AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?


Avro
#181
US Defense Establishment: No Marching Orders for Skeptics

While political leaders on Capitol Hill seek definitive answers about how quickly the world's climate will change, military and national security experts say they're used to making decisions with limited information. But as they turn their attention to the geopolitical implications of climate change, the military and security experts are pressing scientists to help them understand the risk and uncertainty inherent in forecasts of future environmental shifts.
 
Avro
#182
Christopher Monckton humiliated yet again

If the Viscount of Brenchley says it;

does that mean it HAS to be wrong?

Christopher Walter, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has been caught once again with his facts around his ankles.
Like others before him, Brigham Young University Professor Barry Bickmore has taken the time to check whether Monckton's pronouncements can pass any objective standard of accuracy and he has found, "SPOILER ALERT: The final result is classic Monckton" - a carefully constructed, but infuriating opaque veil of academic references, a loose mix of relatively accurate facts, and a conclusion that is precisely contrary to that drawn by the experts whom Monckton claims to quote.
If you read Bickmore's excellent and careful analysis, however, you get a reminder of why Monckton is successful in destroying people's understanding of climate science. Per his usual form, he makes a short, ridiculous assertion, dressed in the cloak of implied scientific research and dares you to disagree. Specifically, he said this to a committe of the U.S. Congress:
The “global warming” that ceased late in 2001 (since when there has been a global cooling trend for eight full years) had begun in 1695, towards the end of the Maunder Minimum, a period of 70 years from 1645-1715 when the Sun was less active than at any time in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004). Solar activity increased with a rapidity unprecedented in the Holocene, reaching a Grand Solar Maximum during a period of 70 years from 1925-1995 when the Sun was very nearly as active as it had been at any time in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Usoskin, 2003; Solanki, 2005).


It's a mere 105 words of not quite deathless prose and a fairly clear conclusion - but, as Bickmore discovered, not one that is justified by any of the sources he has quoted. Unfortunately, it probably took Bickmore a week's work to chase down all the references, to touch base with the experts in question and to report - in 3,500 words - the predictable result. Monckton has completely misrepresented his material - again.

All praise to Bickmore, though, for doing the work - for reconfirming that Monckton cannot be trusted. I'm also pleased to see that Bickmore has revived the link to the story in the Scotsman in which Monckton is admits that he lied about having to put his house on the market because he wanted to rustle up publicity for his latest puzzle. It's also worth reading Bickmore's own account of trying to sort out this event directly with Monckton (see the wonderfully titled post: Dance Monckey!)
It appears that once Bickmore had Monckton caught dead to rights in the lie, Monckton accused Bickmore of launching an ad hominem attack. The good professor was doing no such thing. He was calling Monckton a liar, which is entirely relevant to the underlying question. Monckton promotes himself as an expert (though he has no expertise). He suggests that his views on climate change are credible. Hence, his credibility is a perfectly reasonable issue to explore. And while it may sound like unParliamentary language to call Monckton a liar, Bickmore can claim the defence of truth (especially when Monckton himself has admitted lying). Besides, NOBODY would let Monckton into a Parliament in any case, though he has lied about that, as well.
Which makes me wonder: Just how much of a disingenuous twit must you be before the climate denial community stop inviting you 'round for dinners?

 
Avro
#183
George Monbiot Rips UK Sunday Times For 'Amazongate' Lies And Stonewalling

Intrepid British journalist George Monbiot has a piece in The Guardian today that absolutely smashes the London Sunday Times' handling of its botched 'Amazongate' story. The Times was forced to retract essentially its entire January article, which badly mischaracterized the work and words of rainforest expert Dr. Simon Lewis, to whom the paper sheepishly apologized earlier this week.

Monbiot took some time to try to figure out how the Times could have possibly allowed the sham story to run in the first place, but his efforts were met with aggressive stonewalling by Times' editors, who trampled transparency in order to cover their own behinds.

Exactly who at the Times was responsible for re-writing the story after a totally different version was read back to Dr. Lewis over the phone by the reporter Jonathan Leake, remains a mystery.

