The Death of a Hoax

Correct.
so, does that mean he does or does not agree that global warming is real?

Are you unable to read plain english. I have never left any ambiguity when stating my position.


Now, he's saying that it is. Before, not so much, could just be withing the margin of error.

The margin of errror is several times the claimed change. Most of climate science now accepts that there has been no warming for the past decade and more except for the true charlatans who are responsible for the error cascade that the rest of climate science suffers under.

Not that it matters. No one is ever going to change his mind, anyway. It's just interesting to see how this issue can be twisted to support a conspiracy theory.

Unlike you, my position is based on science. Show me some science in support of AGW that doesn't violate physical laws left and right and you can easily change my mind.
 
Werbung:
Are you unable to read plain english. I have never left any ambiguity when stating my position.




The margin of errror is several times the claimed change. Most of climate science now accepts that there has been no warming for the past decade and more except for the true charlatans who are responsible for the error cascade that the rest of climate science suffers under.

I never took any such position. I have shown you quotes by me stating clearly that the earth is, and has been in a warming trend for millennia datng back as far as 2007 when I first joined this forum.

If the margin of error is several times the claimed change, how can you state that there is any change at all?

I admit it. You've convinced me. There is no such thing as global warming, as the claimed change is within the margin of error. Therefore, there is no proof that the climate is changing at all.

There.
 
If the margin of error is several times the claimed change, how can you state that there is any change at all?

Because the glaciers that once covered most of the earth from the north down to about 37 degrees and from the south up to about 37 degrees have melted back to their present positions and sea level has risen roughly 600 feet. That is the nature of the earth's cycles. It constantly changes. It is you and yours who are arguing that the climate shouldn't be changing. It is you and yours wringing your hands because the climate is doing what the climate does....ie change.

I admit it. You've convinced me. There is no such thing as global warming, as the claimed change is within the margin of error. Therefore, there is no proof that the climate is changing at all.

Sarcasm is no more attractive than bald faced dishonesty or abject ignorance and sarcasm that highlights ones bald faced dishonesty and abject ignorance is particularly pathetic.
 
Because the glaciers that once covered most of the earth from the north down to about 37 degrees and from the south up to about 37 degrees have melted back to their present positions and sea level has risen roughly 600 feet. That is the nature of the earth's cycles. It constantly changes. It is you and yours who are arguing that the climate shouldn't be changing. It is you and yours wringing your hands because the climate is doing what the climate does....ie change.

Where have I ever argued that the climate shouldn't be changing?
Of course, it's changing, and has been for millions of years.


Sarcasm is no more attractive than bald faced dishonesty or abject ignorance and sarcasm that highlights ones bald faced dishonesty and abject ignorance is particularly pathetic.

You are a serious one, aren't you, other than your playground level insults, that is. I suppose subscribing to a conspiracy theory does that to people.

But, seriously, if the increase in temperature is really less than the margin of error, how can you be sure that the Earth is currently warming at all?
 
No one is ever going to change his mind, anyway.
What would it take to change your mind?

Whatever your answer is, we know the answer is not science. You've already stated, using circular logic, that the only "credible" scientists are those that agree with AGW and any scientists who are skeptical of, or disagree with, AGW aren't credible. If you refuse to consider any scientific data or opinions that contradict your belief by dismissing them as having no credibility (because they don't support your belief), then nothing within the scientific community could ever change your mind on the issue.

So who's being unreasonable?

Pale is asking for scientific proof, real, observable, repeatable evidence that can satisfy the burden of proof AGW proponents have placed on themselves by making the claim. He has pointed to actual scientific laws that are in direct conflict with the claims of AGW, yet there isn't even an attempt to explain the scientific inconsistencies in AGW.

You offer only fallacies, like appeals to authority by citing this or that "credible" scientist or scientific body - Of course they are only "credible" because they support your position, any person, group, or scientific body that doesn't agree with your position is dismissed as not being "credible". You have never once attempted to satisfy the burden of proof, instead you reversed the burden of proof and began using ad hominem fallacies by claiming Pale is a conspiracy theorist.

Found in the Wiki article under Pseudoscience:

  • Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)
  • Reversed burden of proof: In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.
  • Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.
 
Where have I ever argued that the climate shouldn't be changing?

