The best case a lay person can make against AGW

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?

 

[SSDD]

The best case against AGW is to simply ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I have been asking for damn near two decades now and am still waiting of the first bit of actual evidence to be presented...it doesn't exist.

It is, however, damned entertaining to see what passes for actual evidence in the minds of warmers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I said the same thing to American airlines. The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).

But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far. The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The best case against AGW is to simply ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...I have been asking for damn near two decades now and am still waiting of the first bit of actual evidence to be presented...it doesn't exist.

It is, however, damned entertaining to see what passes for actual evidence in the minds of warmers.

I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I said the same thing to American airlines. The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).

But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far. The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.

can you tell us what your point is if you know??

 

[SSDD]

I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.

Of course they do...and when I ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that we are altering the global climate with our CO2 emissions, none can be found...if any such evidence existed, no one on earth would be able to avoid it...

And do you really think that you need to be a scientist to recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical data that supports a hypothesis?...what educational system failed you so miserably?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't follow. they present 100's of papers that pass muster as science. So you would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be valid it seems to me.

Of course they do...and when I ask for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supportingy?

as I said their evidence is in 1000's of scientific papers. You would have to be a scientist and refute them all for your approach to be useful

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And do you really think that you need to be a scientist to recognize observed, measured, quantified empirical data that supports a hypothesis?.?

yes yes yes ever read about the higs boson you need a PHd in physics and an IQ of 150 to have any idea at all if it exists!!! Climate science is almost that complex.

 

[tinydancer]

My take is quite simple. We've had five major ice ages. Guess what happened in between? It freaking warmed up. And we were not around.

Climate changes.

 

[mamooth]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,

Wrong, being temperatures have steadily increased the whole time.

2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted

Again, totally wrong, being temperature has increased steadily, and is now actually warmer than model predictions.

3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables

Wrong, as rate of change is totally unlike anything seen before. And other factors (stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands) demonstrate the warming is not part of a natural cycle, and is caused by greenhouse gases.

4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it

Wrong, as everyone, including insurance companies, agrees weather extremes are getting worse.

5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick

And it did. The "hiatus" was essentially a denier invention. Everyone who knew statistics saw the steady upward trend, which continues now.

6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW

Conspiracy nonsense. Pielke still has a fine job. So does every denier professor. No professor anywhere has been fired for a contrary opinion. In contrast, all deniers demand not just the firing, but the prosecution of scientists. All of the Stalinist thuggery is on the denier side.

7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet.

Kook claim unsupported by any evidence, just some Stalinist anti-intellectualism.

Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them

The consensus has been attacked relentlessly for decades, and as a result it's even more solid. That's what happens with good science. That statement is delusional, the complete opposite of observed reality.

all as the worst scientists in history

The whole world disagrees, and thinks they are excellent scientists. Is the entire world is engaged in a VastSecretSocialConspiracy, and only a group of kook fringe extremist political cultists knows the RealTruth?

so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?

If that's the best they have, denialism is in a sad state.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wrong, being temperatures have steadily increased the whole time.
.

1/100 of a degree per year perhaps and a hiatus perhaps?? this is the opposite of what was predicted. Do you follow at all now?????

Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.

Old View (July 2006): Robet Hanson father of AGW

“We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” he wrote in his July 2006 review of Al Gore’s book/movie, An Inconvenient Truth. “We have reached a critical tipping point,” he assured readers, adding “it will soon be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.”

 

[ClosedCaption]

I said the same thing to American airlines. The "pilot" said he could fly but since AA has had crashes in the past I said "I'll fly this thing" (btw I'm not a pilot).

But since theyve made mistakes before I figured that trusting any pilot is a bridge too far. The airline disagreed but that's because the establishment "pilots" sought to conspire against me.

can you tell us what your point is if you know??

A mistake isn't a reason to throw away all the science. Nor is it a reason to put you in the cockpit. That's weak logic

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A mistake isn't a reason to throw away all the science.

if its a huge mistake its the best reason to throw away what obviously was not science. Makes sense now?

 

[Old Rocks]

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?

#1. What the hell are you talking about? The hockey stick continues to go straight up. Both GHG numbers and temperature. And there has been over a dozen independent studies since then, all confirming the Hockey Stick. One of those was conducted by the National Academy of Science.

#2. No, 'they' did not say that AGW began in 1900. What is said is that when we began to add large amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere, that was the beginning of AGW. That would be at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. On the contrary, the temperature was about 1.5 C above the pre-industrial temperatures last year.

#3. Bullshit. We have measured it with instruments, and by the affects on the cryosphere.

#4. My goodness. You are an amateur at lying. You can go to the sites of Swiss Re and Munich Re and see where they state that the amount of damage from extreme weather events is increasing dramatically.

#5. There never was a hiatus. The average temperature was higher than most of the highs previous to 1998. And the last three years have all been records. 2014 established a new record. 2015 broke that record. And 2016 will break the record of 2015.

#6. Crap. Only an uneducated fool like you would refer to a university monoculture. Concentrate government? Whose government? For all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

#7. What the hell are you talking about? The evidence of a warming climate is coming from all in the scientific community. Geologists, biologists, chemists, and physicists.

Lordy, lordy, you willfully ignorant asses truly demonstrate daily just how stupid your are.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again, totally wrong, being temperature has increased steadily, and is now actually warmer than model predictions.

.

what on earth are you talking about???????Hanson said in 2006 his model showed we had 10 years to change climate or we'd be doomed. The ten years passed dear and no doom and possible warming hiatus is biggest news!!

 

[Old Rocks]

My take is quite simple. We've had five major ice ages. Guess what happened in between? It freaking warmed up. And we were not around.

Climate changes.

Spoken like a true ignoramous. Look, stupid, it is not the fact that it is warming that is alarming, it is the rate of warming. And, in the last interglacial, there was 300 ppm of CO2, 20 more than we had prior to the Industrial Revolution. And the sea level was over 6 meters higher than today. We are above 400 ppm today, and, were it not for the inertia in the system, sea level would be swamping our port cities. And it will be doing that over the coming years. The scientific debate is not whether that will happen, but the speed at which it will happen.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My take is quite simple. We've had five major ice ages. Guess what happened in between? It freaking warmed up. And we were not around.

Climate changes.

yes climate changes and we really don't know climate history at all. For example was the Little Ice Age regional or not. So how do we know if temp is going up normally after ice age?

 

[Old Rocks]

Again, totally wrong, being temperature has increased steadily, and is now actually warmer than model predictions.

.

what on earth are you talking about???????Hanson said in 2006 his model showed we had 10 years to change climate or we'd be doomed. The ten years passed dear and no doom and possible warming hiatus is biggest news!!

Where have you been the past three years? 2014 was the warmest year on record. Until 2015 surpassed that. And now 2016 will surpass 2015.

And, no, Dr. Hansen did not state that we would be doomed. He said that if we continue on the present path, in ten years we will have reached a point that will ensure that the warming will create conditions that will negatively affect all of our lives. Why do you tell such lies?

 

[Zander]

Climate Science is to "Science" as Astrology is to "Astronomy".

It sounds like something legit, but it's track record is as reliable as Tarot cards and Palm readings....it's a total joke.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wrong, as rate of change is totally unlike anything seen before..

incredible stupid lie!! 1/100 of a degree a year over the last 140 years and slowing when the conditions claimed for AGM have increased 10000 times!! Beyond absurd!!