which include recognition that "A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory" (Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982). Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology.

There are two dominant and somewhat opposing philosophies on testing hypothesis and theories. One philosophy is that the purpose of hypothesis testing is to validate - to support or corroborate - a hypothesis. The other philosophy is that the purpose of hypothesis testing is to attempt to invalidate a hypothesis. And the same applies to model testing; there are scientists who attempt only to validate models, and others who state that the true application of the scientific method includes attempts to invalidate models and to show the limits of applicability of models. In science, attempts to invalidate hypotheses and models - hard-core skepticism, by any definition - should be viewed as a necessary positive step in the pursuit of truth. Rigorous hypotheses and models will emerge as triumphant - at least for the time being. In a problem-solving and policy-development mode, healthy skepticism is needed to ensure the rigor and effectiveness of proposed solutions. Another way of expressing the difference between these two philosophies is to state that "Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue; it is an intellectual crime" (Lakatos, 1978).

This is why I regard consensus science and the demise of scientific skepticism as an unhealthy combination. Without the boldness and perseverance of earlier skeptics, who risked ridicule and being branded as heretics, we would still believe Earth to be the center of the Universe and continents to be motionless.

Taking the issue of climate change as an example, there are healthy signs of increasing recognition of the importance of dealing with important methodological uncertainties. Petersen (1999), in an inspiring article entitled "Philosophy of Climate Science", states that, "Climate science has to deal with important methodological problems concerning climate simulation. Among these are methodological problems related to climate model hierarchy and complexity, tuning and falsifiability, and uncertainty. All these subjects have only recently become topics of discussion within the climate science community." He finds that uncertainties are currently not thoroughly and methodologically assessed for the purposes of policy usefulness of climate science. Barnett et al. (1999), in a scholarly article summarizing the status of detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate signal, also find that "Only recently has detection work paid serious attention to the variety of uncertainties that attend the observations and model projections of an anthropogenic signal."

We must find improved ways of preserving and strengthening the time-honored method of scientific investigation, which includes promoting skepticism in the search for truth. We must do this at the same time that we find improved ways of making science more useful in policy making. A stronger culture of critical debate and organized skepticism needs to be fostered.

One way of achieving these goals is for those who organize and conduct integrated assessment, and those who will use their results, to ensure that the assessments rigorously test multiple working hypotheses, identify clearly what we know and do not know, include minority (or seemingly external) views, and express confidence levels on the findings. In a political system that is based on checks and balances, substantial constituency input to and strong external oversight of the assessment process are needed to ensure the integrity of science. An Office of Science and Technology in Congress could provide the needed oversight.

The crux of the problem is how science is taught and practiced. To protect science in the long term, "a healthy dose of skepticism" should be introduced into every young scientist's education, and more training should be provided for studying and expressing uncertainty at all levels of professional development. The scientific community should raise the standards of peer review and the demands of "adequate proof."

If science is not to be subsumed by policy, and scientists are not to be turned into politicians, then, as Jacob Bronowski recognized, science ".... must protect independence. The safeguards which it must offer are patent: free enquiry, free thought, free speech, tolerance" (Bronowski, 1958). While Bronowski went too far when he called for the "disestablishment of science" - the separation, as complete as possible, between science and government - science today needs increased safeguards.

[RandomGuy]

For your assertion [that science only progresses by shattering consensus] to work, you would have to "shatter the consensus" that Planks Constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s as is generally held.

Do you think science will advance by "shattering this consensus", Darrin?



I'll use something related to AGW.

What's the climate sensitivity to CO2? Is there a consensus about that?

You did not answer that question.

You stated
"science only progresses by shattering consensus"

A only if B.

I presented an example showing where "B" only works if you knock-down a long standing consensus regarding a physical constant, i.e. "not B".

You realizing that I have shown "not B", have avoided answering the question, because answering it definitively either forces you to admit that either the consensus of scientists regarding a widely known physical constant needs to be shattered (proving your assertion correct), or they are right in their consensus and you are wrong in your assertion.

I will re-state the question then, and assume any evasion of a simple yes or no question to be an admission that your assertion was incorrect.

For your assertion [that science only progresses by shattering consensus] to work, you would have to "shatter the consensus" that Planks Constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s as is generally held.

Do you think science will advance only by "shattering this consensus", Darrin?

[MannyIsGod]

On the scale of the instrumental record of Earth's surface temperature over the last 160 years, humans have had no effect, and the Solar Global Warming model advanced here would predict none. To the extent that IPCC might presume that human activities have altered Earth's temperature record, the effect is imaginary, absent some sentient extraterrestrial force that managed to keep the Sun synchronized with Earth's average surface temperature.

IPCC claims to have evidence of the fingerprint of man on Earthly gas and temperature processes are unsubstantiated. Each has a basis in graphical trickery. Two of these claims falsely demonstrate relationships known mathematically: the rate of CO2 increase compared to the rate of O2 decrease, and the rate of fossil fuel emissions compared to the rate of decrease in the isotopic weight of atmospheric CO2 based on mass balance principles. Other claims rely on investigator-manufactured data from ancient records blended into modern records, where the former are averages by a process requiring a year to centuries, while the latter are relatively instantaneous. The records requiring a year are tree ring reductions, while the others are measurements from ice cores that average gas concentrations over a range of couple of decades to a millennium and a half.

-> Contents …
E. Greenhouse Gases Do Not Cause Climate Change.

Just as the Earth's temperature record following the Sun eliminates humans from the climate equation, so is the fate of the greenhouse effect. To the extent that the greenhouse effect is correlated with Earth's temperature history, the cause must link from the Sun to the greenhouse gases. The alternative is the silly proposition that solar radiation variations might be caused by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.

-> Contents …
F. AGW post-mortem.

AGW is dead. Here are some topics for the post-mortem. Forensic analysis of proxy reductions for correlations caused by data set sharing, and subjective smoothing into the instrument record. Forensic analysis of whether proxy temperature reductions have any validity. An à priori model for the tapped delay line representation of climate based on ocean currents. An à priori model for cloudiness as it responds to short wave radiation.


This is the stuff WC thinks is correct.

Thats from his link above.

[Wild Cobra]

Declaring victory and going home is another trait in common with Truthers who think they got the shills with their probing insights. Keep digging.
Well, it's pretty pitiful when I keep bring up facts and theories, and Manny is incapable of producing anything of substance. there is no point if he is above his head in this matter. I feel as bad as if I'm stealing candy from a baby, because he in incapable of the same level of intellectual recourse.

[MannyIsGod]

True, but lacks specificity. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels wouldn't be much difference if we emitted no CO2. The AGW crowd completely ignores Henry's Law. I see only one factor that if we could keep all other factors equal, we would be able to see measurable results from. That is the particulate pollution we emit. Things like the sulfurs blocking sunlight, causing cooling. Black carbon causing warming. I honestly believe from everything I have seen, that CO2 is only a weak greenhouse gas. It causes some warming. However, if the oceans didn't warm from solar changes, there would be only a very small addition in the air from the extra CO2, as the oceans would sink about 98% of it. The same goes with other well mixed greenhouse gasses.

No, there's not. The oceans haven't lost any CO2 to the air or we'd measure it. I'm open to proof that the CO2 content in the oceans is measurably lower, however.

[RandomGuy]

A good read.


In Support of Skepticism

What does it tell you that people who consider themselves generally, truly skeptical, lump most deniers in with pseudoscientists?

[Wild Cobra]

That figure is produced by a person who thinks the IPCC ignores cloud albedo. They don't.
I don't recall what you are referring too. I think it would be more correct to say he disagrees with how the IPCC applies it.

Show me please. Which of his six articles. Which paragraph.

From what i just searched and read, he claims the IPCC uses a static model for albedo rather than a dynamic one. He never says the IPCC ignores albedo.

My God...

You can't even read without applying you bias.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, it's pretty pitiful when I keep bring up facts and theories, and Manny is incapable of producing anything of substance. there is no point if he is above his head in this matter. I feel as bad as if I'm stealing candy from a baby, because he in incapable of the same level of intellectual recourse.

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

A good read.


In Support of Skepticism

:lmao

And yet you mock them when anything is revised. I'd say you're talking out of both sides of your mouth Darrin but at this point you have more than two sides to that mouth.

[RandomGuy]

I'll use something related to AGW.

What's the climate sensitivity to CO2? Is there a consensus about that?

I do not know the exact sensitivity off the top of my head, but I believe there is a general consensus as to the approximate value involved, yes.

That is my understanding.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

And yet you mock them when anything is revised. I'd say you're talking out of both sides of your mouth Darrin but at this point you have more than two sides to that mouth.

I was going to point that out, but backspaced over it.

Lunch time over. sigh.

[DarrinS]

For your assertion [that science only progresses by shattering consensus] to work, you would have to "shatter the consensus" that Planks Constant is 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s as is generally held.

Do you think science will advance only by "shattering this consensus", Darrin?



Newton's model of the world worked great for everyone until Einstein shattered it.

[RandomGuy]

I don't recall what you are referring too. I think it would be more correct to say he disagrees with how the IPCC applies it.

Show me please. Which of his six articles. Which paragraph.

From what i just searched and read, he claims the IPCC uses a static model for albedo rather than a dynamic one. He never says the IPCC ignores albedo.

My God...

You can't even read without applying you bias.

Give me the links and I will go over his articles, if you would be so kind.

That should be fairly easy to verify.

[DarrinS]

:lmao

And yet you mock them when anything is revised. I'd say you're talking out of both sides of your mouth Darrin but at this point you have more than two sides to that mouth.


What are you talking about?

[Wild Cobra]

This is the stuff WC thinks is correct.

Thats from his link above.
I never said I agree with the man 100%.

You fail again.

I have repeated pointed out our contribution to warming in the form of Black Carbon. When will you stop with your lying?

[RandomGuy]

Newton's model of the world worked great for everyone until Einstein shattered it.

That is not a specific yes or no.

We can effectively discard your assertion that science only works by shattering consensus.

Thank you.

I will readily accede, however, that scientific understanding is occasionally flawed, and new data adds to that knowledge.

We will continue to add new data regarding this.

Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that by the time we really are as certain as you want us to be, we will have really fucked things up and it will be too late to address things. Pity.

[Wild Cobra]

I do not know the exact sensitivity off the top of my head, but I believe there is a general consensus as to the approximate value involved, yes.

That is my understanding.
A sensitivity that can be given a constant value... I agree somewhat, but the consensus also says that CO2 contributes between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect. This is fine until you reverse engineer this, and realize you must take about 27% to have the low range of these same people's claim that doubling CO2 increases warming by 1.5 to 3 degrees.

Their fiction does not add up!

[RandomGuy]

What are you talking about?


Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#Hierarchy_of_global_warming_denial


While a consensus, of itself, proves nothing, the following organizations are in no doubt of the existence of a problem caused by anthropogenic climate change.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
It is difficult to find any respected scientific organization which doubts that anthropogenic climate change is taking place.

When I pointed out that a website by skeptics didn't think rather highly of the "denier" movement, you said they were full of it.

[DarrinS]

Sorry RG. Not reading anything from "rational"wiki.

[RandomGuy]

Sorry RG. Not reading anything from "rational"wiki.


It is difficult to find any respected scientific organization which doubts that anthropogenic climate change is taking place.

Don't read that.

Keep ignoring it.

[RandomGuy]

There is ample evidence that CO2 levels wouldn't be much difference if we emitted no CO2.

My understanding is that the rate of the current increases in concentration of CO2 are without precendence in what we understand of historic concentrations of that gas. Barring massive levels of vulcanism that have, at times, occurred in the past, of course.

Have we seen massive levels of vulcanism in the last 200 years? 50 years?

[RandomGuy]

Nobody disputes that CO2 has increased. Nobody disputs that we probably contribute about 8 GtC annually. ...Is it possible that Henry's law, and the fact that the ocean contains more than 50 times more carbon of the carbon cycle than the atmosphere possible the cause?

It is possible.

Simplifying assumptions and calculations become a bit meaningless when applied to extremely complex systems, as you have pointed out repeatedly in your criticisms of modeling.

Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?

[MannyIsGod]

All he has to do is that the ocean has lost the carbon dioxide that has gone into the air. Of course, this has been measured and found non changing thereby sinking the theory that CO2 comes from the ocean.

In fact, the ocean is gaining CO2 as evidence by its falling O2 levels and PH changes.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/110.htm#351

[Wild Cobra]

It is possible.

Simplifying assumptions and calculations become a bit meaningless when applied to extremely complex systems, as you have pointed out repeatedly in your criticisms of modeling.
Yes, but there are certain known things in science not in debate, that the AGW crowd conveniently refuses to address.

Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?
Henry's law is rather direct. If course, there is a rate that the oceans can absorb, which if of a smaller slope than the added CO2 is, will lag in absorption. Still, Henry's law, other than the slow ocean mixing, is pretty solid in science.

[RandomGuy]

All he has to do is that the ocean has lost the carbon dioxide that has gone into the air. Of course, this has been measured and found non changing thereby sinking the theory that CO2 comes from the ocean.

Once you have eliminated the oceans as the source of CO2 concentrations then, you have either two readily ascertainable sources. Humans and volcanos.

If one cannot show significant levels of volcanic activity (relative to known levels), then you must conclude the rise in CO2 concentrations are attributable to humans, especially given that human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere have spiked precisely as concentration has.

Correlation is not cause, but in this case it is a fairly reasonable conclusion to make, based on what you pointed out.

[Wild Cobra]

My understanding is that the rate of the current increases in concentration of CO2 are without precendence in what we understand of historic concentrations of that gas. Barring massive levels of vulcanism that have, at times, occurred in the past, of course.

Have we seen massive levels of vulcanism in the last 200 years? 50 years?
The rate is somewhat similar to the rate increase before 11,000 years ago.

You were saying?

[RandomGuy]

Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?


Yes, but there are certain known things in science not in debate, that the AGW crowd conveniently refuses to address.

Henry's law is rather direct. If course, there is a rate that the oceans can absorb, which if of a smaller slope than the added CO2 is, will lag in absorption. Still, Henry's law, other than the slow ocean mixing, is pretty solid in science.

I did not ask if Henry's law was direct.

I asked:

Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?

If you refuse to answer this question, I will simply assume it is possible that a simple application of Henry's law might not be entirely appropriate, although useful.

[RandomGuy]

The rate is somewhat similar to the rate increase before 11,000 years ago.

You were saying?

How long did the rate increase take "before 11,000 years ago"?

To my knowledge, the RATE of change is entirely without precedence.

Gotta go.

[Wild Cobra]

All he has to do is that the ocean has lost the carbon dioxide that has gone into the air. Of course, this has been measured and found non changing thereby sinking the theory that CO2 comes from the ocean.

In fact, the ocean is gaining CO2 as evidence by its falling O2 levels and PH changes.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/110.htm#351
Will you stop being a ditz?

I never said the ocean wasn't gaining CO2. I said if the ocean wasn't warming, it would absorb about 98% of the added CO2. At is stands now, if I recall, the ocean absorbs about 55% of the extra CO2 that is outside of the natural CO2 alone.

Now what I find ironic is that the IPCC acknowledges out-gassing from the ocean, but they refer to correcting figure 3.6 from ocean out-gassing of oxygen and nitrogen. Well you know what... If there is a net out-gassing of oxygen form the ocean heating, there be a net out-gassing of carbon dioxide as well. Even if we didn't add any to the atmosphere?
A small correction is made for differential outgassing of O2 and N2 with the increased temperature of the ocean as estimated by Levitus et al. (2000).

[Wild Cobra]

Once you have eliminated the oceans as the source of CO2 concentrations then, you have either two readily ascertainable sources. Humans and volcanos.

If one cannot show significant levels of volcanic activity (relative to known levels), then you must conclude the rise in CO2 concentrations are attributable to humans, especially given that human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere have spiked precisely as concentration has.

Correlation is not cause, but in this case it is a fairly reasonable conclusion to make, based on what you pointed out.
Bzzzzzzzzt

Wrong answer.

See my last post. CO2 is not eliminated from out-gassing.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, so your stance is that the Ocean is not absorbing all the CO2 so its not that we're putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere its that the ocean is not taking it all in.

:lmao x 34390483094834903834903480

Grasping at some motherfucking straws. Pretty awesome.

[Wild Cobra]

How long did the rate increase take "before 11,000 years ago"?

To my knowledge, the RATE of change is entirely without precedence.

Gotta go.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000years50pctannotat ed.jpg

[RandomGuy]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000years50pctannotat ed.jpg

fair enough, wihtout seeing any other data.

Do we have evidence then of volcanic activity during that time period that would explain the spike?

Would the level of volcanic activity from that time correspond to, be greater than, or less than what have experienced since 1850?

How would that rate of change then compare to that since 1950?

[Wild Cobra]

I did not ask if Henry's law was direct.

I asked:

Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?

If you refuse to answer this question, I will simply assume it is possible that a simple application of Henry's law might not be entirely appropriate, although useful.
I'm sorry you didn't understand my response. No. Not as you imply. There simply isn't instantaneous equalization with change levels of one or the other.

Yes, there are some other factors, but the time it takes to equalize, i.e. lag, doesn't vary by much. The changing currents, salinity, temperature, and pH are the primary factors. However, they have little effect compared to what we see in changes.

Now what you are getting at is that 98% isn't exactly the right number because of lag time. I don't recall for sure, but the number should be closer to 80% absorption than the current 55%. In other words, if the oceans were not warming, we would likely see CO2 levels in the neighborhood of 320 ppm or less rather than around 390 now. However, over the course of 800 to 100 years, the full equilibrium would come into effect.

Now before you dispute the math ratios, look at it in a half-life format rather than linear.

[Wild Cobra]

fair enough, wihtout seeing any other data.

Do we have evidence then of volcanic activity during that time period that would explain the spike?

Would the level of volcanic activity from that time correspond to, be greater than, or less than what have experienced since 1850?

How would that rate of change then compare to that since 1950?
You sure ask a lot of me to look up. Sorry, can't take that much time. I don't factor volcanic activity into any of my assessments because it is a short term thing. Either far and few between large eruptions, or many small, insignificant ones. therefor, I don't know where to quickly find any of that.

As for volcanic activity triggering that spike? No, I doubt it. This CO2 increase clearly lags temperature by a few hundred years. Here is the same data and more. Please notice the spike in methane about the same time:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/800px-Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolati.jpg

Also notice large upward swings in CO2 at semi regular intervals. This is one of the factors likely to trigger the ice ages and warming periods:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/eccentricity.jpg

Not what I have circles, but the up and down swings about every 100k years or so.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, so your stance is that the Ocean is not absorbing all the CO2 so its not that we're putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere its that the ocean is not taking it all in.

:lmao x 34390483094834903834903480

Grasping at some motherfucking straws. Pretty awesome.
Will you stop misstating what I say?

If you really believe that, you have not been considering my words, but completely blowing me off. Science is to be dealt with an open mind, else it isn't science. You will never be a good scientist if you dismiss things out of hand.

[DarrinS]

Don't read that.

Keep ignoring it.



Consenus = weak science

[Borat Sagyidev]

Time out
End Troll Mode

This "weak science" deal is ridiculous. I work at NASA in contributing areas, so I get pretty turned off by these types of microwave dinner discussions that claim to know better (nice excel graphs). Predicting the next SW division winner, yeah...go for it here. But this? Give me a break, many of you nay-sayers post 24-7 let alone actually take time to analyze and educate yourself on something (other than trash like rush Limbaugh, etc). If you think you know better, prove it and publish your paper if you dare.

Unless you're scared of the big bad evil liberal academics. But hey, You're smarter aren't you? Heck you'll even have the financial support of the petrol company if you seek it. You have nothing to lose.

There are a lot of factors that go into weather than none of you or I can constrain in an internet forum to say the least. A large range of solar flares, volcanic eruptions, etc that can have effects for centuries all encompassed. You guys think the smallest visible blips on a poorly made graph are causes for concern, yet with no analysis applied to them.

Why are WC and DarrinS debating this issue on a sports side forum? Honestly, if WC or DarrinS want some serious answers why don't they visit a real climate change discussion forum (not some right wing web, which seems to be where they got most of their images) on this issue? This is like asking for help on a car purchase during confession.

