Death knell for AGW

Tonington
#181
Did anyone else see those goal posts move like that? Swoosh!
Last edited by Tonington; Oct 6th, 2008 at 10:31 AM..
 
Scott Free
#182
Maybe for someone who wasn't paying attention. My stance hasn't changed one iota.
 
Tonington
#183
So, for those not paying attention, ahem Scotty, here's why the goal posts have moved.

We know it's not carbon, or greenhouse gases because the only evidence is correlation (according to Scotty). And because correlation isn't evidence says Scotty, it's only coincidence because you need to show causation too. Wait a minute. That has been shown, a long time ago by John Tyndall in 1859.

Oh, so now we know that the "evidence" that Scotty said is only coincidence, is now actually evidence, he throws in that there isn't enough carbon to explain all the heat. We're supposed to believe what Scotty says here too apparently...

That is called moving goal posts, when you say it can't be carbon for one reason, and then change your tune when that reason is refuted.

Nice try Scotty. Better luck next time.
 
Avro
#184
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So, for those not paying attention, ahem Scotty, here's why the goal posts have moved.

We know it's not carbon, or greenhouse gases because the only evidence is correlation (according to Scotty). And because correlation isn't evidence says Scotty, it's only coincidence because you need to show causation too. Wait a minute. That has been shown, a long time ago by John Tyndall in 1859.

Oh, so now we know that the "evidence" that Scotty said is only coincidence, is now actually evidence, he throws in that there isn't enough carbon to explain all the heat. We're supposed to believe what Scotty says here too apparently...

That is called moving goal posts, when you say it can't be carbon for one reason, and then change your tune when that reason is refuted.

Nice try Scotty. Better luck next time.



Nice job ton......facts are stubborn things.

....or in the infamous words of Ronald Reagan....facts are stupid things.

I've enjoyed this debate, keep up the good work.
 
Scott Free
#185
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So, for those not paying attention, ahem Scotty, here's why the goal posts have moved.

We know it's not carbon, or greenhouse gases because the only evidence is correlation (according to Scotty). And because correlation isn't evidence says Scotty, it's only coincidence because you need to show causation too. Wait a minute. That has been shown, a long time ago by John Tyndall in 1859.

What a complete fail.

Correlation can be coincidence, causation or a factor but in order to verify the relationship experiments and models need to be produced that can provide proof - neither of which have happened. In fact the models and experiments have only demonstrated the negligible effect carbon is having on the atmosphere. Which is what I have always maintained.

So no goal posts have moved but because you have only now figured out what I have been saying it explains why you have been failing this entire thread.

Perhaps there is a correlation to your comprehension problems and your dire hard belief in the carbon myth?

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Oh, so now we know that the "evidence" that Scotty said is only coincidence, is now actually evidence, he throws in that there isn't enough carbon to explain all the heat. We're supposed to believe what Scotty says here too apparently...

I have proved this already. I have said this all along!?!

I'm starting to suspect your stupid.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

That is called moving goal posts, when you say it can't be carbon for one reason, and then change your tune when that reason is refuted.

LMFAO!!!!!! This is called you cluing in and paying attention to what someone is saying instead of relying on your obnoxious assumptions.

I even said I didn't think you understood what I was saying. I was right. lol

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Nice try Scotty. Better luck next time.

um... yeah ok...
 
Scott Free
#186
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post



Nice job ton......facts are stubborn things.

....or in the infamous words of Ronald Reagan....facts are stupid things.

I've enjoyed this debate, keep up the good work.

Noise from the back of the short bus.
 
Avro
#187
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

Noise from the back of the short bus.

Watching you get owned by Tonnington is sure making me drool with delight.

I suppose as you get closer to being humiliated your accusations of everybody being stupid heads but you will get louder and you'll take your little ball and go home.

Ease up there metal head, it's only a forum that will change nothing....ever.
 
Scott Free
#188
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Watching you get owned by Tonnington is sure making me drool with delight.

I suppose as you get closer to being humiliated your accusations of everybody being stupid heads but you will get louder and you'll take your little ball and go home.

Ease up there metal head, it's only a forum that will change nothing....ever.

Your the one drooling not me.
 
Tonington
#189
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

What a complete fail.

Says the person who doesn't understand elementary stats or science...that's funny.

Quote:

Correlation can be coincidence, causation or a factor but in order to verify the relationship experiments and models need to be produced that can provide proof - neither of which have happened. In fact the models and experiments have only demonstrated the negligible effect carbon is having on the atmosphere. Which is what I have always maintained.

Repeating yourself doesn't make your assertions correct. Models are based on science, and are only as good as the underlying science. They don't rely solely on correlations, but as I said already, the causation has been well established for nearly 150 years. Tyndall and others were investigating why the earth isn't much cooler. They discovered that some gases prevent heat from escaping. You can read about it at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/general/his...l_biog_doc.pdf or other places.

Quote:

I have proved this already. I have said this all along!?!

