Human Caused Global Warming

[SSDD]

jc456 -

I have absolutely 0 interest in posting anything for you, nor do I have any interest in trying to convince you of anything.

Of course you don't and aren't...propaganda is your thing...pure and simple.

 

[Crick]

Then you don't understand the definition of "propaganda".

 

[Saigon]

Then you don't understand the definition of "propaganda".

Exactly that.

Science and propaganda cannot be on the same side.

And for SSDD, this is fairly simple stuff. Ask yourself what side most of the scientists are on? What side are most scientific organisations on, and what do they believe?

And then ask yourself why it is that you are on the other side. There's your propaganda.

Really, dude - until such time as you stop seeing this as a political issue, you will NEVER avoid the propaganda.

 

[SSDD]

Then you don't understand the definition of "propaganda".

Of course I do....which is precisely why I used the word. Propaganda is communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but is always carefully selected for its political effect. The blaring headlines for example that based on this study or that study which proclaim that man made climate change is worse than feared and then the silent retraction of the same papers....idiot claims such as siagon's yesterday that louisiana was sinking due to man made climate change when no such thing is true since man made climate change has yet to be proven....and the veritable host of claims of everything from the sex habits of toads to acne being influenced by man made climate change....all for political impact.

Not to mention the litany of failed predictions made by climate science...and on and on. Pure propaganda.

 

[SSDD]

Then you don't understand the definition of "propaganda".

Exactly that.

Science and propaganda cannot be on the same side.

Of course they can't....which is why climate science is all politics all the time.

And for SSDD, this is fairly simple stuff. Ask yourself what side most of the scientists are on? What side are most scientific organisations on, and what do they believe?

For one who claims to be a journalist, you are singularly ignorant of history....look back if you can bear it....in any government sponsored propaganda campaign, on whose side were the scientists?....and if it wasn't a "science" campaign, on whose side were the "experts".

And then ask yourself why it is that you are on the other side.

And ask yourself why you are not on the other side...

Really, dude - until such time as you stop seeing this as a political issue, you will NEVER avoid the propaganda.

Till you wake up and see that it is all politics all the time you will remain a useful idiot.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Please try to post honestly and wi a little common sense.

There is not one single scientific organisation your corner, because there is no science in tour corner.

There are at least 59 major international scientfiic organisations in my corner, because there is science in my corner.

None of this has anything to do with government, son.

Man up and accept that.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Please try to post honestly and wi a little common sense.

Again, pure politics. What is happening in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability...that is to say, what constitutes the human fingerprint?

There is not one single scientific organisation your corner, because there is no science in tour corner.

Government sponsored organizations.....organizations which depend largely on government money....why would I expect them to be on my side in a government sponsored propaganda campaign?

There are at least 59 major international scientfiic organisations in my corner, because there is science in my corner.

Sponsored by the various governments? Of course....find me an organization or two which gets no government money which is on the AGW crazy train.

None of this has anything to do with government, son.

Exactly the sort of statement a propagandist would make.

 

[Crick]

Again, pure politics. What is happening in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability...that is to say, what constitutes the human fingerprint?

CO2 absorbs infrared. The greenhouse effect is quite real and you are absolutely ridiculous to reject it. The source of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere in the last 150 years is the combustion of fossil fuels: A human fingerprint.

There is not one single scientific organisation your corner, because there is no science in tour corner.

Government sponsored organizations.....organizations which depend largely on government money....why would I expect them to be on my side in a government sponsored propaganda campaign?

Because they are not all government sponsored organizations and you have no reason to believe those that are so sponsored are doing anything wrong. For one, government scientists are not getting rich from research grants as your alternative fantasy goes.

There are at least 59 major international scientfiic organisations in my corner, because there is science in my corner.

Sponsored by the various governments? Of course....find me an organization or two which gets no government money which is on the AGW crazy train.

Find one of any sort that reject AGW.

As for scientific organizations not controlled or funded by government:
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, About AAAS AAAS - The World s Largest General Scientific Society)
The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (ICAETS, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences Inc. CAETS - Home)
The United States National Academies of Science (NAS, Who We Are National-Academies.org Where the Nation Turns for Independent Expert Advice)

Your charge that these organizations are controlled by governments fails as does your unsupported supposition that such support is de facto proof of malfeasance

None of this has anything to do with government, son.

Exactly the sort of statement a propagandist would make.

