Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[palerider]

Oh. So, we're back to #1 again?
It might help if you would number your arguments, so I know what your current position might be.

You act as if there are only your 4 choices and are unable to think past them. Do you really believe you know enough to constrain the argument to your 4 choices?

OK, then, let's see what sorts of observations support the idea that the Earth is in a cooling cycle currently. What do you think they might be?

Record and early cold. Record and early snow; and most importantly, places where snow that that has traditionally (according to our record keeping) melted in summer where it is no longer completely melting in summer. Ice ages, or even mini ice ages don't come about suddenly. They are the result of snows not melting completely away during the summer and accumulating which decreases the amount of energy absorbed by the earth. Look for snows that are remaining through the summer in places where they generally don't.

Me and mine? My family isn't in this debate at all. You're really only discussing this with me, unless some other member of HOP wants to jump in.

You and yours. Clearly the content of your posts on this board reflect the fact that you support the alarmist position. Need I bring quotes forward as evidence?

On that one, we agree. See argument #4.

No, we don't agree. Your number 4 says that humans are altering the climate and there is no observed evidence to support that claim.

So you keep saying. So, now we don't know whether the Earth is warming or cooling currently? Is that your contention?

I am stating that we don't have a data base that is sufficiently accurate to reasonably base claims of global temperature changes.

Now we've shifted to #2. It would be less confusing if we were to stick to just one issue.

No, we have not shifted to number 2. Number 2 states that there is warming but it is natural. We don't know whether there is warming or not. Again, you seem to beleive that you have covered the entirety of the climate possibilities with those 4 choices. You haven't even come close. If you try to frame everything I say within those 4 choices, you will be constantly misrepresenting what I am saying as we can clearly see. Thus far, you misrepresented my argument each and every time.

OK, here I thought we were in agreement on #1. Apparently, this is not the case. So, let's discuss #1. What evidence is there that the Earth is/ is not warming currently?

Why would you think we were in agreement? Number one is a statement of fact and we are not in posession of any fact. Any suggestion of being in posession of a temperature database that is accurate enough to make such a statement of fact call the one making the statement into question.

Which is exactly what I said: The "alarmist" position is that AGW will be a catastrophe. I think perhaps we agree on that one: There is no proof that it will.

But you still argue the alarmist position. You believe, and argue in support of claims that are based on nothing which supports the claims.

No, there is no evidence to support #4, or #3, so let's pick either #1 or #2 and quit shifting from one to the other. It would be much more more logical to do so.

There is no evidence to support 1 or 2 either. The data are not sufficient to support any of your choices. That is the problem. You believe you have covered the issue with your 4 choices and you haven't even come close.

I'm very good at reading for comprehension. If I've misunderstood one of your many different positions, look within for the reason.

Clearly you aren't. You keep trying to constrain the argument to your 4 choices; none of which are supported by data that has a margin of error less than the temperature change being claimed.

OK, so we're back to #1, as I said above.

No. we are not back to 1. We are not back to any of your choices because the data is not accurate enough to support any of them. We are in a state of not knowing. We are in a state of wringing our hands over an imagined man made disaster when we are not in posession of data that is accurate enough to support the claims. Clearly, the world around us is not suggesting impending disaster because there is nothing going on around us (climate wise) that is outside of natural variability.

Good. So, now you want to discuss the science behind the determination of position #1, correct?

Geez you are slow. There is not enough hard science to support any of your numbers. There is not enough hard, observable science to even create a topic for discussion. The fact that you attempt to defend a pseudoscientific branch of somethnig that is trying to appear to be science is surprising.

Position #3. I've never supported that one. You'll have to ask someone else.

You support a position you have not even named. You believe we are responsible and it will be a disaster and draconian measures might halt it because you support the proclamations of climate pseudoscience.

The greenhouse effect is claimed not only by the adherents of position #3, but by the supporters of #2 as well.