Anyway speaking of spreading misinformation, I also think that Camel cigarettes aren't bad for you since most doctors prefer them over others.

http://www.unsoughtinput.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/gra_bdoctor.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

Consenus = weak science

The only true scientists are the ones who believe what the majority of the scientific population doesn't.

That's why I prescribe not to the conscious-collapsing version of QM, or the Multi-verse, but my own very specific "Video game" version, in which we're all just in a video game in which the designer figured we'd never start looking at the really big or really small stuff, so just fudged the numbers.

And since I'm, AFAIK, the only one who believes this, that makes my science right.

[RandomGuy]

[/COLOR][/B]This "weak science" deal is ridiculous. I work at NASA in contributing areas, so I get pretty turned off by these types of microwave dinner discussions that claim to know better (nice excel graphs). Predicting the next SW division winner, yeah...go for it here. But this? Give me a break, many of you nay-sayers post 24-7 let alone actually take time to analyze and educate yourself on something (other than trash like rush Limbaugh, etc). If you think you know better, prove it and publish your paper if you dare.

Unless you're scared of the big bad evil liberal academics. But hey, You're smarter aren't you? Heck you'll even have the financial support of the petrol company if you seek it. You have nothing to lose.

There are a lot of factors that go into weather than none of you or I can constrain in an internet forum to say the least. A large range of solar flares, volcanic eruptions, etc that can have effects for centuries all encompassed. You guys think the smallest visible blips on a poorly made graph are causes for concern, yet with no analysis applied to them.

Why are WC and DarrinS debating this issue on a sports side forum? Honestly, if WC or DarrinS want some serious answers why don't they visit a real climate change discussion forum (not some right wing web, which seems to be where they got most of their images) on this issue? This is like asking for help on a car purchase during confession.




Well, the entire purpose of this thread is less to debate the topic than to provide me with evidence that people who really go into denial are putting their belief in pseudoscience. Hence the title. :lol

I have not been disappointed.

Seriously as much as some blather on about how bad the science is, you would think they would do a fucking paper on it, and submit it to a real peer-review journal, so they could expose the evil conspiracy to the rest of us shills, er, libtards.

Until then I am going to assign such arguments fairly little weight, no matter how science-y they sound.

[MannyIsGod]

Don't know how good the climate change forum is since I rarely venture there but the forecasting forum has some excellent posts. I love reading it and although like any internet forum you have to do some filtering the amount of scientists on the site is nice.

http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?/forum/36-climate-change/

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I have Borat on IGNORE since his trollish input. Saw this in Random's reply:
Why are WC and DarrinS debating this issue on a sports side forum?Well, of the forums I have explored I find this one far better and interactive than most. This is a great forum, even outside of basketball topics.

Kudo's to the creators.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC and I attack the "science", while Manny and FuzzyLumpshit attack us. Interesting.

As you attack me... Hypocrite much?

I attack partschanger's methodology. I think his job considering hes been at it for 30 years is funny but I hardly base my arguments on that. I am talking about his approach not about him and there is a difference.

You I do not really care about. You're innocuous as far as I am concerned.

[DarrinS]

Damn, check out this memo from the Nixon library

http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf


A hilarious exerpt:




The process is a simple one. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse. The C02 content is normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the turn of the century several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere. Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has corne along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth' s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.




This memo says the sea level could rise 10 feet. Al Gore said 20 feet. IPCC's WORST CASE SCENARIO is 23 inches. Eh, what's an order of magnitude between fellow catastrophists?

[Wild Cobra]

Damn, check out this memo from the Nixon library

http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf


A hilarious exerpt:




This memo says the sea level could rise 10 feet. Al Gore said 20 feet. IPCC's WORST CASE SCENARIO is 23 inches. Eh, what's an order of magnitude between fellow catastrophists?
I wonder...

When did the term "greenhouse effect" start being used? I forget? Was it 1969?

1969 is the best year of all times. Great cars, great women, great music, great... everything!

[Wild Cobra]

My God...

Look who the first signature block is!

[DarrinS]

Are New York and Washington still there? That memo was written 41 years ago.

[RandomGuy]

Well, I have Borat on IGNORE since his trollish input. Saw this in Random's reply:Well, of the forums I have explored I find this one far better and interactive than most. This is a great forum, even outside of basketball topics.

Kudo's to the creators.

Ease of use, a diverse population, politically at least, and a team worth rooting for.

Wish Extra Stout still posted.

[DarrinS]

Here's (hopefully) the last thing I have to say on the matter.

The AGW community may be right and the skeptic side wrong (or vice versa). Bottom line is, with so many variables that affect climate, with so many anomalies and contradictions in the data, with so many MAJOR climatic changes without human influence, with so much shady behavior by the climate science community, and with so much at stake, maybe a little skepticism is a healthy thing. And not something to be labeled heretic, denier (a.k.a. holocaust denier) or lumped in with 9/11 twooferism. After all, many climate scientists (many of them former IPCC contributors) are at odds with much of the AGW alarmism.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I see that instead of attempting to actually answer any of my questions, Manny filled out a Butthurt form instead:


http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/butthurt-manny.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

I'm pretty sure that creating a "butthurt report" is a sure sign of butthurt.

[boutons_deux]

Republican Global Warming Deniers Funded By Energy Industry


Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey raised eyebrows when he said in a local radio interview on Friday, that the degree to which human activity is to blame for global warming is being "very much disputed" and "debated."

It's not the first time he's made the argument.

"There is much debate in the scientific community as to the precise sources of global warming," Toomey claimed in June.

Trolling Opensecrets.org, HuffPost found Toomey's top contributors include oil and coal giants Koch Industries ($15,000) and Murray Energy ($16,655). Those are the top two contributors of climate change skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) who received $45,500 and $30,600 from those companies respectively.

Inhofe drew headlines during the record-breaking snowfall in Washington in February when he built an igloo outside the Capitol with a sign on it that read: "Al Gore's Home. Honk If You Like Global Warming." And for years now, Inhofe has insisted that global warming doesn't exist, deeming it "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

The only other Senate candidates whose top contributors include these two companies are global warming deniers David Vitter (R - La.), John Hoeven (R - N.D), and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Vitter received $16,750 from Koch Industries and $17,378 from Murray Energy; Hoeven received $10,000 from Koch Industries and $20,789 from Murray Energy; and DeMint received $22,000 from Koch industries and $24,333 from Murray Energy.

Hoeven has said of global warming "there's different opinions of exactly what's causing it," while Vitter has called evidence from liberals supporting climate change "ridiculous pseudo-science garbage." Meanwhile Demint took to Twitter to write, in the midst of the snowstorm in DC last winter: "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle.'"

The Washington Post cited Toomey as a prime example of a Tea Party candidate who comes across as moderate and reasonable, when compared to the likes of Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, but who holds extreme views on specific issues -- in this case, climate change.

The question is whether Toomey's view can even be considered extreme given the views of others in his party.

Though his claims are sharply at odds with scientific consensus, which holds that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming, Toomey's position on climate change will likely be the position held by a majority of GOPers in in the 112th Congress.

A roundup by ThinkProgress's Wonk Room shows that nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution. ThinkProgress's Brad Johnson writes:

Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, no one supports climate action, after climate advocate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) lost his primary to Christine O'Donnell. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line.


Many of these Senate candidates are signatories of the Koch Industries' Americans For Prosperity No Climate Tax pledge and the FreedomWorks Contract From America. The second plank of the Contract From America is to "Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures."

HuffPost found Koch Industries was a top contributor for Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Daniel Coats (R-Ind), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Murray Energy was a top contributor for Carly Fiorina (R-Calif.), and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Every one of these Republican candidates for Senate has questioned climate science. (Click on their names for an example.)

Neither company funded a single Democratic candidate for Senate.

In Alaska, the state most coveted by the oil and natural gas industry, Exxon Mobil donated some money to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller and more to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski, who suffered an unexpected defeat to Miller in the Republican primary election.

That mirrors the strategy Exxon Mobil used in the 2008 presidential election when it contributed to both Barack Obama and John McCain. Though McCain would presumably better protect company interests, by donating to both candidates Exxon might hope to curry favor with whoever ultimately won power.

Listen to Toomey's local radio interview here. The relevant conversation starts around the 15 minute mark:

Toomey is locked in a tight race with Rep. Joe Sestak to replace five-term Sen. Arlen Specter, who lost to Sestak in May's Democratic primary.

"This is just the latest example of Congressman Toomey's refusal to hear perspectives that don't fit into his own narrow mindset, even if those perspectives are backed by a large volume of credible evidence," said Sestak campaign spokesman Jonathon Dworkin. "But try as he might, Toomey can't escape from the facts. Pennsylvania needs a public servant dedicated to finding practical solutions to the problems we face, not another closed-minded ideologue bent on insisting that the 'world is flat.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/14/pat-toomey-climate-change-republicans_n_763545.html?view=print

===========

Nothing new here, just facts that all politicians support/block according to their corporate paymasters' desires.

[RandomGuy]

Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, no one supports climate action, after climate advocate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) lost his primary to Christine O'Donnell. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line....

Nothing new here, just facts that all politicians support/block according to their corporate paymasters' desires.

I tend to view this as part of the Republican "war on science".

Gut biology courses to pamper to evangelicals, play-up the pseudoscience AGW denier "evidence", create a climate where MBAs are viewed as more important and engineers/scientists, and we wonder why scientific literacy is dropping like a rock.

[RandomGuy]

But hey we need to show up them intellectual types, with their hoity toity PhD's. I mean, real men don't "titrate ionic solutions". Yippy ki yay.

Pfft.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I tend to view this as part of the Republican "war on science".

Gut biology courses to pamper to evangelicals, play-up the pseudoscience AGW denier "evidence", create a climate where MBAs are viewed as more important and engineers/scientists, and we wonder why scientific literacy is dropping like a rock.

Yeah engineers are scientists no longer run technological development. Its now all bid and managed by financiers.

[RandomGuy]

so much shady behavior by the climate science community

I would find your arguments so much more credible if you held the deniers you agree with to the same ethical and intellectual standards.