Monbiot doesn't think Leake is to blame for the hack editing job, writing that:
"the interesting question is how the Sunday Times messed up so badly. I spent much of yesterday trying to get some sense out of the paper, without success. But after 25 years in journalism it looks pretty obvious to me that Jonathan Leake has been wrongly blamed for this, then hung out to dry. My guess is that someone else at the paper, acting on instructions from an editor, got hold of Leake's copy after he had submitted it, and rewrote it, drawing on North's post, to produce a different – and more newsworthy – story. If this is correct, it suggests that Leake is carrying the can for an editor's decision. The Sunday Times has made no public attempt to protect him: it looks to me like corporate cowardice."
The whole 'Amazongate' episode began with the horrible mischaracterizations by climate denier Richard North of a WWF report that was referenced in the IPCC's fourth assessment report regarding the projected impacts of climate change on the Amazon. North started the engine on the 'Amazongate' train, which eventually wrecked under the lightest of scrutiny, leading to the retraction and apology by the Times.

Monbiot explains how North's lies were spread around the world without any one of the countless other climate deniers who trumpeted the tale actually bothering to check its veracity.

While North - and the denier sheep who echoed him - asserted that the WWF report said nothing about the potential vulnerability of 40% of the Amazon's forests threatened by reduced rainfall due to climate change, it took Monbiot all of ten seconds to discover that North's spin about the WWF report was a total sham.

Monbiot explains:
I used a cunning and recondite technique known only to experienced sleuths: typing "40%" in the search bar at the top of the page [of the WWF report PDF]. This stroke of genius took all of 10 seconds to reveal the following passage:

"Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall."

Who says investigative journalism is dead?
None of North's suckers had bothered to carry out this complex procedure. They hadn't bothered because they didn't want to spoil a good story.
While the Times' retraction was a necessary and welcomed step toward clearing the air, it remains baffling that the Times would continue to hide the whole truth about how the story was completely re-written prior to publication in the first place. After issuing a retraction and apology, what more could it take to simply come clean with the truth about what really happened and who was responsible?

Check out Monbiot's post for further details, but don't hold your breath for a mea culpa from the Times' editors. They've clearly circled the wagons.
 
darkbeaver
#184
Physicist: CO2 "Greenhouse Effect" is Already Saturated

Adding to the list (1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526 27 28...) of scientists and mathematicians who have disproven conventional greenhouse gas theory, John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia, states in his paper Climate Change (A Fundamental Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect),


In summary, small quantities of radiation from excited Greenhouse gases, at frequencies corresponding to a transparent window of the atmosphere, provide direct feed back of heat towards the earth, causing some heating, and towards outer space producing cooling. The proportion of this free radiation, relative to the amount of excitation energy trapped in the Greenhouse gas, is a characteristic of the gas and will be independent of both the total heat energy present and the concentration of a given Greenhouse gas.

[The calculations show] that there is little significant difference between the spatial distributions of heat captured by the Greenhouse gases along a vertical column within the troposphere, for a range of concentrations equal to that defined at present, nominally 380 ppm of CO2 and possible future concentrations of 760 ppm and 1140 ppm. While it is not possible to calculate the actual proportion of energy returning to the earth via these very low frequency photons passing through a transparent atmosphere, the proportion relative to that held by excited CO2 molecules will always be exactly the same, irrespective of the total amount or density of carbon dioxide present.

The findings clearly show that any gas with an absorption line or band lying within the spectral range of the radiation field from the warmed earth, will be capable of contributing towards raising the temperature of the earth. However, it is equally clear that after reaching a fixed threshold of so-called Greenhouse gas density, which is much lower than that currently found in the atmosphere, there will be no further increase in temperature from this source, no matter how large the increase in the atmospheric density of such gases.


As also shown by Miskolczi and others using different methods, Dr. Nicol finds that the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is already saturated at present atmospheric levels and that future emissions will not affect temperature. Dr. Nichol shows that the IPCC concept of greenhouse gas back radiation to warm the earth is fictitious and that the true physical process is retardation of the exit of energy from the surface. He shows that the greenhouse gas absorption bands retard the exit of energy from the earth's surface, but that there is an upper limit beyond which further increases in greenhouse gas concentrations have no further effect. The surface is radiating at a fixed rate governed by the surface temperature and any increase in greenhouse gases with the same absorption bands will "widen the path" for heat to escape to the same degree as heat is retarded from escape, and therefore there is no additional warming. These principles hold for all greenhouse gases and are beyond saturation for the most important greenhouse gases, water vapor and CO2.
 