The greenhouse effect is fictitious. It is a fantasy. It is an ad hoc construct with no physical support. It is a political tool.

I think we need to establish position #1 first, then go to #2. If there is no increase in temperature, why would we talk about the causes?

So, if we're going to discuss position #1, I think we need to look at evidence that the Earth is warming/cooling currently.

Things like:

The increase or decrease in the extent of Arctic ice.
The increase or decrease in the extent of alpine glaciers.
The increase or decrease in extremes of weather.
The growth/shrinkage of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Are there other reasons besides warming that the Arctic ice might be shrinking? Are there other reasons besides warming or cooling that alpine glaciers might advance or retreat? Is extreme weather a new thing? Many scientists are telling us that it is not associated with climate change. Is the growth or shrinkage of the greenland ice sheet new and can it only be related to warming or cooling? If you can answer any of these difinitively with a yes or no, then you have a serious topic for discussion. If you can't, then I have to wonder why, and to what ends the conversation exists at all.

Please feel free to add to that list. All of the above go to position #1, is the Earth currently cooling, or is it warming?

Till you can name something that is happening that is outside the boundries of natural variation, there is no conversation to be had. Any claim that there is a conversation to be had is little more than stories fabricated to scare the uneducated for political reasons.

 

[Gipper]

​

Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data?

By Maxim Lott
Published December 16, 2011
| FoxNews.com

“Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.​

Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data "has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”​

A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: "They are happy with me not passing on the station data," he wrote.​

The emails have outraged climate-change skeptics who say they can't trust climate studies unless they see the raw data -- and how it has been adjusted.​

"In every endeavor of science, making your work replicable by others is a basic tenet of proof,” Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and climate change blogger, told FoxNews.com. “If other scientists cannot replicate your work, it brings your work into question.”​

Is the Department of Energy to blame? The Climategate emails reveal correspondence only between Jones and his colleagues -- not between him and the DoE.​

"What’s missing," Watts said, "is a ... directive from DoE that they should withhold station data gathered under their grant. The email may be there, but ... still under lock and key.”​

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wants that key. He recently filed Freedom of Information acts with the DoE, requesting the emails they exchanged with Jones.​

​

So, could it be the DOE is also committing fraud and deceit to promote the hoax? Just as much of the scientific community has committed fraud and deceit...

One would think that after all these lies have been exposed, warmers would recognize that AGW just might be a fraud. But then I suppose their news sources work hard to keep them in the dark and they aren't smart enough to recognize the con.

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/#ixzz1gnRJBloA​

 

[PLC1]

North Pole is the middle right ? If it was melted in 62, its apparently not unusual.
Odd that Nat Geo thinks it is.




too much hyperbole and outright UN-truth. We don't kn ow as much as we claim to know. Time to step back and see if there is some way to tell whats real and whats agenda.

Perhaps they're looking at long term trends, rather than anecdotes.

 

[PLC1]

You act as if there are only your 4 choices and are unable to think past them. Do you really believe you know enough to constrain the argument to your 4 choices?

Is there a fifth I've missed? So far, your arguments have just shifted from #1 to #4.

Record and early cold. Record and early snow; and most importantly, places where snow that that has traditionally (according to our record keeping) melted in summer where it is no longer completely melting in summer. Ice ages, or even mini ice ages don't come about suddenly. They are the result of snows not melting completely away during the summer and accumulating which decreases the amount of energy absorbed by the earth. Look for snows that are remaining through the summer in places where they generally don't.

There is evidence for extremes of weather. Is there for "snows not melting completely away during the summer and accumulating" anywhere except in the Antarctic, where snows are more dependent on moisture than on temperature?

You and yours. Clearly the content of your posts on this board reflect the fact that you support the alarmist position. Need I bring quotes forward as evidence?

Even though I've consistently said I don't support the alarmist position (#3). OK, if 'me and mine" includes every scientific organization worldwide, which it does, then I'm in pretty good company.