This, of course, the sort of circular rejoinder one gets from someone who has not a single fact to present supporting his claims.

The FACT that every national academy of science across the planet as well as EVERY other science and/or technical organization of the least standing, accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate is overwhelming evidence that your opinion is NOT supported by any element of mainstream science and that your viewpoint is as fringe as fringe can get.

 

[jc456]

Again, pure politics. What is happening in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability...that is to say, what constitutes the human fingerprint?

CO2 absorbs infrared. The greenhouse effect is quite real and you are absolutely ridiculous to reject it. The source of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere in the last 150 years is the combustion of fossil fuels: A human fingerprint.
The FACT that every national academy of science across the planet as well as EVERY other science and/or technical organization of the least standing, accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate is overwhelming evidence that your opinion is NOT supported by any element of mainstream science and that your viewpoint is as fringe as fringe can get.

Jiminie, I think your comment is very untrue. We all understand that CO2 absorbs infrared. I don't think you'd find anyone from our side challenging that. How flippin long have you been on here? Answer me this, what is the power of that absorbed infrared? And has it been tested?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Government sponsored organizations.....organizations which depend largely on government money....why would I expect them to be on my side in a government sponsored propaganda campaign?

I know you often post things that you do not believe, but even by your standards, this is utterly preposterous!!

Here are FIVE reasons why we know you do not believe this:

1) Because countries like Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Finland have had more conservative governments than anything else the past 20 years, and the idea that a right-wing government would order up left-wing research findings is simply childish.

2) Because if governments ordered research to fit their policies, we would see hugely contradictory findings - right-wing findings in some countries, left-wing in others, objective in others. And actually we don't, so this is obviously not true.

3) Because - as you well know- universities in Europe are funded on a per-project basis, but on the basis of how many students they have. The system is specifically designed to ensure that politicians can not do as you claim.

4) Because research is conducted by universities, Quangos, NGOs and government agencies, they would produce hugely contradictory results if some research was tailor made and some conducted scientifically. This does not happen, so your claim cannot be true.

5) Because few scientists are actually socialists, the idea that a 20-year professor would willingly damage his own career and those of his students to fake research is just silly. Any professor could sell out their own government if they chose to, and the fact that they don't is fairly clear evidence that what you claim is nonsense.

We both know that the only reason you post this garbage is because you can't face the research and the science. You KNOW that is true.

We also both know that there simply is no science on your side of this debate. So your are left with these childish, desperate attempts to save face, long after you know you've been found out.

Really - why do you bother?

 

[jc456]

SSDD -

Government sponsored organizations.....organizations which depend largely on government money....why would I expect them to be on my side in a government sponsored propaganda campaign?

I know you often post things that you do not believe, but even by your standards, this is utterly preposterous!!

Here are FIVE reasons why we know you do not believe this:

1) Because countries like Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Finland have had more conservative governments than anything else the past 20 years, and the idea that a right-wing government would order up left-wing research findings is simply childish.

2) Because if governments ordered research to fit their policies, we would see hugely contradictory findings - right-wing findings in some countries, left-wing in others, objective in others. And actually we don't, so this is obviously not true.

3) Because - as you well know- universities in Europe are funded on a per-project basis, but on the basis of how many students they have. The system is specifically designed to ensure that politicians can not do as you claim.

4) Because research is conducted by universities, Quangos, NGOs and government agencies, they would produce hugely contradictory results if some research was tailor made and some conducted scientifically. This does not happen, so your claim cannot be true.

5) Because few scientists are actually socialists, the idea that a 20-year professor would willingly damage his own career and those of his students to fake research is just silly. Any professor could sell out their own government if they chose to, and the fact that they don't is fairly clear evidence that what you claim is nonsense.

We both know that the only reason you post this garbage is because you can't face the research and the science. You KNOW that is true.

We also both know that there simply is no science on your side of this debate. So your are left with these childish, desperate attempts to save face, long after you know you've been found out.

Really - why do you bother?

So with all this, why isn't there at least one experiment that shows what 120PPM of CO2 does to temperatures? I find it hilarious all this schtick you have and then provide absolutely nothing to back it up. So take some of your own advice.

 

[Saigon]

Jc456 -

I can think of very few things less relevant to this debate than any experiment. What we can observe and measure in the real world is a little more important than what takes place in any lab, I think.

