Challenge to the Warmers

[CrusaderFrank]

There seems to be an enormous amount of ignorance on the basic notion of the Scientific Method on the part of the Warmers. Real science does NOT work on a consensus basis.

Instead scientists makes observations (this is where the Warmers stop) then make a hypothesis, then subject their hypothesis to rigorous testing to DISPROVE it and if its still standing and repeatable in a laboratory setting, then you have something!

So Warmers, tell us your AGW hypothesis, please state it here.

 

[westwall]

There seems to be an enormous amount of ignorance on the basic notion of the Scientific Method on the part of the Warmers. Real science does NOT work on a consensus basis.

Instead scientists makes observations (this is where the Warmers stop) then make a hypothesis, then subject their hypothesis to rigorous testing to DISPROVE it and if its still standing and repeatable in a laboratory setting, then you have something!

So Warmers, tell us your AGW hypothesis, please state it here.

Crusader Frank if I may make one correction to your SM methodology, first comes the hypothesis, then the observations...then follow as you so eloquently presented!

Cheers!

 

[ScienceRocks]

How about this challenge to our warming friends.

Post your thinking for warming within 5 years, 10 years, 25 years. This will make it easy for us to go back and see how close you got it. If it's wrong and it don't warm up then the deniers win.

 

[Old Rocks]

How about this challenge to our warming friends.

Post your thinking for warming within 5 years, 10 years, 25 years. This will make it easy for us to go back and see how close you got it. If it's wrong and it don't warm up then the deniers win.

If it fails to warm, we all win.

However, Let us look at that. If it does warm, then you fellows are going to admit that you were wrong? No, you will not. You will do the Limpbaugh jig, and state it was something else that influenced the weather and the scientists are still wrong.

Five years.

10 glaciers left in Glacier National Park.

Major outgassing in the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.

At least two years 2010 to 2014 that exceed 1998 in warmth.

More and more violent precipitation events.

Rate of ocean rise continues to accelerate.

Artic Ocean clear enough of ice for major ocean traffic for at least one month of the summer.

More extreme forest fires on several continents.

Ten years

Occasional clathrate outgassing on coastal shelves that are not in the Arctic.

Ocean rise beginning to affect the infrastructure of port cities worldwide.

Periods of no ice in the Arctic Ocean during the summer. The Arctic is navigable for two months of the summer.

Precipitation events, both droughts and floods, create agricultural crisis in many regions of the world.

Outgassing from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and Permafrost now becoming an apreciable percentage of the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.

Major power problems as many cities experiance extremes in heat during the summer.

Much of the ocean is incapable of supporting major fisheries due to overfishing, pollution, and acidification.

Twentyfive years

Major fisheries all collapsed.

No grain reserves left now as the extremes in weather have ruined crops on many continents.

Arctic Ocean open to ship travel 3 months of the year, first major oil spill from the drilling in the Artic.

The Arctic Ocean and Permafrost now the primary source of the increase in CH4 in the atmosphere.

Bangladesh and some other low lying nations are effectively non-existant from the rise in sea level and storm surges.

Nations, including the US, are using military force to defend their borders against refugees from poor nations. The Canadians have also closed their southern border.

Somewhere in this period, a nuclear war between nations over water. Mideast or Asia.

Energy companies worldwide still stating that GHGs have no influence on climate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How about this challenge to our warming friends.

Post your thinking for warming within 5 years, 10 years, 25 years. This will make it easy for us to go back and see how close you got it. If it's wrong and it don't warm up then the deniers win.

If it fails to warm, we all win.

However, Let us look at that. If it does warm, then you fellows are going to admit that you were wrong? No, you will not. You will do the Limpbaugh jig, and state it was something else that influenced the weather and the scientists are still wrong.

Five years.

10 glaciers left in Glacier National Park.

Major outgassing in the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.

At least two years 2010 to 2014 that exceed 1998 in warmth.

More and more violent precipitation events.

Rate of ocean rise continues to accelerate.

Artic Ocean clear enough of ice for major ocean traffic for at least one month of the summer.

More extreme forest fires on several continents.

Ten years

Occasional clathrate outgassing on coastal shelves that are not in the Arctic.

