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

[PLC1]

It is a theory that could be correct. Then again the theory that life was seeded here from aliens could be correct too. The good science that supports AGW is sorely lacking.

There is no scientific theory that life was seeded here from aliens. There is some speculation, that's all.

Surely, you understand the difference between a scientific theory simple speculation!

The CERN study did EXACTLY that. It provided new evidence in support of an alternative theory. The theory that earth's warming is due to the sun is a better theory than AGW. Though the theory that the warming and cooling we see is just cyclic is just as sound, especially since we do not even have any measurements at all that measure the temperature of the area in and around the Earth.

The CERN study questioned how much warming is due to human activities.

It could be true that there is no warming.

It might be true that there is warming but it is due entirely to the sun and not at all due to CO2. We should get the politics out of the debate, e.g IPCC, NASA.

It is equally likely to be true that the germ theory of disease is wrong. But, yes, absolutely, we should get politics out of the debate.

If you don't like the scientific organizations that are supported by the various governments, listen to the ones that are supported privately.

But what is certain is that many of the players are biased at best and dishonest at worst.

The "players" are not biased and dishonest. The pundits and commentators are biased and dishonest.

But, it does not matter. There is no way we're going to reverse the process anyway. There is also no way that true believers are going to change their belief systems, regardless of scientific findings. If living in the 21st. century doesn't convince anyone that the scientific method is superior to simply deciding on what you want to believe, then nothing will

So, nothing will.

 

[Dr.Who]

Warming ceased around 1998:
World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report: 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record[/URL]

I believe that was after 1998. What else can we find??

Using your link and the data it provides I found that your link links to a statement about what WILL happen and not what did happen.

Since it was published in 2009 I went to find the report for 2010. It was labeled a "Provisional" report. So I went to find the 2011 report. It said:

"GENEVA/DURBAN, 29 November 2011 (WMO) - Global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Niña event, which has a relative cooling influence. The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. The extent of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest."
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_935_en.html

First we will notice that it came out of Durban.

Then we will notice that the statement was filled with tons of qualifiers.

And then with just a tiny bit of research we learn that the data comes from Giss from Nasa. Despite the reports statement that the data was collected from land, sea, and satellite measurements Giss used data only from land based measurements.

"We have lately heard much of the claim that 2010 will turn out to have been “the hottest year on record”. No one has done more to promote this belief than Dr James Hansen, head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), responsible for one of the four main official global temperature records.

As reported by the US blogs Real Science and Watts Up With That, in a post headed “GISS temperatures out of line with the rest of the world”, the GISS record has in recent months been diverging wildly from the others. While three have shown global temperatures dropping sharply, by as much as 0.3C, the GISS figures (based, despite the link to Nasa, on surface temperatures) have shot up by 0.2C.

In a second post (“Hansen’s 'Hottest Year Ever’ is primarily based on fabricated data”), Real Science demonstrates that the parts of the world which GISS shows to be heating up the most are so short of weather stations that only 25 per cent of the figures are based on actual temperature readings. The rest are simply conjectured by GISS. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...as-long-as-you-dont-take-its-temperature.html

Again they are telling us that the whole house is getting warmer because they think the kitchen is hot.

 

[dogtowner]

The "players" are not biased and dishonest.

The rest are simply conjectured by GISS. "

more proof that they are both P.

 

[PLC1]

You can make a case against AGW, sure.

Just believe Real Science, and not the real scientific organizations, and..

ignore the difference between hottest decade and hottest year.

It's easy.

Oh, you may have to ignore other facts, data, principles of science, but people do that all the time, too.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter. No one is going to address the issue in any meaningful way, and no one is going to change their belief systems because of boring old facts. Humans don't operate that way.

 

[Alias]

You can make a case against AGW, sure.

Just believe Real Science, and not the real scientific organizations, and..

ignore the difference between hottest decade and hottest year.

It's easy.

Oh, you may have to ignore other facts, data, principles of science, but people do that all the time, too.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter. No one is going to address the issue in any meaningful way, and no one is going to change their belief systems because of boring old facts. Humans don't operate that way.

What caused the earth to have at least 3 ice ages and then warm up each time? Simple question.

 

[PLC1]

What caused the earth to have at least 3 ice ages and then warm up each time? Simple question.

Natural warm/cool cycles that the Earth has had for thousands of years. Simple answer.

Why? I'm not sure anyone knows.

 

[Alias]

Natural warm/cool cycles that the Earth has had for thousands of years. Simple answer.

Why? I'm not sure anyone knows.

The sun. The sun heats and cools; therefore, the earth reflects that heating and cooling. Nothing at all to do with man. This is basic science we all learned in high school. What you meant to say is YOU'RE not sure YOU know. Lots of us are educated.

 

[GenSeneca]

Oh, Pale.

Yeah, Pale... about whom you said the following:

I have read Palerider's arguments and found them to be baseless. - PLC1

Now, how do I address a post like that?

