I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

[westwall]

Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements? Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

I have. You haven't.

 

[westwall]

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

Silly rabbit! Why would anyone think that 7 billion tons of greenhouse gasses released every year should have any negative impact on our atmosphere and climate?

Every year almost 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide is released into the a - Pastebin.com

Sillier wabbit. The atmosphere weighs QUADRILLIONS OF TONS. You think a tiny amount of CO2 is going to have an effect on that? You're smoking some good dope to think that!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.

 

[westwall]

Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.

Funny that you claim yours is. You are every bit as closed minded as you claim I am. The difference is I have a PhD in geology and have studied the Earth Sciences for decades, so actually have a grounding in what is being discussed. Further I started out as a firm supporter of the theory when it was first promulgated. However, as a scientist I realize that when empirical data doesn't support your theory, you change the theory.....not the data!

Climatology has violated every principle of the scientific method and have revealed themselves to be the modern day Lyshenkoists.

 

[Billy000]

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

I have. You haven't.

He's been pretty civil with you. You should at least appreciate it.

 

[emilynghiem]

On the flip side, do liberals OPPOSE the idea of buying land in order to preserve the environment, endangered wildlife and ecosystems because it comes across as too conservative?

Is the idea of focusing on cleaning up the oceans, stopping pollution and waste,
and preserving/restoring nature NOT appealing, because it would unite people
and can't be turned into some political hot potato to slam conservatives?

 

[Billy000]

Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.

Funny that you claim yours is. You are every bit as closed minded as you claim I am. The difference is I have a PhD in geology and have studied the Earth Sciences for decades, so actually have a grounding in what is being discussed. Further I started out as a firm supporter of the theory when it was first promulgated. However, as a scientist I realize that when empirical data doesn't support your theory, you change the theory.....not the data!

Climatology has violated every principle of the scientific method and have revealed themselves to be the modern day Lyshenkoists.

Dude your black and white perspective on climatology makes me seriously question what you say about your professional background. When a real scientist questions conclusions, he makes a balanced viewpoint about it. He acknowledges their evidence but explains why he ultimately doesn't buy their conclusions. It is far from easy to publish a peer reviewed study. How do you explain that the vast majority of them support the theory that humans have caused climate change? The only explanation you have given is that they are part of some grand political conspiracy. That's just laughable.

 

[BULLDOG]

He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

I have. You haven't.

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

 

[westwall]

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

I have. You haven't.

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

Here you go. A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless. They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful". The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp

 

[IanC]

Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

I have. You haven't.

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

if you are serious about being open minded about the science of global warming/climate change then the first thing you must do is realize that the claimed certainty of AGW is massively exaggerated. many climate scientists (especially the highly recognisable ones) act more like defense attorneys than bend over backwards to be honest scientists (see Feynman's Caltech Commencement speech 'Cargo Cult').

Pick an area, any area, and the reality is different than you read in the headlines and much less 'certain'. be careful to examine answers to difficult questions because they are often speeches to questions never asked. make sure you expose yourself to both viewpoints, otherwise you will not know if you are missing out important pieces of the puzzle.

be careful not to caricaturize either the skeptics or the warmists. both sides agree on the basics. warming since the LIA, CO2 must cause at least some warming, mankind has increased CO2. the squabbles arise over the catastrophic predictions and what constitutes good science.

 

[Conservative65]

CO2

You emit CO2 when you exhale. Stop breathing if you think it's bad.

If you exhale as much CO2 as those stacks, you need to see a doctor.

You global warming nuts can either do it one at a time or all at once. I don't care as long as you all do it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.

Funny that you claim yours is. You are every bit as closed minded as you claim I am. The difference is I have a PhD in geology and have studied the Earth Sciences for decades, so actually have a grounding in what is being discussed. Further I started out as a firm supporter of the theory when it was first promulgated. However, as a scientist I realize that when empirical data doesn't support your theory, you change the theory.....not the data!

Climatology has violated every principle of the scientific method and have revealed themselves to be the modern day Lyshenkoists.

So, you have this Phd in Geology, and so do all the people that I study under. And they are say that AGW is very real and causing us trouble already. As do the statements of the American Geophyical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the American Meteorlogical Society.

Now who to believe, an anonymous poster on the internet, or real scientists that I can call by name, and all the Scientific Societies on this planet?

