The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

Reality is that AGW is a scam and a hoax..

isn't that why they switched from AGW to Climate Change only to then discover that ACE (accumulated cyclonic energy) was going down not up?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I repeat, the MBH 98 hockey stick was not a prediction. Neither Hansen nor Oppenheimer had any involvement in it. Hansen made model projections in 1980 that are still amazingly accurate and infinitely more accurate than ANY GCM made that does not assume AGW is taking place.

AGW is more goofy religion than science:

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted."

Of what model are you speaking? And why are you attempting to equate "global temperature" with "ground-based temperature"?

These?

And do you have a model from 1988 that performed better? Do you have ANY model that does not assume AGW that bears even the slightest resemblance to reality?

,

is anything going to look different down there in 20( 2021) years?” He (Hanson) looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Better than 97% of climate scientists concur

1) if its only 97% then it is not science
2) how can it be science if they kick out the scientists who disagree ?
3) if its science why have the predictions been so far off?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your comment about "the left" is specious and completely unsubstantiated.

now thats a great joke given that most climate scientists work in leftist university mono cultures that depend on the leftist federal govt for grant money and have always used any conceivable excuse to concentrate power in Washington whether to control climate or the economy.

 

[mamooth]

Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.

What? Are you smoking crack? No. That's not how the natural cycle was working.

Because you say so?

As is usual, I notice the complete lack of evidence to support the loopy claim you made.

Can you show me why you believe that was how the natural cycle was working that way?

I believe it because the data shows it.

Look at the sawtooth pattern of your own graph. Fast warmup, slow cooldown.

Look at the holocen temps graph. The fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. We were in the slow cooldown phase. That is, until it suddenly completely reversed.

If you're not familiar with basic facts such as this, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

 

[ding]

Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.

What? Are you smoking crack? No. That's not how the natural cycle was working.

Because you say so?

As is usual, I notice the complete lack of evidence to support the loopy claim you made.

Can you show me why you believe that was how the natural cycle was working that way?

I believe it because the data shows it.

Look at the sawtooth pattern of your own graph. Fast warmup, slow cooldown.

Look at the holocen temps graph. The fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. We were in the slow cooldown phase. That is, until it suddenly completely reversed.

If you're not familiar with basic facts such as this, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

You like to play with scales, don't you. You need a better perspective. Of course, if we assume that you are right - that temperatures were going to fall - then we must also assume that we would have descended into another ice age, lol.

 

[mamooth]

[You like to play with scales, don't you. You need a better perspective.

Thanks for that, as it confirms my point further. The pattern is clearly quick up, slow down.

You're not going to suddenly have trouble reading a graph again, are you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. That is, until it suddenly completely reversed.
.

you mean because of the hiatus? that occured when temperature should have been flying upward off the hockey stick blade?

 

[ding]

[You like to play with scales, don't you. You need a better perspective.

Thanks for that, as it confirms my point further. The pattern is clearly quick up, slow down.

You're not going to suddenly have trouble reading a graph again, are you?

You are literally giving credit to AGW averting another ice age, lol.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[You like to play with scales, don't you. You need a better perspective.

Thanks for that, as it confirms my point further. The pattern is clearly quick up, slow down.

You're not going to suddenly have trouble reading a graph again, are you?

how do they know temperature rise of 1/100th degree per year is not caused by heat islands and heat from burning billions of barrels of oil and gas??

 

[Crick]

Because they tested those hypotheses and they failed.

 

[SSDD]

Because they tested those hypotheses and they failed.

Where is the tropospheric hot spot predicted by the AGW hypothesis?...that's right...it never showed up...the AGW hypothesis failed as well...in science...real science, how many failures does a hypothesis get?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?

Unabomber Cult

They are retrograde misfits who want to drag society down into the anti-growth pit where only they belong.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Wrong, being temperatures have steadily increased the whole time.
.

1/100 of a degree per year perhaps and a hiatus perhaps?? this is the opposite of what was predicted. Do you follow at all now?????

Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.

Old View (July 2006): Robet Hanson father of AGW

“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, An Inconvenient Truth. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”

Wallowing in the Slimepit of Scenarios


Hanson gets a sick pleasure out of imagining Gloom and Doom. He doesn't need evidence, he needs that depressed masochistic emotion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Because they tested those hypotheses and they failed.

so you mean heat islands and burning billions of barrels of oil does not raise temperatures 1/100 of a degree a year? Seems impossible!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again, totally wrong, being temperature has increased steadily, and is now actually warmer than model predictions.

.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading,” Spencer wrote on his blog.



Read more: Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because global temperature stopped going up 8000 years ago, and had been gradually cooling since. It should have kept on slowly cooling into the next ice age. That's how the natural cycle was working. Instead, things totally reversed and switched to fast warming. Being that's the exact opposite of the natural cycle, it's clearly not the natural cycle.

What? Are you smoking crack? No. That's not how the natural cycle was working.

Because you say so?

As is usual, I notice the complete lack of evidence to support the loopy claim you made.

Can you show me why you believe that was how the natural cycle was working that way?

I believe it because the data shows it.

Look at the sawtooth pattern of your own graph. Fast warmup, slow cooldown.

Look at the holocen temps graph. The fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. We were in the slow cooldown phase. That is, until it suddenly completely reversed.

If you're not familiar with basic facts such as this, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

You, A grown up?

What kills me is how you fools use the resolution of a graph to push your lies.

 

[mamooth]

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.”

Being that he's laughably wrong, who cares? Your appeal to authority fails because your authority is contradicted by the data. Spencer uses his own botched UAH temperature model, which is a wild outlier on the cold side. The surface data disagrees with it, the weather balloon data disagrees with it, and the RSS satellite model disagrees with it. Nobody except desperate deniers use the bad UAH model.

Again, here's how the actual models vs. reality stacks up, without the denier fraud and fudging. Current measured temperatures are a bit _warmer_ than what the models predicted. And all the scientists know that, along with all the informed people, which means they'll laugh at denier fables.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5

Let me also mention my amusement about deniers raving about models, and then relying solely on UAH ... which is a model. In contrast, the surface data and balloon measurements are not models. Deniers are denying the direct data, and accepting only a flawed model.

 

[mamooth]

so you mean heat islands and burning billions of barrels of oil does not raise temperatures 1/100 of a degree a year? Seems impossible!!

Do the math. Compared to the sunlight hitting the earth, the heat produced by burning stuff is nothing.

Heat islands have an effect ... inside the heat island. Outside it, Nada. And it's warming like hell everywhere, not just in urban areas.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?

I got one more for you- it's fraudulent phony science designed to get the delicate snowflakes who can't think objectively to cry about fossil fuels.