Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[Si modo]

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.

No, he didn't. What you imagine is not reality.

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.

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,
....

The NASA data demonstrates correlation. Correlation is not causation.

The EPA's website is not science. Although, I imagine they link to some.

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]

Please reread what you bolded.

 

[Si modo]

Please reread what you bolded.

Are you going to try to tell my "you" meant something else?

 

[edthecynic]

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.

As I haven't ever commented on that, it is impossible that I ever denied or confirmed it.

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.

It does correlate with it, but correlation is not causation.

Thus, my lack of comment.

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]

Please reread what you bolded.

Are you going to try to tell my "you" meant something else?

Please reread what you bolded.

If you'll be more honest, we won't keep having this problem.

 

[Si modo]

Please reread what you bolded.

Are you going to try to tell my "you" meant something else?

Please reread what you bolded.

If you'll be more honest, we won't keep having this problem.

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]

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.

It does correlate with it, but correlation is not causation.

Thus, my lack of comment.

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!

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]

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.

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]

You need to stop saying this. It's wrong, and it's beside the point. Please check with an administrator for verification.

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..

I'm sure that this particular delusion has plenty of company.

If you ever decide to test your theory out, ask an administrator.

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]

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..

I'm sure that this particular delusion has plenty of company.

If you ever decide to test your theory out, ask an administrator.

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..

So if I'm not guilty, why are you asking me all these questions?

Yep, you're a conservative.

 

[Si modo]

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.

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.

....

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?

It does correlate with it, but correlation is not causation.

Thus, my lack of comment.

Some of you denier cult nutjobs are certainly fixated on your mantra of "correlation is not causation".
....

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!

 

[edthecynic]

It does correlate with it, but correlation is not causation.

Thus, my lack of comment.

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!

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.

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]

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!

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.

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.

....

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]

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]

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.

....

I just did. Clearly.

What is perplexing you now?

....

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'm asking if you can generate a hypothesis.

Not if you can prove it.

Just if you can think of one.

So can you?

I can, but I won't.

I have no desire to do something that silly.

 

[SAT]

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

I can, but I won't.

I have no desire to do something that silly.

Priceless.

 

[Si modo]

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?

....

I can, but I won't.

I have no desire to do something that silly.

Priceless.

Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fifth bullet point. What is it that increasing amounts of greenhouse gases do?



True.

Did any of the bullet points say that if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere we'd see no changes in the environment?

Are you sure that your words are reflecting your actual thoughts?

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]

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.

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.

....

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.

Maybe I should publish. You CON$ claim there is tons of money in it.

 

[Si modo]

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.

....

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.

Maybe I should publish. You CON$ claim there is tons of money in it.

I never have made that claim. Most scientific journals don't pay a penny. Sometimes there are even charges for the author.