You proved that carbon can't explain it all? No, other people have. You're just bringing up the red herrings. Of course carbon doesn't explain it all, who ever said such a silly thing? There's no carbon in nitrous oxide ( a very potent greenhouse gas) nor is there any in water vapour. There's no carbon involved in natural changes like solar irradiance either.

You conveniently ignore this every time. The strongest finger-print that shows a largely greenhouse gas induced warming is the cooling stratosphere. If it were natural changes from the sun, or orbital parameters driving the temperature changes, all layers of the atmosphere would warm. Instead we have a layer cooling when it should be warming. That is explainable by greenhouse physics.

Try to explain that. Just try. If you can explain that, maybe you also want to try to explain the decreasing difference in the diurnal temperature range.

Run along now. Don't come back until you can swim in the big pond without the water wings.
 
Zzarchov
#190
Scott, why is it so hard to admit that even if there is a problem with greenhouse gas emissions, you are not qualified to be the one having the debate?

That isn't to say you cant participate in the debate, it merely requires that you do more than repeat statements other have made, but in fact due research to see why both sides have made their respective statements and draw conclusions of fault there.

Right now you are just picking a side, picking a "great leader" from that side and repeating his claims verbatim, without understanding either what he's saying, nor what is opponents are saying.
 
Avro
#191
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Says the person who doesn't understand elementary stats or science...that's funny.
Repeating yourself doesn't make your assertions correct. Models are based on science, and are only as good as the underlying science. They don't rely solely on correlations, but as I said already, the causation has been well established for nearly 150 years. Tyndall and others were investigating why the earth isn't much cooler. They discovered that some gases prevent heat from escaping. You can read about it at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/general/his...l_biog_doc.pdf or other places.
You proved that carbon can't explain it all? No, other people have. You're just bringing up the red herrings. Of course carbon doesn't explain it all, who ever said such a silly thing? There's no carbon in nitrous oxide ( a very potent greenhouse gas) nor is there any in water vapour. There's no carbon involved in natural changes like solar irradiance either.
You conveniently ignore this every time. The strongest finger-print that shows a largely greenhouse gas induced warming is the cooling stratosphere. If it were natural changes from the sun, or orbital parameters driving the temperature changes, all layers of the atmosphere would warm. Instead we have a layer cooling when it should be warming. That is explainable by greenhouse physics.
Try...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post

Love it!

Owned again.
 
Avro
#192
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

Your the one drooling not me.


Um, I believe that's what I said and I never said you were either.
 
Scott Free
#193
*sigh*

What a bunch of meat heads.

Last edited by Scott Free; Oct 7th, 2008 at 04:35 PM..
 
Tonington
#194
You lecturing on science and faith is pretty damned ironic. I get a burning feeling every time I read your posts...

 
Scott Free
#195
I'll bet you do. lol.

Maybe you should soak your head?
 
Tonington
#196
Maybe you'd like an explanation of that drawing from the artist who inked it. plognark.com. Actually you probably wouldn't like it.
 
Scott Free
#197
No, the intention of the artist is irrelevant, only the context you used the cartoon in is.
 
Avro
#198
So your response to Tonnington is posting a cartoon and calling him a meat head?

YOU LOSE!
 
Scott Free
#199
That was my response to you, Tonnington and Zz.

You guys can't even figure out what my posts mean!?!?!

Everyone else can.

So there seems little reason to continue this discussion with you people. You are wish thinkers on this topic.

If you can't even be objective enough to figure out what I'm saying then there is really no point.

So get back on the short bus and go fight your carbon boogie man
 
Avro
#200
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

That was my response to you, Tonnington and Zz.

You guys can't even figure out what my posts mean!?!?!

Everyone else can.

So there seems little reason to continue this discussion with you people. You are wish thinkers on this topic.

If you can't even be objective enough to figure out what I'm saying then there is really no point.

So get back on the short bus and go fight your carbon boogie man

Keep it going then, I never claimed to be a scientist nor will I pretend I am one. I already told who changed my mind on the subject......a scientist.

Anyways, waiting for your response to Tonnington.
 
Scott Free
#201
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Keep it going then, I never claimed to be a scientist nor will I pretend I am one. I already told who changed my mind on the subject......a scientist.

Anyways, waiting for your response to Tonnington.

There is no need for me to respond. Tonnington has only now figured out what I meant all these long posts, which BTW I told him already he wasn't listening to me - now I am proved right, so you and he can continue in your fallacies that I have moved the goal posts if you wish but it is a fallacy.

It seems you two were more interested in tilting at windmills then finding answers. So go tilt at carbon.

If and when you ever figure out what I am talking about perhaps we can pick up this conversation again.
 
Avro
#202
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

There is no need for me to respond. Tonnington has only now figured out what I meant all these long posts, which BTW I told him already he wasn't listening to me - now I am proved right, so you and he can continue in your fallacies that I have moved the goal posts if you wish but it is a fallacy.

It seems you two were more interested in tilting at windmills then finding answers. So go tilt at carbon.

