AGW Question

[Billy_Bob]

But you chose no to answer the simple question in the OP
Why's that?

---
Huh?
I did not provide an answer to your confirmation-biased Q because I am not a climate scientist and i do NOT know the detailed theoretical issues to suppose if they "suppose".

In other simpler words, for the simple Y/N minded, my honest answer is ... I don't know
.

So, if you don't even know the Theory, why are you arguing for it?

---
Unlike you, i understand the general modern scientific process, and if the established scientists in their field have a consensus view, albeit theoretical, i give them a lot of credibility.

I am not "arguing for" AGW theories, i am arguing against the anti-science views by those who disagree based on their political & financial preferences.
.

CAGW is a political hoax designed to deprive America of its ability to feed, cloth, house, and operate outside socialist, top down, command and control, one world government.

Otmar Edenhofer said quite clearly:

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’

If you read the German paper NZZ and the interview in full, its very enlightening as to the real agenda behind the Global Warming Scam.

Here is a secondary source in English

---
I thought we were discussing the scientific merit of climate science.
Now you are diverting to your conspiracy theory about why there is a consensus in the scientific field? LOL.

Do you understand the differences between climate science, environmental policy, and climate-economic policy?
Apparently not.

You are definitely revealing your fear of losing some of your pocketbook moola to compensate for shared blame in causing the Earth some harm!
Nothing to do with the science.
.

With CAGW they are one in the same. they can not be separated from one another.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You like being a pivot man in a circle jerk. You go round and round and never answer the question while baiting others to say something you can use against them.

The AGW theroy and its so called supporting evidence wont pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination. NO legitimate court would place itself in the cross hairs of this without many professionals to advise it on the scientific veracity, not the AGW premise itself. There has been so much corruption of the science it wont pass muster and that is easily proved.

Climate Scientists have reached a consensus on the Global Warming data. Scientific theories are not legal arguments. You claim a corruption in the sciences, yet you cannot show evidence to back up your claims -- not evidence that would "pass a court of law's discovery process and physical review with cross examination."

Why do you attack the science? Be truthful

Too funny;

You use consensus as if it means something in science. Consensus is a political term and not one reputable scientist use. Your like the Catholic Church who said the sun circled the earth and that the earth was flat.. Their "consensus" was wrong as it is today also.. But hey, your in a cult...

Like denier!, consensus is a cult word

There can be a scientific consensus against a new theory. Saying their is a consensus,, is not saying the consensus equals truth. But, and here is where you stumble, Einstein had a theory that went against the scientific consensus, but as it was tested the scientific consensus came around to his theory.

Now, unlike Einstein, you people are NOT putting forth a new theory, you are railing against a new theory. The idea that the consensus is always on one side or the other is a faulty premise, people like you always start out with. So in the end, any and all conclusions you come to will always be based on the use of faulty logic.

What new theory are you talking about?

Ther'e is newspaper articles dating back to the great Chicago fire that were fear mongering about climate change even then.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

... Einstein ...
... AGW ...
the difference between science and the occult

---
I hope you are not a scientist; you obviously know little about scientific methods, theories, and their variances across scientific disciplines.

People like you must be flabbergasted with thoughts like "We can land on the moon and return, yet we can't even predict the weather 3 days out, or predict which person becomes a murderer, etc".

Unless you understand the scientific details (& philosophy of science) behind scientific investigations in particular fields, you would be literally stupid to claim their research is flawed, let alone quacking "cult".

If your conspiracy theorists want to actually make a dent with your claims, have your alternative hypotheses or data interpretations vetted thru established NAS-type scientists in their field (climatology or very similar) and any disputes can be openly cross-examined & reviewed, like in a court of law. Go ahead and use your preferred real scientists to represent your views.

Using this forum for your anti-AGW rants only reinforces your cultish views.
.

Lmao like you are doing right now?

 

[SSDD]

"AGW hypothesis?" I wonder when you will next claim "Gravity is only a hypothesis?"

You leave me with a difficult choice. Listen to a bunch of anonymous people on the world wide web, or listen to the scientific community. Tough choice

Well there is a third choice which it is obvious that you never thought of, nor would you ever think of...that would be thinking for yourself. Never occurred to you huh? The scientific community has an abysmally poor track record of being right in old established sciences and an even worse record where young sciences such as climate science are concerned....following the consensus is following a logical fallacy....either the evidence exists to support the claims or it doesn't...in the case of climate science, precious little actual evidence of anything exists...the rest is modified records, and "data" produced by failed computer models.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

"AGW hypothesis?" I wonder when you will next claim "Gravity is only a hypothesis?"

