Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

[oldsoul]

Interesting. I am still not convinced though.

Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.

There was no mention of the myriad of other variables such as, but not limited to:

Earth's non-constant orbit.

Milankovitch cycles are well studied, easily propagated (ie, future effects are well known) and their impact on global warming is taken fully into account.

Where the "original" increase of GHGs came from.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. If you mean something else by ""original" increase", you will have to explain.

Changes in Earth's mass.

What changes in Earth's mass? And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?

The effects of lunar orbit (i.e. it's constant slowing, and therefore coming closer and closer to Earth).

You've got the direction incorrect. The moon is moving further and further away from the Earth. It has been doing so since it formed and thus has no relation to an effect which began in the early 1900s.

Sources of energy not related to the sun.

Which would be what? Other stars? The momentum of the planets? Magic? God? Demons?

Other natural variable not, yet, explained by modern science.

What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science? Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?

In effect what I am questioning is: What indisputable proof is there that this phenomenon could not be possible without man-kind's influence?

There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be. Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. You're just going to have to get used to it.

Of course I do not refer to "far-fetched" ideas such as, but not limited to, other intelligent life influencing Earth.

But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming or that are simply unknown. Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science. You're not.

Is it, indeed, possible that science has yet to discover the real cause?

Of course it is "possible", but the odds of that being the case are infinitesimal.

If that is not, then what evidence is there?

Evidence? Let's see: the anthropogenic origin of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750. The calculated warming produced by that amount of gas added to the atmosphere matching the observed warming. The strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. The historical correlation between CO2 and temperature (in both directions). The observed increase in the radiative imbalance at the top of Earth's atmosphere. The observed back-radiation from the night sky bearing the spectroscopic signature of CO2. If you'd like to look at some evidence, go to www.ipcc.ch and pull up "The Physical Science Basis", by the IPCC's Working Group I. There are mountains of evidence supporting that the Earth is warming and the primary cause of that warming is human activity (GHG emissions and deforestation).

Another member suggested phenomena that science has yet to explain any natural causes for. Does this, conclusively prove they are caused by man-kind? No more than me standing in a garage makes me a car.

Man is not credited with global warming because no other cause has been found. Greenhouse warming is a known effect. Numerous other possibilities: changes in clouds, cosmic rays, changes in solar irradiation, changes in ocean circulation, etc, etc, etc have been examined and found wanting. The theory that warming is being caused by human emissions of CO2 methane and other greenhouse gases has never been falsified. It is accepted by almost 100% of the world's climate scientists. It is widely accepted theory, like many others that none of you think to question.

At one time all natural disasters where thought to be the work of a deity of one type or another, until science discovered that to be false. What would science look like today if those discoveries had not been made simply because it was already decided what the causes where?

Science has concluded that the most likely explanation for the warming observed over the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That conclusion is NOT based on anyone's arbitrary decisions or a lack of evidence for this specific cause. Mountains of properly done science indicate this is the case. An enormous majority of the actual experts in this field accept this conclusion as correct - based on the EVIDENCE.

It is widely accepted theory,

Yes, a theory. So are you suggesting we should change our way of life based on a theory? That, to me, is madness.

Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.

Yes, non-scientific reasons. I agree, it is my belief that many of the so-called "objective experts" are not objective at all. Many, on BOTH sides of the issue, bring biases an preconceived conclusions to their studies and therefore form their studies in order to "prove" their notions to be correct.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

What changes in Earth's mass? And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?

According to the "big bang THEORY" the universe has been expanding for some time now, the time-table is irrelevant. Matter has been moving around at very high speeds, and there is evidence that there is a what is referred to as "dark matter". Very little is known about "dark matter" and "dark energy" or how they affect stellar bodies, such as Earth. Other matter and energy "impacts" with earth on a regular basis, what effects, if any, does this have on weather and climate?

Which would be what? Other stars? The momentum of the planets? Magic? God? Demons?

"dark matter" and "dark energy", of which we know almost nothing, would be two examples. X-rays, and Gamma rays would be two more.

What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science? Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are two examples, of which we know almost nothing. SO, I have no idea if they have any effect, or how much if they do. Do you?

There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be. Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. You're just going to have to get used to it.

Not, exactly accurate. There is plenty of proof in natural science. The earth is an imperfect sphere, earth travels around the sun, etc.., etc..

