More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[gnarlylove]

polarbear, don't you know you can justify anything? In fact, according to well known academic Allan Bloom, he bluntly wrote that you can fly a professor in from anywhere to justify anything. That was in 1987. Now-a-days markets and money are such a driving force, I wouldn't doubt your side pays people to produce favorable results as standard procedure. There are examples but you would dismiss them so I'm not inclined...

Just because someone challenged X doesn't mean that we should call whole theories into question. IT doesn't even necessarily mean the challenger has a point! At first glance it only means some person disagrees--that's not a convincing argument to drop a theory. Pointing out a couple flaws does very little to enable us to make generalizations. Your inductive reasoning skills are shoddy. The fallacy you seem to be implying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is hasty generalization. It goes like this: there are a few dozen instances (you explored 4 or 19) that are questioinable according to a small number of folks who may or may not have much expertise. But let's go ahead and assume they do have expertise in which case your implying these few instances allow us to generalize about the whole underpinning of AGW theory. You need more than a few dozen to make those sorts of arguments with any support, otherwise you only convince your camp. If that's your goal, good job but you should know those are pretty low standards of evidence gathering. I think Karl Popper would sharply disagree with you.

I won't waste my time trying to poke pin holes in your position by examining the numerous dubious studies your side has conducted in order to confuse the public and therefore halt policy change. When you examine your side in a similar light as you have AGW studies, you realize your side is well-known for such trickery and deceit. Of course you wouldn't consider it deceit but academic/cerebral science is not concerned with halting policy, it is concerned with observation, recording the observations, pattern identification and conjectures. After which they are reviewed by peers and are offered refutations. As time goes on these refutations are rebutted and eventually become established science. You wouldn't know this because you shelter your thoughts from it but any university in America (save that rough 3%) is going to assure you the validity of AGW theory.

It sounds like your are skeptical on selective grounds, indeed, just enough to halt policy. It's good to you because you never want to deal with your problems or emotions up front, you either get angry or hide it and suppress it deep inside for another day that you pray never comes. This is unhealthy at the individual level as well as the policy level. Fortunately for you we are doing it. Congratulations on contributing to unsound policy that prevails the nation. For the rest of us and indeed our environment, this is foul news just like when you shit every other 2 days.

 

[SSDD]

Have you been able to find us reputable, objective surveys that do NOT show these same findings? Do you actually think they could be lying about the positions of the world's national science academies without getting noticed? The various surveys mentioned and the folks who did them have been in the press over and over and over again.

Wikipedia's article on the scientific consensus is accurate and correct.

AGW THEORY is accepted science.

First, AGW is a hypothesis...to suggest otherwise when you can't show a single experiment that proves that a doubling of CO2 will actually cause the climate to change....

Second, I believe climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade. Bad science early on has been used to support later findings. Nature itself refutes the hypothesis on a daily basis. At this point, AGW is a scheme concerned primarily with money and power.

 

[SSDD]

I wonder why they do that. Maybe they are biased and bigoted or maybe they are just representing genuine consensus.

Altering or deleting articles that don't agree with you is representing genuine consensus? Where is that representing genuine consensus.....the old soviet union? If your argument isn't strong enough to stand up against criticism, then your argument isn't strong enough.

already know your decision but if you ever decided to drop your bias and just do some genuine reading of the truly extensive literature you might change. I'm not saying you'll be an AGW cultist, but you will have learned, actually learned something that has meaning for the world including yourself.

I have...that's why I am a skeptic. You are duped which is why you believe the coral die off during the Pliestocene was due to 400ppm of atmospheric CO2 and not due to the fact that the earth was in the depths of an ice age and CO2 was falling, not rising.

 

[polarbear]

polarbear, don't you know you can justify anything?

So let me get this straight,...
When people laugh about your stupidity then in your little mind, they did it because they were "angry or have "unhealthy emotions"?
Gee, if I have "unhealthy emotions" then all those background checks that I had to pass must have been wrong and I was lucky that you did not work for the FBI or CSIS when they cleared me year after year. And sometimes I had to wonder how they knew more about me than my wife...and we`ve been happily married for over 40 years.
And all you got to show is your "self assessed" level of knowledge and a few internet pals like prophet Abraham the 3rd.
Like I said, not a day goes by without you arriving at such brilliant conclusions:

correct me if I'm wrong, is hasty generalization. It goes like this: there are a few dozen instances (you explored 4 or 19) that are questioinable according to a small number of folks who may or may not have much expertise. But let's go ahead and assume they do have expertise in which case your implying these few instances allow us to generalize about the whole underpinning of AGW theory. You need more than a few dozen to make those sorts of arguments with any support, otherwise you only convince your camp.

