Global Warming Pie Chart

[Foxfyre]

Bzzzzzzt. As expected, you failed hard at understanding Occam's Razor.

Occam's says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED DATA is most likely to be correct.

Among several other things, your cult's "it's a natural cycle!" explanation fails to explain:
-- the lack of any observable natural cause for this "natural cycle".
-- the observation of CO2 increasinglyl blocking outward IR flux.

Your theory does not explain the observed data, so Occam's doesn't apply. AGW theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data, hence Occam's supports it.



Even you know by now what a lying sack you are, but you don't care. You've sworn allegiance to your liars' cult, and hating liberals is now the only thing you care about. You're a hate-addict, so you'll justify anything that gets you your hate-fix.

Occam's Razor applies in all things when there is no way to test the scientific theory. We have had satellite imaging for 33 years, not even a eyelash blink in the whole of the history of Earth. No honorable scientist I know would conclude that observing 33 years of satellite images or measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures proves a single thing re climate outside of those 33 years.

We have been using weather balloons and measuring CO2 levels at Mauna Loa for a little over a half century, still too short a period for any scientific conclusion outside of those years. Reliable temperature records on Earth have been kept for a little over 150 years. The only way we have to assess the paleontological record is via fossils and ice core samples and any conclusions drawn from that are based on very large blocks of time. And with no way to test it, scientists don't KNOW for sure what caused major climate change back then. The best they can do is conclude that it was due to sun spot activity, which we cannot control, or impact from large meteorites, or routine natural occurrences due to the wobble of the Earth's axis, seismic activity etc.

We can't build a dozen more Earths to test hypothesis of unusual influences that might affect this one.

More than a few scientists who have studied this conclude that man manipulated changes in water vapor due to release of steam, irrigation, deforestation, farming, etc. is a far more likely to affect the immediate climate than minute changes in CO2. But suggestions that farming and irrigation be ended wouldn't be too popular would it? And there aren't mega billions and trillions to be made suggesting that as is the case with those promoting the CO2 theory.

Honest science has to be something more than politically driven or based on peer review when the peers are the friends, associates, and colleagues of those producing the theories. Remember anybody with just a little bit of knowledge and a computer can produce a pretty graph or chart that will show just about any dang thing they want to show. And the gullible will just eat that up no questions asked. Makes it really easy to manipulate the great unwashed out there when there is incentive to do that.

You are right that the gullible will not ask questions however science is all about questioning. Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims. So while you are correct that current records that only go back 130 years are little more than eyeblink that is not the only available data. The ice core samples are accurate records that reach back thousands of years. The answer to climate change is not a single simple one. However we cannot ignore the problem because to do that would be to betray our own descendants. We do not own the earth. We merely hold it in custody for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them to leave it in better shape than we received it. Therein lies our duty irrespective of our personal beliefs.

But that peer review can't be the folks working in the same office with the guy who wrote the article. Most especially those who are going to need him to 'peer review' their article so they can keep the grant money rolling in.

You won't find anybody who is a more passionate or dedicated environmentalist than I am. I don't want dirty water, air, or polluted soil any more than anybody else does. I can't even bring myself to push a hook through an earthworm to try to catch that bass we need for dinner. It just seems too cruel. Imagine how much I love the beautiful birdss and magificent creatures and other glories of God's creation. I love aesthetic beauty and can be almost violently angry when somebody intentionally disrespects and spoils it.

But that does not extrapolate into me accepting the dictates of those who have everything to gain by promoting AGW when I and millions of others have so much to lose. Not when the peer reivew NEVER includes anybody who might challenge the conclusions or question the methods used. Not when the most virulent of the alarmists live lifestyles themselves that at best could be considered crass; at worst seriously hypocritical if they buy their own hype.

I simply am unwilling to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and/or condemn many millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty just to comply with what looks more and more likely to be bogus science.

 

[Mustang]

Occam's Razor applies in all things when there is no way to test the scientific theory. We have had satellite imaging for 33 years, not even a eyelash blink in the whole of the history of Earth. No honorable scientist I know would conclude that observing 33 years of satellite images or measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures proves a single thing re climate outside of those 33 years.