You leave me with a difficult choice. Listen to a bunch of anonymous people on the world wide web, or listen to the scientific community. Tough choice

Well there is a third choice which it is obvious that you never thought of, nor would you ever think of...that would be thinking for yourself. Never occurred to you huh? The scientific community has an abysmally poor track record of being right in old established sciences and an even worse record where young sciences such as climate science are concerned....following the consensus is following a logical fallacy....either the evidence exists to support the claims or it doesn't...in the case of climate science, precious little actual evidence of anything exists...the rest is modified records, and "data" produced by failed computer models.

You have succeeding in leaving me speechless.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

An irony is how you totally missed the Crick point "I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists." When there is a consensus on what the facts actually are, you are left with no argument. Unless of course you think it is useful to continually beat a dead horse arguing over the facts, if only because you do not like where the facts lead.

You continually misrepresent what the term consensus is, and how it is being used. Being disingenuous does not make you look smart. It makes you look foolish.

 

[SSDD]

"AGW hypothesis?" I wonder when you will next claim "Gravity is only a hypothesis?"

You leave me with a difficult choice. Listen to a bunch of anonymous people on the world wide web, or listen to the scientific community. Tough choice

Well there is a third choice which it is obvious that you never thought of, nor would you ever think of...that would be thinking for yourself. Never occurred to you huh? The scientific community has an abysmally poor track record of being right in old established sciences and an even worse record where young sciences such as climate science are concerned....following the consensus is following a logical fallacy....either the evidence exists to support the claims or it doesn't...in the case of climate science, precious little actual evidence of anything exists...the rest is modified records, and "data" produced by failed computer models.

You have succeeding in leaving me speechless.

Well of course you are speechless....I asked for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support your belief in the AGW hypothesis....did I expect you to admit that you have none....nor could you find any? Of course not.....so what do you do?...pretend speechlessness.

As to the scientific community's record of being poor...do some research...learn something.

 

[SSDD]

An irony is how you totally missed the Crick point "I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists." When there is a consensus on what the facts actually are, you are left with no argument. Unless of course you think it is useful to continually beat a dead horse arguing over the facts, if only because you do not like where the facts lead.

You clearly are unaware of how often the consensus is dead wrong....science isn't advanced by the consensus...science is advanced by those few who actually think for themselves...just in the past few years several long held consensus opinions in science have been found to be dead wrong...Hell, 15 or 20 years ago when my doctor told me that my stomach ulcer was due to stress I told him that there was no way....I am as close to stress free as is possible....I didn't take the "anti stress" meds he recommended and held that he was simply wrong....turns out, that he was, and every other doctor (which was damned near all of them) were wrong right along with him.

Then there is the cholesterol error....for years and years we have been warned that cholesterol was causing heart disease....millions of people were put on dangerous statins....My doc warned me and tried to prescribe such drugs to me...I asked him if he could produce any study that actually provided solid evidence for his worry over my cholesterol numbers....of course he couldn't but he could point to the consensus....well after a decades long study it turns out that just as many people with "normal" cholesterol numbers die of heart disease as those with "high" cholesterol...he finally has admitted that he was wrong.

Not so long ago a fellow finally proved the existence of quasi crystals...a state of matter that the consensus has long held could not exist...the consensus was so strong that the guy who finally proved their existence had his career ruined, and was ejected from the scientific societies which make up the consensus...

If you care to go further back in history, practically every year some long held consensus is falling and usually more than one.

You continually misrepresent what the term consensus is, and how it is being used. Being disingenuous does not make you look smart. It makes you look foolish.

Consensus is a political term....not a scientific term....and it suggests nothing other than, in the case of climate science, a widespread agreement of OPINION...as there is no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis, as evidenced by your, and every other warmer's inability to produce any actual evidence at all. Hell, at this point, we can't even begin to tease out a human fingerprint in the chaos of climate because we have hardly scratched the surface as to what actually drives the climate.

 

[Wuwei]

Debate the data I posted. I am not your puppet bitch and I am not the point or topic of debate.

This is the problem with left wing nut bags such as yourself. You want to discredit those who disagree with you on a professional basis to shut them up. I won't play your childish games.