That you hold double standards for the side you agree with, mostly by simple silence, does not lead me to be convinced of your cause.

[DarrinS]

I would find your arguments so much more credible if you held the deniers you agree with to the same ethical and intellectual standards.

That you hold double standards for the side you agree with, mostly by simple silence, does not lead me to be convinced of your cause.


I'll take your arguments more seriously when you start using the term skeptic instead of denier.

[DarrinS]

Republican Global Warming Deniers Funded By Energy Industry


:lmao @ the amounts of money quoted in that article.

How much did BP give Obama?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll take your arguments more seriously when you start using the term skeptic instead of denier.

So you admit the possibility that they are correct and if so what chance do you give it?

[Yonivore]

I'll say it again. Once the people who claim there is a climatological crisis start acting like there's a climatological crisis, I'll start paying attention.


Europe on track for Kyoto targets while emissions from imported goods rise (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/13/europe-kyoto-targets-emissions)


The European Environment Agency reported that by the end of last year emissions produced by the current 27 member countries have fallen by more than 17% since 1990, putting them "well on track" to meet the target to meet the EU's own pledge of a 20% reduction by 2020 . The original 15 EU member states who signed Kyoto have dropped their emissions by 6%, giving them "a headstart to reach and even over-achieve" their target under the treaty of an 8% reduction. Emissions from the current 27 member countries have fallen by more than 17% since 1990, putting them "well on track" to meet the target to meet the EU's own pledge of a 20% reduction by the same date, added the report.

However a report due to be published soon by the Policy Exchange thinktank has measured the emissions generated by goods and services consumed by those countries and found that it has increased by more than 40%.

As a result, "demonstrating success in reducing carbon levels is questionable," said Simon Less, the thinktank's head of environment and energy.

It's a sham. From Al Gore and his million-man-equivalent carbon footprint to Nancy Pelosi and the rest of them in Congress who fly around on military jets as if they were riding a bike to the corner store.

[clambake]

next thing you know, they'll be landing on a carrier.

[ChumpDumper]

next thing you know, they'll be landing on a carrier.Did they recycle the "Mission Accomplished" banner?

[RandomGuy]

I'll say it again. Once the people who claim there is a climatological crisis start acting like there's a climatological crisis, I'll start paying attention.

No one here believes that.

Even if they did, you would still deny there is anything to worry about.

[Wild Cobra]

No one here believes that.

Even if they did, you would still deny there is anything to worry about.
I think his point is things like Al Gore living in a smaller, energy efficient home and not using multiple large computer monitors. Using more fuel efficient transportation. just one example. If the leader of the AGW movement doesn't live by his own words, why should we?

[RandomGuy]

I did not ask if Henry's law was direct.

I asked:

Is it possible that the processes involved in planetary atmospheres/oceans are too complex to apply Henry's law without some heavy modifications to that calculation?

If you refuse to answer this question, I will simply assume it is possible that a simple application of Henry's law might not be entirely appropriate, although useful.


No. Not as you imply.

So the entire complex planetary atmosphere, with all the oceans currents, biological processes and so forth, boil down to one simplifying assumption.

The entire ocean behaves exactly like a small beaker in a laboratory under carefully controlled conditions?

I find that a bit of a stretch.

[RandomGuy]

Have we seen massive levels of vulcanism in the last 200 years? 50 years [that might cause our current run up in Co2]?




As for volcanic activity triggering that spike? No, I doubt it.

So, essentially, you have not eliminated vulcanism as the source of the Co2 spike?

You have attributed the entire spike in concentration, to my knowledge to an increase in temperature in the oceans.

You have stated that the increase in CO2 is NOT due to any human activity.

Is that correct?

[RandomGuy]

Consenus = weak science

By that definition the consensus concerning gravitational, chemical, and electrical constants of the universe is weak science.

There is a huge degree of consensus concerning the atomic weight of the elements that comprise the current periodic table.

Is that consensus weak science?

[Wild Cobra]

So the entire complex planetary atmosphere, with all the oceans currents, biological processes and so forth, boil down to one simplifying assumption.

The entire ocean behaves exactly like a small beaker in a laboratory under carefully controlled conditions?

I find that a bit of a stretch.
No, it's not that simple either. Just not as complex as i think you are trying to say. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intent.

We know all but certain that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise and fall with ocean temperature. The science we know dictates this, and the data shows such trends. Henry's law has not been proven wrong, and has no controversy about how it works. We know that the ocean system has a long lag period. We know that the data points for CO2 in proxy data is far enough apart that there is only about about a 5% chance of seeing a CO2 peak similar to ours should there be a 50 year occurrence in the past. Now CO2 is complex in the aspect that it goes through various chemical changes more so than most absorbed gases, but this works both ways, and is under temperatures and pressures with depth and location than a laboratory experiment.


Solution:

CO2(atmospheric) ⇌ CO2(dissolved)

Conversion to carbonic acid:

CO2(dissolved) + H2O ⇌ H2CO3

First ionization:

H2CO3 ⇌ H+ + HCO3− (bicarbonate ion)

Second ionization:

HCO3− ⇌ H+ + CO3−− (carbonate ion)

Everything we know as valid science is strong enough that I believe the AGW theory is still just a hypothesis. Anyone who understands more than just the basics of the carbon cycle can positively state that the CO2 levels we see could be natural.

[RandomGuy]

We know all but certain that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise and fall with ocean temperature.

Nobody disputes the correlation.

What is in question is causation.

Have you determined a testable hypothesis in order to research this?

What would your null hypothesis be?

[RandomGuy]

Everything we know as valid science is strong enough that I believe the AGW theory is still just a hypothesis.

Just as the values for certain aspects given are also hypothesis.

I fully agree the data is somewhat ambiguous, and we need more testing, data, and research.

Can we form reasonable courses of action, based on incomplete data?

[RandomGuy]

Also, by the by, here is the scoreboard so far:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
Nine logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion

OV did the best so far. Darrin... not so much.

[RandomGuy]

Also, by the by, here is the scoreboard so far:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
Nine logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion

OV did the best so far. Darrin... not so much.

(still in the process of combing through thread, by the way)

Cobra, you are doing fairly well, actually. Kudos to sticking to the science in a fairly reasonable manner.

There is still some "hand-wavy" dismissals though. Get to that in a bit.

[RandomGuy]

We can go back and forth with graphs and arrows and quibbling over details, but we do have a way to short-circuit the argument:

mF_anaVcCXg

The conclusions the guy makes are pretty much logically sound.

I can spell them out if'n nobody wants to watch a youtube, and we can examine them.

What is the wisest thing to do, given the uncertainties and risks?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The video's premise is dumb. Not all probabilities are created equal.

Worst case extremes are not even remotely the most probable outcomes. I cut it off halfway through it was so worthless.

That is poor risk management.

[RandomGuy]

The video's premise is dumb. Not all probabilities are created equal.

Worst case extremes are not even remotely the most probable outcomes. I cut it off halfway through it was so worthless.

That is poor risk management.

He actually addresses the scope of risk towards the end.

It is most definitely not poor risk managment.

The follow up videos in the series are very comprehensive discussions about the entire subject.

He also has a very interesting background lecture concerning the physical impossibility of increasing our usage of fossil fuels for much longer. It is mathmatically impossible to indefinitely increase our consumption of fossil fuels by 2% per year.

In and of itself that is glaringly obvious if one thinks about it, but it has some real implications for depletion factors that need to be considered, when weighing options.

One thing that WC, Darrin, Yoni, and a host of other right-wing ideologues consistantly seem to not want to address is the implications of what happens when you approach depletion of fossil fuels.

[DarrinS]

By that definition the consensus concerning gravitational, chemical, and electrical constants of the universe is weak science.

There is a huge degree of consensus concerning the atomic weight of the elements that comprise the current periodic table.

Is that consensus weak science?


It would be ridiculous to say there is "consensus" on any of those things because they are directly measureable. Consensus has to do with OPINION.

[RandomGuy]

Consensus=weak science


By that definition the consensus concerning gravitational, chemical, and electrical constants of the universe is weak science.

There is a huge degree of consensus concerning the atomic weight of the elements that comprise the current periodic table.

Is that consensus weak science?



It would be ridiculous to say there is "consensus" on any of those things because they are directly measureable. Consensus has to do with OPINION.

So consensus doe NOT equal "weak science"?

Are you abandoning your earlier statement?

[RandomGuy]

It would be ridiculous to say there is "consensus" on any of those things because they are directly measureable. Consensus has to do with OPINION.

Indeed it does have to do with opinion.


Definition of CONSENSUS
1a : general agreement : unanimity
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

It would seem to be there is a "general agreement" on the Planck Constant, and the actions of gravity on mass.

It is ridiculous, Darrin, to say there is a general agreement on the value of the Planck Constant?

[DarrinS]

Indeed it does have to do with opinion.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

It would seem to be there is a "general agreement" on the Plank Constant, and the actions of gravity on mass.

It is ridicdulous, Darrin, to say there is a general agreement on the value of the Plank Constant?

•agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole

There is no "judgement or opinion" on the definition of Planck's constant, just as there is no "judgement or opinion" that there are 12 inches in a foot.

[RandomGuy]

•agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole

There is no "judgement or opinion" on the definition of Planck's constant, just as there is no "judgement or opinion" that there are 12 inches in a foot.

Pseudoscientist to the last. Unable to answer simple yes or no questions, and desperately attempting to weasel out of owing up to his own dogma. Nine logical fallacies, one abandoned assertion, and still won't bother to think logically.

The defintion of a foot is that it is twelve inches.

Tell me Darrin, how would a physical constant of the universe, such as Plancks Constant, first be determined?

(quick background here) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant)

[DarrinS]

Pseudoscientist to the last. Unable to answer simple yes or no questions, and desperately attempting to weasel out of owing up to his own dogma. Nine logical fallacies, one abandoned assertion, and still won't bother to think logically.

The defintion of a foot is that it is twelve inches.

Tell me Darrin, how would a physical constant of the universe, such as Planks Constant, first be determined?

(quick background here) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant)


First, it's PlanCk's constant (not Planks).

