the Piwd Pipers of Denialism

[westwall]

I do not know. What is your understanding of AGW, climate science and the underlying general scientific principles that compose and support climate science and AGW in particular?

As I have said numerous times, the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about magnitude and significance of anthropogenic warming.

So, am I a denier?

I would say that your familiarity with the state of the science is apparently incorrect. If this, however, is all that you argue, it would not be enough, IMO, to earn the label of "denier." Denial is a rejection of the science, not mere ignorance or confusions regarding its findings and/or understandings.

What about this guy. Does he have sufficient "familiarity" with your so called science?



1
Global Temperature Update Through 2012
15 January 2013
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.



http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

 

[tjvh]

AGW... The most costly hoax, and financial fleecing that humankind has ever known... It's just that simple.

 

[Si modo]

I do not know. What is your understanding of AGW, climate science and the underlying general scientific principles that compose and support climate science and AGW in particular?

As I have said numerous times, the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about magnitude and significance of anthropogenic warming.

So, am I a denier?

I would say that your familiarity with the state of the science is apparently incorrect. If this, however, is all that you argue, it would not be enough, IMO, to earn the label of "denier." Denial is a rejection of the science, not mere ignorance or confusions regarding its findings and/or understandings.

Oh, then please do educate me. I so hate being ignorant about the state of the science. Please provide me the science where the conclusion is that humans are the cause of the recent warming. No post hoc ergo propter hoc, as fallacies are not scientific. But, of course, being so schooled in the sciences, you already know that, so I beg your pardon for stating such an obvious thing.

I look forward to your response and thank you in advance.

 

[IanC]

trakar, old rocks, rolling thunder, etc need to see this as a black and white issue where their side only speaks the truth and the other side only says lies. if they admitted that it is just people with varying shades of grey then they would actually have to inspect statements made from either side for internal logic and support from the available evidence. they would find proAGW is much less certain than they thought, and many skeptical arguments impossible to handwave away.

 

[Trakar]

As I have said numerous times, the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about magnitude and significance of anthropogenic warming.

So, am I a denier?

I would say that your familiarity with the state of the science is apparently incorrect. If this, however, is all that you argue, it would not be enough, IMO, to earn the label of "denier." Denial is a rejection of the science, not mere ignorance or confusions regarding its findings and/or understandings.

Oh, then please do educate me. I so hate being ignorant about the state of the science. Please provide me the science where the conclusion is that humans are the cause of the recent warming. No post hoc ergo propter hoc, as fallacies are not scientific. But, of course, being so schooled in the sciences, you already know that, so I beg your pardon for stating such an obvious thing.

I look forward to your response and thank you in advance.

I have no problem with those who openly approach the science and reach different conclusions about some aspects of that information and what it portends, that is the well-source of reasoned discussion and learning on all sides. Provided, of course, that all parties are actually engaged in the interaction with the interest in sharing valid information and learning from each other.

Ultimately, we each must educate ourselves, it is not something that others can do for, or to, us. I constantly offer links to the best and most reliable sources of the state of the science that I am aware of, which should facillitate that quest for accurate understanding. Only the individual can supply the background education and most importantly the open consideration objectivity and rigorous focus necessary to integrate and transform information into understanding.

If you feel that the information I offer is invalid or not representative of the state of the mainstream climate science, I would be interested in hearing what leads you to that consideration and what you feel offers a more accurate sourcing and perspective upon the state of climate science.

 

[Si modo]

I would say that your familiarity with the state of the science is apparently incorrect. If this, however, is all that you argue, it would not be enough, IMO, to earn the label of "denier." Denial is a rejection of the science, not mere ignorance or confusions regarding its findings and/or understandings.

Oh, then please do educate me. I so hate being ignorant about the state of the science. Please provide me the science where the conclusion is that humans are the cause of the recent warming. No post hoc ergo propter hoc, as fallacies are not scientific. But, of course, being so schooled in the sciences, you already know that, so I beg your pardon for stating such an obvious thing.

I look forward to your response and thank you in advance.