This is the data you posted. It links to photobucket.com

The legend on your graph claims it comes from NOAA. But the following graph is a direct link to NOAA.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
It is quite different than your photobucket graph. I would think that the graph below accurately reflects what NOAA has published but the one you presented does not have a viable link to the fundamental source. The graph below shows more clearly that CO2 has a modest long term correlation with CO2, Although I certainly believe that the caption is correct - CO2 is not a thermostat.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Well of course you are speechless....I asked for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support your belief in the AGW hypothesis....did I expect you to admit that you have none....nor could you find any? Of course not.....so what do you do?...pretend speechlessness.

As to the scientific community's record of being poor...do some research...learn something.

There you go again, calling a theory a hypothesis.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

You clearly are unaware of how often the consensus is dead wrong....

Science tests things out. The science isn't wrong. The hypothesis being tested can turn out to be wrong. and Global Warming is not a hypothesis, it is a theory Hypothesis vs Theory - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

and you are attacking the messengers because you cannot attack the science. and when you do attempt to attack the science, you are shown to be a complete and utter fool

 

[Billy_Bob]

Debate the data I posted. I am not your puppet bitch and I am not the point or topic of debate.

This is the problem with left wing nut bags such as yourself. You want to discredit those who disagree with you on a professional basis to shut them up. I won't play your childish games.

This is the data you posted. It links to photobucket.com

The legend on your graph claims it comes from NOAA. But the following graph is a direct link to NOAA.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
It is quite different than your photobucket graph. I would think that the graph below accurately reflects what NOAA has published but the one you presented does not have a viable link to the fundamental source. The graph below shows more clearly that CO2 has a modest long term correlation with CO2, Although I certainly believe that the caption is correct - CO2 is not a thermostat.

And just like MEM you cant prove anything..

I showed you physical evidence using the in use data sets and you post up a correlation. Correlation does not imply or show causation. Please show me the causal link and the empirical evidence to support it.

 

[Wuwei]

And just like MEM you cant prove anything..

I showed you physical evidence using the in use data sets and you post up a correlation. Correlation does not imply or show causation. Please show me the causal link and the empirical evidence to support it.

I did not attempt to prove anything. Of course I have not shown evidence of anything. Neither did you. I was simply pointing out that the graph you posted implies that it represents data from NOAA but it came from photobucket. However a very similar graph that I posted actually did come directly from the NOAA site. Time and again you post graphs that have no valid reference. The graph I posted has a valid NOAA reference. I am saying that your graph is not valid.

Please cite the reference you got your graph from otherwise you have no point.

 

[SSDD]

Well of course you are speechless....I asked for actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support your belief in the AGW hypothesis....did I expect you to admit that you have none....nor could you find any? Of course not.....so what do you do?...pretend speechlessness.

As to the scientific community's record of being poor...do some research...learn something.

There you go again, calling a theory a hypothesis.

Hypothesis - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.


There you go...not knowing the difference between hypothesis and theory. There is a whole thread on this board asking for even one experiment that demonstrates the tenets of the AGW hypothesis....none have been forthcoming....and then there are the myriad of failed predictions stretching back for decades....like the predicted tropospheric hot spot to materialize....in real science, when a hypothesis fails in even one prediction, it is scrapped and a more viable hypothesis is developed...not so in climate science...the failed hypothesis is simply proper up with more money... and political hand waving while the press just doesn't bother to mention the steady string of failed predictions... Great pronouncements are made regarding what might happen and when it doesn't, it is quietly swept under the rug and the great pronouncement is made regarding the next prediction.

 

[SSDD]

You clearly are unaware of how often the consensus is dead wrong....

Science tests things out. The science isn't wrong. The hypothesis being tested can turn out to be wrong. and Global Warming is not a hypothesis, it is a theory Hypothesis vs Theory - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So you can actually point to some experiment that supports the AGW hypothesis? You can actually provide some actual observed, measured, quantified data in support of the hypothesis....great...lets see it. If it exists, it would surely be public knowledge and my bet is that the internet would be inundated with it....so where is this actual observed, measured, quantified data? Can you even quantify the alleged human contribution to climate change with anything like measured accuracy? Of course you can't.

and you are attacking the messengers because you cannot attack the science. and when you do attempt to attack the science, you are shown to be a complete and utter fool

You "messengers" are the useful idiot lackeys spreading the message....and there is precious little actual science to attack as evidenced by the complete inability of you useful idiots to provide even a little observed, measured quantified data to support the hypothesis....you seem unable to see the disconnect that you are part of. If you have actual measured quantified data then lets see it...it would be unavoidable on the internet if it existed....you don't have it and yet you defend the pseudoscience that is propping up a failed hypothesis...who is the complete and utter fool.

