# Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow



## RDD_1210 (Oct 21, 2011)

_Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et. al. thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyze data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies. 
_
Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 21, 2011)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


they will just ignore it


----------



## Si modo (Oct 21, 2011)

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming.  They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 21, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> 
> they will just ignore it


Liar!

Now, run along.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 21, 2011)

In a related story, the number of laboratory experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures and acidifies the ocean is still zero.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 21, 2011)

Looks like another global warming zealot's thread goes down in flames.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 21, 2011)

PredFan said:


> Looks like another global warming zealot's thread goes down in flames.



Which one?


----------



## Truthmatters (Oct 21, 2011)

they dont know , they jsut pretend whatever they want is real


----------



## Si modo (Oct 21, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> they dont know , they jsut pretend whatever they want is real


Liar!


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 21, 2011)

For crying out loud, who doesn't believe in Climate change.

and like the GLOBE doesn't cool and warm


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 21, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> In a related story, the number of laboratory experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures and acidifies the ocean is still zero.



I noticed RDD by passed your reply I wonder why?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 21, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> For crying out loud, who doesn't believe in Climate change.
> 
> and like the GLOBE doesn't cool and warm



The climate changes year round. Nothing new it always has


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 21, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > In a related story, the number of laboratory experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures and acidifies the ocean is still zero.
> ...



Because it's Frank.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 21, 2011)

Si modo said:


> It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> 
> Good for Muller for checking this work.
> 
> ...


OH BULLSHIT!!!
The deniers have been claiming the globe has been COOLING since 1998!!!

no global warming since 1998 - Google Search


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 21, 2011)

"...the Berkeley Earth Project"

Berkeley? I am sure that is a bastion of scientific objectivity.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 21, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> they dont know , they jsut pretend whatever they want is real




indeed.........because we can. The science crap is important only to the internet k00ks. Nobody else cares!!! The k00ks still dont get this.

Perhaps the deniers do eat crow.........but on that study alone. Not in the bigger picture of things............which is not even debatable>>>>>  What Happened to Democrats' Energy, Climate Change Legislation Plans? | PBS NewsHour | Aug. 9, 2010 | PBS  .........and this story was written at PBS well over a year ago


And whats happened since then??


Ummm..............nothing s0ns!!! To boot, since then, all we've seen in the news is all the green energy scams related to stimulus money!!! That should really get the ball rolling on climate legislation in America.



Deniers eating crow?????










Nobody gives a rats ass about the science............except of course, lefty internet hero's who engage in science data posting OCD. The rest of the world is obviously unimpressed!!!



I hate to break it to the lefty internet science hero's but after next November, for all intents and purposes, this forum is going to die, except maybe for becomming the science hobby forum.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2011)

> *Global warming is real*
> 
> 
> "The planet has been warming," says a new study of temperature records, conducted by Berkeley professor Richard Muller. I wonder what he'll be telling us next: that night follows day? That water is wet? That great white sharks have nasty pointy teeth? That sheep go "baaaa"?
> ...



Global warming is real &#8211; Telegraph Blogs


----------



## rdean (Oct 21, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> "...the Berkeley Earth Project"
> 
> Berkeley? I am sure that is a bastion of scientific objectivity.



Which of course, Bob Jones University is.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 21, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > they dont know ,* they jsut pretend whatever they want is real*
> ...


CON$ revel in their STUPIDITY!!!


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2011)

I havent had time to read the BEST papers but the UHI results seem very odd. I wonder how long the peer review will last and how many changes will be made. interesting times.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 21, 2011)

IanC said:


> I havent had time to read the BEST papers but the UHI results seem very odd. I wonder how long the peer review will last and how many changes will be made. interesting times.


As I told you in another thread, removing stations near heat sources would increase rather than decrease the global average because the trends are based on anomalies, not absolute temperature readings. Anomalies are measured against the 20 to 30 year average of that station's temperature and if the station is near a heat source it raises the average temperature the anomaly is measured against thus reducing the anomaly!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > they dont know , they jsut pretend whatever they want is real
> ...



LOL. Ol Sis is up to her usual self. All snide comments and no information. Of course, the fact that the Phd Physicists state exactly opposite of what she states just doesn't seem to penetrate her little 'Conservate' alternative reality.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Of course, this is just the American Institue of Physics. Hell, Sis might even know what that is.


----------



## Article 15 (Oct 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> 
> University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.
> 
> ...





> Money for the new study, dubbed the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, came from five foundations, including one established by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and another from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, widely seen as a source of money for conservative organizations and initiatives that have fought efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.



And paid for with Koch money!



Koch brothers accidentally fund study that proves global warming - CSMonitor.com


----------



## Si modo (Oct 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


Well, let's see you find a single post of mine where I ever said there was no warming.

You won't find one where I did, because I never did.  But, you DID just lie about my posts.

And, why you link to a site about the 'greenhouse' effect is beyond me.  I do know that you lie quite often that I deny that there is a 'greenhouse' effect, but I never have.

I realize you have been pissed that scientists insisted that questionable data be validated, but why you lie about my views yet again, remains for all to ponder to what purpose you choose to lie.

As I say, those who are on solid foundation in their argument, never have reason to lie.  But, you lie quite often, at least about me and my views.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> ...


Scientific skeptics have not in general.  We certainly have insisted that tainted data be verified.

I clearly articulated what I mean with what I said.  I'm sorry that escapes you.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> 
> University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.
> 
> ...





There are two separate and distinct considerations in within this topic:

1.  Is it warming?
2.  What is causing it?

Simply showing that there is warming going on does nothing to attribute cause.

In truth, the second of the graphs posted in the article shows pretty clearly that warming predates the Industrial Revolution and should, to any unbiased observer, also show that whatever it is that caused the cooling to end and the warming to start was not caused by the Industrial revolution.

To argue that the anthropogenic increase of CO2 caused the warming beginning with the Industrial Revolution is arguing that the future causes the past.  To pretend that the warming waited until the Industrial Revolution started is misrepresenting the facts.

This _is _the argument of the warmers and it is simply empty.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> ...



You mean like Phil Jones?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones : Yes..."
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 22, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> ...


No it doesn't! It shown temps being fairly steady in the vast majority of the reconstructions until after the industrial revolution. In typical denier fashion, you focus only on the few that support your preconceived notions.







*Summary*




  2nd millennium 

 This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the 2nd millennium.  More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder  colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer  colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black.  The medieval warm period and little ice age  are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to  occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or  only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is  also shown for comparison. (Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png shows how 2004 relates to other recent years).
 It is unknown which, if any, of these reconstructions is an accurate  representation of climate history; however, these curves are a fair  representation of the range of results appearing in the published  scientific literature. Hence, it is likely that such reconstructions,  accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions  of global climate change and global warming.



 

 Expansion of the Instrumental Record


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 22, 2011)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Sis, you are using exactly the same tactics that the people that stated cigarette smoking was harmless used. Don't outright deny, just spread doubt and accuse the scientists of using 'tainted' data. 

The AIP site is not tainted data. It is a history of the scientific inquiry into the role of GHGs in our climatic system. 

Once again, you are a political hack, not a scientist. Were you a real scientist, you would present data supporting you arguement rather than playing the doubt game.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 22, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Well, I was wondering how long it would be before you would post this thoroughly discredited lie of yours. I have nailed you on it at least a dozen times on a dozen different threads only for you to re-post it on yet another thread. You have to admire the shamelessness of CON$ervative liars.

In the part of his answer that you ALWAYS edit out, Jones says THERE IS A WARMING TREND FOR THE PERIOD, but the TIME period is not long enough to be "statistically-significant." So, as you well know, he is not saying that there was no warming after 1995!!!!!!

But I'm sure you will be true to the dishonest nature of CON$ervatism and continue to post your dishonestly edited lie on other threads in the future!

*BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming*

Jones - Yes,  but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009.  *This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive,* but not significant at the  95% significance level. *The positive trend* is quite close to the  significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific  terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for  shorter periods.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Q: Did you murder Nicole and Ron Brown

OJ: Yes, but only just


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...





Indeed.............

But upon closer inspection, who's not winning???


As I say all the time..........the science doesnt matter. Its 2011, except to the hopelessly duped.

How is the science mattering except to spike the ball in a pissing contest? Does winning a pissing contest make one an internet hero? Evidently so.........but only for the k00ks.


The deniers have their data............the alarmists have their data. The alarmists are 100% certain THEIR data is the only data that matters. OK..........lets say their data wins!!! We'll even give them a trophy!!! And a gold star if they insist. Oh.......ok.......we'll even give edthecynic a framed certificate!!!


But so what?

The longest pisser wins??!!!!!!!!!! Because thats what it is










ok.........so I guess Im stupid for losing the pissing contest. What can I say?



Buuuuuuuuut.................in the real world...........IM WINNING. So I'll take stupid thanks!!!


Ummmm.........in the real world, the "consensus" is hugely underwhelming in the public arena. In fact, a huge majority couldnt give a shit about the consensus. How do I know?


*Because
 the
 country 
isnt
 doing

 DICK 

about
 greenhouse
 gases.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 22, 2011)

*so much winning.............*


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 22, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


The "real world" is nothing but a game to the terminally stupid!


----------



## PredFan (Oct 22, 2011)

It's the sun stupid!


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 22, 2011)

The hockey stick has been proven as fraud.

Some people chose to deny this fact.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


No, Rocks.  What I am doing is correcting your lies about my views and stating that the current state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the significance and magnitude of man-made CO2 to warming.

I would imagine if anyone did a search of the text in that line they would see how many times I have told you exactly that.

You just haven't the ability to grasp a simple fact.  Dilettantes usually don't.

And, stating facts is good for the integrity of science.  That is something that does not concern you.  You soil science and are an enemy of science.


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> ...







Ummm, no we havn't.  We've said that the warming had levelled off.  It also appear that we are entering into a cooling phase, but we won't know that for sure for another couple of years.  The Earth doesn't have a thermostat that you switch on and off.  It takes time for trends to become apparent.

As far as the op ed that Muller released, I don't see anything wrong with it except for the part where he ascribes the warming to human causes with no supporting evidence.  He is an avowed warmist after all, but when he gets the paper through peer review we will see what he really has to say.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 22, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...








So nice of you to admit your disability!  First comes acceptance then you can work on the problem.  GOOD FOR YOU!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 22, 2011)

gotta love when the k00ks keep throwing zero's!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


The present decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement, so to deniers that means warming has leveled off.  Next, to CON$, we will enter a cooling phase of steady temperatures.  

Mind you there have been no "cooling phases" for the last 100 years even though according to the natural cycle warming phases should be followed by cooling phases. For the last 100 years warming phases have been followed by level phases which are followed by new warming phases that begin at about the same level as the last warming phase left off.

And Muller is an avowed skeptic!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 22, 2011)

:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> 
> University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.
> 
> ...



What an incredibly idiotic take on what happened, and you wonder why people reject everything people like you have to say on the subject.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 22, 2011)

Still waiting on a single link from the k00ks.................and this is coming up on a year of requests!!!

For the curious who are coming in here to get some information on the climate debate, heres the poop>>>>>>>>>

THE GOAL of the climate alarmists is to do one thing: ramp up the angst so to push the country into a totally green economy. Which means.......massive carbon taxes. It is the only way to do it. And despite the "consensus" that global warming is a huge ass threat, as evidenced by the data..........where the fcukk is the climate legislation via congress to put a cap on carbon emmissions?? Where is it? The alarmist k00ks do this celebration thing on here like they've won the debate. Which leaves one question...................



*Where is the climate legislation assholes????*



Lastly.........to the curious. You will note, were not going to see one single link in response. But you can gaurantee alot of follow-up posts to this one that will say something like, "retard"......."stupid slackjawed denier"......"nutter"........denier cultist".


Ahh...............but zero links!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> ...



Do you understand the difference between denying something and being a skeptic about the claims that ocean levels will raise 200 feet unless we all go back to horse and buggy days?

I didn't think so.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 22, 2011)

Man made climate change is a fabrication of the Marxist left to engage in world wide wealth redistribution and control the way people live.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> 
> University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.
> 
> ...



If you're really worried about our emissions of CO2 heating the globe, you'd support building a couple of dozen new nuclear power plants that we know work, instead of wasting billions on solar and wind that doesn't work yet.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 22, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> ...



Thanks for the insightful response. Your contribution to this thread is priceless.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Oct 22, 2011)

Few people are debating there is climate change, but quite a few folks on this board seem rather loath to admit the possibility that humans are the primary cause. Besides the political crap, the only reason to deny CO2 pollution  comes down to protecting the economy and  profit,  not some niggling  obsession  on scientific objectivity. The economy is like Jupiter, and he ate is own children. The economy is a monster we had ALL better learn to control, not let it dominate US. That is were this is going, a total collapse of both the economy and the ecological system. When  the means to providing food to 7 billion people collapses, what the hell is going to happen?  THAT is were this is going, and IF we can do something about it NOW, we better  try.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Few people are debating there is climate change, but quite a few folks on this board seem rather loath to admit the possibility that humans are the primary cause. Besides the political crap, the only reason to deny CO2 pollution  comes down to protecting the economy and  profit,  not some niggling  obsession  on scientific objectivity. The economy is like Jupiter, and he ate is own children. The economy is a monster we had ALL better learn to control, not let it dominate US. That is were this is going, a total collapse of both the economy and the ecological system. When  the means to providing food to 7 billion people collapses, what the hell is going to happen?  THAT is were this is going, and IF we can do something about it NOW, we better  try.



What is the damage that "too much CO2" will cause? How much will it cost to prevent the damage? How much will it cost to repair the damage? 

Until you can get real answers for those questions, we'd rather not destroy our economy.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Oct 22, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SW2SILVER said:
> 
> 
> > Few people are debating there is climate change, but quite a few folks on this board seem rather loath to admit the possibility that humans are the primary cause. Besides the political crap, the only reason to deny CO2 pollution  comes down to protecting the economy and  profit,  not some niggling  obsession  on scientific objectivity. The economy is like Jupiter, and he ate is own children. The economy is a monster we had ALL better learn to control, not let it dominate US. That is were this is going, a total collapse of both the economy and the ecological system. When  the means to providing food to 7 billion people collapses, what the hell is going to happen?  THAT is were this is going, and IF we can do something about it NOW, we better  try.
> ...



You just want real proof? Look around you. It is there, not in any posts here. Or sacrifice all to the all mighty economy. Look.  All I ask.


----------



## daveman (Oct 22, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Few people are debating there is climate change, but quite a few folks on this board seem rather loath to admit the possibility that humans are the primary cause. Besides the political crap, the only reason to deny CO2 pollution  comes down to protecting the economy and  profit,  not some niggling  obsession  on scientific objectivity. The economy is like Jupiter, and he ate is own children. The economy is a monster we had ALL better learn to control, not let it dominate US. That is were this is going, a total collapse of both the economy and the ecological system. When  the means to providing food to 7 billion people collapses, what the hell is going to happen?  THAT is were this is going, and IF we can do something about it NOW, we better  try.


All the proposed "solutions" to AGW will collapse the world economy.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Oct 22, 2011)

I can't cure cancer. I can't. But being skeptical isn't a  practical option, either, is it?  Curing cancer  may cost us billions. Stopping global warming  may cost us plenty, but stopping the inevitable collapse of both our economy and our ecological system? Which of the two do  you value more? Our existence or the economy?


----------



## code1211 (Oct 22, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVER said:
> ...





Do us a favor.  What are we looking for?


----------



## code1211 (Oct 22, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> I can't cure cancer. I can't. But being skeptical isn't a  practical option, either, is it?  Curing cancer  may cost us billions. Stopping global warming  may cost us plenty, but stopping the inevitable collapse of both our economy and our ecological system? Which of the two do  you value more? Our existence or the economy?




Before you try to reverse the cause of Global Warming, proving the cause of Global of warming seems the intelligetnt thing to do.

How do you propose reversing a cause if you don't know what the cause might be?


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







You are so funny! This decade is only the warmest with shenanigans.  If they were to actually use ALL of weather stations instead of their cherry picked few in cities and at airports it would be cooler, but that's real science not the activist BS Hansen and company are now renowned for.

And Muller a sceptic?    If you believe that you are a bigger moron then I thought.  He's a warmist through and through and just like the others he too is invested heavily in the Green con, just not in their con, he's running his own con.

It will be interesting to see his peer reviewed paper when it comes out though.  I am looking forward to reading his findings and learning what he thinks of the recent NOAA efforts to correct the faulty weather stations pointed out by Watts and his group.


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Few people are debating there is climate change, but quite a few folks on this board seem rather loath to admit the possibility that humans are the primary cause. Besides the political crap, the only reason to deny CO2 pollution  comes down to protecting the economy and  profit,  not some niggling  obsession  on scientific objectivity. The economy is like Jupiter, and he ate is own children. The economy is a monster we had ALL better learn to control, not let it dominate US. That is were this is going, a total collapse of both the economy and the ecological system. When  the means to providing food to 7 billion people collapses, what the hell is going to happen?  THAT is were this is going, and IF we can do something about it NOW, we better  try.








Yeah sure, we should do something NOW.  Just like you types who said we need to put MTBE in the gasoline NOW to fix the air pollution.  How'd that work out fo you?  Oh yeah, I remember, you poisoned water wells throughout CA and caused billions and billions of dollars in environmental damage.  Smart move that.  I guess you didn't learn from that mistake and want to do it all over again.

And BTW, according to even the UN, if trends continue, the human population will stabalise at around 9 billion.  No histrionics, no need to go out and commit genocide like Obama's science advisor advocated, just let nature run its course and all will be fine.

Of course you won't get to steal peoples money that way, and you won't be able to set up your totalitarian government that way, but everything will be OK.


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVER said:
> ...






Point it out to us please.  CO2 makes plants grow real good.  That is proven.  Your theory is full of holes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 22, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVER said:
> ...



Yes, I want real proof.

I looked around, was there supposed to be proof there? There wasn't.

Try again?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


First of all, that is complete bullshit. The only people caught pulling "shenanigans" were deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH, who cooked the satellite data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. But you know that.

But more importantly, stations near heat sources give LOWER anomaly readings, not higher, so removing will RAISE the WARMING temperature trend. And you know that also. Anomalies are measured against a 20 or 30 year AVERAGE of the temperature of the station. If the station is near a heat source that raises the average the anomaly is measured against, lowering the anomaly.

So removing stations near heat sources will have the opposite effect you deniers want and you will still cry foul!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 22, 2011)

westwall said:


> SW2SILVER said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That, like everything that comes from CON$ is a HALF-TRUTH.
CO2 makes plants grow better UP TO A POINT. Like most things in Nature, too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing. CO2 and plants is no exception!!!

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 22, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



It takes a special person to place a hand on a stove and convince them self that they have their hand in a freezer.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







  You're not too bright are you?  Here you go sport.  Maybe next time, before you open your mouth and insert your very large and smelly foot, you'll check on things.


"Summary

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a network of weather-monitoring stations known as the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which monitors the nation's climate and analyzes long-term surface temperature trends. Recent reports have shown that some stations in the USHCN are not sited in accordance with NOAA's standards, which state that temperature instruments should be located away from extensive paved surfaces or obstructions such as buildings and trees. GAO was asked to examine (1) how NOAA chose stations for the USHCN, (2) the extent to which these stations meet siting standards and other requirements, and (3) the extent to which NOAA tracks USHCN stations' adherence to siting standards and other requirements and has established a policy for addressing nonadherence to siting standards. GAO reviewed data and documents, interviewed key NOAA officials, surveyed the 116 NOAA weather forecast offices responsible for managing stations in the USHCN, and visited 8 forecast offices.

In choosing USHCN stations from a larger set of existing weather-monitoring stations, NOAA placed a high priority on achieving a relatively uniform geographic distribution of stations across the contiguous 48 states. NOAA balanced geographic distribution with other factors, including a desire for a long history of temperature records, limited periods of missing data, and stability of a station's location and other measurement conditions, since changes in such conditions can cause temperature shifts unrelated to climate trends. NOAA had to make certain exceptions, such as including many stations that had incomplete temperature records. In general, the extent to which the stations met NOAA's siting standards played a limited role in the designation process, in part because NOAA officials considered other factors, such as geographic distribution and a long history of records, to be more important. USHCN stations meet NOAA's siting standards and management requirements to varying degrees. According to GAO's survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature-measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device--which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards. NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agencywide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards. Performance management guidelines call for using performance information to assess program results. NOAA's information systems, however, are not designed to centrally track whether stations in the USHCN meet its siting standards or the requirement to update station records. Without centrally available information, NOAA cannot easily measure the performance of the USHCN in meeting siting standards and management requirements. Furthermore, federal internal control standards call for agencies to document their policies and procedures to help managers achieve desired results. NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy, however, that clarifies for agency staff whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open because the continuity of the data is important, or should be moved or closed. As a result, weather forecast offices do not have a basis for making consistent decisions to address stations that do not meet the siting standards. GAO recommends that NOAA enhance its information systems to centrally capture information useful in managing the USHCN and develop a policy on how to address stations that do not meet its siting standards. NOAA agreed with GAO's recommendations."




U.S. GAO - Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVER said:
> ...







Really?   Show us a peer reviewed paper that shows the upper limit for CO2 use in plants.  Emprical data only.  Crappy computer models are not allowed as they are not real science.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







No, just a religious nut.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


And how exactly does that change the fact that stations located near heat sources produce lower anomaly readings? 
It doesn't!!! Now take your foot out of your mouth and stick it up your fat ass!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Why don't you show a peer reviewed paper that shows there are no upper limits to CO2 use by plants first. You were the one who made the claim that it was "proven" that CO2 makes plants grow real good and you gave no exceptions.

It is a well known fact that increased CO2 reduces water intake by plants, for example, so it is well known that increased CO2 has BOTH positive and negative effects. Since you claimed no negative effects form increased CO2 first, the onus is on you first.


----------



## IanC (Oct 23, 2011)

ed said-





> Why don't you show a peer reviewed paper that shows there are no upper limits to CO2 use by plants first. You were the one who made the claim that it was "proven" that CO2 makes plants grow real good and you gave no exceptions.
> 
> It is a well known fact that increased CO2 reduces water intake by plants, for example, so it is well known that increased CO2 has BOTH positive and negative effects. Since you claimed no negative effects form increased CO2 first, the onus is on you first.



do you consider drought resistance a negative effect? why do you think that?


----------



## gslack (Oct 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> 
> University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.
> 
> ...



Ah yes from the Great Gizmodo... yes that Bastian of .... What exactly? 

Exactly what makes that scientists a vocal skeptic? I have never heard of him, and frankly I don't think a study by a group dedicated to furthering AGW theory based out of Berkley is the final word on this... 

Now I will have to completely show the bullshit in that article...

The article mentions the study is from Berkeley Earth Project. and I followed that link. it gave me the ecomentalists vibe SO I looked at their "about us" page. And when I went I saw it was just names of people involved and links to them or stuff about them. SO I went to the first ones link, and guess what I found? A mention of his company named Muller & Associates Now can you guess what they do? Please follow the links and see the steps I took and see for yourself...

Yep.. Thats right he is the head guy at a sustainability consulting firm.. Sustainability... Thats the new term they are pushing, its kind of nicer than saying going green or ECO-friendly... From their site...

_"GreenGov&#8482; is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start."_

So your source linked to a science front-group for a Eco-consulting firm and had the unmitigated gall to call it science.... WTH?

This is the kind of crap that makes me the maddest in all of this.. Its the rise of anti-science and it fuels masses of ignorance... All of those scientists involved are no more scientific than the Pope... The fact is they used the university and any funds it may have gotten for research from the government to reach a specific and desired outcome all to further their own business.... And you people take issue with the heartland institute?

LOL pot, meet kettle...


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2011)

IanC said:


> ed said-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, but increased runoff from decreased evapotranspiration is a negative effect. Why do you ignore that?


----------



## IanC (Oct 23, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ed said-
> ...



hahahaha. wow, you're really reaching there. irrigation is much more of a problem than drainage in most cases. looks like you have come up with yet another multi-million dollar proposal for climate change study though.


----------



## IanC (Oct 23, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ed said-
> ...



does that mean you are arguing that CO2 in this case is a negative feedback to warming because the plants are putting less water vapour into the air?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 23, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Few people are debating there is climate change, but quite a few folks on this board seem rather loath to admit the possibility that humans are the primary cause. Besides the political crap, the only reason to deny CO2 pollution  comes down to protecting the economy and  profit,  not some niggling  obsession  on scientific objectivity. The economy is like Jupiter, and he ate is own children. The economy is a monster we had ALL better learn to control, not let it dominate US. That is were this is going, a total collapse of both the economy and the ecological system. When  the means to providing food to 7 billion people collapses, what the hell is going to happen?  THAT is were this is going, and IF we can do something about it NOW, we better  try.





another perfect example of liberal thinking. The necessary tradeoff dynamic just cant be comprehended by these people. 

Thankfully, the rest of us can, thus, the attitude of the country for going green is "meh". Which is why I say............nobody cares about the science.



*Gassing Up: Why America's Future Job Growth Lies In Traditional Energy Industries *
by Joel Kotkin 09/27/2011 


In his new book, The Coming Jobs War, Gallup CEO James Clifton defines what he calls an &#8220;all-out global war for good jobs.&#8221; Clifton envisions a world-wide struggle for new, steady employment, with the looming threat of &#8220;suffering, instability, chaos and eventually revolution&#8221; for those who fail to secure new economic opportunities.

In the U.S., this conflict can be seen as a kind of new war battle the states, each fighting not only for employment but for jobs that pay enough to support a middle-class lifestyle.

My colleagues at Praxis Strategy Group and I have looked over data for the period after the economy started to weaken in 2006. Using stats from EMSI, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we compared sectors by growth, and then by average salary.

Not surprisingly &#8220;recession-proof&#8221; fields such as health care and education expanded some 11% over the past five years. More inexplicably, given its role in detonating the Great Recession, the financial sector expanded some 10%.

*But the biggest growth by far has taken place in the mining, oil and natural gas industries, where jobs expanded by 60%, creating a total of 500,000 new jobs.* While that number is not as large as those generated by health care or education, the quality of these jobs are far higher. The average job in conventional energy pays about $100,000 annually &#8212; about $20,000 more than finance or professional services pay. The wages are more than twice as high as those in either health or education.


Gassing Up: Why America's Future Job Growth Lies In Traditional Energy Industries | Newgeography.com





This is why I can come in here and constantly laugh my balls off. Because all the assholes pushing this hockey stick garbage dont seem to get that for all intents and purposes..........nobody gives a rats ass. Its so crystal clear its laughable. For the deniers...........how do we know we're winning? Because the responses to providing links showing the science is mattering are invariably nothing but personal attacks. Which I love by the way............simply more fodder for pronounced levels of pwn from the deniers.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 23, 2011)

Well..........in the interest of fairness, I will point out that in terms of pissing contests on the topic of published literature, the k00ks have the edge..............










But as the scoreboard clearly displays above...........not winning.



*Its 2011 s0ns!!!!*


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2011)

IanC said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Gee, no surprise CON$ are ass backwards!

As an increase in  carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants, global warming increases.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2011)

gslack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> ...






Yep, that's what I was alluding to with his "con" being different from the others con.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







Oh, did I hurt your widdle feewings?


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







  Wow, you *are* a whackjob aren't you!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Wow. He's kinda weak when it comes to science.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Life in the Greenhouse: Losing Our Cool : Discovery News
The complicated give-and-take between our changing climate and the plant  life of the planet is taking on a new look. Just when we need it most,  it appears, *rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere  are likely to raise temperatures even further by dialing down the  natural air conditioning effects of trees and other vegetation.*


Researchers  at Carnegie Institution for Science have completed modeling simulations  showing that at heightened levels of CO2 -- twice the pre-industrial  levels --* this reduced-cooling effect on vegetation will account for 16  percent of the warming around the globe, and in some places -- North  America and Asia -- it will represent 25 percent of the warming.*
The  map, courtesy of the Carnegie Institution, shows the percentage of  predicted *warming due to the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants.*
Scientists  have known for some time that *growing plants absorb carbon dioxide from  the atmosphere, and that they expel water vapor through pores in their  leaves, a process known as evapotranspiration that cools the plant and  surrounding air.*  Earlier work by Carnegie researchers described how  *heightened levels of carbon dioxide cause these pores to shrink, causing  less water to be released, reducing the cooling.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



We can solve global warming by evaporating more water?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The patented CON$ervative dumb act when caught with their foot in their mouth!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Your claim, not mine. 
And I'd always heard that water vapor was a GHG.


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 23, 2011)

Si modo said:


> It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> 
> Good for Muller for checking this work.
> 
> ...



No amount of proof will be sufficient.

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> ...



*Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false*

I read the article. Where did it say that?


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 23, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



(edit) First two sentences.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 23, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Again a typical CON$ervative half-truth!
It all depends where in the atmosphere the water vapor is for it to behave as a GHG, as you, a scientific know-it-all, well know.

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Set out to prove what false? 
Here are the first two sentences.

*Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth*.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Water vapor near the ground, from plants, isn't a greenhouse gas? 
Is that your claim?


----------



## code1211 (Oct 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> ...





Since no amount has yet been produced and that amount has proven insufficient, I must point out that you are wrong.


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 23, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Climatologists disagree with you. 

But what the hell do they know?

Your continued "Nuh-uh" is far more compelling.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> ...


Apparently, you have no comprehension of my post.

As I said, good for him for _apparently_ verifying this data.  When his work is peer-reviewed, I will drop the 'apparently'.

Regardless, it is obvious that someone who just said, "It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome" is not saying 'Nuh-uh' that there is no warming since 1800 and has no intention of ever saying 'Nuh-uh' there is no warming since 1800, unless the results are presented differently in his up-coming peer-reviewed publication.

And, the fact of the matter is that I have never said there WAS no warming.  I have suspected there was, but suspicions hold no water in making a scientific conclusion.  And, when data has a high probability of being tainted, the fact that Muller did this work to verify it, apparently, is a good thing for science.

However, saying there is warming is one thing, saying what is the causation of that warming is another.  The latter is cause for much skepticism among scientists; correlation is not adequate support of causation.

And, *sigh*, for those who tend toward strawmen, that is not in any way a statement claiming that there is no 'greenhouse' effect.

And, for those familiar with the logic of scientific discovery, NOTHING is ever proved in science, theories are only supported or falsified.


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 23, 2011)

Enrons books were peer reviewed. It turned out that they were paying money to the peers.

Bankrupted an entire accounting firm.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 23, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Enrons books were peer reviewed. It turned out that they were paying money to the peers.
> 
> Bankrupted an entire accounting firm.


It would take me being transported to some bizarre parallel universe to believe that accountants have the same standard of peer-review as the scientific community or even come close to having similar philosophies as scientists in practicing their profession.

I mean no offense in that comment, just that the two professions operate very differently.  'Different' assigns no value judgment.


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 23, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



No, I understood your post completely; Perhaps you misunderstood mine.

I wasn't claiming you say "Nuh-uh" to the preponderance of warming; I was claiming you simply say "Nuh-uh" to the apparent_ cause_ of the warming.  I see it here all the time; "They haven't proved nuthin, huh-huh."  Well, I'm not a scientist, but scientists seem pretty damn sure that man's activities are playing a role in what we're seeing, and most of their predictions are coming true.  

For some reason you cast aside the **overwhelming** preponderance of the professionals and seek out the go-ahead from the few detractors that support your POV.

When you seek out sources that will tell you what you want to hear, you will _always_ find them.  Hell, you can find people 100% sure that the holocaust was fabricated and the moon landing was a hoax- So you're never going to convince every person of _anything._

But there's not much money in moon landing hoaxing or holocaust denial, so those fringers are not brought into the conversation every time space travel or WWII are discussed.

One has to ask then, why we *do* give equal weight to the fringers in the climate "Debate?"


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 23, 2011)

Si modo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Enrons books were peer reviewed. It turned out that they were paying money to the peers.
> ...



The scientific community has a less rigid standard of peer review. I know. I am a Geophysicist, and my wife is an Accountant.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


You are absolutely correct; I do reject the bandwagon argument as it is a logical fallacy.

There is no science (and I mean peer-reviewed scientific work) that would ever attempt to use a bandwagon argument to support their science.

Plenty others would, but there are plenty of dilettantes who are interested in this topic, yet could not care less about soiling science and the integrity of the logic of scientific discovery (the principles of which have advanced the knowledge of science for 80 years).


----------



## Si modo (Oct 23, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


As I said, 'different' assigns no value judgment.


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 23, 2011)

Si modo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



When was your last science peer review?


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 23, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Do you reject gravity, evolution, and a heliocentric solar system too?

Conservatives did ya know, when the "Debate" about those things were going on.  I'm pretty sure someone went to jail for it...
















Ok that is admittedly a strawman.   But hopefully It's helped convey how I feel when people just continue claiming "Proof ain't proof enough!" when their up against virtually all professionals in the field.  And I do think it will go the same way as the aforementioned phenomena - Eventually, the evidence will be so overwhelming, the vested interests in denial will have no choice but to concede.  But this is different; It ain't just a debate about what is.  The decisions we make affect every person on the planet.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


Yes, that is a strawman as is your post-script comment about it.  

My stating the fact that NOTHING is EVER proved in science does not equate to proof not being enough because it doesn't even apply to science.  If any scientist were to say that they have 'proven' something, they would have serious trouble getting  that work past even the first round of peer-review.

And, few scientists would say that there is 'proof' of gravity, for example; they WOULD say that the concept of gravity has been supported billions of times AND has yet to be falsified.

Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.

As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.

I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is.  It just is.


----------



## Amelia (Oct 23, 2011)

Crows are susceptible to West Nile virus.  I wouldn't eat them.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...





Climatologists who pervert peer review and falsify data are not scientists, they are propagandists.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2011)

Si modo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Enrons books were peer reviewed. It turned out that they were paying money to the peers.
> ...






Actually Si, based on the ADMITTED perversion of the peer review process by the climatologists, it is an apt analogy.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...







Because we are the same people who warned you that adding MTBE into the gasoline in CA would have disastrous effects.  You ignored us there and countless billions of dollars of environmental damage were caused BY YOU!  YOU are the people who caused thousands of water wells all over the state of CA to be poisoned.

We warned you, you ignored us.  We were correct.  You were wrong.  That's why you should listen to us.  Our record is much better then yours.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


I don't know if you've been paying attention or not, but the _*speed of light*_ was recently cast into question as the absolute cosmic speed limit.

Yet, somehow or another, the shaky theory that climate change on a planetary scale is caused by industrial man is absolutely incontrovertible.

Now, I believe you were babbling something about others listening only to those who tell them what they want to hear?


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 23, 2011)

westwall said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



How come every time I'm having a decent conversation with Modo, you have to show up and remind everyone what a lumbering moron you are?

We get it, you are really, _really _stupid.  I'll stipulate.  I don't need you to keep providing evidence.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...







Sure thing buckwheat.  You just hate being reminded what fools you are.  I get it.  Too bad.  YOU were wrong then and you are probably wrong now.


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 23, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



How is the post-script a strawman? 

I'm not a scientist but from what I gather, there is an axiom between unprecedented industrial pollution and unprecedented warming.  The ice caps are melting like they said, storms are becoming more severe and more frequent like they said, and large pieces of geography are turning to desert like they said; resulting in genocide, displacement, and starvation, like they said.

The continuing argument from the denial crowd (Which I don't consider you a part of; You seem more like an 'unconvinced, to the extent that no action is necessary at this time' crowd) used to be it's not happening.  That's it, it's just not happening, fingers in ears, lalalala and so forth.  Well soon enough, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they had to concede that it is happening but now insist that it's not man's activities.  Not to sound like a broken record, buuuut... 1. The experts say yes it is, and 2. There is ZERO evidence to contradict the experts; as in your gravity example.

