Climategate - Round 2. How will the AGW proponents justify this one?

[newpolitics]

Global warming is happening and mostly human caused. We can fix it.
AGW is a myth supported by those who profit from it.
Global warming is happening but we are powerless to stop it.
Humankind should be researching how to adapt to natural climate change.
We should be more concerned about an impending ice age.
Climate change is natural and inevitable.
None of the above and I'll explain in my post.

That is two statements, not one. The first is true. The second involves the residence time of GHGs in the atmosphere, and the tipping points of such things as the permafrost and Artic Clathrates.

We cannot fix what we do not yet understand. We know the residence time of CO2 is in centuries, but do not yet understand enough of how the initial amount effects the length, a few centuries, or many, of time involved. As for the rest, we simply don't know where we are on those items, period. We may be already past the tipping points, we may be centuries from them, or not be a problem at all if we reduce the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere in a reasonable time. Given that we don't know yet what constitutes a reasonable time.

Kind of like running down a road in a dense fog at full speed, knowing full well that there is a bridge out over a deep canyon somewhere down the road, but since we don't know how far, it is OK just to keep the pedal to the metal.

Okay, you finally entered the debate instead of preaching to the choir of religionists. Kudos for that!

You are right that we cannot fix what we do not yet understand. But your bridge analogy is flawed because of the implication that disaster WILL be the result if we continue through the fog and attempt to cross the bridge. A better analogy is we don't know whether the bridge is out.

So our decision is this. Do we reroute and add unacceptable consequences? Or do we proceed cautiously on the theory that there will be sufficient warning to stop if that should be necessary? Your solution seems to be to send out all the trucks to repair the bridge without knowing whether it needs repairs.

Right now the warmers are demanding that we reroute without knowing. They are pushing strongly to turn over the USA's soverignty in this matter for other countries to dictate to us when such countries most likely do not have our best interests at heart. If that was not so, would they not be imposing their demands on places like China and India and other major CO2 "polluters"? Here again is the common sense issue. What good does it do to control countries that are already doing a decent job with emissions and ignore those who are not?

And in the issue of integrity, how many of our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities are we expected to give up to the great god of anthropogenic global warming? Most especially when the scientists cannot show any positive results from this? When at least some of the scientific community is feeding to the global authorities what is likely to be bogus science and it is being incorporated into the Policy Summaries?

Common sense AND integrity suggest that of course we keep monitoring and tracking climate trends and learning as much as we can. But it is utter folly to demand fixes for what may not be broken. Let's be sure it is broken before we take away those freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities from all of us and consign whole populations to even more generations of crushing poverty.

I think it is hilarious you mention US sovereignty, because it really highlights the shallow nature of your motives: ego in the form of nationalism. Global warming is real and human caused, and when our children and grandchildren are left to deal with it, who is sovereign on this planet is not going to matter, because the suffering for everyone will be so great. There will not be room for ego, or concern over who is most powerful. There will only be concern over the mitigation of universal suffering, and they are going to look back at this time, and just go "wtf"?

 

[westwall]

Even if certain or a small group of scientists are being 'scandalous' for whatever reason, that doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, and isn't being caused by humans. This article and the possible facts it points to, in terms of objective reality and why our earth is warming does, not mean anything. It is just another excuse for certain people to continue their personal consumption patterns without personal accountability to a larger whole, a nice paradox when the republican ideal of 'personal responsibility' seems to be so strong. It is easy to espouse 'personal responsibility' when you don't accept any for our Earth dying.

Nice attempt but they are not being "scandalous". They are engaging in completely unethical behaviour as regards the corruption of the peer review process and are actively engaged in fraud as regards their data sets (and this has been shown quite compellingly by the weather stations organisation, to the point the GAO released a report where NOAA has had to articulate exactly how they are going to correct the hundreds of weather stations that are reading faulty data) but a lefty like you will ignore all of that in your efforts to get your sweeping governmental policies enacted.

As far as your other assertion show us one single piece of empirical data that shows man is raising the global temperature. Not a computer model, but empirical data.

Good luck.

 

[westwall]

Global warming is happening and mostly human caused. We can fix it.
AGW is a myth supported by those who profit from it.
Global warming is happening but we are powerless to stop it.
Humankind should be researching how to adapt to natural climate change.
We should be more concerned about an impending ice age.
Climate change is natural and inevitable.
None of the above and I'll explain in my post.