But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming or that are simply unknown. Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science. You're not

That are simply unknown, there enlies my point. What we do not yet know is very important. It may prove to be irrelevant, but that remains to be seen. So, to say "we know enough to make a decisive conclusion." is just, scientifically speaking, irresponsible at best.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some nutjobs?

Perhaps you ought to read the man's actual statements and review the history of the anthropogenic global warming debate.

I'd love to review the history of the hockey stick.

And Mann's Nobel Prize.

 

[jc456]

Some nutjobs?

Perhaps you ought to read the man's actual statements and review the history of the anthropogenic global warming debate.

Perhaps you ought to read the man's actual statements and review the history of the anthropogenic global warming debate.
That it's all made up? I agree.

 

[oldsoul]

If, in fact, the data actually does show that there is a man-made warming trend, then please explain why Forbes(Doctored Data, Not U.S. Temperatures, Set a Record This Year), Pricipa-Scientific(NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International), and others have found that the "data" to support such a claim was "doctored"? Not only that, but the raw data actually shows a cooling over the last 80 years or so.

Also, I recently saw an article about the "ozone hole", and how it suddenly increased in 2007 to a historic high, then dropped again in '08. This spike has yet, to the best of my knowledge, to be explained. I have not been able to recall where I saw the article, but am still looking. I will provide the link as soon as I find it again.

 

[oldsoul]

I was remembering the year incorrectly, it was 2002 apparently.

 

[Crick]

Interesting. I am still not convinced though.

Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.

There was no mention of the myriad of other variables such as, but not limited to:

Earth's non-constant orbit.

Milankovitch cycles are well studied, easily propagated (ie, future effects are well known) and their impact on global warming is taken fully into account.

Where the "original" increase of GHGs came from.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. If you mean something else by ""original" increase", you will have to explain.

Changes in Earth's mass.

What changes in Earth's mass? And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?

The effects of lunar orbit (i.e. it's constant slowing, and therefore coming closer and closer to Earth).

You've got the direction incorrect. The moon is moving further and further away from the Earth. It has been doing so since it formed and thus has no relation to an effect which began in the early 1900s.

Sources of energy not related to the sun.

Which would be what? Other stars? The momentum of the planets? Magic? God? Demons?

Other natural variable not, yet, explained by modern science.

What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science? Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?

In effect what I am questioning is: What indisputable proof is there that this phenomenon could not be possible without man-kind's influence?

There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be. Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. You're just going to have to get used to it.

Of course I do not refer to "far-fetched" ideas such as, but not limited to, other intelligent life influencing Earth.

But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming or that are simply unknown. Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science. You're not.

Is it, indeed, possible that science has yet to discover the real cause?

Of course it is "possible", but the odds of that being the case are infinitesimal.

If that is not, then what evidence is there?

Evidence? Let's see: the anthropogenic origin of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750. The calculated warming produced by that amount of gas added to the atmosphere matching the observed warming. The strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. The historical correlation between CO2 and temperature (in both directions). The observed increase in the radiative imbalance at the top of Earth's atmosphere. The observed back-radiation from the night sky bearing the spectroscopic signature of CO2. If you'd like to look at some evidence, go to www.ipcc.ch and pull up "The Physical Science Basis", by the IPCC's Working Group I. There are mountains of evidence supporting that the Earth is warming and the primary cause of that warming is human activity (GHG emissions and deforestation).

Another member suggested phenomena that science has yet to explain any natural causes for. Does this, conclusively prove they are caused by man-kind? No more than me standing in a garage makes me a car.

Man is not credited with global warming because no other cause has been found. Greenhouse warming is a known effect. Numerous other possibilities: changes in clouds, cosmic rays, changes in solar irradiation, changes in ocean circulation, etc, etc, etc have been examined and found wanting. The theory that warming is being caused by human emissions of CO2 methane and other greenhouse gases has never been falsified. It is accepted by almost 100% of the world's climate scientists. It is widely accepted theory, like many others that none of you think to question.

At one time all natural disasters where thought to be the work of a deity of one type or another, until science discovered that to be false. What would science look like today if those discoveries had not been made simply because it was already decided what the causes where?

Science has concluded that the most likely explanation for the warming observed over the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That conclusion is NOT based on anyone's arbitrary decisions or a lack of evidence for this specific cause. Mountains of properly done science indicate this is the case. An enormous majority of the actual experts in this field accept this conclusion as correct - based on the EVIDENCE.