So if it takes more than just the list of names your internet pal came up with, who did their survey in a way that only idiots like you would call "scientific" why don`t you go ahead and post enough of them to qualify ?
Here is yet another example of your convoluted stupidity

in which case your implying these few instances allow us to generalize about the whole underpinning of AGW theory

I don`t have to use these flawed "consensus" surveys to underpin anything.
It`s the AGW zealots who use these ridiculous "consensus surveys" to underpin AGW.
It`s pitiful, but what else could they do after it is evident that rising CO2 does not increase temperature ?

otherwise you only convince your camp.

Well I`ld rather be in that "camp":

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11][12][13]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[14]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[15]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [16]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[17]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[20]
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[21][22]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[23]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[24]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[25]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[26]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[27]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[28]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[29]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[30]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[31]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[32]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[33]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[34][35]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[36]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[37][38]
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[39]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[40][41][42]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[43]
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[44]
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[45]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[46]
• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[47]
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[48]
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[49]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC.[50][51]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[52]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[53]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[54]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[55]
• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [56]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[57]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

Than in your "camp",... which is where again?
Somewhere along the Ohio river where you live off your "natural economy" with your "partner"..and in a domestic relationship "partner" is new-speak for gay isn`t it?

So yeah it makes sense that one of your major concerns would be if either one of you did not go for a shit.

this is foul news just like when you shit every other 2 days.

Btw. you could have not picked a better avatar for yourself:

 

[gnarlylove]

SSDD, my whole point was to show you that even if AGW theory is true, you can never come to believe it. You willfully refuse to even consider your unwavering position as faulty. This is not on the same page as good thought. You continually demonstrate you could never perceive AGW theory from a neutral standpoint. However, this is essential to developing a robust outlook. Refusing to understand the opposing side because you are too caught up in disproving it is not good science.

Your arguments center around confusion and you ask the wrong questions. You offer no explanation as to why the planet has warmed by 1C and CO2 ppm have jumped from 280 to 400. Your only explanation is that it happens. That is no explanation of the data. After millions of years of a stable sub-400ppm than alongside industrial development we see levels rise, you need to explain that using non-human actions. Your only answer is it happens.

Maybe you don't accept this data in which case you further prove my point you have no interest in coming to honest answers. You prefer your data and sources like only they speak truth. Did you know humans have never had a monoply on truth? Your only desire is to incite anger and confusion. This is no position, it's highly acetic and is not how quality science progresses. Your explanations are made up on the spot because you refuse to accept the standard theory. Your denial lacks integrity and genuine sources. Googling "why skeptics are right" is not research but I can tell that's how you go about it. I want to be clear, your methods are highly-selective for favorable conclusions and thus highly faulty.

If you could offer a quality explanation of why CO2 has risen alongside the industrial age without using human activity and your skeptical filter I would be impressed. The trouble is, you cannot do so without invoking man as primarily responsible. All the dots are there but you refuse to connect them because you want to disagree until you die.

 

[gnarlylove]

polarbear, your reasoning is explanatory. Who knew one's credibility and human character was solely determined by one's ability to pass a background check. Who knew that the laws of the land are necessarily synonymous with morality and authentic behavior. You are indeed the most moral and saintly individual, along with the rest of us who can pass FBI national background checks.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, my whole point was to show you that even if AGW theory is true, you can never come to believe it. You willfully refuse to even consider your unwavering position as faulty. This is not on the same page as good thought. You continually demonstrate you could never perceive AGW theory from a neutral standpoint. However, this is essential to developing a robust outlook. Refusing to understand the opposing side because you are too caught up in disproving it is not good science.

Your point failed. My position is the result of having actually looked at the evidence. Do you know what an unfalsifable hypothesis is? AGW is unfalsifiable which renders it invalid. No matter what the climate does, it is claimed to be the fault of AGW. Only a fool accepts an unfalsifiable hypothesis as truth or anything approaching the truth. Or perhaps you might tell us what would falsify the hypothesis.

arguments center around confusion and you ask the wrong questions. You offer no explanation as to why the planet has warmed by 1C and CO2 ppm have jumped from 280 to 400. Your only explanation is that it happens. That is no explanation of the data. After millions of years of a stable sub-400ppm than alongside industrial development we see levels rise, you need to explain that using non-human actions. Your only answer is it happens.

I offer perfectly rational explanations...you refuse to consider them. How much CO2 do you suppose the oceans have outgassed since the earth started exiting the ice age we are still in....keep in mind that cold water holds much more CO2 than warm water...also keep in mind that study after study has found that the oceans are net sources of CO2 for the atmosphere....meaning that they are outgassing more than they are absorbing?