Now we may have had a few... over exuberant scientists exaggerating claims to further what they see as a benevolent cause.  But all this shady smoking-man conspiracy nonsense?  Where does that come from?  Where do we get drooling neanderthal dullards like Westwall who are _100% sure _ that decades of research and experimentation are just plain wrong, or even worse, are some sort of cartel with nefarious intentions?

And likewise I appreciate your civility.  Walleyes, go stick a butter knife in the light socket. It'll be fun.


----------



## gslack (Oct 24, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I am aware of no evidence of more and more severe storms, nor am I aware of evidence that ice caps are melting on the scale they claim, nor any of the myriad of alarmist talking points you just spewed out...

Evidence of a short term change in weather does not equal climate. And natural variability tells us these things if happening have happened before even in the not so distant past.. And they will continue to happen into the future..


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You are not much aware of anything, G-vig. Tain't natural variability when you have nearly a doubling in the space of 30 years. 

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

THE number of weather-related disasters has more than doubled in the past 30 years. 

And global warming is the only logical explanation, according to a comprehensive analysis of storms, floods and droughts.

There were 828 "weather catastrophes" involving loss of life and major economic damage across the world last year, compared with 317 in 1980.

The analysis by Munich Re, the reinsurance company, found 385 such events in the first six months of this year - the second highest in any January to June period since records began in 1974. The report does not include this week's flooding in Pakistan, landslides in China and wildfires in Russia.

Liz Bentley, of the Royal Meteorological Society, said the figures were evidence that man-made emissions were having an impact: "It is possible to make the link when you look at 30-year trends.


----------



## gslack (Oct 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Doubled from what? Whats your point of reference? 30 years? Thats it? Natural disasters dont go by your wrist watch... And that being the case using 30 years to claim there has been more disasters than the previous 30 or hell even 60 years in terms of climate is just plain irresponsible as well as non-scientific..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



*Tain't natural variability when you have nearly a doubling in the space of 30 years. 
*
How much of the increase is due to natural variability? Precisely?
How much is due to global warming?
How much is due to population growth?
How much is due to the percentage of global warming you can prove is caused by man?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2011)

Well, Toddster, were you to actually read what Swiss Re and Munich Re have to say, you would know what they think on each of those questions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Toddster, were you to actually read what Swiss Re and Munich Re have to say, you would know what they think on each of those questions.



I didn't see where they quantified how much of the increase is due to natural variability.

I didn't see where they quantified how much is due to global warming.

I didn't see where they quantified how much is due to population growth.

I didn't see where they quantified how much is due to the percentage of global warming they can prove is caused by man.

Did you?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 27, 2011)

Hysterical watching the k00ks melt down when SiModo pwns them


----------



## Si modo (Oct 27, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


About six months ago.  It passed and is published.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2011)

...and the number of repeatable laboratory experiments showing climate change and ocean acidification by eliminating all variables except for a 100PPM increase in CO2 is still 0.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 27, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.
> 
> As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation.
> 
> I tend not to have much emotions one way or the other over what is.  It just is.



Unfortunately for you, you have some very confused notions about "_what is_".

Your statement that the scientific research that determined that the current abrupt warming trend is anthropogenic in origin "_has subsequently been falsified_" is total horseshyt, as is your statement about the "_state of the science_" not supporting "_ANY conclusion about the causation of warming_". TOTAL FRIGGING HORSESHYT!!!!

Here's the actual facts about the "_state of the science_" and the actual conclusions of the world scientific community. All of these conclusions have only grown stronger and even more supported by the ever increasing body of scientific evidence in the years since these findings were first published.

*Scientific opinion on climate change* - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."​
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion...*

_*American Association for the Advancement of Science
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[32]


American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earths climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

    The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).


American Physical Society
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

    The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

    Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earths climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.


American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[41] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate systemincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 19562006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.


Geological Society of America
In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse&#8208;gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.


American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:   

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... 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... 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.*_


----------



## westwall (Oct 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.
> ...







Big deal.   "OPINIONS" ain't facts buckwheat.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.
> ...


Those aren't 'facts'; those are opinions.  Bolding and coloring opinions does not magically transform them into facts.

As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, for much of the predictive work in climate science, the work either does not assign causation to warming (because they can't) or, if the predictive work does assign causation to mand made CO2, that work has subsequently been falsified.
> ...



*"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."*

Haha. Thanks. That was funny.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 27, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



These are your ignorant uninformed "_opinions_", not facts. 
"_As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation._"
"_As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming._"
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "_magically transform them into facts_" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "_opinions_" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "_opinions_" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



The scientists who falsified data? 
Left data out?
The ones who tricked the data to hide the decline?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


It is a fact.

If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.

Recall, opinions are not science.

(Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)



> .... "_As I said, the science is not there to determine causation of warming._"
> You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "_magically transform them into facts_" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "_opinions_" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.
> 
> ....


How silly of you to ask that a negative be proved.

So, produce the science that demonstrates the causation.



> .... The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "_opinions_" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.


Believe it or not, scientists are human and have opinions.  Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 27, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



All debunked denier cult myths with no substance. Like you, toadster.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Trick the data was debunked?
Hide the decline was debunked?
The phony hockey stick was debunked?
Why are the other planets warming?
SUVs on Mars?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


What is a "denier" denying?


----------



## whitehall (Oct 27, 2011)

Let's lay our cards on the table lefties. I don't want to crow nor do I want to eat crow. All I want is gas at about $1.00 at the pumps. Is that too much to ask? The problem is that our own president wants to punish Americans and we will never see cheap energy as long as Obama is in office.


----------



## westwall (Oct 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Yes, we're the same "deniers" that told you that MTBE was a dangerous additive to gasoline.  YOUR OPINION was that it was OK.  Turns out OUR FACTS were nore accurate than your OPINIONS!  Your OPINION caused billions in environmental damage and poisoned thousands of water wells throughout CA.

As one of my professors once said, "opinions are like assholes...everybody has one."


----------



## gslack (Oct 27, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Oh look! Trollingblunder is back from his crying fit now...

Thats it troll don't quit... You got PR to post! All for the cause!


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......that is just too hilarious and ironically hypocritical....let's take the first line there of your post and combine it with the last line of your post:
"_Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact._"
If we add in a couple more of your lines, it reaches *ROTFLMAO* levels of hilarity.
"_Recall, opinions are not science. (Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)_"

So no, Slo dodo, "_it_" is not a "_fact_", "it" is just your uninformed opinion and it is a very mistaken one based only on your own apparently deliberate ignorance.



> .... The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "_opinions_" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.








Si modo said:


> If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.


OK, Dodo, here you go. 

Let's start with the fact that scientists have been able to determine past atmospheric CO2 levels by analyzing air bubbles trapped in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 levels stayed around 275ppm to 285ppm for at least the last ten thousand years, the period in which mankind was able to take advantage of a period of relatively stable climate to develop agriculture and cities and civilization and a world population of 7 billion. It stayed the same until about two centuries ago when mankind started to seriously develop and make widespread the use of coal and oil and natural gas and deforestation became widespread. *Now mankind has raised CO2 levels by about 40%*, from 285ppm to the current level of 389ppm. Here is a good account, with references and links to the scientific papers, to just how that increase in CO2 levels ties into the high degree of scientific certainty about the human "_causation_" of the current global warming/climate changes. Follow the link to the site for more detail.


*Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming*
(excerpts)

*According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."*


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2011)

Good grief.  Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.

S/he doesn't even know what science IS.  S/he is just emoting.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Good grief.  Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.
> 
> S/he doesn't even know what science IS.  S/he is just emoting.



Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths. 

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified. 

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








  Right.  Your blog (amazing how it's OK for you to post from your blogs not for us to post from ours)  says CO2 is increasing due to human causes, then does nothing to support that statement.  It then continues on with the usual blather.

IT PRESENTS NO EMPIRICAL DATA TO SUPPRT WHAT THEY SAY.  And you're too stupid to figure that out.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief.  Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.
> ...


Blogs aren't science.

And, it's amazing that I have to say that.


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






Sadly, its the norm now Si.  These yahoo's read a couple of blogs and suddenly they are the experts.  Of course they can't do simple math to back up their contentions (hell Mann, with a PhD, can't do simple math!  Demonstrably so!)but they're the experts!


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


That's exactly why I use the term dilettante so often.  At this point, I think even that term is generous.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Blah, blah, blah.  Pleae check the link below.  It shows that the cooling of the Little Ice Age ended sometime between 1580 and 1650.  The warming started at the point when the cooling ended.  The Industrial Revolution started in the mid 1700's.

Your case is empty before you present it since the warming pre dates the cause you cite.  The Industrial revolution could not have caused warming to occur 100 years before it started.

You are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## code1211 (Oct 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief.  Rollingthunder posts a blog as science.
> ...





And yet GISS, Hadley, RSS, UAH and the NOAA Argo Buoy array all agree that the globe has been cooling 2002.

Do these folks also have "denier cult brains?

"Global Warming" Has Stopped -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



No little nitwit, "_blogs aren't science_" because *science* is *science* and accurate scientific information can be found in many places on the internet, including blogs. You can also find pseudo-science and lies on blogs. So what? The fact that you asked for the scientific basis for attributing the causation of global warming to mankind's carbon emissions and then when you received that information, with links to peer reviewed papers from science journals, you rejected it out of hand without even trying to deal with the facts or dispute the information provided, just shows that you are another politically motivated and very brainwashed denier cultist who is not interested in the science or the truth.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 28, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


No they don't. That's just denier cult lies.

Just as an example, here's what GISS actually says:

*NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record*
January 12, 2011
(excerpts)

*Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880. The resulting temperature record closely matches others independently produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

The record temperature in 2010 is particularly noteworthy, because the last half of the year was marked by a transition to strong La Niña conditions, which bring cool sea surface temperatures to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. "Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior two decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature," Hansen and colleagues reported in the Dec. 14, 2010, issue of Reviews of Geophysics*






_In 2010, global temperatures continued to rise. A new analysis from the Goddard Institute 
for Space Studies shows that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, and was 
part of the warmest decade on record. (Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory/Robert Simmon)_






code1211 said:


> Do these folks also have "denier cult brains?


They don't say what you claim they do so their brains are fine. It is you denier cult nitwits who have no brains.






code1211 said:


> "Global Warming" Has Stopped -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net


LOLOLOLOL....you actually imagine that quoting a known liar and nutcase like Christopher Monckton spewing his usual easily debunked drivel is going to impress anyone who's equipped with more than half a brain? LOLOLOL.....you must be insane....


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






Yeppers.  I've met plenty of dilettantes who were very well versed in their subject.  Very well indeed for some of them.  I have learned quite a bit from them in point of fact, however, the silly people like blunder and olfraud, are not well versed in science at all.  To call them dilettants is an insult to some very dedicated people who may not have the degree but are very competent to argue their point.

No, these people are nothing more than factual posturor's.  They bleat a great deal but they have no concept of what they speak.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



LOL.   Dumb ass blog.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2011)

Global temperature change

Global surface temperature has increased &#8776;0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West&#8211;East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within &#8776;1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than &#8776;1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute &#8220;dangerous&#8221; climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2011)

Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years

The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.


----------



## SAT (Oct 28, 2011)

Perhaps the posters should refer to the title of the thread. 

Climate skeptics eat crow.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2011)

Sensitivity of the attribution of near surface temperature warming to the choice of observational dataset

Gareth S. Jones


Peter A. Stott


A number of studies have demonstrated that much of the recent warming in global near surface temperatures can be attributed to increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Whilst this conclusion has been shown to be robust in analyses using a variety of climate models there have not been equivalent studies using different available observational datasets. Here we repeat the analyses as reported previously using an updated observational dataset and other independently processed datasets of near surface temperatures. We conclude that the choice of observational dataset has little impact on the attribution of greenhouse gas warming and other anthropogenic cooling contributions to observed warming on a global scale over the 20th century, however this robust conclusion may not hold for other periods or for smaller sub-regions. Our results show that the dominant contributor to global warming over the last 50 years of the 20th century is that due to greenhouse gases.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2011)

Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists

Human Fingerprints
Download: Human Fingerprints (high-res fact sheet | Human Fingerprints (low-res fact sheet) 
Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?" &#8212; are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2011)

Not blogs, but real publications from real scientists. Not pretenders on an internet message board.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 28, 2011)

SAT said:


> Perhaps the posters should refer to the title of the thread.
> 
> Climate skeptics eat crow.


Maybe you should read through the thread and see that Murray was debunked as the poser and intellectual fraud that he is, Gomer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Global temperature change
> 
> Global surface temperature has increased &#8776;0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased WestEast temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within &#8776;1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than &#8776;1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute dangerous climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.



James Hansen?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2011)

*Yes, dumb ass, Dr. James Hansen. The man that is respected around the world as the foremost climatologist in the world. *

Education:

B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa 
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa 
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
Publications

Go to bibliography
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2011)

Oddball said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the posters should refer to the title of the thread.
> ...



Dang, Oddie, for once you are correct;

Robert E. Murray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warmingMurray, an engineer by profession, has been an outspoken critic of the scientific opinion on climate change. In June 2007, he told the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that "the science of global warming is suspect." He also wrote in a May 2007 MarketWatch editorial: "The actual environmental risk associated with carbon emissions is highly speculative."[11]

In a 2007 speech to the New York Coal Trade Association, he called Al Gore "the shaman of global gloom and doom" and added "he is more dangerous than his global warming."[23]

Murray said during the speech:

"Some wealthy elitists in our country, who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists' ill-conceived global goofiness' campaigns."[24]

Murray is a particular opponent of proposed global warming legislation in Congress, saying:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Yes, dumb ass, Dr. James Hansen. The man that is respected around the world as the foremost climatologist in the world. *
> 
> Education:
> 
> ...



It's a shame such a smart guy has to lie, isn't it?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Global temperature change
> 
> Global surface temperature has increased &#8776;0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased WestEast temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within &#8776;1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than &#8776;1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute dangerous climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.


Yet, there is no significance and magnitude of man-made CO2 on warming reported.


Old Rocks said:


> Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
> 
> The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.


Yet, there is no significance and magnitude of man-made CO2 on warming reported.



Old Rocks said:


> Sensitivity of the attribution of near surface temperature warming to the choice of observational dataset
> 
> Gareth S. Jones
> 
> ...


Blog.  Garbage.



Old Rocks said:


> Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists
> 
> Human Fingerprints
> Download: Human Fingerprints (high-res fact sheet | Human Fingerprints (low-res fact sheet)
> Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?"  are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.


Yet, there is no significance and magnitude of man-made CO2 on warming reported.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> 
> Good for Muller for checking this work.
> 
> ...





code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Gee, at the beginning of this thread, deniers were denying that they deny the Earth is warming. code and westie both posted a thanks to si's post, but now code posts a denial of global warming and westie posts a thanks.
Flip-flop much?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> ...


Oh, he is a scientist?

Read what I said, Ed.  "Scientific skeptics".  You bolded it so you should be able to see it.


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists
> 
> Human Fingerprints
> Download: Human Fingerprints (high-res fact sheet | Human Fingerprints (low-res fact sheet)
> Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?"  are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.








When they lead off with a statement like this...

"Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades."

Which is provably false...then it follows the rest is worthless propaganda.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists
> ...


That's a given with the UCS.

Never, ever would I join that political group.


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.
> ...







  When have we EVER claimed that there was no global warming?  Huh silly person?  The question is whether man has any ownership as to cause.  We say the evidence for that supposition is lacking (in fact it is so far non-existent), we have never said that the world isn't warming.  It has been warming (with interwoven cycles of hot and cold that last for hundreds of years) for the last 14,000 years.

You idiots were proven wrong with the environmental disaster of MTBE and we're proving you wrong with this as well.  Fortunately before you have been able to destroy the economies of the world for no measurable effect.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


He linked to "scientific skeptics." BTW the UAH chart created by "Scientific skeptics" Christy and Spencer used in the link has been exposed as a fraud, created by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. When the correct sign is used the chart shows warming, but the dishonest deniers like Monckton still use the fraudulent chart.


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Nor I.  I don't do well with political whores.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


And, did not Spender absolutely support Muller's work in verifying data?

Yup, he did.

So, you're point is what?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 28, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


No one is as dumb as you pretend to be!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Only AFTER he was caught fudging the data! And what choice does he have now if he wants to save face???


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


And, you've posted no science.

If you are asking me to prove that there is no science that supports that the warming is caused by man-made CO2 and gives the magnitude and significance of that on warming, you are just being ridiculous.

Or, better yet, let us all know how a negative is proved?

Then let us all know how that shift of burden works?

Thanks.




Damn, this is beyond remedial stuff.


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






No kidding.  It's like trying to teach a baboon how to add.  It can be done but is the effort really worth it?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Actually, he is absolutely correct, Ed.

As I said before, warming was denied by few scientific skeptics.

The data was tainted so naturally it was questioned.

It has more validity now AND the data appears less tainted.

However, and this is where the skepticism is set, the causation of that warming is more than suspect.  There is NO science that quantifies ANY significance and/or magnitude that man-made CO2 has on the warming.

The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion one way or the other about man-made CO2 on warming.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 28, 2011)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The deniers were called deniers because they denied there was any global warming. Denying man is the cause is the fallback position.

It was the deniers' data was tainted, not the scientific data. If you remember the tainted UAH data was used to taint all the good data that was just confirmed. The tainted UAH data was used to discredit the ground station data. Back then the deniers said that only satellite data did not suffer from the urban heat island effect, but when the RSS satellite data confirmed the ground station data, deniers claimed it was no good because it came from Hansen. The only satellite data the deniers would accept was the tainted UAH data which showed global cooling. Based on the tainted UAH data alone, the skeptics denied that there was any global warming. Once the tainted UAH data was exposed and corrected and now also confirmed the ground station data, suddenly ALL satellite data was bad.

Next we were told the Berkley Project would expose the flaw in the ground station data, but now that that didn't happen, first the deniers tried to discredit the study. That hasn't worked so the fallback position is there is global warming but man is not the cause.
Sorry, but deniers have no credibility.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Wrong.

Here, read this, and learn:  An Insult to All Science &#8211; Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale
Thursday, December 24th 2009, 1:33 AM EST

How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith &#8211; faith in the integrity of the scientists &#8211; that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. We&#8217;ve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.

A few weeks ago, emails reportedly from the University of East Anglia&#8217;s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England were published on the internet. With any illegally obtained information, the credibility of the contents should be questioned. However, if these published emails are genuine, the contents indicate a scandal in the climate science community that is an insult to the integrity of the entire scientific community. It&#8217;s an insult to truth.

Many scientists have had suspicions about the state of the climate science and the overstated solidity of its predictive ability for some time. I am not a &#8216;denier&#8217;, whatever a denier denies; but I, along with several others have been asking questions about the peer-reviewed science. We cannot conflate climate scientists with environmentalists and activists, though. The latter two have compiled predictive models by the former and asserted that we are headed for doom and destruction if extreme environmental policies are not enacted immediately. Many scientists and critical thinkers have dared ask fundamental questions, though. We have questioned whether the state of the science can allow any definitive conclusion about the significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global warming, let alone its ability to predict future effects.

Climate scientists peddling predictive models, and the environmentalists who have compiled them, present these models where almost any combination of datasets are consistent with the predictive model indicating near disaster. The Third Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the most celebrity in that predictive science. Climatologist Roger Pielke, for example, has demonstrated that there has yet to be a dataset that is not consistent with these models. The prediction scientists rarely articulate a hypothetical dataset that would be inconsistent with a predictive model. A hypothesis or theory is falsifiable, thus scientific, if it can be both verified and falsified through physical experiments and/or observations. If there exists no dataset for which the IPCC predictive models are inconsistent, the model was never scientific. Where is the demarcation of predictive climate science and pseudo-science if there is no falsifiability?

Other indications and warnings that the science is less than solid have been there as well. A rhetorical analysis of many of the reports indicates that the focus on the science and logic have taken a back seat to a focus on the source and emotions, combining near sophistry and propaganda with bandwagon (consensus) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) fallacies in logic, for example. When presenting science, if the primary tools of rhetoric are not the science and logic, we should immediately probe further into the actual science.

....

We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.
​climategate.tv | An Insult to All Science


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 29, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



But Dodo, back on page 9, I did post the science linking increased CO2 levels to global warming that you're always asking for but you just refused to acknowledge it, apparently because you're either a paid troll trying to spread misinformation or you're just too retarded to comprehend it. Here it is again, you clueless dimwit. I'll highlight the scientific citations for you this time since you're so ideologically blinded.




RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Oct 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





The responses are better then the article!  I love this assertion...

"Statistically, this isn't true, the trend in global temperature has still been increasing. Don't fall into the trap of comparing single points in a noisy signal - that is not the way to determine a long term trend. More importantly, the physical reality is that the planet is still accumulating heat. There is still an energy imbalance. Satellites and ocean heat measurements find more energy is still coming in than going out."

The first statement is an outright fib.  Any "warming" that has been "observed" is well within the error bands of the statisitical analysis.

The second statement flies in the face of reality.  How does a planet "accumulate heat"?
If there is an energy imbalance please show where that energy is stored.  The third statement is likewise a fib, the satellites do not show more energy going in then coming out.  And here's where they divorce themselves from the basic fundamental physical laws of the universe as we know it, if there were energy going in it would be warming the oceans, there is ZERO data to support that.  

Thus they are asking you to believe that heat is trapped in the cold, cold depths of the oceans.  A thinking person would figure out pretty quick that that violates at least two Laws of Physics.

Try again buckwheat, this only shows how divorced from reality they are.


----------



## Bigfoot (Oct 29, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> "...the Berkeley Earth Project"
> 
> Berkeley? I am sure that is a bastion of scientific objectivity.



Exactly.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 29, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



LOLOLOL....you are such a funny delusional fruitcake, walleyedretard. As usual, your ignorance and room temperature IQ prevent you from comprehending what you read and you moronically assume that because you can't understand it, it must be wrong. You have consistently demonstrated a basic misunderstanding of the laws of physics and of science in general. As usual, you are wrong about everything and just making up wild BS that has no connection to reality, and on top of that you are apparently so lost in your own personal little fantasy world that you imagine anyone gives two hoots about your unsupported and very mistaken assertions about how wrong all of the world's climate scientists really are. You poor confused bamboozled dufus.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 29, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists
> ...



Exactly.

And demonstrating that current temps are rising does not prove it is man made. Nor does showing a paralel rise in CO2 prove anything as corelation does not equal causation.

The same old bullshit repackaged and retold a dozen different ways proves nothing nor does 'scientific consensus'.

But that and outright lies like claiming the himalayan glaciers are shrinking, is all the Warmistas have and all they have ever had.

There is not piece of scientific evidence that proves man made CO2 is direct primary cause of recent temperature increases. none that I have seen. It i s all appeals to questionable authority, corelation and panic, nothing more.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



A very typical Warmista post, composed entirley of ad hominem attacks and not one shred of reason or evidence at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Again, nothing proving that man made CO2 directly causes an increase of temperature, only corelation is shown. Other causes of global warming, that h ave put our planet through cycles of heating and cooling for millions of years are completely ignored.

Since our planet has in the past been far warmer and much colder, and none of that due to human caused CO2 increases, it is impossible to prove that man made CO2 increases are the cause of current warming by merely showing an increase of atmospheric warming and increases of CO2. The other causes have to be proven to not contribute significantly and that is not possible. you cannot prove such a negative.

Warmistas *want* to believe the planet is warming as it gives them another crisis to justify handing all power over to the state, a state they presume that they will control, and erroneous assumption if there ever was one, demonstrated throughout history to be wrong most of the time. The revolutionaries never run the state after the revolution past ten years. Others do and the first thing they do is rid themselves of the successful revolutionaries for obvious reasons.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 29, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


It wasn't science when you posted it before, and bolding and coloring it more does not magically transform it into science now.

As I said before, you don't even know what science IS, yet you post about it.

It's a tragic reflection of what our public education has become.


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

Nice speech, but you're incorrect. This is science. Climate science is science, and climate skeptics are eating crow. Bon appetit!


----------



## Oddball (Oct 29, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That's our Trolling Blunder!


----------



## Si modo (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> Nice speech, but you're incorrect. This is science. Climate science is science, and climate skeptics are eating crow. Bon appetit!


And thank you for your strawman.

It tells us so much about your 'knowledge' in the topic.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> Nice speech, but you're incorrect. This is science. Climate science is science, and climate skeptics are eating crow. Bon appetit!


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

What strawman?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> What strawman?


The only person who has said climate science is not science is you, so you are arguing with yourself on that.


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

There is no circular reasoning, either. 

You two are not understanding the terms that you use.


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > What strawman?
> ...



I said the opposite. That climate science is science.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> There is no circular reasoning, either.
> 
> You two are not understanding the terms that you use.


The only person saying that climate science is not science is you.

Do you have a point to make?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


No one said it wasn't.

What is your point?


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

You did, post 181.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> There is no circular reasoning, either.
> 
> You two are not understanding the terms that you use.



The claim that "This is science. Climate science is science..." is classic circular reasoning...Little wonder you can be so easily duped by the warmist cult.


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

Well, no. It's a way of stating that there's a subset of science called climate science.


----------



## daveman (Oct 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Yes, dumb ass, Dr. James Hansen. The man that is respected around the world as the foremost climatologist in the world. *
> 
> Education:
> 
> ...


He's in it for the money, you idiot.

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof? 

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?


----------



## westwall (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> What strawman?






So, who's clone are you?


----------



## daveman (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?
> 
> You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?



There is far more money in supporting the cult.

Funny how you cultists screech "Follow the money!!" -- but ignore your fellow cultists' motives.


----------



## westwall (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?
> 
> You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?





  Really?  Where can I get some of this lucrative payout?  Every sceptic I know is a working stiff.  The leaders of the warmista's though are milionaires many times over with yours and mine tax dollars.  

Dr. Tim Ball has been sued by Mann (who is getting TONS of money for his assault) and Dr. Ball is relying on donations to support his defence.  Mann is worried now, his science is going to get an airing in court and he is going to lose his ass.

Whatcha gonna do then clone?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> You did, post 181.


No, I did not.

What is confusing you about what I said in 181?


----------



## wirebender (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?
> 
> You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?



Considering that AGW nuts are funded at a rate of 20,000 to 1 when compared to skeptics, you have walked out on a limb there that simply can't support you.  Keep up the good work.  Its entertaining as hell.


----------



## IanC (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?
> 
> You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?



really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

IanC said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?
> ...



Then you're naive. 

Some of the energy companies have pushed denialism from the beginning. That's the ONLY reason for the debate, that a few corporate-funded deniers got equal time with actual researchers. 

Denialism is anti-science. The OP is yet more proof that we are having human caused global warming. At this point, denialism is entirely faith based, and evidence cannot convince you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



* The OP is yet more proof that we are having human caused global warming.*

How much of the warming is human caused? You have a percentage in mind?

What do we need to do to stop the warmimg?


----------



## IanC (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



I would bet that even the 'evil' energy companies have put more money into warmist funding than sceptical funding. why do you have a problem researching both (all) sides of the problem? do you think that the sceptics bring nothing to the table? why do you think the warmists shouldnt have to defend their ideas against criticism? isnt that how science works?


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?
> ...



Universities don't pay as well as corporations. 

I am persuaded by the facts. Unlike those in the denialist camp.


----------



## gslack (Oct 29, 2011)

You guys arguing with another konradv clone...


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

I'm talking about professional denialists, not their followers. 

Here's the state of knowledge about global warming

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA


----------



## Si modo (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


What is a 'denialist' denying?


----------



## IanC (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



that's odd. I also think that I am persuaded by facts and logic. personally I think there is too much opinion and speculation involved in AGW and not enough dispassionate examination of the data.


----------



## westwall (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...






Then I guess that makes you ignorant beyond belief.  Energy companies like ENRON (remember them?) have been heavily invested in alternate power systems and in carbon trading from the very beginning.  ENRON was a MAJOR player in the Kyoto agreement.  But I guess simple facts like that are beyond you


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 29, 2011)

IanC said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?
> ...


That's the closest a denier will ever get to the truth!


----------



## Si modo (Oct 29, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Why?  Scientific researchers need inherent skepticism.


----------



## SAT (Oct 29, 2011)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Researchers are paid by universities. Deniers are paid by energy companies and Fox News. Although at this point, even the energy companies are admitting that global warming is human caused. 

You aren't demonstrating inherent skepticism, you're demonstrating refusal to look at the evidence.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Researchers work for a lot of organizations, not just universities.

What is a denier denying?

What evidence do you think I am refusing to look at?  I will tell you that blogs and opinions are excellent evidence of opinion, though.


----------



## westwall (Oct 29, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...






I guess you conveniently forget that researchers are also paid by private companies too huh.  Take the Koch brothers for instance.  They paid Prof Muller 150,000 to do his study.
I guess they don't count right?  Or how about all those companies that have paid Mann and his cronies millions for their "work".  Or how about the 200,000 per year the US taxpayer was paying Phil Jones at the CRU for his work which the dog ate..or he lost, I can't rmember which lie he is telling anymore.

You are such a tool.  Well I think you're a olfraud clone but whatever, you and he, and they, are wrong.  And that's all that matters.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...





I suppose that depends on what you think science is.  If science is propaganda that supports the party line, then you have it exactly right.

If science is empirically reviewing real data, then you are wrong.

Right now the politicians that promote this warmer line of poop say there is warming and that there is an increase in CO2 and that the two are connected.

No proof yet of the connection.

GISS, RSS UAH, Hadley and the NOAA Argo Array all have data that reveals cooling since 2002.  While CO2 has risen consistantly over the last 100 years, temperature has increased and decreased over the same period.

Our current warming started in about 1600 while the Industrial Revolution did not start until 100 years later.

The folks you are calling denialists are really the scientists.  They are still seeking the data to prove or falsify the hypothesis.  The folks you call scientists are politicians.  They are seeking power and funding.

You personaly do not understand the argument, the science or the motivations of this debate.  You would be well served to try to understand these before blindly proclaiming the baseless and misleading tripe put forth by the politicians you mistake for scientists.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...






The only fact that you need to pesent is the absolute connection between the prime cause of the warming and the various changes in the climate globally.

If that "prime cause" turns out to be Anthropogenic CO2, then you have something.  If not, you have nothing.

I'll await your response.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> I'm talking about professional denialists, not their followers.
> 
> Here's the state of knowledge about global warming
> 
> State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA





From your link:

"What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

An &#8220;unequivocal&#8221; warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."


I have read this a couple times and I cannot find the part that says that Anthropogenic CO2 is the prime cause of climate change.

Can you?

The point is that what you call a denialist is someone who knows how to read.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





Unless you're a warmer, it's difficult to see things that aren't there.

If you have "the evidence", please present it.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 30, 2011)

code1211 said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


So with all that "cooling" going on in the last decade, how is it that the same decade is the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement???? And temperature has not increased and decreased during the period. Temperature has increased and leveled off between increases, but the normal decreases between warming cycles have disappeared. Something is interfering with the natural cooling cycles between warming cycles!!!


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

> "What's Known
> Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
> 
> Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
> ...



Human activities means anthropomorphic. 

Virtual certainty is another way of saying beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Your denials are faith based. Acceptance of the current state of knowledge is fact based.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

You should be sourcing your quotes, pal.

After that, you should probably find better sources than enviroloon websites, stating opinion as fact.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

The link was provided earlier in the thread. We're still discussing the same link.

Here it is again. 

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

Right....Because we all know the EPA bureaucrats don't have any financial and regulatory dogs in the hunt.


----------



## Douger (Oct 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> 
> University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.
> 
> ...


Fucking murkinz are idiots.
Get a 12 passenger van on July 4. Put two people in it, one smoking, and roll up the windows.
Go for a ride.
Put 10 more people in it, six of them smoking. Continue your journey.
 Get wifey or your mommy to read and explain this reply.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> The link was provided earlier in the thread. We're still discussing the same link.
> 
> Here it is again.
> 
> State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA


"Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:"

Exactly what those persons you call "deniers" say.

Get a grip.  You are making a fool of yourself.

But, more importantly: you clearly have no idea what science even is and you soil science with your politics.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > The link was provided earlier in the thread. We're still discussing the same link.
> ...



No. That is not what deniers say. Deniers say that human caused global warming is a myth, or a hoax. They are factually wrong, and they are operating from a faith based perspective.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

The skeptics call the anthropogenic Goebbels warming hoax a hoax, because you can't swing a cat without hitting a warmist "scientist" who hasn't been caught fudging the facts to outright lying out their asses.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Thanks for answering what a 'denier' is in your mind.

Until the science supports that warming is caused by humans (in some sort of significant manner), claiming that humans are the cause of warming is nothing but a belief.

And, the EPA states exactly that - the scientific questions remain - what I quoted.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

The EPA link specifically states that warming is caused by humans in a significant manner. 

Please review the section that says what is known with virtual certainty. 

Human activity is in there. 

You are denying scientific reality. 

That is your right as a free person, but that does not change the facts.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> The EPA link specifically states that warming is caused by humans in a significant manner.
> 
> ....


No, it does not.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

The EPA link is worthless, as they have a vested interest in the claim.

Getting back to the thread subject, as set forth in the OP, Muller has been exposed as a liar....By his own colleague, no less.

Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague | Mail Online


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2011)

Oddball said:


> The EPA link is worthless, as they have a vested interest in the claim.
> 
> ....


True, and that interest is having more significance as an agency, but more importantly, having much more power as an agency.

This is DC.  Power is everything.

Irrespective of that, the kid doesn't even understand what s/he reads.



> Getting back to the thread subject, as set forth in the OP, Muller has bee exposed as a liar....By his own colleague, no less.
> 
> Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague | Mail Online


I'll have to look at that.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

And this is why you're laughed at as conspiracy theorists. 

When facts come to light that you do not like, you attack the EPA as biased.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> And this is why you're laughed at as conspiracy theorists.
> 
> When facts come to light that you do not like, you attack the EPA as biased.


Look, kid.  There is no evidence that warming is caused by man-made CO2.  There is no evidence it isn't.

You BELIEVE it is, but that's all you have - beliefs.  Just like any religion.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> And this is why you're laughed at as conspiracy theorists.
> 
> When facts come to light that you do not like, you attack the EPA as biased.


This is why you warmist moonbats are laughed at and mocked as cultists.

You can't even face the fact that your "scientists" have been caught red-handed lying out their asses.


----------



## daveman (Oct 30, 2011)

Oddball said:


> The EPA link is worthless, as they have a vested interest in the claim.
> 
> Getting back to the thread subject, as set forth in the OP, Muller has been exposed as a liar....By his own colleague, no less.
> 
> Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague | Mail Online



Not only did he fudge the data, he also bastardized the peer-review process.  

AGW simply isn't science.


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...








Ahhh, but grasshopper...it truly wasn't.  Only Hansen and his cronies published things that said it was warmer.  Empirical evidence shows otherwise.  Something about early snows, longer winters, harsher winters etc.  You know, winters the last 4 years running have been colder then normal as evidenced by all the millions of critters dying all over the world from COLD.  Funny that, i havn't seen a SINGLE report of millions of critters dying from heat...have you?


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> > "What's Known
> > Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
> >
> > Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
> ...






Actually it's you who are faith based.  All you have are computer models that tell you (and you believe) that it is getting warmer.  On the other hand, for the past 4 years running the winters have been so harsh worldwide that MILLIONS of animals are dying from the cold.