I have no problem with those who openly approach the science and reach different conclusions about some aspects of that information and what it portends, that is the well-source of reasoned discussion and learning on all sides. Provided, of course, that all parties are actually engaged in the interaction with the interest in sharing valid information and learning from each other.

Ultimately, we each must educate ourselves, it is not something that others can do for, or to, us. I constantly offer links to the best and most reliable sources of the state of the science that I am aware of, which should facillitate that quest for accurate understanding. Only the individual can supply the background education and most importantly the open consideration objectivity and rigorous focus necessary to integrate and transform information into understanding.

If you feel that the information I offer is invalid or not representative of the state of the mainstream climate science, I would be interested in hearing what leads you to that consideration and what you feel offers a more accurate sourcing and perspective upon the state of climate science.

Well, I asked for the science that provides a conclusion, one way or the other, as to the cause of recent warming.

I haven't seen any.

So, I'm pretty confident that my statement that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion on the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You seem to disagree with my statement. So, I am more than willing to inspect SOMETHING scientific that does make such a conclusion. But, if you have reasons for not posting that, I understand.

 

[Trakar]

Oh, then please do educate me. I so hate being ignorant about the state of the science. Please provide me the science where the conclusion is that humans are the cause of the recent warming. No post hoc ergo propter hoc, as fallacies are not scientific. But, of course, being so schooled in the sciences, you already know that, so I beg your pardon for stating such an obvious thing.

I look forward to your response and thank you in advance.

I have no problem with those who openly approach the science and reach different conclusions about some aspects of that information and what it portends, that is the well-source of reasoned discussion and learning on all sides. Provided, of course, that all parties are actually engaged in the interaction with the interest in sharing valid information and learning from each other.

Ultimately, we each must educate ourselves, it is not something that others can do for, or to, us. I constantly offer links to the best and most reliable sources of the state of the science that I am aware of, which should facillitate that quest for accurate understanding. Only the individual can supply the background education and most importantly the open consideration objectivity and rigorous focus necessary to integrate and transform information into understanding.

If you feel that the information I offer is invalid or not representative of the state of the mainstream climate science, I would be interested in hearing what leads you to that consideration and what you feel offers a more accurate sourcing and perspective upon the state of climate science.

Well, I asked for the science that provides a conclusion, one way or the other, as to the cause of recent warming.

I haven't seen any.

So, I'm pretty confident that my statement that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion on the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You seem to disagree with my statement. So, I am more than willing to inspect SOMETHING scientific that does make such a conclusion. But, if you have reasons for not posting that, I understand.

Your statements are cryptic enough that they do not adequately define your position or request, therefore it is difficult to understand precisely what you are asking for or would accept as sufficient evidence to meet your personal requirements.

Do you acknowledge and understand that increasing atmospheric ghgs and land-use changes are capable of causing radiative imbalances in our planet's atmospheric and surface temperature?

Do you acknowledge and understand that we can isotopically distinguish between and measure the ratio of human produced CO2 from oil, coal and gas, as compared to CO2 in the active carbon cycle that has not been sequestered for millions of years deep below the planet's surface?

 

[Si modo]

I have no problem with those who openly approach the science and reach different conclusions about some aspects of that information and what it portends, that is the well-source of reasoned discussion and learning on all sides. Provided, of course, that all parties are actually engaged in the interaction with the interest in sharing valid information and learning from each other.

Ultimately, we each must educate ourselves, it is not something that others can do for, or to, us. I constantly offer links to the best and most reliable sources of the state of the science that I am aware of, which should facillitate that quest for accurate understanding. Only the individual can supply the background education and most importantly the open consideration objectivity and rigorous focus necessary to integrate and transform information into understanding.

If you feel that the information I offer is invalid or not representative of the state of the mainstream climate science, I would be interested in hearing what leads you to that consideration and what you feel offers a more accurate sourcing and perspective upon the state of climate science.

Well, I asked for the science that provides a conclusion, one way or the other, as to the cause of recent warming.

I haven't seen any.

So, I'm pretty confident that my statement that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion on the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You seem to disagree with my statement. So, I am more than willing to inspect SOMETHING scientific that does make such a conclusion. But, if you have reasons for not posting that, I understand.