And it's not any different than observing that the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter is always around 3.14159...

There's not need for a bunch of people to get together and agree that they all believe this. It can be independently tested and verified.

[Wild Cobra]

Nobody disputes the correlation.

What is in question is causation.

Have you determined a testable hypothesis in order to research this?

What would your null hypothesis be?
We know this as both by proxy records and by experimentation that CO2 hater and air ratios change with temperature. The proxy records and experimental levels show this trend as a lag of CO2 vs. temperature. For anyone to dismiss this trend, in favor of the AGW theory... They are not being intellectually honest, or not trying to see what else the cause is. They fail the proper use of the scientific methodology, of things that may disprove their own hypothesis.

[Wild Cobra]

Can we form reasonable courses of action, based on incomplete data?
Not in this case, where other theories are at least, as credible.

[Wild Cobra]

It would be ridiculous to say there is "consensus" on any of those things because they are directly measureable. Consensus has to do with OPINION.

Not only that, but he allowed the horizontal crosshair line to be pushed up. What about left or right?

I will contend that even if the AGW theory were correct, the extreme effects are not. The line vertical also should have been pushed to the right. Very far to the right, which would make the area of that rectangle very tiny.

[MannyIsGod]

We know this as both by proxy records and by experimentation that CO2 hater and air ratios change with temperature. The proxy records and experimental levels show this trend as a lag of CO2 vs. temperature. For anyone to dismiss this trend, in favor of the AGW theory... They are not being intellectually honest, or not trying to see what else the cause is. They fail the proper use of the scientific methodology, of things that may disprove their own hypothesis.

Too bad CO2 lags temperature by about 1000 years. This throws your theory into the trash.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5501/112
http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/The_phase_relations_among_atmospheric_CO2_content_ temperature_and_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_42 0_ka.pdf

[RandomGuy]

Tell me Darrin, how would a physical constant of the universe, such as Plancks Constant, first be determined?


First, it's PlanCk's constant (not Planks).

And it's not any different than observing that the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter is always around 3.14159...

There's not need for a bunch of people to get together and agree that they all believe this. It can be independently tested and verified.

So, after Mr. Planck made his initial hypothesis, he published the information, and other scientists confimed it by testing and verifying it, THEREBY FORMING A CONSENSUS.

Is there or is there not a consensus among physicists about the value of Planck's Constant?

This is an either/or question Darrin. If you can't answer it yes or no, then I will assume you are not intending to be honest, and we can also discard your "consensus = weak science" assertion.

[RandomGuy]

Too bad CO2 lags temperature by about 1000 years. This throws your theory into the trash.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5501/112
http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/The_phase_relations_among_atmospheric_CO2_content_ temperature_and_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_42 0_ka.pdf

Another bit that science does with theories is to make predictions and test it with data. The more those predictions pan out, the better the theory looks.

If the theory is that the temperature of the oceans drives CO2 concentrations, then data such as that would tend not to support that theory.

If the theory that recent increases in CO2 levels were primarily due to human activity, then we would expect some data to support that.

Oddly enough, the types of carbon isotopes released by burning fossil fuels releases carbon isotopes in a particular ratio. The normal equilibrium ratio of the atmosphere is heavily weighted towards a different ratio, simply because plants highly prefer one isotope over another.

If human activity is leading to the recently observed rise in CO2, we would expect to see that ratio changing over time away from the "natural" equilibrium ratio towards the ratio of isotopes represented in man-made fossil fuel exhaust.

This is what we have observed.

[RandomGuy]

Not in this case, where other theories are at least, as credible.

The consensus of scientists with PhD's in climatology disagrees about the overall credibility of differing theories.

Do I take the word of people who study it for a living, or yours?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We can go back and forth with graphs and arrows and quibbling over details, but we do have a way to short-circuit the argument:

mF_anaVcCXg

The conclusions the guy makes are pretty much logically sound.

I can spell them out if'n nobody wants to watch a youtube, and we can examine them.

What is the wisest thing to do, given the uncertainties and risks?

No its shitty risk management.

There are more than column A and column B. He then goes to use the bandwagon fallacy to support his argument.

To me the prudent choice is to determine what the strange attractors within the climate models are. The systems are nonperiodic. Determine what the theoretical outcomes for each one of those are as well as the probability. From there you can determine the socioeconomic impacts and then you can finally get down to risk assessment.

He is basically regurgitating the outcomes that the political debate centers around and claims that it is scientific and then says the NAS supports the 'we all die' outcome so that is the prudent choice.

Its shit.

[Wild Cobra]

Too bad CO2 lags temperature by about 1000 years. This throws your theory into the trash.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5501/112
http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/The_phase_relations_among_atmospheric_CO2_content_ temperature_and_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_42 0_ka.pdf
No it doesn't. It supports what I say.

Just how are you claiming it doesn't?

[Wild Cobra]

So, after Mr. Planck made his initial hypothesis, he published the information, and other scientists confimed it by testing and verifying it, THEREBY FORMING A CONSENSUS.

Is there or is there not a consensus among physicists about the value of Planck's Constant?

This is an either/or question Darrin. If you can't answer it yes or no, then I will assume you are not intending to be honest, and we can also discard your "consensus = weak science" assertion.
The difference being, nobody can demonstrate such scientific conclusions are wrong. There is mountains of evidence to show the AGW theory as stated is wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

If the theory that recent increases in CO2 levels were primarily due to human activity, then we would expect some data to support that.

Oddly enough, the types of carbon isotopes released by burning fossil fuels releases carbon isotopes in a particular ratio. The normal equilibrium ratio of the atmosphere is heavily weighted towards a different ratio, simply because plants highly prefer one isotope over another.

If human activity is leading to the recently observed rise in CO2, we would expect to see that ratio changing over time away from the "natural" equilibrium ratio towards the ratio of isotopes represented in man-made fossil fuel exhaust.

I had found and posted at one time a critique of the math behind those assessments that showed them to be wrong. I forget if it was here or another forum, but if it was here, I would ask why didn't you disagree with it then?

[MannyIsGod]

I had found and posted at one time a critique of the math behind those assessments that showed them to be wrong. I forget if it was here or another forum, but if it was here, I would ask why didn't you disagree with it then?

:lol

He found an assessment that showed the math to be wrong in a peer reviewed paper yet the paper with incorrect math was never fixed and just floats incorrect in perpetuity with everyone ignoring it.

:lol too funny.

[MannyIsGod]

The difference being, nobody can demonstrate such scientific conclusions are wrong. There is mountains of evidence to show the AGW theory as stated is wrong.

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

No it doesn't. It supports what I say.

Just how are you claiming it doesn't?

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I have posted this work before here. Never directly pointed to that section. From THE FINGERPRINT OF THE SUN IS ON EARTH'S 160 YEAR TEMPERATURE RECORD, CONTRADICTING IPCC CONCLUSIONS, FINGERPRINTING, & AGW (http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html#III_):


III. FINGERPRINTS

A model in which the Sun impresses its energy pattern on Earth's climate is plainly inconsistent with IPCC's three-pronged argument for patterns of human activities to have imprinted the observed warming. IPCC urges (1) that the depletion of atmospheric oxygen matches the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2, (2) that the decline in the isotopic weight of atmospheric CO2 matches fossil fuel emissions, and (3) the sudden rise in gas concentrations and temperature match the onset of the industrial era, the family of hockey stick graphs. Of these imprint patterns, only one is strong, extensive, complex, and genuine: the Sun's fingerprint on Earth's temperature.
-> Contents …
A. Oxygen Depletion & δ13C Lightening Do Not Match Human Activities.

IPCC asks and answers this "frequently asked question":

Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities? AR4, Frequently Asked Question 7.1, p. 512.

The answer of course is no, but IPCC answers in the affirmative, relying on two record comparisons and one logical proposition – all false. It says,

Yes, the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases during the industrial era are caused by human activities. In fact, the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations does not reveal the full extent of human emissions in that it accounts for only 55% of the CO2 released by human activity since 1959. The rest has been taken up by plants on land and by the oceans. In all cases, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and their increases, are determined by the [mass] balance between sources (emissions of the gas from human activities and natural systems) and sinks (the removal of the gas from the atmosphere by conversion to a different chemical compound). Fossil fuel combustion (plus a smaller contribution from cement manufacture) is responsible for more than 75% of human-caused CO2 emissions. Land use change (primarily deforestation) is responsible for the remainder. For methane, another important greenhouse gas, emissions generated by human activities exceeded natural emissions over the last 25 years. For nitrous oxide, emissions generated by human activities are equal to natural emissions to the atmosphere. Most of the long-lived halogen-containing gases (such as chlorofluorcarbons) are manufactured by humans, and were not present in the atmosphere before the industrial era [i.e., unprecedented]. On average, present-day tropospheric ozone has increased 38% since pre-industrial times, and the increase results from atmospheric reactions of short-lived pollutants emitted by human activity. The concentration of CO2 is now 379 parts per million (ppm) and methane is greater than 1,774 parts per billion (ppb), both very likely much higher than any time in at least 650 kyr (during which CO2 remained between 180 and 300 ppm and methane between 320 and 790 ppb) [i.e., unprecedented]. The recent rate of change is dramatic and unprecedented; increases in CO2 never exceeded 30 ppm in 1 kyr – yet now CO2 has risen by 30 ppm in just the last 17 years. … [¶]

The natural sinks of carbon produce a small net uptake of CO2 of approximately 3.3 GtC yr-1 over the last 15 years, partially offsetting the human-caused emissions. Were it not for the natural sinks taking up nearly half the human-produced CO2 over the past 15 years, atmospheric concentrations would have grown even more dramatically.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon. In addition, the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere has declined as CO2 has increased; this is as expected because oxygen is depleted when fossil fuels are burned. Bold added, AR4, FAQ 7.1, p. 512.

