the Piwd Pipers of Denialism

[IanC]

????? all of the predictions have been falsified so far.

Say what? Where did you get such a notion? Please, tell us about all these falsified predictions.

The temp predictions from at he AGW side were spot-on correct. Polar amplification was correctly predicted. Stratospheric cooling. Hadley cell expansion. A bunch of non-intuitive things were predicted correctly. I am unaware of any big misses. I am aware of things the denialists claim were predicted that weren't actually predicted, but that's their problem.

The AGW scientists have been making falsifiable predictions that were proven correct for decades, hence they have a lot of credibility now. The denialist side either just refuses to make predictions, or makes predictions that fail. That's yet another reason why the denialist side has so little credibilty.

all of them. even the simple ones where if you just extrapolated the existing conditions 5 years into the future then the prediction would be close enough to be called correct. perhaps the funniest ones are the polar regions where on one side of the globe you underestimated the loss of ice (but still say you were correct) and on the other side of the globe you overestimated the loss of ice and it may even be increasing! failure after failure after failure.

climate models are only tools to see if your basic understanding is reasonable. CAGW is not reasonable.

skeptics dont make illusionary predictions of the future because we know there are too many unknown and misunderstood variables to be able to do anything more than make a guess. even if the guess is right, that doesnt mean you were able to see into the future, it just means it was a lucky guess.

 

[Si modo]

Why is there no conclusion, one way or the other, about the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming?

Synthesis Report Home

And that's just the most massive one. What you're demanding is out there.

A little bit of eduction for you: The IPCC is not a scientific body; it is a policy body.

That's not science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is there no conclusion, one way or the other, about the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming?

Synthesis Report Home

And that's just the most massive one. What you're demanding is out there.

A little bit of eduction for you: The IPCC is not a scientific body; it is a policy body.

That's not science.

Quite correct. That is suggested policy with referance to the science upon which the policy is based. Whereas the 'sceptics' suggested policy is based only on the profits of the energy corperations, and either makes no referance to science at all, or bases it's referances on 'scientists' like Anthony Watts.

Now you can find the real science that AGW is based on right here;

AGW Observer

And if one wishes to keep current;

Video On-Demand Lectures and Sessions - AGU Fall Meeting 2012

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

2010 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

One might also look at the policy statements of the American Geophysical Union and that of the Geological Society of America. After all, these are the people that observe most closely changes on our planet.

 

[Old Rocks]

Correlation does not equal causation. Fact.

I'm sorry that bothers you so much.

Nah. What bothers us is you and Westy lying by claiming we're using such arguments.

But please, if you're not lying, please explain how how my arguments fit that category. Explain how directly measuring something equates to "correlation is causation". According to the fuktard logic you and Westy embrace, stepping on a scale to read your weight is using "correlation is causation."

It's the "natural cycles" crowd like Westy who rely almost exclusively on correlation-is-causation arguments. They'll superimpose some phenomenon on the temperature data, see that it sort of matches, and claim "Aha! Natural cycle!", based 100% on the correlation-is-causation fallacy. They don't attempt to show a reproducible physical mechanism, nor do they make falsifiable predictions. In contrast, AGW scientists provide reproducible physical mechanisms and make falsifiable predictions, none of which have been falsified.

You are amazing in your adherence to propaganda and your lack of scientific literacy. I am a geologist and look back over the 5 billion year history of the planet to make my arguments. You asshats take the last 30 years and concoct a whole mythology to support your Stalinist ideals.

You may have been a geologist at one time. Today you are a wingnut denialist that bases your thoughts on this subject on far right political belief rather than scientific evidence.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change



Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the large effects on humans and ecosystems if greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

Rationale
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about the amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.7 °C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than a century; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006).

Measurements from satellites, which began in 1979, initially did not show a warming trend, but later studies (Mears and Wentz, 2005; Santer et al., 2008) found that the satellite data had not been fully adjusted for losses of satellite elevation through time, differences in time of arrival over a given location, and removal of higher-elevation effects on the lower tropospheric signal. With these factors taken into account, the satellite data are now in basic agreement with ground-station data and confirm a warming trend since 1979. In a related study, Sherwood et al. (2005) found problems with corrections of tropical daytime radiosonde measurements and largely resolved a previous discrepancy with ground-station trends. With instrumental discrepancies having been resolved, recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies and is no longer open to serious challenge.

The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change.

Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends.

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming.

 

[Si modo]

Synthesis Report Home

And that's just the most massive one. What you're demanding is out there.

A little bit of eduction for you: The IPCC is not a scientific body; it is a policy body.

That's not science.

Quite correct. That is suggested policy with referance to the science upon which the policy is based. Whereas the 'sceptics' suggested policy is based only on the profits of the energy corperations, and either makes no referance to science at all, or bases it's referances on 'scientists' like Anthony Watts.