Your statements are cryptic enough that they do not adequately define your position or request, therefore it is difficult to understand precisely what you are asking for or would accept as sufficient evidence to meet your personal requirements.

Do you acknowledge and understand that increasing atmospheric ghgs and land-use changes are capable of causing radiative imbalances in our planet's atmospheric and surface temperature?

Do you acknowledge and understand that we can isotopically distinguish between and measure the ratio of human produced CO2 from oil, coal and gas, as compared to CO2 in the active carbon cycle that has not been sequestered for millions of years deep below the planet's surface?

My request is quite simple. I would like to see the science (peer-reviewed in some scientific journal) that makes a conclusion that man made CO2 is causing recent warming.

Or, I would like to see the science that makes a conclusion that man made CO2 is not the cause of any recent warming.

As, neither exists...now, pay attention because this seems to confuse you or is too 'cryptic' for you...the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you can be more specific in what seems cryptic to you, I really will try to word it differently.

Now, does that make me a "denier"?

 

[Old Rocks]

As I have said numerous times, the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about magnitude and significance of anthropogenic warming.

So, am I a denier?

I would say that your familiarity with the state of the science is apparently incorrect. If this, however, is all that you argue, it would not be enough, IMO, to earn the label of "denier." Denial is a rejection of the science, not mere ignorance or confusions regarding its findings and/or understandings.

What about this guy. Does he have sufficient "familiarity" with your so called science?



1
Global Temperature Update Through 2012
15 January 2013
J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.



http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Ah yes, flat. But the last decade has 9 of the ten warmest years on record. And two of those years, with a moderate El Nino have exceeded 1998 that had a super El Nino. The next strong El Nino is going to set a very strong new record.

Now Walleyes, see that prediction above? Dare you state that the next strong El Nino will not affect the temperature? After all, that is what should be the case if we are in a cooling cycle now.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, then please do educate me. I so hate being ignorant about the state of the science. Please provide me the science where the conclusion is that humans are the cause of the recent warming. No post hoc ergo propter hoc, as fallacies are not scientific. But, of course, being so schooled in the sciences, you already know that, so I beg your pardon for stating such an obvious thing.

I look forward to your response and thank you in advance.

I have no problem with those who openly approach the science and reach different conclusions about some aspects of that information and what it portends, that is the well-source of reasoned discussion and learning on all sides. Provided, of course, that all parties are actually engaged in the interaction with the interest in sharing valid information and learning from each other.

Ultimately, we each must educate ourselves, it is not something that others can do for, or to, us. I constantly offer links to the best and most reliable sources of the state of the science that I am aware of, which should facillitate that quest for accurate understanding. Only the individual can supply the background education and most importantly the open consideration objectivity and rigorous focus necessary to integrate and transform information into understanding.

If you feel that the information I offer is invalid or not representative of the state of the mainstream climate science, I would be interested in hearing what leads you to that consideration and what you feel offers a more accurate sourcing and perspective upon the state of climate science.

Well, I asked for the science that provides a conclusion, one way or the other, as to the cause of recent warming.

I haven't seen any.

So, I'm pretty confident that my statement that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion on the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You seem to disagree with my statement. So, I am more than willing to inspect SOMETHING scientific that does make such a conclusion. But, if you have reasons for not posting that, I understand.

Tyndall's original paper on infrared absorption of GHG's was published in the mid-nineteenth century.

Isotopic analysis of the present composition of the CO2 in our atmosphere shows that almost the whole of the increase is from the burning of fossil fuels.

On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide - Energy & Fuels (ACS Publications)

On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide

Gavin C. Cawley *


School of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom

Energy Fuels, 2011, 25 (11), pp 5503–5513

DOI: 10.1021/ef200914u

Publication Date (Web): September 26, 2011

Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society

 

[Si modo]

I have no problem with those who openly approach the science and reach different conclusions about some aspects of that information and what it portends, that is the well-source of reasoned discussion and learning on all sides. Provided, of course, that all parties are actually engaged in the interaction with the interest in sharing valid information and learning from each other.

