Pseudoscience And Conspiracy Theory Are Not Victimless Crimes Against Science

[eagle1462010]

Why won't it turn on...............................

 

[eagle1462010]

Arctic Scientist IPCC Ignores Natural Causes of Global Warming

Today geophysicist Syun Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska published an article at Climate Realists which highlights the selective fact-twisting of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and their push to promote the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

2. For their purpose, the IPCC ignored the fact that the Earth went through a cold period called “the Little Ice Age” from 1400 to 1800.

3. The Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 to the present. A recovery from a cold period is warming. It is mostly this warming that is causing the present climate change and it is not man-made. If they admit the existence of the Little Ice Age, they cannot claim that the global average temperature unexpectedly increased from 1900.

He also points out the inconvenient truth that recent warming began to occur long before there were SUVs and coal power plants, most likely as a part of the warming trend after the Little Ice Age.

Temperatures are also not cooperating with the apostles of global warming religion:

9. Although the IPCC predicted that by the year 2100 the temperature will increase 3~6°C, the temperature has stopped increasing after 2000 and shows even a decreasing sign.

Isn’t that terrible when facts ruin a good theory?

There is a host of contradictory evidence which points to natural, cyclic causes behind any planetary warming. These range from the climate data going back thousands of years, to the correlations with solar activity, to warming occurring on Mars and Jupiter and other planets in the solar system.

This outrageous trend of deception from the scientific community is flushing what remaining credibility they have down the toilet. Sadly, they are so devoted to promoting illusions to support their ideological biases, most of them are oblivious to the fact that more and more people are recognizing that their global warming emperor has no clothes.

 

[eagle1462010]

Global warming why is IPCC report so certain about the influence of humans Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Global warming: why is IPCC report so certain about the influence of humans?
100 percent of the global warming over the past 60 years is human-caused, according to the IPCC's latest report

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Mars Melt Hints at Solar Not Human Cause for Warming Scientist Says

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

 

[eagle1462010]

Conclusions from IPCC is that it is 100% caused by man.......................

As they disregard the other factors in the equation........................

And use fraudulent data in their final conclusions................

How does that fit into the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS...................

 

[Crick]

I say the Lion's share of the cause of Global Warming is caused by Mother Nature in the Hypotheses phase of the troubleshooting method...

The scientific method may certainly be used to troubleshoot a problem and global warming is certainly a problem, but a more general understanding is that it is method for determining the most likely explanation for an observation of nature. For instance, Crick and Watson's theories regarding the nature and function of DNA, were not troubleshooting.

you call me a denier... for continuing to say that...

I call you a denier because you attempt to deny AGW. I call you a few other names as well, in response to your idiotic addiction to long strings of periods. I don't know where you picked up that habit or even what you intend to convey with them, but you'd do yourself a big favor if you'd cease and.................................... desist.

You harp on the side of the equation that says IT'S MAN MADE... and then we get to the 1%er theory, standard argument for a lib...

Climate scientists say that the primary cause of the observed warming is human activity (GHG emissions and deforestation) because that is what the evidence and the calculations tells them. I have no idea what your "1%er theory" might be, but your "standard argument for a lib" comment tells me that it is not based on objective information or rational logic.

You say see... the evidence is clear WESTERN ANTARCTIC is MELTING... we say Ok... I see that with data...

You're making progress.

What about these volcano's and venting could they cause that... You scream BLASPHEMY....YOU SAY MAN DID THIS...

No one is screaming, "blasphemy" or otherwise. Volcanic activity is certainly responsible for some melting, just not all of it. And it is not responsible for the increased melting and increased glacier velocity corresponding to the increased temperatures seen there in the past 50-100 years (which wasn't caused by volcanic activity either). Finally, volcanic activity was not responsible for the most significant climatic event there: irreversible destabilization of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

We say HOW MUCH.......................You SCREAM BLASPHEMY AGAIN............

No one is screaming blasphemy. Ignorance is not blasphemy.

And then say we are the problem

You're not the problem. You're just not the solution to the problem and you're obstructing the people and processes which are.

and no nothing about science....

I believe the word you were looking for was "know"

Your side disregards other possible causes and HARP on the one equation that fits in to the cult of Global Warming...