Nice Red Herring there.... I've counted multiple posts where Pale quotes you then responds with points and questions that you've completely ignored/avoided, so citing Pale's post to Dogtowner is an obvious attempt to shift focus away from the statements he's actually made to you on the subject.

Let's try to focus the debate on one issue.

I wish you would... Here, let me post the actual quotes linked back to where he said them in response to you:

Statements by organizations don't make science. Can you name a physical law that supports and predicts climate change as promoted by those organizations? None of them can which makes their statements highly suspect. If the laws of physics supported the idea that our CO2 emissions could alter the global climate, I would not be a skeptic. The vast numbers of scientists who don't depend on grant money to buy their daily bread know this as well and are also skeptical of the claims.

Can you name a physical law that supports and predicts climate change as a result of our CO2 emissions? If it were possible to name one, I am sure that it would be on the tip of your tongue and large numbers of supporting sites would be at your disposal with which to hammer me, and all skeptics with. So which one(s)?

And...

Can you name a physical law that supports and predicts the effects claimed to be produced by our CO2 emissions? I can name a few that state flatly that no such effect is possible.

Well?

 

[PLC1]

The sun. The sun heats and cools; therefore, the earth reflects that heating and cooling. Nothing at all to do with man.

The scientists, the guys who actually study this phenomenon, are saying that human activities are accelerating the process this time around, not that there aren't natural causes as well. There is some controversy within the scientific community as to just how much is natural and how much is not. There is no disagreement about the basic premise.

Are you disagreeing with Dogtowner, who is saying that the warming has stopped?

There are two arguments that tend to intertwine:

Global warming isn't real, and

it is real, but has nothing to do with human activities.

 

[Alias]

The scientists, the guys who actually study this phenomenon, are saying that human activities are accelerating the process this time around, not that there aren't natural causes as well. There is some controversy within the scientific community as to just how much is natural and how much is not. There is no disagreement about the basic premise.

Are you disagreeing with Dogtowner, who is saying that the warming has stopped?

There are two arguments that tend to intertwine:

Global warming isn't real, and

it is real, but has nothing to do with human activities.

Nope, there are three arguments intertwined. You forgot one.....We don't know enough yet to make a determination to start taking money from those who have more than others.

 

[PLC1]

Yeah, Pale... about whom you said the following:

I have read Palerider's arguments and found them to be baseless. - PLC1


Nice Red Herring there.... I've counted multiple posts where Pale quotes you then responds with points and questions that you've completely ignored/avoided, so citing Pale's post to Dogtowner is an obvious attempt to shift focus away from the statements he's actually made to you on the subject.



I wish you would... Here, let me post the actual quotes linked back to where he said them in response to you:


And...



Well?

umm.. OK, fair enough. When multiple members are posting basically the same thing, I might miss some of them.

Can you name a physical law that supports and predicts the effects claimed to be produced by our CO2 emissions? I can name a few that state flatly that no such effect is possible.

Well, sure. The physical law is known as the "greenhouse effect", and has to do with the relative ability of shorter wave lengths of light vs. longer wave lengths to pass through a medium such as the atmosphere, or the glass in a greenhouse or a parked car.

Now, I leave it up to Palerider to cite a few physical laws that state that the greenhouse effect is not possible. I'd even settle for one.

I'm sure that the nurserymen in our area would be fascinated to find out why their greenhouses don't warm up in the sun. So would I.

 

[PLC1]

Nope, there are three arguments intertwined. You forgot one.....We don't know enough yet to make a determination to start taking money from those who have more than others.

You're correct there. The determination that human activities are causing global warming is not a reason to pass a tax to stop it.

There is another related argument, that global warming will or won't be a catastrophe. That we don't know. Still another is whether or not we can do anything about it.

The difficulty with global warming debates is that the issue keeps shifting from one position to another.

 

[Alias]

You're correct there. The determination that human activities are causing global warming is not a reason to pass a tax to stop it.

There is another related argument, that global warming will or won't be a catastrophe. That we don't know. Still another is whether or not we can do anything about it.

The difficulty with global warming debates is that the issue keeps shifting from one position to another.

You're not gonna control the weather. Con men have been duping people on that game for years. We used to call them "rainmakers" back in the old days. Global warming is the latest con.

 

[PLC1]

You're not gonna control the weather. Con men have been duping people on that game for years. We used to call them "rainmakers" back in the old days. Global warming is the latest con.

Your first three statements are correct.

Scientists are not trying to con anyone. It's possible that others are.

The issue is not shall we spend a lot of money on carbon credits to make Al Gore more wealthy. the issue is whether global warming is real, and the degree to which human activities are accelerating it.

Those are the scientific issues. On the political side, we're in agreement.

 

[GenSeneca]

the issue is whether global warming is real...

Since the earth's climate has never been static, I don't see why changes in the earth's climate, in either direction, is at issue. Is there anyone who claims the earth's climate has ever been static?

...and the degree to which human activities are accelerating it.

Why would that matter? Whether the degree is X or Y is totally irrelevent.