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

[Wild Cobra]

I don't get you. You claim Soot has the highest global forcing yet you readily admit that you can't prove the CO2 forcing levels are wrong.

That is some amazing conformation bias if I've ever seen it. When you are changing parts do you continue to slam a square part into a round hole?

At least I admit it. When you hear someone say they can prove AGW is real and they can prove greenhouse gasses are the major cause, you should doubt them.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, assume we remove both the revised solar forcing from the assumed primary greenhouse gas levels. We have an additional 0.81 watts of solar an an additional 0.33 watts of soot, for a total of 1.24 watts. We have to remove this from some other item that causes forcing. Few people disagree that total forcing by the IPCC estimates are wrong. This estimate is 1.6 watts, with CO2 at 1.66 watts, and 0.98 watts for the other three listed. This is a total of 2.64 watts. Removing 1.24 watts makes this 1.4 watts. This figure is only 53% of the original estimates. 53% of the CO2 would be 0.88 watts. Now I do disagree with this figure, but that is how this math example pans out.

Point is, no matter how you slice it, the IPCC numbers for greenhouse gasses are highly suspect.

Well, they're estimates. They're going to have some measure of inaccuracy that is accepted. Thats not really a big issue. Furthermore, you're leaving out very important parts of the equation. Lets see if you can figure it out.

I'm not going to hold my breath so I'll give you a hint. Total forcing includes effects that have a negative forcing effect.

[MannyIsGod]

At least I admit it. When you hear someone say they can prove AGW is real and they can prove greenhouse gasses are the major cause, you should doubt them.

Because YOU say so?



PROOF!

[MannyIsGod]

The main problem with downplaying CO2 forcing is that its well know and has been well established for some time. When it comes to the earth's climate the variability comes from the feedback and negative forcing increased CO2 may or may not cause but not from the actual CO2 forcing.

In view of the OP, taking up a view with no proof is about as pseudoscience as it gets. WC can't prove a damn thing yet believes something anyway.

Wind stopping, Carbon forcing. Its all the same. If WC doesn't believe it then facts don't matter.

[ElNono]

Oooooohhhh... pretty graphics!!! Look how colorful!!!

[Wild Cobra]

Oooooohhhh... pretty graphics!!! Look how colorful!!!

Have anything productive to add, or you just going to be a jester?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, they're estimates. They're going to have some measure of inaccuracy that is accepted. Thats not really a big issue. Furthermore, you're leaving out very important parts of the equation. Lets see if you can figure it out.

I'm not going to hold my breath so I'll give you a hint. Total forcing includes effects that have a negative forcing effect.

No , and I'm not forgetting them. Are you implying that the cooling from aerosols is more then, to account for the extra heat? they are already higher than I think is realistic. I think the alarmists do that so they can make greenhouse gasses out to be more bad than they really are.

[Wild Cobra]

The main problem with downplaying CO2 forcing is that its well know and has been well established for some time. When it comes to the earth's climate the variability comes from the feedback and negative forcing increased CO2 may or may not cause but not from the actual CO2 forcing.

In view of the OP, taking up a view with no proof is about as pseudoscience as it gets. WC can't prove a damn thing yet believes something anyway.

Wind stopping, Carbon forcing. Its all the same. If WC doesn't believe it then facts don't matter.

Whatever.

Why don't you call all of global warming science pseudo science?

[ElNono]

Have anything productive to add, or you just going to be a jester?

I already added what I needed to add to this thread... so I'm definitely going to be a jester until I change my mind.

[MannyIsGod]

No , and I'm not forgetting them. Are you implying that the cooling from aerosols is more then, to account for the extra heat? they are already higher than I think is realistic. I think the alarmists do that so they can make greenhouse gasses out to be more bad than they really are.

I'm not interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you can prove which in this thread (and everywhere else for that matter) is zero.

[MannyIsGod]

Whatever.

Why don't you call all of global warming science pseudo science?

Because they actually prove things and don't just post pictures and toss around jargon.

[MannyIsGod]

I already added what I needed to add to this thread... so I'm definitely going to be a jester until I change my mind.

Wise choice.