It is the warmists who are wringing their hands over completely normal, not in the least unusual climate change and willing to do irreparable damage to the world economy in an insane attempt to stop a natural cycle. You and yours believe that if we stop using fossil fuels, the natural cycle will stop and the climate will remain static because we will have appeased the earth goddess.

Of course, it's changing, and has been for millions of years.

And changed more quickly and to a greater degree than the present. So why are you and yours concerned about the present change which is well within the boundries of natural variability?

You are a serious one, aren't you, other than your playground level insults, that is. I suppose subscribing to a conspiracy theory does that to people.

You just can't restrain yourself from lying can you? When have I ever said that I subscribe to a conspiracy theory? I have said that the field of cliamte science is the victim of an error cascade and there is published work coming out all the time that brings this fact into high relief. I have said that the mainstream media is at present supporting the failing field of climate science and the evidence for that is abundant. Hell, here is a prime example brought to the attention of climate science by no less than Roger Pielke Sr., one of the most respected scientists within climate science primarily because he hasn't squandered his credibility on doomsday hysterics.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-in-greenland-my-comments-on-this-media-hype/

He provides a link to a webcam of the site here:

http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

Pielke said:
The news headline, in particular, is an example of media hype. There was no “massive melt“. The term “massive” implies that the melt involved large masses of the Greenland icecap. They could have written Sudden Extensive, Short-Term Surface Melting On the Greenland Icecap“, but instead chose to overstate what is a short-term weather event. Melting of surface ice occurs in Greenland whenever there are relatively warm surface air temperatures, as shown in the plot from Summit Station at the top of this post, and sunny skies, as reported by Thomas Mote in Seth’s article. Almost anytime, sublimation (direct transfer from ice to water vapor) occurs.

He went on to say:

Pielke said:
There has been widespread media reporting of this melting (e.g. Fox News, MSNBC), but the real news story is the overstatement of this weather event by the media (and some scientists at NASA). The headline is the biased part of the article, which Seth may not have much control on, but, regardless, this biased misleading headline needs to be identified.


This sort of reporting is typical of the mainstream press. No fact checking. No crossreferencing to other climate scientists, and nothing like objectivity. They got the story from NASA who apparently didn't bother to tell them that it was, in effect nothing and they reported it in a handwringing frenzy and it has been reported all over the web by warmists with the same handwringing frenzy. That senario has been repeated over and over; literally tens of thousands of times in the past couple of decades and you apparently are fine with it and in fact accuse anyone who points it out as a conspiracy theorist.

There is ample evidence of malfeasance within the climate science community and willing participation by the press to override any cliam of conspiracy theory. Such a claim on your part is just one more logical fallacy. In this case it is called poisoning the well. That is reporting dishonest information about an opponent in hopes that some will believe you and, in turn, discredit any future comments your opponent may make. Like I said, you have no actual argument and are unfortunately restricted to dishonesty and logical fallacy.

But, seriously, if the increase in temperature is really less than the margin of error, how can you be sure that the Earth is currently warming at all?

Do you have a reading disability? Are you really unable to read words and comprehend what the author is saying, even when the language is spoken in plain terms? I have made my position absolutely clear to anyone who has even made the slightest attempt to read them with anything like comprehension. You clearly don't read for comprehension but instead read with the aim of misrepresnting what you read in your rebuttal.

I have said over and over and over that the present trend is warming. Present in geological terms because looking at yearly or decadal trends with anything more than a curious interest is pointless and foolish. I have stated repeatedly that the trend will continue to be towards warming with intermittent periods of cooling for a very long time time to come. If you refer back to the historical climate cycle chart I posted in this thread you should be able to predict a warming period that will continue for the best part of the next 750,000 to 1.5 million years with the earth warming till such time as there is no ice on earth....anywhere. If you can't look at that graph and reasonably make such a prediction, then you need to perhaps put some effort into learning how to read a graph. And if you look at that graph and find anything disturbing about the present climate, then perhaps you should apply some lotion to your hands (the incessant wringing of them must cause uncomfortable chaffing), take a deep breath, and try and tell yourself that the sky is not falling.
 
What would it take to change your mind?

Whatever your answer is, we know the answer is not science. You've already stated, using circular logic, that the only "credible" scientists are those that agree with AGW and any scientists who are skeptical of, or disagree with, AGW aren't credible. If you refuse to consider any scientific data or opinions that contradict your belief by dismissing them as having no credibility (because they don't support your belief), then nothing within the scientific community could ever change your mind on the issue.