No, we don't agree. Your number 4 says that humans are altering the climate and there is no observed evidence to support that claim.

No, #4 says that we can reverse the process.

I am stating that we don't have a data base that is sufficiently accurate to reasonably base claims of global temperature changes.

Yes, I'm aware that you're stating that. You've made several unsupportable statements, in fact.

No, we have not shifted to number 2. Number 2 states that there is warming but it is natural. We don't know whether there is warming or not. Again, you seem to beleive that you have covered the entirety of the climate possibilities with those 4 choices. You haven't even come close. If you try to frame everything I say within those 4 choices, you will be constantly misrepresenting what I am saying as we can clearly see. Thus far, you misrepresented my argument each and every time.

Actually, I just want to try to focus the discussion on one issue at a time.

Why would you think we were in agreement? Number one is a statement of fact and we are not in posession of any fact. Any suggestion of being in posession of a temperature database that is accurate enough to make such a statement of fact call the one making the statement into question.

we're in agreement on issues 3 and 4, not on issues 1 and 2. Your argument keeps shifting from one to the other until it's difficult to decipher just where you stand at the moment.

But you still argue the alarmist position. You believe, and argue in support of claims that are based on nothing which supports the claims.

I have never argued the alarmist position. My position has been consistent.

There is no evidence to support 1 or 2 either. The data are not sufficient to support any of your choices. That is the problem. You believe you have covered the issue with your 4 choices and you haven't even come close.

That is what the debate centers around. Is the Earth getting warmer on average, or not? Let's focus on one issue at a time.

Clearly you aren't. You keep trying to constrain the argument to your 4 choices; none of which are supported by data that has a margin of error less than the temperature change being claimed.

Actually, I'm going further than that. I'm trying to get you to pick one position and stick to it.

No. we are not back to 1. We are not back to any of your choices because the data is not accurate enough to support any of them. We are in a state of not knowing. We are in a state of wringing our hands over an imagined man made disaster when we are not in posession of data that is accurate enough to support the claims. Clearly, the world around us is not suggesting impending disaster because there is nothing going on around us (climate wise) that is outside of natural variability.

So, now you're not willing to debate #1? First, you say that global warming is not anthropogenic (#2). Then you say that the Earth has been undergoing cycles for thousands of years, to which I've agreed (scientific evidence and all that you know, not just political nonsense). Then, just when it seems you agree that the climate may still be changing, you go back to the #1 argument, and try to say that it isn't.

If the Earth has always had warm/cool cycles, what makes you think that process has stopped?

Geez you are slow. There is not enough hard science to support any of your numbers. There is not enough hard, observable science to even create a topic for discussion. The fact that you attempt to defend a pseudoscientific branch of somethnig that is trying to appear to be science is surprising.

That is what you keep saying. Now, let's support it.

Oh, and when you start with the name calling nonsense, it's a sign that you have no valid argument.

But, I already know that you don't.

You support a position you have not even named. You believe we are responsible and it will be a disaster and draconian measures might halt it because you support the proclamations of climate pseudoscience.

My position is what it has always been. It is the same position taken by every scientific organization on Earth. The climate of the Earth is getting warmer (#1) and that process is being accelerated by human activities (#2). You're the one who keeps throwing strawman arguments out there about "alarmism" and about political agendas. I've never argued that it will be a disaster nor that draconian measures have to be taken. You're the one who keeps bringing that up.

The greenhouse effect is fictitious. It is a fantasy. It is an ad hoc construct with no physical support. It is a political tool.

That's nonsense, of course, but then let's see if we can establish whether the phenomenon is real (position 1) before we try to decide the cause (#2). If global warming is not real, why try to find a cause?

Are there other reasons besides warming that the Arctic ice might be shrinking? Are there other reasons besides warming or cooling that alpine glaciers might advance or retreat?

I don't know. It's usually warmth that causes ice to melt. Do you know of another cause?

