Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
The red herring is that it is plausible to dismiss the lack of knowledge, understanding (let alone capacity to identify all of the variables & interactions) and claim to make conclusive statements regarding causation.
I have no problem with models or with statistics for that matter. That said, the use of statistics in this issue (in its totality) is, in my opinion, far too reliant on accounting for unknowns such that the margin of error is large enough to make a mockery of teh conclusion drawn from the stats. A similar argument can be applied to the modeling component.
Those were directed at mentalfloss
The "editorial" was from the IPCC... I did not make those statements.
I think I did old boy.
Gald to see your coming around.
Like I said, if you live near Toronto or Montreal I can get you access to a lab and a few climatologists if you'd like.
Let me know.
And what? What would you show me?
You buddy is smart enough to avoid answering.......
Tonnington doesn't like what he sees.
What do you see?
You buddy is smart enough to avoid answering.......
Tonnington doesn't like what he sees.
What do you see?
Last edited:
Yes it is.
You are no scientist either petros.
You are a professional contrarian.
Most people say black and you say white....if that changed then you'd say black.
Anyways, would you like me to set something up for you?
More blah blah ignorant ranting about how science works...
Except for your compelling ignorance about the use of both...
Well, I found this in the AR4, Chapter 2, section 2.1, page 133:
Nevertheless, LLGHGs remain the largest and most important driver of climate change, and evaluation of their trends is one of the fundamental tasks of both this chapter and this assessment.
Water vapour is not a long-lived greenhouse gas. I don't really care to quibble over which greenhouse gas is the most important- because I think that there is no single most important greenhouse gas-so much as which is the most important driver of climate change. Driving climate change means also driving water vapour trends...maybe they did say water vapour is the most important. I would disagree if they did.
And that would just go to show how ridiculous it is when you say folks like me accept IPCC stuff blindly.
Come on Tonnington what do you see in that satellite image? Do you see a heat trap that isn't CO2? Would you like to see more? They are worldwide and turning clear skies white daily.
Is that not a problem? Is NASA lieing about the direct effect?
Is that not a problem? Is NASA lieing about the direct effect?
I see aviation pollution.
Yes I do. So what? I never ever said that carbon dioxide is the only thing that matters.
I have no idea what the direct effect is, and if you actually read the IPCC stuff, you'd see that it's an active area of research.
Any more lies you want to trot out now?
That satellite image shows a lot of contrails. Contrails that wouldn't be at that altitude if the temperature wasn't so high. A temperature that wouldn't be so high if there weren't any C02 driving it up. C02 that NASA says is actually the driver for climate change. And around the ferris wheel of logic we go!
NASA is chopped liver to what the IPCC decides to include and publish? Are the NASA stats invaild? They were provided. NASA is a major contributor to IPCC are they not? NASA has data so why doesn't the IPCC use their data? Something wrong with it? Doesn't fit the CO2 monetization scheme?
Yes it does show contrails. Contrails that make a heat trap over an already very warm part of the US and over the ocean between the mainland and Bermuda. What does that do to the normal weather and climate stats for that region or any region for that matter? heat traps like that over water create some nasty storms do they not? Has there been an increase in nasty storms? CO2 isn't pushing anything up. Aircraft now fly 10,000ft higher than they used to 20-30 years ago and they have better engine designs and wing designs which create far more compression and decompression of gasses which make them far more efficient and create far more vapor which makes heat traps all over the globe everyday, 365 days a year.
Here's some more NASA data, aircraft pollution responsible for 0.03°K at the surface, and 0.06°K in the upper troposphere. That seems consistent with the IPCC data.
Quantifying the Effects of Aircraft on Climate With a Model That Treats the Subg
Couldn't you find anything more current? I've posted all sorts of NASA papers that makes some very hefty claims and are 10 years more recent.
Keep looking.
BTW IPCC isn't god. It's politicians.
Pretty aren't they?
I'd hate to live under that.
Good thing it doesn't snow under those fake clouds or heat would really be trapped. It might even make the snow melt faster. Good thing there aren't any over the Arctic or things really might get out of hand.
I'd hate to live under that.
Good thing it doesn't snow under those fake clouds or heat would really be trapped. It might even make the snow melt faster. Good thing there aren't any over the Arctic or things really might get out of hand.
So... No answer then, eh?
Strawman! Rhetoric! Red Herring!
Let me guess, you're a self appointed expert statistician, climatologist, meteorologist, geophysicist, geologist and model developer... I suppose that's why they call you Mr. Science
Blah, blah, blah... More ignorant ranting and raving about the infallibility of you masters at the IPCC.
You already know the answer to that Petros, Mr. Science is shopping for a study that somehow will support teh contention whilst not undermining his existing position.
Me thinks that he'll need to fabricate something or refer to some obscure reference that is fraught with massive reliance on statistical corrective techniques (read: a margin of error in excess of 90%).
- Status