It is widely accepted theory,

Yes, a theory. So are you suggesting we should change our way of life based on a theory? That, to me, is madness.

Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.

Yes, non-scientific reasons. I agree, it is my belief that many of the so-called "objective experts" are not objective at all. Many, on BOTH sides of the issue, bring biases an preconceived conclusions to their studies and therefore form their studies in order to "prove" their notions to be correct.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

What changes in Earth's mass? And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?

According to the "big bang THEORY" the universe has been expanding for some time now, the time-table is irrelevant. Matter has been moving around at very high speeds, and there is evidence that there is a what is referred to as "dark matter". Very little is known about "dark matter" and "dark energy" or how they affect stellar bodies, such as Earth. Other matter and energy "impacts" with earth on a regular basis, what effects, if any, does this have on weather and climate?

Which would be what? Other stars? The momentum of the planets? Magic? God? Demons?

"dark matter" and "dark energy", of which we know almost nothing, would be two examples. X-rays, and Gamma rays would be two more.

What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science? Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are two examples, of which we know almost nothing. SO, I have no idea if they have any effect, or how much if they do. Do you?

There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be. Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. You're just going to have to get used to it.

Not, exactly accurate. There is plenty of proof in natural science. The earth is an imperfect sphere, earth travels around the sun, etc.., etc..

But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming or that are simply unknown. Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science. You're not

That are simply unknown, there enlies my point. What we do not yet know is very important. It may prove to be irrelevant, but that remains to be seen. So, to say "we know enough to make a decisive conclusion." is just, scientifically speaking, irresponsible at best.

A relatively simple article explaining how we know that humans produced almost every bit of the 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/


the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd. You would have to reject almost everything we know about the world and the universe around us.

You need to do some reading on basic science and how it is used.

 

[jc456]

Interesting. I am still not convinced though.

Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.

There was no mention of the myriad of other variables such as, but not limited to:

Earth's non-constant orbit.

Milankovitch cycles are well studied, easily propagated (ie, future effects are well known) and their impact on global warming is taken fully into account.

Where the "original" increase of GHGs came from.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. If you mean something else by ""original" increase", you will have to explain.

Changes in Earth's mass.

What changes in Earth's mass? And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?

The effects of lunar orbit (i.e. it's constant slowing, and therefore coming closer and closer to Earth).

You've got the direction incorrect. The moon is moving further and further away from the Earth. It has been doing so since it formed and thus has no relation to an effect which began in the early 1900s.

Sources of energy not related to the sun.

Which would be what? Other stars? The momentum of the planets? Magic? God? Demons?

Other natural variable not, yet, explained by modern science.

What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science? Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?

In effect what I am questioning is: What indisputable proof is there that this phenomenon could not be possible without man-kind's influence?

There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be. Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. You're just going to have to get used to it.

Of course I do not refer to "far-fetched" ideas such as, but not limited to, other intelligent life influencing Earth.

But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming or that are simply unknown. Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science. You're not.

Is it, indeed, possible that science has yet to discover the real cause?

Of course it is "possible", but the odds of that being the case are infinitesimal.

If that is not, then what evidence is there?

Evidence? Let's see: the anthropogenic origin of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750. The calculated warming produced by that amount of gas added to the atmosphere matching the observed warming. The strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. The historical correlation between CO2 and temperature (in both directions). The observed increase in the radiative imbalance at the top of Earth's atmosphere. The observed back-radiation from the night sky bearing the spectroscopic signature of CO2. If you'd like to look at some evidence, go to www.ipcc.ch and pull up "The Physical Science Basis", by the IPCC's Working Group I. There are mountains of evidence supporting that the Earth is warming and the primary cause of that warming is human activity (GHG emissions and deforestation).

Another member suggested phenomena that science has yet to explain any natural causes for. Does this, conclusively prove they are caused by man-kind? No more than me standing in a garage makes me a car.

Man is not credited with global warming because no other cause has been found. Greenhouse warming is a known effect. Numerous other possibilities: changes in clouds, cosmic rays, changes in solar irradiation, changes in ocean circulation, etc, etc, etc have been examined and found wanting. The theory that warming is being caused by human emissions of CO2 methane and other greenhouse gases has never been falsified. It is accepted by almost 100% of the world's climate scientists. It is widely accepted theory, like many others that none of you think to question.

At one time all natural disasters where thought to be the work of a deity of one type or another, until science discovered that to be false. What would science look like today if those discoveries had not been made simply because it was already decided what the causes where?