Tonington
#185
Ahhh, so he goes from the greenhouse theory violates thermodynamics, to posting an article that acknowledges that greenhouse gases DO absorb and emit radiation. But this time the effect is saturated....complete nonsense.

The terms you want to search for now DB are "pressure broadening". Seek and ye shall find enlightenment.

A primer:

" Absorption in the infrared involves vibrational and rotational energy transitions. The 4.26 mm CO2 absorption band is due to infrared energy absorption by a particular bond stretching mode that is coupled to rotational energy transitions that produce a large number of individual absorption lines.

Individual absorption line widths are sensitive to intermolecular collisions and become broader with increasing pressure. Therefore, total absorption across a band per mole of absorber increases with pressure. "

Taken from:
http://www.licor.com/env/PDF/co2_abs.pdf

The pressure is created by excited molecules colliding with one another.

Also, you would do well to investigate where these gases are found. Do you find water vapour and carbon dioxide at the tropopause? The higher up you go, the less water vapour there is, while carbon dioxide is well mixed. It doesn't condense when the temperature drops like water vapour does.
 
Avro
#186
Penn State Completely Exonerates Climate Scientist Michael Mann On Bogus Climategate Accusations

Pennsylvania State University today issued its final report thoroughly exonerating climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of any wrongdoing in the wake of the “Climategate” myth that emerged late last year when thousands of emails and documents were stolen from a computer server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK.

In the days following the posting of the stolen material onto the Internet, right-wing bloggers and media outlets loudly issued allegations of misconduct among climate scientists mentioned in the giant trove of emails. Conspiracy theorists on the right cherry-picked flagrantly out-of-context portions of the email collection in order to gin up a grand tale suggesting that man-made climate change is a fraud concocted by all of the world’s leading climate scientists, the much-despised United Nations IPCC, and, of course, Al Gore.

Despite their success in elevating this nontroversy to the national level via Fox News and other right wing media, every single independent investigation of the climate scientists involved has since cleared them of any misconduct and verified the science underpinning the IPCC’s consensus position that manmade climate change is real.

In February, Penn State officials concluded the first round of inquiry into Professor Mann’s conduct, finding no evidence to support the accusations against him.

That did not stop the right-wing attacks on Professor Mann or Penn State, with some notorious climate skeptics attempting to spin the exoneration as a whitewash. (True to form, skeptics repeated the ridiculous 'whitewash' allegations again today upon hearing of the final report clearing Mann.)

In order to thoroughly extinguish any lingering doubts about the panel’s findings, school administrators decided to convene a separate Investigatory Committee of Dr. Mann’s faculty peers and distinguished scientists to continue to investigate the allegation that Dr. Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities."

Today, that committee issued its final report clearing Mann of any wrongdoing on the final issue, and found “no substance to the allegation.”

The committee’s report concludes:

“The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.

More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.


The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.”

Dr. Mann welcomed the news of the final report:
"I'm pleased that the last phase of Penn State's investigation has now been concluded, and that it has cleared me of any wrongdoing. These latest findings should finally put to rest the baseless allegations against me and my research."
Additional excerpts from the committee’s report:

“A particularly telling indicator of a scientist’s standing within the research community is the recognition that is bestowed by other scientists. Judged by that indicator, Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding.”

“All of these awards and recognitions, as well as others not specifically cited here, serve as evidence that his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists. Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions.”
(pg. 1
...
“To date, Dr. Mann is the lead author of 39 scientific publications and he is listed as co-author on an additional 55 publications. The majority of these publications appeared in the most highly respected scientific journals, i.e., journals that have the most rigorous editorial and peer reviews in the field. In practical terms, this means that literally dozens of the most highly qualified scientists in the world scrutinized and examined every detail of the scientific work done by Dr. Mann and his colleagues and judged it to meet the high standards necessary for publication.” (pg. 1
 
ironsides
#187
The Downside to the Recovery of the Ozone Hole. Oh great something else we forgot and should have been worrying about.