Is extreme weather a new thing? Many scientists are telling us that it is not associated with climate change.

More extremes of weather is one ofthe predicted outcomes of global warming.
But, that's just from the scientific community, the guys you don't believe. The pundits have other explanations.

Is the growth or shrinkage of the greenland ice sheet new and can it only be related to warming or cooling? If you can answer any of these difinitively with a yes or no, then you have a serious topic for discussion. If you can't, then I have to wonder why, and to what ends the conversation exists at all.

Again, what is it that makes ice melt?

Till you can name something that is happening that is outside the boundries of natural variation, there is no conversation to be had. Any claim that there is a conversation to be had is little more than stories fabricated to scare the uneducated for political reasons.

I can see that there is no conversation to be had. I started with the assumption that the naysayers had already made up their minds.[/quote]

 

[Gipper]

So long as our government is willing to throw billions of dollars at studying this subject, researchers will continue to come up with reasons why further studies are necessary... And so long as those studies can support the Progressive ideals of a totalitarian state and oppressive taxation, the politicians will gladly continue to fund "research" on the topic. Break the cycle by removing public funds from the equation and watch as the AGW theory magically disappears.

That is well said. It summarizes nicely the AGW con that is taking place, which many foolish Americans (warmers as they are in-affectionately referred to) gladly accept because it FEELS right.

I have long admired Fat Albert and his cabal of warmercons...Hey I really like that...Warmercons...just thought of that...is that not a great name for those making billions off the AGW hoax...sort of play on words similar to neocon...hahahahah....

We need to come up with the next big thing to con the left and make millions. We must play on their emotions since they are incapable of thinking logically.

How about this? We proclaim that we are nutrition EXPERTS and demand that all fatty foods, red meat, etc is killing not only humans, but Mother Earth. We must save the human race and Mother Earth by tyrannically imposing FOOD LAWS prohibiting the consumption of fatty foods WORLDWIDE. Since poor nations don't consume fatty foods, the rich nations will be impacted the most. Lefties will love that. Then we take possession of the non-fatty food chain using Chicago tactics to reap MILLIONS....

 

[dogtowner]

Perhaps they're looking at long term trends, rather than anecdotes.

"never" seems pretty definative. and the Navy sent subs up there in 57 & 58 qnd that picture is 62, not sure about other years but that doesnt seem to be anecdotal.

 

[palerider]

Is there a fifth I've missed? So far, your arguments have just shifted from #1 to #4.

Sure there is a 5th. The 5th choice would be that we don't know enough to make claims of warming or cooling with any real degree of confidience and therefore at this point, there is no basis for any sort of climate change conversation.

There is evidence for extremes of weather. Is there for "snows not melting completely away during the summer and accumulating" anywhere except in the Antarctic, where snows are more dependent on moisture than on temperature?

There have always been extremes of weather. There is no basis for claiming that those anecdotes are evidence of manmade climate change. And of course there is evidence for snows not melting completely away during summer. Do you deliberately ignore all climate news that doesn't support your view? All you need to is look to new glacier formation to see that there are places where snows are not melting during the summer other than the poles. You might also look to glaciers advancing more than normal as well. Here is some news on the most notable right here in our own back yard but evidence for the formation of new glaciers can be found all over the world.

http://glaciercaves.com/html/anewgl_1.HTM

Even though I've consistently said I don't support the alarmist position (#3). OK, if 'me and mine" includes every scientific organization worldwide, which it does, then I'm in pretty good company.

Really? Would you have been in good company if you were with the so called consensus on eugenics? How about if you were with the so called consensus on tectonic plates? How about the recent so called consensus on the non existence of quasicrystals? Being on the wrong side of a discussion is never good company, just because your own lack of education leaves you making a choice based on your personal political leanings.

No, #4 says that we can reverse the process.

#4 says that there is warming. Once again I ask, what is the margin of error in the data used to make the claim of warming?