That is two statements, not one. The first is true. The second involves the residence time of GHGs in the atmosphere, and the tipping points of such things as the permafrost and Artic Clathrates.

We cannot fix what we do not yet understand. We know the residence time of CO2 is in centuries, but do not yet understand enough of how the initial amount effects the length, a few centuries, or many, of time involved. As for the rest, we simply don't know where we are on those items, period. We may be already past the tipping points, we may be centuries from them, or not be a problem at all if we reduce the amount of GHGs that we put into the atmosphere in a reasonable time. Given that we don't know yet what constitutes a reasonable time.

Kind of like running down a road in a dense fog at full speed, knowing full well that there is a bridge out over a deep canyon somewhere down the road, but since we don't know how far, it is OK just to keep the pedal to the metal.

Okay, you finally entered the debate instead of preaching to the choir of religionists. Kudos for that!

You are right that we cannot fix what we do not yet understand. But your bridge analogy is flawed because of the implication that disaster WILL be the result if we continue through the fog and attempt to cross the bridge. A better analogy is we don't know whether the bridge is out.

So our decision is this. Do we reroute and add unacceptable consequences? Or do we proceed cautiously on the theory that there will be sufficient warning to stop if that should be necessary? Your solution seems to be to send out all the trucks to repair the bridge without knowing whether it needs repairs.

Right now the warmers are demanding that we reroute without knowing. They are pushing strongly to turn over the USA's soverignty in this matter for other countries to dictate to us when such countries most likely do not have our best interests at heart. If that was not so, would they not be imposing their demands on places like China and India and other major CO2 "polluters"? Here again is the common sense issue. What good does it do to control countries that are already doing a decent job with emissions and ignore those who are not?

And in the issue of integrity, how many of our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities are we expected to give up to the great god of anthropogenic global warming? Most especially when the scientists cannot show any positive results from this? When at least some of the scientific community is feeding to the global authorities what is likely to be bogus science and it is being incorporated into the Policy Summaries?

Common sense AND integrity suggest that of course we keep monitoring and tracking climate trends and learning as much as we can. But it is utter folly to demand fixes for what may not be broken. Let's be sure it is broken before we take away those freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities from all of us and consign whole populations to even more generations of crushing poverty.

I think it is hilarious you mention US sovereignty, because it really highlights the shallow nature of your motives: ego in the form of nationalism. Global warming is real and human caused, and when our children and grandchildren are left to deal with it, who is sovereign on this planet is not going to matter, because the suffering for everyone will be so great. There will not be room for ego, or concern over who is most powerful. There will only be concern over the mitigation of universal suffering, and they are going to look back at this time, and just go "wtf"?

It is illustrative of your political ideals as well. As far as the rest of your nonsense. Prove it. I can show quite easily that every single event that the warmists points to as evidence of AGW is repeated in the near history through entirely natural processes.

On the other hand, the only thing you can use to spread yourt religion is computer models that are so poor they can not recreate the weather that occured 3 days ago and you're either not smart enough or simply don't care to realise just how important a statement that is.

 

[newpolitics]

Even if certain or a small group of scientists are being 'scandalous' for whatever reason, that doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, and isn't being caused by humans. This article and the possible facts it points to, in terms of objective reality and why our earth is warming does, not mean anything. It is just another excuse for certain people to continue their personal consumption patterns without personal accountability to a larger whole, a nice paradox when the republican ideal of 'personal responsibility' seems to be so strong. It is easy to espouse 'personal responsibility' when you don't accept any for our Earth dying.

Nice attempt but they are not being "scandalous". They are engaging in completely unethical behaviour as regards the corruption of the peer review process and are actively engaged in fraud as regards their data sets (and this has been shown quite compellingly by the weather stations organisation, to the point the GAO released a report where NOAA has had to articulate exactly how they are going to correct the hundreds of weather stations that are reading faulty data) but a lefty like you will ignore all of that in your efforts to get your sweeping governmental policies enacted.

As far as your other assertion show us one single piece of empirical data that shows man is raising the global temperature. Not a computer model, but empirical data.

Good luck.