While the hole in the Earth's
protective ozone layer is slowly healing, its recovery might have a downside, scientists say: Climate change could change wind patterns and send ozone from high in the atmosphere down to the surface, where it is a [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]major [COLOR=#366388 !important]component [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]of [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]smog[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR].
The discovery of a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica was announced by a team of British scientists in 1985. The cause of the hole was attributed to ozone-depleting chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were primarily used in cooling units and propellants. When CFCs reach the ozone layer, they release chlorine atoms that rip ozone apart and peel away layers of Earth's natural sunscreen.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...oftheozonehole

 
mentalfloss
#188
I'm not sure where this thread has been going, but I'll assume people are still feuding one way or another. I used to be a skeptic and really scoured the internet for as much info as possible to validate all the claims. The reality of the situation is that climate change is real, although, yes there are a few bad apples in there (a few climate scientists) as there are some bad apples in every profession.

But, one of the best back and forths was this toe-to-toe with George Monbiot. Yes, it is the silly version, but they really flush out all of the most prominent arguments. It is a bit satirical and has some zing to it, but even the hardest skeptic can't help but admire the plane of truth that resonates throughout:
--

YouTube - The Stupid Show - Episode 5 - Toe to Toe with Monbiot silly

 
Scott Free
+1
#189
I can't believe this sh!t is still being debated.
Last edited by Scott Free; Jul 2nd, 2010 at 11:26 AM..Reason: i did
 
captain morgan
#190
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post


But, one of the best back and forths was this toe-to-toe with George Monbiot. Yes, it is the silly version, but they really flush out all of the most prominent arguments. It is a bit satirical and has some zing to it, but even the hardest skeptic can't help but admire the plane of truth that resonates throughout:
--

George's "prominent" argument is that anthropogenic global warming exists because he says it's true.... This clip is nothing more than a poorly choreographed attempt at baseless propaganda that leans exclusively to one side
 
mentalfloss
#191
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

George's "prominent" argument is that anthropogenic global warming exists because he says it's true.... This clip is nothing more than a poorly choreographed attempt at baseless propaganda that leans exclusively to one side

I don't think you've really said anything here. Instead of just pointing fingers (like "those who can"), why don't you actually dissect the material in question and come up with a reasonable argument. It makes conversation way funner!
 
Scott Free
+1
#192
The latest issue of Skeptic has an article called Climate Skeptics wherein the author describers his reliance on the expertise of his peers for formulating his opinion (because at the end of the day all the information confuses him). He also claims that even if it weren't true (carbon/climate connection) that our behavioral changes to battle it would be positive anyway. So he supports the myth. He then goes on to frame the debate.

An appeal to authority is hardly a convincing argument, nor is a wishy-washy emotional response. I found the author exhibited the exact screwball reasoning of most AGW myth mongers: appeal to authority, framing the debate and wish thinking (with a good heaping scoop of apocalyptic dogma thrown in for good measure).

I have observed that regardless of someones religion (even atheists are prone) North Americans are very heavily influenced by the prevailing dogma of the areas doomsday cult (namely Christianity). If one thing isn't going to end the world we (North Americans) quickly find something else. It is irrational and down right retarded.

I'm all for preserving the environment but do we really need to be idiots about it and pretend a boogie man is coming to get us?
 
Tonington
#193
Nobody is asking you to remain an idiot...it's not an appeal to authority to recognize that without the years of experience in a field, that you're probably not able to place new discoveries and new knowledge within the proper context to know what it even means.

I mean, sure, an electrical engineer or geologist knows lots of science, but do they know how a specific piece of science fits within a larger view of climate science? That's why people have PH.D's, they've spent lots of time delving into specific questions, they can likely name papers without searching a database, because they have tacit knowledge.

Those denying this knowledge are comparatively intellectually bankrupt. 9/11 truthers think they come up with clever points, but they lack the tacit knowledge of those who weld steel structures together, or engineers who design them. Creationists, Anti-vax, HIV deniers, tobacco deniers, Holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers... they do the same thing. Climate deniers are in good company when it comes to using bunk to dupe those who don't have or haven't looked for the relevant information themselves.
 
Avro
#194
Ah...old metal head is back...you have a lot to go through on this thread...including this......