If you look at history, and I have provided you with easy to follow graphs, you will see CO2 levels falling as temperatures decrease....that's because cold water holds more CO2. So now the earth is exiting the ice age...and as waters warm, they outgas CO2. The fact that we invented the internal combustion engine is irrelevant. Prior to the beginning of this ice age CO2 levels were over 1000ppm and as the earth warms, they will go back to those high levels with or without us.

All you need do is look back to history to see much wilder swings in temperature and CO2 levels without the aid of humans.....but you won't because you won't question your dogma.

you don't accept this data in which case you further prove my point you have no interest in coming to honest answers.

Here is a newsflash for you gnarly....computer model output isn't data....especially when the models are failing as fast as they can be written.

you could offer a quality explanation of why CO2 has risen alongside the industrial age without using human activity and your skeptical filter I would be impressed. The trouble is, you cannot do so without invoking man as primarily responsible. All the dots are there but you refuse to connect them because you want to disagree until you die.

Once more for the learning impaired....cold oceans hold much more CO2 than warm oceans...as the ice age ends and the earth warms up, those oceans have ougassed a great deal of CO2 and will continue to do so over the long term...At present, the oceans are a net source of CO2 for the atmosphere, meaning that they are outgassing more than they are absorbing. Here, gnarly, some actual fact....take a look at this historical temperature graph and tell me what, exactly surprises you, or alarms you about the fact that the earth is warming. Looking at this graph, can you honestly say that there is anything surprising about warming temperatures? Where do you think temperatures are heading with or without us?



By the way, I can't help but notice that you haven't answered the post with the new graphs or the one regarding rock's hysteria over "extreme" weather. Seems that you avoid actual argument like the plague and post condesending comments as if you were actually debating the topic.

 

[gnarlylove]

Do you know what an unfalsifable hypothesis is?

Falsify is something I thought you did to the AGW hypothesis all the time. I thought you provided endless reasons to render its repute incredible or unreasonable.

This auxiliary approach to vanquish AGW theory is a bit of trickery. So apparently you concede the climate is changing and has done so alongside the industrial era just like in any other. AGW theory includes the assertion that its mostly due to human action.

Yet you say it isn't falsifiable and yet you go on to offer a falsifying reason. Namely that Oceans release a ton of CO2 and accounts for the rise in CO2. This is grade a self-deceit. Why would you claim it's impossible to be proven wrong (unfalsifiable) if you just offered an explanation that could falsify it?

I offer perfectly rational explanations...you refuse to consider them.

I have heard more bitterness and denial than providing sound explanations like you did regarding CO2 output from Oceans. I want to hear more stuff like that instead of taunting people like "are you ready for me to blow your mind?" without making any attempt in the following posts to do so.

The fact that we invented the internal combustion engine is irrelevant.

I can't help wonder how easily you dismissed the output of that engine: last year alone was 36.6billion tons of CO2. Maybe this chart can help break it down for you, including your Oceans theory, which I support btw.

If the internal engine and hence mankind has no role in exacerbating CO2 levels, then I suspect you are ignoring it rather than explaining it. I want to be clear not all Co2 comes from this engine. This is the breakdown along with information you might like to read from the EPA.

The IPCC notes that the trouble with CO2 isn't the annual output per se, its the accumulation that will remain in the air up to a 1000 years even after all CO2 emission stopped. This is found in the "Long-Term...." section of the AR5 under FAQ 12.1 or 12.3.

Prior to the beginning of this ice age CO2 levels were over 1000ppm and as the earth warms, they will go back to those high levels with or without us.

The fact that the climate would change with or without us is hardly the point. We all agree on this. We all agree the earth has had a variety of CO2 levels and various freezes and thaws.

What we find disagreeable is that man has any role. This is what we are discussing. Just because you can point to past changes is not an immediate explanation for the changes occuring before our eyes. It's well known that changes in such scales tend to happen over millenia or even tens of thousands of years. What we have seen is a measurable increase in 1//5000th of the time it typically takes to change CO2 levels.

Your "easy" charts are clearly covering up this fact. When you are measuring 100s of millions of years and pointing to the changes that happened during that long history as the explanation for the changes we've seen in 4 decades I can't help question your logic and motive.

It seems like you are desperate to be right. You continually point to AGW cultists as having no open mind. I welcome genuine discussion and am very willing to change. I have changed between 5 major lifestyles in the last decade alone so I have no particular need to remain a believer in AGW theory if it is shown to be a farse.