Let's get one thing straight: my only allegiance is to the pursuit of truth, not any ideology, especially a superficial political one. human interference with science is not truth, but science is still the greatest and only conduit to truth in our physical universe. I will listen to scientific consensus, which is unbiased, over a republican or a liberal, any day. it just so happens that in this political climate, republicans reject science more often than not, even as part of their social agendas. in this light, they have lose vast amounts of credibility, even in their attempts to undermine science. an article posted on Forbes is not going to change my mind about global warming. Not all scientists are bought, and %90 of them agree that global warming is human-caused. Not only that, but if you look at the data, it is common sense, plus I want people to stop polluting this Earth as if it was our waste bin.

 

[newpolitics]

Okay, you finally entered the debate instead of preaching to the choir of religionists. Kudos for that!

You are right that we cannot fix what we do not yet understand. But your bridge analogy is flawed because of the implication that disaster WILL be the result if we continue through the fog and attempt to cross the bridge. A better analogy is we don't know whether the bridge is out.

So our decision is this. Do we reroute and add unacceptable consequences? Or do we proceed cautiously on the theory that there will be sufficient warning to stop if that should be necessary? Your solution seems to be to send out all the trucks to repair the bridge without knowing whether it needs repairs.

Right now the warmers are demanding that we reroute without knowing. They are pushing strongly to turn over the USA's soverignty in this matter for other countries to dictate to us when such countries most likely do not have our best interests at heart. If that was not so, would they not be imposing their demands on places like China and India and other major CO2 "polluters"? Here again is the common sense issue. What good does it do to control countries that are already doing a decent job with emissions and ignore those who are not?

And in the issue of integrity, how many of our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities are we expected to give up to the great god of anthropogenic global warming? Most especially when the scientists cannot show any positive results from this? When at least some of the scientific community is feeding to the global authorities what is likely to be bogus science and it is being incorporated into the Policy Summaries?

Common sense AND integrity suggest that of course we keep monitoring and tracking climate trends and learning as much as we can. But it is utter folly to demand fixes for what may not be broken. Let's be sure it is broken before we take away those freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities from all of us and consign whole populations to even more generations of crushing poverty.

I think it is hilarious you mention US sovereignty, because it really highlights the shallow nature of your motives: ego in the form of nationalism. Global warming is real and human caused, and when our children and grandchildren are left to deal with it, who is sovereign on this planet is not going to matter, because the suffering for everyone will be so great. There will not be room for ego, or concern over who is most powerful. There will only be concern over the mitigation of universal suffering, and they are going to look back at this time, and just go "wtf"?

It is illustrative of your political ideals as well. As far as the rest of your nonsense. Prove it. I can show quite easily that every single event that the warmists points to as evidence of AGW is repeated in the near history through entirely natural processes.

On the other hand, the only thing you can use to spread yourt religion is computer models that are so poor they can not recreate the weather that occured 3 days ago and you're either not smart enough or simply don't care to realise just how important a statement that is.

they can not recreate the weather that occurred three days ago?... You act is if weather is a simple process, that can be narrowed down to a set of algorithms and parameters and passed through a supercomputer to predict with %100 accuracy the weather. Your dismissal of science is merely a 'giving up' because you would rather not have faith in the methodology of science in the first place, and that is obvious. You see any small failure as a failure of the whole, which is a logical fallacy, in my opinion.

 

[Si modo]

Even if certain or a small group of scientists are being 'scandalous' for whatever reason, that doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, and isn't being caused by humans. This article and the possible facts it points to, in terms of objective reality and why our earth is warming does, not mean anything. It is just another excuse for certain people to continue their personal consumption patterns without personal accountability to a larger whole, a nice paradox when the republican ideal of 'personal responsibility' seems to be so strong. It is easy to espouse 'personal responsibility' when you don't accept any for our Earth dying.

Nice attempt but they are not being "scandalous". They are engaging in completely unethical behaviour as regards the corruption of the peer review process and are actively engaged in fraud as regards their data sets (and this has been shown quite compellingly by the weather stations organisation, to the point the GAO released a report where NOAA has had to articulate exactly how they are going to correct the hundreds of weather stations that are reading faulty data) but a lefty like you will ignore all of that in your efforts to get your sweeping governmental policies enacted.

