Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Are you referring to your little-minded, myopic view of science?
No thanks - I take a more macro view of the topic.
BTW - Any contributions that clearly point to anthropogenic sources of ghg's (or whatever BS you buy into) that are a measurable and significant driver of (shudder) global warming?
No point in you replying...I know that you have no direct answer.
I'll leave the tea-leaf readings (and bumps on skulls) to you.
Yet, that admission to the mistake is somehow a carte-blanche license to go on the attack? Really, I am not certain what to make of your's and Les' comments other than being derogatory.
No thanks. I prefer real science.
*shrugs* What do you expect? You should be able to keep telling people they haven't a clue, twisting what they say to suit your mindset, ignore valid information, etc.?
Really Anna. My exchange with Les represented an equal-opportunity diatribe... Regrettably, when an individual jumps down my throat with insinuations, innuendo and insults - I give back in turn.
You are more than welcome to review my exchanges with Les and I believe that you will see that I am not the one to escalate the tone or spirit of the discussion.
You are more than welcome to review my exchanges with Les and I believe that you will see that I am not the one to escalate the tone or spirit of the discussion.
Like I said, when you ignore valid information, tell people they have no idea what they are talking about, etc. I can see why they get frustrated enough to call a spade a spade.
Personally you guys have said the same things in different ways but are so deadset that the other is wrong, you can't see the bottom for the mud you made.
Now you are talking about my believing in the info sources that I am critical of.. Are you then suggesting that unless I march lock-step with he attitude, opinion and beliefs of others, I am not deserving of anything other than your derision?
C'mon.. Get real
C'mon.. Get real
I'm talking about scholarship. You make your case, with references. Then I'll make mine. Or I can go first. Afterward each would have a chance to respond to points in the others presenation, and then maybe one or two rounds of responses to responses.
With references.
Can you do that? Or do you need to be vague, make unsupported assertions and the like?
Be as macro as you like. But the key point is that your case is referenced. You've come on this board and made lots of claims, most of which have been unsupported. It's as though you think the laws pf physics don't matter when we have bloggers picking nits from IPCC, or CRU.
So, that's about all the conditions I would have. So nut up or shut up.
What say you?
Sure.. But in the end, we have been pursuing this ends all along. Regardless, I will happily participate.
For the sake of clarity from the outset, there are caveats attached:
- The discussion be focused on establishing that anthropogenic sources (carbon dioxide) are a significant contributor to climatic changes... To be more specific, these sources must be significant enough such that curbing these anthropogenic sources will - absolutely - alter the climatic system in a corrective manner.
- Obviously, you are welcome to choose any reference sources you wish, however, the credibility of those sources are fair game. As this is an area of particular interest for myself, I will question any such sources with the onus being on me to identify and highlight the flaw(s).
- You can submit any number of research papers as reference (obviously), but it is your responsibility to clearly tie everything together with an eye to satisfying caveat # 1. That said, if you elect to adopt a strategy of submitting a couple of thousand of reference points and holler "eureka!" like some idiot did earlier, then I will respond in kind in forcing the contributor to clearly articulate the individual results and provide the applicable conclusions.
To make it absolutely clear, my position is that I believe that the climate changes the Earth is experiencing are a part of the natural cycle that the globe has experienced for millennia. I do not support the contention that anthropogenic sources are significant enough to represent a factor that is large enough wherein curbing the CO2 output will have any real and tangible effect on redirecting the climatic systems.
I will ask for a defining statement from yourself. Give it some thought.
So you don't dispute the fact that the globe is getting warmer? Please explain this to Walt.
"idiot" eh?:lol:
In the face of all the research you call me an idiot.....:lol:
I presented the research done for the IPCC by thousands of scientists and you provide zero to counter any of them.....zero. The only thing you have presented is political BS and the same talking points over and over again.
Let me get this straight before you start calling me a Nazi or other vile names. I don't like AL Gore or Suzuki especially the former. It is his fault the science has been put into question by eluding that we are all doomed while really doing nothing himself to curb co2 emissions.
Secondly, I am in no way in favor of a cap and trade scheme, one in which will be a heavy burden on the middle and lower classes. I have maintained that governments should invest in R&D and allow the private sector to come up with and market green energy alternatives as the market allows it....it's already happening.
Lastly, I was a skeptic until I spoke to real experts on this subject, friends of my sisters (geophysicist) and one of them happens to be Dave Phillips....perhaps you have heard of him? Needless to say, they convinced me otherwise. I will trust them over what some amateur tells me on a blog or forum.....sorry.
Whether AGW is real (it is) or not going green it will benefit us in many other ways....basic pollution...I'm sure you can recognize that is a problem at least.
Btw, most of the people here if not all feel basically the same way, politics and greed has taken over a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
May I also add that you have stated that an open mind is needed on this subject.....where is yours?
Is it an absolute certainty that the globe isn't warming based on AGW? To answer your question, no it isn't an absolute certainty it is either. However, based on all the information gathered over thirty years it most likely is and until the research shows otherwise that is the consensous.....like it or not.
Have a good day.
Go Canada Go.:canada:
"idiot" eh?:lol:
In the face of all the research you call me an idiot.....:lol:
I presented the research done for the IPCC by thousands of scientists and you provide zero to counter any of them.....zero. The only thing you have presented is political BS and the same talking points over and over again.