So who's being unreasonable?

Pale is asking for scientific proof, real, observable, repeatable evidence that can satisfy the burden of proof AGW proponents have placed on themselves by making the claim. He has pointed to actual scientific laws that are in direct conflict with the claims of AGW, yet there isn't even an attempt to explain the scientific inconsistencies in AGW.

You offer only fallacies, like appeals to authority by citing this or that "credible" scientist or scientific body - Of course they are only "credible" because they support your position, any person, group, or scientific body that doesn't agree with your position is dismissed as not being "credible". You have never once attempted to satisfy the burden of proof, instead you reversed the burden of proof and began using ad hominem fallacies by claiming Pale is a conspiracy theorist.

Found in the Wiki article under Pseudoscience:

  • Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)
  • Reversed burden of proof: In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.
  • Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.

Very well said and dead on accurate. Of course, the author of that wiki article (in his view) must have been a conspiracy theorist who slipped by the gatekeeper and posted a fraudulent definition of pseudoscience. I am sure that he is unable to apply any of the bulleted remarks to climate science. The first, for example. He apparently believes that the claims of climate science have been proven true even though he is completely unable to provide any such scientific proof. The second falls under the same heading. I am sure that he beleives that climate science has met the burden of proof, in spite of his complete inability to provide the proof he is sure is so well known. Finally, I am sure that in his mind, it is us who are guilty of the third point.
 
PLC,

Here is a bit of climate science at its best and a perfect example of why I say that cliamte science suffers from an error cascade. From NASA, it is a statement by the acknowledged "godfather" of climate science, James Hansen. It goes like this:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

James Hansen said:
The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009).

Just a little bit of reseach is enough to learn that the 0.85 watts per square meter that he references is from his own climate model and one of his previous papers titled oddly enough, Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implication.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00110y.html

I have a question for you if you have the courage to answer. What do you think the highlighted sentence means?

As a followup, I would ask you what it will lead to but since I doubt that you have the courage to honestly answer the first, I will tell you what it will invariably lead to. The man has disregarded the real world readings of the satellites to match the output of his climate model and before long, all of climate science will be blissfully confident that the CERES satellites are in perfect agreement with the GISS and other climate models which will then be touted by climate science as proof that the models are worth the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on them.

One more question. Do you find anything wrong, or fishy about hansen's actions? I ask, because this sort of thing is rife within the climate science community and if you think it is just fine and represents business as usual and an endless pursuit of the truth, then it goes a long way to explaining how it is that you can hold your position in the face of such information.
 
It is the warmists who are wringing their hands over completely normal, not in the least unusual climate change and willing to do irreparable damage to the world economy in an insane attempt to stop a natural cycle. You and yours believe that if we stop using fossil fuels, the natural cycle will stop and the climate will remain static because we will have appeased the earth goddess.

No hand wringing here. Why must you lump all "warmists" into one category, then ascribe to me positions I've never taken? You do that, then accuse me of misrepresenting your position. That's just silly.

And changed more quickly and to a greater degree than the present. So why are you and yours concerned about the present change which is well within the boundries of natural variability?

Me and mine? Are you arguing with my family now, or is that another lumping of all "warmists" into one category?
I believe that is what is known as a strawman.


You just can't restrain yourself from lying can you? When have I ever said that I subscribe to a conspiracy theory? I have said that the field of cliamte science is the victim of an error cascade and there is published work coming out all the time that brings this fact into high relief.

I apologize. I have misrepresented your position also.
It's not that every scientific body in the world is trying to put one over on us, it is that they are simply wrong and don't realize it.

Only you know the truth.

Oh, and those scientists who have broken ranks and exposed the truth. I seem to have seen a list of them somewhere above in this very long thread. Was it just the first name that was wrong? Maybe I really do need to check out the rest of them.

Oh, and I missed this somehow, perhaps due to my lack of reading comprehension: If the claimed change is less than the margin of error, how do we know that there has been any change at all for the past couple of centuries?
 
No hand wringing here. Why must you lump all "warmists" into one category, then ascribe to me positions I've never taken? You do that, then accuse me of misrepresenting your position. That's just silly.

If you defend the hoax, then you defend the inevetable result.


Me and mine? Are you arguing with my family now, or is that another lumping of all "warmists" into one category?
I believe that is what is known as a strawman.