IPCC here states its foremost reason for ascribing the recent CO2 increase to man: unprecedented increases. It finds additional support for its anthropogenic model through isotopic lightening, never presenting the requisite mass balance analyses for the isotopic ratio and the commensurate oxygen depletion. IPCC quantifies neither model, but relies for both on a compact, duplex demonstration by graphic sophistry, shown in Figure 27.
Sun27

Figure 2.3. Recent CO2 concentrations and emissions. (a) CO2 concentrations (monthly averages) measured by continuous analysers over the period 1970 to 2005 from Mauna Loa, Hawaii (19°N, black; Keeling and Whorf, 2005) and Baring Head, New Zealand (41°S, blue; following techniques by Manning et al., 1997). Due to the larger amount of terrestrial biosphere in the NH, seasonal cycles in CO2 are larger there than in the SH. In the lower right of the panel, atmospheric oxygen (O2) measurements from flask samples are shown from Alert, Canada (82°N, pink) and Cape Grim, Australia (41°S, cyan) (Manning and Keeling, 2006). The O2 concentration is measured as 'per meg' deviations in the O2/N2 ratio from an arbitrary reference, analogous to the 'per mil' unit typically used in stable isotope work, but where the ratio is multiplied by 106 instead of 103 because much smaller changes are measured. (b) Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr-1 (black) through 2005, using data from the CDIAC website (Marland et al, 2006) to 2003. Emissions data for 2004 and 2005 are extrapolated from CDIAC using data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy (BP, 2006). Land use emissions are not shown; these are estimated to be between 0.5 and 2.7 GtC yr-1 for the 1990s (Table 7.2). Annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red) are also shown (Keeling et al, 2005). The isotope data are expressed as δ13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. AR4, p. 138.

FIGURE 27

IPCC shifted and scaled both the O2 and the δ13CO2 traces to give the false appearance in (a) that O2 is anti-parallel to the growth in CO2, and in (b) that δ13CO2 parallels the estimate of carbon emissions. Even at that, IPCC did not draw the O2 trace exactly parallel, as revealed in the next figure, shown in graph coordinates, O2 now reversed. IPCC's scale was arbitrary, and is shown here in inches following conversion of a pdf version of the original report.
Sun28

FIGURE 28

IPCC's argument is that the decline in O2 matches the rise in CO2 and therefore the latter is from fossil fuel burning. Every molecule of CO2 created from burning in the atmosphere should consume one molecule of O2 decline, so the traces should be drawn identically scaled in parts per million (1 ppm = 4.773 per meg (Scripps O2 Program)). Corrected to remove the graphical bias, the data diverge as shown next.
Sun29

FIGURE 29

Contrary to the Panel's claim, oxygen consumption fails as a fingerprint for ACO2.

Carbon's isotopic ratio fairs no better. Under the banner of "The Human Fingerprint on Greenhouse Gases", IPCC gushed:

The high-accuracy measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration, initiated by Charles David Keeling in 1958, constitute the master time series documenting the changing composition of the atmosphere (Keeling, 1961, 1998). These data have iconic status in climate change science as evidence of the effect of human activities on the chemical composition of the global atmosphere (see FAQ 7.1). Keeling's measurements on Mauna Loa in Hawaii provide a true measure of the global carbon cycle, an effectively continuous record of the burning of fossil fuel. They also maintain an accuracy and precision that allow scientists to separate fossil fuel emissions from those due to the natural annual cycle of the biosphere, demonstrating a long-term change in the seasonal exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere, biosphere and ocean. Later observations of parallel trends in the atmospheric abundances of the 13CO2 isotope (Francey and Farquhar, 1982) and molecular oxygen (O2) (Keeling and Shertz, 1992; Bender et al., 1996) uniquely identified this rise in CO2 with fossil fuel burning (Sections 2.3, 7.1 and 7.3). Bold added, AR4, ¶1.3.1, p. 100.

None of these claims withstands scrutiny, but this passage serves at this juncture to underscore IPCC's reliance on parallel trends. In theory, had the O2 trace been anti-parallel to the CO2 emissions, IPCC might have produced a fingerprint for human involvement. IPCC attempted to produce anti-parallel records by gimmickry with the chart. The isotopic analysis is equally unscientific.

IPCC manufactured two parallel traces out of the rate of CO2 emissions and the history of δ13C by graphical shifting and scaling. IPCC Figure 2.3(b), (Figure 27 above). First, look at the fraudulent technique, as shown next, even though no physical reason exists for these two records to be parallel.
Sun30

FIGURE 30

The graph is in pdf inches, converted from IPCC's AR4 Figure 2.3, above. IPCC scaled the isotopic trace to be parallel in the ACO2 rate trace with respect to the two five year trends shown. It shifted the isotopic trace to lie just below the ACO2 rate so it was easy to see how parallel they were. Had IPCC not shifted and scaled one trace with respect to the other, and instead objectively used the full available range of the chart, the figure might have appeared as shown next:
Sun31

FIGURE 31

In other words, IPCC made non-parallel traces parallel by graphical shenanigans.

A relationship does exist between δ13C and ACO2, but only indirectly between it and the rate of emissions, ACO2 rate. The relationship is not complicated, once the traditional delta ratio, a legacy from a time long before computers, is simplified. The definition of the ratio is straightforward, although the reference point, the PeeDee belemnite ratio RPDB, is a bit obscure and even ambiguous.
EQ28

(28)

where, with [.] meaning concentration of,
EQ29

(29)

e.g., Keeling, C.D., et al. (2001), Table 3, (p. 50 of 91). On the other hand,
EQ30

(30)

e.g., Tans, P.P., et al., (2003), p. 355. In recognition that Keeling's definition may be most common in the literature, while the second is the more useful for this paper, the following definitions shall apply:
EQ31

(31)

and
EQ32

(32)

With these relations,
EQ33

(33)

and in the other direction, the ratio of G13 to G, r, in terms of δ13C becomes
EQ34

(34)

With these results, the ergonomic but esoteric δ13C can disappear, and the graph of IPCC's Figure 2.3 or Figure 34 immediately scaled in terms of the ratio of 13C, r:
Sun32

FIGURE 32

The value of δ13C becomes evident – it solves the human problem of dealing with changes in the fifth significant figure. In other words, the isotopic ratio solves the problem humans have coping with the first four significant figures being insignificant.

With the value of r for the atmosphere, ra, at any time and the value for the ACO2, principally attributed to fossil fuel burning, rf, a new value of ra or, equivalently, δ13C can be readily derived for the a slug of ACO2 added to the atmosphere and well-mixed. However in spite of the importance, values for δ13Ca and δ13Cf are rare in the literature. IPCC cites neither, and apparently used neither. Battle, et al., (2000) provided the following estimates:
EQ35

(35)

and
EQ36

(36)

Battle, M., et al., (2000), cited by IPCC, AR4 Ch. 7, pp. 520, 524, 568.

These equations yield
EQ37

(37)

and
EQ38

(38)

These definitions and equations reduce to the following equation:
EQ39

(39)

where G0 and r0 are the initial conditions, k is the ratio of ACO2 retained in the atmosphere, g(t) is the total ACO2 emitted to time t, and x(t) is ratio of the total ACO2 emitted to the initial atmospheric content.

Following are four possible solutions to the mass balance problem.
ACO2 ISOTOPIC FINGERPRINT IS NOT A MATCH
# Parameter Value Source
1 G0 762 AR4 Fig. 7.3, p. 515 C cycle
2 g(2003) 133.4 AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
3 δ13C0 -7.592‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
4 r0 0.011028894 Eq. (7)
5 δ13Cf -29.4‰ Battle, et al.
6 rf 0.010789151 Eq. (7)
7 k 50% AR4 TS p.025
8 r(2003) 0.011009598 Eq. (12)
9 δ13C -9.348‰ Eq. (6)
10 δ13Cfinal -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p138

IPCC provides all the parameter values but the one from Battle, et al. Those values with the equations derived above establish the ACO2 fingerprint on the bulge of CO2 measured at MLO, as if it were a well-mixed, global parameter as IPCC assumes.

IPCC does not provide δ13Cf, the parameter found in Battle, et al., suggesting IPCC may have never made this simple mass balance calculation. A common value for that parameter in the literature is around 25‰. The figure from Battle, et al., being published with a tolerance, earns additional respect. As will be shown, the number is not critical. The result is a mismatch with IPCC's data at year 2003 by a difference of 1.3‰, more than twice the range of measurements, which cover two decades.

This discrepancy is huge, and is sufficient to reject the hypothesis that the surge in CO2 seen in the last century was caused by man. The CO2 added to the atmosphere is far heavier than the weight attributed to ACO2.
CO2 SURGE IS TOO HEAVY TO BE ACO2
# Parameter Value Source
1 G0 762 AR4 Fig. 7.3, p. 515 C cycle
2 g(2003) 133.4 AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
3 δ13C0 -7.592‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
4 r0 0.011028894 Eq. (7)
5 δ13Cf -13.657‰ Eq. (12)
6 rf 0.010962235 Eq. (7)
7 k 50% AR4 TS p25
8 r(2003) 0.011023529 Eq. (7)
9 δ13C -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
10 δ13Cfinal -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138

This computation is the first of three to examine other parameter values that would have rendered IPCC's fingerprint test affirmative: ACO2 was the cause of the CO2 lightening. The isotopic ratio for fossil fuel would have had to be considerably heavier, -13.657‰ instead of -29.4‰, for the increase in atmospheric CO2 to have been caused by man.
OR, ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS OVER 1400 PPM
# Parameter Value Source
1 G0 2913.9 Eq. (12)
2 g(2003) 133.4 AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
3 δ13C0 -7.592‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
4 r0 0.011028894 Eq. (7)
5 δ13Cf -29.4‰ Battle, et al.
6 rf 0.010789151 Eq. (7)
7 k 50% AR4 TS p.025
8 r(2003) 0.011023529 Eq. (7)
9 δ13C -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
10 δ13Cfinal -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138

For ACO2 at the stated rate and retention to have caused the small drop measured in atmospheric δ13C, the initial atmosphere concentration would have had to be 2,913.9 GtC, 3.8 times the figure used by IPCC. This is equivalent to 1,453 ppm of CO2 instead of 380 ppm.
OR, 13%, NOT 50%, OF ACO2 REMAINS IN THE ATMOSPHERE
# Parameter Value Source
1 G0 762 AR4 Fig. 7.3, p515 C cycle
2 g(2003) 133.4 AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
3 δ13C0 -7.592‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
4 r0 0.011028894 Eq. (7)
5 δ13Cf -29.4‰ Battle, et al.
6 rf 0.010789151 Eq. (7)
7 k 13.1% Eq. (12)
8 r(2003) 0.011023529 Eq. (7)
9 δ13C -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138
10 δ13Cfinal -8.080‰ AR4 Fig. 2.3, p. 138

The mass balance will agree with the measurements if the atmosphere retains much less than 50% of the estimated emissions. The necessary retention is 13.1%, a factor again of 3.8 less than supplied by IPCC.