Funny how there hasn't been a single report of millions of creatures dying from the heat.  Don't you think?  Reverend?


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...







  Please show us then, all the empirical data to support your claim.  No computer models are allowed.  Only empirical data.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


I also asked that before.

The poster linked to blog and opinion.

I suppose that's science to that poster.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion. 



> What's Known Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
> 
> Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
> 
> ...



The data shows that the world is warmer. 

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion.


The EPA site is not science.

FYI.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

The EPA site is not an opinion blog.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion.



 I linked to a mainstream source where Muller's (the fraud who is the topic of the thread) colleague accused him of lying.

And all you can do is deflect, blow smoke and try desperately to change the subject.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

Oddball said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion.
> ...



Yes, by posting a link to a graph of world temperatures, I'm changing the subject on the global warming thread.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

I posted links to not one but _*two*_ UK newspapers, which told the story of the subject of the OP lying out his ass....All you've done is try to change the subject.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

Oddball said:


> I posted links to not one but _*two*_ UK newspapers, which told the story of the subject of the OP lying out his ass....All you've done is try to change the subject.



A post that explains a lot. You believe if you can attack one of the messengers, you can make the data go away. 

Look at the graph. The world is warming. The climate is increasingly unstable. The North Pole is losing ice. This all relates to how the earth works. It's not magical. This is science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I posted links to not one but _*two*_ UK newspapers, which told the story of the subject of the OP lying out his ass....All you've done is try to change the subject.
> ...



*The world is warming.*

What percentage is caused by mankind?


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I posted links to not one but _*two*_ UK newspapers, which told the story of the subject of the OP lying out his ass....All you've done is try to change the subject.
> ...


The message is that the messengers are a pack of liars.

Too bad for you and the rest of the cargo cultists.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

Look at the graph. You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with thermometers. Do you see how dumb that is?


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

Look at the OP....You're still deflecting and blowing smoke.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

I'm asking you to get away from attacks on the people involved and look at the data. Please look at the temperature graph. 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

And you've been asked to quantify how much of the warming is anthropogenic and how much is natural.

Don't fret if you can't, not even the IPPC/UCAR/NCAR/CRU liars can, either.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

All I'm doing is asking you to look at something pertinent. 

Look at the graph. The world is getting warmer. We agree on that, right?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> I'm asking you to get away from attacks on the people involved and look at the data. Please look at the temperature graph.
> 
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif



You do realize that your graph does nothing to demstrate causation of warming, right?

Once again, where is the science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming?

Thar was and still is the question.

And, I asked for the science, not a blog, not someone's opinion, not a gvernment agency site - science.

Same queastIon, different day.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> All I'm doing is asking you to look at something pertinent.
> 
> Look at the graph. The world is getting warmer. We agree on that, right?


The graph  points to neither causality  nor quantification, deflectasaurus rex.


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







The data also shows that the world began warming 14,000 years ago.  I may be missing something, but I don't recall SUV's cruising around back then.  The graph only tells you that the world is warming.  We know that.  The cause is what is being argued or is that beyond you?

So far, no data has been presented by the warmist camp, that shows man is responsible for the warming.  Instead, the only empirical evidence we have counters their fundamental tenet (and yes I am using that term intentionally) that CO2 is the cause of the warming.

The best evidence for CO2 having no correlative responsibility for the warming is the Vostock ice core samples which show unequivocally that warming occurs first and then 800 or so years later the CO2 levels rise.   

 That means the current CO2 level rise we are witnessing can be just as reasonably attributed to that cause, as to any other cause put forth.  It is after all around 800 years since the Medieval Warming Period and the temps were demonstrably higher globally then, then they are now.  

To further put the nail into the coffin of CO2 being a temperature driver, those same ice cores show that during the Holocene Thermal Maximum of around 8,000 years ago the temperature warmed, hundreds of years afterwards the CO2 levels increased, then there followed 300 or so years of cooling, *and the CO2 level remained elevated*, then there was a further 300 year period of warmth followed by a further 300 year period of cooling, then the CO2 levles finally began to drop again after 1000 years of elevated levels.

So, you see, the very theory of AGW has been proven false.  That single study (kindly provided by olfraud) refutes everything you have built your entire religion upon.  And yes, yours is the faith based belief.  Why else would your high priests engage in the persecution of "heresy" they proclaim?

It is your side that is attempting to squash dissent.  It is your side who persecutes the "blasphemers of the "word".  It is your side that has engaged in the wholesale denial of studies that counter the belief system they have instituted.  You are the folks running the Inquisition now.

Thank you for making it so obvious.


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> All I'm doing is asking you to look at something pertinent.
> 
> Look at the graph. The world is getting warmer. We agree on that, right?







That was never the question.  Can we agree on that?


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

One thing at a time. We agree that the world is getting warmer, right?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> One thing at a time. We agree that the world is getting warmer, right?



I'll agree that we are warmer lately than 1800.

Now, show the science demonstrating the sgnificance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming.


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> One thing at a time. We agree that the world is getting warmer, right?







Yes, to a point.  Currently it appears that global temperatures have actually levelled off.  There has been no measurable increase in global temps since 1998.  The temps that have supposedly risen since then are well within the error bands of the statistical analysis which means that if there is a temp increase it is so small that it can't be measured.

This follows a period of around 20 years of global warming.  Prior to that there was a period of global cooling that had lasted approximately 30 years.  It now appears (based on solar research data) that we will be once again entering into a cooling phase.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > I linked to the EPA. Not to opinion.
> ...



*The best evidence for CO2 having no correlative responsibility for the warming is the Vostock ice core samples which show unequivocally that warming occurs first and then 800 or so years later the CO2 levels rise. *

I could see that on idiot Gore's stupid Powerpoint presentation.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

You see the graph. The climb is steady. There are ups and downs, but the trend is clear. 

The earth is getting warmer. 

2010 is tied for the warmest year on record. 



> WASHINGTON -- Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
> 
> The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880.
> 
> ...



NASA - NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record

This is NASA data. We can agree that this is a solid source of factual data, and that 2010 is tied for 2005 for the warmest year on record, and that six other years out of the last 14 are tied for third. 

This means that the earth is definitely getting warmer, and we have a credible source saying so, right?


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 30, 2011)

Corporate America will say anything to keep from having to regulate polution or find alternative fuels. Those who support them are, sadly, duped.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Corporate America will say anything to keep from having to regulate polution or find alternative fuels. Those who support them are, sadly, duped.



You're free to overpay for alternatives. Leave me out of it.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> All I'm doing is asking you to look at something pertinent.
> 
> Look at the graph. The world is getting warmer. We agree on that, right?






So what if EVERYBODY agrees on that. How does that matter?

Bottom line is.........the nutter alarmists need to bookmark this link........  http://failblog.org/   ...........because it 2011. They've thrown every single bomb possible for the last 20 years, and their cause is more hopeless than ever!!! In fact........so much so that recently, this whole forum has become rather boring to me. It is what it is at this point. The nutters will keep ranting.........but nobody's listening now.


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 30, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Corporate America will say anything to keep from having to regulate polution or find alternative fuels. Those who support them are, sadly, duped.
> ...


Did you believe them when they told you that cigarettes aren't harmful?


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > All I'm doing is asking you to look at something pertinent.
> ...



It matters so that we can have a discussion on the topic. 

If people are even denying that the Earth is getting warmer, or if they are saying that the warming has essentially stopped, or if they're pouting so badly that they'll only concede that the Earth has gotten warmer since modern record keeping in 1880, then we don't want to bother with such delusional people in our discussion, do we?


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> You see the graph. The climb is steady. There are ups and downs, but the trend is clear.
> 
> The earth is getting warmer.
> 
> ...






Look at the bottom graph.  That is from BEST.  It clearly shows a levelling off of global temps starting in the late 90's.  The upper graph shows the overall rise in temperatures that began the most recent time in the 1850s with the end of the Little Ice Age.  The point of the two graphs is yes the planet is warming and has been for the last hundred and fifty years (with 30 or so year cool downs in between) and the warming obviously happened long bfore man could have had any impact on the climate.


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...







Did you believe you when you said MTBE wasn't harmful and would be great for air quality?
We warned you that it was a terrible poison and you ignored us.  You caused billions in environmental damage and poisoned water wells all over the state of California.

What do you have to say for yourself?


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nice dodge.


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

The warmest years on record are 2005 and 2010. Then six years are tied for third place, and they have all occurred since 1998. 

The earth is unequivocally in a warming trend. The NASA data shows that. 

They aren't altering the Y axis on the NASA graph to make a point. They just show the temperatures increasing, and they state that the warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. 

So the Earth is getting warmer, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



They were called coffin nails for decades before the Surgeon General came out with his report.

The suspicion that smoking tobacco caused damage to the users heart and lungs dates back centuries.  In 1604, King James I of Great Britain had remarked in his Counterblaste to Tobacco that smoking was dangerous to the lungs.  In 1867, George William Curtis, the editor of Harpers Weekly, who himself had stopped smoking in the 1850s, wrote three commentaries warning of health hazards from using tobacco.

Coffin Nails:* The Tobacco Controversy in the 19th Century


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 30, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You don't remember tobacco executives testifying before congress and lying?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



I remember Al Gore lying in his silly movie.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...




A discussion about temperatures???

Gee........thats so exciting, I can hardly contain myself.


So why are the delusional, like me, winning??? When in the last three years has there been even one report about Congress working on any kind of significant greenhouse gas cap?? Oh......pardon me.......they did pass something on light bulbs!!



Nobody gives a rat ass about the temperatures s0n!!


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

You're saying that a discussion about temperature has no place in a global warming thread?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> You're saying that a discussion about temperature has no place in a global warming thread?




Im saying group navel contemplation is as relevant!!


----------



## SAT (Oct 30, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > You're saying that a discussion about temperature has no place in a global warming thread?
> ...



Then you're built too low for this discussion. There's no way you can discuss any of the topic if you don't see a relationship in GLOBAL WARMING to the temperature.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 30, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > One thing at a time. We agree that the world is getting warmer, right?
> ...


And?


Please show the science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on warming.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...







Oh?  How is that a dodge?  In matters of the environment we have a far better track record then you and yours do.  FAR better.  You just don't like it when those facts are pointed out to you do you.

Thanks for playing but next time come armed with something more then this pathetic effort.


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

SAT said:


> The warmest years on record are 2005 and 2010. Then six years are tied for third place, and they have all occurred since 1998.
> 
> The earth is unequivocally in a warming trend. The NASA data shows that.
> 
> ...







Ummmm, no they're not.  Well let me correct myself, they are now.  Now that Hansen and Co. went into the historical record AND ALTERED IT!  They made the decade of th 1930's cooler then it actually was to try and reinforce the fiction that this last decade is the warmest.

When you remove the shenanigans that the warmests are doing all this hyperbole is exposed for what it is.  Horse manure.


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...






Of course we do.  Just like I remember Hansen and Co. lying before congress.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 31, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why yes, that is right. But there are scientists like Singer and Lindzen that will tell you otherwise. Same 'scientists' that are also telling you that global warming is a hoax.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



My, my, if it is not dumbass Sis spewing her usual retarded logic. Sure, I can show the science. Can state it, also. It is called the absorbtion spectra of GHGs, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitious oxides, and various manmade chemicals that have no natural analog.

The fact that there had to be something in the atmosphere that is capturing some of the reflected heat was first observed by Joseph Fourier in the 1822. Tyndall demonstrated the absorbtion of the infrared by the various GHGs in 1858. And Arrnhenius did the first real quantification of the effects in 1896. 

And we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850. And 150% more CH4.

Of course, do not take my word for it. Here is the information from the site of the American Institute of Physics, a scientific society made up of scientific societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now Sis, we all know that you are so much smarter than all the Phd physicists that make up this Scientific Society. Not only smarter than any of them, but all of them put together. You and that obese drugged out radio jock.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 31, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Name the lies, fool.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 31, 2011)

westwall said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



By golly, guys like you sure do. From Donarra to the poisoning of the waters on the East Coast with mountaintop removal for mining coal, assholes like you have created more destruction in this nation than any misdirected environmentalists every have.

That is your track record.


----------



## gslack (Oct 31, 2011)

Socks you keep on referring to a poster by gender and you only show what a true lowlife pig you really are.. So please keep it up, you make the job of slapping you all too easy..

Oh so now you like Al Gore again? I thought he wasn't a scientist and you didn't base your opinions on him? uh-huh, busted again being a hypocrite and fraud... One minute you tell us how Al Gore is only what deniers talk about when they can't talk about the science, and now you try and pretend he didn't lie in his film.... So which is it socks is he or is he not to be believed now? makes no difference to me but I think you should make a decision on it because you look idiotic...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 31, 2011)

Poor dumb ass G-vig cannot understand the simplest of things.

Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a concerned layman who put what the scientists were stating in layman's terms, and brought it to the world's attention. Did it well enough that he turned a lecture into a documentary that is one of the most viewed, worldwide, of all the documentaries ever made.

Personally, Al Gore is a rather successful individual. Senator and Vice-President. Even though he lost the Presidential election by the electorial votes, he recieved more votes than did Bush. After the election, took an inheritance that made him reasonably wealthy, and by astute investment in the high tech market, when that market was on a downer, turned it into a major fortune.

Quite a contrast to some other politicians that were total failures in the business world.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Why you argue that there is a 'greenhouse' effect is beyond me.

Whenever I say there is not one, your post will have significance.

However, when I ask for the science demonstrating causation or even significance of man made CO2, you never produce any.

And, it's not a surprise.  There isn't any.

The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Same statement to you, different day.  You refuse to be honest or you really are just that stupid.


----------



## gslack (Oct 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor dumb ass G-vig cannot understand the simplest of things.
> 
> Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a concerned layman who put what the scientists were stating in layman's terms, and brought it to the world's attention. Did it well enough that he turned a lecture into a documentary that is one of the most viewed, worldwide, of all the documentaries ever made.
> 
> ...



So then you like him again? Good because its much easier to bash you with him when you defend the lying POS...

He lied in the documentary and he did so to further himself, its even admitted by many on your own side of this now.. Not even a few months ago you and your pals tried to distance yourselves from him...

So tell me socks is the sea level really going to rise 20 feet or more in our lifetime?

Or is there really any evidence that Katrina was caused by global warming?

Or is it climate change now?

How about the hockey stick graph that didn't show the MWP?

Or why didn't he point out that CO2 rise was actually 400-800 years AFTER temperature rise in his hockey stick graph?

yeah he lied just like you do...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 31, 2011)

You dumb fuck. LOL. The 400-800 year lag in temperture rise was during the warmup 14,000 years ago, and is well explained by science. It has nothing whatever to do with anybodies hockey stick graph. Are you ever going to research something before you flap yap? Silly question.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Sheesh, Sis, your arguement is not with a millwright. I have no scientific credentials. Your arguement is with the American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and all the other scientific societies that state science does have enough evidence for a conclusion that GHGs are implicated in the rising global temperatures beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 31, 2011)

OK, Sis, when can I expect to see you presenting a paper on why we have no evidence implicating GHGs in the rising global temperatures? And what are your thoughts conscerning the causes of the proven rise?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Pissing in the ocean is obviously implicated in increasing the alkalinity of the ocean.

That's a no brainer.

Now, produce the science demonstrating the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Same question, different day.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Sis, when can I expect to see you presenting a paper on why we have no evidence implicating GHGs in the rising global temperatures? And what are your thoughts conscerning the causes of the proven rise?


Only morons ask someone to prove a negative.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Really? The same scientists? The exact same guys? Prove it.

So what percentage of the warming is caused by the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



His cute little graph showed temperatures rose before CO2 levels did.
Maybe he was just stupid? Or he needs new glasses?


----------



## IanC (Oct 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



I am not up to speed on the 'tobacco wars' and I dont know who said what. but I am willing to bet that Lindzen and Singer testified that the exaggerated conclusions stated by the surgeon-general and others werent supported by the actual evidence. not unlike people like you who blame CO2 for floods and droughts even though there is no proof.

reasonable people can accept that there has been some warming from the influence of CO2. but it is very difficult to put a quantity to that influence. and impossible to 'blame' a natural disaster on it.

just because Lindzen and Singer disagree with an exaggerated conclusion that is not backed up by the evidence that does not mean that they are stating a conclusion that is diametrically opposed. they are simply stating that the conclusion is invalid with the available evidence.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 31, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > You see the graph. The climb is steady. There are ups and downs, but the trend is clear.
> ...


CON$ are pathological liars. That graph is NOT from BEST!!! It is from the Right-wing Global Warming Policy Foundation, a CON$ervative think-tank founded by denier Lord Lawson of Blaby.

And there were no cool downs in between, the warming leveled off but didn't cool. If you look at the lows from the last 30 year flat "cool down" from 1950 to 1980, none of the lows were as low as the last flat "cool down" from 1890 to 1920. Something is interfering with the natural cool down cycles between the warming cycles.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 31, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...







LOL.....you can always tell the knuckleheads who never had a course in research methodology.................

Yo s0n.......you know, you can crunch the dates of that graph even closer together and make the rise look meteroic!!! Put 1900 and 2011 just 4 inches apart and you got a real winner!!!


Go.......go.........go


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > One thing at a time. We agree that the world is getting warmer, right?
> ...





westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > One thing at a time. We agree that the world is getting warmer, right?
> ...


Well we are making some progress. Deniers agree that there have been periods of global warming, and that there should be 30 year periods of global cooling after each warming period. But there were no global cooling periods. The warming leveled off at a higher level than the last leveling off period that should have been a period of global cooling.

I would suggest that the difference between the lows of the flat periods of expected cooling is the man made contribution to global warming. So assuming we are in a new flat period for this last decade, it appears man's contribution to global warming is increasing as the difference from the last flat cooling period's lows to the present flat cooling period's lows is greater than the previous differences.


----------



## gslack (Oct 31, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> You dumb fuck. LOL. The 400-800 year lag in temperture rise was during the warmup 14,000 years ago, and is well explained by science. It has nothing whatever to do with anybodies hockey stick graph. Are you ever going to research something before you flap yap? Silly question.



Oh Please explain that bit of utter nonsense to us oldsocks.... If the CO2 lags the temps its not lagging the temps because of what happened 14,000 years ago? Please explain that to me....

So no response on all l the rest of those I mentioned?

So then the sea levels are still going to rise like he claimed?

Lol you are soo full of it socks... man it must suck to be this wrong so often...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 31, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



Planet Neptune was discovered in 1848...coincidence? Not if I get "peer review" that the discovery of Neptune was responsible for the "rise"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



*Deniers agree that there have been periods of global warming*

Hell, deniers agree there were periods of warming before we added significantly to the CO2 levels. Before we even existed as a species.

*and that there should be 30 year periods of global cooling after each warming period. *

Bzzzzt. Please do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Who agreed to that? Where? When?

*I would suggest that the difference between the lows of the flat periods of expected cooling is the man made contribution to global warming.*

Your suggestion and $5 will get you a nice cup of coffee at Starbucks.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

If I am a denier, what the hell am I denying?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> If I am a denier, what the hell am I denying?


The obvious!

Just like you are dodging the fact that the "cooling" periods are really leveling off periods, and the difference in the lows for each leveling off period are the empirical values for man's contribution to global warming. And those values are increasing.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > If I am a denier, what the hell am I denying?
> ...


The obvious?

There is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of the contribution of man made CO2 to any warming.

That surely is obvious.



> ....  Just like you are dodging the fact that the "cooling" periods are really leveling off periods, and the difference in the lows for each leveling off period are the empirical values for man's contribution to global warming. And those values are increasing.


As I haven't ever commented on that, it is impossible that I ever denied or confirmed it.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Thank you for confirming that you are dodging the observation that the difference in the lows of each leveling off period quantifies man's contribution to global warming.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


It does correlate with it, but correlation is not causation.

Thus, my lack of comment.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

The EPA link states definitively that the current warming trend is linked to human activity. 

Here's the thing about science-when you radically change a situation, you are going to see a reaction. 

To think that we can begin to put ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and see no changes in the environment is stupid. 

It's like claiming that you go from eating 1,500 calories a day to eating 4,000 and you won't see any change in your weight. That claim would be stupid.

From the link: 



> _Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood._


State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Do you see where it says "well understood"? 

That means that it's not a mystery to scientists what will happen if you increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's like boiling an egg. You know what will happen in you put an egg in hot water for 20 minutes. The egg will change. To claim that the egg will not change, even though it is in hot water is stupid. We understand perfectly well what will happen to the egg. 



westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > The warmest years on record are 2005 and 2010. Then six years are tied for third place, and they have all occurred since 1998.
> ...



2010 record temperature

From the link:



> _Geneva, 20 January 2011 (WMO) - The year 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Data received by the WMO show no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998. _





skookerasbil said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yea, that was my point. You can stretch or shorten the Y axis and make changes look different. 

The NASA graph shows the trend of the last 130 years. If you cherry pick a couple of months out of that, you can make the trend look different, but an honest look shows the upward trend.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> The EPA link states definitively that the current warming trend is linked to human activity.
> ....


No, they do not.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > The EPA link states definitively that the current warming trend is linked to human activity.
> ...



Yes, it does. 



> Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
> 
> Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
> The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.


----------



## daveman (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


That statement doesn't mention warming.  

Warming being cause by CO2 is a matter of faith for AGW cultists, but it is not supported by reality.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



No, it's a matter of scientists understanding what happens when greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere. As the quote says, the process is well understood. This causes climate instability. We see tremendous effects in the polar regions right now.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


That says that CO2 increases are a result of man.

And, somehow YOU think that means warming is caused by man, is that right?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


So, what you are saying is because man has increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, man is causing warming, right?


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



It's what the EPA is explaining. Increasing levels of CO2, from industrial activity, have changed the atmosphere, which alters the climate.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


That is true.  The EPA said that.



> ... which alters the climate.


The EPA did not say that.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Some of you denier cult nutjobs are certainly fixated on your mantra of "_correlation is not causation_". Too bad for you that the statement is poorly framed scientifically even in the sense you mean it and it is also a logical fallacy in it's own right, in the way you use it. And of course, as is always the case with your denier cult drivel and pseudo-science, it is quite meaningless in relation to the reality of global warming.

First of all, the correct way to express this concept clearly in the sciences is: *"Correlation does not necessarily imply causation."*

Two things that show heavy correlation do indeed sometimes have a causational link. While correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, it can be part of the evidence for causation.

And of course there are multiple lines of *observed* evidence for the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Climate scientists are not at all depending on statistical correlation to know that AGW is true, as you anti-science denier cult retards seem to imagine. I've already responded to your idiotic claim that there is no scientific evidence causally linking mankind's CO2 emissions to the current abrupt warming trend a number of times, like in post #135 of this thread but you are too much of retarded troll to admit that you were wrong and there is in fact a lot of good science linking the two. Remember, you moronic little dipshyt.....
*Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming*

And now, the logical fallacy you're engaging in....

*How To Argue*
The New England Skeptical Society
(excerpts)

*Confusing correlation with causation

This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time.

This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation. This abuse takes two basic forms. The first is to deny the significance of correlations that are demonstrated with prospective controlled data, such as would be acquired during a clinical experiment. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible, its just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. A controlled trial, however, by its design attempts to control for as many variables as possible in order to maximize the probability that a positive correlation is in fact due to a causation.

Further, even with purely epidemiological, or statistical, evidence it is still possible to build a strong scientific case for a specific cause. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. For example, it was observed that cigarette smoking correlates with getting lung cancer. The tobacco industry, invoking the correlation is not causation logical fallacy, argued that this did not prove causation. They offered as an alternate explanation factor x, a third variable that causes both smoking and lung cancer. But we can make predictions based upon the smoking causes cancer hypothesis. If this is the correct causal relationship, then duration of smoking should correlate with cancer risk, quitting smoking should decrease cancer risk, smoking unfiltered cigarettes should have a higher cancer risk than filtered cigarettes, etc. If all of these correlations turn out to be true, which they are, then we can triangulate to the smoking causes cancer hypothesis as the most likely possible causal relationship and it is not a logical fallacy to conclude from this evidence that smoking probably causes lung cancer.*


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


It's not a matra.  It's logic.

And, every educated scientist knows that correlation does not equal causation.

Because it doesn't.

Otherwise, we should disband the US Postal Service immediately!


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes, they did. 

There are five bullet points at the link. Read them all.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


I've read them.

So, you clearly are hallucinating.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> The EPA link states definitively that the current warming trend is linked to human activity.
> 
> Here's the thing about science-when you radically change a situation, you are going to see a reaction.
> 
> ...



*To think that we can begin to put ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and see no changes in the environment is stupid.*

To think that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment is stupid.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

The fifth bullet point. What is it that increasing amounts of greenhouse gases do? 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> To think that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment is stupid.



True.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> The fifth bullet point. What is it that increasing amounts of greenhouse gases do?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have no idea what you are saying.

Are you quoting a poster or the EPA?

Why don't you quote the EPA instead of paraphrasing what you think the EPA said?


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

I have quoted the EPA several times. I also directed you to read the bullet points under "What's Known". What is it that greenhouse gases tend to do? 

I also quoted a poster. You don't make climate change go away by being annoying.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> I have quoted the EPA several times. I also directed you to read the bullet points under "What's Known". What is it that greenhouse gases tend to do?
> 
> I also quoted a poster. You don't make climate change go away by being annoying.


I'm sorry I'm annoying you.  That is not my intent.

Yet, and as I said, as I say, and as I keep repeating because the 'believers' WANT so hard to believe, that says nothing about the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Pissing in the ocean tends to raise its alkalinity.

The state of the science does not allow for ANY conclusion about the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

And, correlation is not causation, either.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

> Planet Neptune was discovered in 1848...coincidence? Not if I get "peer review" that the discovery of Neptune was responsible for the "rise"



And you won't get peer review that says that. Got it? 



RollingThunder said:


> Some of you denier cult nutjobs are certainly fixated on your mantra of "_correlation is not causation_". Too bad for you that the statement is poorly framed scientifically even in the sense you mean it and it is also a logical fallacy in it's own right, in the way you use it. And of course, as is always the case with your denier cult drivel and pseudo-science, it is quite meaningless in relation to the reality of global warming.
> 
> First of all, the correct way to express this concept clearly in the sciences is: *"Correlation does not necessarily imply causation."*
> 
> ...



Thanks for the excellent post. 

I believe that they think that science means:

Always be skeptical, even if the evidence shows there's no reason for your skepticism

and, as you said, "Correlation is not causation". 

As if when two things are correlated, scientists immediately ignore the correlation and go off in some other directions.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> > Planet Neptune was discovered in 1848...coincidence? Not if I get "peer review" that the discovery of Neptune was responsible for the "rise"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is there scientific evidence that the warming is significantly caused by man made CO2?

Surely, you'll post that scientific evidence and put this silliness to rest immediately.



> ....  and, as you said, "Correlation is not causation".
> 
> As if when two things are correlated, scientists immediately ignore the correlation and go off in some other directions.


Really?  Scientists do that?  Are you a scientist?  Is that what you do?


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > I have quoted the EPA several times. I also directed you to read the bullet points under "What's Known". What is it that greenhouse gases tend to do?
> ...



The state of the science allows climatologists to make some statements with virtual certainty. 
State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Under "What's Known", there are five statements that build on each other. 

These things are known to a virtual certainty. 

That means that to argue them is to be foolish. It's like "beyond a reasonable doubt". 

Regarding "correlation is not causation" 

1) correlation is something that scientists look at for causation. You are saying it as if correlation never means anything. Another poster gave you an excellent rebuttal on that, and you ignored it. 

2) Scientists are not relying solely on causation. They are also relying on what they known about greenhouse gasses and how they act in the atmosphere.


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2011)

old rocks said:


> you dumb fuck. Lol. The 400-800 year lag in temperture rise was during the warmup 14,000 years ago, and is well explained by science. It has nothing whatever to do with anybodies hockey stick graph. Are you ever going to research something before you flap yap? Silly question.







*wrong!*


----------



## gslack (Oct 31, 2011)

Told ya hes a konradv clone... I can smell them a mile away.. it smells of hair gel and clearasil every time he makes a new one... He can change his name and his arguments but his style remains the same. Notice he gets perpetually more ignorant with each post? Soon he will break down into calling you a dummy-dumb-head and stomp off..


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

gslack said:


> Told ya hes a konradv clone... I can smell them a mile away.. it smells of hair gel and clearasil every time he makes a new one... He can change his name and his arguments but his style remains the same. Notice he gets perpetually more ignorant with each post? Soon he will break down into calling you a dummy-dumb-head and stomp off..



You need to stop saying this. It's wrong, and it's beside the point. Please check with an administrator for verification.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Ummmm, that's not science.  If you want to demonstrate that the state of the science is at the point where a conclusion about the main causation of any warming, post the SCIENCE.

Do you even know what I am asking for?





> ....  Under "What's Known", there are five statements that build on each other.
> 
> These things are known to a virtual certainty.
> 
> ...


And, not one of those bullet points has anything to do with the causation of the warming.

"Tending" to do something makes no statement about the significance and/or magnitude.

As I said, pissing in the ocean also tends to increase the alkalinity of the ocean.  That's a fact.

However, the significance and magnitude of that change is nothing.

I hope that is clear.

These are not complicated concepts.



> ....  Regarding "correlation is not causation"
> 
> 1) correlation is something that scientists look at for causation. You are saying it as if correlation never means anything. Another poster gave you an excellent rebuttal on that, and you ignored it.
> 
> ....


Where did I say correlation never means anything?

(Don't bother looking, I didn't say that.)

You should read what is written, not what you THINK is written.



> .....  2) Scientists are not relying solely on causation. They are also relying on what they known about greenhouse gasses and how they act in the atmosphere.


Uh huh.

Your point?


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






No, he doesn't get it.  He will never get it, his faith is too fundamental, I wonder if he's a member of Westboro Baptist Church?  He has that robotic response they all have.


----------



## gslack (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Told ya hes a konradv clone... I can smell them a mile away.. it smells of hair gel and clearasil every time he makes a new one... He can change his name and his arguments but his style remains the same. Notice he gets perpetually more ignorant with each post? Soon he will break down into calling you a dummy-dumb-head and stomp off..
> ...



NOPE its my opinion based on what i see.. Its what i think you are, and matter of fact you telling me its besides the point makes it even stronger in my mind.. being a coward is lame, being a coward with multiple identities in a web forum is even worse... Not sure but I don't know of any rules against my opinion that you're a clone..


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

westwall said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.

Popper's philosophy was totally accepted by the scientific community to keep exactly this sort of shit out of science for exactly this reason.

Then we have the political hacks and the postmodern shits who attempt to soil it on a regular basis.

If one doesn't have the aptitude to understand even the elementary basics of the fundamental philosophy of science, they need to stay the fuck away from it for the good of science.

And, for the sake of their own pride, if they have any.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Ummmm, that's not science.  If you want to demonstrate that the state of the science is at the point where a conclusion about the main causation of any warming, post the SCIENCE.
> 
> Do you even know what I am asking for?



I don't know what you mean. I think you're probably as mixed up on this as you are on everything else on this topic. 



> And, not one of those bullet points has anything to do with the causation of the warming.



Again, they do. The causation is the increasing amount of greenhouse gases, and the source of those gases is human activity. 



> "Tending" to do something makes no statement about the significance and/or magnitude.
> 
> As I said, pissing in the ocean also tends to increase the alkalinity of the ocean.  That's a fact.
> 
> However, the significance and magnitude of that change is nothing.



Yes, you keep saying this, as if it made sense. 

Your piss, and the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere are not close to the same. 



> Where did I say correlation never means anything?





> You should read what is written, not what you THINK is written.



I suggest you take your own advice. I did not say that you said those words, I said that "you were saying it as if". 



> .....  2) Scientists are not relying solely on causation. They are also relying on what they known about greenhouse gasses and how they act in the atmosphere.





> Uh huh. Your point?



...is clear. Scientists are not relying solely on causation. They are relying on a larger body of knowledge. This is why they say that these processes are well understood.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

> This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.
> 
> Popper's philosophy was totally accepted by the scientific community to keep exactly this sort of shit out of science for exactly this reason.
> 
> ...



You cannot believe that you're fooling anyone with this post. 

Rolling Thunder schooled you on your complete misunderstanding of correlation, and you blew it off like you were a blind man.

The OP is about a man who went into this TRYING to disprove human caused global warming, and now, as the OP says, he is eating crow. 

The earth is unquestionably in a warming trend, and that trend is virtually certainly caused by greenhouse gases, which are the result of human activity. 

Denial time is over. Let's work on the problem, and stop pretending that what you're engaged in is anything other than politics.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

gslack said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I'm sure that this particular delusion has plenty of company. 

If you ever decide to test your theory out, ask an administrator.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> > This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.
> >
> > Popper's philosophy was totally accepted by the scientific community to keep exactly this sort of shit out of science for exactly this reason.
> >
> ...


The fact that you think correlation is causation is enough to indicate that you are but one of the targets of my post.

And, when you and other posters post no science and think you have, definitely you are the target of that post.

You are one of several enemies of science who denies even the elementary basics of it.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > > This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.
> ...



Please give us the post where I said that correlation is causation.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Almost every post until I posted the USPS graph.

Now, go study up on basic scientific principles and philosophy, then try to participate.

You are making a fool of yourself.  I understand that you believe, but that has everything to do with religion and nothing to do with science.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Then you'll have no trouble linking to a post where I say "correlation is causation".

Go on.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Good grief.

Now, where is that science I asked for that should put all this to rest - the science demonstrating the magnitude and significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's an easy thing to do, if you can.

Remember, though, what science is not.

If you can.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Post the link to a post where I said "correlation is causation".


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


To stop your silliness, because you clearly don't even know that is what you have been saying, we'll put this to rest.  You specifically said correlation is not causation AFTER I told you it is not causation and AFTER I posted the USPS graph.

Now, if you want to discuss science, do so.  Post the science demonstrating what you have been claiming - that the warming is caused by man made CO2.

Thanks.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



For the fourth time, please link to a post where I said "correlation is causation".


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


What part of my post confuses you?


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Please link to a post where I said "correlation is causation", or admit that you made an incorrect statement about me. 

Either one is fine. 

Thanks.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


I just did admit as much.

Now, are you just going to play childish games, or talk science, if you can?


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



No. You made some bullshit statement about what I said after your USPS graph instead of coming out and admitting that you were just plain wrong. You tried to pretend that the problem was that you were talking over my head. But the sentence above will do. You admit that I never said that "correlation is causation". Your rant about Popper was baseless. Thanks for the admission. It will not be forgotten. 

Let's keep in mind that it's Rolling Thunder who schooled YOU on correlation and causation. 

Now, you were going to explain what it was you wanted when you asked for "the science".


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


No, he didn't.  What you imagine is not reality. 



> ....  Now, you were going to explain what it was you wanted when you asked for "the science".


Once again, what I and most others want to see is the science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

It's not a difficult request, unless there isn't any.

Science is not a blog, not opinions, not some government agency's home page; it's science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> The fifth bullet point. What is it that increasing amounts of greenhouse gases do?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did any of the bullet points say that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment?


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Of course it's a difficult request. 

We are on the internet. We make reasonable arguments, or attempt to make reasonable arguments, and we link to NASA data, or the EPA's home page, to back them up. You are no scientist, so where do you get off being so demanding? 

You sit there, seeing the websites where the words are WRITTEN by scientists and by science writers, people who make a living in the field of science, and declare their words and charts and graphs insufficient. 

Explain what you mean by "link to the science". Be clear in your request. Give an example. Show me that this is a serious question on your part, and not just an attempt to gum up the thread.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > The fifth bullet point. What is it that increasing amounts of greenhouse gases do?
> ...