Ocean rise beginning to affect the infrastructure of port cities worldwide.

Periods of no ice in the Arctic Ocean during the summer. The Arctic is navigable for two months of the summer.

Precipitation events, both droughts and floods, create agricultural crisis in many regions of the world.

Outgassing from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and Permafrost now becoming an apreciable percentage of the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.

Major power problems as many cities experiance extremes in heat during the summer.

Much of the ocean is incapable of supporting major fisheries due to overfishing, pollution, and acidification.

Twentyfive years

Major fisheries all collapsed.

No grain reserves left now as the extremes in weather have ruined crops on many continents.

Arctic Ocean open to ship travel 3 months of the year, first major oil spill from the drilling in the Artic.

The Arctic Ocean and Permafrost now the primary source of the increase in CH4 in the atmosphere.

Bangladesh and some other low lying nations are effectively non-existant from the rise in sea level and storm surges.

Nations, including the US, are using military force to defend their borders against refugees from poor nations. The Canadians have also closed their southern border.

Somewhere in this period, a nuclear war between nations over water. Mideast or Asia.

Energy companies worldwide still stating that GHGs have no influence on climate.

I won't point to Limbaugh because I seriously doubt he has much science education behind him. But if it is El nino or some other factor causing the increase in warming, I don't see the reason why we shouldn't point to it as the reason for a very warm year. Really, I won't say the things you say will happen won't happen because be it a natural cycle or what some believe caused by man it is possible both ways. We have had ocean raises and falls of hundreds of feet throughout earth's history. So it is possible.

We will have to see about the rest, but 2010 won't beat 1998 leaving 4 years in which 2 have to be warmer then 1998 for your thinking to be right. Based on ENSO signals right now the developing la nina should last into a good part of 2011. In which pretty much kills 2011 from beating it. Being with la nina most of the pacific is normally below normal and the Pacific is a huge part of the world. So we got 3 years and which 2 have to be warmer then 1998.

I agree that methane is a more powerful green house gas in which if the arctic keeps warming be it from a cycle or from man could have some effect on the climate. We will see. We will see. I will not go to limbaugh either way.

 

[westwall]

If it warms we all win, the warmers allways fail to mention the historical record is very clear that when it has been warm the people and planet have prospered.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because that is a falsehood. P-T extinction. PETM extinction.

A rapid rise in GHGs, then outgassing of the ocean clathrates, followed by a rapid extinction event. It has happened many times in the history of the Earth. There is no reason to believe that it will not happen just because man is the source of the GHGs this time.

Methane Catastrophe

 

[konradv]

There seems to be an enormous amount of ignorance on the basic notion of the Scientific Method on the part of the Warmers. Real science does NOT work on a consensus basis.

Instead scientists makes observations (this is where the Warmers stop) then make a hypothesis, then subject their hypothesis to rigorous testing to DISPROVE it and if its still standing and repeatable in a laboratory setting, then you have something!

So Warmers, tell us your AGW hypothesis, please state it here.

LOL!!! No one has claimed that's how science works. Talk about consensus is only to counter denier claims that many scientists don't believe in AGW or even more laughably that polls show fewer people believe, niether of which has anything to do with the scientific method.

As for the hypothesis, it's simple and, so far, never been refuted. GOOD LUCK!

The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well documented.

The concentration of theses gases, including some not found in nature, has been going uo since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

 

[Big Fitz]

How about this challenge to our warming friends.

Post your thinking for warming within 5 years, 10 years, 25 years. This will make it easy for us to go back and see how close you got it. If it's wrong and it don't warm up then the deniers win.

If it fails to warm, we all win.

However, Let us look at that. If it does warm, then you fellows are going to admit that you were wrong? No, you will not. You will do the Limpbaugh jig, and state it was something else that influenced the weather and the scientists are still wrong.

Five years.

10 glaciers left in Glacier National Park.

Major outgassing in the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.

At least two years 2010 to 2014 that exceed 1998 in warmth.

More and more violent precipitation events.

Rate of ocean rise continues to accelerate.

Artic Ocean clear enough of ice for major ocean traffic for at least one month of the summer.