Lies Concocted By Climate Deniers Likely To Stick Around Despite Corrections



It takes less than a minute to tell a lie that can spread around the world, yet it can take days, months, or years to correct it. Sometimes the truth never catches up to the lie.

As
Newsweek’s Sharon Begley wrote this past weekend, nowhere is this challenge demonstrated more clearly than in the wake of the ‘Climategate’ stolen emails controversy and the recent retraction by the Sunday Times of London surrounding its bogus ‘Amazongate’ reporting.

Begley details how, despite multiple investigations concluding that climate science remains on solid ground and exonerating the main climate scientists targeted in the University of East Anglia attacks, the “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal” still manages to fool a large portion of the public into thinking that climate change warnings are overblown.

Begley writes:
A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston Churchill’s version), and nowhere has that been more true than in “climategate.” In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia’s climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world’s climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books.

But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February.


Climate deniers were quick to pick up the
Climategate story when it first emerged, and their efforts to spread lies about climate scientists and the integrity of climate science as a whole – aided and abetted by right wing bloggers and Fox News – have played an integral role in driving public opinion in the wrong direction on the critical subject of climate change.

The Sunday Times of London, which back in January helped to spread another denier myth known as
“Amazongate,” recently ran a lengthy retraction, disappeared the article and apologized to Dr. Simon Lewis, the scientist whose work and quotes the paper mangled.

Yet the Times’ retraction begins by repeating the lie:

"The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall.

That could further confuse the public, which has been proven to be
susceptible to such instances of mixed-messaging.

Joseph Romm from ClimateProgress.org refers to several examples of this, noting:

“One of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, “No, we were wrong about X,” most people still believe X.”

While it is always important to set the record straight – even that effort carries significant risks. Sometimes clarifying the truth “can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths,” as the
Washington Post pointed out several years ago. Efforts to debunk false accounts can counter-intuitively help perpetuate the myth rather than clarify the facts. Numerous psychological studies have shown how people struggle to separate lies from facts. When presented with evidence refuting persistent myths, people often misremember the false statements presented to demonstrate the myth as true.

In the case of myths perpetuated by climate deniers,
Media Matters for America notes: “that's what right-wing media outlets and figure are counting on -- setting public opinion against science before the truth gets in the way.”

This pattern is so effective that ethically-challenged public relations professionals and corporations have institutionalized the practice.

Take for example
BP’s stubborn insistence that its disastrous gusher in the Gulf of Mexico was initially only leaking 1,000 barrels a day – or that there are no large plumes of oil beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.

The company must have known that these absurd claims were
false – and particularly insulting to the intelligence of Gulf Coast residents who knew better – yet BP clings to these lines any way. Why?

Because if they stick to it long enough, the lie will have spread around so widely that the public will accept it as fact, even in the case of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That could help the company save some face, and perhaps avoid some of the mounting legal actions against it.

The Sunday Times’ retraction is an important example of the key take-away lesson for media outlets. Had the Times’ editors bothered to verify the story before running it, we may never have seen this level of confusion in the public about threats to the Amazon from climate change. Ditto for the entire Climategate saga – had reporters read the emails themselves and investigated the context of statements cherry-picked by deniers to fuel doubt, Climategate would have fizzled out quickly under scrutiny. But that’s not how it happened, and we will continue to face the consequences of the mythical tale spun by deniers for the foreseeable future.

Lies are terribly difficult to correct – a stark reminder to all involved in covering the events of our time that getting the story correct is always better than being the first to spread a rumor or lie that might never be fully debunked. Get it right the first time, and communicate honestly with your audience. Don’t we all owe each other at least that much?
 
captain morgan
#195
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

why don't you actually dissect the material in question and come up with a reasonable argument. It makes conversation way funner!

What's to dissect?.. Ole George's argument was founded on the notion that AGW exists because he says so based only on "the science" that he accepts which conveniently supports his notions.

In all fairness, the video was not his conception, but again, it was poorly choreographed where a pretend skeptic is allowed to poise one solitary idea, Monbiot corrects the poor erring student and that's the end of it... No discussion, no rebuttal, and most importantly, no science or real proof support his position
 
Avro
#196
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

What's to dissect?.. Ole George's argument was founded on the notion that AGW exists because he says so based only on "the science" that he accepts which conveniently supports his notions.