The trouble I find is your sources from the get-go tend to set their agenda. That agenda is to prove AGW theory wrong. That's why I was aghast at your logic of falsifiability. Did you read Popper for a second and formulate this shoddy argument in your dreams?

All you need do is look back to history to see much wilder swings in temperature and CO2 levels without the aid of humans.....but you won't because you won't question your dogma.

Again, same BS. I am happy to oblige quality science and thought but repeatedly you offer reasons to question your hackneyed conclusions and the motivations for them as demonstrated above. I don't think you are 100% wrong, no one is, but you have a long way to go before you can even acknowledge the possibility of the other side having validity. This is diametrically opposed to good debate. It seems your conclusions are really preclusions that arise out of a need to be right, a claim on the monopoly of truth. If you think that, then you are in Grade A La-La land.

 

[Roguewave]

You Warmists are aware that your prime evidence of consensus, whatever the count, is a classic logical fallacy, argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate) , are you not? Perhaps you should offer something of substance instead.

 

[SSDD]

Falsify is something I thought you did to the AGW hypothesis all the time. I thought you provided endless reasons to render its repute incredible or unreasonable.

You talk a lot to say so little. What would falsify the AGW hypothesis? Surely you can answer that.

auxiliary approach to vanquish AGW theory is a bit of trickery. So apparently you concede the climate is changing and has done so alongside the industrial era just like in any other. AGW theory includes the assertion that its mostly due to human action.

For someone who fancies himself a philosopher, you really aren't very adept at thinking below the most shallow levels are you? The fact is that the climate has been undergoing a warming period for some 14,000 years now, and the ice has melted back almost 2,000 miles. The fact that man has industrialized during that self same 14,000 years is entirely coincidental. The climate was changing long before we invented the internal combustion engine. The fact that you can't see past your own bias to the larger picture is unfortunate testament to the level to which you have been duped.

you say it isn't falsifiable and yet you go on to offer a falsifying reason. Namely that Oceans release a ton of CO2 and accounts for the rise in CO2. This is grade a self-deceit. Why would you claim it's impossible to be proven wrong (unfalsifiable) if you just offered an explanation that could falsify it?

Are you saying that you were unaware that warm water outgasses CO2? Do an experiment to see for yourself. Open 2 cold sodas. Set one out on your counter and the other back in the refrigerator.....wait 24 hours and have a taste of each. Which one do you think will have outgassed more CO2?

I say that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable because no matter what happens in the climate, warmist wackos claim it is due to CO2. When they predicted a steadily warming world and the warming stopped even though CO2 continued to increase, that should have falsified the hypothesis....when the models, which are the AGW hypothesis incarnate failed to forsee the halt in warming, that should have falsified the hypothesis. Did either? No...they claimed the ocean ate the warming even though ARGOS has not measured any of it at all and the hoax just keeps on going. Again, what do you think would falsify the hypothesis to the point that climate science would admit that they have been wrong and go back to the drawing board. So far they have said AGW causes more less snow, more less rain, more less hurricanes, more less tornadoes, more less warming and on and on. When there is nothing that can happen that would cause the alarmists to acknowledge that the hypothesis is wrong, you have an unscientific unfalsifiable hypothesis.

have heard more bitterness and denial than providing sound explanations like you did regarding CO2 output from Oceans. I want to hear more stuff like that instead of taunting people like "are you ready for me to blow your mind?" without making any attempt in the following posts to do so.

No you don't. You have avoided the post regarding the temperature and CO2 changes leading to the ice age completely....why? Because they prove beyond any doubt that your claim that 400ppm CO2 killed the corals. You don't want to argue any point that you have obviously lost.....so what do you do? Keep trying to argue the same points even though you know they are false.

You say 36 billion tons as if that were a lot, meaning an appreciable portion of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you know how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere? Right now it is about 3,000 billion tons. What we add is not even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making "machinery", which puts an additonal 210 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually.

IPCC notes that the trouble with CO2 isn't the annual output per se, its the accumulation that will remain in the air up to a 1000 years even after all CO2 emission stopped. This is found in the "Long-Term...." section of the AR5 under FAQ 12.1 or 12.3.

The problem with that is that the IPCC are liars....bald faced, unapologetic liars. Here are the results of 36 peer reviewed studies on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and what the IPCC says. Notice a difference? Of the 36 peer reviewed studies, 29 say that the residence time is 10 years or less....compare that to the blatantly fraudulent 1000 year time as claimed by the IPCC....and of all the studies that have been done, which one do you quote and why?

Prior to the beginning of this ice age CO2 levels were over 1000ppm and as the earth warms, they will go back to those high levels with or without us.

fact that the climate would change with or without us is hardly the point. We all agree on this. We all agree the earth has had a variety of CO2 levels and various freezes and thaws.

