The entire AGW movement is founded on a false premise.

[MarathonMike]

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the premise that

(a) global warming exists

(b) human-made CO2 emissions have caused it.

Item (b) is the problem because this premise is based on climate data that was skewed to produce the desired result, that being human caused C02 emissions have driven global temperatures higher. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol makes a claim and basically states "prove that human made C02 didn't cause global warming".

That is of course impossible to prove or disprove which is exactly the argument the "deniers" put forth. No one can determine what the human contribution to global warming is. You would need a time machine and the ability to turn off most of the CO2 sources. Only Then would you KNOW the temperature difference was due to human-made C02 emissions.

Now is it a good idea to limit air pollution? Of course it is. Is it reasonable to make a direct cause and effect link between air pollution and higher global temperatures? Of course not. How does anyone know the temperature rise isn't part of a macro cycle spanning hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of years? Without a time machine, you can tinker with computer models you want and you will still NOT KNOW.

 

[cnm]

Ffs. Proof does not exist in science. Consensus based on evidence is what counts. It's easy to tell when scientific illiterates are trying to put down 'science', because they don't have the first clue as to what is going on.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the premise that

(a) global warming exists

(b) human-made CO2 emissions have caused it.

Item (b) is the problem because this premise is based on climate data that was skewed to produce the desired result, that being human caused C02 emissions have driven global temperatures higher. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol makes a claim and basically states "prove that human made C02 didn't cause global warming".

That is of course impossible to prove or disprove which is exactly the argument the "deniers" put forth. No one can determine what the human contribution to global warming is. You would need a time machine and the ability to turn off most of the CO2 sources. Only Then would you KNOW the temperature difference was due to human-made C02 emissions.

Now is it a good idea to limit air pollution? Of course it is. Is it reasonable to make a direct cause and effect link between air pollution and higher global temperatures? Of course not. How does anyone know the temperature rise isn't part of a macro cycle spanning hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of years? Without a time machine, you can tinker with computer models you want and you will still NOT KNOW.

Dumb. Really astounding stupid and dumb. You are telling me that the records of the coal we have dug up and burned do not exist? That there are no records as to how much oil we have pumped and burned?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is EnviroMarxism. It's about redistribution of wealth and has nothing in common with science

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn old Karl, anyway. Someone should take away his blowtorch before he melts all the glaciers and ice caps.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ffs. Proof does not exist in science. Consensus based on evidence is what counts. It's easy to tell when scientific illiterates are trying to put down 'science', because they don't have the first clue as to what is going on.

Science is not consensus.. Your thinking takes us back to midevil times and the rack... When real scientists were jailed as heritics..

 

[mamooth]

By the idiot denier standards here, it's impossible to "prove" smoking causes cancer, hence no action should have been taken there.

By the idiot denier standards here, it's impossible to "prove" damn near anything.

That's why everyone just laughs at how stupid deniers are.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the premise that

(a) global warming exists

(b) human-made CO2 emissions have caused it.

Item (b) is the problem because this premise is based on climate data that was skewed to produce the desired result, that being human caused C02 emissions have driven global temperatures higher. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol makes a claim and basically states "prove that human made C02 didn't cause global warming".

That is of course impossible to prove or disprove which is exactly the argument the "deniers" put forth. No one can determine what the human contribution to global warming is. You would need a time machine and the ability to turn off most of the CO2 sources. Only Then would you KNOW the temperature difference was due to human-made C02 emissions.

Now is it a good idea to limit air pollution? Of course it is. Is it reasonable to make a direct cause and effect link between air pollution and higher global temperatures? Of course not. How does anyone know the temperature rise isn't part of a macro cycle spanning hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of years? Without a time machine, you can tinker with computer models you want and you will still NOT KNOW.

It is simply stunning to show how alarmist don't have a leg to stand on or empirical evidence to support their lie.. yet they believe.. The religious dogma they call consensus is their only claim to legitimacy and even that is political horse manure based on contrived coincidence that can not be linked to man.