Yes, I'm aware that you're stating that. You've made several unsupportable statements, in fact.

I have asked you repeatedly to state the margin of error in the global temperature record. I can't say that I blame you for not wanting to state it but it still remains. There are serious questions revolving around the surface temperature record upon which the claims of manmade climate change are based.

And I have made no unsupportable statements.

Actually, I just want to try to focus the discussion on one issue at a time.

The issue is that the margin of error in the temperature record is such that we don't know whether it is warming or cooling.

we're in agreement on issues 3 and 4, not on issues 1 and 2. Your argument keeps shifting from one to the other until it's difficult to decipher just where you stand at the moment.

We are in agreement on none of them.

I have never argued the alarmist position. My position has been consistent.

Of course you have. You stated above that you were in good company with the heads of the various scientific organizations. They are the alarmists.

That is what the debate centers around. Is the Earth getting warmer on average, or not? Let's focus on one issue at a time.

How would you know?

Actually, I'm going further than that. I'm trying to get you to pick one position and stick to it.

My position is that the record is not accurate enough to make claims of warming or cooling.

So, now you're not willing to debate #1? First, you say that global warming is not anthropogenic (#2). Then you say that the Earth has been undergoing cycles for thousands of years, to which I've agreed (scientific evidence and all that you know, not just political nonsense). Then, just when it seems you agree that the climate may still be changing, you go back to the #1 argument, and try to say that it isn't.

What is to debate on #1? It is not a statement of fact. None of your choices is a statement of fact. They are all opinion based on a temperature record that isn't accurate enough to make any such claims.

If the Earth has always had warm/cool cycles, what makes you think that process has stopped?

I don't think the process has stopped. I am saying that we don't know whether the earth is warming or cooling, therefore there is no discussion to be had. Till we are in posession of a temperature record that is a hell of a lot more accurate than the one we have at present, there is no basis for anything other than how we might refine our temperature gathering ability.

That is what you keep saying. Now, let's support it.

So support it. I am telling you that the margin of error is to large to make claims of such small temperature changes. If you believe the record is accurate enough to do so, then prove it.

Oh, and when you start with the name calling nonsense, it's a sign that you have no valid argument.

Observing that you are slow and apparently can't grasp what I am saying is not name calling. Whining over fabricated insult rather than proving your case is a sign that you have no valid argument.

But, I already know that you don't.

Of course I do, and up to this point, I have won. If you don't have a temperature record that is accurate enough to reasonably claim the small bit of temperature change being names, what argument do you have?

My position is what it has always been. It is the same position taken by every scientific organization on Earth. The climate of the Earth is getting warmer (#1) and that process is being accelerated by human activities (#2). You're the one who keeps throwing strawman arguments out there about "alarmism" and about political agendas. I've never argued that it will be a disaster nor that draconian measures have to be taken. You're the one who keeps bringing that up.

So back to the beginning. What physical law supports and predicts the greenhouse effect that is necessary for manmade climate change as claimed by those scientific organizations. What hard, observed, repeatable evidence exists that supports the claim that global warming is being accelerated by human activities. You have no answer for either of those questions and yet, you argue in support of AGW.

That's nonsense, of course, but then let's see if we can establish whether the phenomenon is real (position 1) before we try to decide the cause (#2). If global warming is not real, why try to find a cause?

If it is nonsense, then name the physical law that supports and predicts a greenouse effect as described by warmists. The second law of thermodynamics states that it can't happen as described. The law of conservation of energy states that it can't happen as described. The Stefan-Boltzman law states that it can't happen as described. Upon what physical law do you base your belief?

I don't know. It's usually warmth that causes ice to melt. Do you know of another cause?

Actually, it isn't warmth that usually causes the ice to decline. Check out the average temperature at either of the poles and tell me that it is warm enough to melt the ice. The ice declines for the same reason it was melted in the pictures provided by dogtowner. Wind and ocean currents. Research has shown that the "serious" decline of the past few years has been almost entirely due to wind; not warming.