HARP? Do you mean HAARP? High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program? Please tell me no. And please try to keep in mind that when you use phrases like "cult of Global Warming" you are suggesting that a large group of people with PhDs in physics and chemistry and atmospheric science and geology and a dozen other topics - some of the most highly educated people on the planet - are a cult. Try to imagine, when you exclaim such a charge in a public forum like this, what the rest of the world is going to think of you.

When we show scientist who say the case is not closed and it is mostly caused by nature... YOU AGAIN SAY BLASPHEMY....

No, we do not. And I have not seen you identify ANY scientists, much less ones claiming primarily natural causation. Forgive me if I have missed it. What was the name or names of such scientists?

And then say we refuse to recognize that the ice is melting when we never said that....................

I am glad to see you accept objective evidence. But there are other people in this argument and many of them do not hold with you on the melting ice issue.

I say the Eastern Antarctic is getting thicker with Land ICE...

That is in agreement with the current, mainstream view. Here, from Wikipedia:

Ice mass changes
Current international focus on global warming issues has drawn attention to the melting of the polar ice caps. An early analysis of GRACE-based studies data indicated that the EAIS was losing mass at a rate of 57 billion tonnes per year[2] and that the total Antarctic ice sheet (including WAIS, and EAIS coastal areas) was losing mass at a rate of 152 cubic kilometers (c. 139 billion tonnes) per year.[3] More recent estimate published in November 2012 and based on the GRACE data as well as on an improved glacial isostatic adjustment model indicates that the East Antarctica actually gained mass from 2002 to 2010 at a rate of 60 ± 13 Gt/y.[4]

It has been estimated that during the Pleistocene, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet thinned by at least 500 meters, and that thinning since the Last Glacial Maximum is less than 50 meters and probably started after ca 14 ka.[5]

Temperature changes
Cooling in East Antarctica during the decades of the 1980s and 1990s partially offset warming of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which has warmed by more than 0.1°C/decade in the last 50 years. The continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is positive and statistically significant at >0.05°C/decade since 1957.[6]

you say NO IT'S NOT YOU DENIER............

No one since 2012 would tell you such a thing. And, to be honest, I have a hard time believing that you had an opinion on the topic before then.

You get the point.

The point you are trying to get across is fairly obvious. What we don't get is any valid justification for holding to it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

EnviroMarxism is not science

Same way Reagan defeated the USSR we need to defeat the EnviroMarxists and toss them in the Museum of Scientific Fakes, Frauds and Hoaxes right next to Piltdown Man and the Peppered Moth. The AGWCult probably deserves their own wing in the Museum

 

[eagle1462010]

I say the Lion's share of the cause of Global Warming is caused by Mother Nature in the Hypotheses phase of the troubleshooting method...

The scientific method may certainly be used to troubleshoot a problem and global warming is certainly a problem, but a more general understanding is that it is method for determining the most likely explanation for an observation of nature. For instance, Crick and Watson's theories regarding the nature and function of DNA, were not troubleshooting.

you call me a denier... for continuing to say that...

I call you a denier because you try to deny AGW. I call you a few other names in response to your idiotic addiction to periods in long strings. I don't know where you picked up that habit or even what you intend to convey with them, but you'd do yourself a big favor if you'd cease and............................ desist.

You harp on the side of the equation that says IT'S MAN MADE... and then we get to the 1%er theory, standard argument for a lib...

Climate scientists say that the primary cause of the observed warming is human in origin (GHG emissions and deforestation) because that is what the evidence and the calculations tell us. I have no idea what your "1%er theory" might be, but your "standard argument for a lib" comment tells me that it is not based on objective information or rational logic.

You say see... the evidence is clear WESTERN ANTARCTIC is MELTING... we say Ok... I see that with data...

You're making progress.

What about these volcano's and venting could they cause that... You scream BLASPHEMY....YOU SAY MAN DID THIS...

No one is screaming, blasphemy or otherwise. Volcanic activity is certainly responsible for some melting, just not all of it. And it is not responsible for the increased melting and increased glacier velocity corresponding to the increased temperatures seen there in the past 50-100 years (which wasn't caused by volcanic activity either). Finally, volcanic activity was not responsible for the most significant climatic event there: irreversible destabilization of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

We say HOW MUCH.......................You SCREAM BLASPHEMY AGAIN............