 

[hadit]

Or this down to a tenth of a degree?

Back in the old days they measured in fahrenheit which is far more precise than celsius. There are 180 gradations between boiling point and freezing in fahrenheit while there are just 100 on the celsius scale.

Add to that error bars, and yes, the old analog systems were more precise than the current digital celsius thermometers.

Precision and accuracy are different things. If today's thermometers are more accurate than yesterday's, how can we confidently say global temperatures have risen by fractions of a degree? Just wondering.

 

[westwall]

Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.

Funny that you claim yours is. You are every bit as closed minded as you claim I am. The difference is I have a PhD in geology and have studied the Earth Sciences for decades, so actually have a grounding in what is being discussed. Further I started out as a firm supporter of the theory when it was first promulgated. However, as a scientist I realize that when empirical data doesn't support your theory, you change the theory.....not the data!

Climatology has violated every principle of the scientific method and have revealed themselves to be the modern day Lyshenkoists.

So, you have this Phd in Geology, and so do all the people that I study under. And they are say that AGW is very real and causing us trouble already. As do the statements of the American Geophyical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the American Meteorlogical Society.

Now who to believe, an anonymous poster on the internet, or real scientists that I can call by name, and all the Scientific Societies on this planet?

I don't care what you say. Your own posts have exposed you for the liar that you are. You claim to be older than I am yet you claimed in a post that your first job was minimum wage paying 2.18 an hour. That would put you younger than me by almost 20 years. There are MANY posts you have made that conflict with your "history". The one thing I do believe about you. You do work for EVRAZ, and you are maybe 50 years old. You aren't going to college, and if you do have any college in your background it was a AA degree, maybe.

As far as who to believe? I don't care about that either. Appeals to authority are logic fails, so feel free to trot them out anytime you wish. All it does is show the world that you have nothing.

 

[westwall]

Or this down to a tenth of a degree?

Back in the old days they measured in fahrenheit which is far more precise than celsius. There are 180 gradations between boiling point and freezing in fahrenheit while there are just 100 on the celsius scale.

Add to that error bars, and yes, the old analog systems were more precise than the current digital celsius thermometers.

Precision and accuracy are different things. If today's thermometers are more accurate than yesterday's, how can we confidently say global temperatures have risen by fractions of a degree? Just wondering.

I agree. They are two different things. However, the thermometers of old were very accurate. The old thermometer under the tongue is STILL more accurate than the digitals they use today. Ask almost any doctor if you don't believe me. The reason why we have gone digital is mercury is toxic and no one wants to handle it if they don't have to. But the best of the old mercury thermometers are more accurate than the best digital thermocouples are today.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, it is not fractions of a degree in some very important areas. Such as the Polar areas.

 

[Old Rocks]

Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.

Funny that you claim yours is. You are every bit as closed minded as you claim I am. The difference is I have a PhD in geology and have studied the Earth Sciences for decades, so actually have a grounding in what is being discussed. Further I started out as a firm supporter of the theory when it was first promulgated. However, as a scientist I realize that when empirical data doesn't support your theory, you change the theory.....not the data!

Climatology has violated every principle of the scientific method and have revealed themselves to be the modern day Lyshenkoists.

So, you have this Phd in Geology, and so do all the people that I study under. And they are say that AGW is very real and causing us trouble already. As do the statements of the American Geophyical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the American Meteorlogical Society.

Now who to believe, an anonymous poster on the internet, or real scientists that I can call by name, and all the Scientific Societies on this planet?

I don't care what you say. Your own posts have exposed you for the liar that you are. You claim to be older than I am yet you claimed in a post that your first job was minimum wage paying 2.18 an hour. That would put you younger than me by almost 20 years. There are MANY posts you have made that conflict with your "history". The one thing I do believe about you. You do work for EVRAZ, and you are maybe 50 years old. You aren't going to college, and if you do have any college in your background it was a AA degree, maybe.

As far as who to believe? I don't care about that either. Appeals to authority are logic fails, so feel free to trot them out anytime you wish. All it does is show the world that you have nothing.