Now you can find the real science that AGW is based on right here;

AGW Observer

And if one wishes to keep current;

Video On-Demand Lectures and Sessions - AGU Fall Meeting 2012

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

2010 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

One might also look at the policy statements of the American Geophysical Union and that of the Geological Society of America. After all, these are the people that observe most closely changes on our planet.

Nice little repository of scientific papers, none of which conclude one way or another the significance and magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

The state of the science is not able to do so, yet.

 

[westwall]

Nah. What bothers us is you and Westy lying by claiming we're using such arguments.

But please, if you're not lying, please explain how how my arguments fit that category. Explain how directly measuring something equates to "correlation is causation". According to the fuktard logic you and Westy embrace, stepping on a scale to read your weight is using "correlation is causation."

It's the "natural cycles" crowd like Westy who rely almost exclusively on correlation-is-causation arguments. They'll superimpose some phenomenon on the temperature data, see that it sort of matches, and claim "Aha! Natural cycle!", based 100% on the correlation-is-causation fallacy. They don't attempt to show a reproducible physical mechanism, nor do they make falsifiable predictions. In contrast, AGW scientists provide reproducible physical mechanisms and make falsifiable predictions, none of which have been falsified.

You are amazing in your adherence to propaganda and your lack of scientific literacy. I am a geologist and look back over the 5 billion year history of the planet to make my arguments. You asshats take the last 30 years and concoct a whole mythology to support your Stalinist ideals.

You may have been a geologist at one time. Today you are a wingnut denialist that bases your thoughts on this subject on far right political belief rather than scientific evidence.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Yeah, any time a scientific body makes a "position statement" that precludes scientific enquiry it has become a political body, it is no longer a scientific body save in name only.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Can't help but notice that trakkar is actively not providing what was originally asked for.

 

[SSDD]

If you believe your "logic" is correct, get started on a paper, submit it to a scientific journal, have it peer-reviewed, and then I guess we can call this all settled.

"Human action" = A
"Increased CO2" = B
"Warming" = C

A -> B and B -> C, therefore A -> C

That's the logic chain which you think requires a peer-reviewed paper. An honest person could have simply said it was valid logic. Alas, denialists know they'll need room to squirm, wiggle and weasel once the facts are presented, hence the contortions they go into to deny simple logic.

Are those the only factors that might possibly cause warming? If so, then you are on to something, but if other factors may have an effect, then you have demonstrated that you really don't have a clue? Do you really believe those three factors A,B, and C are the only ones?

 

[SSDD]

Correlation does not equal causation. Fact.

I'm sorry that bothers you so much.

Nah. What bothers us is you and Westy lying by claiming we're using such arguments.

But please, if you're not lying, please explain how how my arguments fit that category. Explain how directly measuring something equates to "correlation is causation". According to the fuktard logic you and Westy embrace, stepping on a scale to read your weight is using "correlation is causation."

It's the "natural cycles" crowd like Westy who rely almost exclusively on correlation-is-causation arguments. They'll superimpose some phenomenon on the temperature data, see that it sort of matches, and claim "Aha! Natural cycle!", based 100% on the correlation-is-causation fallacy. They don't attempt to show a reproducible physical mechanism, nor do they make falsifiable predictions. In contrast, AGW scientists provide reproducible physical mechanisms and make falsifiable predictions, none of which have been falsified.

Backradiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth is the basis for the AGW hype and yet, it has never been measured at ambient temperature. It can be measured, but the instrument must be cooled to a temperature far below the ambient temperature of the atmosphere. There is no direct measurement of the so called mechanism of AGW.

 

[SSDD]

all of them. even the simple ones where if you just extrapolated the existing conditions 5 years into the future then the prediction would be close enough to be called correct. perhaps the funniest ones are the polar regions where on one side of the globe you underestimated the loss of ice (but still say you were correct) and on the other side of the globe you overestimated the loss of ice and it may even be increasing! failure after failure after failure.

climate models are only tools to see if your basic understanding is reasonable. CAGW is not reasonable.

skeptics dont make illusionary predictions of the future because we know there are too many unknown and misunderstood variables to be able to do anything more than make a guess. even if the guess is right, that doesnt mean you were able to see into the future, it just means it was a lucky guess.

Not to mention the fact that they keep changing the predictions every couple of years in an attempt to keep them current and cover up the trail of failure left behind.

 

[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.

Can't help but notice that trakkar is actively not providing what was originally asked for.

Nor will he ever. They don't do facts or mesurable anything. If they did, their fraud would become evident PDQ. That's why they use the language of bunco artists.

 

[RollingThunder]

And another six worthless, ignorant posts by the 'retarded pipers of denialism'.

 

[RollingThunder]

Correlation does not equal causation. Fact.

I'm sorry that bothers you so much.

Nah. What bothers us is you and Westy lying by claiming we're using such arguments.

But please, if you're not lying, please explain how how my arguments fit that category. Explain how directly measuring something equates to "correlation is causation". According to the fuktard logic you and Westy embrace, stepping on a scale to read your weight is using "correlation is causation."