Are you sure that your words are reflecting your actual thoughts?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


The NASA data demonstrates correlation.  Correlation is not causation.



> ....  or the EPA's home page, to back them up.
> 
> ....


The EPA's website is not science.  Although, I imagine they link to some.



> .... You are no scientist, so where do you get off being so demanding?
> 
> ....


Actually, I am.  So is Westhall.  I think there may be others here, but I can't recall who they are off the top of my head.

The fact that you do not even know what science is is frightening, to be honest.

Just so you know, scientific journals publish science and those articles, letters, etc. are peer-reviewed.  They contain a valid scientific question, and experimental plan, data, procedures used to obtain that data, results, addressed problems, conclusions with recommendations for additional work.



> ....  You sit there, seeing the websites where the words are WRITTEN by scientists and by science writers, people who make a living in the field of science, and declare their words and charts and graphs insufficient.
> 
> ....


And you just lied about what I have posted.  No where have I said that any peer-reviewed science is insignificant, unless it was subsequently falsified.

And, as I said before, scientists are human and have opinions.  They certainly have a right to those opinions, but opinions are not science.



> ....  Explain what you mean by "link to the science". Be clear in your request. Give an example. Show me that this is a serious question on your part, and not just an attempt to gum up the thread.


I just explained it to you.

And, the fact that I did have to explain that to you is rather tragic.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

> And you just lied about what I have posted.  No where have I said that any peer-reviewed science is insignificant, unless it was subsequently falsified.



Please show me where I posted that you said that peer reviewed science is insignificant.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> > And you just lied about what I have posted.  No where have I said that any peer-reviewed science is insignificant, unless it was subsequently falsified.
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me where I posted that you said that peer reviewed science is insignificant.


Funny.  If you had just used the quote function, as I do below, it's right there.

I'll bold it for you since your dishonesty is growing.





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Please reread what you bolded.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Please reread what you bolded.


Are you going to try to tell my "you" meant something else?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Still bobbing and weaving as you dodge the issue. You asked how to quantify man's contribution to global warming. There are multiple warming influences, natural and man made. The natural influences operate in cycles of warming and cooling, and man made influences warm steadily. 

The man made and natural influences modulate each other. When both man made and natural influences both warm they add together.  When the natural influences cool they are opposed by the man made influences which are still warming and stunt the cooling. The man made influences have neutralized the cooling cycles and thus the increase in the low averages of the natural cooling cycles from cooling cycle to cooling cycle gives you an empirical quantification of man made global warming.

As the deniers have stated in this thread, we are 10 years into what should be a 30 year cooling cycle, but we are still warming, more slowly than the previous 20 years, but warming none the less. This last decade is the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement. It seems the man made warming is so strong nature can no longer stop it completely 10 years into the cycle, but can only slow it down. It will be interesting to see if we are still warming in another 5 years when the natural cooling is at its max!


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Please reread what you bolded.
> ...



Please reread what you bolded. 

If you'll be more honest, we won't keep having this problem.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


What about the exchange is confusing you?

YOU:  *You sit there*, seeing the websites where the words are WRITTEN by scientists and by science writers, people who make a living in the field of science, *and declare their words and charts and graphs insufficient.*

....

ME:  And you just lied about what I have posted. No where have I said that any peer-reviewed science is insignificant, unless it was subsequently falsified.​


Do you not know what peer-reviewed science even is even after I told you what it is?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Yet, correlation is not causation.

Thus, my lack of comment.

So, if you are trying to say that IS causation _via_ empirical quantification, show the science demonstrating that.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

Insufficient. Not insignificant. 

You're not reading past the first two letters of the word. 

Or else you're just bluffing. 

I'm betting on the latter, based on your recent behavior. 



Si modo said:


> It does correlate with it, but correlation is not causation.
> 
> Thus, my lack of comment.



So how do scientists use correlation? Why do they bother to run stats on correlation? 

I look forward to your answer. 

Also, you posted the graph on the USPS-can you come up with a hypothesis for what that graph shows?


----------



## gslack (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



Why? All they can do is check your IP.. Dude stop already..LOL proxies are far more popular than they used to be hell you can even run a firebird extension to manage a proxy... So spare me clone..


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

gslack said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



So if I'm not guilty, why are you asking me all these questions? 

Yep, you're a conservative.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Insufficient. Not insignificant.
> 
> You're not reading past the first two letters of the word.
> 
> ...


I've already answered this, but apparently so much slips past you.

Correlation only demonstrates a relationship.  It does not necessarily indicate causation.

Does that confuse you still?



> ....  Also, you posted the graph on the USPS-can you come up with a hypothesis for what that graph shows?


You want my hypothesis on this graph, is that right?

Really?

Did you understand the context in which that was posted?





Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


No matter how many times you repeat it, you are still dodging.

You asked how to quantify man's contribution to global warming, and I showed you. The science behind the calculations is the same science behind AM radio. The audio signal modulates the amplitude of the carrier signal just as man made warming modulates the natural warming and cooling cycles. Man has modulated the natural cycle to the point where there has been no cooling cycle for 100 years. Measure the lows from each stunted cooling cycle and subtract the older lows from the newer and you get a quantified amount of man made global warming, exactly as you asked.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


No, you did not.  You've showed temperature over time data.



> .... The science behind the calculations is the same science behind AM radio. The audio signal modulates the carrier signal just as man made warming modulates the natural warming and cooling cycles. Man has modulated the natural cycle to the point where there has been no cooling cycle for 100 years. Measure the lows from each stunted cooling cycle and subtract the older lows from the newer and you get a quantified amount of man made global warming, exactly as you asked.


Then, you'll be able to provide numerous papers showing this empirical quantification of man made CO2 on any warming.

If that quantification is so easily obtained, there must be hundreds of peer-reviewed pubs demonstrating it.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

I'll take your avoidance of the issue as an admission that you misrepresented my words...again. 

You have to start being more honest. 

....





> I've already answered this, but apparently so much slips past you.
> 
> Correlation only demonstrates a relationship.  It does not necessarily indicate causation.
> 
> Does that confuse you still?



Again, I'm asking you to explain why they bother to look at correlation. 



> You want my hypothesis on this graph, is that right?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Did you understand the context in which that was posted?



I did understand the context that you posted it in. I understand that you saw it as some kind of rebuttal. Not a particularly scientific rebuttal, more of a jokey blog rebuttal by a card carrying member of the Know-Nothing Crowd...but now....

I'm asking if you can generate a hypothesis. Be a skeptic about your own jokey blog rebuttal. 

Not if you can prove that hypothesis. 

Just if you can think of one.

So can you?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> I'll take your avoidance of the issue as an admission that you misrepresented my words...again.
> 
> You have to start being more honest.
> 
> ...


I just did.  Clearly.

What is perplexing you now?





> ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can, but I won't.

I have no desire to do something that silly.


----------



## SAT (Oct 31, 2011)

No, it wasn't clear. Why do scientists bother to run stats on correlations? What are they up to? Why is this such an important part of science?

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Si modo said:


> I can, but I won't.
> 
> I have no desire to do something that silly.



Priceless.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> No, it wasn't clear. Why do scientists bother to run stats on correlations? What are they up to? Why is this such an important part of science?
> 
> ....


As I said, because it demonstrates a relationship.

What is still confusing you?



> ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



Is the question too difficult for you?

If we reduce our CO2 emissions to zero, today, do you imagine changes to the environment would cease?


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Maybe I should publish. You CON$ claim there is tons of money in it.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I never have made that claim.  Most scientific journals don't pay a penny.  Sometimes there are even charges for the author.


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2011)

SAT said:


> > This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.
> >
> > Popper's philosophy was totally accepted by the scientific community to keep exactly this sort of shit out of science for exactly this reason.
> >
> ...






trolling blunder couldn't school a baboon on how to wipe it's ass.  trolling blunder like you have the scientific aptitude of a gnat.  You fundamentally can't or won't understand the basic underpinnings of the scientific method.  

Si, like myself are actual, real scientists.  We actually do know and respect the scientific method, something you play at.  We live it.  There's a HUGE difference.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 31, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > > This is exactly why the ignorant need to keep their grimy little political fingers out of science.
> ...


You know it must be bad when, while I was responding to them, I actually was thinking they make Rocks look good.


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







Please show us where the globe is still warming.  BEST says that warming hasn't occured for the last 10 to 11 years.


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2011)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...






These clowns are really, really bad representations of the US public education system.  My gosh, you make it as plain as day and they don't understand.  SAT thinks he's being cute trying to lead us down the Primrose Path but he's not smart enough to formulate questions to get us there.

Pathetic and embarassing; if he was smart enough to understand just how moronic he's being.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Is there scientific evidence that the warming is significantly caused by man made CO2?
> 
> Surely, you'll post that scientific evidence and put this silliness to rest immediately.



There is indeed scientific evidence that the current abrupt warming is "_significantly caused_" by mankind's CO2 emissions. It has been shown to you repeatedly but you are a braindead troll so you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la and pretend you didn't see or hear it. The fact that you keep asking for "_the evidence_" when you in such fierce partisan denial of the reality of the evidence even when you see it just demonstrates what a complete brainwashed troll you are, you silly little cretin.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Is there scientific evidence that the warming is significantly caused by man made CO2?
> ...


I asked for science.  You did not provide that.

When discussing science and making scientific decisions and conclusions, science is the only thing that matters.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



The problem here is that you are an ignorant little denier cult retard and you wouldn't know "_science_" if it bit you.

I did provide the science right *here*.

You won't respond to the science. You just keep denying that it exists. It does exist and it is very clear. Stop avoiding dealing with it with your lame evasions. But then that's all ya got, punk. Lame evasions and futile denial of reality.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


That's a blog, not science.

If you are unclear on what science means, I described it earlier.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Is there scientific evidence that the warming is significantly caused by man made CO2?
> ...







Really?  Where prey tell is that "evidence"?  Oh, wait, don't tell m it's a computer model right?  Yes I thought so.  Those are useless.  Remember those same computer models were telling there would be no snow in winter and hurricanes would be more powerful and frequent.  OOOOOPPPPS!


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.  They provide no empirical data to support their contention and then resort to pure horsecrap to prove a link between increased CO2 content and global temps.  In other words they rely on *correlation as proof of causation*, a fundamental denial of the scientific method.

You need to learn how to read.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


But, but, but....we were told that poster 'schooled us' on correlation not equaling causation?


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...









Hey!  I never said they were smart!


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


This is a perfect example of why no honest person has any respect for CON$. Even after it was pointed out to you that the chart is NOT from BEST, you just continue to lie and say that it is from BEST. The chart is from the denier think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It says so right on the graph, so you knew you were lying when you said "BEST says."


----------



## Oddball (Nov 1, 2011)

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes...


----------



## konradv (Nov 1, 2011)

Oddball said:


> BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> 
> Phil Jones: Yes...



So what?  Weren't we in a solar minimum?  "Hide the decline" from that source and you have the contribution of man.  Of course, the deniers only want us to consider the sun when it suits their argument.  Now it seems they want to forget.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 1, 2011)

Oddball said:


> BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> 
> Phil Jones: Yes...



I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate and awesome too.

Science = settled.

Prosecutor: Did you murder Ron Brown and Nicole?

OJ: Yes, but only just

See, it means OJ didn't do it to a 95% statistically significant level or something Beavis


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> ...



While we're on the topic of thing we want to forget.

Remember this?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> ...



*So what? Weren't we in a solar minimum?*

What? We need to take the sun into account when discussing "climate change"? 
Man-made CO2 isn't the only factor?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> ...


Wait a minute.....You mean to say that the great big yellow thing in the sky, that comprises 99.8% of the mass of entire solar system, has something to do with the Earf's climate?!?!?!?!?

Well, I'll be dipped!


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 1, 2011)

Oddball said:


> BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> 
> Phil Jones: Yes...


Well Dupe, you've sunk to parroting CF's bullshit, but you've gone even lower. You don't provide a link to the whole quote like CF does. Shame on you!

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

*BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming*

Phil Jones: Yes,  but only just. *I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009.  This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive,* but not significant at the  95% significance level. *The positive trend* is quite close to the  significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific  terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for  shorter periods.


----------



## gslack (Nov 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> ...





What the hell does "but only just" mean?? HAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!

Dude you would read whatever you wanted into anything simply because it has to be warming in your mind....

Pathetic.. Do you endorse faith healing too?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> ...


The word after "yes" was "_*BUT*_", making everything else that followed a diversion from the fact.

Little wonder a cultist like you falls for it.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 1, 2011)

gslack said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Ahhhh yes, the perpetual CON$ervative dumb act. As if you didn't know, the "only just" refers to the "statistical significance"  level, not to the positive warming trend that was measured for the period. The measured period of time was just a little bit too short to reach the "statistical significance" level.
Get it?


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 1, 2011)

Oddball said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


And the sentence with the word "but" ends with the word "just." The period that follows the word "just" tells you that. A new sentence and therefore a new statement begins with the word "I," making everything you posted pure bullshit.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 1, 2011)

GW's father: George, did you chop down the cherry tree?

GW: Yes, but only just.

Fool.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 1, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> ...



Prosecutor: Did you murder Ron Brown and Nicole?

OJ: Yes, but only just

See, it means OJ didn't do it to a 95% statistically significant level or something Beavis


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 1, 2011)

Oddball said:


> BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> 
> Phil Jones: Yes...



Too bad you anti-science denier cult retards have no idea what '*statistically significant*' actually means. 

But, at this point in time, that is not all that important since your denier cult taking point just got blown out of the water. It was specious before because you didn't understand what the terms mean but now.......LOLOLOL

*Global warming since 1995 'now significant'*
By Richard Black Environment correspondent 
BBC News 
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

*Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not "statistically significant" - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.*

BBC © 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> ...



So much proof for AGW, why do they keep getting caught fudging data?

Why are warmer periods called optimums?


----------



## konradv (Nov 1, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Everyone knows that!  Why are you just catching up now?  This just proves how hypocritical the deniers are.  They say the sun isn't taken into account by "warmers", but when you do take it into account, they act as if it's news to them!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 1, 2011)

OMFG!!

15 year...not significant, but 16 years = significant

That was a Warmer attempt at humor, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> ...



I had no idea the Wamers read my USMB postings.  I feel I've arrived.

I'd like to thank the Academy..


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


It is sooooo typical of your retarded posts, walleyed, that you demonstrate so clearly that you didn't even bother to look at the evidence and so you have to guess (and guess wrong) what it is. You are such a clueless idiot! 






westwall said:


> Yes I thought so.  Those are useless.  Remember those same computer models were telling there would be no snow in winter and hurricanes would be more powerful and frequent.  OOOOOPPPPS!



Wrong again, cretin. The 'evidence' involves direct observation and measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels, outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere across the spectral bands, and downward radiation flux at Earth's surface.  

They don't have much to do with this evidence I've cited but as far as the actual climate models go, you have your head up your azz, as usual, and are just repeating debunked denier cult myths.

*Why should we trust a computer model?

Is Climate Modelling Science?

How reliable are climate models?

Climate models are unprovenActually, GCMs have many confirmed successes under their belts*


----------



## Oddball (Nov 1, 2011)

1995:  

Prosecutor: Did you murder Ron Brown and Nicole?

OJ: Yes, but only just.

1996: 

Prosecutor: Did you murder Ron Brown and Nicole?

OJ: Yes, but only just...But that was a year ago, so all the evidence that came before doesn't count, so the answer is now: Absolutely, one hundred percent, not guilty.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Everyone knows that? I only hear the "deniers" talk about the Sun.

What influence does water vapor have on "Climate Change"?
Or are the only two factors worth considering the Sun and man-made CO2?


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> ...








  My gosh but it's amusing to hear you idiots fall all over yourselves trying to co-opt the very arguments we have put forth to counter your silly mantra that CO2 is the end all and be all of global warming.  

What useless, mindless, political hacks you are.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







I see you have a problem with reading comprehension as well.  I stated that the graph showed what BEST has discovered.  The data was posted by BEST on their website and someone else took THEIR data points and came up with the graph I posted.

A point for you to consider here edthefool, anyone who refers to a group of individuals as Con$ has allready lost whatever credibility they may have had.  Of course you lost all crediblility long ago, but that's besides the point I'm making.  My point is, if you wish to be taken seriously divorce yourself from your blatant partisanship, it doesn't serve you in the slightest.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
> ...






I notice how you leave out the statistical error bands that completely cover the .12 rise, which means that if there is warming it is so small as to be unmeasurable.  Nice to see you are so invested in being honest there silly person.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...







Uhhh, for the record silly person, you're being the dumb one.  You don't understand simple syntax.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Yes, yes, yes.  Please show me a single computer model that can recreate the weather that occured one week ago.  We have absolutely perfect data on the conditions that existed and they CAN'T DO IT you idiot!  When a computer model can't recreate what WE KNOW OCCURED with perfect information, how on earth do you think it can predict anything!

A more perfect example of faith based belief doesn't exist anywhere on this planet.  At least the religious folks get to point to the occasional miracle to reinforce their faith, but you?  You've got NOTHING!


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Oh, don't ask them hard questions like that.  It takes real scientific ability to answer those questions.  These guys rely on entrail reading for their predictions.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 1, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Well toadster, here's the thing, you're a clueless and very retarded dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign and you believe in a lot a crap that just ain't so. Like your denier cult myth about scientists "_fudging data_". Didn't happen. 

*"Climategate" Scientists Exonerated*
(excerpts)
*    * An inquiry by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the CRU scientists actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community and that the scientific reputation of [former CRU director] Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. Further, the committee found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus  that global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity." While the CRUs scientific practices were in line with common practice in the scientific community, the committee suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. While I would say that climatology is already one of the most transparent fields of science, the committee makes the point that, A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science [since it must] provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. With so much at stake, climate scientists naturally face more scrutiny than those in other fields and should strive to be beyond reproach for their own protection and to avoid the appearance of misconduct.

    * A report by an international Science Assessment Panel requested by the UEA found no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work and that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid. That said, the panel described the CRU researchers as slightly disorganized and complained that they did not consult adequately with professional statisticians in analyzing temperature data.

    * An independent review of the contents of the emails, also requested by the UEA, said of the CRU scientists, Their rigour and honesty as scientists is not in doubt. The review found no evidence that the scientists had manipulated their research to support any preconceived notions about climate change. Nor did the scientists withhold data necessary to validate their findings or attempt to subvert the peer-review process. The panel did criticize individual scientists for refusing to release their personal computer files in response to Freedom of Information requests. In reference to a graph that CRU scientists produced for a non-peer-reviewed climate report of the World Meteorological Organization, the review found the graph to be misleading because it was not clear that the authors had truncated a tree-ring data set and spliced tree-ring data to thermometer data. They did not find that these procedures were inappropriate, but only that they should have been disclosed clearly to the reader.

    * A summary of two investigations by Penn State University Professor Michael Mann  a frequent correspondent with CRU scientists in the hacked emails  concludes that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann that he engaged or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities. The one caveat is that the investigative committee found that Dr. Mann sent unpublished manuscripts by other authors who were his close colleagues to other close colleagues without obtaining the express consent of the authors. He said he believed that the authors would not mind, but the committee concluded that he should have obtained express permission in any case.*


*Summarizing the Investigations on Climate Science

Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data

British Panel Clears Scientists

Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate'*


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You're such a pathological liar. You said the GRAPH was from BEST!!!!!



> http://www.usmessageboard.com/4341492-post271.html
> Look at *the bottom graph.  That is from BEST.*



And if you actually do look at the bottom graph and compare it to the  part of the upper graph it is supposed to represent, they do not match.  In the upper graph there is a rise after 2000 and in the bottom graph  there is not.

And one last thing, CON$ervatism is not a Party, it is an ideology! To be against the hate religion of CON$ervatism does not make me for or against a political party.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Actually, you poor deluded retard, the models the weather people use can accurately recreate the weather that has occurred and they can make pretty accurate predictions of the weather to come for about six days in advance. Accuracy fades after that.

But you are too stupid to understand the difference between 'weather' and 'climate' anyway. For the ones reading this who have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together though, here is a good explanation of just why 'climate models' are different from 'weather models'.

*Climate models vs weather models*
(excerpts)

*You can find a lot of discussion on the net with arguments like:

"If we cannot predict the weather next week, how can we predict the climate over the next century?"​
While this sounds like a reasonable argument, there are in fact good reasons to accept 100-year climate forecasts even though we cannot predict the weather more than a few days out.

Predicting the weather is hard because you have to get the exact details of a weather system right. If your prediction of a storm track is 100 km off, then a giant snowstorm predicted to bury a city might fall harmlessly offshore. If your temperature is 3 deg C off, then what you predicted as rain turns into snow. If your initial conditions are off, then precipitation predicted to fall during rush hour falls at midnight. All of these things mean that you've blown the forecast, and people will mumble about how weather forecasters don't know what they're doing.

For the climate, these things generally don't matter. What matters is that, in the long run, one gets the statistics of the weather right. If one storm in a climate model is 100 km too far East, that won't matter if the long-term statistics of the storm track is right. This is quite a different problem than predicting the EXACT evolution of a single atmospheric disturbance.

One simple way to think about the difference in predicting weather and climate is to think about rolling a six-sided die. Predicting the weather is like predicting what the next roll will be. Predicting the climate is like predicting what the average and standard deviation of 1000 rolls will be. The ability to predict the statistics of the next 1000 rolls does not hinge on the ability to predict the next roll. Thus, one should not dismiss climate forecasts simply because weather forecasts are only good for a few days. *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Trick the data.
Hide the decline.
Yeah, honest scientists use those terms all the time.


----------



## konradv (Nov 1, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trick the data.
> Hide the decline.
> Yeah, honest scientists use those terms all the time.



Hide the decline of what?  The sun?  You have to to show man's contribution.  How dense can you be?  Never heard the term "tricks of the trade"?  Hablas Ingles?


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








Really?  Show us ONE that can do what you claim.  Here's what the experts hve to say....



"How accurate are severe weather forecasts? Even with all the advances in science and computers, forecasting weather, particularly severe weather is still much of an educated guessing game. Topics that are very important in forecasting are data collection, analysis, prediction, and verification. Since thunderstorms are a small scale system that are driven by the larger systems, this investigation will start on a large scale synoptic view of the atmosphere and the forecasting problems on that scale which produce thunderstorms. 

First of all, we need to know how a thunderstorm develops before we can analyze it. There are three stages to a thunderstorm: cumulus, mature, and dissipating. The lifecycle of a thunderstorm can be learned about here. 

Before computers were invented and also before their introduction to science, analysis of weather and prediction was all done by hand. This was a very errorneous process, due to the way different people think and how tedious and complex the calculations are. Since we are all human, we think differently in different situations. People tend to look at things from different viewpoints and have different results from the same set of data. Even the same person can have different results if they reanalyzed the data, just because they tend to be thinking differently at that moment in time. Analysis of any scientific data is subjective when it comes down to the viewpoint of any person. When a computer looks at the data it sees it objectively because it's just looking at raw data, or numerical data. 

Today computers are quite advanced and are capable of completing large computational tasks rapidly. But, our reliability in them gives us this false sense of security. There are many advantages to using a computer to solve problems and analyze data. They increase our overall speed of computing equations that would probably take at least an hour to complete. They are much more user friendly than the human mind, paper, and pen. For the forecaster this can be crucial. While the computer crunches numbers, the forecaster can be doing other things like prepare the forecast for the day. Another good thing about letting the computer do data analysis is that it is unbiased. It doesn't "wishcast." This is a result of man's subjectivity. It analyzes according to the model algorithm. 






How Accurate Are Computer Model Severe Weather Forecasts


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2011)

konradv said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trick the data.
> ...



Why don't you ask the man what he was hiding? 

What was man's contribution? The exact percentage it you could? Thanks!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 1, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You are a clueless retard, toadster, and you have no idea what scientists do or don't do. Scientists use the term 'trick' all the time. It means a clever way of solving a problem.

Try googling "trick the data"

About 249,000,000 results
   1.
      Data Page Trick

   3.
      Why climatologists used the tree-ring data 'trick' : Pharyngula

   5.
      30 fast mental math Tricks : EasyCal Secrets of Mental Math ...

   6.
      C Preprocessor Trick For Implementing Similar Data Types

   7.
      Data URIs | CSS-Tricks

  14.
      Excel Magic Trick 548: Data Validation Drop-Down List In A Cell ...

  15.
          Excel Magic Trick 549: Dynamic Data Validation List Drop-Down ...

  17.
      Code Capers | .NET Trick - Persisting Data Without Using a Database

  19.
Quick data recovery using HOT SWAP trick in Data ... - SalvationDATA

  29.
      Airtel 3G free 10GB data trick | Geeky Mob

  31.
      150 MB Free Internet Data Trick

  32.
      Microsoft Excel Blog: A PivotTable trick that brings data validation to ...

  33.
      Excel Magic Trick 253: Data Table 1 Variable What If Analysis - Free ...

  39.
      Excel Magic Trick #506: Summarize Data  Multiple Sheets & Banks ...

  42.
      Card Trick Leads to New Bound on Data Compression - Technology ...

  44.
      Excel Magic Trick 334: VLOOKUP & Data Validation for Invoice ...

  45.
      HTC EVO 4G :: Calculator Trick - Holding C Button Clear Stored Data

  48.
      How to transfer your iPad 1 data to iPad 2 [VIDEO] ~ Trick Books-Web Tips and Social-Media News 

  49.
      uImbibe - Excel Magic Trick 185 Dynamic Formula Extract Data ...

  51.
      Excel Magic Trick 644: Recorded Macro And Formulas To Re ...

  52.
      Tata Photon 3g 3.5g Hack  Officially Trick Gives 5 Gb Data at Only ...

  53.
      Tutorial: A little trick that makes your data easier to read 

  54.
      Trick Free Data Plan New Bsnl Sim Activate | New 2011 tricks

  55.
      Maintain Your Data Usage : A Network Counter For ... - ABC Trick

  56.
      3 tricks to using less data when browsing on Android | How To - CNET

  57.
      Excel Magic Trick #83- Extract Sample Data Advanced Filter ...

  58.
      PBBI's Hat Trick: Billing, Location Intelligence & Customer Data ...

  59.
      Mr Excel Excelisfun Trick 82 Allow Below Limit Data Validation Or ...

  60.
      MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET HAT TRICK® THREE WAY ...

  61.
      Quick data recovery using HOT SWAP trick in Data Compass

  62.
      Proc SQL vs. the Data Step  Trick or Treat? | Home | www.pnwsug.org
      Simple tricks in the DATA step and some PROC's will be seen to translate into
      juicy treats in PROC SQL. PROC SQL topics will include the basics of SELECT, ...

  64.
      Formulating Distance Functions via the Kernel Trick

  66.
      "Trick" Registry to speed up the copy data between computers and ... 
      The data base trick Building a multi-format logical file over a single physical file

Here's a good simple basic explanation of the toadster's denier cult myth.     

*Thoughts on Climate-gate*
By Pete Wyckoff
Sun-Tribune
December 11, 2009
(excerpts)

*Is the planet cooling? Ive just completed Mikes Nature trickto hide the decline, writes climate scientist Phil Jones in a stolen 1999 e-mail which has caused a frenzy. FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a smoking gunproof that scientists are manufacturing a global warming crisis so that they can they can(Ive never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).

The planet is warming. The data are unequivocal and based on measured temperatures (corrected for things like the heat island effect, so please dont write an angry response claiming that the thermometers are wrong). What Phil Jones was referring to is something else: past temperatures estimated via tree rings. Since 1960, the rings in trees seem to have lost some of their power to record temperature.

Why should tree rings indicate temperature at all? As most of us learned in childhood, the trunks of trees at our latitude tend to put on a distinct growth ring every year. All other things being equal, when the trees are happy, they put on a large ring. When the going gets tough, the rings get thin. What makes a tree happy? Light, nutrients, lack of disease, and warmth (to a point). What do trees despise? Drought. By careful interpretation of past tree growth patterns, we can learn a lot about past climates.

Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become decoupled in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.*


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 1, 2011)

There is not one item in this thread that shows the thread's title to be accurate. Just the same old man made global warming nonsense. Keep on trying to hide the decline.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



*(Ive never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).
*

Grant money and power.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 1, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *&#8230;(I&#8217;ve never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).
> *
> 
> Grant money and power.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....

Spoken like a true anti-science retard who is totally clueless about science and scientists. Way too clueless to understand that not everybody is driven by the same base obsessions that drive him. 

BTW toadster, do you even understand that "_grant money_" doesn't go into the scientists' pockets but rather it is used for their research and it is fully accounted for?

Please try to show us some scientists who have gained "_power_". Bwaahaahaa....

You are a real nutjob, toadster.

Sooooo, no real response to having your little "_trick to hide the decline_" myth debunked???? As usual.


----------



## SAT (Nov 1, 2011)

Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved. 

"Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.
> 
> "Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.


What is a denier denying?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *(Ive never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).
> ...



How much has Al Gore made with his anti-science books and films?
Grant money doesn't pay the salaries of the researchers and their assistants? 
The government is outlawing incandescent bulbs in favor of CFLs.
Sounds like the government has more power.
Who gets to hand out billions in tax dollars to support money losing "green" technology?

Why did he need to hide the decline (his words, not mine)?
Why did the hockey stick hide the MWP?
Why are the warmer periods called optimums?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.
> 
> "Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.



Yeah, scientists that have truth on their side often have to "hide the decline".


----------



## SAT (Nov 1, 2011)

> That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.



So what is the reason for the increased levels of CO2? 



CrusaderFrank said:


> OMFG!!
> 
> 15 year...not significant, but 16 years = significant
> 
> That was a Warmer attempt at humor, right?



Are you one of the alleged scientists on the board? 



Si modo said:


> As I said, because it demonstrates a relationship.



Good job. 



Si modo said:


> I can, but I won't.
> 
> I have no desire to do something that silly.





> Priceless.





> Why?



Because it's like something out of children's movie-where the bratty kid claims that they can fly, but they just don't want to right now.


----------



## Trajan (Nov 1, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> 
> University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.
> 
> ...






not so fast, contain your misplaced glee.



Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

By David Rose

Last updated at 6:11 PM on 30th October 2011


snip-



    Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Americas prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Mullers claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a huge mistake, with no  scientific basis.

    Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST projects four research papers.

    Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago. 

    In fact, Prof Curry said, the projects research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties  a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

    There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasnt stopped, she said. To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.

more at-
Scientists who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague | Mail Online


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> > That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wharrrrrrgggggbbbbblllle.

Obviously, you cannot even talk about science.  Your input is useless.


----------



## SAT (Nov 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > > That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.
> ...



I've got your lame self beat.


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 1, 2011)

Yeah Tarjan...I was jsut reading Prof Judith Curry's findings at another website and she shows that the original post to this thread is (again) another attempt at falsifying data to support an agenda. What a shocker!  And from the honest folks at Berkley no less


----------



## SAT (Nov 1, 2011)

Bigfoot said:


> Yeah Tarjan...I was jsut reading Prof Judith Curry's findings at another website and she shows that the original post to this thread is (again) another attempt at falsifying data to support an agenda. What a shocker!  And from the honest folks at Berkley no less



She seemed to be backing off that accusation, last I read.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah Tarjan...I was jsut reading Prof Judith Curry's findings at another website and she shows that the original post to this thread is (again) another attempt at falsifying data to support an agenda. What a shocker!  And from the honest folks at Berkley no less
> ...



I want to know when Richard Muller was a skeptic of global warming.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.
> 
> "Hide the decline" is math talk for math that's well over my head, and even further over the denier's heads.







It's easy to be exonerated when you are the prosecutor and judge in your own case.  But you knew that allready didn't you.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> > That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Man certainly contributes some.  However as shown in the Vostock ice core data, the warming occurs first then 800 years or so later the CO2 levels increase.  800 years ago was the height of the MWP.  Now correlation is certainly not causation, but there is more evidence to support that correlation then anything the warmists are putting out.


----------



## SAT (Nov 1, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Right, he wasn't a real skeptic like you. He was a fake skeptic. He's probably getting millions in his personal checking account right now from some university grant.


----------



## SAT (Nov 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> It's easy to be exonerated when you are the prosecutor and judge in your own case.  But you knew that allready didn't you.



So you're saying that in every one of these investigations, the people investigating are the same as the people being investigated. 

I don't think you can back that up. 



westwall said:


> Man certainly contributes some.  However as shown in the Vostock ice core data, the warming occurs first then 800 years or so later the CO2 levels increase.  800 years ago was the height of the MWP.  Now correlation is certainly not causation, but there is more evidence to support that correlation then anything the warmists are putting out.



So where's all the CO2 coming from now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



I've never heard him being skeptical. Have you? When?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


"I win, I win!"?

That's your idea of contribution to a scientific discussion?


----------



## SAT (Nov 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



No. It's yours. I'm just mocking you about it.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


That simply isn't true.

But, when you are able to participate in discussing actual science, I will be happy to do so with you.

In this subforum, I have no desire to discuss at your level.

I take the soiling of science seriously.


----------



## SAT (Nov 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Oh, it's true. Just like your last sentence. You're very serious about soiling science.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


How does someone get millions in their pocket from a "university grant"?

Surely you'll let us know how "university grants" work, right?


----------



## SAT (Nov 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Literate posters will recognize sarcasm when they see it.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Irrespective your desperate attempts to soil discussion, answer the question:  How do you think someone gets millions "in their pocket" from "university grants"?

How do you think that works?


----------



## Trajan (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It's easy to be exonerated when you are the prosecutor and judge in your own case.  But you knew that allready didn't you.
> ...



you apparently....


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



LOL.   As you shit all over the subject.

You have no desire to discuss science at any level. You merely wish to push your political idiocy without regard to scientific reality.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


The only thing I push for is scientific integrity.  The fact that you call that a political agenda is on its face, soiling science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2011)

Trajan said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> ...



Bullshit lies. The graph drawn from BEST's data is a fraud. Judith Currey did not say that Dr. Muller study was another 'Climategate' fraud.

Mail on BEST | Climate Etc.

In David Roses article, the direct quotes attributed to me are correct.

To set the record straight, some of the other sentiments attributed to me are not quite right, I will discuss these here.

Hiding the truth in the title is definitely misleading, I made it pretty clear that there was uncertainty in the data itself, but the bigger issues are to analyze the data and interpret it.  I made it clear that this was not a straightforward and simple thing to do.

I told Rose that I was puzzled my Mullers statements, particularly about end of skepticism and also We see no evidence of global warming slowing down.

I did not say that the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago, this is indirectly attributed to me.  When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006,  we discussed hide the decline, but I honestly cant recall if Rose or I said it first. I agreed that the way the data is presented in the graph hides the decline.  There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate.  Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Ah yes, Sis has the whole of scientific integrity corraled. The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophyisical Union, the American Geological Society has none at all, nor do any of their members that disagree with the all knowing Sis. LOL


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It's easy to be exonerated when you are the prosecutor and judge in your own case.  But you knew that allready didn't you.
> ...






Most likely the oceans.  They are the single biggest storer of CO2 on the planet.  As far as the so called exonerations I suggest you review the "hearings".  Of course one must be intellectually honest when one does so.  Something I think you are not.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


If I have ever said they have no scientific integrity, you would have a point.

As I never have, all you have is straw.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 1, 2011)

SAT said:


> Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.


That sham was enviroloon equivalent of John Mitchell  exonerating Nixon, Howard Hunt, Bob Haldeman, G. Gordon Liddy and John Ehrlichman for the Watergate break in. 