 

[Crick]

Do you believe the IPCC's Working Group I's "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical evidence of AGW? Yes or no.

 

[cnm]

AGW is EnviroMarxism. It's about redistribution of wealth and has nothing in common with science

Yeah, right.

Source

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is EnviroMarxism. It's about redistribution of wealth and has nothing in common with science

Yeah, right.

Source

Please tell us how we have 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

Thank you

 

[SSDD]

Ffs. Proof does not exist in science. Consensus based on evidence is what counts. It's easy to tell when scientific illiterates are trying to put down 'science', because they don't have the first clue as to what is going on.

evidence...that's a funny word for a warmer to use...can you provide a single piece of observed measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variation?

 

[SSDD]

Do you believe the IPCC's Working Group I's "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical evidence of AGW? Yes or no.

It doesn't contain the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...plenty of evidence that the climate is changing as if a changing climate were a surprise...but none supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[SSDD]

AGW is EnviroMarxism. It's about redistribution of wealth and has nothing in common with science

Yeah, right.

Source

Please tell us how we have 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

Thank you

I would like to know why those 1880 temperatures have been so radically changed as well.

 

[imawhosure]

AGW is EnviroMarxism. It's about redistribution of wealth and has nothing in common with science

Yeah, right.

Source

Please tell us how we have 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

Thank you

AGW is EnviroMarxism. It's about redistribution of wealth and has nothing in common with science

Yeah, right.

Source

Please tell us how we have 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

Thank you

I would like to know why those 1880 temperatures have been so radically changed as well.

Hmmm, guess Scientists don't agree as much as the Marxists claim!Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry Resigns over 'the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.'

 

[mamooth]

So Curry resigned because she was unable to handle doing actual science.

This makes others look bad ... why?

 

[ScienceRocks]

AGW is EnviroMarxism. It's about redistribution of wealth and has nothing in common with science

Yeah, right.

Source

All most all the redistribution of wealth is from the middle class to the rich these past 40 years. The fact we spend a little bit on feeding the poor and making sure our country doesn't have slums like India doesn't change this fact.

 

[mamooth]

Please tell us how we have 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

I've explained it to you and other deniers before, several times. Here are some examples of me doing that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/11774569/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/13259890/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10425762/

And being that you're a mewling cult liar, you're still pretending to have never seen the explanations. You've proven yourself to be profoundly dishonest, so "fuck off, liar" is the only response owed to you by anyone.

Now, for those willing to learn, here's the answer Frank and his pals always run from.

Standard error - Wikipedia
---
SEM is usually estimated by the sample estimate of the population standard deviation (sample standard deviation) divided by the square root of the sample size (assuming statistical independence of the values in the sample):

where
s is the sample standard deviation (i.e., the sample-based estimate of the standard deviation of the population), and
n is the size (number of observations) of the sample.
---

That is, the more measurements you use in the average, the less the error of the average is. The error goes down proportionally to the square root of the number of measurements. If you average 10,000 measurements, the error of the average is 100 times less than the error of each individual measurement.

That's why measurements of average temperature from long ago can have such small errors. Most of the deniers here, including the ones claiming a science background, are shockingly clueless about such basic statistics. They'd literally fail a Statistics 101 class, which is how we know that the ones claiming such a science background are open frauds. Nobody who really has a science background would make such a bonehead error. And it won't matter that I just took the time to explain it to them, again. They'll just add statistics to their list of "Basic math and science which has been known for centuries which we now know is really totally wrong, because the denier cult says so."

 

[bripat9643]

Ffs. Proof does not exist in science. Consensus based on evidence is what counts. It's easy to tell when scientific illiterates are trying to put down 'science', because they don't have the first clue as to what is going on.

Consensus isn't science, moron. Truth isn't determined by a majority vote.

 

[cnm]

Please tell us how we have 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

Probably because accurate thermometers were carefully calibrated. Please tell us why you are such a dullard.