[Wild Cobra]

Because they actually prove things and don't just post pictures and toss around jargon.

They have not. If you believe it, show me the research.

[MannyIsGod]

You want me to link you the thousands of climate science papers that have been verified?

[ElNono]

They have not. If you believe it, show me the research.

Why would anybody do that legwork when you seem unable to understand it anyways? If you have interest, you will seek such research, inform yourself, then come back and present your case. That's how it normally works when you want to prove somebody wrong.

Ok, back to jester mode.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you can prove which in this thread (and everywhere else for that matter) is zero.

I have proved that solar forcing is greater than what alarmists assign it. I have proved research out there gives soot about four times what it was assigned. There have been other reputable works out there. One out there shows that NASA/GISS (Hansen) only accepts about 1500 weather stations from over 6,000. Cherry picking data...

Greenhouse gasses are far less understood than the IPCC claims. Solar is very will understood, yet they rate greenhouse gasses as having a high scientific level of understanding, and solar low. They simply flat out lie, or are unqualified to make such assessments.

I have some links that I looked up these lase several minutes. I was going to post them again. What's the point though. You will dismiss them again, as you did before.

How about telling me what I am missing when you said:

Furthermore, you're leaving out very important parts of the equation. Lets see if you can figure it out.

I'm not going to hold my breath so I'll give you a hint. Total forcing includes effects that have a negative forcing effect.

[MannyIsGod]

I have proved that solar forcing is greater than what alarmists assign it. I have proved research out there gives soot about four times what it was assigned. There have been other reputable works out there. One out there shows that NASA/GISS (Hansen) only accepts about 1500 weather stations from over 6,000. Cherry picking data...

Greenhouse gasses are far less understood than the IPCC claims. Solar is very will understood, yet they rate greenhouse gasses as having a high scientific level of understanding, and solar low. They simply flat out lie, or are unqualified to make such assessments.

I have some links that I looked up these lase several minutes. I was going to post them again. What's the point though. You will dismiss them again, as you did before.

How about telling me what I am missing when you said:

You proved all that huh? Well , I must have missed it. Can you show me where you proved that?

[Wild Cobra]

Why would anybody do that legwork when you seem unable to understand it anyways? If you have interest, you will seek such research, inform yourself, then come back and present your case. That's how it normally works when you want to prove somebody wrong.

Ok, back to jester mode.

That's just it. There is no proof that the greenhouse effect is as strong as the AGW crowd says. Every time I ask for proof, nobody can point me the right direction. It is left as having to believe someone else. If everyone is so certain it is as potent as it is, where is the proof?

You are asking me to prove a negative.

[Wild Cobra]

You proved all that huh? Well , I must have missed it. Can you show me where you proved that?

What don't you understand?

[MannyIsGod]

Its amazing that as great as solar forcing is we've warmed while total solar output has decreased in the past 40 years. I wonder how that jives with what WC proved.

[MannyIsGod]

What don't you understand?

I don't understand where or how you proved this but I would like a link to that post or posts. I must have just missed them. I'm sure if you provide me a link I'll see what everyone has been missing.

[Wild Cobra]

Its amazing that as great as solar forcing is we've warmed while total solar output has decreased in the past 40 years. I wonder how that jives with what WC proved.

You guys keep asking the same things over and over. I respond over and over, yet you conveniently forget, or say I am wrong.

There are latent heat lags because of the way our oceans flow.

[DarrinS]

You know what? it. I don't even care about the "denier" label any more. The AGW ship has been sinking for some time now and its advocates are scurrying around like drowning rats trying to save it. Time and observations will disprove this pseudoscience, just like it disproved other ty theories from the 1970's.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, so all of the extra heat is stored in the oceans and is now being released. Can you prove this?

[ElNono]

That's just it. There is no proof that the greenhouse effect is as strong as the AGW crowd says. Every time I ask for proof, nobody can point me the right direction. It is left as having to believe someone else. If everyone is so certain it is as potent as it is, where is the proof?

You are asking me to prove a negative.

Why would you disagree with the data/figures if seemingly none of those figures were presented to you?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you don't agree with the proof presented?