No one is screaming blasphemy. Ignorance is not blasphemy.

And then say we are the problem

You're not the problem. You're just not the solution to the problem and you're obstructing the people and processes which are.

and no nothing about science....

I believe the word you were looking for was "know"

Your side disregards other possible causes and HARP on the one equation that fits in to the cult of Global Warming...

HARP? Do you mean HAARP? High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program? Please tell me no. And please try to keep in mind that when you use phrases like "cult of Global Warming" you are suggesting that a very large majority of people with PhDs in physics and chemistry and atmospheric science and geology and a dozen other topics - some of the most highly educated people on the planet - are a cult. Try to imagine - if you think and exclaim that they're a cult - what the rest of the world is going to think of you.

When we show scientist who say the case is not closed and it is mostly caused by nature... YOU AGAIN SAY BLASPHEMY....

No, we do not. And I have not seen you identify ANY scientists, much less ones claiming primarily natural causation. Forgive me if I have missed it. What was the name or names of such scientists?

And then say we refuse to recognize that the ice is melting when we never said that....................

I am glad to see you accept objective evidence. But there are other people in this argument and many of them do not hold with you on the melting ice issue.

I say the Eastern Antarctic is getting thicker with Land ICE...

That is in agreement with the current, mainstream view. Here, from Wikipedia:

Ice mass changes
Current international focus on global warming issues has drawn attention to the melting of the polar ice caps. An early analysis of GRACE-based studies data indicated that the EAIS was losing mass at a rate of 57 billion tonnes per year[2] and that the total Antarctic ice sheet (including WAIS, and EAIS coastal areas) was losing mass at a rate of 152 cubic kilometers (c. 139 billion tonnes) per year.[3] More recent estimate published in November 2012 and based on the GRACE data as well as on an improved glacial isostatic adjustment model indicates that the East Antarctica actually gained mass from 2002 to 2010 at a rate of 60 ± 13 Gt/y.[4]

It has been estimated that during the Pleistocene, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet thinned by at least 500 meters, and that thinning since the Last Glacial Maximum is less than 50 meters and probably started after ca 14 ka.[5]

Temperature changes
Cooling in East Antarctica during the decades of the 1980s and 1990s partially offset warming of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which has warmed by more than 0.1°C/decade in the last 50 years. The continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is positive and statistically significant at >0.05°C/decade since 1957.[6]

you say NO IT'S NOT YOU DENIER............

No one since 2012 would tell you such a thing. And, to be honest, I have a hard time believing that you had an opinion on the topic before then.

You get the point.

The point you are trying to get across is fairly obvious. What we don't get is any valid justification for holding to it.

AND............................

Splain how they get 100% of all Global Warming is from Mankind...............................

You only do that if you try to minimize Natural causes.......................

and it sure as hell isn't Scientific to go back in history and change the graphs from the RAW DATA now is that............

How the hell is that scientific......................

Your side has been caught with the hand in the cookie jar too often...........and when we smack your hand you say WHO ME............AS CRUMBS FALL OUT OF YOUR MOUTH................

How do you say the NATURAL CAUSES aren't causing MOST OF IT..................

How do you explain that you are RIGHT when the Computer models are wrong on your hypothesis................

How do you explain that the ice has been melting since the Little Ice Age without Industrialization............

How do you explain the pause when they said we'd be hotter...............

How does that fit into your SCIENCE..................

 

[Crick]

Conclusions from IPCC is that it is 100% caused by man

The IPCC has never concluded that the observed global warming was "100% caused by man".

 

[eagle1462010]

Hey Crick was that you on one of the threads SAYING.........................

LOOK AT THAT ICE KICKING MAGMA'S ASS when the topic was about OTHER POSSIBLE FACTORS LIKE MAGMA.............

How does that fit into the SCIENCE OF THIS................

This is why we have GLOBAL WARMING ICE KICKS ASS...........

LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

Conclusions from IPCC is that it is 100% caused by man

The IPCC has never concluded that the observed global warming was "100% caused by man".

HOW MUCH THEN....................................Speak into the microphone.........................

NO BULL SHIT.......................HOW MUCH

And WHY ARE THEIR MODELS FAILING.................Speak into the microphone.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

The Scientific Method Although the IPCC’s reports are voluminous and their arguments impressively persistent, it is legitimate to ask whether that makes them good science. In order to conduct an investigation, scientists must first formulate a falsifiable hypothesis to test. The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions. In considering any such hypothesis, an alternative and null hypothesis must be entertained, which is the simplest hypothesis consistent with the known facts. Regarding global warming, the null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment, as well as current changes in animal and plant characteristics, are the result of natural variability. To invalidate this null hypothesis requires, at a minimum, direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability. Unless and until such evidence is adduced, the null hypothesis is assumed to be correct. In contradiction of the scientific method, the IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor. One probable reason for this behavior is that the United Nations protocol under which the IPCC operates defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (United Nations, 1994, Article 1.2). Not surprisingly, directing attention to only the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions has resulted in the IPCC failing to provide a thorough analysis of climate change in the round. All three of the IPCC’s lines of reasoning, summarized in Figure 2, depart from proper scientific methodology. Global climate models produce meaningful results only if we assume we already know perfectly how the global climate works, and most climate scientists say we do not (Bray and von Storch, 2010). Moreover, it is widely recognized that climate models are not designed to produce predictions of future climate but rather what-if projections of many alternative possible futures (Trenberth, 2009). Postulates, commonly defined as “something suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief,” can stimulate relevant observations or experiments but more often are merely assertions that are difficult or impossible to test (Kahneman, 2011). Observations in science are useful primarily to falsify hypotheses and cannot prove one is correct (Popper, 1965, p. vii).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- Official Policy of the IPCC

 

[eagle1462010]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- Official Policy of the IPCC

What is not in the Scientific method is happening all over the board.................

When we question how much is by Human.................they come back with the ridiculous statements that we don't understand ICE is melting on Earth....................When we say what about the volcanic activity...............they discount it.........and say look at ICE kicking ass on magma.....................It's not science to them it is a RELIGION.........................

Which why they need to change their danged rhetoric if they want others to RESPECT them as they show no respect to the other sides of the equations and they perform the INQUISITION on ANY SCIENTIST who dare challenge their results....................

Perhaps they need to change their argument to POLLUTION CONTROL..........from global cooling.....um...........global warming............um.............Climate change..................THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED....................................to an area where we may have discourse..................

 

[eagle1462010]

And while I'm at it.......................Under the Scientific measure does the Science NOT TAKE INTO EFFECT the ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES of their findings..................

Because there ABSOLUTELY THERE.

 

[eagle1462010]

Going Green has financial consequences................PROVEN CONSEQUENCES................

The price of electricity going up is NOT A THEORY....................IT IS A FACT....................

Now tell me how the energy of the SUN IS FREE in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.]

There are consequences to the policy under global warming and going green.................

 

[Crick]

AND............................

I'd appreciate it if you actually read my posts before attempting to respond to them. Given the amount of time between my posting this and you posting your response, that seems quite unlikely.

Splain how they get 100% of all Global Warming is from Mankind....

Quite easily. They do not.

You only do that if you try to minimize Natural causes....

Here are the latest attributions from AR5:

and it sure as hell isn't Scientific to go back in history and change the graphs from the RAW DATA now is that............

How the hell is that scientific......................

First, that data has never been "RAW DATA". Adjustments and calibrations were made on those readings in the 1800s. Making certain that one's measured data is as accurate as possible REQUIRES correcting it for instrument and measurement biases.

Your side has been caught with the hand in the cookie jar too often... and when we smack your hand you say WHO ME... AS CRUMBS FALL OUT OF YOUR MOUTH....

That's a cute little image, particularly where you slap the hands of the world's scientists. But the truth is that you haven't caught anyone with their hands in the cookie jar. If those changes were not justified, the thousands of climate scientists, whose life's work depend on the accuracy of those numbers, would have been yelling about it long before you knew a goddamn thing was going on.