We have been using weather balloons and measuring CO2 levels at Mauna Loa for a little over a half century, still too short a period for any scientific conclusion outside of those years. Reliable temperature records on Earth have been kept for a little over 150 years. The only way we have to assess the paleontological record is via fossils and ice core samples and any conclusions drawn from that are based on very large blocks of time. And with no way to test it, scientists don't KNOW for sure what caused major climate change back then. The best they can do is conclude that it was due to sun spot activity, which we cannot control, or impact from large meteorites, or routine natural occurrences due to the wobble of the Earth's axis, seismic activity etc.

We can't build a dozen more Earths to test hypothesis of unusual influences that might affect this one.

More than a few scientists who have studied this conclude that man manipulated changes in water vapor due to release of steam, irrigation, deforestation, farming, etc. is a far more likely to affect the immediate climate than minute changes in CO2. But suggestions that farming and irrigation be ended wouldn't be too popular would it? And there aren't mega billions and trillions to be made suggesting that as is the case with those promoting the CO2 theory.

Honest science has to be something more than politically driven or based on peer review when the peers are the friends, associates, and colleagues of those producing the theories. Remember anybody with just a little bit of knowledge and a computer can produce a pretty graph or chart that will show just about any dang thing they want to show. And the gullible will just eat that up no questions asked. Makes it really easy to manipulate the great unwashed out there when there is incentive to do that.

You are right that the gullible will not ask questions however science is all about questioning. Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims. So while you are correct that current records that only go back 130 years are little more than eyeblink that is not the only available data. The ice core samples are accurate records that reach back thousands of years. The answer to climate change is not a single simple one. However we cannot ignore the problem because to do that would be to betray our own descendants. We do not own the earth. We merely hold it in custody for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them to leave it in better shape than we received it. Therein lies our duty irrespective of our personal beliefs.

But that peer review can't be the folks working in the same office with the guy who wrote the article. Most especially those who are going to need him to 'peer review' their article so they can keep the grant money rolling in.

You won't find anybody who is a more passionate or dedicated environmentalist than I am. I don't want dirty water, air, or polluted soil any more than anybody else does. I can't even bring myself to push a hook through an earthworm to try to catch that bass we need for dinner. It just seems too cruel. Imagine how much I love the beautiful birdss and magificent creatures and other glories of God's creation. I love aesthetic beauty and can be almost violently angry when somebody intentionally disrespects and spoils it.

But that does not extrapolate into me accepting the dictates of those who have everything to gain by promoting AGW when I and millions of others have so much to lose. Not when the peer reivew NEVER includes anybody who might challenge the conclusions or question the methods used. Not when the most virulent of the alarmists live lifestyles themselves that at best could be considered crass; at worst seriously hypocritical if they buy their own hype.

I simply am unwilling to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and/or condemn many millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty just to comply with what looks more and more likely to be bogus science.

There's no such thing as bogus science.

 

[depotoo]

You are right that the gullible will not ask questions however science is all about questioning. Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims. So while you are correct that current records that only go back 130 years are little more than eyeblink that is not the only available data. The ice core samples are accurate records that reach back thousands of years. The answer to climate change is not a single simple one. However we cannot ignore the problem because to do that would be to betray our own descendants. We do not own the earth. We merely hold it in custody for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them to leave it in better shape than we received it. Therein lies our duty irrespective of our personal beliefs.

But that peer review can't be the folks working in the same office with the guy who wrote the article. Most especially those who are going to need him to 'peer review' their article so they can keep the grant money rolling in.

You won't find anybody who is a more passionate or dedicated environmentalist than I am. I don't want dirty water, air, or polluted soil any more than anybody else does. I can't even bring myself to push a hook through an earthworm to try to catch that bass we need for dinner. It just seems too cruel. Imagine how much I love the beautiful birdss and magificent creatures and other glories of God's creation. I love aesthetic beauty and can be almost violently angry when somebody intentionally disrespects and spoils it.