Sucker.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





So, how then, do you explain the very public resignations of  renowned Nobel laureates from those august bodies?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


They value scientific integrity, too?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 1, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.
> ...



REALITY....and in your case, dodo, sanity.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOL......you're really wanting to have that particular pissing contest, walleyed?

So how about you tell us how you "_explain the very public_" statements urging action to halt anthropogenic global warming issued by these "_renowned Nobel laureates_"? I mean, since you seem to think so highly of Nobel laureates (or is just the two or three who have expressed AGW skepticism that you respect - LOL). BTW, these names are only a few out of the 1700 prominent scientists who signed the statement below.

*NOBEL LAUREATES
* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996*

*WORLD SCIENTISTS' WARNING TO HUMANITY*
(not restricted by copyright - free to reproduce)

*Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

THE ENVIRONMENT IS SUFFERING CRITICAL STRESS

The Atmosphere

Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultra-violet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests and crops.

Water Resources

Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40% of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans

Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock wastesome of it toxic

Soil

Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread byproduct of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11% of the earth's vegetated surface has been degradedan area larger than India and China combinedand per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.

Forests

Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.

Living Species

The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself.

Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertainwith projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severebut the potential risks are very great.

Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of lifecoupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate changecould trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.

Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threat.

POPULATION

The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

WARNING

We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

WHAT WE MUST DO

Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.

We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to third world needssmall scale and relatively easy to implement.

We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.

2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.

We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.

3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.

5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.

Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.

Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of waramounting to over $1 trillion annuallywill be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.

A new ethic is requireda new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convince reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.

The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere.

We need the help of many.

We require the help of the world community of scientistsnatural, social, economic, political;

We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders;

We require the help of the worlds religious leaders; and

We require the help of the world's peoples.

We call on all to join us in this task. *


----------



## Si modo (Nov 1, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Ah, you have no idea what a 'denier' is denying.


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah Tarjan...I was jsut reading Prof Judith Curry's findings at another website and she shows that the original post to this thread is (again) another attempt at falsifying data to support an agenda. What a shocker!  And from the honest folks at Berkley no less
> ...



The entire report is so biased it doesn't make much difference anyway. Professors have already discovered the inadequacies of the report in the group from Berkley's attempt to further push their false agenda.  It's just another attempt at the left's mantra of redistribution of wealth and the destruction of what most decent people would like to see our country do.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Well then specifically, bobo, a 'denier', such as yourself, is denying whatever phony myth-du-jour the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber has pumped into his/her head that particular day. When one myth is too thoroughly debunked in one thread, you just change the subject and spew a different myth or ridiculous bit of pseudo-science and then you come back later on the same thread or on a different thread and push the same first debunked myth denying the obvious all over again. 

More generally, you anti-science denier nitwits deny the evidence and data and the testimony of the experts, the climate scientists of the world, that all support the reality of the ongoing and still accelerating anthropogenic global warming and the consequent climate changes that threaten our civilization and biosphere. In the face of overwhelming evidence, you deny reality. Of course, that is largely because you're too retarded and poorly educated to understand the evidence and too brainwashed by your political puppetmasters into believing that this is a political/economic issue rather than a scientific/survival issue. You've been misled, bamboozled and duped by clever propagandists but unfortunately you lack the intellectual depth or breadth of knowledge that would allow you to see what has been done to you.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


"You anti-science deniers"?


----------



## gslack (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Si, trollingedtheblunderingeunich or whatever his name is this time, is here to post propaganda and confound any real discussion on AGW. He hides behind a proxy most likely and swaps in and out of ID's to post the same scripted nonsense from his activist sources list. He has no more desire to prove AGW, than I do. He is about mass distribution of confusion. He and his clones go by the old PR standard of Bernays and others. They create confusion while burying people in mounds of pseudo-science, half truths, and out right lies and disinformation. They justify this thinking the ends will justify any means..

In my personal opinion they are the worst examples of activism gone terribly wrong. There is no "coming from a good place" inside this people. The core is twisted and that makes the entire purpose of their "activism" wrong..

I applaud you for your patience and ability to tolerate their nonsense. You handle their ignorance with far better patience than I can.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

gslack said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Oh, I normally have very little patience for idiocy.  Very little.  Just look at my posts in other subforms here.  

But, when discussing science - or attempting to do so - it's just easy to be patient with them because those who are ignorant of science dig their own holes so easily.

That is a sweet payoff for patience, and almost immediate.


----------



## gslack (Nov 2, 2011)

Hee Hee Hee, love that signature!


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

gslack said:


> Hee Hee Hee, love that signature!


It's awesome, isn't it?

I'll eventually edit it.

But, I am enjoying it right now.


----------



## gslack (Nov 2, 2011)

I find it very enlightening.. Reminds me of that movie can't remember the name of it. Whenever there is an argument one of the dumber characters shouts the words "LOUD NOISES" so he can be apart of it.. LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yeah, twit, that describes you and the slackjawedidiot and the other denier cultists very well. You have no apparent knowledge of science and you reject the testimony of real scientists. You are brainwashed dupes of the fossil fuel industry. You are totally unable to back up your ridiculous statements with any scientific evidence. Even worse, you mistake lame pseudo-science from some denier cult propaganda outlet for actual science. You make it very obvious that, scientifically, none of you know your ass from a hole in the ground. It is very funny to watch a couple of retards like you and ol' slackjawed trade compliments and conspiracy therories while adding nothing whatsoever of substance to the debate.


----------



## gslack (Nov 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Please point to any post, thread, discussion, or anything here where you have used your scientific abilities to explain, show or imply anything using your own words and logic...

I will wait for that.. Can we expect that this month at least?

EDIT: By the way, the words you used "Anti-science deniers" would make us deniers of anti-science. Meaning you must agree that yours is anti-sceince since we disagree with it... Hence the laughter and mocking... A mind is a terrible thing to waste..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Please post one repeatable laboratory experiment demonstrating how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures, acidifies the oceans and causes "unstable climate"


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Still, I'm an "anti-science denier", eh?

OMG.  This is just too funny.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 2, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



OK mr. retardo, here ya go. Not that this will do any good for a fourth grade dropout like you.

*Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions  Miller (2004)

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 43007000 cm&#8722;1  Toth et al. (2008) 

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence  Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 &#8592; 00001 and 30013 &#8592; 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm&#8722;1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values. [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment  Miller et al. (2005) The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions  Miller & Brown (2004) High-resolution near-infrared (40009000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMathPierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported.  This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537]. [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 &#956;m. I: model and laboratory measurements  Niro et al. (2004) Temperature (200300 K) and pressure (70200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm&#8722;1.

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes  Boulet (2004) The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by retrieval technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the perturbers are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2  Benech et al. (2002) Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas  Teboul et al. (1995) Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 101000 cm&#8722;1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 101000 cm&#8722;1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10470 cm&#8722;1 are compared.

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition  Rothman et al. (1987) A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.

Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers  Miller & Watts (1984) High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide  Tubbs & Williams (1972) An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters &#947;0 for lines in the R branch of the &#957;3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of &#947;0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section &#963;.

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases  Burch et al. (1970) From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines  Burch et al. (1969) The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm&#8722;1.  New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2  Ludwig et al. (1966) Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 &#956; band of CO2  Winters et al. (1964) Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm&#8722;1 to 2575 cm&#8722;1.

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ  Davies (1964) 

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared  Burch et al. (1962) The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared  Burch et al. (1962) Total absorptance has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm&#8722;1.

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths  Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide  Martin & Barker (1932) The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental &#957;1 appears only in combination bands, but &#957;2 at 15&#956; and &#957;3 at 4.3&#956; absorb intensely.

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red  Barker (1922) Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 &#956;.  New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 &#956; region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 &#956; and 2.767 &#956;. The 4.3 &#956; band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 &#956;. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 &#956; region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a head in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 &#956; band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets. [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre  Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum  Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near &#955; = 14.7 &#956;.  The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 &#956; to 16 &#956;, with the maximum at 14.7 &#956;. [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours  Lecher & Pernter (1881) Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part..

The Bakerian Lecture  On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction  Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text]*


----------



## gslack (Nov 2, 2011)

Spamming the same 2 or 3 studies using altered link descriptions is dishonest as well as misleading troll.....

The first one is to an OOPS! page.. I warned you before about hotlinking.. People don't like their bandwidth sucked by a leeching forum spammer.. Keep it up and your service provider will take issue..

The next 4 go to the exact same page...

And the rest all go to the same 2-3 places all of them stating nothing that addresses the question he asked you...

okay so tell me what activist group is feeding you this shit? Please inform me so I can take issue with them directly for using scientific papers (or abstracts of them) to make false claims... This has been scripted for you we both know it.. I recognize an automated scripting job when I see it, its my job to spot shit just like this. You either had it handed to you or used a service to get it for you...

Best to tell me tool, you know I am anal enough to find out on my own....


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


All those links go to what anyone could find in a spectroscopy textbook.

But, that did nothing to answer the poster's question.

Answering a question you made up on your own does not answer the actual question.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 2, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the earth.
> 
> University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal skeptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.
> 
> ...



Oops

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Express Yourself :: Global warming is over, says expert

Not so simple, is it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 2, 2011)

gslack said:


> Spamming the same 2 or 3 studies using altered link descriptions is dishonest as well as misleading troll.....
> 
> The first one is to an OOPS! page.. I warned you before about hotlinking.. People don't like their bandwidth sucked by a leeching forum spammer.. Keep it up and your service provider will take issue..
> 
> ...



LOLOLOL....more of your gibbering insanity.


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


And yet, oddly, the statement you claim explains the role of man-produced CO2 in global warming...doesn't.


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Note, too, what Jones says:  "The positive trend is quite close to the significance level."

The trend is _close_ to the significance level...but it's not significant yet.  

And the cultists claim this is a fact.    All it is is wishful thinking.


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *(Ive never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).
> ...



NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News

Yeah, no profit motive there, huh?


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> > That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the reason for the increased levels of CO2?


Mankind, most likely.  

Say, you guys ever going to get around to proving that CO2 levels, whose increase lags behind temp increases, cause temp increases?  Or do you expect the rest of us to take it on faith like you are?


SAT said:


> > Priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You do realize, don't you, that the graph she posted showed a correlation between global temperatures and what the Post office charges for stamps, right?

No, I don't think you do.    You just keep pretending that her refusal to write a theory to account for that is significant.


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Several investigations into "Climategate" have been conducted, every one of them exonerated the scientists involved.
> ...


I wonder if these bozos would have believed Richard Nixon if he'd personally conducted the Watergate investigation.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > > That makes the claim that the increased CO2 levels are attrributable to man, but makes no real effort to prove it.
> ...


Pretty funny shit, huh?

I even started a thread in the Flame Zone about it.

Del came up with a pretty funny one.


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Give him a break.  It's all he's got.


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



You hush.  SAT won.  I read it on the internet.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

daveman said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I came thiiiiiiiiiis close to posting this pic after I read that:


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 2, 2011)

daveman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



And another forum retard speaks up with the usual debunked drivel.

Too bad anti-science denier cult retards like you have no idea what '*statistically significant*' actually means. 

But, at this point in time, that is not all that important since your denier cult taking point just got blown out of the water. It was specious before because you didn't understand what the terms mean but now.......LOLOLOL

*Global warming since 1995 'now significant'*
By Richard Black Environment correspondent 
BBC News 
10 June 2011
(excerpts)

*Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not "statistically significant" - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.*

BBC © 2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

It STILL quotes non-science as science?

OMG.

Too funny.


----------



## daveman (Nov 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Is he using real data, or his usual cherry-picked and massaged horseshit?


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Oceans have always been with us, and yet we see a dramatic increase in CO2. What causes that? 



Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Literate posters will recognize sarcasm when they see it. 



> EDIT: By the way, the words you used "Anti-science deniers" would make us deniers of anti-science. Meaning you must agree that yours is anti-sceince since we disagree with it... Hence the laughter and mocking... A mind is a terrible thing to waste..



"Anti-science" is the adjective.

Adjective - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deniers is the noun. 

Noun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the state of knowledge on global warming from the EPA. 

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA



> Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
> 
> Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
> The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
> ...


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Oceans have always been with us, and yet we see a dramatic increase in CO2. What causes that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yet, where is the science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming?

Same question.  It's an important one, too.

If the science is there, then let's see it.

Otherwise it's just pissing in the ocean.  Or, more accurately, a belief.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Excellent. 



Bigfoot said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



As another poster pointed out, this demonstrates, again, that your viewpoint is politically based, faith based, and not science based. 



Si modo said:


> But, when discussing science - or attempting to do so - it's just easy to be patient with them because those who are ignorant of science dig their own holes so easily.
> 
> That is a sweet payoff for patience, and almost immediate.



That would well describe how you're coming off. You seem to have no understanding of anything discussed, because you've yet to post even a simple sentence about the topic. You stick to your political bias and pretend expertise.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I'm actually asking you to post the science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

As you are so knowledgeable in the topic, so you tell us, that would be important information to have.

If the science supports opinions, it's a good idea to post it, in a thread discussing science.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Same question.  It's an important one, too.
> 
> If the science is there, then let's see it.
> 
> Otherwise it's just pissing in the ocean.  Or, more accurately, a belief.



You've been given more science than you have any idea how to handle. Your rejection of that science is based on a belief. 

Show us your rebuttal of what has been posted from one poster after another.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

> I'm actually asking you to post the science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
> 
> As you are so knowledgeable in the topic, so you tell us, that would be important information to have.
> 
> If the science supports opinions, it's a good idea to post it, in a thread discussing science.



That was posted days ago, by another poster. You were unable to intelligently discuss what he posted.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Same question.  It's an important one, too.
> ...


That isn't true.  I've seen links to news stories, blogs, opinions, etc. from you and thunder-something.

That's not science.

I told you what science is.  Peer-reviewed scientific journals, remember?



> ....  Your rejection of that science is based on a belief.
> 
> ....


See, a newpaper and/or media outlet has reporters.  When they write about science, they interpret it.  Same with a blog writer.  Same with anyone with an opinion.  They interpret what they read or what someone tells them.

Scientists, one the other hand, don't use any of those sources when discussing science.  They want to see the science.

So, if you want to play at science, that's how it's played.

I didn't make the rules.



> ....  Show us your rebuttal of what has been posted from one poster after another.


When discussing science, I only consider the science.  There is no point in rebutting an opinion or belief.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> That isn't true.  I've seen links to news stories, blogs, opinions, etc. from you and thunder-something.
> 
> That's not science.
> 
> I told you what science is.  Peer-reviewed scientific journals, remember?



It is science, honey. It's reporting from those same peer-reviewed journals. But those are not available on line, and the information is over both of our heads. 

So we use reputable sources, like the EPA link [which is not a blog], to show you what scientists say. 



> ....  Show us your rebuttal of what has been posted from one poster after another.





> When discussing science, I only consider the science.  There is no point in rebutting an opinion or belief.



Well, no, you don't consider the science at all, and you certainly aren't relying on peer reviewed journals for your opinions on the subject. You don't discuss. You just repeat "correlation is not causation" and "show us the science" over and over again. 

Pay attention. Rebut what has been posted with science. Show us the science that supports your claims.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > That isn't true.  I've seen links to news stories, blogs, opinions, etc. from you and thunder-something.
> ...


It's quite sad that you cannot even comprehend what I've written.  And, I didn't use too complicated vocabulary.

You really do need to know the basics, serious basics, of science.

I understand that you are hesitant to believe me but I have to think you know someone in your life who is a scientist.

Ask them what science is.  I explained what publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals are, but to save your scrolling finger, again.  Peer-reviewed science is an analysis of the science presented for publication - hypothesis and/or valid scientific question, method, procedures, data, results, conclusions, and problems addressed and recommendations.

That is science.  Not a blog, not an item from the BBC, not an opinion or op-ed, etc.

When you want to discuss science, do so.  If not, for the good of science and scientific integrity, stay the hell away.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Several years ago, some dumbass posted a list of "scientists" who doubted AGW. When that list was investigated, it included lab techs, dentists, ObGyn's and other such "scientists". If that's how you're defining scientist, then yeah, you're a scientist. 

Now. 

Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGW. 

Thanks. I look forward to reading them.


----------



## gslack (Nov 2, 2011)

Spamming the same 2 or 3 studies using altered link descriptions is dishonest as well as misleading troll.....

The first one is to an OOPS! page.. I warned you before about hotlinking.. People don't like their bandwidth sucked by a leeching forum spammer.. Keep it up and your service provider will take issue..

The next 4 go to the exact same page...

And the rest all go to the same 2-3 places all of them stating nothing that addresses the question he asked you...

okay so tell me what activist group is feeding you this shit? Please inform me so I can take issue with them directly for using scientific papers (or abstracts of them) to make false claims... This has been scripted for you we both know it.. I recognize an automated scripting job when I see it, its my job to spot shit just like this. You either had it handed to you or used a service to get it for you...

Best to tell me tool, you know I am anal enough to find out on my own....

Ya see trollingblunderedtheeunichSATkonradsocks, All I gotta do is repost the same thing and it realy pretty much tells the tale again... Thats how truth works...

Now please remove all the duplicate links you fraud...


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Several years ago, some dumbass posted a list of "scientists" who doubted AGW. When that list was investigated, it included lab techs, dentists, ObGyn's and other such "scientists". If that's how you're defining scientist, then yeah, you're a scientist.
> 
> Now.
> 
> ...


Ummm, there is nothing to rebut.  There is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you can provide any science to back up your belief, then do so.

If not, you just have beliefs.

Logic does not allow an unsupported claim to stand true until shown to be untrue.  That's the ignorance of demanding that a negative to be proved.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.


----------



## gslack (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.



Please behave and act like an adult or I will go about doing what I do best again make this identity cry too junior..

Gender attacks are childish, and tell on the poster... Follow me socks? Sure you do...


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.


When there actually is something to rebut, I will.

All there is are unsupported claims.  Cheap talk.

(I assume "AGS" is a typo.)

An unsupported claim does not stand true simply because no one can 'prove' it untrue.

If that were the case, then my saying that you are a moron is true until you 'prove' that it is not true.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.
> ...



There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused. 

Please rebut those studies. 

Thanks.


----------



## gslack (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Please post your peer reviewed rebuttals of AGS. Thanks.
> ...



I have reviewed your findings and agree with you on all points...

So that's two reviews that correlate your hypotheses. I believe he must be a moron then..


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Then show them.  Just what I have asked you to do over and over again.

Your typed words do nothing to support your claim.  It's just cheap talk.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

I'm not making a claim.

I'm asking you to provide the science to support your claim.

Thanks.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> I'm not making a claim.
> 
> I'm asking you to provide the science to support your claim.
> 
> Thanks.


Yes you did make a claim.

Here it is:  "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

My claim is that there is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Your asking me to prove something does not exist is an idiotic request.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming 

Is that true?


----------



## gslack (Nov 2, 2011)

JUst so you trollingedtheblunderoldsocksSATonaeunich clones know, I did just a few minutes of poking around with a couple workmates and found out a few things already..

First the term... Astroturfing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Astroturfing"

_"Astroturfing is a form of advocacy in support of a political, organizational, or corporate agenda, designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political and/or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity&#8212;a politician, political group, product, service or event. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.
Astroturfers attempt to manipulate public opinion by both overt ("outreach", "awareness", etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual promoting a personal agenda, or highly organized professional groups with money from large corporations, unions, non-profits, or activist organizations. Very often, the efforts are conducted by political consultants who also specialize in opposition research. Beneficiaries are not "grass root" campaigners but distant organizations that orchestrate such campaigns."_

I think I should look further don't you?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming
> 
> Is that true?


Provide them, I and others will examine them, and see if the science supports your interpretation of what you think they say.

Otherwise your saying that's what they say and that they exist is cheap talk.

It's called burden.  It's yours.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming
> ...



Your burden, at the moment, is to answer yes or no to my question.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


How would I answer a question with an unsupported premise?

Here's a similar question for you:  Why do you hate America?


----------



## gslack (Nov 2, 2011)

Seems astroturfing by environmental groups in Japan has become a real problem and looks like they may have legislation in the works against it...But thats later...LOL


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You must not understand the meaning of the word similar. Your question is an attempt at a personal attack. I am soliciting information from you. 

I believe that there are numerous peer reviewed journal articles showing a link between human activity and global warming. 

I am asking you to confirm or deny that there are numerous peer reviewed journal articles supporting a link between human activity and global warming. 

Alternatively, say "I don't know". 

Then we'll move on.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


You are "soliciting" a yes or no from me with a question that has an unsupported premise.  That premise is in actually your unsupported claim:  "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."


Asking questions with unsupported premises is not a clever way to attempt to shift your burden.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> You are "soliciting" a yes or no from me with a question that has an unsupported premise.  That premise is in actually your unsupported claim:  "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."
> 
> Asking questions with unsupported premises is not a clever way to attempt to shift your burden.



At this point, we are not discussing the credibility of the articles. We are discussing their existence. [I made that clear in an earlier post.] Don't be nervous. 

Are there such articles? Again, I am not asking if these article prove what they purport to prove. I am asking if such articles exist. 

Again, _yes_, _no_, or _I don't know_ are the choices.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > You are "soliciting" a yes or no from me with a question that has an unsupported premise.  That premise is in actually your unsupported claim:  "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."
> ...


It is not my burden to show them nor is it my burden to tell you they exist.

I will say, I have seen no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You claim you have.  You want me to provide them, though.  The burden is not mine.  Cheap talk does not stand true if someone doesn't shoulder your burden, either.

That would be like me saying that you are a moron.  You, naturally, would ask me to support that claim.  Then, I would ask you if you admit that there are posts of yours clearly demonstrating that you are a moron.

Or, do you still want me to prove a void?

How old are you?  I am just curious - no offense.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> It is not my burden to show them nor is it my burden to tell you they exist.
> 
> I will say, I have seen no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
> 
> ...



I am not asking you to show them to me. I am asking you to admit that they exist. 

Do these articles exist? 

_Yes_, _no_, or _I don't know_ are the choices.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It is not my burden to show them nor is it my burden to tell you they exist.
> ...


Do you admit that there are posts of yours that clearly demonstrate that you are a moron?

Yes, No, or I don't know are the choices.







BTW.  Have you noticed that you have yet to discuss actual science?


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Do such peer reviewed articles exist?

Yes, no, or I don't know are the choices.

Please, no more attempts to distract and divert. 

Do such articles exist?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


The fact that you cannot even recognize shifting the burden is amazing.

When you can understand the basics, try again.

State something, support it.  That's the starting gate.  It always is.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> The fact that you cannot even recognize shifting the burden is amazing.
> 
> When you can understand the basics, try again.
> 
> State something, support it.  That's the starting gate.  It always is.



So you've been gassing on in this thread for days and for pages, and you don't even know if there are peer reviewed articles that claim that global warming is human caused. 

That is an incredible admission.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you cannot even recognize shifting the burden is amazing.
> ...




I haven't admitted to much of anything.

You aren't ready to discuss science.  That can't be more clear.

When you are, you know what to do.


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming
> 
> Is that true?



if there are, you should have no trouble linking one up i would think.

is that true?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

del said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming
> ...


I was starting to think I was entering the Twilight Zone, here.


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > That isn't true.  I've seen links to news stories, blogs, opinions, etc. from you and thunder-something.
> ...



you have two heads and neither one is capable of critical thinking?

bummer, dude.

i'd get a refund.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 2, 2011)

gslack said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



By golly, G-vid, I do believe that you and Sis are peers.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



LOL. Sis, you have been there a long time, haven't you noticed?


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You haven't admitted to much, that is true. 

The reason for that? You don't know much. 

I've seen some excellent posts in this thread, from folks who clearly understand science. Your answers to their posts are non-responsive, every single time. 

I've asked you some really simple questions, such as "Is the Earth getting warmer", and "Are there articles that purport to show that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity", and you wiggle like a worm on a hook. 

So, your answer to "Are there journal articles-peer reviewed journal articles-on human caused global warming", your answer is "I don't know".

OK, I'll fill you in. 

There are many such peer reviewed articles. 

So my next questions is, can you show any peer reviewed articles rebutting AGW? 

I look forward to your answer.


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



deeply religious people, like SAT, are sometimes a little irrational about their beliefs.

forgive them, they know not what they do.


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



now you're just lying, as well as failing to provide any proof of your claim(s).

jesus kills a kitten by slowly increasing its core temperature every time you lie.

did you know that, SAT?

why do you hate kittens?


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



It's interesting to see our arguments co-opted by the know nothings. You are all strategy, and no substance. 

The OP features a global warming denier who has been forced to eat crow. 

But that's still not good enough for you. 

You still want more proof. 

You claim he's not really a skeptic. 

Your belief is faith based, Del. Not science based. That's religion.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

del said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I'm lying that there are such articles?


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



put up or shut up, fuckwit.

i've claimed nothing.

thanks for playing


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



you're lying when you say si modo's answer was "i don't know"


you're not particularly bright, are you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 2, 2011)

del said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming
> ...



Argument: Human carbon emissions have dramatically accelerated global warming - Debatepedia

*A list of scientific societies and other scientific organizations and their statements concerning AGW.*

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

del said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



If you're trying to help si, post some peer-reviewed denier articles. 

Thanks.


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



that's nice rock head.

reread the thread and see where you've failed


again


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Dayum!  It wants me to prove a void again!


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Good grief.

Ask for science and you get blogs.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You cannot read. I'm asking for a link to a peer reviewed article that rebuts AGW. 

I'm not asking you to prove it yourself. 

Do you grasp the difference?


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Show us how it's done. Please link to a peer reviewed journal article that rebuts AGW. 

Thanks.


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



if you're trying to support your claim, i'd suggest you post a link to a peer reviewed study that says what you claim it says, rather than persisting in your rather puerile demands that others do your work for you.

the only thing i'm trying to do is amuse myself, and you've been good for a couple of minutes of diversion.

unfortunately, you just don't have the intellectual horsepower to hold my attention. you remind me of another poster here who makes claims and then attempts to baffle the board with bullshit.

thanks. it's been real. 

have a pleasant evening


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


And you are still asking a negative be proved.

Amazing.

You are a moron.  Until you prove that you are not, it stands as true.


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



blogs aren't science! 

hide the children


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Rebut what?


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



i see what you did there.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Oh, the childrennnnnnnn!

I'm expecting Hitler or the Nazis to pop in any second now.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

i'd love to hang around, but bill nye the science guy is going to demonstrate cold fusion, and i'd hate to miss it.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

del said:


> you're lying when you say si modo's answer was "i don't know"
> 
> 
> you're not particularly bright, are you?



Her responses were an endless litany of "You say that there are". In other words, she doesn't know if there are or not. I told the truth. It made you mad. For some reason. 

What I just did is called reading. It's more than just calling words. It means understanding the words. 



Old Rocks said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



This is science, Si. You need to look at this link from Old Rocks. This is not an interpretation from a reporter. This is a joint statement from scientists. Scientists. Look at it.


----------



## Cuyo (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.  

It's kinda the same conversation we had a few weeks ago, though he goes at it differently than I do.


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



and with every bit as much success


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Si modo said:


> And you are still asking a negative be proved.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> You are a moron.  Until you prove that you are not, it stands as true.



No, no, no. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking that you link to an article. You are not capable of proving anything, and I wouldn't dream of further taxing your abilities. I'm just asking you to provide a link.


----------



## SAT (Nov 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.
> 
> It's kinda the same conversation we had a few weeks ago, though he goes at it differently than I do.



There ya go. Thanks very much. You are correct. And somehow, you figured that out with no effort at all. You just read, and you got it. I believe we've established which "side" has the brainpower in this discussion. 

As for my going at it differently, you are correct. I go at it from the position of someone who is used to dealing with children who have oppositional defiant disorder and have very limited reasoning skills. I use short, simple sentences to help them see their thinking errors and come to a reasonable conclusion. 

The kids get it quicker than this crew. 

Your method is, I'm sure, far more elegant.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > And you are still asking a negative be proved.
> ...


I'll type slowly....

My claim is that the science does *not* demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Notice the bolded word?

See that?

That indicates a negative.

You want me to prove that void.



So, you are a fucking moron.  Until you prove that you are not a fucking moron, you are a fucking moron.

QED.


----------



## Cuyo (Nov 2, 2011)

del said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I eventually threw my hands up at it, and this guy will eventually, too.  

That's kinda the way things work around here.  Participants on your side of this "Debate" (which doesn't exist outside of right wing American punditry) can always depend on 5 or 6 more of their "Teammates" showing up to assist them in ignoring the overwhelming consensus of science and attacking the "Warmist" member.  

I enjoy talking to Modo, but these threads always seem to be a magnet for a certain type of jackass who will claim the science is some sort of seedy smoking-man conspiracy.

As manny would say, whatcha gonna do.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


And, as I said a few weeks ago, science is not done by vote.

If you want to understand the logic of scientific discovery, I highly recommend this.  It is an easy to understand summary of the process, logic, and community.

I really do hope you read it.

I hope everyone who wants to discuss science reads it.  I'm not being snarky, either.  I think this entire fiasco with politics in the sciences would be better off if more understood just the basics.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 2, 2011)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


Deeply retarded people, like del, are always extremely irrational about their cultic beliefs.

Kick their asses, they're the deluded tools of a conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...







Interesting how a desire to learn more is suddenly a "crime against humanity".  Oh well cult boy, stay with your cult talking points.  You are losing the argument with the regular folks because you all resort to BS like that.

And for that we thank you! (as Tosh would say!)


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 3, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> In a related story, the number of laboratory experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures and acidifies the ocean is still zero.



Number of laboratory experiments showing that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO

Number of physicists who doubt that the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium in its core - ZERO.

Wow - those physicists must not be real scientists!


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Can anyone prove the scientist in the OP was a skeptic?  Oh, and for SAT's benefit, "prove" means link to articles and statements of his, not just saying "Yes, he was a skeptic."


----------



## gslack (Nov 3, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > In a related story, the number of laboratory experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures and acidifies the ocean is still zero.
> ...



Konrad.... please stop with the clones already..


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

gslack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...







Actually poopy is a spidey toober clone.


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > In a related story, the number of laboratory experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures and acidifies the ocean is still zero.
> ...








Not much on history are you?  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icCM3MvlXks]Russian Tsar Hydrogen Bomb Explosion - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 3, 2011)

He's better on history than you are, dingleberry;

A23A


----------



## gslack (Nov 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



And spidey toober was konrads clone lol


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 3, 2011)

G-vig is the perfect example of what eating lead paint at an early age does to people.


----------



## gslack (Nov 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> G-vig is the perfect example of what eating lead paint at an early age does to people.



You are the perfect example of a sellout... Ain't that right windy?


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > G-vig is the perfect example of what eating lead paint at an early age does to people.
> ...






Ummm, olfraud is actually a political whore and nothing but a whore.  he works for a notoriously polluting company (EVRAZ) in a notoriously polluting industry (steel manufacturing) and he has the gall to tell us how to live  He's the epitome of what he claims to rail against.  Us shills?  Nope it's that fraud all the way!  He's the shill and he proves it every minute of every day that he works for that company.


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> He's better on history than you are, dingleberry;
> 
> A23A






Oh goody a fraud from Penn State.  BFD, Mann et al are crooks and pseudo scientists.  I wipe my bottom with their papers (said with a heavy French accent)


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


No shit?  He works for EVRAZ?


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



.

Yup!  How's that for irony!


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Obviously even hacks have their price.


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...







Yes, I imagine he is more the two bit street whore kind of hooker.  He's definately low class.  I love your AVI BTW!


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Thanks!  It's getting close to turkey time.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > He's better on history than you are, dingleberry;
> ...



And you are going to present a lecture to the AGU this fall demonstrating the error of their papers, correct? We have only been waiting for three years now for you to do that. 

But, since you stated that you are a fellow of the Royal Society, a presentation there will also do.


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Yes I will as soon as they stop selling their soul to the devil.  I'm sure you don't realize the process for getting a paper submitted for consideration but here is a snippet, you receive an invitation to submit a paper on a subject they assign you.  You write it and send it in.  They review it and say yea or nay.   Some pay to play Journals will allow you to be a presenter for a price.  Something right up your alley..right MENSA BOY!


----------



## SAT (Nov 3, 2011)

Si modo said:


> My claim is that the science does *not* demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
> 
> Notice the bolded word?
> 
> ...



Si, you know the words, but you're tone deaf. Throughout the thread, you've dredged up something that sounds "sciency" to your ears, but you apply it like someone who does not have a clue. 

It's possible that you're trying to talk about the null hypothesis, but who knows? Certainly not you. Anyway, here's the rebuttal to that one: 

&#8216;The null hypothesis says warming is natural&#8217;&#8212;An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist


----------



## SAT (Nov 3, 2011)

Si modo said:


> My claim is that the science does *not* demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
> 
> Notice the bolded word?
> 
> ...



Si, you know the words, but you're tone deaf. Throughout the thread, you've dredged up something that sounds "sciency" to your ears, but you apply it like someone who does not have a clue. 

It's possible that you're trying to talk about the null hypothesis, but who knows? Certainly not you. Anyway, here's the rebuttal to that one: 

&#8216;The null hypothesis says warming is natural&#8217;&#8212;An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > My claim is that the science does *not* demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
> ...


What's your background?  Your education?  What field of science do you work in?


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...







Phrenology!  Crusader Frank has them pegged!


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > My claim is that the science does *not* demonstrate any significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
> ...


No.  I am asking you to back up your claim, fuckwit.

Here is your claim:  "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

Trust me, it's not rocket science.


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...








It is to him!  Trust me he's still astonished that phones can magically transmit voices from one side of the block to the other!


----------



## SAT (Nov 3, 2011)

Si modo said:


> No.  I am asking you to back up your claim, fuckwit.
> 
> Here is your claim:  "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."
> 
> ...



Calm down. 

We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused. You can't be that deep in a state of denial. You don't have to agree with those studies to know that they exist. 

What we're talking about now is you linking to something that rebuts those studies. 

And again, if that link doesn't address your word string "You want me to prove that void", then have you got another way to say it?


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


You can pretend this post doesn't exist, SAT, but your desperate wishful thinking alters reality not one whit.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused.


Then you won't have any trouble linking to any of them, will you?

Oh, wait...you haven't yet.  You just keep weaseling out of it.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > No.  I am asking you to back up your claim, fuckwit.
> ...


Here is your claim:  "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."

Back it up.

It's not rocket science.

But, until you do back it up, your claim is utter bullshit.

That's how it works.







(I hope you realize how idiotic you are looking.  Just so you know.)


----------



## SAT (Nov 3, 2011)

daveman said:


> What's your background?  Your education?  What field of science do you work in?





> You can pretend this post doesn't exist, SAT, but your desperate wishful thinking alters reality not one whit.



I did ignore it, because it's usually pointless to put your credentials out in a discussion like this. I've had people argue with me about what happens at my job, when they've got no clue about it. 



daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > We are surely in agreement that there are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused.
> ...



Yes, it's tough to find something that meets all of Si's demands-which is Si's game. 

Are you joining her in claiming that there is no peer reviewed science on global warming that purports to show AGW?


----------



## bornright (Nov 3, 2011)

I am just a farmer that believes everything in nature runs in cycles therefore I do doubt the global warming theory.  The global warming theory is no more than a theory of what is going on from collected facts.  Unfortunately many times that data is flawed....not neccessarily deliberately but in many cases through ignorance.  The temperatures were according to your study done near or in cities.  You do not need to be a scientist to realize that the concrete and asphalt draws and absorbs heat.  In other words the further away from the large cities with all the concrete the tempatures would be cooler.  If you doubt me feel free when the temperature is in the 90's lay on your grass for 5 min. then go lay on a concrete slab for 5 min..  Please do not protest to do away with concrete buildings and roads.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > What's your background?  Your education?  What field of science do you work in?
> ...