More extremes of weather is one ofthe predicted outcomes of global warming.

Like more hurricaines hitting the US or snow being a thing of the past? None of the predicted outcomes has come to pass.

Again, what is it that makes ice melt?

As I said, wind and currents can account for most ice loss in the recent past.


I am out of time. I will get to the rest of your "arguments" later.

 

[PLC1]

I don't really have time for a lengthy repeat of issues already hashed and rehashed, so let's just condense this down, at least for now.

This statement is new

Do you deliberately ignore all climate news that doesn't support your view? All you need to is look to new glacier formation to see that there are places where snows are not melting during the summer other than the poles. You might also look to glaciers advancing more than normal as well. Here is some news on the most notable right here in our own back yard but evidence for the formation of new glaciers can be found all over the world.

http://glaciercaves.com/html/anewgl_1.HTM

Now, why would a glacier forming in Mount St. Helens be new? Hmmm.. could it have anything to do with a recent eruption? Surely, we need to look further into this idea. Meanwhile, let's look for further evidence that new glaciers are forming.

and this one really piqued my interest:

Really? Would you have been in good company if you were with the so called consensus on eugenics? How about if you were with the so called consensus on tectonic plates? How about the recent so called consensus on the non existence of quasicrystals? Being on the wrong side of a discussion is never good company, just because your own lack of education leaves you making a choice based on your personal political leanings.

Consensus on eugenics? Where, exactly, does the world wide scientific community stand on the issue of eugenics?

Tectonic plates? Yes, I'm aware that the scientific community believes that earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates. Are you going to try to argue that one is wrong too?

I had to look up "quasicrystals"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/science/06nobel.html?_r=1
Israeli Scientist Wins Nobel Prize for Chemistry

An Israeli scientist won this year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering quasicrystals, a material in which atoms were packed together in a well-defined pattern that never repeats.

If there is a "consensus on the non existence of quasicrystals", why did this scientist get a Nobel Prize for having discovered them?

 

[dogtowner]

If there is a "consensus on the non existence of quasicrystals", why did this scientist get a Nobel Prize for having discovered them?

why did Obama get a Nobel for peace ? you KNEW that was coming.

in no position to comment on the4 good doctor's work but the Nobelers have shown themselves to be subject to politics and as you tell me all the time (and rightly so), this whole thing is awash in politics.

 

[PLC1]

why did Obama get a Nobel for peace ? you KNEW that was coming.

in no position to comment on the4 good doctor's work but the Nobelers have shown themselves to be subject to politics and as you tell me all the time (and rightly so), this whole thing is awash in politics.

yes, the Nobel Prize has a lot to do with politics, as shown by your example.

All I know of the discovery of quasicrystals comes from the link I read. It seems he discovered a form of molecular arrangement that was previously unknown. What we're to conclude from that, I'm not sure.

 

[palerider]

Now, why would a glacier forming in Mount St. Helens be new? Hmmm.. could it have anything to do with a recent eruption? Surely, we need to look further into this idea. Meanwhile, let's look for further evidence that new glaciers are forming.

Recent? Mt. St. Helens erupted 31 years ago. Of course all the ice melted there during the eruption, but the fact remains that a new glacier is forming. A glacier can only form when large amounts of snow don't melt during the summer. If the eruption had not happened, then the glacier would be one of many across the world that is growing as opposed to the claim of glaciers worldwide retreating.

Consensus on eugenics? Where, exactly, does the world wide scientific community stand on the issue of eugenics?

Do you ever do historical research? There was a time when eugenics was all the rage and as a scientst, you would have been out in left field if you were not on the bandwagon for eugenics. Of course eugenics wasn't a science. It was a pseudoscience and like climate science, was founded on unproven principles. It was junk science which couldn't stand up to the harsh light of serious examination. Hitler depopularized eugenics when he took the pseudoscience to its logical conclusion with the Jews. History is rife with examples of the consensus of the scientific community being dead wrong. Science is particularly susceptible to group thin and history bears out that claim.