LOL. No, I have never said that my first job was a minimum wage job. It was 2.18 an hour, however. I have never worked at a minimum wage job in my life. And I am 71 years old, still working full time as a millwright in a steel mill, and attending a university. And the highest class I have attended was a 470/570 Eng. Geo. class, that required special permission, which I obtained because I was working on a project that involved that subject at the time.

And, Walleyes, it is not me that is calling all the other Geologists and Geo-physicists frauds, it is you. If you really had evidence for what you state here, you would present it at the meeting of one of the Scientific Societies that you claim membership in. In fact, not mere membership, but even claiming to be a Fellow in the Royal Society.

So, what is you excuse for not presenting such evidence where it would count, instead of an internet board, with few qualified to counter your bullshit?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.

Funny that you claim yours is. You are every bit as closed minded as you claim I am. The difference is I have a PhD in geology and have studied the Earth Sciences for decades, so actually have a grounding in what is being discussed. Further I started out as a firm supporter of the theory when it was first promulgated. However, as a scientist I realize that when empirical data doesn't support your theory, you change the theory.....not the data!

Climatology has violated every principle of the scientific method and have revealed themselves to be the modern day Lyshenkoists.

So, you have this Phd in Geology, and so do all the people that I study under. And they are say that AGW is very real and causing us trouble already. As do the statements of the American Geophyical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the American Meteorlogical Society.

Now who to believe, an anonymous poster on the internet, or real scientists that I can call by name, and all the Scientific Societies on this planet?

I don't care what you say. Your own posts have exposed you for the liar that you are. You claim to be older than I am yet you claimed in a post that your first job was minimum wage paying 2.18 an hour. That would put you younger than me by almost 20 years. There are MANY posts you have made that conflict with your "history". The one thing I do believe about you. You do work for EVRAZ, and you are maybe 50 years old. You aren't going to college, and if you do have any college in your background it was a AA degree, maybe.

As far as who to believe? I don't care about that either. Appeals to authority are logic fails, so feel free to trot them out anytime you wish. All it does is show the world that you have nothing.

LOL. No, I have never said that my first job was a minimum wage job. It was 2.18 an hour, however. I have never worked at a minimum wage job in my life. And I am 71 years old, still working full time as a millwright in a steel mill, and attending a university. And the highest class I have attended was a 470/570 Eng. Geo. class, that required special permission, which I obtained because I was working on a project that involved that subject at the time.

And, Walleyes, it is not me that is calling all the other Geologists and Geo-physicists frauds, it is you. If you really had evidence for what you state here, you would present it at the meeting of one of the Scientific Societies that you claim membership in. In fact, not mere membership, but even claiming to be a Fellow in the Royal Society.

So, what is you excuse for not presenting such evidence where it would count, instead of an internet board, with few qualified to counter your bullshit?

Rocks,

You are arguing with a "STOP" sign. If Gore said it was true, it is a lie. Fox says so, so that is where the debate ends.

 

[BULLDOG]

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

I have. You haven't.

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

Here you go. A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless. They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful". The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp

I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two. I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility. Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap. If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.

 

[BULLDOG]

Christ there's no way you are wrong.

well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.

Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?

I have. You haven't.

I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my questions.

if you are serious about being open minded about the science of global warming/climate change then the first thing you must do is realize that the claimed certainty of AGW is massively exaggerated. many climate scientists (especially the highly recognisable ones) act more like defense attorneys than bend over backwards to be honest scientists (see Feynman's Caltech Commencement speech 'Cargo Cult').

Pick an area, any area, and the reality is different than you read in the headlines and much less 'certain'. be careful to examine answers to difficult questions because they are often speeches to questions never asked. make sure you expose yourself to both viewpoints, otherwise you will not know if you are missing out important pieces of the puzzle.

be careful not to caricaturize either the skeptics or the warmists. both sides agree on the basics. warming since the LIA, CO2 must cause at least some warming, mankind has increased CO2. the squabbles arise over the catastrophic predictions and what constitutes good science.

So, if I am serious about being open minded, the first thing I need to do is change my mind? You do realize that particular statement is nuts, don't you? How about you giving me some reason to believe your point of view? Neither you, nor I are qualified to evaluate the scientific evidence with the same accuracy as an expert, so charts, and graphs, and yearly measurements are nothing more than pretending to be smarter than we are. Why don't you explain to me why so many experts would believe it exists if it doesn't?