In all fairness, the video was not his conception, but again, it was poorly choreographed where a pretend skeptic is allowed to poise one solitary idea, Monbiot corrects the poor erring student and that's the end of it... No discussion, no rebuttal, and most importantly, no science or real proof support his position



More....

YouTube - George Monbiot debates Ian Plimer part 3




Poor Plimer...one of yours I presume.....

Or....perhaps David Bellamy is one of your heros.

YouTube - David Bellamy being humliliated by George Monbiot over climate changePart3



Ouch...another moron taken down....
 
Scott Free
#197
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Nobody is asking you to remain an idiot...it's not an appeal to authority to recognize that without the years of experience in a field, that you're probably not able to place new discoveries and new knowledge within the proper context to know what it even means.

I mean, sure, an electrical engineer or geologist knows lots of science, but do they know how a specific piece of science fits within a larger view of climate science? That's why people have PH.D's, they've spent lots of time delving into specific questions, they can likely name papers without searching a database, because they have tacit knowledge.

Those denying this knowledge are comparatively intellectually bankrupt. 9/11 truthers think they come up with clever points, but they lack the tacit knowledge of those who weld steel structures together, or engineers who design them. Creationists, Anti-vax, HIV deniers, tobacco deniers, Holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers... they do the same thing. Climate deniers are in good company when it comes to using bunk to dupe those who don't have or haven't looked for the relevant information themselves.

Suit yourself.
 
Scott Free
#198
The burden of proof lies always with the perpetrator of a myth. If that burden hasn't been satisfactorily met that doesn't make the skeptic an idiot. If the burden is met the myth (hypothesis) will become a theory (fact) until some other better explanation comes along.

Ah, but there is the rub with this AGW crap. The better explanation already exists, it is simpler and explains the entire GW phenomena better! No need for complicated computer models that don't work, no need for a world carbon tax or a centralized world authority. It is really very simple!

Here it is:

The solar system gets its heat from the sun.
The solar system is heating up.
Therefore the sun is heating up.

There ya go. And why is the world heating up?

The planet earth is part of the solar system.
The solar system is warming up.
Therefore the earth is warming up.

So there ya have it Tonkahead. As I said - believe what you want - suit yourself - far be it from me to get in the way of someones religious convictions except when they are going to insist that they are rational.

The burden of proof is on you and the logical default position is non-belief. I would say it is even more so when an explanation is so unwieldy and bizarre as the AGW myth.

My default position is the same with unicorns, fairies, and the flying spaghetti monsters.

Anyway, there is no debate. The whole AGW thing is absolute foolishness.
 
Tonington
#199
You're in denial.

Scientists know what fingerprints are associated with various forcings on the climate. They have found the fingerprint of an apparent enhanced greenhouse warming in our climate system. They know how much of our emissions are being absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial biosphere. They know what the top of the atmosphere energy imbalance is. They know which spectral bands the outgoing radiation is being trapped at, and they have confirmed satellite observations with ground observations. They can reproduce the current warming with general circulation models (Fig. 9.5a).

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

The burden of proof lies always with the perpetrator of a myth. If that burden hasn't been satisfactorily met that doesn't make the skeptic an idiot. If the burden is met the myth (hypothesis) will become a theory (fact) until some other better explanation comes along.

Ah, but there is the rub with this AGW crap. The better explanation already exists, it is simpler and explains the entire GW phenomena better! No need for complicated computer models that don't work, no need for a world carbon tax or a centralized world authority. It is really very simple!

The better explanation is an enhanced greenhouse warming. No other explanation has the robustness of an enhanced greenhouse. No other explanation can explain why the layer of atmosphere above the troposphere is cooling. It's because less radiation is escaping to space.

So I just provided you with evidence. Have at er.
 
Scott Free
#200
Yeah, you're right, the planet warmed up and, oh gee, a planet with an atmosphere retains that heat longer - big surprise there.

I'm amused by how much has changed in the links you posted. I'm reminded of a theist who keeps changing his concept of god.