Science has concluded that the most likely explanation for the warming observed over the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That conclusion is NOT based on anyone's arbitrary decisions or a lack of evidence for this specific cause. Mountains of properly done science indicate this is the case. An enormous majority of the actual experts in this field accept this conclusion as correct - based on the EVIDENCE.

It is widely accepted theory,

Yes, a theory. So are you suggesting we should change our way of life based on a theory? That, to me, is madness.

Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.

Yes, non-scientific reasons. I agree, it is my belief that many of the so-called "objective experts" are not objective at all. Many, on BOTH sides of the issue, bring biases an preconceived conclusions to their studies and therefore form their studies in order to "prove" their notions to be correct.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

What changes in Earth's mass? And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?

According to the "big bang THEORY" the universe has been expanding for some time now, the time-table is irrelevant. Matter has been moving around at very high speeds, and there is evidence that there is a what is referred to as "dark matter". Very little is known about "dark matter" and "dark energy" or how they affect stellar bodies, such as Earth. Other matter and energy "impacts" with earth on a regular basis, what effects, if any, does this have on weather and climate?

Which would be what? Other stars? The momentum of the planets? Magic? God? Demons?

"dark matter" and "dark energy", of which we know almost nothing, would be two examples. X-rays, and Gamma rays would be two more.

What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science? Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are two examples, of which we know almost nothing. SO, I have no idea if they have any effect, or how much if they do. Do you?

There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be. Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. You're just going to have to get used to it.

Not, exactly accurate. There is plenty of proof in natural science. The earth is an imperfect sphere, earth travels around the sun, etc.., etc..

But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming or that are simply unknown. Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science. You're not

That are simply unknown, there enlies my point. What we do not yet know is very important. It may prove to be irrelevant, but that remains to be seen. So, to say "we know enough to make a decisive conclusion." is just, scientifically speaking, irresponsible at best.

A relatively simple article explaining how we know that humans produced almost every bit of the 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750:
How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?


the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd. You would have to reject almost everything we know about the world and the universe around us.

You need to do some reading on basic science and how it is used.

I still don't understand why you state that, you have no evidence that CO2 is bad. Why not start there?. Post the experiment

 

[Crick]

jc, you're constant repetition of that question is beginning to push you towards troll-hood. You've been presented with butt-tons of evidence. We get that you're going to reject everything that's presented to you until someone figures out how to put the planet Earth into a laboratory and do an experiment with it. That would be trolling.

Move on. Find something else to talk about. If that's really the ONLY thing you can think to pester us with, maybe its time to give up the conversation. Go to Politics or Current Events or the YMCA or the park.

 

[jc456]

jc, you're constant repetition of that question is beginning to push you towards troll-hood. You've been presented with butt-tons of evidence. We get that you're going to reject everything that's presented to you until someone figures out how to put the planet Earth into a laboratory and do an experiment with it. That would be trolling.

Move on. Find something else to talk about. If that's really the ONLY thing you can think to pester us with, maybe its time to give up the conversation. Go to Politics or Current Events or the YMCA or the park.

dude, I haven't seen one experiment in this forum, not one that shows CO2 doing anything to a temperature set. you've been told that repeatedly and not just by me. So, which is it? Do you have that experiment or not? you keep making the comments, and yet haven't produced the evidence. Sorry bubba.

What is it you believe I see outside my windows that screams at me climate change? I've also asked for somewhere where climate has actually changed in our lifetime. zippppppp. So now you're 0 for 2. Please don't mislead others who may visit this forum with the nonsense that you have submitted or posted relevant material. nope.

 

[oldsoul]

the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.

Wrong. My argument is based on the concept that we simply do not understand ALL of the variables that may or may not affect weather and climate. To act on any theory or proven natural law, without FULLY understanding it, is what is absurd. The "warmers", many of whom where "coolers" in the '70's, have proven themselves wrong so often that it is wise to question ANYTHNG they say.
Examples:

• CFC's are depleting the ozone. Then, unexpectedly, and unexplainably, the ozone hole grew in 2002, despite a decades long ban on CFCs.
• The earth is cooling due to man-kind. Then the earth is warming due to man-kind. Which is it?
• Polar ice caps are shrinking. Then a group of "experts" are trapped in Antarctica by ice that, by their assertion, should not have been there.