It wouldn't be a particularly important point if warmist wackos weren't going to cost the rest of us literally trillions of dollars on this hoax.

we find disagreeable is that man has any role. This is what we are discussing. Just because you can point to past changes is not an immediate explanation for the changes occuring before our eyes.

What changes? In case you haven't heard, the warming stopped 17 years ago and we are now on a slight cooling trend and many scientists say that the cooling will continue for quite some time to come. Science has no explanation for the halt of warming and turn to cooling....if they have no explanation for why the warming stopped, one must rationally question the explanation they gave for the warming in the first place.

well known that changes in such scales tend to happen over millenia or even tens of thousands of years. What we have seen is a measurable increase in 1//5000th of the time it typically takes to change CO2 levels.

Again, not true. Recorded history tells us that the roman warm period heated up more than the present warm period and warmed faster....same for the medieval warm period. It has warmed less than .75 degrees in the past century even if you believe the temperature record which has been tampered with to the point of unbelievability.

"easy" charts are clearly covering up this fact. When you are measuring 100s of millions of years and pointing to the changes that happened during that long history as the explanation for the changes we've seen in 4 decades I can't help question your logic and motive.

Because no natural record can achieve resolution beyond 500 years or so, your claim that the present warming is unique is simply an unsupported assumption on your part. We have no idea what warming and cooling phases looked like in the more distant past. Assuming that the present is somehow unique in the history of the earth is just stupid.

seems like you are desperate to be right.

It seems as if you are the desperate one. I keep providing peer reviewed studies, charts, scales, etc which show convincingly that you are wrong and yet, you hang on to your faith even though you can't provide anything that argues convincingly that you are right. Your entire argument seems to be an argument to authority fallacy.

You continually point to AGW cultists as having no open mind. I welcome genuine discussion and am very willing to change. I have changed between 5 major lifestyles in the last decade alone so I have no particular need to remain a believer in AGW theory if it is shown to be a farse.

And yet, you continually ignore hard information that suggests strongly that you are wrong...the claim of 1000 years of residence time for CO2 and the consequences of that time would make a strong argument if it weren't a lie on the part of the people you believe. That sort of bogus information makes up a very large part of the IPCC's case for AGW.

trouble I find is your sources from the get-go tend to set their agenda. That agenda is to prove AGW theory wrong. That's why I was aghast at your logic of falsifiability. Did you read Popper for a second and formulate this shoddy argument in your dreams?

I think perhaps you don't understand the concept of an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Here, maybe this will help.

UNFALSIFIABILITY
(also known as: untestibility)

Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment. Making unfalsifiable claims are a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are usually faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

So you have a look around on your wacko warmist sites, or better yet, go to one and ask what would falsify the AGW hypothesis and get back to me on that. So far, we know that a halt of warming in the face of steadily rising CO2 won't falsify it....less snow doesn't falsify it, more snow doesn't falsify it...warmer winters don't falsify it.....colder winters don't falsify it....more storms don't falsify it....less storms don't falsify it.....more flooding won't falsify it....less flooding won't falsify it...and on and on.

What exactly would falsify it? You won't find an answer to that question because to state what would falsify it would be much to big a risk for those promoting the hoax...it might just happen and then where would they be?

I don't think you are 100% wrong, no one is, but you have a long way to go before you can even acknowledge the possibility of the other side having validity.

That's funny coming from you considering the amount of data you have to overlook to keep your position....I see nothing valid in the CO2 based AGW hypothesis. We can affect the climate but by land use, not our CO2 emissions. Were you aware that if you use the physics upon which the present climate models are based to write climate models for every planet in our solar system with an atmosphere, that they don't even come close to predicting the actual temperatures? If the physics were correct, they should be able to accurately predict the temperature of any planet with an atmosphere. You can accurately predict the temperatures of all the planets with the ideal gas laws and the amount of solar radiation reaching each planet and it works here as well but there is no grant money in a model that doesn't demonize CO2.

This is diametrically opposed to good debate. It seems your conclusions are really preclusions that arise out of a need to be right, a claim on the monopoly of truth. If you think that, then you are in Grade A La-La land.

And on and on it goes. One of us (me) is providing solid data to back up his position...the other (you) is neither providing information to support your position or to rebut my position...you just hold your faith and pretend that you have made some point when in fact, every point you have tried to make has been effectively shot down. The latest casualty was that crazy claim of CO2 residing in the atmosphere for 1000 years.

 

[HenryBHough]

It had to happen!