 

[SSDD]

And just like MEM you cant prove anything..

I showed you physical evidence using the in use data sets and you post up a correlation. Correlation does not imply or show causation. Please show me the causal link and the empirical evidence to support it.

I did not attempt to prove anything. Of course I have not shown evidence of anything. Neither did you.

There is where you are wrong...it is quite easy to show evidence of the failure of a hypothesis...there is a string of failed predictions made based on the AGW hypothesis going back decades. Tell me, in real science, how many predictive failures is a hypothesis allowed before it is scrapped and a more viable hypothesis put forward to explain the phenomena in question? Really, how many? Can you name any other successful hypothesis (one that was elevated to the status of theory) which has had so many, or even one predictive failure?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You clearly are unaware of how often the consensus is dead wrong....

Science tests things out. The science isn't wrong. The hypothesis being tested can turn out to be wrong. and Global Warming is not a hypothesis, it is a theory Hypothesis vs Theory - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

So you can actually point to some experiment that supports the AGW hypothesis? You can actually provide some actual observed, measured, quantified data in support of the hypothesis....great...lets see it. If it exists, it would surely be public knowledge and my bet is that the internet would be inundated with it....so where is this actual observed, measured, quantified data? Can you even quantify the alleged human contribution to climate change with anything like measured accuracy? Of course you can't.

and you are attacking the messengers because you cannot attack the science. and when you do attempt to attack the science, you are shown to be a complete and utter fool

You "messengers" are the useful idiot lackeys spreading the message....and there is precious little actual science to attack as evidenced by the complete inability of you useful idiots to provide even a little observed, measured quantified data to support the hypothesis....you seem unable to see the disconnect that you are part of. If you have actual measured quantified data then lets see it...it would be unavoidable on the internet if it existed....you don't have it and yet you defend the pseudoscience that is propping up a failed hypothesis...who is the complete and utter fool.

I posted clear evidence of the disconnect up thread, and not one person has posted verifiable evidence to the contrary.. You would think that if it existed they could easily post it..

Failed models and tortured graphs to show correlation is all they have and not one shred of empirical evidence..

I clearly showed the divergence of your correlation and the failure of the IPCC CAGW hypothesis. No atmospheric hot spot shows the models and the hypothesis wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And just like MEM you cant prove anything..

I showed you physical evidence using the in use data sets and you post up a correlation. Correlation does not imply or show causation. Please show me the causal link and the empirical evidence to support it.

I did not attempt to prove anything. Of course I have not shown evidence of anything. Neither did you. I was simply pointing out that the graph you posted implies that it represents data from NOAA but it came from photobucket. However a very similar graph that I posted actually did come directly from the NOAA site. Time and again you post graphs that have no valid reference. The graph I posted has a valid NOAA reference. I am saying that your graph is not valid.

Please cite the reference you got your graph from otherwise you have no point.

The alarmist drone... The onus is on you to provide not only the causal link but verifiable, empirical evidence proof and quantification. Models are programs and if your using garbage as an input your output is also garbage.

 

[Wuwei]

And just like MEM you cant prove anything..

I showed you physical evidence using the in use data sets and you post up a correlation. Correlation does not imply or show causation. Please show me the causal link and the empirical evidence to support it.

I did not attempt to prove anything. Of course I have not shown evidence of anything. Neither did you. I was simply pointing out that the graph you posted implies that it represents data from NOAA but it came from photobucket. However a very similar graph that I posted actually did come directly from the NOAA site. Time and again you post graphs that have no valid reference. The graph I posted has a valid NOAA reference. I am saying that your graph is not valid.

Please cite the reference you got your graph from otherwise you have no point.

The alarmist drone... The onus is on you to provide not only the causal link but verifiable, empirical evidence proof and quantification. Models are programs and if your using garbage as an input your output is also garbage.

Name calling does not make your point. You still haven't cited a reference to your graph or why you think photobucket is a more reliable indication of NOAA publications than the graph that I cited directly from NOAA.

 

[Wuwei]

I did not attempt to prove anything. Of course I have not shown evidence of anything. Neither did you.

There is where you are wrong...

There is where I'm wrong? I think you have misread my statement. I said I have not shown evidence of anything. How can you say I'm wrong on that? The rest of your post is on a different tangent than my claim that the graph that BillyBob posted is questionable.