 

[LaDexter]

We're more interested in climate changes over periods shorter than millions of years.

If you are talking decades, then you are really confined to asteroid/meteor hits, huge volcanic activity, and possibly nuclear war, that's it.

 

[jc456]

the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.

Wrong. My argument is based on the concept that we simply do not understand ALL of the variables that may or may not affect weather and climate. To act on any theory or proven natural law, without FULLY understanding it, is what is absurd. The "warmers", many of whom where "coolers" in the '70's, have proven themselves wrong so often that it is wise to question ANYTHNG they say.
Examples:

• CFC's are depleting the ozone. Then, unexpectedly, and unexplainably, the ozone hole grew in 2002, despite a decades long ban on CFCs.
• The earth is cooling due to man-kind. Then the earth is warming due to man-kind. Which is it?
• Polar ice caps are shrinking. Then a group of "experts" are trapped in Antarctica by ice that, by their assertion, should not have been there.

now wait, Crick stated those scientist deliberately went into that ice so they could investigate the ice. Now let's be fair here. The scientists wanted to get stuck.

 

[mamooth]

the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.

Wrong. My argument is based on the concept that we simply do not understand ALL of the variables that may or may not affect weather and climate. To act on any theory or proven natural law, without FULLY understanding it, is what is absurd.

Which is what Crick just said. Being you don't apply that standard to anything else, it's a hypocritical standard, as well as a dumb one.

The "warmers", many of whom where "coolers" in the '70's

Totally wrong. Only Dr Reid Bryson, a hardcore denier, was pushing the cooling theory. Everyone else called for warming.

Yes, I realize the denier cult fails to inform its acolytes of such things. You need to grasp that you cult has been deliberately misinforming you for many years.

have proven themselves wrong so often that it is wise to question ANYTHING they say.

• CFC's are depleting the ozone. Then, unexpectedly, and unexplainably, the ozone hole grew in 2002, despite a decades long ban on CFCs.

It's only your unsupported claim that the expansion was "unexpected" or "unexplainable." You making up stories only means that you make stuff up, not that the science is bad. Try to get info from somewhere besides conspiracy blogs.

• The earth is cooling due to man-kind. Then the earth is warming due to man-kind. Which is it?

Warming, of course. Again, only the failures on your side predicted cooling.

• Polar ice caps are shrinking. Then a group of "experts" are trapped in Antarctica by ice that, by their assertion, should not have been there.

A ship can get trapped in both more or less abundant ice conditions, so it's just stupid to point to such an incident, as it proves nothing. And nobody asserted ice "should not have been there". That's another of your strawmen.

So, you got 3 out of 3 wrong there. By your own standards, since you have proven yourself wrong so often, it is wise to question anything you say.

Hmm. Who to choose. Complete failures like you and your cult, or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades. dang, that's a tough one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.

Wrong. My argument is based on the concept that we simply do not understand ALL of the variables that may or may not affect weather and climate. To act on any theory or proven natural law, without FULLY understanding it, is what is absurd.

Which is what Crick just said. Being you don't apply that standard to anything else, it's a hypocritical standard, as well as a dumb one.

The "warmers", many of whom where "coolers" in the '70's

Totally wrong. Only Dr Reid Bryson, a hardcore denier, was pushing the cooling theory. Everyone else called for warming.

Yes, I realize the denier cult fails to inform its acolytes of such things. You need to grasp that you cult has been deliberately misinforming you for many years.

have proven themselves wrong so often that it is wise to question ANYTHING they say.

• CFC's are depleting the ozone. Then, unexpectedly, and unexplainably, the ozone hole grew in 2002, despite a decades long ban on CFCs.

It's only your unsupported claim that the expansion was "unexpected" or "unexplainable." You making up stories only means that you make stuff up, not that the science is bad. Try to get info from somewhere besides conspiracy blogs.

• The earth is cooling due to man-kind. Then the earth is warming due to man-kind. Which is it?

Warming, of course. Again, only the failures on your side predicted cooling.

• Polar ice caps are shrinking. Then a group of "experts" are trapped in Antarctica by ice that, by their assertion, should not have been there.

A ship can get trapped in both more or less abundant ice conditions, so it's just stupid to point to such an incident, as it proves nothing. And nobody asserted ice "should not have been there". That's another of your strawmen.

So, you got 3 out of 3 wrong there. By your own standards, since you have proven yourself wrong so often, it is wise to question anything you say.