More extreme forest fires on several continents.

Ten years

Occasional clathrate outgassing on coastal shelves that are not in the Arctic.

Ocean rise beginning to affect the infrastructure of port cities worldwide.

Periods of no ice in the Arctic Ocean during the summer. The Arctic is navigable for two months of the summer.

Precipitation events, both droughts and floods, create agricultural crisis in many regions of the world.

Outgassing from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and Permafrost now becoming an apreciable percentage of the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.

Major power problems as many cities experiance extremes in heat during the summer.

Much of the ocean is incapable of supporting major fisheries due to overfishing, pollution, and acidification.

Twentyfive years

Major fisheries all collapsed.

No grain reserves left now as the extremes in weather have ruined crops on many continents.

Arctic Ocean open to ship travel 3 months of the year, first major oil spill from the drilling in the Artic.

The Arctic Ocean and Permafrost now the primary source of the increase in CH4 in the atmosphere.

Bangladesh and some other low lying nations are effectively non-existant from the rise in sea level and storm surges.

Nations, including the US, are using military force to defend their borders against refugees from poor nations. The Canadians have also closed their southern border.

Somewhere in this period, a nuclear war between nations over water. Mideast or Asia.

Energy companies worldwide still stating that GHGs have no influence on climate.

I see you watched that 'scientific' special on ABC too. I couldn't make it beyond 2020 their theories were so ludicrous and socialist. Nothing like a little fiction to masquerade as science to muddy the waters.

 

[rikules]

There seems to be an enormous amount of ignorance on the basic notion of the Scientific Method on the part of the Warmers. Real science does NOT work on a consensus basis.

Instead scientists makes observations (this is where the Warmers stop) then make a hypothesis, then subject their hypothesis to rigorous testing to DISPROVE it and if its still standing and repeatable in a laboratory setting, then you have something!

So Warmers, tell us your AGW hypothesis, please state it here.

I don't know if global warming is real or not...

I do know that the conservative method for determining whether global warming is real or not is to simply mock the whole global warming concept without ANY real scientific testing what-so-ever....

is that really a better method?

I mean..."I hate liberals so therefore global warming is NOT real"
seems a bit ridiculous

and a method NOT to be trusted

 

[Big Fitz]

if the trend continues

Prove the trend will continue. Better still. Prove that we can either do anything about a climatological trend or have anything to do with this.

Remember, All EAU and NASA data is suspect and ineligible for use.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There seems to be an enormous amount of ignorance on the basic notion of the Scientific Method on the part of the Warmers. Real science does NOT work on a consensus basis.

Instead scientists makes observations (this is where the Warmers stop) then make a hypothesis, then subject their hypothesis to rigorous testing to DISPROVE it and if its still standing and repeatable in a laboratory setting, then you have something!

So Warmers, tell us your AGW hypothesis, please state it here.

Crusader Frank if I may make one correction to your SM methodology, first comes the hypothesis, then the observations...then follow as you so eloquently presented!

Cheers!

I mean that scientists observe things in nature, they notice things then make a hypothesis about what is happening and why.

The Warmers find some place on the planet where it's warmer and say, "See that! Global Warming!!" and that's not science

 

[Avatar4321]

How about this challenge to our warming friends.

Post your thinking for warming within 5 years, 10 years, 25 years. This will make it easy for us to go back and see how close you got it. If it's wrong and it don't warm up then the deniers win.

If it fails to warm, we all win.

However, Let us look at that. If it does warm, then you fellows are going to admit that you were wrong? No, you will not. You will do the Limpbaugh jig, and state it was something else that influenced the weather and the scientists are still wrong.

Five years.

10 glaciers left in Glacier National Park.

Major outgassing in the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.

At least two years 2010 to 2014 that exceed 1998 in warmth.

More and more violent precipitation events.

Rate of ocean rise continues to accelerate.

Artic Ocean clear enough of ice for major ocean traffic for at least one month of the summer.

More extreme forest fires on several continents.

Ten years

Occasional clathrate outgassing on coastal shelves that are not in the Arctic.

Ocean rise beginning to affect the infrastructure of port cities worldwide.