But that does not extrapolate into me accepting the dictates of those who have everything to gain by promoting AGW when I and millions of others have so much to lose. Not when the peer reivew NEVER includes anybody who might challenge the conclusions or question the methods used. Not when the most virulent of the alarmists live lifestyles themselves that at best could be considered crass; at worst seriously hypocritical if they buy their own hype.

I simply am unwilling to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and/or condemn many millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty just to comply with what looks more and more likely to be bogus science.

There's no such thing as bogus science.

so that means the science of the 70's proclaiming the coming cooling was not bogus, either then.
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

 

[mamooth]

Sigh. The science in the 1970s was predicting warming. How many times do we have to go over this? Cherrypicking a single paper is not valid, given that most of the papers predicted warming.

 

[mamooth]

Not when the peer reivew NEVER includes anybody who might challenge the conclusions or question the methods used

Conspiracy theory.

Not when the most virulent of the alarmists live lifestyles themselves that at best could be considered crass; at worst seriously hypocritical if they buy their own hype.

Awful logic, justification seeking. Any individual's lifestyle has nothing to do with the science.

I simply am unwilling to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and/or condemn many millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty just to comply with what looks more and more likely to be bogus science.

More conspiracy theory gibberish.

The combination of awful logic and the embrace of all the required politically correct conspiracy theories leads to the conclusion the author has sworn allegiance to the kook-right-fringe cult.

 

[depotoo]

Sigh. The science in the 1970s was predicting warming. How many times do we have to go over this? Cherrypicking a single paper is not valid, given that most of the papers predicted warming.

just because you say it doesn't make it true, you know. I have given you the evidence and like a good AGW cheerleader you choose to ignore it. Says a lot about your character

 

[mamooth]

You imported Hansen's raw data?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Have at it. But denialists should stop moving the goalposts. Every time they get the data, it's never enough. "Okay, but what about the email! What about v0.9 of this computer program! What about v0.8!".

And so on. No matter how much they get, they always claim more data is beign hidden. They don't care about the data. They just want excuses to claim data is being hidden.

Oh, stop demonizing Hansen as well, since it reveals you to be a cultist. You're not going to be allowed to toss him in the gulag, or Mann, or anyone.

 

[mamooth]

just because you say it doesn't make it true, you know.

First correct thing you've said. I'll excuse you, given you're not rational, and you don't know me. If you did, you'd know I can always back up what I say.

THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

Peterson examines all of the climate papers published 1965-1979. 42 predict warming, 7 predict cooling.

I have given you the evidence and like a good AGW cheerleader you choose to ignore it. Says a lot about your character

I've now given you the direct evidence that you were wrong. You now have a choice.

1. Admit you were wrong, and use the correct facts in the future.

2. Rage that my data had to be wrong, and keep lying in the future.

Remember, all of your future credibility is at stake. Do you choose a politically aligned lie, or the politically opposed truth? Your answer will say a lot about your character.

 

[westwall]

You are right that the gullible will not ask questions however science is all about questioning. Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims. So while you are correct that current records that only go back 130 years are little more than eyeblink that is not the only available data. The ice core samples are accurate records that reach back thousands of years. The answer to climate change is not a single simple one. However we cannot ignore the problem because to do that would be to betray our own descendants. We do not own the earth. We merely hold it in custody for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them to leave it in better shape than we received it. Therein lies our duty irrespective of our personal beliefs.

But that peer review can't be the folks working in the same office with the guy who wrote the article. Most especially those who are going to need him to 'peer review' their article so they can keep the grant money rolling in.

You won't find anybody who is a more passionate or dedicated environmentalist than I am. I don't want dirty water, air, or polluted soil any more than anybody else does. I can't even bring myself to push a hook through an earthworm to try to catch that bass we need for dinner. It just seems too cruel. Imagine how much I love the beautiful birdss and magificent creatures and other glories of God's creation. I love aesthetic beauty and can be almost violently angry when somebody intentionally disrespects and spoils it.