Hmm. Who to choose. Complete failures like you and your cult, or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades. dang, that's a tough one.

or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades.

Everything right?

Like Mann's lying hockey stick?

Well at least he won the Nobel Prize, eh?

 

[mamooth]

I bet it stings, Todd, seeing your side's thug tactics against Dr. Mann fail so badly.

Did you have a plan B? Probably not. "Make an example everyone who disagrees with TheParty!" was all you had. And it failed. Bummer.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Interesting. I am still not convinced though.

Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.

There was no mention of the myriad of other variables such as, but not limited to:

Earth's non-constant orbit.

Milankovitch cycles are well studied, easily propagated (ie, future effects are well known) and their impact on global warming is taken fully into account.

Where the "original" increase of GHGs came from.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. If you mean something else by ""original" increase", you will have to explain.

Changes in Earth's mass.

What changes in Earth's mass? And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?

The effects of lunar orbit (i.e. it's constant slowing, and therefore coming closer and closer to Earth).

You've got the direction incorrect. The moon is moving further and further away from the Earth. It has been doing so since it formed and thus has no relation to an effect which began in the early 1900s.

Sources of energy not related to the sun.

Which would be what? Other stars? The momentum of the planets? Magic? God? Demons?

Other natural variable not, yet, explained by modern science.

What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science? Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?

In effect what I am questioning is: What indisputable proof is there that this phenomenon could not be possible without man-kind's influence?

There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be. Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. You're just going to have to get used to it.

Of course I do not refer to "far-fetched" ideas such as, but not limited to, other intelligent life influencing Earth.

But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming or that are simply unknown. Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science. You're not.

Is it, indeed, possible that science has yet to discover the real cause?

Of course it is "possible", but the odds of that being the case are infinitesimal.

If that is not, then what evidence is there?

Evidence? Let's see: the anthropogenic origin of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750. The calculated warming produced by that amount of gas added to the atmosphere matching the observed warming. The strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. The historical correlation between CO2 and temperature (in both directions). The observed increase in the radiative imbalance at the top of Earth's atmosphere. The observed back-radiation from the night sky bearing the spectroscopic signature of CO2. If you'd like to look at some evidence, go to www.ipcc.ch and pull up "The Physical Science Basis", by the IPCC's Working Group I. There are mountains of evidence supporting that the Earth is warming and the primary cause of that warming is human activity (GHG emissions and deforestation).

Another member suggested phenomena that science has yet to explain any natural causes for. Does this, conclusively prove they are caused by man-kind? No more than me standing in a garage makes me a car.

Man is not credited with global warming because no other cause has been found. Greenhouse warming is a known effect. Numerous other possibilities: changes in clouds, cosmic rays, changes in solar irradiation, changes in ocean circulation, etc, etc, etc have been examined and found wanting. The theory that warming is being caused by human emissions of CO2 methane and other greenhouse gases has never been falsified. It is accepted by almost 100% of the world's climate scientists. It is widely accepted theory, like many others that none of you think to question.

At one time all natural disasters where thought to be the work of a deity of one type or another, until science discovered that to be false. What would science look like today if those discoveries had not been made simply because it was already decided what the causes where?

Science has concluded that the most likely explanation for the warming observed over the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That conclusion is NOT based on anyone's arbitrary decisions or a lack of evidence for this specific cause. Mountains of properly done science indicate this is the case. An enormous majority of the actual experts in this field accept this conclusion as correct - based on the EVIDENCE.

It is widely accepted theory,

Yes, a theory. So are you suggesting we should change our way of life based on a theory? That, to me, is madness.

Then we can only conclude that you are either ignoring the evidence, do not understand the evidence or are rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.

Yes, non-scientific reasons. I agree, it is my belief that many of the so-called "objective experts" are not objective at all. Many, on BOTH sides of the issue, bring biases an preconceived conclusions to their studies and therefore form their studies in order to "prove" their notions to be correct.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 in our current atmosphere above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1750) was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

What changes in Earth's mass? And what effect do you believe that would have on global temperature?

According to the "big bang THEORY" the universe has been expanding for some time now, the time-table is irrelevant. Matter has been moving around at very high speeds, and there is evidence that there is a what is referred to as "dark matter". Very little is known about "dark matter" and "dark energy" or how they affect stellar bodies, such as Earth. Other matter and energy "impacts" with earth on a regular basis, what effects, if any, does this have on weather and climate?