If and when you ever figure out what I am talking about perhaps we can pick up this conversation again.

Scott Free = Epic fail.

YOU LOSE!!!!

......again.
 
Scott Free
#203
 
Avro
#204
Post all the little cartoons you want Scott but it doesn't change your EPIC FAIL!

Nothing left to see here, shows over, let Scott get the last word.....it's all he has left.
 
Scott Free
#205
OK Avro, whatever makes you feel good.
 
Walter
#206
Boise gets earliest snow on record, record cold in Oregon, Washington

12 10 2008
From the Idaho Statesman:

Valley shivers as winter weather makes a premature appearance
Big snow flakes fell early Friday evening, turning Downtown Boise into a giant snow globe for people on their way home from work.
The snow caught many people off guard, including this bicyclist heading down Idaho Street between 8th and 9th around 5:45 p.m. Across the Treasure Valley, tree branches heavy with wet, snow-covered leaves fell on power lines, causing scattered power outages.
This is the earliest measurable snowfall in Boise since recordkeeping began in 1898, according to the National Weather Service. At 10 p.m., the Weather Service said 1.7 inches of snow had fallen. The previous earliest recorded snowfall was Oct. 12, 1969, when a little more than an inch fell. And if the snow wasn’t enough, meteorologists say winds across southwestern Idaho will average 25 to 40 mph through Saturday afternoon, with gusts up to 55 mph. Sustained winds of 30 to 40 mph are expected, which can make driving difficult.
There is also some early and record snows in Billings Montana
A snowfall record for Oct. 11 was set in Billings yesterday.
According the National Weather Service, Billings saw 3.1 inches of snow Friday. The old record of 2.8 inches was set in 1969.
 
Walter
#207
Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.
Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.
On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.
Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.
Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.
Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather -- even harvest totals and censuses --confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.
But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies.
Dr. Loehle's work helps end this deception.
Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."
An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."
Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."
While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.
For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."
Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.
It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming.
lgunter@shaw.ca
National Post
 
Avro
#208
Arctic's warming hits chilling record highs TheStar.com - World - Arctic's warming hits chilling record highs
AP PHOTO
Alaska’s Bering Glacier is seen in this file image.

ARCTIC REPORT CARD FINDINGS

• Ice melt caused the Arctic Ocean to continue warming and become less salty. This was accompanied by an "unprecedented" rate of sea level rise of nearly 0.254 centimetres a year.
• Warming continued around Greenland in 2007, resulting in record ice melt, making it the largest contributor to the rise in global sea level.
• Reindeer herds that had been increasing since the 1970s appear to be levelling off or declining.
• Goose populations are rising.
- Associated Press



Impact felt as weather in fall 5C above normal

October 17, 2008
Randolph E. Schmid
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON–Fall temperatures in the Arctic are at record highs, the Arctic Ocean is warming and desalinating as sea ice melts, and reindeer herds appear to be declining, researchers reported yesterday.
"Obviously, the planet is interconnected, so what happens in the Arctic does matter" to the rest of the world, Jackie Richter-Menge of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H., said in releasing the third annual Arctic Report Card.
The report, compiled by 46 scientists from 10 countries, looks at a variety of conditions in the Arctic.
The region has long been expected to be among the first to show impacts from global warming, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is largely a result of human activities adding carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere.
"Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions," said James Overland, an oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. "It's a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways."
For example, fall air temperatures in the Arctic are at a record 5C above normal. The report noted 2007 was the warmest year on record in the Arctic, leading to a record loss of sea ice. This year's sea ice melt was second only to 2007.
The study noted a warming trend on Arctic land and an increase in greenery as shrubs move into areas that were formerly permafrost.
The rate so far this century is less than in the 1990s because of natural variability, the researchers said.


Toronto Star

Plus. Harper is putting in another 100 million.
 
Zzarchov
#209
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

No, the intention of the artist is irrelevant, only the context you used the cartoon in is.

Then you used it improperly, I read it and it gave me the very clear impression it supported Tonnington and not you.

It was very clearly mocking the sense of groundless unsupported faith in an idea. One without sufficient scientific backing and a whole lot that opposes it.

And like the fellow who tried to fly, you are only having this faith because you WANT it to be true.
 
Scott Free
#210
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

Then you used it improperly, I read it and it gave me the very clear impression it supported Tonnington and not you.

It was very clearly mocking the sense of groundless unsupported faith in an idea. One without sufficient scientific backing and a whole lot that opposes it.

And like the fellow who tried to fly, you are only having this faith because you WANT it to be true.

There is no evidence that carbon plays anything but a tiny role in the warming of the planet. That is a fact.

You can wish otherwise all you want Zzarchov but it isn't going to change the fact.

I have even posted an article from Science which now admits this fact.

The truth will come out eventually. Meanwhile, I laugh at you and your fellow religionists.
 

Similar Threads

0
Another Death of the Novel ???
by jimmoyer | Oct 12th, 2006
50
What Happens After Death?
by I think not | Jun 26th, 2005
no new posts