Are you not in agreement with warmists regarding the hypothesis? Hard to effectively distance yourself from those whose side you argue on a daily basis.

It's not that every scientific body in the world is trying to put one over on us, it is that they are simply wrong and don't realize it.

Not every scientific body. In fact, not any scientific body. The vast majority of the membership of those societies (the actual scientific bodies) are not onboard with the AGW hoax. It is the political heads of those scientific bodies, those who are more interested in seeing the funding money flow who are onboard. Did you know that the actual scientific bodies don't get any input or have any say as to what the political heads say?

And yoru suggestion that scientific bodies are somehow infallable is evidence that you don't know much about the history of science. Did you know that till sometime in the middle of the 20th century, most scientific bodies were onboard with the theory of an expanding earth. It was only when plate tectonics was accepted later in the 20th century that the expanding earth theory began to lose a following.

Till the big bang theory came along with Einstein, most scientific bodies believed the size of the universe to be staic.

Remember how the scientific community hailed the actuality of cold fusion....till they were faced with the undeniable fact that it was a hoax?

As recently as the past couple of years all scientific bodies who might hold an interest were onboard with the theory that there could be no such thing as quasicrystals. The discoverer of them had his career ruined and was actually ejected from his society for suggesting their existence and all funding for his research was denied.

The belief that the heads of scientific bodies can't be wrong has been proven wrong over and over.

Only you know the truth.

Again with the dishonesty. There are a vast body of scientists who know the truth and are publishing papers revealing exactly the things I have been arguing. The mainstream press has to much invested in the warming argument, however, to publish anything like the facts of the matter.

Oh, and those scientists who have broken ranks and exposed the truth. I seem to have seen a list of them somewhere above in this very long thread. Was it just the first name that was wrong? Maybe I really do need to check out the rest of them.

And yet more dishonesty. The first name on that list was not wrong, The first name on that list acknowledeges climate change, just like me, but states explicitly that what we are seeing is natural variability. It was dishonest in the first place to try and claim that his work was being used to claim that there is no cliamte change. That claim is another example of how an error cascade happens. You believe that he doesn't belong on that list because he believes the climate is changing. So what, so do I. We both happen to hold the position that the changes natural and within the boundries of natural variability.

Oh, and I missed this somehow, perhaps due to my lack of reading comprehension: If the claimed change is less than the margin of error, how do we know that there has been any change at all for the past couple of centuries?

Because it is right there in the record. A couple of hundred years ago, the Thames froze solid during the winter. As glaciers melt, we find evidence of human habitation under what was recently covered with ice. Of course that tells us that during the medieval warm period and roman warm periods, the ice had receeded further back than it is today, but I am sure that you would choose to ignore that fact.

The fact is that we are coming out of an ice age and that knowledge is being used to dupe the general public into sacrificing trillions of dollars on a hoax.

I can't help but notice that you have not yet named a single physical law that either supports or predicts a greenouse effect as claimed by climate science. Why do you suppose you can find no reference to such a basic piece of science required to validate a hypothesis like AGW?
 
I think it's all about money (like Al Gore and his "carbon credits"), and the enviro-wacko's. All this green energy garbage, like solar and wind costs a fortune, compared to coal, gas, & oil.

I think you have hit, on something.

Al Gore got the greenhouse effect, the climate change, and part of the urgency, but Al never wanted legal hemp, the entire time he was in any office, so he just ups the controversy, with a hedge, which will cost a lot of money, where funding is already stressed, namely cap and trade and carbon credits, etc.

So along comes Barack Obama, and in January 2008, Senator Obama claims his "plan" will increase energy prices. But Obama is an attorney, connected to the DP, so he does not intend to lead. He and Al Gore would rather stir up all kinds of nutjob media, collect as much money, as they can get, and run some kind of dive.

DP and RP gridlock and boondoggle geeks are playing us, to get money. This is true. There are 450,000 elected officials and countless appointed officials, in the USA. Many of them are just geeking us, while pretending to oppose each other. Vote DP or RP only if you have to. But we will have to force politicians, to sensible spending. We can't do any of that, if nutjob media keeps coming out, about how science is religion, etc., etc. No politicians will take anybody seriously, at all, if that nonsense keeps coming out, of the peanut galleries, of the Earth.

We should have gotten rid of religion, so we could have freedom FROM religion and seditious conspirators, connected to religions. Benedict says people who don't believe in global warming are atheists. He means well.