Ultimately, we each must educate ourselves, it is not something that others can do for, or to, us. I constantly offer links to the best and most reliable sources of the state of the science that I am aware of, which should facillitate that quest for accurate understanding. Only the individual can supply the background education and most importantly the open consideration objectivity and rigorous focus necessary to integrate and transform information into understanding.

If you feel that the information I offer is invalid or not representative of the state of the mainstream climate science, I would be interested in hearing what leads you to that consideration and what you feel offers a more accurate sourcing and perspective upon the state of climate science.

Well, I asked for the science that provides a conclusion, one way or the other, as to the cause of recent warming.

I haven't seen any.

So, I'm pretty confident that my statement that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion on the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You seem to disagree with my statement. So, I am more than willing to inspect SOMETHING scientific that does make such a conclusion. But, if you have reasons for not posting that, I understand.

Tyndall's original paper on infrared absorption of GHG's was published in the mid-nineteenth century.

....

Yes it was, but it has little to do with what I have stated. It's your typical strawman.

.... Isotopic analysis of the present composition of the CO2 in our atmosphere shows that almost the whole of the increase is from the burning of fossil fuels.

On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide - Energy & Fuels (ACS Publications)

On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide

Gavin C. Cawley *


School of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom

Energy Fuels, 2011, 25 (11), pp 5503–5513

DOI: 10.1021/ef200914u

Publication Date (Web): September 26, 2011

Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society

Yup. And that does not meet my request. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What does a "denier" deny?

I was curious as to what a piwd piper is.

 

[Trakar]

What does a "denier" deny?

I was curious as to what a piwd piper is.

A third finger miskey that wasn't noticed, due to caffeine deficit disorder, prior to posting the OP.

 

[westwall]

I have no problem with those who openly approach the science and reach different conclusions about some aspects of that information and what it portends, that is the well-source of reasoned discussion and learning on all sides. Provided, of course, that all parties are actually engaged in the interaction with the interest in sharing valid information and learning from each other.

Ultimately, we each must educate ourselves, it is not something that others can do for, or to, us. I constantly offer links to the best and most reliable sources of the state of the science that I am aware of, which should facillitate that quest for accurate understanding. Only the individual can supply the background education and most importantly the open consideration objectivity and rigorous focus necessary to integrate and transform information into understanding.

If you feel that the information I offer is invalid or not representative of the state of the mainstream climate science, I would be interested in hearing what leads you to that consideration and what you feel offers a more accurate sourcing and perspective upon the state of climate science.

Well, I asked for the science that provides a conclusion, one way or the other, as to the cause of recent warming.

I haven't seen any.

So, I'm pretty confident that my statement that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion on the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

You seem to disagree with my statement. So, I am more than willing to inspect SOMETHING scientific that does make such a conclusion. But, if you have reasons for not posting that, I understand.

Your statements are cryptic enough that they do not adequately define your position or request, therefore it is difficult to understand precisely what you are asking for or would accept as sufficient evidence to meet your personal requirements.

Do you acknowledge and understand that increasing atmospheric ghgs and land-use changes are capable of causing radiative imbalances in our planet's atmospheric and surface temperature?

Do you acknowledge and understand that we can isotopically distinguish between and measure the ratio of human produced CO2 from oil, coal and gas, as compared to CO2 in the active carbon cycle that has not been sequestered for millions of years deep below the planet's surface?

Her "position" is scientific accuracy. Sceptics the world over require MEASURABLE predictions. We require MEASURABLE scientific papers. Not "could", "might", "possibly", or "suggest".

We require statements to contain the words "will", "will result" etc. In other words, while you armwave and posture we actually OBSERVE what you say and then rip it to shreds because frankly it's easy to do.

 

[Trakar]

Her "position" is scientific accuracy. Sceptics the world over require MEASURABLE predictions. We require MEASURABLE scientific papers. Not "could", "might", "possibly", or "suggest".

We require statements to contain the words "will", "will result" etc. In other words, while you armwave and posture we actually OBSERVE what you say and then rip it to shreds because frankly it's easy to do.

Those are not the words of science or scientific papers of any field or nature. Surety of that degree are representative of faith and religion not science. Science is always conditional, conservative and spoken of in terms of probability, not asserted or absolute.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What does a "denier" deny?