Game?

This is no game.

This is just plain old simple logic.

So, as you cannot back up your claim - "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused." - it's false.

QED.

When or if you back it up, we move on.

Until then, your resistance to simple logic is beyond boring.


----------



## SAT (Nov 3, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes, anytime I spend with someone as pathetic as yourself harms my image. I agree. But human personality interests me, and you're a really amazing case. For example, your saying that "[my] claim is utter bullshit" unless I give you a link is uniquely abnormal. KWIM?

Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


I, now, completely understand how simple logic - making a claim and supporting it - is "abnormal" to you.

Pssst.  Science is never done by vote.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



*a consensus statement on global warming*

A consensus? LOL!


----------



## SAT (Nov 3, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Well, there's the difference between us. I find your resistance to simple logic to be absolutely fascinating. 

Reality is not dependent upon my posting a link. Is that over your head? 

We both know that the Journal of Climatology exists. I don't have to give you a link to make it real, and if I don't post a link, that doesn't make the Journal of Climatology go away. 

We both know that the Journal of Climatology has posted many articles of the type I describe. 

Please don't let your anger blind you to this-I'm not asking that you agree with that POV. Just that such articles exist.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 3, 2011)

Grilled Crow Breast

Breast out crows the same way you would a dove. Soak the breast
in water with a tablespoon of salt for 30 minutes to draw out some
of the blood. Marinate the breast for 20 minutes in Dale's Steak
Sauce or other soy based sauce. Red wine also works well but
needs to soak overnight.
Drain off the marinade and place the breast on a hot grill with wet
hickory chips andcook for 10 minutes on each side. Avoid over
cooking as this tends to dry out the meat and toughen it. When
cooked properly the meat cuts and looks like grilled venison.

Line the bottom and sides of the crock pot with slices of potato to
keep the breast from touching the pot. Stack 24 breast which have
been pre-soaked into the pot. Sprinkle one package of onion soup
mix over the breast and add 1/2 cup of water. Cook on high setting
for 2 hours and then reduce to low for 4 hours. The breast will be
very tender done this was. If you like you can also add salt and
pepper to taste and a real onion and diced stalk of celery.

THE CROW ROOST : CROW HUNTING : CROW SHOOTING : CROW RECIPES : CROW VIDEOS : GUIDED HUNTS


----------



## SAT (Nov 3, 2011)

Si modo said:


> I, now, completely understand how simple logic - making a claim and supporting it - is "abnormal" to you.
> 
> Pssst.  Science is never done by vote.



We're both abnormal, or we wouldn't be doing this. 

Scientists often develop a consensus about the state of knowledge in a field. You're trotting out every debunked line out there.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > What's your background?  Your education?  What field of science do you work in?
> ...


Yet you expect that your demands for others' credentials be met.

Hypocrite.

Oh, and I'd say you have no particular education, training, or experience in any field of science.  You really don't seem to understand science at all.


SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


She never claimed that, and neither have I.  We just expect you to back up your claims.

So far, you have failed.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.


A statement is not science.  A statement is opinion.  

You really are not very bright.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 3, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.
> ...



Anyone who claims a consensus is science unmasks himself as an ignoramus.  If he claims to be a scientist, then he's a fraud.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


You refuse to back up your claim.

And still do.

Your claim, therefore, means nothing.

You are not doing well so far.

I would say that you aren't out of the gate, but I suspect you can't even find the gate.



And, I predict your next post to me will still have nothing of substance - you will still refuse to back up your claim.

Prove me wrong.  You know you want to.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Rocks posted a consensus statement on global warming that absolutely is "the science". You rejected it. Now you're reduced to insisting that there are no journal articles on AGW.
> ...


I've told the kid twice what science is.

So, obviously, he has no interest in discussing science.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


He's been programmed.  That's all.  He's a mindless sheep.


----------



## daveman (Nov 3, 2011)

Si modo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



Of course not.  He's an AGW cultist.  They don't do science.  They do religion.


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...








Here is a definition of consensus science.....As you can see it is a recent term and bears no relation to actual science.  Now here's a question for you.  The claim from the warmists is that if it gets warmer it will get colder.  If it gets warmer it will get hotter, if it gets hotter it will rain less, if it gets hotter it will rain more.  Do you understand what is occuring here?

Do you understand the very scientific term "Unfalsifiable Hypothesis".  I suggest you look it up then get back to us.  Then we'll find out if you're just another intellectually dishonest troll or not.


Consensus science is a term used to describe a theory or claim believed to be founded on insufficient evidence or research, and to owe its support primarily to popular opinion. The term may also be used by people wishing to revive a theory that is generally believed to be false, but that they believe has not been proven so. People using the term believe that the exclusive or primary use of scientific consensus constitutes an appeal to authority or appeal to the majority, and that the underlying evidence should be evaluated instead.

Note that the term scientific consensus refers to the actual majority agreement of a particular field, while the term consensus science refers to the use of that consensus as a primary means to demonstrate, establish, or promote a scientific hypothesis or theory.

One who perceives a scientific theory to be supported by both scientific consensus and conclusive evidence would not consider it "consensus science", because a supporting argument can be easily formulated using the existing conclusive evidence without relying primarily on consensus for support. The term "consensus science" does not refer simply to a scientific theory which has a consensus, but rather to one which uses that consensus as a primary support.



Consensus science - Definition | WordIQ.com


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...







No, the Journal of Climatology has published papers based on computer models.  I have yet to see one scrap of empirical data in a paper on AGW.


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I, now, completely understand how simple logic - making a claim and supporting it - is "abnormal" to you.
> ...







Nope.  It is a very recent trend, beginning circa 1990.  Before that scientists actually did real work, well good ones still do.  Good scientists laugh at "consensus science".


----------



## del (Nov 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



does this mean that the earth isn't the center of the universe?


----------



## westwall (Nov 3, 2011)

del said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...







Ohhh geez Del, now you're asking some tricky questions!


----------



## Si modo (Nov 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Previously I gave the kid a link to a summary of Popper's philosophy on the logic of it.  I doubt he read it.

But, indeed the models are unfalsifiable - there exists no data set, either real or hypothetical - that falsifies the model.

The foremost litmus test on whether something is scientific is it must be falsifiable. That is the demarcation between science and pseudo-science.

Thus, the models are not scientific models.

Good luck with seeing if the poster grasps that.

I doubt it; he can't even grasp simple burden, etc..


----------



## del (Nov 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



copernicus is going to be bullshit.


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...








I've allways admired Popper, reminds me of John Rawls in many ways.  And I agree with you, but for a different reason, they don't care to know the truth, they could understand if they chose too.  They _choose_ not to.


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

del said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...






Just don't bring up Brahe...deal?


----------



## gslack (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT runs on the assumption science requires consensus. The truth is the only thing that requires a consensus is public opinion. 

No real scientist (the real kind not the ones who seek out press coverage and make dramatic statements) sets out in research or study in the hopes all other scientists will agree with him or his theory. A true scientist seeks the truth, truth in the truest sense. Whether or not another scientist agrees with him may feed his ego and offer some extra satisfaction, but that was not his reason for doing it.. Only ego-driven people forsake scientific truth to further themselves or a theory. Those types can be in any field including academics and science.

I have worked with several PHD's over the years mostly in psychology and military history, and in all the conversations I can remember with any of them regarding this or that theory or contention, I never once heard them speak of consensus dictating its validity. In fact the only time I here about consensus is when we talk about AGW theory..

Consensus is a PR move. This to give the impression of there being no doubt. This allowed to run wild will eventually effect the science and scientific communities themselves. As we have already seen, there are many scientists who never bothered to check the math, and many other aspects for many years simply because there seemed no reason to doubt something that was apparently so well agreed upon. Thankfully many have begun to actually DO the work and find there is a lot of holes. 

Whenever someone tries to brow beat me with "consensus" especially in politics, science, or social problems I immediately start to get my guard up... Im being sold something through peer pressure... I didn't like in high school and I don't like it now..


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

gslack said:


> SAT runs on the assumption science requires consensus. The truth is the only thing that requires a consensus is public opinion.
> 
> No real scientist (the real kind not the ones who seek out press coverage and make dramatic statements) sets out in research or study in the hopes all other scientists will agree with him or his theory. A true scientist seeks the truth, truth in the truest sense. Whether or not another scientist agrees with him may feed his ego and offer some extra satisfaction, but that was not his reason for doing it.. Only ego-driven people forsake scientific truth to further themselves or a theory. Those types can be in any field including academics and science.
> 
> ...







Whaaaa?  You're not a lemming?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Sadly, I think you have a point - it is willful ignorance.  The odd thing is, they don't care if they look like morons.  That's always puzzled me.

I'm very thankful to my research advisor while in grad school.  While we were all overloaded with actual research work, he stressed the importance of the philosophy of science - old school guy.  I hated it at the time - philosophy was one of the last things I wanted to study, for craps sake - but am thankful for it now.  Because of Popper, the methodology in the sciences is as protected from human and other influences (ie. political) as is feasibly possible.  This revolution started in the 30s and was complete within a year or two.  The entire community adopted it with open arms.

Anyway, I wish these sorts of basics were required material in high school.  How things would be different if more non-science folks knew this information (both 'sides', too).  There should never be 'sides' in science.

Popper is rolling over in his grave.

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't care the outcome of this topic.  If the science shows a significant influence of man made CO2, then so be it.  But, give the actual science a chance.  The only 'side' I am on is the side of science.  The irony is, that makes many of us 'deniers' of science.  (Only to the ignorant and/or dishonest, though.)


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 4, 2011)

LOL.  

There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.

There is a consensus that GHGs increase heat on the surface of the earth in accordance with the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is a consensus that we are rapidly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

There is a consensus among those with a brain that Sis is a lying political troll. All that flap yap without a single referance to real science is just deflection from the fact that you cannot present a single bit of real science to support your political postitions.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.
> 
> There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.
> 
> ...


Yes, there is a consensus about evolution.

But, that certainly isn't any valid support for it; science is.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 4, 2011)

Yes, science gives valid support for evolution just as it gives valid support for AGW. Your flap yap gives support for nothing other than the existing order.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, science gives valid support for evolution just as it gives valid support for AGW.
> 
> ....


Then give us the science that indicates the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Thanks.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 4, 2011)

OK, dumbass. You can show that CO2 has contributed significantly to warming and cooling in the geological past. Now, would you care to explain to me why CO2 we put into the atmosphere should not cause the same effect? Are we somehow creating magical CO2 that doesn't have the same effect as the CO2 in the past?

A23A

We know the absorption bands for CO2 and CH4, as well as the other GHGs that we are creating. We have data from satellites that show less energy being emitted from the earth in those bands. Therefore, we are retaining the heat that would have otherwise been emitted.

We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, the amount of CH4 by over 150%. And we are already seeing the effects of that. We have put GHGs into that atmosphere that have no natural analogs, some that are many thousands of times as efficient GHG as CO2.

The Phd physcists at the AIP, the Phd geophysicists at the AGU, and the Phd geologists at the GSA have all stated that the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere have created the warming that we are presently seeing. And that we will see it increase even further as we continue to load the atmosphere with GHGs. They have stated the science conscerning how the GHGs work in many of the articles that I have posted. Articles that you ignored, even though they have been from peer reviewed publications. Science is definately not your strong suit, Sis.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, dumbass. You can show that CO2 has contributed significantly to warming and cooling in the geological past. Now, would you care to explain to me why CO2 we put into the atmosphere should not cause the same effect? Are we somehow creating magical CO2 that doesn't have the same effect as the CO2 in the past?
> 
> A23A
> 
> ...



So what's the magnitude?


----------



## gslack (Nov 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, dumbass. *You can show that CO2 has contributed significantly to warming and cooling in the geological past.* Now, would you care to explain to me why CO2 we put into the atmosphere should not cause the same effect? Are we somehow creating magical CO2 that doesn't have the same effect as the CO2 in the past?
> 
> A23A
> 
> ...



So which is it? Did it contribute to warming or cooling? And one more thing, contribute is not a cause....The sooner you start thinking without the faith, the better you will be...


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, dumbass. You can show that CO2 has contributed significantly to warming and cooling in the geological past. Now, would you care to explain to me why CO2 we put into the atmosphere should not cause the same effect? Are we somehow creating magical CO2 that doesn't have the same effect as the CO2 in the past?
> 
> A23A
> 
> ...


Once again, I wasted my time watching that.  I watched it last year and the year before.  But, I will give him kudos for talking plainly for the masses.  Anything that brings science more accessible is good, except when it's not actually science.

You, on the other hand, really should try to understand the concept of falsifiability and its relation to science.  There are recent posts on exactly that.

As a footnote, he acknowledges that the state of the science does not allow for any quantification of the magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming, yet he concludes that the magnitude is the only significance.  Very odd.  An assumption that leads to the desired conclusion.  And, that is yet another issue with the IPCC models, along with the fundamental lack of falsifiability.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si, the Journal of Climatology is a research journal. You have to pay to read it online, they don't give it away for free. 

Please don't let your anger blind you to this-I'm not asking that you agree with that POV. Just that such articles exist. 

Let's get even simpler. Do you agree that there is such a publication as the Journal of Climatology? 



Old Rocks said:


> LOL.
> 
> There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.
> 
> ...



What he said. 

I've tried the simplest of questions, starting with "Is the Earth getting hotter?" That question was met with various expressions of fear, including Si sourly admitting that the Earth has gotten hotter over the last 130 years. 

I tried to point out that there might be a reason that there's a correlation between package delivery and global warming. That was met with fear as well. 

Now I can't even get Si to admit that there are research papers purporting to show evidence of AGW. She says if I can't post a link to them, they don't exist. She thinks reality is dependent on my posting a link.  

Somehow I don't think Popper would be too proud of that. KWIM?


----------



## wirebender (Nov 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.
> 
> There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.



But there are holes in the theory big enough to fly a C5A through.



Old Rocks said:


> There is a consensus that GHGs increase heat on the surface of the earth in accordance with the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is a consensus that we are rapidly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.



And yet, as those so called GHG's increase, there has been no warming for more than a decade now and it doesn't seem as if there is likely any coming.  When the consensus view doesn't match the observed reality, the consensus view becomes highly suspect.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

daveman said:


> Of course not.  He's an AGW cultist.  They don't do science.  They do religion.



That shoe would be on your foot.  

Regarding the state of the evidence, the EPA link points out that the processes involved in global warming are well understood. Is that sentence understood by the deniers? Do you understand that they are working from an existing body of knowledge? 

Here's a rebuttal to the "there is no evidence" claim. 

&#8216;There is no evidence&#8217;&#8212;Yes, there is | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Here's a response to the complaint about computer models. 

&#8216;Climate models are unproven&#8217;&#8212;Actually, GCM&#8217;s have many confirmed successes under their belts | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

wirebender said:


> When the consensus view doesn't match the observed reality, the consensus view becomes highly suspect.



Yes, and when the consensus view matches the observed reality, the deniers view becomes highly suspect.


----------



## wirebender (Nov 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> We know the absorption bands for CO2 and CH4, as well as the other GHGs that we are creating. We have data from satellites that show less energy being emitted from the earth in those bands. Therefore, we are retaining the heat that would have otherwise been emitted.



We also know that the emission bands are the precise opposite of the absorption bands indicating that no energy is being trapped by so called greenhouse gasses.  As to satellites showing that less energy is being emitted from the earth in those bands, I call bullshit.  I have provided snapshots of those satellite data and they show no decrease in energy in those bands even though the concentration of so called GHG's has increased.  The only thing that showed less energy as a result of so called GHG's was the models.  Once again, you guys are accepting the output of models as actual data.  That is the primary reason you can't be taken seriously.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > We know the absorption bands for CO2 and CH4, as well as the other GHGs that we are creating. We have data from satellites that show less energy being emitted from the earth in those bands. Therefore, we are retaining the heat that would have otherwise been emitted.
> ...



&#8216;The satellites show cooling&#8217;&#8212;No, they don&#8217;t | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 4, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.
> ...


LOLOLOLOL....ha!....figured you were an evolution denier too, wiredwrong. Your anti-science myths and misinformation about evolution are as ridiculous as your braindead myths about global warming. In this area as well, you have no idea what is going on.






wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > There is a consensus that GHGs increase heat on the surface of the earth in accordance with the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. There is a consensus that we are rapidly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.
> ...



And here's your braindead myths about global warming, right on cue. Don't you ever get tired of lying your stupid ass off all the time, wiredwrong? All you ever do is endlessly regurgitate the same old, tired, long-since-debunked denier cult lies over and over again.

*NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration*
July 28, 2010
(government publication - free to reproduce)

*The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the &#8220;active-weather&#8221; layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth&#8217;s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

&#8220;For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,&#8221; said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. &#8220;The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming.&#8221;






Ten Indicators of a Warming World. (Credit: NOAA)

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

&#8220;Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,&#8221; said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. &#8220;When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.&#8221;

While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.

&#8220;The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,&#8221; said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA&#8217;s National Climatic Data Center. &#8220;Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.&#8221;

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at NOAA Climate Services. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.

State of the Climate is published as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and is edited by D.S. Arndt, M.O. Baringer, and M.R. Johnson. The full report and an online media packet with graphics is available online: BAMS Annual State of the Climate.*


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

bolding just oozes credibility

nice job


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

bolding just oozes credibility

nice job


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






Very well said.  I can do naught but agree with you.  Science is suffering due to the unethical, corrupt behavior of a small group of climatologists.  ALL of science suffers because of these quacks.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

del said:


> bolding just oozes credibility
> 
> nice job



Bolding factual information does more for a discussion than tired insults.


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > bolding just oozes credibility
> ...







Explain the significance of a non-falsifiable hypothesis.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 4, 2011)

Warmists Now Claim Global Warming 'Worse than Predicted'?! Climate Depot Responds: 'The scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed' | Climate Depot



> The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers, the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007, polarbearsare thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and is actuallydropping, Cholera and Malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more, deaths due to extreme weather are radically declining, global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows, the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined, the oceans are missing their predicted heat content, big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s, droughts are not historically unusual nor caused by mankind, there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather, scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement, the UN IPCC has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists and scientists continue to dissent at a rapid pace."


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Here, this should help you. 

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...







No, I want you to explain it in your own words then apply it to the global warming hypothesis.  Explain to us how global warming can be responsible for causing less snow to fall in winter and at the same time causing more snow to fall in winter.

Reference the unfalsifiability problem to more rain/less rain, bird migrations longer/bird migrations shorter, Earths rotation to slow down/Earths rotation to speed up, North Atlantic Cyclone activity to increase/North Atlantic Cyclone activity to decrease.

All of these mutually exclusive predictions, and many many more have been claimed by the AGW alarmist camp.  Please explain how the problem of unfalsifiability affects these predictions.  In your own words.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> No, I want you to explain it in your own words then apply it to the global warming hypothesis.  Explain to us how global warming can be responsible for causing less snow to fall in winter and at the same time causing more snow to fall in winter.
> 
> Reference the unfalsifiability problem to more rain/less rain, bird migrations longer/bird migrations shorter, Earths rotation to slow down/Earths rotation to speed up, North Atlantic Cyclone activity to increase/North Atlantic Cyclone activity to decrease.
> 
> All of these mutually exclusive predictions, and many many more have been claimed by the AGW alarmist camp.  Please explain how the problem of unfalsifiability affects these predictions.  In your own words.



You're not in a battle with me. You're in a battle with reality. Those always end with reality on top. 

Global warming causes climate instability. I'm not sure where you're getting the accusations above, but what you're calling contradictions may be that you've heard varying predictions about the effects of climate change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, I want you to explain it in your own words then apply it to the global warming hypothesis.  Explain to us how global warming can be responsible for causing less snow to fall in winter and at the same time causing more snow to fall in winter.
> ...



*Global warming causes climate instability.*

It's true, without the Sun, our climate would be stable.

*may be that you've heard varying predictions about the effects of climate change.*

There's not a consensus?


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

What's Known
What's Likely
What's Uncertain

Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty about where this all leads.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si, the Journal of Climatology is a research journal. You have to pay to read it online, they don't give it away for free.
> 
> Please don't let your anger blind you to this-I'm not asking that you agree with that POV. Just that such articles exist.
> 
> ...


I understand some have to pay for the paper.

But, go ahead and provide the citation that you believe supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of any warming.  I assure you I will be able to inspect the paper.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:
			
		

> I understand some have to pay for the paper.
> 
> But, go ahead and provide the citation that you believe supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of any warming.  I assure you I will be able to inspect the paper.



So you're in agreement that the Journal of Climatology exists. 

Right?


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, I want you to explain it in your own words then apply it to the global warming hypothesis.  Explain to us how global warming can be responsible for causing less snow to fall in winter and at the same time causing more snow to fall in winter.
> ...






How can climate instability cause mutually opposing conditions in the same geographic area.  The accusations above are all peer reviewed papers put forth by the AGW cult.

Here is a short list for you with links to the papers....they are each one side of the same argument.  Published by AGW supporters.  This shows the unfalsifiable nature of AGW "theory".  

Now, in your own words, tell us how we can explain these very problematic papers.  And this is a very small number of what's out there.  And you are correct, I'm not having a battle with you.  You're having a battle with reality, and it's all of your own manufacture.


Amazon rainforests green-up with sunlight in dry season

Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought

Climate change and geomorphological hazards in the eastern European Alps

ingentaconnect Impact of a climate change on avalanche hazard

Effect of global warming on the length-of-day

Ocean bottom pressure changes lead to a decreasing length-of-day in a warming climate


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If those articles read as you say, then it suggests that there's still debate within the scientific community about the effects-but not about the reality of AGW.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


I don't think you even realize how idiotic what you just said is.

What about the falsifiability?  Do you see that inherent problem in all those links?

And, you should read those links.  I doubt you read any of them.  Seven minutes?


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes, that's what I said yesterday. WTF is this woman going on about. She won't even admit that papers exist purporting to show proof of AGW. She keeps saying if I can't give her a link to such papers, that my claims are false. And I said WTF? This woman is nuts, desperate, drunk, or possibly all three. 

You do agree that there is such a publication, and that there are other such publications, right?


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Then we are in the same boat.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


You said you have a paper.

Provide the citation.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


What about the falsifiability?

You didn't read a thing, yet you commented.

Hmmmmm.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes, I took a page from your book. I commented without reading the links.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



No, I didn't say that I had "a paper". I said that such papers exist. You said that unless I could give you a link, they didn't. And I thought


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


You can SAY that all you want.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


I've seen the same tired links for some time, now.

You can assume and say anything you want.  It becomes credible if you actually support it.

Just saying.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming
> 
> Is that true?





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming
> ...





SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > You are "soliciting" a yes or no from me with a question that has an unsupported premise.  That premise is in actually your unsupported claim:  "There are peer reviewed studies showing that the current warming trend is human caused."
> ...





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It is not my burden to show them nor is it my burden to tell you they exist.
> ...





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you cannot even recognize shifting the burden is amazing.
> ...





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...





Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > And you are still asking a negative be proved.
> ...



Here are some of the posts where I simply asked you to agree that there are articles that purport to show proof of AGW.

Over and over, you refused to even admit the existence of such articles. 



Was the problem that you didn't know the meaning of the word "purport"?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > There are many peer-reviewed articles that purport to demonstrate a link between human activity and global warming
> ...


My claim is that there is *no* science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Let's see if you can figure it out.

I even bolded the pertinent word.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



They seem to be _abstracts_. Not the articles. How about that.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


When you provide an abstract, I will look at it.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> My claim is that there is *no* science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
> 
> Let's see if you can figure it out.
> 
> I even bolded the pertinent word.



I see that you realized you got off the beam last night. 

You do admit that there is science that *purports* to show AGW. 

Can you explain why exactly the almost the entire climatology community misunderstands the philosophy of science, while you, a technician, grasp it? 

Any guesses? Conjectures? Theories?


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Oh, another sea change!!!! Last night, you wanted to look at the SCIENCE. Now you're content with a mere abstract. But an abstract won't have the actual DATA, so how are you going to wow us with your skillz? 

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

the stupid is strong in this one.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

del said:


> the stupid is strong in this one.


Amazing.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


So, you think that abstract (and the subsequent paper itself) supports your claim that warming is due to man made CO2.

Stunning.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

del said:


> the stupid is strong in this one.



You haven't made a single post in this thread that was anything _other_ than stupid. Your contribution has been nothing but tired, baseless insults-no useful information, no well-thought out arguments, nothing. Big fat zero.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



THIS is your contribution? More sneering? You asked for the science, you claimed you could read the article if I gave you the information, and you're back in a few minutes with absolutely nothing of substance to say? Talk about epic fail. 

Comment on the SCIENCE. The SCIENCE you demanded has been brought to you. Now say something about the SCIENCE and not about the poster.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 4, 2011)

del said:


> the stupid is strong in this one.



Yeah, we know, everybody is saying that about you. Bold of you though to admit it so forthrightly. Most of the other denier cultists won't admit that they are total retards but you have the courage to be honest. Congratulations on being an honest idiot.


----------



## daveman (Nov 4, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.
> 
> There is a consensus that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on earth as long as there is life here.
> 
> ...


So says the wannabe internet scientist who didn't finish college about the professional working scientist.

Dumbass.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

If she's a professional working scientist, then she does have a case for the sorry state of science.


----------



## daveman (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Of course not.  He's an AGW cultist.  They don't do science.  They do religion.
> ...


Blogs aren't science.  You seem to be incapable of grasping that simple fact.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Well as the abstract does nothing even close to supporting your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming, there is no need to look further.

Ummm, that's the purpose of an abstract, you know.

Do you have anything that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming?


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si, the Journal of Climatology is a research journal. You have to pay to read it online, they don't give it away for free.
> ...



Time to follow through.


----------



## daveman (Nov 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


A complete list of things caused by global warming.

Nothing but fear-mongering by people who operate solely on emotion.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


You've provided nothing on which to follow through.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> My claim is that there is *no* science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.



That's your idiotic claim, all right. A claim that you can't back up in any way. A claim that virtually the entire world scientific community disagrees with, which makes you a certifiable part of the lunatic fringe right up there with the Flat Earth Society screwballs. 

Actually there is lots of such evidence and some of it has been shown to you over and over but you refuse to look at it or acknowledge it. And that is the way you maintain your delusions - you simply don't look at the evidence and instead, keep on denying that it exists as an article of faith in your denier cult dogmas. You are a troll.


----------



## daveman (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > the stupid is strong in this one.
> ...


I see why you're upset.  He's horning in on your schtick.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

> Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and *both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations. From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 197898 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 195398 sea ice trends. Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.*



Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent


----------



## daveman (Nov 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > the stupid is strong in this one.
> ...


Everyone?

I haven't said that.  You're a liar.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





> Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations. From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978&#8211;98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953&#8211;98 sea ice trends. Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.



http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5446/1934.short

Again. I have.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > My claim is that there is *no* science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
> ...


I'm sorry.  I would back it up if it were possible to prove a negative, that is.


----------



## daveman (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> If she's a professional working scientist, then she does have a case for the sorry state of science.


She's getting it right.  You're being an idiot.  You haven't the first clue about how science works.  You've been programmed by your lefty blogs, and you mistake that for independent rational thought.

Good job, asshat.


----------



## daveman (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


You mean besides wishful thinking?  No.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


What part of supporting your claim confuses you so much?

You have not supported your claim.  You can type whatever you want but that is zero support.


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > the stupid is strong in this one.
> ...



well, you sure told me. 

tissue?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 4, 2011)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



But davedumb, you're one of the other denier cult retards I was referring to and you're not intelligent enough to say _anything_ meaningful so you don't count. (Except maybe on your fingers and toes.)


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

> Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations.* From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 197898 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 195398 sea ice trends. *Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.



Again. Do you understand the words in bold? 

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Feel better, now?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> > Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations.* From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 197898 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 195398 sea ice trends. *Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And?


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

del said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Wow, great comeback. You really are an original. At any point do you plan on posting about the topic?


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > > Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations.* From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 197898 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 195398 sea ice trends. *Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.
> ...



Why do you pretend you don't see things? 

I asked you if you understood the words in bold.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...




Why does he (and all of them) pretend he doesn't see things, like scientific evidence? It is called 'being in denial' and it involves a kind of selective blindness and refusal to see. As the saying goes: '*there are none so blind as those who will not see*'. Most of these AGW denier cult cretins are so deep in denial that the crocodiles are nibbling their toes but they remain oblivious.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Didn't we see a link showing that there's a difference between natural and man-made CO2?

Oh, here we go: 

&#8216;The CO2 rise is natural&#8217;&#8212;No skeptical argument has been more definitively disproven | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist



> By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human "fingerprint." What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as "old" carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with "young" oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating -- just as common sense tells us.
> 
> For more of the nitty gritty technicalities straight from the climate scientists, including links to the actual research that established this, visit RealClimate's article on how we know the CO2 is ours.



Here's the article being cited:

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

As it says at the link "Real Climate Science from Real Climate Scientists".


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Ditto that. And they've tried to pretend they're using science to do it.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



RealClimate

Here's the link to the main page.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Normally when one says and they want to know what your point is.

What is your point?

The bolded words do nothing to back up your claim.  I also suggest you try to comprehend the earlier discussion about falsifiability.


----------



## gslack (Nov 4, 2011)

I give SAT credit for one thing, he is a persistent little idiot.. he has no problem looking like a complete moron so long as he gets people to talk to him.. I suppose that can be a good thing in some circles... or not...


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Not necessarily. Sometimes one is trying to hide their failure by pretending not to see. Which is your present situation. 

I've seen deniers who denied the science, but you take it to a whole new level. You don't even see words. 

This sentence is one I'm asking you to read, and to comment on: 

*From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 197898 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 195398 sea ice trends. *

Do you understand what that sentence means? 

Do you understand the meaning of those statistics?

For both, please comment.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

gslack said:


> I give SAT credit for one thing, he is a persistent little idiot.. he has no problem looking like a complete moron so long as he gets people to talk to him.. I suppose that can be a good thing in some circles... or not...


As I said earlier, I have always been perplexed by those who have no problem looking like morons.  For some, they even get a sense of accomplishment from it.  Go figure.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

This sentence is one I'm asking you to read, and to comment on: 

*From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 197898 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 195398 sea ice trends. *

Do you understand what that sentence means? 

Do you understand the meaning of those statistics?

For both, please comment.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?



> Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
> 
> One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.
> 
> ...



This is how we know that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. 

And we know what increased CO2 does in the environment.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now, if only someone had said that it wasn't.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
> ...



Oh, plenty of people have said that it wasn't. You know that. 

So if we're agreed on that, then we also know what increased levels of CO2 do in the atmosphere. 

So we're done. 

Global warming is the result of human activity.


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



no, i should have thought that was obvious even to a towering intellect such as yours.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

You made a wise choice.


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



if it's on their web page, it must be true.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)




----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> You made a wise choice.



my father told me when i was a child that one doesn't get smarter hanging around with dumber. so far, he's been right on the money.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


You're missing just a few things there, kid.


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



no way


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes, sure. And yet you can't articulate them. You can only direct people to read material that you don't seem to understand yourself. 

Here's an article some folks might find interesting:

RealClimate: How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?


----------



## gslack (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



Climate models, based on a theory using 2-D flat earth mathematics with no electro-magnetic field, and no self generated heat... yeah that's wonderful..

Socko, haven't you filled up enough board space with your rambling nonsense yet? No? Good cause now I have a few minutes spend...

Care to explain how an "expert" in the sciences like yourself (cough) can be so ignorant of the latest developments in climate research by some of the more public and outspoken climate scientists?

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

_"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models."_

Wait isn't Spencer one of your guys? 

link an abstract of the source publication, I don't have a subscription ot it sadly, and I am not going to lie and pretend I do like many of your pals do...

Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth?s Radiant Energy Balance

_"Abstract: *The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.* Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000&#8211;2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, *we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.*"_

Wow thats pretty damn inconvenient, to borrow from one of yours... What the hell man... Climate models aren't to be trusted after all? Must be true its in a peer reviewed journal... Why according to you consensus and peer review is what science is all about.. Ain't that right? If its in a peer review science journal it must be true and fact..

I can't take credit for this one I believe Wirebender posted it originally, but I felt it may be important later and kept the link... So THX Wire!

Anybody with enough scientific clout or compelling enough research can be published in a science journal, and so-called peer-review is done in time by peers not committee, and its completely regardless of what publication its in or what wannabe science rock star/public speaker backs or brings it...

But please continue showing just how little you actually know, I find fakes to be a good source of amusement..

BTW you can download the PDF for that link above its just below the title on the page I linked to... that way you can have some real science to fondle while you play expert...


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

That is an opinion article published in Forbes.

The link goes to a download that I'd rather not download-have you read the link? Can you tell me what it says?

I went to the NASA website to see if they were talking about any holes being blown in the theory, but they don't seem to know about it. 

Climate Change: Evidence


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

You said something about Roy Spencer being "one of our guys". 

He's not. He says that little research has been done to determine if warming is natural. That statement isn't true.


----------



## gslack (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> That is an opinion article published in Forbes.
> 
> The link goes to a download that I'd rather not download-have you read the link? Can you tell me what it says?
> 
> ...



*AAAAAAAT!*

*WRONG!!!!*

The second link was to the source forbes and yahoo news cited in their article... Its to a ddum dum dum! SCIENCE JOURNAL!

Uh-oh...BUSTED!!!!!!

Whats up with you mr. expert? Don't recognize a science journal when you see one?



Way to go phony... Ya know its so easy to bust you internet fakes.. Really all one has to do is let you continue to talk until you start making absolute statements and then nail you with them.. you morons talk to much and you start believing your own BS. 

Thank you for taking up space with your BS for the day... DEL tell em what hes WON!!!!!!


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

I clicked the link, a download started. So I Googled Dr. Spencer, read his cutesy blog, and saw that he claimed that no one had really looked into the possibility that the increase in CO2 was natural. Which is not true. I just posted a link to an article about it.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Dr. Spencer:

Global Warming « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.



> Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warmingit has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.



RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?



> Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means same type) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
> 
> CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere.



Dr. Spencer's not much of an expert, is he?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Of course I can't.  That's because there IS NO science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You are fascinating.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:



> The argument of this paper is that sustainability requires a new worldview-paradigm. It critically evaluates Gores liberal-based environmentalism in order to show how shallow ecologies are called into question by deeper ecologies.



Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Automobility: Global Warming as Symptomatology

That's kind of funny talk for a scientific article. KWIM?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Philosophers aren't scientists.


----------



## gslack (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> I clicked the link, a download started. So I Googled Dr. Spencer, read his cutesy blog, and saw that he claimed that no one had really looked into the possibility that the increase in CO2 was natural. Which is not true. I just posted a link to an article about it.



Nice try with diverting there bud... now can we get back to the point here???

Why didn't you know about this? You are such an expert... BTW the download that started, I told you was there moron.. And it was to a science journal.. Your diversion and pretense show how right I am....

Now you want to show some integrity here and admit its a science journal now or continue your nonsense? Fact is a great many things get published and even more end up forgotten after publication. Publication in a science journal is not peer-review nor is it a claim of the studies validity or basis of fact.. Its a published paper and thats it... 

Peer review is not a formal committee that stamps a study true or false. Its a loose acceptance of a theory or statement or study as being accurate relative to current knowledge and proper form, records and citations. this acceptance is done individually by various members of the scientific community, over a period of time until the overall community accepts it as either fact, theory or false... 

Now please anytime you want to start showing some integrity.. No rush..