But that does not extrapolate into me accepting the dictates of those who have everything to gain by promoting AGW when I and millions of others have so much to lose. Not when the peer reivew NEVER includes anybody who might challenge the conclusions or question the methods used. Not when the most virulent of the alarmists live lifestyles themselves that at best could be considered crass; at worst seriously hypocritical if they buy their own hype.

I simply am unwilling to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and/or condemn many millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty just to comply with what looks more and more likely to be bogus science.

There's no such thing as bogus science.

Medical fraud revealed in discredited vaccine-autism study

Medical fraud revealed in discredited vaccine-autism study - The Globe and Mail



"It was due to Lysenko's efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as "reactionary and decadent" and declared such thinkers to be "enemies of the Soviet people" (Gardner 1957). He also announced that his speech had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Scientists either groveled, writing public letters confessing the errors of their way and the righteousness of the wisdom of the Party, or they were dismissed. Some were sent to labor camps. Some were never heard from again."


Lysenkoism - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com



Sound familiar comrade?

 

[westwall]

You imported Hansen's raw data?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Have at it. But denialists should stop moving the goalposts. Every time they get the data, it's never enough. "Okay, but what about the email! What about v0.9 of this computer program! What about v0.8!".

And so on. No matter how much they get, they always claim more data is beign hidden. They don't care about the data. They just want excuses to claim data is being hidden.

Oh, stop demonizing Hansen as well, since it reveals you to be a cultist. You're not going to be allowed to toss him in the gulag, or Mann, or anyone.

That's not the raw data idiot.

This is what the raw data looks like.....oh wait a minute...it's not there....
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/notavailable.html

 

[Saigon]

You imported Hansen's raw data?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Have at it. But denialists should stop moving the goalposts. Every time they get the data, it's never enough. "Okay, but what about the email! What about v0.9 of this computer program! What about v0.8!".

And so on. No matter how much they get, they always claim more data is beign hidden. They don't care about the data. They just want excuses to claim data is being hidden.

Oh, stop demonizing Hansen as well, since it reveals you to be a cultist. You're not going to be allowed to toss him in the gulag, or Mann, or anyone.

Yes, that is exactly it.

As we've discussed here many times before, reseacher units collect data in every developed country. Almost all of that data is available.

So anyone here can check data compiled in Austria, Canada, Finland or Italy and see what it shows. It's all independent, and it's all reliable.

But no - posters here are only interested in what they can not see or can not find.

As I said on the other thread, I'm starting to wish we had some Deniers who could present a more reasonable and adult case, rather than just thse children's games.

 

[Foxfyre]

Depotoo took some trouble to post the extensive CIA report that clearly lists and discusses the many scientific studies and scientific groups promoting global COOLING in the 70's and Mamooth continues to fail to look at that CIo report and fails to post any evidence from any credible source to back up his assertion that scientists were promoting global warming way back then.

Sigh. I really think it may be hopeless all you skeptics who do respect science an are looking at the big picture here. Maybe too many have been issued those special licenses to ignore anything other than the PC version and that may be too much for common sense to overcome.

 

[westwall]

Depotoo took some trouble to post the extensive CIA report that clearly lists and discusses the many scientific studies and scientific groups promoting global COOLING in the 70's and Mamooth continues to fail to look at that CIo report and fails to post any evidence from any credible source to back up his assertion that scientists were promoting global warming way back then.

Sigh. I really think it may be hopeless all you skeptics who do respect science an are looking at the big picture here. Maybe too many have been issued those special licenses to ignore anything other than the PC version and that may be too much for common sense to overcome.

Oh, I don't care about those drones Foxy. They're braindead....nope I care about those who read these threads and see the drivel they post and the scientific data we post and they change their minds. I've received many PMs over the years here where people have thanked me for opening their eyes to the fraud.

I do it for them. And for some light entertainement as well!

 

[Saigon]

the many scientific studies and scientific groups promoting global COOLING in the 70'

Seven.

There were seven peer-reviewed pieces of scientific research published during the 1970's that predicted cooling.

During the same years there were more than four times as many papers predicting warming.