Which would be what? Other stars? The momentum of the planets? Magic? God? Demons?

"dark matter" and "dark energy", of which we know almost nothing, would be two examples. X-rays, and Gamma rays would be two more.

What natural variables do you believe are not yet explained by modern science? Which of these do you believe might be warming the planet and what makes you think so?

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are two examples, of which we know almost nothing. SO, I have no idea if they have any effect, or how much if they do. Do you?

There is no "indisputale proof" and there never will be. Proofs are something found in mathematics and logic. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. You're just going to have to get used to it.

Not, exactly accurate. There is plenty of proof in natural science. The earth is an imperfect sphere, earth travels around the sun, etc.., etc..

But you have already referred to several ideas that have nothing to do with global warming, that could have nothing to do with global warming or that are simply unknown. Just because you're not suggesting alien warfare, do not think you're staying close to mainstream science. You're not

That are simply unknown, there enlies my point. What we do not yet know is very important. It may prove to be irrelevant, but that remains to be seen. So, to say "we know enough to make a decisive conclusion." is just, scientifically speaking, irresponsible at best.

A relatively simple article explaining how we know that humans produced almost every bit of the 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750:
How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?


the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd. You would have to reject almost everything we know about the world and the universe around us.

You need to do some reading on basic science and how it is used.

Seriously Crick linking Michael Mann's blog...real climate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I bet it stings, Todd, seeing your side's thug tactics against Dr. Mann fail so badly.

Did you have a plan B? Probably not. "Make an example everyone who disagrees with TheParty!" was all you had. And it failed. Bummer.

I bet it stings, Todd, seeing your side's thug tactics against Dr. Mann fail so badly.

Pointing out his lies were thug tactics? How's that?

Did you have a plan B?

Pointing out warmer lies is Plan A, Plan B and Plan C.

Pointing out their weak understanding of economics is Plan D.

And it failed. Bummer.

We couldn't stop Mann's Nobel Prize, eh?

 

[RollingThunder]

the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.

Wrong. My argument is based on the concept that we simply do not understand ALL of the variables that may or may not affect weather and climate. To act on any theory or proven natural law, without FULLY understanding it, is what is absurd.

Which is what Crick just said. Being you don't apply that standard to anything else, it's a hypocritical standard, as well as a dumb one.

The "warmers", many of whom where "coolers" in the '70's

Totally wrong. Only Dr Reid Bryson, a hardcore denier, was pushing the cooling theory. Everyone else called for warming.

Yes, I realize the denier cult fails to inform its acolytes of such things. You need to grasp that you cult has been deliberately misinforming you for many years.

have proven themselves wrong so often that it is wise to question ANYTHING they say.

• CFC's are depleting the ozone. Then, unexpectedly, and unexplainably, the ozone hole grew in 2002, despite a decades long ban on CFCs.

It's only your unsupported claim that the expansion was "unexpected" or "unexplainable." You making up stories only means that you make stuff up, not that the science is bad. Try to get info from somewhere besides conspiracy blogs.

• The earth is cooling due to man-kind. Then the earth is warming due to man-kind. Which is it?

Warming, of course. Again, only the failures on your side predicted cooling.

• Polar ice caps are shrinking. Then a group of "experts" are trapped in Antarctica by ice that, by their assertion, should not have been there.

A ship can get trapped in both more or less abundant ice conditions, so it's just stupid to point to such an incident, as it proves nothing. And nobody asserted ice "should not have been there". That's another of your strawmen.

So, you got 3 out of 3 wrong there. By your own standards, since you have proven yourself wrong so often, it is wise to question anything you say.

Hmm. Who to choose. Complete failures like you and your cult, or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades. dang, that's a tough one.

...or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades.

Everything right?

Like Mann's lying hockey stick?

Well at least he won the Nobel Prize, eh?

In the real world, ToadTheParrot, you are a clueless moron and Dr. Mann is a highly respected, world famous, top tier scientist with many awards and the praise of his peers. His hockey-stick graph is accurate and has been completely confirmed by many other independent scientific studies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.

Wrong. My argument is based on the concept that we simply do not understand ALL of the variables that may or may not affect weather and climate. To act on any theory or proven natural law, without FULLY understanding it, is what is absurd.

Which is what Crick just said. Being you don't apply that standard to anything else, it's a hypocritical standard, as well as a dumb one.