It's the "natural cycles" crowd like Westy who rely almost exclusively on correlation-is-causation arguments. They'll superimpose some phenomenon on the temperature data, see that it sort of matches, and claim "Aha! Natural cycle!", based 100% on the correlation-is-causation fallacy. They don't attempt to show a reproducible physical mechanism, nor do they make falsifiable predictions. In contrast, AGW scientists provide reproducible physical mechanisms and make falsifiable predictions, none of which have been falsified.

Backradiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth is the basis for the AGW hype and yet, it has never been measured at ambient temperature. It can be measured, but the instrument must be cooled to a temperature far below the ambient temperature of the atmosphere. There is no direct measurement of the so called mechanism of AGW.

LOLOLOLOL.....you are soooooo retarded.....you're hilarious.....

Help! Back Radiation has Invaded my Backyard!
Measuring The (Nonexistent) Greenhouse Effect in My Backyard with a Handheld IR Thermometer and The Box
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
August 6th, 2010
(excerpts)
One of the claims of greenhouse and global warming theory that many people find hard to grasp is that there is a large flow of infrared radiation downward from the sky which keeps the surface warmer than it would otherwise be. Particularly difficult to grasp is the concept of adding a greenhouse gas to a COLD atmosphere, and that causing a temperature increase at the surface of the Earth, which is already WARM. This, of course, is what is expected to happen from adding more carbon dioixde to the atmosphere: “global warming”.

Well, it is one of the marvels of our electronic age that you can buy a very sensitive handheld IR thermometer for only $50 and observe the effect for yourself.

 

[skookerasbil]

And another six worthless, ignorant posts by the 'retarded pipers of denialism'.

We'll all know who's winning when climate change legislation comes up for a vote later this year!!!!

Then we will see if the science matters!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

We'll all know who's winning when climate change legislation comes up for a vote later this year!!!!
Then we will see if the science matters!!!

Another symptom of your severe retardation, kookie, is your delusion that politics determines whether or not science/reality matters.

 

[westwall]

We'll all know who's winning when climate change legislation comes up for a vote later this year!!!!
Then we will see if the science matters!!!

Another symptom of your severe retardation, kookie, is your delusion that politics determines whether or not science/reality matters.

Waaaaahhh? Your whole cult is dominated by politics asshat. Give us one measurable experiment that supports (note I'm not asking for proof, just one that supports) the CO2 theory of warming. Just one, and it can't be a computer model, it MUST be a real experiment.

C'mon bigmouth, put up or shut up.

 

[Saigon]

It always entertains me that US Fundemantalists hate the Taliban because they are anti-science and stuck in the stone ages.

You read through this thread and see the same faith-based reactions to science that the Taliban rely on.

 

[SSDD]

It always entertains me that US Fundemantalists hate the Taliban because they are anti-science and stuck in the stone ages.

You read through this thread and see the same faith-based reactions to science that the Taliban rely on.

You warmer guys are so blinded by your faith that you don't seem to be able to form a rational argument. Of course that is true with most zealots. You are claiming anti science on the part of skeptics, but if you look back through the posts, you will see that it is us skeptics who are constantly asking for science. Actual science that is, not the output of computer models based on flawed physics trying to explain a very poorly understood energy flow through the system.

If the effect of CO2 is such solid science, then you should be able to show some actual experiment that demosntrates the claim but none exist. No actual experimental evidence exists in support of the AGW hypothesis. How is it anti science to reject a hypothesis when no experiment exists in support of it. The first principles of science require experiment in support of a hypothesis or it should be rejected. It is you and yours who are anti science in your efforts to shout down anyone demanding that actual science be produced to suppor the hypothesis.

 

[skookerasbil]

We'll all know who's winning when climate change legislation comes up for a vote later this year!!!!
Then we will see if the science matters!!!

Another symptom of your severe retardation, kookie, is your delusion that politics determines whether or not science/reality matters.

Waaaaahhh? Your whole cult is dominated by politics asshat. Give us one measurable experiment that supports (note I'm not asking for proof, just one that supports) the CO2 theory of warming. Just one, and it can't be a computer model, it MUST be a real experiment.

C'mon bigmouth, put up or shut up.

West bro........we've talked many times about these people having connect the dots issues, but shit.........this guy needs a GPS to think.

I suppose it is true to say the science matters in terms of it kicking off a dialogue between scientists and meatheads like us on community forums. Makes for good debate on things science, however, none of it ia having any impact ( ie: zero) on policy makers. They are not at all impressed. Members who come in here shouldnt take our word for it West.......all they need to do is google "climate legislation" and "cap and trade" from 2007 on and they come up with squat. Accordingly, the whole "man-made" part of the debate draws a gigantic yawn from those crafting policy, which frankly, is the only thing that interests me in this forum. When Siberia experiences a 70 degree, 3 week snap in mid-January, I'll pay attention to the science stuff, but not a moment sooner. Waste of time.