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I pointed out that you can never seem to articulate any of your objections, you just mangle some bit of scientific jargon and dodge the point...and you respond by...dodging the point.


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

gslack said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > That is an opinion article published in Forbes.
> ...



he's won this lovely tin foil hat and a year's subscription to *almost science* magazine, the magazine for people who aren't as think as they smart they are. kudos!


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



scientists have a tremendous sense of humor. you're proof.


http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

del said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



Dodging???

boy you dodge more than the chrysler corporation.. Man up and face my post! Don't make me take back your prize!


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



that is one sweet hp network analyzer


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access. 

Then, could you share your thoughts on this? 

Quantifying the human contribution to global warming



> Quantifying the human contribution to global warming
> Posted on 3 September 2010 by dana1981
> 
> The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.



It's another golden opportunity for you.


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.
> 
> Then, could you share your thoughts on this?
> 
> ...



i believe the nobel for physics was awarded to dana1981 in 2008 for her groundbreaking work on duping morons.

or was it mesons?

whatever


----------



## gslack (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.
> 
> Then, could you share your thoughts on this?
> 
> ...



More diversion? You make a bold claim and then can't defend it so you make another one? 

Please since you refuse to man up from your earlier claim, or admit I cited a science journal, explain something to me oh science expert...

how does "peer-review" work? Describe the process in your own words...

EDIT: WAIT A TICK.. I know that line....*"I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access. "*

LOL thought I recognized you...HAHAHAHAHAAHA!


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the articles at that source may be reliable, but if you want a good laugh, look at this other article they have about AGW:
> ...



First of all, it's funny talk for any scholarly abstract. Do you at least understand that? It reeks of politics. I thought you had some great familiarity with abstracts and journals. Another one bites the dust. 

Second, aren't you the one going on about Karl Popper? You know, the philosopher of science? You think ol Karl would have approved of a philosopher seeding an abstract with such petty political sniping?


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

gslack said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.
> ...



Peer review means that other scientists review the methodology. 

I backed up my claim. 

You don't recognize me.


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



looks like somebody's been busted.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


(Pssssst.  Philosophers aren't scientists.)


----------



## del (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





link?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Shall I blog about it?


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Philosophers are scholars. The original scholars. An ancient discipline devoted to wisdom. Do you grasp that the writing in that abstract is peculiar for a scholarly article? I don't expect the other two posters to realize it, but you're the one claiming to be an educated person.


----------



## gslack (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



No now see I actually explained the process, you did not so please do so now....

And yes I do recognize you... I knew I would sooner or later... the whole "if you have access" line gave you away... I remember your BS using that tactic before.. I never forget an idiot... And your game was so utterly pathetic its hard to forget... Same tactics to a tee. From the BS about peer review to the crap linking to science journal abstracts and claiming we have to buy a subscription to see it.. You claimed you had one and anybody concerned about the science would have a subscription to all the best journals.. You claimed you were a student then.. You and your friend tried to play "smart guys" in the thread and do a few posts of mutual kiss assing and faked nonsense using googled terms...

oh yeah I recognize your shtick pal... I will go find your other ID now, the posts are still here and I bet your new act is word for word like the last one..


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


(Psssst.  This is a scientific topic.)


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



The link was earlier in the thread, when the article was brought up.



Si modo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Let's stop the pretense that you would discuss the topic if only you had the science. Science blogs, the NASA website, these are perfectly acceptable sources. When someone brings you an abstract, you don't even grasp the significance of what it says.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Pssst, you're faking your way through this. Go read the link, go read your Popper link, get back to me.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Hmmmm.  I wonder how a reference to a blog would go over in a scientific paper?

Personally, I wouldn't try.

But, I'm not a shameless idiot.


----------



## SAT (Nov 4, 2011)

gslack said:


> No now see I actually explained the process, you did not so please do so now....
> 
> And yes I do recognize you... I knew I would sooner or later... the whole "if you have access" line gave you away... I remember your BS using that tactic before.. I never forget an idiot... And your game was so utterly pathetic its hard to forget... Same tactics to a tee. From the BS about peer review to the crap linking to science journal abstracts and claiming we have to buy a subscription to see it.. You claimed you had one and anybody concerned about the science would have a subscription to all the best journals.. You claimed you were a student then.. You and your friend tried to play "smart guys" in the thread and do a few posts of mutual kiss assing and faked nonsense using googled terms...
> 
> oh yeah I recognize your shtick pal... I will go find your other ID now, the posts are still here and I bet your new act is word for word like the last one..



I explained peer review adequately for this discussion. More than. 

I'm a new poster to this board. I do not post under any other names here. I have never used another name here. 

Si used the phrase "I assure you I have access". I was mocking her with it, as she clearly is terrified to comment on anything except other posters. 

Most scholarly journals require a subscription. I'm not the only one who knows this. 

See you guys again Sunday. We'll pick up where we left off.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > No now see I actually explained the process, you did not so please do so now....
> ...


You are half right.  I am terrified.  I'm terrified that our educational system produces folks like you.

It's a tragedy.


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...







Wrong as usual.  A theory is only a theory so long as it's testable and falsifiable.  If neither of those is possible the theory is no more and you have entered into the world of psychics and pseudo science.


----------



## gslack (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > No now see I actually explained the process, you did not so please do so now....
> ...



Yeah I'd run too if I knew an anal retentive professional asshole like myself had taken an interest in a recognized pattern in my posts..

You didn't explain squat phony.. I did.. you talked out of your butt again.. I know you bud, you had a pal and you both had nearly the same MO. You two worked as a team most of the time until someone noticed it then you backed off.. I remember you it was a thread about alternative fuels or something like it where I had to deal with this exact same kind of crap you are pulling now.. 

I may not be able to prove you are the same person (its the internet and at least 2 years now) but I will make sure I figure when, which thread, and what posts.. I dislike fakes, and I dislike recycled fakes using false credentials to try and pretend some higher station or knowledge.. 

i am a lowly Data Dink, a contractor to boot... And I know as much as I have taught myself. When I find I don't know I get off my ass and find out. I don't claim to be a scientist or an expert in a field just to appear the victor in an argument in an internet forum or anywhere else. That is about as pathetic as a person can get in my opinion..


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > My claim is that there is *no* science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.
> ...








Computer models are not evidence silly person.  All of AGW is based on computer models.


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> > Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations.* From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 197898 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 195398 sea ice trends. *Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






What part of CLIMATE MODEL don't you understand?  COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL DATA YOU SILLY PERSON.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


OMG.  

You really are a bonafide idiot.


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






Nope, idiots have a semblence of a brain, this silly person is barely above an earthworm in intellectual capacity.  Just another troll who needs to go back under his bridge.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 4, 2011)

westwall said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Absolutely.  That is crystal clear at this point.

So *spits on palms of hands and rubs them together a few times* , time to give the troll the treatment I give them in other subforums.  

This one makes Rocks look good.


----------



## daveman (Nov 5, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


You mean I don't agree with your leftist horseshit cult.  

You don't want meaningful discussion  -- you want an echo chamber.  

DU's off to the left. <<<<<<<<<<


----------



## daveman (Nov 5, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Correction:  We know what CO2 does in a box in a laboratory with a handful of variable.

We don't know what it does in the atmosphere with millions of variables.  

Unless you'd like to join Roxy and Rolling Blunder in claiming that a box of CO2 behaves exactly like the atmosphere of an entire planet.  That's always amusing.


----------



## daveman (Nov 5, 2011)

SAT said:


> I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.
> 
> Then, could you share your thoughts on this?
> 
> ...


A blog.  Gasp.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I think the fact is that temperatures have been increasing since the edn of the Little Ice Age, but the debate is that the temperature rise may have paused or stopped for a while in its cyclic manner, and/or on the assertion that this is caused by mankind.

I posted the raw temperatures, unadjusted by Warmista bullshit, and the do not show continued temperature increase over all this past decade.

So if the CO2 is still rising, why arent temperatures going up as fast?

But the worst part of all this is the economic catastrophe that the Warmistas want to roll out in response, and the government power that will grow exponentially.

The cure is much worse than the problem it is supposed to address.

The Warmistas are attempting to put a regulatory turnaquet around the global economies neck in order to stop an environmental nose bleed.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Well, they are evidence that the GIGO principle is still in full swing, lol.


----------



## wirebender (Nov 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> No, I want you to explain it in your own words then apply it to the global warming hypothesis.



It should be more than clear by now westwall that they have no words of their own.  None of them.  They are, to the individual, little more than cut and paste drones who take the scripture dissiminated to them from "on high" and spread it out as far as possible and continue to spread it till it has been thoroughly debunked at which time, they get the new scripture and begin the process again.

When did you ever have a conversation with one of them that could be called "intellectual"?  I mean one where there was an exchange of ideas that didn't involve a constant stream of cut and paste on thier part?  

I had one once with a poster named Rwatt.  It went on for multiple pages and actually involved doing some math.  In the end, he did the math himself and when the bottom line was precisely what I predicted, he ran away.  I believe he dropped that persona and got himself a new screen name so that he could continue spreading the scripture without having to bear the stain of having actually done the math and proving my point.

Aside from that, cut and paste, cheerleading from the sidelines, or snide, not particularly clever one or two liners in a hit and run fashion is about all that I see from them.


----------



## wirebender (Nov 5, 2011)

SAT said:


> State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
> 
> What's Known
> What's Likely
> ...



There is an equal amount of uncertainty as to what is actually known.  Lets take a look at your bit of scripture.  Lets start with what they claim is known.

_Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood._

Is that true?  What is the residence time of a given CO2 molecule in the atmosphere?  I have a couple of dozen peer reviewed studies stating it is less than 10 years but the IPCC and those closely associated state with certainty that it is from hundreds of years to thousands of years.  And what is the natural variability of the earth's own CO2 making machienry?  Do you know?  Have you ever considered finding out?  Would it surprise you to learn that humans don't produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variability in the earth's own CO2 making aparatus from year to year?  In light of those facts, it becomes questionable as to whether or not we are altering the atmosphere as it relates to so called greenhouse gasses.  Couple that to the fact that paleohistory tells us that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been in the thousands of PPM and the statement that we know that we are altering the atmopsphere as it relates to so called GHG's becomes highly questionable.

_The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels._

Again, explain the long periods of earth history where CO2 and other so called GHG's were in the thousands of parts per million and the bulk of earth history where the atmospheric concentrations were considerably higher than today and that certainty becomes questionable.  Again, what is the natural variability in the earth's own CO2 making aparatus and do we produce enough so called GHG's to overcome that natural variability?

_An unequivocal warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans _

That "unequivocal" warming trend is part of a warming trend that has been going on now for about 14,000 years.  We are in an interglacial that has been punctuated by multiple periods including the Roman warming period and the Medieval warming period in which the temperatures rose higher and faster than anything we have seen in the past several hundred years without the benefit of man.  For the past 14,000 years temperatures have fluctuated from warm to cold very often at rates more rapid than the present.  In that light, the claim of knowledge about "unequivocal" warming being tied to the activities of man becomes highly suspect and takes on the aspect of a claim manufactured in an attempt to support a pretty shabby hypothesis.

_The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades._

Really?  Here is a list of peer reviewed studies and their findings with respect to the residence time of so called GHG's in the atmosphere.






There are 37 studies; 7 of them state that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for more than 10 years.  Of those 7, two find that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for more than 20 years.  

In light of the number of studies that find CO2 residence time to be less than 10 years and the completely outrageous claim made by the IPCC and AGW alarmists, that is another claim of knowledge that becomes highly suspect.

_Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet._

Really?  Describe a mechanism by which that might happen without breaking the second law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy.  I have been asking that question for a long time and to date, have never got a rational answer and I doubt that you are likely to give me one either.  Explain how it might be that the warming has stopped for the past decade with ever increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHG's if increasing those gasses warm the planet?

Your state of knowledge isn't.  Not a shred of it is proven by observable, testable, repeatable science and is in fact, little more than the output of computer models being presented as if it were actual data.  Your scripture describes a false religion and you, my friend, are just another acolyte.


----------



## gslack (Nov 5, 2011)

I am pretty sure SAT is a recycled banned user... Dr.Gregg.. Or his pal who followed him all the time. Can't prove this because the original was banned, and its been a while now.. But from his postings and shtick I think its him.. if it is he will ban himself again soon he can't control himself for long..


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



That's one of the most idiotic of your altogether idiotic denier cult myths, bozo.

AGW/CC is firmly based on mountains of observed physical evidence, not computer models. Computer models are great scientific tools for helping to understand what is happening in detail but they are not 'the evidence' as you so stupidly imagine.

*The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
NASA*
(government publication - free to reproduce)





*This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)

Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.(4)


Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.(7)


Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.(8)


Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.


Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.(9)


Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world  including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.(10)


Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.(11)


Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.(14,15)
*


----------



## wirebender (Nov 5, 2011)

Poor thunder.  Forever confused.  Not understanding that proving that a thing may or may not be happening is not the same as proving why.  

You cut and paste blurb after blurb stating that this or that has happened but never, not even once have you posted hard, observed, repeatable evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the things you believe to be happening.


----------



## gslack (Nov 5, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



You're spamming the thread edtheblunder... Your pal I take it? 

not surprising...

its okay I can re-post it no problem... Oh BTW

*WARNING TROLLING BLUNDER SPAMS THREADS!*


----------



## westwall (Nov 5, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Poor thunder.  Forever confused.  Not understanding that proving that a thing may or may not be happening is not the same as proving why.
> 
> You cut and paste blurb after blurb stating that this or that has happened but never, not even once have you posted hard, observed, repeatable evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the things you believe to be happening.






no, Wire, you must remember in their tiny little minds correlation IS causation.  They never got beyond the middle ages and their entire science is based on the same type of dogma the Church used 1000 years ago.  Too bad for them the rest of the people have advanced beyond that primitive method of thinking.


----------



## rdean (Nov 5, 2011)

Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something.  Look at the last 20 years.  They've been wrong about everything.  Everything they've touched has turned to shit.  Yet they admit to doing no wrong.  Ask then to name a success and they can't.  

Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster.  Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran.  China getting their oil.  Thousands of Americans dead.  Tens of thousands maimed.

Look how they handled Katrina.  Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor.

Moving millions of jobs to China.

And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault.

And what are they doing now?   Abortion?  Reaffirming "in God we Trust"?  Tax cuts for billionaires?  Applauding executions?  Let him die?  Voter suppression?

They are not going to change.


----------



## westwall (Nov 5, 2011)

rdean said:


> Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something.  Look at the last 20 years.  They've been wrong about everything.  Everything they've touched has turned to shit.  Yet they admit to doing no wrong.  Ask then to name a success and they can't.
> 
> Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster.  Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran.  China getting their oil.  Thousands of Americans dead.  Tens of thousands maimed.
> 
> ...








And yet deanie, not a single prediction made by the alarmists has ever come to pass.  THEY'VE MADE THOUSANDS OF THEM, and not one has happened!  You are too funny!


----------



## gslack (Nov 5, 2011)

rdean said:


> *Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something.  Look at the last 20 years.  They've been wrong about everything. * Everything they've touched has turned to shit.  Yet they admit to doing no wrong.  Ask then to name a success and they can't.
> 
> *Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster.* *Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran.  China getting their oil.*  Thousands of Americans dead.  Tens of thousands maimed.
> 
> ...



I bolded all the parts that I am going to address...

_*"Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something.  Look at the last 20 years.  They've been wrong about everything." *_

Yeah and can you at least point a finger at all the Democrats who were involved too? how about Obama mimicking Bush policies save health care? Anything? no???


_*"Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster.* *Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran.  China getting their oil."* _

A terrible disaster that quite a few Democrats voted yes to go into.. Mnay of them in Obama's cabinet now.. but I guess thats okay they were duped huh.. yeah and for that naivety they were rewarded.... Nice.. 

Btw what you have against burkas? its a religious practice THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE! You want to dictate how the worship their deity now?

Iraq and Iran friends now? They make "friends" like they make enemies; fast and loose..  

China paid for it! besides you don't like oil remember? And really you have to get a grasp for this modern global governance the UN is bringing.. After all you agree with it.. If you agree with socialism as its being pushed today, that is exactly what you are going to support...

_*"Look how they handled Katrina.  Putting people into carcinogenic trailers and blaming the survivors for being poor."*_

So you contend Republicans put people in "carcinogenic" trailers, and blamed people for being poor? Got any proof of any of that? nah all you got is some stories told about glue inside trailers not being dry enough and someones claim that caused cancer in some... So exactly which Republican in office then made, placed, and put those survivors in those trailers? And exactly what evidence do you have the glue gave them cancer? For the record a possible cause is not a statement of fact... BTW, FEMA, Local law enforcement, and various other groups handled Katrina. most likely full of Dems and Reps in those groups...

_*"Moving millions of jobs to China."*_

And that didn't start years ago with NAFTA and CAFTA? And that was a democrat as i recall...

_*"And instead of taking responsibility for all their many failures, they feel Democrats should have stopped them so it's really the Democrats fault."*_

And exactly what have you done this entire post? Talk about scapegoating, dude you just blamed everything on one political party and completely ignored any democrats involvement... WOW!

*"And what are they doing now?   Abortion?  Reaffirming "in God we Trust"?  Tax cuts for billionaires?  Applauding executions?  Let him die?  Voter suppression?"*

What the hell are you talking about? Abortion? Seriously What the hell does that vague statement mean?

The rest of it, ALL OF IT, was you being a blubbering idiot... Man up crybaby make a clear point or don't but quite being such a whiny little reactionary..


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 5, 2011)

rdean said:


> Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something.  Look at the last 20 years.  They've been wrong about everything.  Everything they've touched has turned to shit.  Yet they admit to doing no wrong.  Ask then to name a success and they can't.
> 
> Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster.  Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran.  China getting their oil.  Thousands of Americans dead.  Tens of thousands maimed.
> 
> ...



Dude, not everyone against blaming humanity for climate change is a right winger, and not every rightwinger is in disagreement with AGW theories.

I know that for the lefties, there is no room for dissent, and so you project that sort of monolithic, locked-step thinking onto righties, but it's usually not nearly so desciptive of them as it is of lefties.

This is a case in point; what main stream liberal leader or pundit has come out and stated that they are skeptical on AGW?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 5, 2011)

rdean said:


> Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something.  Look at the last 20 years.  They've been wrong about everything.  Everything they've touched has turned to shit.  Yet they admit to doing no wrong.  Ask then to name a success and they can't.
> 
> Even they know Iraq is a terrible disaster.  Women in burkas, Iraq friends with Iran.  China getting their oil.  Thousands of Americans dead.  Tens of thousands maimed.
> 
> ...


Deanie-do is just another hater of science - politicizing it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 5, 2011)

LOL. So says the chief politisizer of science. LOL


----------



## Si modo (Nov 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. So says the chief politisizer of science. LOL


Of course anyone who wants the science to speak rather than windbag poseurs is politicizing science, to you.


----------



## gslack (Nov 5, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. So says the chief politisizer of science. LOL



So you agree with what he claimed? What would your bosses think of that? What? You think they really do vote Democrat? LOL


----------



## rdean (Nov 6, 2011)

gslack said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > *Right wingers will only eat crow if they admit they were wrong about something.  Look at the last 20 years.  They've been wrong about everything. * Everything they've touched has turned to shit.  Yet they admit to doing no wrong.  Ask then to name a success and they can't.
> ...



Look at that.  I put down the Republican Presidential talking points from their Presidential debates and it says, "What the hell are you talking about?"  Hilarious.

Women in Burkas is a "GOOD" thing.  What can you say for such stupidity?  China got their oil because they paid for it?  

This is the problem with right wingers.  Even the most simple thing has to be explained.  The war wasn't going to cost us anything because it was going to be paid for with Iraqi oil.  Women in Iraq used to dress EXACTLY like us.  Now they can't even go out side without a male escort.  You are with us or with the terrorists.  Just those trailers after Katrina was a scandal.  Go look it up.  You sit in front of a damn computer.  There is no excuse for being so poorly informed.

What is wrong with you guys?  How can you know so little about what has gone on in the last 10 years?  It's "determined ignorance".  

I don't know what to say.  Honestly.  Republicans and right wingers are so far gone.  Is it the inbreeding?  Have they been sniffing car exhaust?  What is it?  They must have been drinking mercury.  I don't know.


----------



## westwall (Nov 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. So says the chief politisizer of science. LOL







Look in the mirror with that statement MENSA boy.  The sceptical side has NO political influence.  The alarmists have most of the politicians, a former VP, the head of one of the most powerful organisations in the UN, and they've taken over the boards of directors of the major scientific organisations.

Fortunately we have science on our side or the country would be doomed.  The people have figured out that you are the political hacks and they are abandoning you in droves.

And for that we thank you!


----------



## gslack (Nov 6, 2011)

rdean said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Okay douchebag, you got lucky enough to catch me in a mood... First, you call me "it".... FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!

Second you lied about what I said even while you quoted my post? Are you really that retarded or are you just hoping to get humiliated?

You complete imbecile... Do you have any idea that you quoted what i said above and then lied about what I said in the same post?

_"Women in Burkas is a "GOOD" thing.  What can you say for such stupidity?  China got their oil because they paid for it?"_

Please point to where I said any such thing? Come on idiot point it out to me..

_" The war wasn't going to cost us anything because it was going to be paid for with Iraqi oil."_

Really? And why didn't any of the number of Democrats in the senate say or do anything about it? Whats more you really think a people who were invaded should use their own resources to rebuild? We visited the war onto them dumbass.. I shouldn't be surprised by your stupidity on this because you just quoted me and then lied about the quotes, in effect paying for me to kick your ass with your own statements...

_"Women in Iraq used to dress EXACTLY like us.  Now they can't even go out side without a male escort."_

And? Seriously the country chose their government and the one they chose has a strong traditional muslim base. Don't like it? Fine but YOU don't get to dictate how other people live their lives asshole.. its not up to you shithead, its up those people.. You want to dictate how people live.. Pathetic..

_"Just those trailers after Katrina was a scandal.  Go look it up.  You sit in front of a damn computer.  There is no excuse for being so poorly informed."_

WTH are you crying about now? Freaking whiny little punk, are you drunk? Sober up before to post to me idiot.. Did you even read my post at all? Either you didn't read it or you are to drunk or high to grasp what I said... Drink another 5th before you post moron it really helps...

_"What is wrong with you guys?  How can you know so little about what has gone on in the last 10 years?  It's "determined ignorance"."_

You dumb drunk moron.. You don't even remember who was in congress and when do you?  

_"I don't know what to say.  Honestly.  Republicans and right wingers are so far gone.  Is it the inbreeding?  Have they been sniffing car exhaust?  What is it?  They must have been drinking mercury.  I don't know."_

I dont know what to say either.. You just quoted my post and responded by lying about what you quoted from me... Seriously, that is retarded...

Want to know what I think? Well you're gonna hear it.. I think you are a drunk who blames everyone else for it.. You think your lot in life was due to someone else and not you. Well I got news for ya crybaby, you are posting drunk in a web forum and making a complete ass of yourself in the process. Nothing more pathetic a lone drunk.. This why they tell you not to drink alone...

Now go sober up and try again later sometime...


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 6, 2011)

*Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.*

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system&#8212;including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons&#8212;are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956&#8211;2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change&#8212;an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade&#8212;is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and&#8212;if sustained over centuries&#8212;melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections. 

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.*
> 
> AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> ...


Science is not done by consensus.

But, you keep thinking it is.


----------



## wirebender (Nov 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.*



While it is true that climate pseudoscience has spoken quite loudly, there is little evidence that they have been clear



> Human Impacts on Climate
> Adopted by Council December 2003
> Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007
> 
> The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.



So tell me rocks, when has the earth's climate ever been in balance and when has it ever not been either warming or cooling?  What we are seeing in the climate is business as usual.



> Many components of the climate systemincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.



A deliberate lie.  What is happening today with the temperatures of the atmosphere, land, and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the seal level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons that is outside of, or even close to the boundries of natural variability?  Give me one example in the list above that is even approaching the limits of natural variability?  Your inability to answer that question puts the lie to the rest of the statement as well.  

What you have proven is that the political heads of scientific bodies will prostitute themselves, and the bodies they are supposed to be representing if enough money is to be had for the service.


----------



## westwall (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.*
> ...







"Consensus" is all the fraudsters have.  Politics in science?  I give you consensus!


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

westwall said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Exactly - _prima facie_.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.*
> 
> AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> ...



*Many components of the climate systemincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural *

What is the "natural rate" and what causes it?
What is the unnatural rate caused by man? 
Precise numbers would be helpful.
Thanks!


----------



## IanC (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> I hope you've been reading the full article that goes with the abstract I posted. You did assure me you had access.
> 
> Then, could you share your thoughts on this?
> 
> ...



SAT-  I have no problem with you referencing blogs. there is a lot of interesting and timely information that is accessible only through blogs. we wouldnt know what papers were available if blog owners and their commenters didnt bring them to our attention.

that said, which blogs do you trust more? do you consider SkepticalScience more accurate and believable than Climate Audit or Watts Up With That? if you do, what are your judging criteria? SkS changes thier articles, modifies both moderator's and commentor's  posts without acknowledgement or notice while CA and WUWT dont. and many commentors cant even post with the censorship present at SkS although CA and WUWT do snip inappropriate comments occasionally they mark them as such. you decide which method has more integrity.

I actually partially agree with dana1981's article on attribution. doubling CO2 concentration should theoretically raise temp by 1.0-1.2C, everything else being held the same. because the effect is logarthmic so we should be seeing about 0.5-06C warming by now. another 0.5-0.6C when we have the full double at 560 ppm CO2. another 0.5-06C at 800ppm and another 05-0.6C when the ppmCO2 has reached 1120 for two complete doublings. 2.0-2.4C for two full doublings. I'm not convinced that another 1.5-1.8C warming for the next 730ppm CO2 means we must cripple our economies to reduce our CO2 emissions by a miniscule amount. I think we should keep measuring and exploring the factors that effect climate but I dont think we should make rash decisions on obviously incomplete understanding.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Yes, Walleyes, science has spoken loud and clear.*
> ...



Nobody thinks "_science is done by consensus_", nitwit. Modern climate science is based on many decades of observation and data, studies of the Earth's past climate changes and literally mountains of physical evidence. There is a consensus among the world's scientists that mankind is producing global warming and the associated climate changes but that consensus is based on the actual science and evidence, not the other way around as your idiotic denier cult strawman argument would have it.

Since you are obviously so extremely ignorant about science, perhaps this would help you get a  grasp on the issue.

*Scientific consensus*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

People of various backgrounds (political, scientific, media, action groups, and so on) have argued that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[10] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[11] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[12] The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[13] Stephen Jay Gould has argued that creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, which is not about "if" evolution occurred, but "how" it occurred.[12]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2] Such considerations informed the development of 'the precautionary principle'.

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over timeand adjusting policy as needed.

*


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science. 

This topic, like just about every topic, has been politicized by the right, with funding from rich donors who have a financial interest in confusing the public.


----------



## westwall (Nov 6, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







*Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making*


Politics anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

The politics are from the right. From the deniers. From those who have the most to gain in denying AGW. From you.


----------



## westwall (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> The politics are from the right. From the deniers. From those who have the most to gain in denying AGW. From you.






Waht was that Rwatt?  We have no politicians in our pockets unlike you religious fanatics.
When you claim politics you'd best be lookin in the mirror.


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

That shoe is firmly on your foot. You have politicians who fight climate science, and those same politicians fight the science of evolution.


----------



## daveman (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science.
> 
> This topic, like just about every topic, has been politicized by the right, with funding from rich donors who have a financial interest in confusing the public.



When every so-called "solution" to AGW is political in nature, it's not the skeptics who are politicizing the issue.


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. *There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.  *
> 
> It's kinda the same conversation we had a few weeks ago, though he goes at it differently than I do.



Just bumping over this good post.


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

IanC said:


> SAT-  I have no problem with you referencing blogs. there is a lot of interesting and timely information that is accessible only through blogs. we wouldnt know what papers were available if blog owners and their commenters didnt bring them to our attention.
> 
> that said, which blogs do you trust more?



Reputable scientists at reputable institutions. Organizations devoted to science rather than to politics. Funding from nonpartisan sources rather than from the oil and gas industry. Language that indicates that the blogger understands the scientific method. Sources that link to data from NASA and NOAA.


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science.
> ...



Yes, it is still the deniers who politicize the issue. The solutions are "political" in that they require us to work together.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > I believe what he's (correctly) pointing out is that 1. Regardless of whether or not the current consensus to AGW satisfies your standard of "Proof," there is a great deal of it nonetheless, and that 2. *There is not a scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion.  *
> ...


Sure it's a good post, to idiots who think science is done by consensus.

Did you know there was a consensus that the world is flat?  Oh no!

There was also a consensus that the sun revolves around the Earth.  Oh no!

But, because science has grown, the scientific community KNOWS what consensus will do to science (flat wrong assumptions that prevent the expansion of knowledge), so science is NOT DONE BY CONSENSUS.

Anyone who thinks it is is against knowledge.

Be proud.


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Did you know there was a consensus that the world is flat?  Oh no!
> 
> There was also a consensus that the sun revolves around the Earth.  Oh no!
> 
> ...



No, there was no scientific consensus that the world was flat. 

Observers had long noted that the evidence indicated that the world was not flat. 

Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The consensus statement is a summary of the present state of knowledge. They are not "doing science", they are writing about science.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know there was a consensus that the world is flat?  Oh no!
> ...


Science is not done by vote/consensus.  On it's face, that's political.

You really like demonstrating how little you know.

Your a cute little retard, though.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Then discuss the political aspect of the science in politics.

But, it's pretty fucking stupid to make policy on something that doesn't exist.

No surprise that you would want that, though.


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Science is not done by vote/consensus.  On it's face, that's political.
> 
> You really like demonstrating how little you know.
> 
> Your a cute little retard, though.



The statement is not "doing science". "Doing science" would involve taking and analyzing data. The consensus statement is a summary of knowledge.


----------



## daveman (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


No, the solutions don't give a damn about people working together.  The AGW cultists want their solutions mandated by law, with penalties for those who don't play along with the fantasy.

Your assertion is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Yes, that's how a representative democracy works. We elect people who enact laws.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > The science of AGW has not been "done by consensus". A statement on AGW laid out the current consensus on climate science.
> ...



The solutions aren't just "political."  They are all huge revenue grabs.

Isn't it funny how every problem the libs want to solve means paying $trillions more to the federal government?


----------



## daveman (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Oh, you mean like Obama's plan to have the EPA enact strict regulations on CO2 emissions, despite the opposition of the people's elected representatives?


----------



## daveman (Nov 6, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


AGW has never been about "saving the planet".  It's nothing but a scheme for wealth redistribution on a world-wide scale, and greater government control over individual lives.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SAT-  I have no problem with you referencing blogs. there is a lot of interesting and timely information that is accessible only through blogs. we wouldnt know what papers were available if blog owners and their commenters didnt bring them to our attention.
> ...




Your belief that government bureaucrats are "nonpartisan" is a hoot!

All those organizations devoted to science are actually the political lobbying arms for government employees.

If there's one thing your post makes clear is that you don't understand the scientific method.  Consensus isn't science.  It's politics.  One scientist can prove every other scientist in his field wrong if he has the evidence.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Science is not done by vote/consensus.  On it's face, that's political.
> ...


 Absolutely it is DOING SCIENCE.  Deciding the veracity of theories and hypotheses on consensus is an attempt to do exactly that, you freak.


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Now you've changed your complaint. A minute ago you were upset about laws. 

If this is within Obama's authority, I'm for it.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

I can certainly understand why SAT no longer wishes to discuss the science and has gone directly to policy.


----------



## daveman (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Of course you are.  Because you don't actually give a shit what the people want.  You think you know what's best for them.


----------



## daveman (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> I can certainly understand why SAT no longer wishes to discuss the science and has gone directly to policy.


He's doomed to fail there, too.  He just said he supports Obama's dictatorial intent.


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



No, it's making a public statement to combat the vast amount of misinformation out there. The statement was based on the science that's already been done. 

Here are some examples of consensus statements. None of these statements has stopped research on these issues. 

Ovarian and Other Adnexal Cysts Imaged at US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement

Management of Asymptomatic Ovarian and Other Adnexal Cysts Imaged at US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement1

A Healthy Bladder
A Consensus Statement

Medscape: Medscape Access

Joint position statement issued to provide vitamin D clarity

Joint position statement issued to provide vitamin D clarity : Cancer Research UK

Statement on Evolution and Education 

ASN: Statement on Evolution and Education


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Is Obama the first President to use Executive Orders?


----------



## SAT (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> I can certainly understand why SAT no longer wishes to discuss the science and has gone directly to policy.



Not at all.  Please proceed.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 6, 2011)

Ol' never discusses anything, just throws insults and tries to instill doubt concerning real scientists. She is a female clone of G-vig. About the same intellect with somewhat better grammer.


----------



## gslack (Nov 6, 2011)

I see the recycled user is back and of course oldsocks being the shameless eco-whore has latched onto another new savior....

SAT, how was your vacation? You had a good bit of time off since your last banning..

LOL


----------



## westwall (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...






Yes indeed.  Just like the fools who forced MTBE down the throats of the citizens of CA.  Untold billions in environmental damage and water wells poisoned and nusable for at least the next few hundred years.

You guys have a GREAT track record


----------



## westwall (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...







Of course you are.  You're a fascist.


----------



## daveman (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


No, but he's certainly made it clear he doesn't give a damn what the people want.

You want to be a subject, that's fine.  Pathetic, but fine.

But don't think you can turn me into a subject.  I'm a _citizen_.


----------



## daveman (Nov 6, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ol' never discusses anything, just throws insults and tries to instill doubt concerning real scientists. She is a female clone of G-vig. About the same intellect with somewhat better grammer.


"Grammar".


----------



## daveman (Nov 6, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 6, 2011)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I have yet to see a response from you, walleyed, that wasn't very ignorant and rather retarded, but as far as sheer retardedness goes, this one takes the cake.

The world's scientists are collectively warning the world's governmental and business leaders that mankind's burning of fossil fuels is creating a climate change crisis that threatens our civilization and our world so naturally there are going to be policy considerations that take that scientific consensus into account. A scientific consensus which is, BTW,  based on decades of research and mountains of evidence in many fields of science. Many governments and businesses have heeded the warning and are working out ways to move the world off of fossil fuels and into using non carbon emitting alternative energy sources in an attempt to mitigate the crisis and prevent the worst case scenarios from coming to pass. 

Too bad you're too stupid to understand that.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


What science?

You have yet to provide any that supports your claim.

You seriously are retarded.

Seriously.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp.

You don't know squat about science or anything else, as you have conclusively demonstrated, you moronic nitwit.

Scientists have been doing the research and gathering the data about global warming for over a century, since long before it was visibly warming, and the results of all that hard scientific effort and study are what has convinced virtually everyone who understands the science that this AGW/CC crisis is real. That is why there is something called a 'consensus' on the issue, you pompous cretin. The consensus is the result of the science, not it's cause. The scientific research came first, the consensus came afterwards. They didn't vote on it, dumbass, unless you want to count scientific papers in peer-reviewed science journals as 'votes'(LOL). No scientists '_just went along with the consensus_', as you so stupidly imagine. You only think that because you are sooooo ignorant about what science is and how it works. Not too surprisingly, it is obvious that you don't actually know any real scientists. Trailer trash like you usually don't.


----------



## daveman (Nov 6, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


What do you do for a living?  What's your education and training?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Being vile doesn't change the fact that you haven't presented any science demonstrating the magnitude and/or significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

Do so, and I'll stop saying that.