I was out shopping today and came across some really clever light bulbs. True 100 Watt incandesacents but formed up in a curly shape to look like those poisonous CFLs. The light output is the same, maybe a little more, than the original 100s (now outlawed) and the shape is purely cosmetic.

It allows those who think Global Warming is a crock to enjoy good lighting while cocking a snooker at their Obamabot neighbors - misleading them to believe that you're "on board".

They're probably illegal and will be off the market quick but then they'll become collectors items. Like that box of "Spotted Owl Helper" I bought in about 1990 for a buck and now, twenty or more years after General Mills (or Foods or whatever) sued it out of existence it's worth about a hundred times what I paid.

Thar's gold in thum thar shills!

 

[Abraham3]

If you want to argue that AGW can't be falsified because it's a moving target, you are obviously creating an excuse to avoid having to try. Here is a more concise description of the issue. Falsify this:

Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for recent changes observed in the Earth's climate. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly on the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the troposphere have become available. The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:

increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases

global changes to land surface, such as deforestation

increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.

Either falsify the contention that humans are increasing those factors or falsify the contention that all three of those factors are increasing global warming. That's it. Piece a'cake.

 

[polarbear]

Give the k00ks credit.......they keep coming back in here even after getting flogged daily. I mean......this thread is a Jonestown for the AGW climate crusading mental cases but hey........they keep showin' up!!!

"They" keep coming back because they are too dumb to realize why this particular thread where they get ridiculed is so popular.
These k00ks figure somehow that they found an audience for their "science" lectures to fulfill their phantasies.
They can`t do it in the real world so this here is the only opportunity.
Anyway, in keeping with the title of this thread here is yet another typical "climate scientist".
He figures that people don`t know how a core drill works and felt the urge to "explain" it:
(the video won`t play until your browser stored it, because I grabbed it through the back-door:
Index of /dept/Chance/modules/Global-Warming )

http://www.psu.edu/dept/Chance/modules/Global-Warming/alley_640.flv

He also cooks some "climate science" tomato sauce for dummies:
http://www.psu.edu/dept/Chance/modules/Global-Warming/m04a1p1-old.swf

This tomato sauce and door knob drill guy is an IPCC lead author who obviously figured out just how simple minded his clientele is...and dumbed it all down accordingly
But he`s got the part right that glaciers do not melt from the top down....something our resident "ice experts" can`t seem to comprehend.
This guy went through all that trouble to explain it to dummies like "gnarlylove" and "Abraham3 so why don`t you 2 pay attention what he says at 1:16 in his "alley 640.flv" video



The rest of the people he explained it to don`t have a problem with it:
http://www.psu.edu/dept/Chance/modules/Global-Warming/richard.flv

 

[skookerasbil]

You Warmists are aware that your prime evidence of consensus, whatever the count, is a classic logical fallacy, argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate) , are you not? Perhaps you should offer something of substance instead.

Some are aware.......some are not. Its always hard to tell........which is fascinating.


Some of the climate crusaders are just hopelessly duped and caught up in the matrix......deep. They'll automatically buy what the government or media has to say no matter what. In the course of human events, they never stop even once to question the "official report". Other AGW purists know they are peddling a crock of shit but perpetuating the established narrative is what they live for.....the obsessed. For some reason, they have latched on to a cause in their lives that is as important as life itself.......it is part of their identity, just like the PITA people, for example.



Either way.......there is some kind of common sense void going on.



Consider...........


"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations




"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."

- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports


"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."

- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment



“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research



“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”

- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University




The AGW crowd is completely unmoved.



Make no mistake......the IPCC is one of the most corrupt organizations in the history of the world!!!


http://green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

 

[skookerasbil]

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD


While searching for the latest installment of alarmist losing, I stumbled across this >>>










Our tax dollars hard at work........hey, Polar Bear..........what the fuck is that laughable machine above? Please tell me this is some kind of photoshop stunt!!!

 

[gnarlylove]

I agreed with you that if the Oceans were responsible for all the CO2 that would easily falsify the AGW theory that claims human activity is the main source of CO2. We both know the Oceans are insufficient to cause such a stark increase in CO2 ppm.

This is one way to falsify AGW theory.

Another is to show humans do not produce CO2 in our activities. That would indeed falsify our link in higher rates of CO2 but we both know this would be a bold faced lie. That's two ways to falsify AGW theory. That means it's not falsifiable? Maybe your upset with the explanatory scope AGW offers. Your upset that it can cause more rain (in some parts) and less rain (in other parts) at the same time. That AGW theory is used to explain any event, just like evolution is used to explain our nascence. Is this what your trying to say? It's different from falsifiability. The two are easily confused for youthful types like yourself full of piss and vinegar.