Tectonic plates? Yes, I'm aware that the scientific community believes that earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates. Are you going to try to argue that one is wrong too?

No, I am not going to tell you that it is wrong, but in the early 1960's if you suscribed to plate tectonics, you certainly would not have been part of the consensus. The consensus was completely unimpressed by the theory of plate tectonics and described those who accepted the theory in much the same tone as a certain core group of climate pseudoscientists describe anyone who is sleptical of climate science in general today.

I had to look up "quasicrystals"

Israeli Scientist Wins Nobel Prize for Chemistry

If there is a "consensus on the non existence of quasicrystals", why did this scientist get a Nobel Prize for having discovered them?[/quote]

He got a nobel because he was right although he spent most of his career labeled a crank. Today, he is credited with the discovery of quasicrystals in 1982, but at the time, he was ostracized for bringing disgrace to his field of research, and nobel lauriates in chemistry of the time called his discovery nonsense and he has lived under that sort of stigma for the past 29 years.

The point being that following the consenseus, espeically in a newish field, or a field where hard, observable, repeatable fact does not exist in abundance puts one in a very tenuous position historically. In 20 years, it will be as hard to find a scientist who admits to being part of the consensus on climate pseudoscience as it is today to find one who believed in eugenics, or laughed at the idea of plate tectonics.

In the case of climate pseudoscience, even the consensus is a manufactured hoax.

 

[palerider]

yes, the Nobel Prize has a lot to do with politics, as shown by your example.

All I know of the discovery of quasicrystals comes from the link I read. It seems he discovered a form of molecular arrangement that was previously unknown. What we're to conclude from that, I'm not sure.

Well, you would need to know a bit of history to conclude anything from it. If you do know a bit of history, then you can conclude that once again, the members of the consensus are standing about with egg on their faces and could be reasonably found guilty in this instance of setting science back almost 30 years in thier 3 decade long denial of the existence of quasicrystals. Seriously, how far do you believe climate pseudoscience has set back all fields of science?

 

[palerider]

"never" seems pretty definative. and the Navy sent subs up there in 57 & 58 qnd that picture is 62, not sure about other years but that doesnt seem to be anecdotal.

In terms of earth history, most everything is anecdotal. There is nothing unusual about open water at the north pole. My bet is that there was no ice at all during both the roman and medieval warm periods but even during the present, open water at the pole isn't unusual. It is generally due to winds and water currents. Even if it were due to heat, it would not be unusual. On earth, ice at one or both of the poles is the anomoly, not the norm.

 

[palerider]

So PLC, can you provide any hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a real connection between the activities of man and the changing global climate; and can you name a single physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate science and upon which AGW alarmism is based?

 

[Gipper]

So PLC, can you provide any hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a real connection between the activities of man and the changing global climate; and can you name a single physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate science and upon which AGW alarmism is based?

I admire your persistence Pale. You have once again completely debunked AGW. You did it most effectively some months/years back in other threads, but THC and others need continual reminders...but I wonder if they ever stop believing the lie that is AGW even after it is thoroughly disproven.

Warmers believe in AGW for the following reasons:
1. Man creates tons of pollution...it must be causing AGW.
2. They personally experience and hear of weather extremes and conclude it must be caused by AGW...even though weather extremes have ALWAYS occurred.
3. The liberal elites (Warmercons) pushing AGW and the scientific community (enriching themselves off the hoax), can't be wrong. They ALL agree AGW is a problem so it must be true. Why would they deceive us...hahahhahahaa......

There are more reasons like the want of worldwide socialism, but that only applies to the real radical lefties...at least THC is not one of them...

So, clearly it is evident warmers believe in AGW based on unscientific, illogical, and silly reasons.