The "warmers", many of whom where "coolers" in the '70's

Totally wrong. Only Dr Reid Bryson, a hardcore denier, was pushing the cooling theory. Everyone else called for warming.

Yes, I realize the denier cult fails to inform its acolytes of such things. You need to grasp that you cult has been deliberately misinforming you for many years.

have proven themselves wrong so often that it is wise to question ANYTHING they say.

• CFC's are depleting the ozone. Then, unexpectedly, and unexplainably, the ozone hole grew in 2002, despite a decades long ban on CFCs.

It's only your unsupported claim that the expansion was "unexpected" or "unexplainable." You making up stories only means that you make stuff up, not that the science is bad. Try to get info from somewhere besides conspiracy blogs.

• The earth is cooling due to man-kind. Then the earth is warming due to man-kind. Which is it?

Warming, of course. Again, only the failures on your side predicted cooling.

• Polar ice caps are shrinking. Then a group of "experts" are trapped in Antarctica by ice that, by their assertion, should not have been there.

A ship can get trapped in both more or less abundant ice conditions, so it's just stupid to point to such an incident, as it proves nothing. And nobody asserted ice "should not have been there". That's another of your strawmen.

So, you got 3 out of 3 wrong there. By your own standards, since you have proven yourself wrong so often, it is wise to question anything you say.

Hmm. Who to choose. Complete failures like you and your cult, or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades. dang, that's a tough one.

...or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades.

Everything right?

Like Mann's lying hockey stick?

Well at least he won the Nobel Prize, eh?

In the real world, ToadTheParrot, you are a clueless moron and Dr. Mann is a highly respected, world famous, top tier scientist with many awards and the praise of his peers. His hockey-stick graph is accurate and has been completely confirmed by many other independent scientific studies.

Dr. Mann is a highly respected, world famous, top tier scientist with many awards

Like the Nobel Prize?

His hockey-stick graph is accurate

Except for the parts where he leaves out the MWP and the LIA.

 

[Wyatt earp]

the rest of your argument boils down to the idea that we can never act on a theory. It must be explicitly proven or all other possibilities must be eliminated. I'm sorry, but that position is absurd.

Wrong. My argument is based on the concept that we simply do not understand ALL of the variables that may or may not affect weather and climate. To act on any theory or proven natural law, without FULLY understanding it, is what is absurd.

Which is what Crick just said. Being you don't apply that standard to anything else, it's a hypocritical standard, as well as a dumb one.

The "warmers", many of whom where "coolers" in the '70's

Totally wrong. Only Dr Reid Bryson, a hardcore denier, was pushing the cooling theory. Everyone else called for warming.

Yes, I realize the denier cult fails to inform its acolytes of such things. You need to grasp that you cult has been deliberately misinforming you for many years.

have proven themselves wrong so often that it is wise to question ANYTHING they say.

• CFC's are depleting the ozone. Then, unexpectedly, and unexplainably, the ozone hole grew in 2002, despite a decades long ban on CFCs.

It's only your unsupported claim that the expansion was "unexpected" or "unexplainable." You making up stories only means that you make stuff up, not that the science is bad. Try to get info from somewhere besides conspiracy blogs.

• The earth is cooling due to man-kind. Then the earth is warming due to man-kind. Which is it?

Warming, of course. Again, only the failures on your side predicted cooling.

• Polar ice caps are shrinking. Then a group of "experts" are trapped in Antarctica by ice that, by their assertion, should not have been there.

A ship can get trapped in both more or less abundant ice conditions, so it's just stupid to point to such an incident, as it proves nothing. And nobody asserted ice "should not have been there". That's another of your strawmen.

So, you got 3 out of 3 wrong there. By your own standards, since you have proven yourself wrong so often, it is wise to question anything you say.

Hmm. Who to choose. Complete failures like you and your cult, or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades. dang, that's a tough one.

...or the scientists of the world who gotten everything right for decades.

Everything right?

Like Mann's lying hockey stick?

Well at least he won the Nobel Prize, eh?

In the real world, ToadTheParrot, you are a clueless moron and Dr. Mann is a highly respected, world famous, top tier scientist with many awards and the praise of his peers. His hockey-stick graph is accurate and has been completely confirmed by many other independent scientific studies.

Lmfao ...Michael mann is the biggest fucking jerk off control freak manipulation of data the science world has ever seen.