I tired to make it a point that in one year alone, 2013, we produced 36 billion tons. That is only one years worth.

A total of 566 billion metric tons of carbon have already been added to the atmosphere due to fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land cover change since 1750.

He goes on to note we are about 28 years or less away from surpassing a trillion metric tons of CO2. What happens when you accumulate this? CO2 can and will be left in the air for about 1000 years before it exits the atmosphere having no affect on Earth. Until its processed out, it is accumulating. Many more times is being put into the atmosphere than is being processed out year after year.

Given we know we expel CO2 in the billions of tons each year and the fact that ppm of CO2 has risen alongside this fact, we can draw an induction that humans are playing a role.

The fact is the last 50,000 years since "civilization" CO2 levels have been below 300ppm and remained steady for 100s of thousands of years. For them to suddenly surpass 400ppm in just a little more than a century and we know human activity releases billions of tons of this stuff a year, it seems reasonable to draw the link.

To deny the link is your beat.

But you continue emphasis on the fact the climate has changed before man and this somehow demonstrates man has nothing to do with the current CO2 levels or temperature changes. You've made your point. It's tautological and fails to explain this undeniable correlation. Why should I ignore this causal relationship?

I say causal because we undeniably produce CO2 (so far over half a trillion metric tons) and this explains the rise in CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. The induction is natural and falsifiable yet widely avowed in all major governments, universities, and lovers of Mother Earth. Insisting on denying this link when it leads to greater respect for one's precarious relationship to the environment seems counter-intuitive. It is wise to better understand one's relation with Earth, our provider, literally.

I want to believe you because you seem to unequivocally convinced of your monopoly on truth, science and logic but what you offer to explain the rise in CO2 levels is not an explanation at all. Saying that it happened before is not the same thing as explaining why the current variations are taking place.

Conclusions:

1.You are having trouble with falsifiability.

2.You deny the link between man and CO2.

3.Your explanation of increased CO2 is Ocean. This is insufficient to explain the acute rise. We need some more factors emitting CO2 that accounts for the increase. This would in fact falsify AGW theory but denying the link between man and CO2 is motivated by other reasons than science. Just look at how acute!

 

[SSDD]

If you want to argue that AGW can't be falsified because it's a moving target, you are obviously creating an excuse to avoid having to try. Here is a more concise description of the issue.

So what falsifies the hypothesis?

Falsify this:

Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for recent changes observed in the Earth's climate. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly on the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the troposphere have become available. The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:

increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases

global changes to land surface, such as deforestation

increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.

Either falsify the contention that humans are increasing those factors or falsify the contention that all three of those factors are increasing global warming. That's it. Piece a'cake.

What is to falsify? We know that changes in land use can cause a change in local and maybe even regional climate....the rest is unsubstantiated opinion based on the idea that correlation equals causation. The fact that so called greenhouse gasses have steadily increased while the warming stopped 17 years ago even though steady warming was predicted falsifies the hypothesis....add to that the failure of the tropospheric hot spot to materialize and the increasing LW exiting the ToA and you have all that is necessary to falsify your hypothesis....you don't even have to toss in the fact that the promoters of the fraudulent hypothesis have ignored hundreds of millions of years of history that contradicts their claims of the past century.

You are being laughed at....you know that don't you? You are being laughed at at every turn. The way you try to set time constraints on CO2 and temperature levels makes it obvious that you have nothing....if all of history doesn't agree with your hypothesis...it fails.

 

[SSDD]

I agreed with you that if the Oceans were responsible for all the CO2 that would easily falsify the AGW theory that claims human activity is the main source of CO2. We both know the Oceans are insufficient to cause such a stark increase in CO2 ppm.

The more you talk the more apparent it becomes that you have not done the first bit of actual research into the topic. You have bought the hoax hook line and sinker.

First off, for your CO2 claims to mean anything, you would need to prove that a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 could actually cause a climate change. Can you provide any actual proof of that? We skeptics have been asking for years but no such proof has ever surfaced. That being the present state of affairs, your claim of CO2 driven AGW is an unsubstantiated claim. All available evidence has shown us that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature increases which would make increased CO2 a result of temperature increase, not a cause.

Second, CO2 is about 3.6% of the atmosphere. Mankind's contribution to that number is 0.117%. CO2 has increased about 30% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Mankind's contribution to that increase is less than 1% and you want to tell me that we are responsible for what you call a "stark" increase? Someone has been feeding you bullshit and you have been eating it like candy.

is one way to falsify AGW theory.