Periods of no ice in the Arctic Ocean during the summer. The Arctic is navigable for two months of the summer.

Precipitation events, both droughts and floods, create agricultural crisis in many regions of the world.

Outgassing from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and Permafrost now becoming an apreciable percentage of the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.

Major power problems as many cities experiance extremes in heat during the summer.

Much of the ocean is incapable of supporting major fisheries due to overfishing, pollution, and acidification.

Twentyfive years

Major fisheries all collapsed.

No grain reserves left now as the extremes in weather have ruined crops on many continents.

Arctic Ocean open to ship travel 3 months of the year, first major oil spill from the drilling in the Artic.

The Arctic Ocean and Permafrost now the primary source of the increase in CH4 in the atmosphere.

Bangladesh and some other low lying nations are effectively non-existant from the rise in sea level and storm surges.

Nations, including the US, are using military force to defend their borders against refugees from poor nations. The Canadians have also closed their southern border.

Somewhere in this period, a nuclear war between nations over water. Mideast or Asia.

Energy companies worldwide still stating that GHGs have no influence on climate.

Few questions:

You think in 25 years that major fisheries will collapse? Why? if the water level is rising and the water is warmer, they would be more fish than ever. Why on earth would the fisheries collapse?

Why on earth do you think warmer weather will lead to less crops? I think the opposite is much more likely. If the weather warms up, there will be more land to grow on. And more preciptation to sustain it.

You honestly think the planet warming will cause a nuclear war?

Ive got others. but i think thats a good jumping off point.

 

[Avatar4321]

Oh and btw what tempature are we supposed to be? What tempature will we be if the global warming occurs?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Were we really better off when all of America north of the Ohio River was under 600 feet of ice?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I asked a simple question and notice the response from the Warmers

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]YouTube - Cricket Sound[/ame]

 

[westwall]

There seems to be an enormous amount of ignorance on the basic notion of the Scientific Method on the part of the Warmers. Real science does NOT work on a consensus basis.

Instead scientists makes observations (this is where the Warmers stop) then make a hypothesis, then subject their hypothesis to rigorous testing to DISPROVE it and if its still standing and repeatable in a laboratory setting, then you have something!

So Warmers, tell us your AGW hypothesis, please state it here.

I don't know if global warming is real or not...

I do know that the conservative method for determining whether global warming is real or not is to simply mock the whole global warming concept without ANY real scientific testing what-so-ever....

is that really a better method?

I mean..."I hate liberals so therefore global warming is NOT real"
seems a bit ridiculous

and a method NOT to be trusted

I suggest you look at a lot of the threads running through this section. The warmist's when presented with evidence of widespread fraud in the climatologists work, ignore it and call sceptics names instead of addressing the situation. It is a common tactic that the left has used since time immemorial. If you care to look on the web there are numerous instances where the "leading lights" of the warmist movement advocate attacks an death sentences for those who disagree with them. That is so far removed from the bounds of civilised society that it should make any sane person think twice before they agree with anything the warmists say. The actual scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of AGW. All the warmists have left is attacks on the messengers and outright prevarication of the real science.


The excerpt below was taken from the Talking Points website (and was rather quickly removed when the response from almost everyone was negative to the shock of the editors)


"June 2, 2009, 9:42PM

What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don't want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it's a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There seems to be an enormous amount of ignorance on the basic notion of the Scientific Method on the part of the Warmers. Real science does NOT work on a consensus basis.

Instead scientists makes observations (this is where the Warmers stop) then make a hypothesis, then subject their hypothesis to rigorous testing to DISPROVE it and if its still standing and repeatable in a laboratory setting, then you have something!

So Warmers, tell us your AGW hypothesis, please state it here.

I don't know if global warming is real or not...

I do know that the conservative method for determining whether global warming is real or not is to simply mock the whole global warming concept without ANY real scientific testing what-so-ever....

is that really a better method?

I mean..."I hate liberals so therefore global warming is NOT real"
seems a bit ridiculous

and a method NOT to be trusted

Hey you ******* retard I'm asking how the Warmers frame their hypothesis. Can you ******* read?