Ummm, Trakar?

Please tell us what a "denier" denies.

TIA.

The reality of broad swaths of mainstream science in general, nearly all of climate science in particular.

Climate science LOLz

like Jumbo shrimp

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo Frank........some scientists found a giant squid somewhere near Japan in dep waters and the k00ks are saying its "global warming" of course!!!

Fucking cool..............these people define entertainment in my world.

 

[Si modo]

Her "position" is scientific accuracy. Sceptics the world over require MEASURABLE predictions. We require MEASURABLE scientific papers. Not "could", "might", "possibly", or "suggest".

We require statements to contain the words "will", "will result" etc. In other words, while you armwave and posture we actually OBSERVE what you say and then rip it to shreds because frankly it's easy to do.

Those are not the words of science or scientific papers of any field or nature. Surety of that degree are representative of faith and religion not science. Science is always conditional, conservative and spoken of in terms of probability, not asserted or absolute.

Bullshit. Accuracy, measurability, reproducability, falsifiability, allow for quite solid conclusions. If a model is involved, physical experiments are done to support the viability of the model and the model is damn sure falsifiable. The data is not adjusted to make the model work, of course.

I don't know what kind of science YOU do, but my kind is quite definite for the most part - accuracy in measurements, accuracy in procedures. The only "probably" involved in my science are in theory. IE. This reagent reacts this way in this sort of solvent because it likely allows for greater polarization of the intermediate, thus increasing reactivity. This is further supported by a decrease in dimerization with increased dilution.

And YOU post a behavioral "scientist" to support AGW? That's fucking laughable....send those who "deny" to a gulag until they comply?

Give me a fucking break.

 

[westwall]

Her "position" is scientific accuracy. Sceptics the world over require MEASURABLE predictions. We require MEASURABLE scientific papers. Not "could", "might", "possibly", or "suggest".

We require statements to contain the words "will", "will result" etc. In other words, while you armwave and posture we actually OBSERVE what you say and then rip it to shreds because frankly it's easy to do.

Those are not the words of science or scientific papers of any field or nature. Surety of that degree are representative of faith and religion not science. Science is always conditional, conservative and spoken of in terms of probability, not asserted or absolute.

Bullshit. Accuracy, measurability, reproducability, falsifiability, allow for quite solid conclusions. If a model is involved, physical experiments are done to support the viability of the model and the model is damn sure falsifiable. The data is not adjusted to make the model work, of course.

I don't know what kind of science YOU do, but my kind is quite definite for the most part - accuracy in measurements, accuracy in procedures. The only "probably" involved in my science are in theory. IE. This reagent reacts this way in this sort of solvent because it likely allows for greater polarization of the intermediate, thus increasing reactivity. This is further supported by a decrease in dimerization with increased dilution.

And YOU post a behavioral "scientist" to support AGW? That's fucking laughable....send those who "deny" to a gulag until they comply?

Give me a fucking break.

It's all they have left. It's the children railing against their parents for having the temerity to challenge their silly bullshit. Kind of like my 6 year old. J. Tuzo Wilson didn't say, "you might find a transform fault in the region", he said, "this is what they will look like, this is where they will be, and this is how they operate." And he was of course proven correct in all aspects and the Theory of Plate Tectonics was ascendent.

 

[mamooth]

That's fucking laughable....send those who "deny" to a gulag until they comply?

Claims of imaginary persecution? Check.

Handwaving away actual discussion? Check.

Sucky logic? Check.

Yep, looks like we got another political cultist here. They try to hide it, but if you poke them for a bit, they always let it slip.

Let's go over again the discussion that Si Modo was running from.

1. Heat balance measurements show more heat coming into earth than going out. That causes warming.
2. That heat imbalance is caused by greenhouse gases. We see the outgoing IR shutting down over the CO2 absorption frequencies.
3. Those greenhouse gases are made by humans.

Hence, humans are causing global warming. There's not a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" anywhere to be seen in there. It's a solid logic chain, and you have to show one of the premises is incorrect to break the chain.

You can argue about the scale of the warming, about the consequences, about the economics. However, given the current data, no rational person now denies that humans are causing some warming.