 

[BlindBoo]

I guess the CIA thought the research was bogus too, huh?

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Talking about the consequences of the cooling climate as was being predicted

Interesting disclaimer at the very beginning of the paper.

The truly shows the beginnings of the full scale evaluation and study of the Climate.

The prediction of doom is virtually the same. Famine, unrest, mass movement of people basic gloom and doom.

Their conclusion is far from a consensus on global cooling, but rather an acknowledgement that there is a need for further study.

 

[JoeNormal]

Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims.

And then the warmists refuse to turn over their data. I wonder why they do that?

Huh? I imported it myself a few years ago.

You imported Hansen's raw data?

I imported the raw Earth temperature data from the 6(?) stations that perform the measurements. I imagine that all kinds of other data is available if one were inclined to search for it.

 

[Pete7469]

Oh, I don't care about those drones Foxy. They're braindead....nope I care about those who read these threads and see the drivel they post and the scientific data we post and they change their minds. I've received many PMs over the years here where people have thanked me for opening their eyes to the fraud.

I do it for them. And for some light entertainement as well!

That's the only reason to bother. Bed wetting liberals over the age of 40 are too commited to their programming to allow an independent thought through whatever constitutes their "minds".

Younger people, even those being brainwashed in leftist indoctrination institutions, can still be inspired to think critically. Old moonbats have completely suppressed that ability, and some of them obviously are desperate to prevent information from even being read by others. That's why they gang up and spam the threads with bullshit.

I'm glad you're taking the time to help enlighten some of the younger minds, all I really have time to do is ridicule these mouthbreathing O-bots.

 

[Pete7469]

the many scientific studies and scientific groups promoting global COOLING in the 70'

Seven.

There were seven peer-reviewed pieces of scientific research published during the 1970's that predicted cooling.

During the same years there were more than four times as many papers predicting warming.

It was just as much a steaming heap of bullshit back then too.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sorry Boo, temps have been flat for 20 ears.....sucks to think like you.

What does that mean exactly? Are you looking for an increase every year until it gets to boiling?

That's the claim made by you.

Is this directed towards me? It couldn't be because I never said or suggested that. Cant we discuss without lying

 

[Foxfyre]

You are right that the gullible will not ask questions however science is all about questioning. Peer review means independent verification of the results. Scientists who cannot replicate claimed results are never shy to step forward and question the original claims. So while you are correct that current records that only go back 130 years are little more than eyeblink that is not the only available data. The ice core samples are accurate records that reach back thousands of years. The answer to climate change is not a single simple one. However we cannot ignore the problem because to do that would be to betray our own descendants. We do not own the earth. We merely hold it in custody for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them to leave it in better shape than we received it. Therein lies our duty irrespective of our personal beliefs.

But that peer review can't be the folks working in the same office with the guy who wrote the article. Most especially those who are going to need him to 'peer review' their article so they can keep the grant money rolling in.

You won't find anybody who is a more passionate or dedicated environmentalist than I am. I don't want dirty water, air, or polluted soil any more than anybody else does. I can't even bring myself to push a hook through an earthworm to try to catch that bass we need for dinner. It just seems too cruel. Imagine how much I love the beautiful birdss and magificent creatures and other glories of God's creation. I love aesthetic beauty and can be almost violently angry when somebody intentionally disrespects and spoils it.

But that does not extrapolate into me accepting the dictates of those who have everything to gain by promoting AGW when I and millions of others have so much to lose. Not when the peer reivew NEVER includes anybody who might challenge the conclusions or question the methods used. Not when the most virulent of the alarmists live lifestyles themselves that at best could be considered crass; at worst seriously hypocritical if they buy their own hype.

I simply am unwilling to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and/or condemn many millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty just to comply with what looks more and more likely to be bogus science.

There's no such thing as bogus science.

I can assure you there is. I, and friends and relatives, have served as research assistants in which we were apalled at the dishonest manipulation and interpretation of the data being used.

Now you can say that science itself is pure and is what it is.

You can't say that everything that is claimed as science is pure and is what it is.