Or be vile, but that's all it will be.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 6, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I treat you like the little lying shithead that you are because you've been shown the science and the evidence many times and you refuse to deal with the evidence you've been shown. You've got nothing but hot air and mindless denial of reality. 

Once you start being honest about this and start debating the actual scientific evidence rather than side stepping it with lame excuses, I will stop "_being vile_", you sorry-ass denier cult troll.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 6, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Yup.  When you don't have any science, being vile is the way to go.


----------



## gslack (Nov 6, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



You know blunder I really do not know why the admins of this board tolerate you.. Makes no sense to me. You are astroturfing, its plain as day.. From your obvious scripted postings using popular blog formatting, to your multiple identities with near word for word repetition among them, and your continued answering for your other identities in arguments, you are astroturfing... in fact whenever you do have to post your own words and don't have your script we see above what happens...

Your words above...

_*"Oh dodo, you retarded little ignorant shit-sucker, you should really go fuck yourself with something sharp."*_

I am not sure but I really do think that violates some rule here.. If not it should... You made a comment before about my mother as well..

You had better thank your lucky stars I am not an admin here.. If I were I wouldn't stop with banning you. Matter of fact your service provider would be made aware of your abuse of their service as well... You are a disgusting piece of trash, and the sooner this forum gets rid of you the better it will be...


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 7, 2011)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Hey, fuck you too, you retarded troll, and the horse you rode in on!!! You are a liar and most likely a paid agent of disinformation trolling forums with your ignorant, anti-science bullshit.


----------



## gslack (Nov 7, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Uh-huh sure... And that would still make me better than you... A crybaby with no class....


----------



## daveman (Nov 7, 2011)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Yo, RT, you missed this post.  I expect deliberately.


----------



## gslack (Nov 7, 2011)

I bet he won't answer directly. he will make some vague reference to something but no direct claim or answer...


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 7, 2011)

daveman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > What do you do for a living?  What's your education and training?
> ...


That's right, davedumb, I do deliberately ignore most of your drivel because it is just too retarded and pointless to bother with. Like this post of yours. You apparently are so extremely stupid that you can't comprehend that this is an anonymous forum. Anyone can say anything about their personal lives, like what they "_do for a living_" or what their "_education and training_" are, and nobody can check on their honesty so it is meaningless. The only things relevant or meaningful to this debate are the facts that can be verified or supported with evidence. But you like to deflect the debate into irrelevancies and unprovable personal details because the actual verifiable scientific evidence is all against your denier cult fantasies and lies. So no, bozo, I'm not going to respond to your idiocies and attempts to derail the thread into pointless unprovable personal claims. Troll elsewhere, retard.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

gslack said:


> I bet he won't answer directly. he will make some vague reference to something but no direct claim or answer...


And, you win the bet!


----------



## gslack (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I bet he won't answer directly. he will make some vague reference to something but no direct claim or answer...
> ...



I think dave hit a sore spot....


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Rolling Thunder, your posts on the thread are appreciated. 

Si and her followers thought that "Science isn't done by consensus" had a great sound, but they failed to realize that 1) the consensus statements are not experiments or data collection, they are statements about the current state of knowledge in an area, and 2) they had no idea that the consensus statement on climate science wasn't the first consensus statement ever. 

But thanks to you and I, now they know.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Rolling Thunder, your posts on the thread are appreciated.
> 
> Si and her followers thought that "Science isn't done by consensus" had a great sound, but they failed to realize that 1) the consensus statements are not experiments or data collection, they are statements about the current state of knowledge in an area, and 2) they had no idea that the consensus statement on climate science wasn't the first consensus statement ever.
> 
> But thanks to you and I, now they know.


When you have some science to back up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming, you'll post it, right?


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Rolling Thunder, your posts on the thread are appreciated.
> ...



I have posted it. You make excuses, recite cliches, and mangle jargon in response. 

Earlier in the thread, I posted information on CO2, and that scientists can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


No you haven't.  You posted a scholarly article from a philosopher on policy.

You need science to back up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?


That's a post on a blog.

If you want to talk science, then use science.  Show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I've posted several links. You are getting them mixed up in your mind. This is the link I'm referring to: 

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

As the EPA link states, scientists are not in the dark about the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. 

Done.


----------



## westwall (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...







It's all he's got.  He's got the intellect of a gnat.


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
> ...



That's a link to a science blog, written by a climatologist. If you'll examine the article, you'll find that the original piece was too technical for the average reader-which means that scientifically, it was well over your head, and my head. So they made it more accessible to the average person-which means you and me. 

It has been established that your demands are a way of avoiding the facts. 

Now read the link.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


None of which are science.  If you want your claim about science to have any foundation, then show the science that backs up your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.


----------



## westwall (Nov 7, 2011)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...







He's a grade school dropout and works as a stable boy.


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.


----------



## westwall (Nov 7, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








Ooooh poow wittle troll got his feewings hurted.


----------



## westwall (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Rolling Thunder, your posts on the thread are appreciated.
> 
> Si and her followers thought that "Science isn't done by consensus" had a great sound, but they failed to realize that 1) the consensus statements are not experiments or data collection, they are statements about the current state of knowledge in an area, and 2) they had no idea that the consensus statement on climate science wasn't the first consensus statement ever.
> 
> But thanks to you and I, now they know.






So Rwatt, are you trolling blunders sock or are you his?  You are priceless!  Creating a sock to support yourself!    What a loser!


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.










Idiot.


----------



## westwall (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...






When you come up with something worthy of discussion we will.   However, I don't think you're capable of it.  So Rwatt, why don't you go take a science class or three so you can come back here and speak with the adults.


----------



## westwall (Nov 7, 2011)

si modo said:


> sat said:
> 
> 
> > si modo said:
> ...








yup!


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Sure I have. I've posted, others have posted. You are making excuses. We've established that your complaints are diversionary tactics.


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

Here's a synthesis of research. Each claim is sourced.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other
> 
> Here's a synthesis of research. Each claim is sourced.


Review earlier posts about what makes a hypothesis or theory scientific.

That's not scientific.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


You can say whatever you want, but you have posted ZERO science to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Repetition of your same idiocy does not make your idiocy valid.


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other
> ...



Yes, Si, it's scientific. You are talking over your own head. Please, go chew on that link.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


No need to chew on a thing.  The IPCC Third Assessment is nothing new.

It also promotes non-scientific models.

Here, read this if that is unclear to you.  An Insult to All Science &#8211; Are We Beyond Reproach?  Note the comments about falsifiability:  





> ....
> 
> Climate scientists peddling predictive models, and the environmentalists who have compiled them, present these models where almost any combination of datasets are consistent with the predictive model indicating near disaster. The Third Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the most celebrity in that predictive science. Climatologist Roger Pielke, for example, has demonstrated that there has yet to be a dataset that is not consistent with these models. The prediction scientists rarely articulate a hypothetical dataset that would be inconsistent with a predictive model. A hypothesis or theory is falsifiable, thus scientific, if it can be both verified and falsified through physical experiments and/or observations. If there exists no dataset for which the IPCC predictive models are inconsistent, the model was never scientific. Where is the demarcation of predictive climate science and pseudo-science if there is no falsifiability?
> 
> ....


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Repetition of your same idiocy does not make your idiocy valid.



Please etch those words into the stone that makes up the contents of your skull. 

We have established that your complaints about sources are a diversionary tactic.  

This is a summary of the scientific basis for AGW. Read it and get back to us. 

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Repetition of your same idiocy does not make your idiocy valid.
> ...


But it is not science and it certainly is not based on science.  It is based on predictive models that are not science.  Thus my suggestion that you understand falsifiability.


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



And a new objection emerges from your list. Now the problem is, once again, that you don't trust computer models. We see the models, based on data collection, being proven right, here in the real world. 

&#8216;Climate models are unproven&#8217;&#8212;Actually, GCM&#8217;s have many confirmed successes under their belts | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Of course the models are proven.  Non-falsifiable models always are.

Non-falsifiable models are also non-scientific, by definition.


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Of course the models are proven.  Non-falsifiable models always are.



What does that even mean? 

Predictive models are being validated, and it's somehow because they are not valid?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the models are proven.  Non-falsifiable models always are.
> ...


It's quite telling that you don't know.



> ....  Predictive models are being validated, and it's somehow because they are not valid?


Of course these predictive models are validated.  Non-falsifiable models always are valid.  But, they are not scientific models, by definition.


----------



## SAT (Nov 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Yes, it's quite telling alright. 

So apparently we're on excuse number 745-because you can't replicate the solar system in the lab, AGW is unprovable. Is there a spazz emoticon here, because it's needed right now.

Not all science happens in a lab, Si. 

Here's a link for you: 

There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist


----------



## Si modo (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Let us know where I said that.

I'd tell you I'd wait for you to do that, but I know you can't.



> .... Is there a spazz emoticon here, because it's needed right now.
> 
> Not all science happens in a lab, Si.
> 
> ....


Uh huh.

Where did I say it doesn't?

Nowhere. 



> ....  Here's a link for you:
> 
> There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist


Then present some evidence.  Make sure it is science, because this IS a scientific topic.


----------



## daveman (Nov 7, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I think it's pretty safe to say your entire scientific background consists solely of reading leftist blogs.  

You don't _really_ think you have any credibility, do you?


----------



## daveman (Nov 7, 2011)

gslack said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


Sure sounds like.


----------



## daveman (Nov 7, 2011)

SAT said:


> IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other
> 
> Here's a synthesis of research. Each claim is sourced.


The IPCC has zero credibility.  Well, except among idiots who have no clue about how science works.


----------



## SAT (Nov 8, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Did you use those exact words? No. Is that what you're claiming? Yes. 

&#8216;The null hypothesis says warming is natural&#8217;&#8212;An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist



> > Objection: Natural variability is the null hypothesis; there must be compelling evidence of an anthropogenic CO2 warming effect before we take it seriously.
> >
> > Answer: The null hypothesis is a statistical test, and might be a reasonable approach if we were looking only for statistical correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature. But we're not -- there are known mechanisms involved whose effects can be predicted and measured. These effects are the result of simple laws of physics, even if their interactions are quite complex.
> >
> > ...


----------



## Si modo (Nov 8, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


No.  That's not what I am saying.

Read the words I write, not what you imagine you see.

I'm not talking about the null hypothesis.


----------



## SAT (Nov 8, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Now according to this:



> The null hypothesis is a sub-set of the Popperian falsifiable scientific statement.



Philosophical, scientific and statistical background to evidence based medicine

So please be more specific about what you're trying to say. You are endlessly vague, which does make people wonder if you're confident in what you're saying.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 8, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


I posted exactly what it was earlier.

Post # 867.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 9, 2011)

*Ol' Sis, flapyapping again.*The Absorption Spectra of Gases

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

*Of course, science as done by scientists, rather than flapyapping internet posiers is something alien to Sis*


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Ol' Sis, flapyapping again.*The Absorption Spectra of Gases
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> ...



Si Modo has been pointing out that making a computer model that shows results confirming a hypothesis is not in and of itself proof of anything, due to the GIGO principle.

What models are good for is showing progressions of very complex algorithms very quickly and doing it in a very illustrative way using graphics, but that is it. They do not prove anything.

Anyone that says they do is simply not a well trained scientist or just not thinking clearly as a scientist when they say such nonsense.

As to your response 'How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?' that page only shows that green house gasses do what they have long been known to do and no one disputes that.

What skeptics are disputing is that there is insufficient evidence supporting two claims:
1) that CO2 is the main green house gas that has been the principle cause of the warming instead of water vapor which is the biggest amount of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, and
2) that human activity is the principle cause of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

So far everything I have seen is either anecdotal or merely showing a correspondence which in and of itself does not prove cause.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Ol' Sis, flapyapping again.*The Absorption Spectra of Gases
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> ...


When you don't understand what I am talking about, why post something that confirms that?

More directly, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Ol' Sis, flapyapping again.*The Absorption Spectra of Gases
> ...


More specifically, I am saying a model is not scientific if there exists no data set, real or hypothetical, where the model is false/wrong/doesn't work/whatever.  By definition.

Most of the models the IPCC discusses in their Third Assessment cannot be falsified/are always valid.  There are no data sets where they don't work.

A great example of a non-falsifiable theory/hypothesis/model is the "God does everything/It's because of God" theory.  There is no data set, real or hypothetical, that would falsify that theory.  This is one of the reasons why ID will never be accepted in the sciences.

And, the GIGO, as you said.


----------



## gslack (Nov 9, 2011)

I would go one further SI..

I contend the the entire "greenhouse theory" as prescribed by the popular so-called consensus is a gross misuse and misrepresentation of what actually happens in the atmosphere. From the misapplied equations for the energy budget, to the completely impossible breaking of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo-dynamics that are required for this concept to work as they claim, its in the very least dubious and I would call it borderline malice..


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

gslack said:


> I would go one further SI..
> 
> I contend the the entire "greenhouse theory" as prescribed by the popular so-called consensus is a gross misuse and misrepresentation of what actually happens in the atmosphere. From the misapplied equations for the energy budget, to the completely impossible breaking of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo-dynamics that are required for this concept to work as they claim, its in the very least dubious and I would call it borderline malice..


I agree, in part.  Most climate scientists (whatever that is - more correctly, climate science is a multidisciplinary study) acknowledge that the 'greenhouse' effect is a seriously bad misnomer.


----------



## gslack (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I would go one further SI..
> ...



Perfect example: My daughter went on her campus sleepover at College of Wooster last weekend. An among possible minors was "climate change"...WTH is that? I mean why not just call it "give us $2000 dollars"...


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Sure I have. 

I'll get the links for you again. 



Si modo said:


> Review earlier posts about what makes a hypothesis or theory scientific.



The idea that you, with your poor understanding of science, can dismiss the work of climatologists is really incredible. You bleat some phrase until you realize you don't understand it well enough to be talking about it, and then you bleat another phrase. 

And BTW-

The predictive models have been validated repeatedly. At a certain point, a rational person has to deal with that.


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming



> Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.



The human fingerprint in global warming



> In science, there's only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world - and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming.



Charts are at the link. 

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

This cites the work of scientists in peer reviewed journals: 



> In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words global climate change.  Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus.  Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.
> 
> We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change."  Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity.* None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.*



The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change



> The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: Human activities  are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents  that absorb or scatter radiant energy.  [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations [p. 21 in (4)].
> 
> IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue [p. 3 in (5)].



This is the view of the scientific community. You are not arguing with me. You are disputing the work of PhD climatologists.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...






Si has a PhD in a natural science.  She is far more conversant with how the natural world works then any climatologist I have ever spoken with, and worlds apart when it comes to you and your gross scientific ignorance.

You are not even capable of understanding the basic concepts of science much less getting into the fundamental body of any particular field.

A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured.  NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT.  Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.

If you had a brain you would understand just how big a problem like that is.  As you don't you continue with your ignorant diatribes.  

As an aside, you should just start posting under your original username.  We all know you're incompetent so it no longer matters.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> Si has a PhD in a natural science.  She is far more conversant with how the natural world works then any climatologist I have ever spoken with, and worlds apart when it comes to you and your gross scientific ignorance.



And how many climatologists have you spoken with who didn't also have Ph.D's in "a natural science" ?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Hey what is your Ph.D in? Poster above says "a natural science" - just wondering which one.


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> Si has a PhD in a natural science.  She is far more conversant with how the natural world works then any climatologist I have ever spoken with, and worlds apart when it comes to you and your gross scientific ignorance.
> 
> You are not even capable of understanding the basic concepts of science much less getting into the fundamental body of any particular field.
> 
> ...



Then I suggest that she sue the university that graduated her.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...






> Using observed distribution shifts among 116 British breeding-bird species over the past &#8764;20 years, we are able to provide a first independent validation of four envelope modelling techniques under climate change.


 Validation of species&ndash;climate impact models under climate change - Ara[]jo - 2005 - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

> A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured.  NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT.  Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.



1. Please provide the evidence for that claim.

2. My original user name is SAT. Your ideas about me are as crazy as your ideas about AGW.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Si has a PhD in a natural science.  She is far more conversant with how the natural world works then any climatologist I have ever spoken with, and worlds apart when it comes to you and your gross scientific ignorance.
> ...







What is truly sad is it is more difficult to get a Bachelors in Geology then it is to get a PhD in Climatology.  And yet, you clowns will bend over and spread your cheeks for them at the drop of a hat!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> > A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured.  NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT.  Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not a skeptic, but the claim "NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT." is not verifiable as it is a negative - it is up to YOU to show that at least one climate model is capable of that to disprove the claim.


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I'm not a skeptic, but the claim "NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT." is not verifiable as it is a negative - it is up to YOU to show that at least one climate model is capable of that to disprove the claim.



This is the part I'm asking him to back up:



> Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.



He appears to be referring to a specific attack on climate change models. It sounds as if someone has put in random numbers and still shown a prediction of warming, in order to show that the models are flawed. I'd like him to back that up, or explain what he's getting at.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations*

Most? Likely?


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> > A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured.  NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT.  Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Define the Scientific Method and how hypotheses are tested.  Then apply to computer models (which are defacto hyptheses) then get back to us when you have a handle on the scientific method.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > > A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured.  NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT.  Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.
> ...







We have.  To date no computer model has EVER been able to recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago.  Perfect knowledge of the climatic conditions, perfect knowledge of every aspect of the physical world and they can't even come close to doing it.

I've posted plenty of links to studies showing that exact thing spidey toober...go find them.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a skeptic, but the claim "NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT." is not verifiable as it is a negative - it is up to YOU to show that at least one climate model is capable of that to disprove the claim.
> ...






Every computer model tested so far does that.  Here's an admission from a devout warmist....


Monday, July 06, 2009
So the science ISN'T settled?: Alarmist Gavin Schmidt admits big problems with climate models 
Edge: THE PHYSICS THAT WE KNOW: A Conversation With Gavin Schmidt [with video]

Some models suggest very strongly that the American Southwest will dry in a warming world; some models suggest that the Sahel will dry in a warming world. But other models suggest the exact opposite. Now, let's just imagine that the models have an equal pedigree in terms of the scientists who have worked on them and in terms of the papers that have been published  it's not quite true but it's a good working assumption. With these two models, you have two estimates  one says it's going to get wetter and one says it's going to get drier. What do you do? Is there anything that you can say at all? That is a really difficult question.
...
The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don't anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can't predict  the chaotic component of the climate system  which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. That is something that we can't really get a handle on.
...
Freeman Dyson has made a critique of models. I don't know Freeman Dyson; I've met his children. He seems like a very smart person. He has done some very interesting physics. He seems like a guy I would like to know. Yet his statements about climate, climate models, climate modelers, Jim Hansen in particular, are not the statements you would expect a smart person to make. It's like Shakespeare writing a play and then pulling a quote from a penny dreadful sheet that he found in the street. It just seems very inconsistent that somebody who thinks so hard and is so smart about so many things says dumb things like, oh, climate modelers think that their models are real and can't see the real world. I paraphrase but he said something very similar. It betrays a complete ignorance of either climate modelers, climate models or what it is that climate science is all about. His statements about Jim Hansen were very similar. 


Tom Nelson: So the science ISN&#39;T settled?: Alarmist Gavin Schmidt admits big problems with climate models


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> Define the Scientific Method and how hypotheses are tested.  Then apply to computer models (which are defacto hyptheses) then get back to us when you have a handle on the scientific method.



http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Define the Scientific Method and how hypotheses are tested.  Then apply to computer models (which are defacto hyptheses) then get back to us when you have a handle on the scientific method.
> ...







Are you incapable of thinking and writing for yourself?  I can understand mathematics, hell I admit to bing a complete calculator cripple now, but really?  You can't even do simple stuff like I asked you to do?


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

The complaints about the models have to do with long range predictions. The years 2030 and 2050 are mentioned. Yes, it's true, we don't have a crystal ball. What we have are decades of data, and predictions made in the past that keep being validated by what is happening right now. 

You're picking at threads because you have an agenda.


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If I were working for a grade, sure. But I'm not. You and Si have song and dance show that's a great distraction, but the fact is, it's nothing but a show.

Dispute the science, stop attacking the people who are bringing you the science.

Oh wait...you can't. All you can do is tell other people that they don't get it...as if you were the experts.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


You've presented zero science supporting your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of any warming.

Either you are lying that you have or you are delusional and/or don't even understand what science is.

Secondly, of course the models are validated - they are non-falsifiable, thus non-scientific.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Chemistry.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> We have.  To date no computer model has EVER been able to recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago.



We're talking about climate models, not weather models. And you can't prove a negative. Please stop being stupid. Please.


> Perfect knowledge of the climatic conditions, perfect knowledge of every aspect of the physical world and they can't even come close to doing it.



You don't need perfect knowledge to do science. In fact no scientists has ever had perfect knowledge of anything. Only God has perfect knowledge.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> Alarmist Gavin Schmidt admits big problems with climate models


No he doesn't. If you bother to read the interview instead of just taking the word of a blogger, you'll see he makes no such "admission".  But I know you can't read more than a couple sentences at a time, so don't bother.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
> ...




Yes. Most all scientific predictions come down to one of likelihood. Are you uncomfortable with statistics and probability?


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> The complaints about the models have to do with long range predictions. The years 2030 and 2050 are mentioned. Yes, it's true, we don't have a crystal ball. What we have are decades of data, and predictions made in the past that keep being validated by what is happening right now.
> 
> You're picking at threads because you have an agenda.







No, I don't have an agenda, that is in the warmists ballpark and to deny that they have an agenda is simply ludicrous and a denial of fact.  The complaints about the models is manifold, first off they ignore most drivers of climate, like water vapor and clouds.  They simply make no attempt to model either factor.  

Secondly, because they ASSUME (something done in science at your peril) that CO2 is THE driver of climate they bias for that.  That's why no matter what number you punch into the model it allways shows warmth.  In fact, to make an attempt at reality they have to mofify the models every hour or so otherwise the models predict temperatures at the poles that rival the surface of the sun within a few days.

Thirdly, they are written in an incredibly poor language that is fraught with all sorts of problems.  Most every other science has abandoned the use of that computer language because of those problems.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> What is truly sad is it is more difficult to get a Bachelors in Geology then it is to get a PhD in Climatology.



I'm sure you hold both degrees and can say that for sure - after all - you aren't a bullshitter at all.

But actually - considering most schools don't even offer a "Ph.D. in Climatology" - you're wrong, it'd be a lot harder to get one of those. Most climatologists have degrees in physics, atmospheric science, chemistry, etc. etc. I will get a PhD in physics on December 16th. I don't have a B.S. in Geology. So I can't for sure say which is easier.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > We have.  To date no computer model has EVER been able to recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago.
> ...







If a climate model can't recreate what we know has occured, how can it predict what will occur?


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Alarmist Gavin Schmidt admits big problems with climate models
> ...







Then I suggest you watch the video on youtube toober.  It is very plain that that is EXACTLY what Schmidt is doing.  But that would be science, and as we all know, you don't do science.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Are you saying the transcript is not genuine?


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

No, honey. I've presented evidence, a dozen people have presented evidence. You just trot out another dodge. I think you're both a liar and delusional. 

The questions arise again-how is it that you're this much better at science than overwhelming majority of climate scientists?

You know the science exists, so why do you play this game of pretending that it doesn't? 

Fill us in.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I'm sorry you're just plain wrong.

Please trying _reading_ the abstracts. I know its hard when its not all pictures and people talking. But give it a shot. Here's two right here.

High-resolution regional climate model validation and permafrost simulation for the East European Russian Arctic

HAL - INSU


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...



I am when the "scientists" resort to lies to push economy killing taxes.
How much of our GDP should we spend to reduce our CO2 output?
Why should we be afraid of warmer weather?


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...






Not at all.  However, if you are going to make such a substantial claim you had best be able to back it up with some empirical data.  Which you can't.  All you can do is trot out yet another worthless computer model.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I am when the "scientists" resort to lies to push economy killing taxes.



No, you are when skeptics tell you to. I doubt you'd even know how to get to google scholar let alone use it to think for yourself.



> How much of our GDP should we spend to reduce our CO2 output?



A free allocation carbon credit system wouldn't take any money from the GDP. If a fossil fuel plant electric pays a hydropower plant for carbon credits the fossil fuel plant loses X dollars and the hydro plant gains X dollars. X - X = 0 last time I checked.\

Are you stupid or just uninformed?



> Why should we be afraid of warmer weather?




Ahh, OK, that answers my question.


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

How reliable are climate models?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



....with evidence that the model has been validated. its in the papers that I link to. You have to actually read them. You could find many more if you used google scholar instead of the blogosphere. But I guess google is just all part of the massive conspiracy.




You'd think with a B.S. in geology and a Ph.D. in Climatology - you'd know this. But apparently you are just full of shit. You literally think that by you saying something is true - its true. How narcissistic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I am when the "scientists" resort to lies to push economy killing taxes.
> ...



Okay, so a coal plant pays a hydro plant $1 billion. Where does the CO2 reduction occur?
If you want to build a few dozen new nuke plants, I'll support that.

I live in Chicago, I'm not afraid of warmer weather.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> No, honey. I've presented evidence, a dozen people have presented evidence. You just trot out another dodge. I think you're both a liar and delusional.
> 
> The questions arise again-how is it that you're this much better at science than overwhelming majority of climate scientists?
> 
> ...


Then, provide that science you say exists that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

I'm not doing _your _work.  

Just saying something doesn't make it true.

Are you retarded?  It's a serious question.


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> Then, provide that science you say exists that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.
> 
> I'm not doing _your _work.
> 
> ...



And this is exactly why it's so unlikely you have a degree in anything that requires logic. 

You're pretending that the entire body of evidence does not exist. 

That's either a desperate game, or the plan of someone who can't think her way out of a paper bag. 

You know that the claims exist. 

You cannot rationally dispute them.

So you play this game.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > No, honey. I've presented evidence, a dozen people have presented evidence. You just trot out another dodge. I think you're both a liar and delusional.
> ...



Si Modo - do you deny the existence of a greenhouse effect at all?






Because from the above graph, its indisputable that the greenhouse effect is larger in 1996 than it was in 1970.


Its also established that there is the expected corresponding increase in long wave radiation hitting the Earth's surface is occurring.


P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)




Can you point to one or more specific causes other than Co2 that explain the warming just as well? Seems like given the spectrum above, it should be relatively easy to compute the expected warming due to it - and then check to see if that matches current levels. Are you saying all of climatology failed to do this basic calculation? Because any IPCC report I've ever seen always computes the expected forcing due to CO2 and many other effects. Do you think they just make that number up?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Then, provide that science you say exists that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.
> ...


This is a science discussion.  You've provided zero science to support your claim.  Telling me I know something exists is not proof of anything.

It's called burden.  You don't even understand THAT.

As far as disputing anything, you've provided NOTHING to dispute.

You want me to dispute nothing?    


You clearly are retarded.  Or crazy.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> 
> Okay, so a coal plant pays a hydro plant $1 billion. Where does the CO2 reduction occur?


Jeez, really? Do you ever bother to think before you speak?

It occurs because there is only a finite number of carbon credits issued. It smilar to the SO2/NxO cap and trade system - which BTW, worked. 


> If you want to build a few dozen new nuke plants, I'll support that.
> 
> I live in Chicago, I'm not afraid of warmer weather.



I'm glad you admit to having an extremely myopic view of the world


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> This is a science discussion.  You've provided zero science to support your claim.  Telling me I know something exists is not proof of anything.
> 
> It's called burden.  You don't even understand THAT.
> 
> ...



No, this is a game you play. You are aware of the claims, you cannot dispute those claims rationally, so you play this game.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...





Which petrochemical company do you work for?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


None.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




What do you work in, industry or academia, and are they hiring physics post-docs?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


I used to be in academia, now I am with a not-for-profit contracting for the DoD.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



How much damage should we do to our economy based on the limited number of carbon credits you want to issue.

Myopic? No, I just realize that warmer doesn't mean worse for everyone.


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Which petrochemical company do you work for?



So you think we're dealing, not with someone who can't help but be irrational, but with someone who's paid to be irrational.


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

In academia = TA or RA?


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > This is a science discussion.  You've provided zero science to support your claim.  Telling me I know something exists is not proof of anything.
> ...


Oh, I know what your claim is and I know the claims of others are the same.  When they are supported with science, those claims will have meat.

But, your claim isn't supported by the science, thus it is nothing but a belief.  Beliefs are great in religion, but they have little place in science.


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



It's not my claim. It's science's claim. You realize that those claims are out there, you cannot rationally dispute them, so you play this game.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


If science is making that claim then show me the science making that claim.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much damage should we do to our economy based on the limited number of carbon credits you want to issue.



How much did NxO credits damage the economy?




> Myopic? No, I just realize that warmer doesn't mean worse for everyone.



Right, its better for you, so if its worse for everyone else, that's A-OK. That's clearly NOT myopic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How much damage should we do to our economy based on the limited number of carbon credits you want to issue.
> ...



You realize the difference between NxO and CO2, right?

Sorry if warmer weather would be better for me.
All I ever hear from the alarmists is that more CO2 is bad for everyone.
Now you realize their error?


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



And you're trying again to cover your eyes and pretend that it's dark outside. 

Which puts you at about a 2 year old level.

You're aware of these claims, you're aware that climatologists make these claims, you do not like the claims, but you cannot rationally dispute these claims-so you play this game.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


Then provide the science that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of any warming.

Your days and days of refusal to do so speak more for your claim than you realize.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




I already provided you evidence. You ignored it.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


If I did, I apologize.  Then please refresh my memory where you posted the science that supports that claim - that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



You pretend that climatologists don't understand science, but you do. 

You know that this is absolutely irrational, to accuse the world's great scientific bodies, and their members, of having less understanding of science than you, so you play this game.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes.



> Sorry if warmer weather would be better for me.



I'm sorry, I forgot, its all about you. Fuck the 90% of the world that lives within 100 miles of the coast.



> All I ever hear from the alarmists is that more CO2 is bad for everyone.
> Now you realize their error?


Uhh, no, the fact you have shit in your ear isn't an error on anyone else's point.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...


I never said that.



> .....  You know that this is absolutely irrational, to accuse the world's great scientific bodies, and their members, of having less understanding of science than you, so you play this game.


I never said that.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-change-skeptics-eat-crow-62.html#post4388547


----------



## SAT (Nov 9, 2011)

Si modo said:


> SAT said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Sure you did. For days and for pages. You know that you cannot dispute the science of AGW, you know that the world's great scientific bodies endorse the science of AGW, and you cannot rationally dispute the science of AGW, so you play this game, where you are smarter than the world's great scientific bodies, a game where you understand science, and they do not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



CO2 is going to flood everyone within 100 miles of the coast?
How long do they have?


----------



## gslack (Nov 9, 2011)

SHAT and poopy avoid me..why is that?

Poopy you are a sock we all know it... So until you man up and stop hiding behind alternate identities you deserve nothing less than my disdain.. Got that poopy?

SHAT, or Dr.Gregg or whatever you go by these days. You are an incessant little gnat who has done nothing but call everything you like science, and yourself king of science by association. If you were any less scientific your posts would start with "once upon a time.."

Now don't avoid my posts boys or I WILL take exception to you and make you cry...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Don't even worry about it, you'll be fine.


----------



## gslack (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



HUSH POOPY!

You aren't even a human... I do not acknowledge fictitious beings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 9, 2011)

gslack said:


> SHAT and poopy avoid me..why is that?
> 
> Poopy you are a sock we all know it... So until you man up and stop hiding behind alternate identities you deserve nothing less than my disdain.. Got that poopy?
> 
> ...



He thinks making carbon based energy more expensive won't hurt our GDP.
Scientific and economic ignorance rolled into one.


----------



## gslack (Nov 9, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > SHAT and poopy avoid me..why is that?
> ...



yeah and he hasn't even gotten to his good an ignorant shtick yet.. Soon he will stomp off mad and call everyone a "dummie dumb head" or something just as intelligent...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 9, 2011)

gslack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They call me the most


----------



## gslack (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Poopy... we all know no one calls you.. You aren't real.. now come back as your other identity...


----------



## del (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkoPq5AOCOA]Animal House - Fat, drunk and stupid - YouTube[/ame]

true story


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







There are plenty of non biased reports that show categorically how bad and utterly useless the computer models are.  The fact that you still believe them just reinforces the image we have of you as a religious fanatic worshipping at the alter of your high priests.

For the record I have a PhD in geology and nothing in climatology.  However, I can and am qualified to teach any of their classes except for that worthless computer language class.  That language came and went before I even knew it existed (well not really, I knew it existed we just didn't use anything that primitive).

On the other hand, they are not qualified to teach a single graduate level class in geology.  They could teach some of the undergrad stuff, but the graduate level classes are so far over their heads as to be funny.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Then, provide that science you say exists that supports your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.
> ...






  Here's a clue moron, empirical data is relevent, computer models are not.  Provide empirical data that supports your contention, not computer models, empirical data.  Got it?

No? I am not surprised, you're complete lack of scientific understanding is well exposed for the world to see.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...









  My gosh but you're completely clueless aren't you?  This comment is so stupid as to be beyond belief.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...







No, it's a claim made by 74 politically connected "scientists".  Science is far more honest then that group of crooks.


----------



## westwall (Nov 9, 2011)

SAT said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > SAT said:
> ...






The game player is you.  You know nothing about science as has been made very plain in this thread.  You are nothing but an ignorant troll but keep doing what you're doing, it's amusing and I learn a great deal about your particular form of personality disorder.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 9, 2011)

westwall said:


> For the record I have a PhD in geology...



For the record, in your retarded little world, walleyed, "_PhD_" stands for '*Piled higher and Deeper*'.


----------



## del (Nov 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > For the record I have a PhD in geology...
> ...



boy, you sure told him


----------



## gslack (Nov 10, 2011)

I bet SHAT and Poopy both long for the day when they are old enough and can go into a community college and minor in "climate change"..


----------



## westwall (Nov 10, 2011)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > For the record I have a PhD in geology...
> ...







Why yes it does, though I must admit, as a geologist we prefer the term Post hole Digger.
It means more to us having to do with dirt and all that.  I'm sure that level of humour is above your paygrade but now you know.


----------



## gslack (Nov 10, 2011)

BTW, oohpoopooo or whatever his name is just called me C-U-_-T with the "N" intact in a comment when he neg repped me .... LOL

WOW.. not very bright..


----------



## westwall (Nov 10, 2011)

gslack said:


> BTW, oohpoopooo or whatever his name is just called me C-U-_-T with the "N" intact in a comment when he neg repped me .... LOL
> 
> WOW.. not very bright..






Well I just negged him for being a douche, how's that!


----------



## daveman (Nov 10, 2011)

gslack said:


> BTW, oohpoopooo or whatever his name is just called me C-U-_-T with the "N" intact in a comment when he neg repped me .... LOL
> 
> WOW.. not very bright..


He makes up for his stupidity by being filled with impotent rage.


----------



## gslack (Nov 11, 2011)

I am still waiting on either of them to address my post asking about the Greenhouse Theory itself.. SHAT is supposed to be so scientific he should have jumped at the opportunity to address it but as of yet he has avoided it like the plague...


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2011)

hmmm....its been quite a while since all the pre-peer-review publicity came out on the BEST papers. usually agreeable papers go through in no time at all. perhaps they have actually had to read the papers and fix the problems because it is obvious that there will be a lot of attention paid to these papers when they are actually published.

I wouldnt be surprised if the UHI paper just gets dumped. and the paper on how they spliced the datasets and made adjustments will have a lot of impact not only on the BEST results but also on other temperature datasets that didnt put their methodologies through open peer review. interesting times.


----------