But that carbon credit crap just leaves everybody in a nutjob freakout. That idea is out of any sensible battle order. But hey, some people just like to do wars, so they can get other people, to go out and die. Seen this?

In order to generate real funding, somebody has to take out the drug war, freeing up funds and hemp. We need algae and switchgrass and ultrasound processing. We need radical re-greening, ASAP, but no known DP or RP pollies are up to the task. As a result, global warming is past tipping points, to become runaway global warming. Another bad aspect of this is all kinds of nutjobs are in traffic, claiming animals or aliens used chainsaws, to cause the warming, so humans aren't responsible, for stewarding the Earth.

Nutjobs from the left and right being what they are, all are ignoring, how CO2 ALWAYS peaks out, at 280 ppm, during any Pleistocene-Holocene Thermal Maximum events, and then it starts, slowly downward, over 80-100K years, to force temperatures down, with it, until CO2 reaches 180 ppm, and then it shoots up, in just a few thousand years, to force a new thermal maximum.

400000yearslarge1.gif


But hey! Somebody got into burning wood, coal, oil, and anything that catches fire, while whacking forests, with chainsaws. Do we know anybody, who would simultaneously emit GHGs, while killing CO2-respirators? Try this: PEOPLE!

It wasn't Animal Global Warming. It wasn't Alien Global Warming. It is ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, which has been caused, by several kinds of human activity, over years.

See that red line, way over on the right? That is what happened, to CO2 concentrations, in a geologic instant. It is now about 400 ppm, while CH4 (methane) is no longer measured, in ppb. CH4 has a greenhouse gas potential, of 72, over 20 years, and it can stay around, since a lot of it is out-gassing, from warming Arctic lands and waters and ice, with even more CO2. The CH4 won't break down, since OH- ions can get used up, so CH4 won't break down, to CO2 and H2O, in the atmosphere. An insignificant amount breaks down, in the earth.

CO2 is headed, for 1000 ppm. It will be at 450 ppm, by 2050. A lot of us will be dead, by then. We will probably be into Mass Extinction Event 6, by 2022, according to some estimates. We are out-gassing CO2 and CH4, faster than before either the PETM extinction or the P-T mass extinction. The Permian-Triassic Event is the deadliest killer, of all mass extinctions, in geologic time. We'd need a meteorite strike or a nuclear disaster, to beat that killer, but we will for sure lose most ocean fish and a lot of land species and families.

Solar intensity is mild, over the past few decades. Our current sunspot cycle 24 will feature 90 spots, the least since the cycle which peaked in 1928 came out, with 68 spots.

Ice is melting, bigtime. The heat exchange for this process means average global temperatures should go DOWN, but they aren't going down, they are going UP, with a lot of high-temp records set, in the past year.

We are projected to set high temp records, at 20-1, versus low temp records, by 2050. This will morph, to 50-1, by 2100. The Earth is HEATING UP. The climate is changing. With more heat AND water in the climate system, we will see exaggerated natural disasters, including more droughts and floods, so we have too much of anything we are getting, while that cap and glacial ice melts.

Then the sea level will go up. The ocean will kill its life-forms, by acidification, at first, but then the oceans will get warm and anoxic. Jellyfish will take over, as the top predator. After humans have all but gone, HS2-respirators will evolve, like they have, in the past.

Guess what is going to happen? We are going to run out of funding AND time, simultaneously, since humans aren't very smart. Some humans are going to argue, with the CIA, Navy, and DOD, about their funding, of strategic climate centers. I wouldn't do THAT, bunkies.

Anti-climate change skeptics are going to go the way of people, who used to argue, how the earth is flat, but it isn't, you know? Anti-climate change skeptics are going to go the way, of HIV-carriers, who tricked and shot speed, to push their lethal doses, all the way, through AIDS, to death. The bath-houses are closed.

I don't believe, in God. See the trend?
 
LOL...Beliving in GW is a religion and Goracle is their god. Someone should write a poem about it.

I think you have hit, on something. Posted by Bobgnote
Snark all you want. Ever hear of "follow the money"? Want to really know how much all this BS has cost us? You can start with all the enviro lawsuits and then work your way over to the EPA. Go into any city and talk to a small business guy and find out how many agencies, licenses, permits. fees and taxes he has to pay in a year just for doing business. Don't tell me it's not about money.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top