When a child tells you there is a monster under his bed you check it out. A caring person might sweep under with a broom in case it's the invisible kind of monster and to help relieve the child's anxiety. You might even allow the child a night light since, as most of these theories go, monsters don't like light and won't come out in it. That is the sensible thing to do. The crazy thing to do is believe the child and move to a new house you believe to be monster free, or arm yourself against monsters - just in case. And as the child's monster morphs and changes to suit the current popular monster theory or to seem more plausible, only the insane parent would have increased anxiety and start to believe the monster must be real.

Anyway, you sir are in need of a night light - I already swept under the bed for you.
 
Tonington
#201
Moving goal posts ehh? It's so much easier for you to talk about how my content has changed, and without examples I'll note, than it is to actually address the content.

So, how about you provide examples of how the content in my links has changed? You're all talk, and no walk. That certainly hasn't changed.
 
Scott Free
#202
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Moving goal posts ehh? It's so much easier for you to talk about how my content has changed, and without examples I'll note, than it is to actually address the content.

So, how about you provide examples of how the content in my links has changed? You're all talk, and no walk. That certainly hasn't changed.

Sorry, life is too short. It's time you learned to look under the bed for yourself.

While you're at it you might want to look into dogmatism and evaluate why you're so adamant about this stuff.
 
Tonington
#203
You don't even make sense when you try to insult:

I've already looked for myself. I posted material that contradicts you, you outright refuse to look at it (or under thew bed as it were) and you continue on proclaiming that the greenhouse theory is flawed, blah blah blah.

I'm adamant about people backing up what they say, it comes from scientific training. Obviously you're unaware of what that means.

Carry on...
 
Scott Free
#204
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

You don't even make sense when you try to insult:

I wasn't trying to insult you.

Metaphors are easier to grasp sometimes so I thought I would try one.

I was just trying to point out faulty thinking.

I'm not debating with you. It's pointless to debate with a radical. Your mind is made up, I can see that.
 
Tonington
#205
Who is trying to correct whoms faulty thinking? I gave evidence for why your thinking is faulty, you resort to rhetoric...

Also, if you're not trying to insult, I don't go by Tonkahead. It's Tonington.
 
Scott Free
#206
I tried to use logic, to give an example of a simpler solution that explained the observed phenomena better. I tried to do so in my own words.

Also, a metaphor isn't rhetoric.

And I'm not trying to trick you.

I just honestly think AGW is BS and for some pretty simple logical reasons.

I'm not even denying GW but I am skeptical of some current explanations that aren't even prima facie in my opinion.
 
Tonington
#207
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

I tried to use logic, to give an example of a simpler solution that explained the observed phenomena better. I tried to do so in my own words.

How does you example explain the energy imbalance? More energy enters the top of the atmosphere than leaves. How does your example explain a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere?

A present, we know the Earth is warming, we know that the chemical constituents in our atmosphere are changing, we know that they block outgoing infrared radiation, we know that when this happens the upper atmosphere cools, we know that the greenhouse gases are coming from industrial sources.

In short, what is happening looks exactly like what an enhanced greenhouse should look like.

Quote:

Also, a metaphor isn't rhetoric.

Yes, it is.

Rhetorical device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Scott Free
#208
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

In short, what is happening looks exactly like what an enhanced greenhouse should look like.

I know you believe it. That isn't in question.
 
Tonington
#209
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

I know you believe it. That isn't in question.

That's not a belief, if you clicked on the links I posted earlier you'd see. It's actual science.

Do you also deny that different warming perturbations will manifest with different characteristics in our climate system?
 
Scott Free
#210
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

That's not a belief, if you clicked on the links I posted earlier you'd see. It's actual science.

The science is inductive and therefore probabilistic. If you're going to hold it as an absolute, as you have been doing, then a great deal of faith is involved, Which means you believe in it.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Do you also deny that different warming perturbations will manifest with different characteristics in our climate system?

This is a straw man argument. If you're by a stove and wearing a sweater it isn't the sweater making you warm.
 

Similar Threads

2910
19
The biggest scam in history
by Stretch | Dec 2nd, 2008
12
Global Capitalism; Greatest Scam in History
by darkbeaver | Jan 24th, 2008
no new posts