How do you say the NATURAL CAUSES aren't causing MOST OF IT...

You just did, but so what? You don't have the evidence to support such a claim. You might as well tell us the moon is made of green cheese or that the world is flat.

How do you explain that you are RIGHT when the Computer models are wrong on your hypothesis....

Please look up post #11 in the "Trust a Liar at Your Own Peril"

How do you explain that the ice has been melting since the Little Ice Age without Industrialization...

Because the Earth's climate changes for a number of reasons and has done so since the planet formed. No one - and I do mean NO ONE - has ever claimed otherwise.

How do you explain the pause when they said we'd be hotter...............

Initially, because the evidence indicated that warm surface water was being subducted by altered tropical wind patterns. But now it looks as if their never was a pause in the first place.

How does that fit into your SCIENCE...

The science I see being conducted by the world's climatologists looks just fine. The pseudo-science and anti-science I see coming from your side of this argument for the last 20 years saddens me at your ignorance and worries me at the future my children will face because of the self-blinded, cowardly mendacity you and yours enable.

 

[Crick]

And while I'm at it.......................Under the Scientific measure does the Science NOT TAKE INTO EFFECT the ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES of their findings..................

Because there ABSOLUTELY THERE.

As I asked before, were you unaware how little you know of basic science?

 

[eagle1462010]

AND............................

I'd appreciate it if you actually read my posts before attempting to respond to them. Given the amount of time between my posting this and you posting your response, that seems quite unlikely.

Splain how they get 100% of all Global Warming is from Mankind....

Quite easily. They do not.

You only do that if you try to minimize Natural causes....

Here are the latest attributions from AR5:

and it sure as hell isn't Scientific to go back in history and change the graphs from the RAW DATA now is that............

How the hell is that scientific......................

First, that data has never been "RAW DATA". Adjustments and calibrations were made on those readings in the 1800s. Making certain that one's measured data is as accurate as possible REQUIRES correcting it for instrument and measurement biases.

Your side has been caught with the hand in the cookie jar too often... and when we smack your hand you say WHO ME... AS CRUMBS FALL OUT OF YOUR MOUTH....

That's a cute little image, particularly where you slap the hands of the world's scientists. But the truth is that you haven't caught anyone with their hands in the cookie jar. If those changes were not justified, the thousands of climate scientists, whose life's work depend on the accuracy of those numbers, would have been yelling about it long before you knew a goddamn thing was going on.

How do you say the NATURAL CAUSES aren't causing MOST OF IT...

You just did, but so what? You don't have the evidence to support such a claim. You might as well tell us the moon is made of green cheese or that the world is flat.

How do you explain that you are RIGHT when the Computer models are wrong on your hypothesis....

Please look up post #11 in the "Trust a Liar at Your Own Peril"

How do you explain that the ice has been melting since the Little Ice Age without Industrialization...

Because the Earth's climate changes for a number of reasons and has done so since the planet formed. No one - and I do mean NO ONE - has ever claimed otherwise.

How do you explain the pause when they said we'd be hotter...............

Initially, because the evidence indicated that warm surface water was being subducted by altered tropical wind patterns. But now it looks as if their never was a pause in the first place.

How does that fit into your SCIENCE...

The science I see being conducted by the world's climatologists looks just fine. The pseudo-science and anti-science I see coming from your side of this argument for the last 20 years saddens me at your ignorance and worries me at the future my children will face because of the self-blinded, cowardly mendacity you and yours enable.

Jesus......................here's a better version for you....................on youtube...............



CO2 emissions have increased................and CO2 which is your primary target is necessary for life...........................

The question is will the increases cause us to burn alive as your side continues to say it will................

Just the factor of HUMAN POPULATION contributes more CO2..............we exhale 100 times more CO2 than we breath in..............with the increase of population on the earth we emit more...............

Should we all just hold our breath...........................should we slaughter every living animal on earth...............they produce CO2 and methane as well....................................

Why a PAUSE..........................is it a LAGGING FACTOR in your SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH................CO2 WENT UP.......................we should need LIFE JACKETS NOW NO...........................

Nature has a way of adapting...............which of course is discounted by your side.......................