As far as your other assertion show us one single piece of empirical data that shows man is raising the global temperature. Not a computer model, but empirical data.

Good luck.

Let's get one thing straight: my only allegiance is to the pursuit of truth, not any ideology, especially a superficial political one. human interference with science is not truth, but science is still the greatest and only conduit to truth in our physical universe. I will listen to scientific consensus, which is unbiased, over a republican or a liberal, any day. it just so happens that in this political climate, republicans reject science more often than not, even as part of their social agendas. in this light, they have lose vast amounts of credibility, even in their attempts to undermine science. an article posted on Forbes is not going to change my mind about global warming. Not all scientists are bought, and %90 of them agree that global warming is human-caused. Not only that, but if you look at the data, it is common sense, plus I want people to stop polluting this Earth as if it was our waste bin.

You still haven't shown any empirical evidence that man is causing warming.

Even though these so-called scientists are actively trying to ruin the integrity of scientific currency - peer-review - a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that would be great.

Anyone who wants to USE science to make an argument, should SHOW the science supporting their argument.

 

[newpolitics]

Nice attempt but they are not being "scandalous". They are engaging in completely unethical behaviour as regards the corruption of the peer review process and are actively engaged in fraud as regards their data sets (and this has been shown quite compellingly by the weather stations organisation, to the point the GAO released a report where NOAA has had to articulate exactly how they are going to correct the hundreds of weather stations that are reading faulty data) but a lefty like you will ignore all of that in your efforts to get your sweeping governmental policies enacted.

As far as your other assertion show us one single piece of empirical data that shows man is raising the global temperature. Not a computer model, but empirical data.

Good luck.

Let's get one thing straight: my only allegiance is to the pursuit of truth, not any ideology, especially a superficial political one. human interference with science is not truth, but science is still the greatest and only conduit to truth in our physical universe. I will listen to scientific consensus, which is unbiased, over a republican or a liberal, any day. it just so happens that in this political climate, republicans reject science more often than not, even as part of their social agendas. in this light, they have lose vast amounts of credibility, even in their attempts to undermine science. an article posted on Forbes is not going to change my mind about global warming. Not all scientists are bought, and %90 of them agree that global warming is human-caused. Not only that, but if you look at the data, it is common sense, plus I want people to stop polluting this Earth as if it was our waste bin.

You still haven't shown any empirical evidence that man is causing warming.

Even though these so-called scientists are actively trying to ruin the integrity of scientific currency - peer-review - a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that would be great.

Anyone who wants to USE science to make an argument, should SHOW the science supporting their argument.

I never said I was here to supply you with evidence. I am here to rebut the OP with my own opinion of this situation. In response: There is plenty of information that might suggest that global warming is being caused by humans, but there is simply not enough to make it 'fact'. It is the same as looking at a crime scene. You gather as much evidence as you can, and try and pin down the most likely suspect. Sometimes you need to gather evidence for a long time, and scrutinize the crime scene, and do back checks, and histories of the characters involved, but there are no guarantees that the crime will ever be solved. In the meanwhile, you have your hunches based on how much information you have already collected. Based on the information we have that I have scene and the theories available, I am convinced humans are causing this. Whether or not some scientists are being irresponsible is not going to change reality. There is one objective reality. Either we are causing this or we aren't. We had better figure it out soon, because the window in which to reverse global warming, if it is us, is closing by the day.

 

[Si modo]

Let's get one thing straight: my only allegiance is to the pursuit of truth, not any ideology, especially a superficial political one. human interference with science is not truth, but science is still the greatest and only conduit to truth in our physical universe. I will listen to scientific consensus, which is unbiased, over a republican or a liberal, any day. it just so happens that in this political climate, republicans reject science more often than not, even as part of their social agendas. in this light, they have lose vast amounts of credibility, even in their attempts to undermine science. an article posted on Forbes is not going to change my mind about global warming. Not all scientists are bought, and %90 of them agree that global warming is human-caused. Not only that, but if you look at the data, it is common sense, plus I want people to stop polluting this Earth as if it was our waste bin.

You still haven't shown any empirical evidence that man is causing warming.

Even though these so-called scientists are actively trying to ruin the integrity of scientific currency - peer-review - a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that would be great.

Anyone who wants to USE science to make an argument, should SHOW the science supporting their argument.