 

[jc456]

Jc456 -

I can think of very few things less relevant to this debate than any experiment. What we can observe and measure in the real world is a little more important than what takes place in any lab, I think.

oh, ok francis. LOL. When the observed doesn't fit you must acquit. I think you fail. The theory is unproven and as such was based off of an expectation, that didn't formulate as expected. AR5 report shows the pause, the pause puts to bed the past model errors. So now we're left with if you wish to state that an added 120PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere affects temps, prove it. And sir in science, if you even know what that is, testing is done through experimentation. So where is the experiment that gives you confidence that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperature and climate. please sir show us your wit! WiNNiNg

 

[SSDD]

Jc456 -

I can think of very few things less relevant to this debate than any experiment. What we can observe and measure in the real world is a little more important than what takes place in any lab, I think.

Observation tells us that for the past 2 decades, it hasn't warmed at all and in fact, the most advanced data gathering network on the face of the earth tells us that for at least the past 10 years, it has been cooling in the us while adjusted temperatures continue to show either no warming or slight warming....all this in the face of ever increasing atmospheric CO2 and in the face of any climate model you care to mention.

And if you can't demonstrate it in a lab....something as fundamental as the claimed warming properties of CO2...then it is because CO2 can not cause warming.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

As we have seen - there is no reason at all for you to ignore the thousands of research papers that have been produced on this topic, just as there is no reason for you to ignore the real world observations of glaciers, droughts & floods, or the melting Arctic.

We also both know that should this experiment be produced tomorrow, you would dismiss it out of hand. Admit to that, at least.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

As we have seen - there is no reason at all for you to ignore the thousands of research papers that have been produced on this topic, just as there is no reason for you to ignore the real world observations of glaciers, droughts & floods, or the melting Arctic.

We also both know that should this experiment be produced tomorrow, you would dismiss it out of hand. Admit to that, at least.

In case you haven't noticed the arctic has been approaching normal for the past couple of years....the antarctic has been posting record after record...the glaciers have been melting for 14k years now....and there is no evidence at all that droughts, floods, or any weather at all is due to man...

What you see is the emperors clothes...myself, I don't, nor have I ever seen them. Not that gullible.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Oh, you are very, very, very gullible. Why else would you believe nutcase blogs, politicians and rogue 'scientists'?

And no - the Arctic is not returning "to normal", bauble:

Following the seasonal daily minimum of 5.02 million square kilometers (1.94 million square miles) that was set on September 17, 2014 (6th lowest in the satellite record), Arctic sea ice has started its seasonal cycle of growth. Arctic sea ice extent averaged for the month of September 2014 was 5.28 million square kilometers (2.04 million square miles), also the 6th lowest in the satellite record. This is 1.24 million square kilometers (479,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 1.65 million square kilometers (637,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for September that occurred in 2012.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[Crick]

This bears repeating

Government sponsored organizations.....organizations which depend largely on government money....why would I expect them to be on my side in a government sponsored propaganda campaign?

SSDD - I know you often post things that you do not believe, but even by your standards, this is utterly preposterous!!

Here are FIVE reasons why we know you do not believe this:

SSDD -
1) Because countries like Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Finland have had more conservative governments than anything else the past 20 years, and the idea that a right-wing government would order up left-wing research findings is simply childish.

SSDD -
2) Because if governments ordered research to fit their policies, we would see hugely contradictory findings - right-wing findings in some countries, left-wing in others, objective in others. And actually we don't, so this is obviously not true.

SSDD -
3) Because - as you well know- universities in Europe are funded on a per-project basis, but on the basis of how many students they have. The system is specifically designed to ensure that politicians can not do as you claim.

SSDD -
4) Because research is conducted by universities, Quangos, NGOs and government agencies, they would produce hugely contradictory results if some research was tailor made and some conducted scientifically. This does not happen, so your claim cannot be true.

SSDD -
5) Because few scientists are actually socialists, the idea that a 20-year professor would willingly damage his own career and those of his students to fake research is just silly. Any professor could sell out their own government if they chose to, and the fact that they don't is fairly clear evidence that what you claim is nonsense.

SSDD -
We both know that the only reason you post this garbage is because you can't face the research and the science. You KNOW that is true.

SSDD -
We also both know that there simply is no science on your side of this debate. So your are left with these childish, desperate attempts to save face, long after you know you've been found out.

Really - why do you bother?

BRAVO ! ! !​

 

[SSDD]

This bears repeating

SSDD -
1) Because countries like Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Finland have had more conservative governments than anything else the past 20 years, and the idea that a right-wing government would order up left-wing research findings is simply childish.