These results apply to IPCC's model by which it adds anthropogenic processes to natural processes assumed to be in balance. Instead, the mass flow model must include the temperature-dependent flux of CO2 to and from the ocean to modulate the natural exchanges of heat and gases. The CO2 flux between the atmosphere and the ocean is between 90 and 100 GtC of CO2 per year. This circulation removes lightened atmospheric CO2, replacing it with heavier CO2 along many paths, some accumulated several decades to over 1000 years in the past. The mass flow model is a mechanical tapped delay line.

[DarrinS]

Oddly enough, when you Google consensus planck's constant, this thread comes up first. :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Oddly enough, when you Google consensus planck's constant, this thread comes up first. :lmao
Must be that nobody questions the consensus of it.

[Wild Cobra]

Must be that nobody questions the consensus of it.
To add...

If the peer review process of the AGW theory actually worked, and allowed open peer review of skeptics, most of those skeptics would be believers if the science was sound.

[RandomGuy]

No its shitty risk management.

There are more than column A and column B. He then goes to use the bandwagon fallacy to support his argument.

To me the prudent choice is to determine what the strange attractors within the climate models are. The systems are nonperiodic. Determine what the theoretical outcomes for each one of those are as well as the probability. From there you can determine the socioeconomic impacts and then you can finally get down to risk assessment.

He is basically regurgitating the outcomes that the political debate centers around and claims that it is scientific and then says the NAS supports the 'we all die' outcome so that is the prudent choice.

Its shit.

If you had finished watching the video, he himself agrees.

If you watch the follow up material, he also addresses everything you just pointed to.

Risk does indeed have two dimensions, magnitude and probability. Something I have had a hard time getting WC to accept.

[RandomGuy]

To add...

If the peer review process of the AGW theory actually worked, and allowed open peer review of skeptics, most of those skeptics would be believers if the science was sound.

I highly doubt that the "skeptics" you would trust would treat the material fairly or honestly.

Feel free to get a PhD in climate science and get on a peer review panel.

Should I go back to the OP and point out that conspiracy theories regarding peer review are one of the prime indicators of pseudoscience?

[RandomGuy]

The difference being, nobody can demonstrate such scientific conclusions are wrong. There is mountains of evidence to show the AGW theory as stated is wrong.

There are mountains of evidence to show that the AGW theory as stated is right.

There is no difference between the scientific process that formed the consensus regarding hitherto unknown theories of the physical universe and the one that posits rising CO2 levels are causing some amount of warming of our planet.
If the evidence really is as voluminous as you suggest, peer-review should be a very easy hurdle to clear.

[RandomGuy]

The difference being, nobody can demonstrate such scientific conclusions are wrong. There is mountains of evidence to show the AGW theory as stated is wrong.

Further, we do not have to fully understand the exact scope and dimension of warming to the level of certainty that we do for Plancks Constant in order to make resonable public policy decisions, do we?

[RandomGuy]

Oddly enough, when you Google consensus planck's constant, this thread comes up first. :lmao

That is awesome. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Risk does indeed have two dimensions, magnitude and probability. Something I have had a hard time getting WC to accept.
I think you watch "The day After" one too many times. Some of us believe Global Warming is good.

1) Added CO2 increases crop output.

2) Added warmth increases usable land.

3) Added warmth adds precipitation, and should reduce drought. Not increase it.

4) The atmosphere has an dynamic relationship of cloud cover with warmth. It becomes self regulating, increasing the albedo and reducing the driving force of the greenhouse effect. This is one place AGW theories fail. they refuse to predict based on a dynamic albedo, but use a static relationship.

I could go on, but why beat a dead horse? Besides, I'm multitasking, doing two other things also. Just jumping in here from time to time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you had finished watching the video, he himself agrees.

If you watch the follow up material, he also addresses everything you just pointed to.

Risk does indeed have two dimensions, magnitude and probability. Something I have had a hard time getting WC to accept.

He most certainly does not. He even goes onto use the switch analogy and talk about us needing to get over to column A.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what I am talking about.

I assume you are talking about his discussion of water and air pollution with all the red bull cans. That is not what I am talking about.

What I am talking about is his chart where he gives a total of 4 variables: action, inaction, nothing happens, and the world ends. I am saying this is completely unrepresentative of reality.

The choices are not action or inaction. It is things like controlling black carbon emissions, energy policy, foreign policy and the like. I think even ninny's like WC and Darrin at their core realize that some measures need to be taken even if they like parroting the GOP party line.

The choices are not nothing happens and we all die. I would imagine there are strange attractors around increased global rainfall and other positive outcomes just as much as there are for the weather spiraling into venuslike conditions and many many choices between.

I see no real difference in the tactics that this guy puts out and the doomsday scenarios laid out by conservatives to justify their 'wars' on terror and drugs. It only serves to feed the fire of their methods.

He uses the example of car insurance which again is shit. The worst case scenarios in car insurance are well known and the risk management uses several axes: age, car driven, accident record, driving record, types of coverage, coverage limits, etc.

The key in risk assessment is finding all the variables and attributing probabilities and weighing them. He comes nowhere near doing this. In fact, he does not even try. What this guy is doing is fearmongering in order to scare people into his viewpoint.

As for his subsequent videos, you are the one making these assertions. I have neither the desire nor the inclination to rebut my refutation of your (or his) assertion.

Oh and hopefully in your list at the beginning you included Darrin ignoring me asking him whether he gave any credence to the probability that the scientists predicting negative impacts at all. He obviously does but just will not admit it.

Do not get me wrong, I agree with the guy's overall conclusion but his methodology is bullshit.

[MannyIsGod]

I think you watch "The day After" one too many times. Some of us believe Global Warming is good.

1) Added CO2 increases crop output.


All things being equal but of course this fails to mention the complexity of other variables.



2) Added warmth increases usable land.

3) Added warmth adds precipitation, and should reduce drought. Not increase it.


Um, not necessarily. Changing climates can and do mean more drought in locations and more more variability in others. Its a give and take and that doesn't mean its a net gain or a net loss. A changing climate over the entire globe will not mean the same results for every location and there certainly will be areas that experience far greater amounts of drought.

I do think that there will be increased areas where you will be able to farm but if there is increased drought in areas currently rich in farming infrastructure then in the near term it equals a loss of food production on a large scale. I have argued that in the long run AGW may indeed have positive effects but its not a given.



4) The atmosphere has an dynamic relationship of cloud cover with warmth. It becomes self regulating, increasing the albedo and reducing the driving force of the greenhouse effect. This is one place AGW theories fail. they refuse to predict based on a dynamic albedo, but use a static relationship.


People who study the cloud relationship far more extensively than you can't make this claim but you can? This is utter and complete unsubstantiated bullshit. Yes, current cloud modeling is parametrized on a very basic level but that doesn't mean you can come to this conclusion at all. Your final statement here is just false.



I could go on, but why beat a dead horse? Besides, I'm multitasking, doing two other things also. Just jumping in here from time to time.

No one cares what you're doing. When we do, we'll ask.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW that post is also an excellent example of how you just throw whatever shit you can at a wall and hope it sticks. You've jumped all over so many different and conflicting theories that I'm amazed you don't have whiplash.

[RandomGuy]

Some of us believe Global Warming is good.

"Some of us" don't believe we landed on the moon.

This is a logical fallacy, by the way.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html


1) Added CO2 increases crop output.

It does. Please quantify the effect for wheat, corn, and rice, and compare that to current and probable future CO2 concentrations. The question that should be answered is: How much CO2 provides how much added average global yield.

Get cracking.

If you cannot answer this, we must conservatively assume that the benefits are outweighed by the risks.


2) Added warmth increases usable land.

Please demonstrate how adding warmth to a desert will make that desert more arable.
Then quantify how much arable land will be added, and balance that versus the potential expansion of deserts that will remove arable land.
You can't support this thesis without consideration of rainfall. More temperature without more rainfall simply increases desertification.


3) Added warmth adds precipitation, and should reduce drought. Not increase it.

Should. If that rainfall happens to be on land, and doesn't dry up faster than it is added. To support this thesis, you would have to quantify this as well to a reasonable degree.


4) The atmosphere has an dynamic relationship of cloud cover with warmth. It becomes self regulating, increasing the albedo and reducing the driving force of the greenhouse effect. This is one place AGW theories fail. they refuse to predict based on a dynamic albedo, but use a static relationship.

Link?

I see a lot of "what ifs" with unsupported assertions.

Unless you can prove the benefits of climate change to a reasonable degree, we must, under conservative principles, steeply downgrade their consideration.

[RandomGuy]

I'll say it again. Once the people who claim there is a climatological crisis start acting like there's a climatological crisis, I'll start paying attention.


Europe on track for Kyoto targets while emissions from imported goods rise (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/13/europe-kyoto-targets-emissions)


It's a sham. From Al Gore and his million-man-equivalent carbon footprint to Nancy Pelosi and the rest of them in Congress who fly around on military jets as if they were riding a bike to the corner store.

This is by the way, yet another logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"



This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

[Parker2112]

the question isnt whether its solid science.

The question is whether we need to take responsibility for ourselves, or grant/lose more power/authority/debt/dollars/rights to the bloated federal vaccum that is sucking wealth right out of middle class pockets and delivering it into the hands of bailout recipients/wall st.

If you believe that big govt is the only way to get shit done, you sell the country short.

And if you put all your faith into a corrupt batch of distant/despondent/bought-and-sold politicians, thousands of miles away from you and your problems, and only a few blocks from some of the the wealthiest lobby groups in the world, you sell the country out.