I never said I was here to supply you with evidence. I am here to rebut the OP with my own opinion of this situation. In response: There is plenty of information that might suggest that global warming is being caused by humans, but there is simply not enough to make it 'fact'. It is the same as looking at a crime scene. You gather as much evidence as you can, and try and pin down the most likely suspect. Sometimes you need to gather evidence for a long time, and scrutinize the crime scene, and do back checks, and histories of the characters involved, but there are no guarantees that the crime will ever be solved. In the meanwhile, you have your hunches based on how much information you have already collected. Based on the information we have that I have scene and the theories available, I am convinced humans are causing this. Whether or not some scientists are being irresponsible is not going to change reality. There is one objective reality. Either we are causing this or we aren't. We had better figure it out soon, because the window in which to reverse global warming, if it is us, is closing by the day.

Let's get your thoughts organized, shall we?

The skeptics claim that the science does not support the claim that the magnitude of man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

One cannot prove a void. There is no science supporting a claim that the magnitude of man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

If you believe it is, that's fine. You are entitled to any belief you want.

If you want to talk science, then show the science supporting any claim that man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

If you can't, then you are just arguing a personal belief.

Science is not based on beliefs.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Forbes magazine has commented on the newest data in the Climategate scandal:

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.


“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

More here:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

I wonder how our AGW supporting friends will handle this new information?

Anonymously released?

LOL!!!!!!!


Yeah, this matters - for what again?

 

[newpolitics]

You still haven't shown any empirical evidence that man is causing warming.

Even though these so-called scientists are actively trying to ruin the integrity of scientific currency - peer-review - a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that would be great.

Anyone who wants to USE science to make an argument, should SHOW the science supporting their argument.

I never said I was here to supply you with evidence. I am here to rebut the OP with my own opinion of this situation. In response: There is plenty of information that might suggest that global warming is being caused by humans, but there is simply not enough to make it 'fact'. It is the same as looking at a crime scene. You gather as much evidence as you can, and try and pin down the most likely suspect. Sometimes you need to gather evidence for a long time, and scrutinize the crime scene, and do back checks, and histories of the characters involved, but there are no guarantees that the crime will ever be solved. In the meanwhile, you have your hunches based on how much information you have already collected. Based on the information we have that I have scene and the theories available, I am convinced humans are causing this. Whether or not some scientists are being irresponsible is not going to change reality. There is one objective reality. Either we are causing this or we aren't. We had better figure it out soon, because the window in which to reverse global warming, if it is us, is closing by the day.

Let's get your thoughts organized, shall we?

The skeptics claim that the science does not support the claim that the magnitude of man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

One cannot prove a void. There is no science supporting a claim that the magnitude of man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

If you believe it is, that's fine. You are entitled to any belief you want.

If you want to talk science, then show the science supporting any claim that man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

If you can't, then you are just arguing a personal belief.

Science is not based on beliefs.

It seems as if you asking me to start from scratch. I do not want to do that. I should not have to do that. I did not come here to regurgitate scientific facts which i am sure you are well aware of. We obviously have a different interpretation of the same reality. I do not have the energy to dig up the entire body of evidence for global warming simply to satisfy you. When I see people acting a fool, I am going to call them on it, hence, my involvement in this thread.

There is a body of evidence out there accessible to both of us. I see it and say that global warming is made made. You do not. This is where it ends for me.

 

[daveman]

You still haven't shown any empirical evidence that man is causing warming.

Even though these so-called scientists are actively trying to ruin the integrity of scientific currency - peer-review - a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that would be great.

Anyone who wants to USE science to make an argument, should SHOW the science supporting their argument.

I never said I was here to supply you with evidence. I am here to rebut the OP with my own opinion of this situation. In response: There is plenty of information that might suggest that global warming is being caused by humans, but there is simply not enough to make it 'fact'. It is the same as looking at a crime scene. You gather as much evidence as you can, and try and pin down the most likely suspect. Sometimes you need to gather evidence for a long time, and scrutinize the crime scene, and do back checks, and histories of the characters involved, but there are no guarantees that the crime will ever be solved. In the meanwhile, you have your hunches based on how much information you have already collected. Based on the information we have that I have scene and the theories available, I am convinced humans are causing this. Whether or not some scientists are being irresponsible is not going to change reality. There is one objective reality. Either we are causing this or we aren't. We had better figure it out soon, because the window in which to reverse global warming, if it is us, is closing by the day.