And the idiot moves up a class on the crazy train...tell me, crick...what is happening in New Zealand right now with regard to their temperature data base? The whole argument and anything that might follow collapsed right there.

2) Because if governments ordered research to fit their policies, we would see hugely contradictory findings - right-wing findings in some countries, left-wing in others, objective in others. And actually we don't, so this is obviously not true.

Is that so? Were there wildly contradictory findings regarding plate tectonics....how about any of the instances of supposedly settled science over the past 100 years? Again, the argument fails...it is based on unsubstantiated assumptions...not fact.

SSDD -
3) Because - as you well know- universities in Europe are funded on a per-project basis, but on the basis of how many students they have. The system is specifically designed to ensure that politicians can not do as you claim.

And you think that prevents predetermined outcome of funded studies...hell, you are even more naive than I thought.

SSDD -
4) Because research is conducted by universities, Quangos, NGOs and government agencies, they would produce hugely contradictory results if some research was tailor made and some conducted scientifically. This does not happen, so your claim cannot be true.

Again, is that the case with what was previously thought to be "settled science" which turned out to be wrong? Epic failure after epic failure. Your reasons are your opinions...not supported by previous observation.

SSDD -
5) Because few scientists are actually socialists, the idea that a 20-year professor would willingly damage his own career and those of his students to fake research is just silly. Any professor could sell out their own government if they chose to, and the fact that they don't is fairly clear evidence that what you claim is nonsense.

You think only socialists can be bought if there is enough money in the pot? How many billions per year are up for grabs?

 

[Crick]

1) Because countries like Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Finland have had more conservative governments than anything else the past 20 years, and the idea that a right-wing government would order up left-wing research findings is simply childish.[/quote]

And the idiot moves up a class on the crazy train...tell me, crick...what is happening in New Zealand right now with regard to their temperature data base? The whole argument and anything that might follow collapsed right there.

As usual, you see your own flaws in others. We are not charging that conservative government distort research one way and liberals another. We are making the demonstrable contention that governments have virtually no effect on the results of peer reviewed research. That one very dubious paper gets published in New Zealand (see NZ cranks finally publish an NZ temperature series 8211 but their paper 8217 s stuffed with errors)means nothing. It wasn't sponsored or suppressed by the government.

2) Because if governments ordered research to fit their policies, we would see hugely contradictory findings - right-wing findings in some countries, left-wing in others, objective in others. And actually we don't, so this is obviously not true.

Is that so? Were there wildly contradictory findings regarding plate tectonics....

Were there wild charges of political bias in the discussion of plate tectonics? Was Wegener accused of being a socialist or a communist bent on the destruction of the German economy?

how about any of the instances of supposedly settled science over the past 100 years? Again, the argument fails...it is based on unsubstantiated assumptions...not fact.

What are you babbling about? Saigon has said nothing here about settled science.

SSDD -
3) Because - as you well know- universities in Europe are funded on a per-project basis, but on the basis of how many students they have. The system is specifically designed to ensure that politicians can not do as you claim.

And you think that prevents predetermined outcome of funded studies...hell, you are even more naive than I thought.

Until you present some evidence supporting your position, there's simply no reason anyone should believe you. Till you do, it's all your fantasy.

SSDD -
4) Because research is conducted by universities, Quangos, NGOs and government agencies, they would produce hugely contradictory results if some research was tailor made and some conducted scientifically. This does not happen, so your claim cannot be true.

Again, is that the case with what was previously thought to be "settled science" which turned out to be wrong? Epic failure after epic failure. Your reasons are your opinions...not supported by previous observation.

What epic failure after epic failure has taken place in climate science in the last 30 years? Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed papers (over 30,000 referenced by AR5) find AGW to be a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate and to accurately identify the cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years. The amount of science supporting your position wouldn't fill a chip in a thimble for a fruitfly.

SSDD -
5) Because few scientists are actually socialists, the idea that a 20-year professor would willingly damage his own career and those of his students to fake research is just silly. Any professor could sell out their own government if they chose to, and the fact that they don't is fairly clear evidence that what you claim is nonsense.

You think only socialists can be bought if there is enough money in the pot? How many billions per year are up for grabs?

None. The only benefit researchers get from research grants is an increased likelihood of keeping their jobs. The denier meme that researchers stick grant money in their pockets and then go buy Ferraris and beach front houses with it are complete nonsense.