Let me get this straight before you start calling me a Nazi or other vile names. I don't like AL Gore or Suzuki especially the former. It is his fault the science has been put into question by eluding that we are all doomed while really doing nothing himself to curb co2 emissions.
Secondly, I am in no way in favor of a cap and trade scheme, one in which will be a heavy burden on the middle and lower classes. I have maintained that governments should invest in R&D and allow the private sector to come up with and market green energy alternatives as the market allows it....it's already happening.
Lastly, I was a skeptic until I spoke to real experts on this subject, friends of my sisters (geophysicist) and one of them happens to be Dave Phillips....perhaps you have heard of him? Needless to say, they convinced me otherwise. I will trust them over what some amateur tells me on a blog or forum.....sorry.
Whether AGW is real (it is) or not going green it will benefit us in many other ways....basic pollution...I'm sure you can recognize that is a problem at least.
Btw, most of the people here if not all feel basically the same way, politics and greed has taken over a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
May I also add that you have stated that an open mind is needed on this subject.....where is yours?
Is it an absolute certainty that the globe isn't warming based on AGW? To answer your question, no it isn't an absolute certainty it is either. However, based on all the information gathered over thirty years it most likely is and until the research shows otherwise that is the consensous.....like it or not.
Have a good day.
Go Canada Go.:canada:
Last edited:
I never did dispute that the climatic conditions are changing. In fact, they have all throught history and that reality is the basis of my position in that what we are seeing now is an expression of the natural cycle.
No.. What you did was cut/paste a bunch of names/studies. You presented nor discussed anything.
For all you know, the contributions were the author's favorite recipe's.
Fair enough, however, when the chief proponent (UN/IPCC) is directly involved in scientific inproprieties, well that too adds instability to the science.
These schemes are being proposed on the strength of the Suzuki's, Gore's and IPCC's of the world... Doesn't make much sense, does it?
I'll wager that if I mentioned the name Tim Ball, you or someone else would rally against his opinion in very dramatic fashion (which is entirely fair) - however, what makes his opinion less valid?
That said, each of us can pick and choose our "science". That does not mean that it is reality.
AGW and pollution are entirely separate issues... Interestingly enough, the UN/IPCC are moving to have CO2 deemed a toxin. It appears that the aforementioned group(s) are seeking to add some stability to their position via muddying the issue further.
Just another reason to question everything about them.
I can easily ask the same of you... But I'll say this, the AGW alarmist crowd initially adopted a stand that sought to discredit all naysayers... Where is the open-minded science in that?
Research gathered over thirty whole years?... Millenia of historical reality states very clearly that these natural cycles suggest that AGW is a myth.
Last edited:
So is it warming or not?
No they weren't recipes, I actually checked a few out, they are papers written by scientists.
Have you read any of this stuff?
Doesn't say anything about the thousands of scientists and their peer reviewed papers, something you have yet to submit yourself.
No, the politics is based on the Al Gores of the world, not the science.
Tim Ball is as much of a climatologist as David Suzuki is, Dave Phillips is a climatologist.
Curbing co2 would result in lower pollution...right? They are not separate in that respect. Haven't heard about the toxin issue so I can't comment on that.
More politics, according to Phillips there is still open debate among the science community but the consensus is still heavily in favor of AGW by a margin of 10 to 1.
The research was not based on the thirty years, much broader than that.
Still, you submit no peer reviewed papers at all that suggest otherwise.
I will ask you this however, since you agree that there is a warming trend what is the mechanism of this trend....saying it's natural isn't enough because even a natural cycle can be explained.
Thanks.
Sometimes warming sometimes cooling... Recently, things have been cooling.
Face facts, you cut-paste the reference section of "the latest IPCC report" (according to the post in question)... I am familiar with the IPCC report(s).
What I have "submitted" that I feel is the most compelling case is based on the periodic episodes of extreme climate change that have been due to factors entirely outside of the influence of man (and therefore man-made ghg's) in the form of mass glaciation (cooling trend) and the consequent recession of these glaciers (warming trend).
We can agree that it is factual that these multiple ice-ages occurred - that in itself is pretty damning proof, wouldn't you say?
As far as peer-review is concerned. That process is currently under fire thanks to the good folks at East Anglia... In its purest form, peer-review is exceptionally powerful; In the hands of a peer-review group that is pursuing an agenda and capable of deliberately fudging results, I think it fair to question the process all together.
In this case, the politics are driving the funding which in turn is driving (some) of the science.
Tim Ball: Timothy F. Ball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to the above, he is: "Timothy Francis Ball is a Canadian environmental consultant and former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg, where he specialized in the relation of climate to human settlement."
Not necessarily.. Further, this issue is about AGW, not pollution.
Fair enough - According to Ball, the pendulum is swinging to the other side wherein more of the scientific community are casting more skepticism towards AGW. If ball stated that 9/10 suppoeted the notion that AGW was a myth, would believe it?
*N.B.: That does not imply that the science is settled against AGW
Fine.. How broad then?
I believe the mechanism represents a contribution of a vast myriad of variables most of which are generated through natural occurrences. Accurately explaining the cycle is possible, but not probable due to (my belief) that there are simply far too many components that contribute. Developing a model to account for all would be near impossible.