Let's get your thoughts organized, shall we?

The skeptics claim that the science does not support the claim that the magnitude of man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

One cannot prove a void. There is no science supporting a claim that the magnitude of man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

If you believe it is, that's fine. You are entitled to any belief you want.

If you want to talk science, then show the science supporting any claim that man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

If you can't, then you are just arguing a personal belief.

Science is not based on beliefs.

Climate science seems to be.

 

[konradv]

You still haven't shown any empirical evidence that man is causing warming.

Even though these so-called scientists are actively trying to ruin the integrity of scientific currency - peer-review - a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that would be great.

Anyone who wants to USE science to make an argument, should SHOW the science supporting their argument.

I never said I was here to supply you with evidence. I am here to rebut the OP with my own opinion of this situation. In response: There is plenty of information that might suggest that global warming is being caused by humans, but there is simply not enough to make it 'fact'. It is the same as looking at a crime scene. You gather as much evidence as you can, and try and pin down the most likely suspect. Sometimes you need to gather evidence for a long time, and scrutinize the crime scene, and do back checks, and histories of the characters involved, but there are no guarantees that the crime will ever be solved. In the meanwhile, you have your hunches based on how much information you have already collected. Based on the information we have that I have scene and the theories available, I am convinced humans are causing this. Whether or not some scientists are being irresponsible is not going to change reality. There is one objective reality. Either we are causing this or we aren't. We had better figure it out soon, because the window in which to reverse global warming, if it is us, is closing by the day.

Let's get your thoughts organized, shall we?

The skeptics claim that the science does not support the claim that the magnitude of man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

One cannot prove a void. There is no science supporting a claim that the magnitude of man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

If you believe it is, that's fine. You are entitled to any belief you want.

If you want to talk science, then show the science supporting any claim that man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

If you can't, then you are just arguing a personal belief.

Science is not based on beliefs.

You're the one that seems disorganized!


We know that CO2 and other gases can absorb IR radiation.

We know that man puts out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year and that the atmospheric load has been increasing since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, increased trapped energy will result in increased temperature.

That's NOT simple correlation either, that's LOGIC!!!

 

[wirebender]

Anyone with the least understanding of science grasps the fact that you cannot increase the GHGs in the atmosphere by large percentages without changing the climate. When you change the climate, you change the environment.

Really? Can you describe the mechanism by which that might happen and name at least one physical law that supports and predicts the hypothesis? And don't bother posting your scripture because we both know that there is nothing there that represents proof of any sort.

 

[wirebender]

they can not recreate the weather that occurred three days ago?... You act is if weather is a simple process, that can be narrowed down to a set of algorithms and parameters and passed through a supercomputer to predict with %100 accuracy the weather. Your dismissal of science is merely a 'giving up' because you would rather not have faith in the methodology of science in the first place, and that is obvious. You see any small failure as a failure of the whole, which is a logical fallacy, in my opinion.

You were asked to give some observable, empirical evidence that the changing climate is due to the activities of man. Can you provide any such data or not? My bet is not because for all the talk and "consensus" there is NO observable, repeatable, empirical evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate.

The fact is that nothing that is happening today or in the past 100 or 150 or any number of years you care to name even approaches the boundries of natural variability. Till you can show that something is happening that has never happened before and man is to blame, the best you can do is simply give lip service to the church of AGW.

 

[Foxfyre]

We also know, from scientific research, that the Earth was once much cooler than now when the CO2 levels were much higher. We also know, from available data, that volcanoes don't add all that much CO2 to the atmosphere and however much CO2 human activity is generating is a tiny fraction when compared to that occuring from natural causes. And we also know from available data that CO2 levels have been increasing steadily over the last several years while the mean temperatures have remained stable that suggests that CO2 could likely be the result of climate change rather than a significant cause of it.

Yet those with a vested interest to do so propose to take more and more control of their fellow man by giving government, including world government, ever more authority to control our lives. You don't see them proposing that we counter human generated CO2 by planting and cultuvating more trees and other vegetation to absorb the CO2 or other natural means however that would likely be much more effective.