[Winehole23]

The question is whether we need to take responsibility for ourselves, or grant/lose more power/authority/debt/dollars/rights...Take responsibility for ourselves how?

[DarrinS]

Bottom line:


Skepticism that CO2 causes catostrophic climate change is NOT equivalent to:


9/11 twooferism
Holocaust denial
Believing moon landing was faked
etc. etc.

[MannyIsGod]

Because you say so? :lol

[Winehole23]

(catostrophic fail)

[MannyIsGod]

In any event, skepticism is fine. Outright denial and repeating of bullshit read on the internet that has been refuted time and time again is exactly the same as those things Darrin listed. Anyone who thinks that is skepticism needs to grab a dictionary.

[DarrinS]

In any event, skepticism is fine. Outright denial and repeating of bullshit read on the internet that has been refuted time and time again is exactly the same as those things Darrin listed. Anyone who thinks that is skepticism needs to grab a dictionary.



Manny,


Do you think computer models that turn random noise into hockey-shaped graphs are good models?

[MannyIsGod]

I might as well be talking to Mouse about the moon landing. I'm actually glad you pointed out how similar your debating styles on the two subjects are, Darrin. Its uncanny.

[DarrinS]

I wonder when global temperature will get back to 1998 levels? :depressed


Not 1999-2009.


And it's not looking good for 2010.

[Winehole23]

(#451)

[Parker2112]

In any event, skepticism is fine. Outright denial and repeating of bullshit read on the internet that has been refuted time and time again is exactly the same as those things Darrin listed. Anyone who thinks that is skepticism needs to grab a dictionary.

You are convinced...we understand. That doesnt really qualify you to summarize other views as wholly with/without merit, does it?

Are you a scientist specializing in this field? Or are you just a buyer of what youve been told?

[TeyshaBlue]

Are you a scientist specializing in this field? Or are you just a buyer of what youve been told?

I think Manny's working on some skins for the wall if he don't already have 'em. He can lay down some science on the topic.

[RandomGuy]

Bottom line:


Skepticism that CO2 causes catostrophic climate change is NOT equivalent to:


9/11 twooferism
Holocaust denial
Believing moon landing was faked
etc. etc.

It is the way you do it. :lol

Care to add another logical fallacy to your score?

[RandomGuy]

the question isnt whether its solid science.

The question is whether we need to take responsibility for ourselves, or grant/lose more power/authority/debt/dollars/rights to the bloated federal vaccum that is sucking wealth right out of middle class pockets and delivering it into the hands of bailout recipients/wall st.

If you believe that big govt is the only way to get shit done, you sell the country short.

And if you put all your faith into a corrupt batch of distant/despondent/bought-and-sold politicians, thousands of miles away from you and your problems, and only a few blocks from some of the the wealthiest lobby groups in the world, you sell the country out.

Good gravy, is there anything that DOESN'T get subordinated to this belief of yours?

"the question isn't whether Quizno's or Thundercloud makes the best subs.

It is about how big government is taking away your freedom"


Huh?

Seriously though, it is exactly how scientifically valid this stuff is. If, as seems reasonable, there is some fair basis for being concerned then taking some steps to mitigating the risks is a reasonable, conservative thing to do.

[MannyIsGod]

You are convinced...we understand. That doesnt really qualify you to summarize other views as wholly with/without merit, does it?

Actually rational thought qualifies me to do that. If someone says that Santa Clause is real I'll definitely qualify their view as without merit.

That being said, thats not what I've done here at all.



Are you a scientist specializing in this field? Or are you just a buyer of what youve been told?

I wonder at what point I become a scientist. I am working on degrees in a science at the moment. I don't claim to understand every aspect of climate science by a long shot. I'm never going to be a chemist or a geologist so I do take the word of experts in those fields.

[Parker2112]

Be careful how much authority you allow yourself pursuant to your own "rational thought."

You might start sounding like the Bush Admin and the right wing, shouting down/drowning out those with opposing views.

At what point could anyone anywhere be 100% sure that global warming is going down like we believe? When is any human 100% infallible? At what point is all opposition unacceptable? When is that ever wise?

If you temper your angle just a tad, from "opposition is unacceptable" to something closer to "I'm extremely knowledgable/informed on science" you would do your message a favor.

[MannyIsGod]

I said opposition is unacceptable?

[MannyIsGod]

Once again Parker displays his love of listening to himself speak to the point of ignoring what is said.

[Parker2112]

just implied.


In any event, skepticism is fine. Outright denial (on the other hand)...(then goes on to equate it to various other unacceptable opinions, in Manny's opinion)...

[MannyIsGod]

So, I implied it by first saying that skepticism was fine. Seems an odd way to start that off. If I implied it why did you have to remove my words and insert your bullshit in its place? Would you not be able to simply quote me and let people decide for themselves what I implied? No, you had to add your complete bullshit (because why listen when you can talk so more. Ah, your voice is so lovely Parker).

[Parker2112]

if the shoe dont fit, by all means dont wear it. I may have gotten the wrong impression. Humans are fallible after all. even those with "skins."

[LnGrrrR]

Be careful how much authority you allow yourself pursuant to your own "rational thought."

You might start sounding like the Bush Admin and the right wing, shouting down/drowning out those with opposing views.

At what point could anyone anywhere be 100% sure that global warming is going down like we believe? When is any human 100% infallible? At what point is all opposition unacceptable? When is that ever wise?

If you temper your angle just a tad, from "opposition is unacceptable" to something closer to "I'm extremely knowledgable/informed on science" you would do your message a favor.

Who ever argued that one needs 100% certainty in order to take a rational course of action?

Opposition is acceptable; stupid opposition making dumb arguments, not so much. (Not saying all opposition in this thread is like that, not saying all opposition in this thread isn't)

[Wild Cobra]

In any event, skepticism is fine. Outright denial and repeating of bullshit read on the internet that has been refuted time and time again is exactly the same as those things Darrin listed. Anyone who thinks that is skepticism needs to grab a dictionary.
None of use outright deny that CO2 causes warming. We only deny that it causes as much as you fear-mongers claim, and that it's not enough to be concerned about.

If you can't get the argument right, please stop typing your propaganda.

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder when global temperature will get back to 1998 levels? :depressed


Not 1999-2009.


And it's not looking good for 2010.
They've had to gerrymander (at least a similar shell game) the temperature stations to continue to claim global warming. I see temperatures returning to the late 70's/early 80's in my region.

How many of you people are old enough to see these approximate 30 year cycles?

[Parker2112]

global warming as a political agenda of the left is a power grab on par with the right's war on terror.

[Wild Cobra]

global warming as a political agenda of the left is a power grab on par with the right's war on terror.
Agreed to the first part, not the second.

Tell me now... Why is the left still using the terror theme, and stepping up airport harassment rather than removing it? Explain that in the right thread please.

[Parker2112]

I didnt say they were exclusive to those respective sides

[Parker2112]

seems that whatever gets us running into the arms of big brother works just fine for the left or the right

[DarrinS]

Does it bother Manny that there are many prominent people in HIS field of study that aren't AGW catastrophists?

[Wild Cobra]

seems that whatever gets us running into the arms of big brother works just fine for the left or the right
I agree there are republicans who want to increase the bureaucracy. I however do not call them the right, or conservative. I call them RINOs.

[LnGrrrR]

Does it bother Manny that there are many prominent people in HIS field of study that aren't AGW catastrophists?

You might want to better clarify that statement... "many" is a wishy-washy word. How many is "many"?

[DarrinS]

You might want to better clarify that statement... "many" is a wishy-washy word. How many is "many"?


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/tv_meteorologists_survey_findings_march_2010.pdf


Excerpt:



Weathercasters hold a wide range of beliefs about global warming. Survey participants responded to a variety of questions assessing their beliefs in and attitudes about “global warming,” questions that have been used previously in our public opinion research.2 More than half of our respondent (54%) indicated that global warming is happening, 25% indicated it isn’t, and 21% say they don’t know yet. About one-third (31%) reported that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, while almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment.

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting survey.

These are the people who see day to day weather across the world. They haven't (as a whole) been indoctrinated by the climatologist classes, which I see clearly teaching false science. Now before anyone argues that since i see it that way and ask why more aren't to my view, just remember what the majority of talk is about.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao TV meteorologists

[MannyIsGod]

The only thing that offends me about that survey is Darrin saying broadcast "meteorologists" are 1)prominent and 2) have a field of study.

Why do you find a survey of scientists actually involved in research and expert study as opposed to those who are the generally given their jobs based upon charm, looks, and other superficial bullshit and not upon actual credentials.

The qualifications for getting a seal of approval from the AMS is are fairly laughable.

[MannyIsGod]

Don't take my word for it though. Read up on the two groups for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Association


So Darrin is willing to extend credibility to those who agree with him regardless of experience or expertise? Shocking!

[MannyIsGod]

On the other hand.....

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

Oh here - have a list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Anderegg.2C_P rall.2C_Harold.2C_and_Schneider.2C_2010

Darrin says consensus is not the way of scientific advancement....except when he's trying to spin the argument in his favor.

[LnGrrrR]

:lol From the wikipedia AMS link



As a means of promoting "the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences and the advancement of their professional applications",[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society#cite_note-5) the AMS periodically publishes policy statements on issues related to its competence[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society#cite_note-6) on subjects such as drought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought),[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society#cite_note-7) ozone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society#cite_note-8) and acid deposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society#cite_note-9)
In 2003, the AMS issued the position statement Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences:
Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases)... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society#cite_note-10)

[DarrinS]

Damn, Manny's pissed. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Not really pissed but I have a lot of disdain for the AMS, their stupid ass seal of approval, and most TV "meteorologists".

[baseline bum]

You don't respect the work of this nation's Albert Flores'?

[MannyIsGod]

He's definitely no Steve Browne.

[DarrinS]

According to Manny, you can do a fucked up principal component analysis, create shitty computer models, and skirt freedom of information laws, as long as you have good credentials

[DarrinS]

Shit, evidently, you can have ZERO credentials and win a Nobel Prize based on scenarios that are orders of magnitude greater than IPCC's worst case scenario.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao TV meteorologists
Why are you laughing? These guys have the same college credentials of climatologists, minus one course.