So do you still believe?

is to show humans do not produce CO2 in our activities. That would indeed falsify our link in higher rates of CO2 but we both know this would be a bold faced lie. That's two ways to falsify AGW theory. That means it's not falsifiable? Maybe your upset with the explanatory scope AGW offers. Your upset that it can cause more rain (in some parts) and less rain (in other parts) at the same time. That AGW theory is used to explain any event, just like evolution is used to explain our nascence. Is this what your trying to say? It's different from falsifiability. The two are easily confused for youthful types like yourself full of piss and vinegar.

Still waiting on that hard evidence that a 100ppm increase in CO2 can trigger a change in the climate in the first place. Got anything?

tired to make it a point that in one year alone, 2013, we produced 36 billion tons. That is only one years worth.

And that is less than 2 tenths of one percent of the total. It is a number that is so vanishingly small that only the completely uneducated should believe that we have any effect on the cliamate from our CO2. Clearly, the numbers don't mean anything to you. You see big numbers and are impressed, but the must impress you because you are unable to comprehend the even larger numbers in play. Here is a short video which may serve to demonstrate to you how small our contribution to the CO2 budget is. It is only 2 minutes...surely you can spare 2 minutes....and feel free to prove she is wrong if you like.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

we know we expel CO2 in the billions of tons each year and the fact that ppm of CO2 has risen alongside this fact, we can draw an induction that humans are playing a role.

Hopefully you can now put those "billions of tons" into rational scale and realize that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is next to nothing.

fact is the last 50,000 years since "civilization" CO2 levels have been below 300ppm and remained steady for 100s of thousands of years. For them to suddenly surpass 400ppm in just a little more than a century and we know human activity releases billions of tons of this stuff a year, it seems reasonable to draw the link.

Again....ICE AGE.....COLD OCEANS....cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. And we have no real evidence that CO2 has remained steady since we have only been testing it for about 100 years. We have no idea what CO2 actually looked like during the holocene maximum..or the roman warm period....or the medieval warm period. We have ice cores but are learning that the data from ice cores underestimates atmospheric gasses substantially.

And once again, at this point I hope you can grasp how small our billions of tons of this stuff actually is in the larger picture. The natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year is larger than our annual contribution. And we are just beginning to learn how much CO2 is outgassing from under sea volcanic activity. Future studies in that field may further reduce the amount of CO2 that is attributable to man.

Why should I ignore this causal relationship?

The primary reason you should ignore it is because it is not a causal relationship. It is a correlatory relationship. The first rule in scientific research is that correlation DOES NOT equal causation. You and all your warmist wacko buds have failed this vitally important fact and assume that correlation does equal causation....you have no proof of causation so your assumption is all you have.

say causal because we undeniably produce CO2 (so far over half a trillion metric tons) and this explains the rise in CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. The induction is natural and falsifiable yet widely avowed in all major governments, universities, and lovers of Mother Earth. Insisting on denying this link when it leads to greater respect for one's precarious relationship to the environment seems counter-intuitive. It is wise to better understand one's relation with Earth, our provider, literally.

You keep throwing up that number because you view it as a big number and therefore a big part of the total. It isn't. I hope the video has helped you out on this matter and allowed you to see how small our contribution is to the big picture.

want to believe you because you seem to unequivocally convinced of your monopoly on truth, science and logic but what you offer to explain the rise in CO2 levels is not an explanation at all. Saying that it happened before is not the same thing as explaining why the current variations are taking place.

Don't lie. Believing me is the last thing you want and there is no amount of hard evidence that will overcome your faith.

:

1.You are having trouble with falsifiability.

It is you who is having trouble with the the term. If the predictions made by the hypothes fail, it is falsified....in the real world, the hypothesis is falsified...climate science refuses to accept reality.

2.You deny the link between man and CO2.[/quote]

Again, you either deliberately lie or misrepresent my argument. We make CO2....our contribution to the total, however, is vanishingly small. You are unable to grasp the numbers.

:.Your explanation of increased CO2 is Ocean. This is insufficient to explain the acute rise.

How much CO2 have the oceans outgassed since the beginning of the industrial revolution?

 

[Abraham3]

400 ppm current CO2 level / 280 ppm pre-industrial CO2 level = an increase of 42.9% not 30%

Humanity is responsible for essentially ALL of that increase, not 1%

No wonder you come to such bullshit conclusions, you're working with completely bullshit data.

 

[SSDD]

400 ppm current CO2 level / 280 ppm pre-industrial CO2 level = an increase of 42.9% not 30%

Humanity is responsible for essentially ALL of that increase, not 1%

Sorry, not possible. More magical thinking on your part.

wonder you come to such bullshit conclusions, you're working with completely bullshit data.

Says the guy whose entire position is based on altered and faked data.