This leaves the skeptics with strong reason to think the whole agenda is suspect and possibly not well intended and unwilling to relinquish their freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities for policy based on what could very well be bogus if not intentionally dishonest 'science'.

 

[wirebender]

It seems as if you asking me to start from scratch.

No one has asked any such thing from you. You were simply asked to provide one piece of hard, observed evidence that proves that man is in some large part responsible for the changing climate. Surely you can pick a single tidbit of proof from the large so called body of science upon which you base your position. If the science is so overwhelming and in posession of enough fact to convince you, surely you can provide just a sliver of hard, observed evidence for us skeptics.

 

[wirebender]

You're the one that seems disorganized!

We know that CO2 and other gases can absorb IR radiation.

We also know that CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses emit precisely the same amount of IR radiation that they absorb and that the IR radiation passes through them at, or very near the speed of light. You seem to be forever neglecting that bit of information which voids your claim about absorption. The CO2 does not hold any energy at all and has no capacity to do so. The simple fact of absorption and emission does not lend any creedence at all to the AGW hypothesis.

We know that man puts out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year and that the atmospheric load has been increasing since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

We also know that the amount of CO2 produced by man is not enough to even overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry. Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is so tiny as to be nearly indistintuishable. We both know that it wouldn't serve any purpose to quote you the actual percentage of man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 because you are not a math guy so here is a word picture for you. I picked it up along the way and serves to accurately illustrate how stupid it is to claim that man's CO2 is driving the climate.

Imagine one kilometre of atmosphere that you want to clean up. For the sake of the discussion, imagine you could walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. Just 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. Just 10 metres left to go.
9 metres are argon. 1 metre left out of 1 kilometre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.
A bit over one foot.
97% is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural. It has always been in the atmosphere otherwise plants couldn't grow.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.
That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

Therefore, if the trend continues, increased trapped energy will result in increased temperature

.

CO2 emits exactly as much IR as it absorbs. There is no "trapped" energy.

That's NOT simple correlation either, that's LOGIC!!!

Your logic is broken because you don't understand the facts.

 

[konradv]

CO2 emits exactly as much IR as it absorbs. There is no "trapped" energy.

You're playing with words. CO2 traps energy and then re-emits it. Since statistically half would be emitted towards earth, what would that extra energy be doing, except to contribute to warming?

 

[konradv]

The fact is that nothing that is happening today or in the past 100 or 150 or any number of years you care to name even approaches the boundries of natural variability. Till you can show that something is happening that has never happened before and man is to blame, the best you can do is simply give lip service to the church of AGW.

Doesn't really matter if I can prove there's been any warming at all. Logic tells us that, if A leads to B and A is increasing, B will also increase. QED!

 

[Si modo]

I never said I was here to supply you with evidence. I am here to rebut the OP with my own opinion of this situation. In response: There is plenty of information that might suggest that global warming is being caused by humans, but there is simply not enough to make it 'fact'. It is the same as looking at a crime scene. You gather as much evidence as you can, and try and pin down the most likely suspect. Sometimes you need to gather evidence for a long time, and scrutinize the crime scene, and do back checks, and histories of the characters involved, but there are no guarantees that the crime will ever be solved. In the meanwhile, you have your hunches based on how much information you have already collected. Based on the information we have that I have scene and the theories available, I am convinced humans are causing this. Whether or not some scientists are being irresponsible is not going to change reality. There is one objective reality. Either we are causing this or we aren't. We had better figure it out soon, because the window in which to reverse global warming, if it is us, is closing by the day.

Let's get your thoughts organized, shall we?

The skeptics claim that the science does not support the claim that the magnitude of man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

One cannot prove a void. There is no science supporting a claim that the magnitude of man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

If you believe it is, that's fine. You are entitled to any belief you want.

If you want to talk science, then show the science supporting any claim that man made CO2 is significantly causing warming.

If you can't, then you are just arguing a personal belief.

Science is not based on beliefs.

You're the one that seems disorganized!


We know that CO2 and other gases can absorb IR radiation.

We know that man puts out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year and that the atmospheric load has been increasing since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, increased trapped energy will result in increased temperature.

That's NOT simple correlation either, that's LOGIC!!!

Correlation is not causation.

Yet, you continue to think it is.

That makes you an intractable idiot.