The Arrogance of the Warmers

[westwall]

Walleyes, you wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you in the ass.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

How about posting that study that showed CO2 levels rising to a very high level and for the next 1000 years there were two cycles of heating and cooling while the CO2 levels remained elevated, thus showing no correlation at all between CO2 levels and temperatures. C'mon olfraud repost it, I dare you!

Very stupid of you, Walleyes. For if you look at the graph, the variation in CO2 is about 282 to 272 ppm. And the 282 was during the MWP, while the 272 was during the Little Ice Age. Yes, I will post that site and it's graphs again.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

Nice attempt there olfraud but that's not the study I'm thinking of. Post the correct one. Chicken!

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you have some study by an obese drugged out radio jock, Walleyes?

 

[Big Fitz]

Completely unproven that it is not produced from other sources besides mankind. Warmists have NO absolute proof of anything. You can say that CO2 increased, but you cannot link it irrefutably to strictly anthropogenic sources.

Other than that, you do have a cool avatar.

Lordy, lordy, Fritz, you once again demonstrate your total ignorance of science. Yes, it is proven that we are the source of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We know how much coal that we have produced and burned. Same for petroleum and natural gas. One ton of coal when burned creates over 3 tons of CO2.

Yes, definate proof of where the added CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans come from. And you are either powerfully ignorant or a liar to state that we do not.

No, it's not. It is just as likely that the CO2 now being observed is the result of the warming from the MWP which occurred 800 years ago. Amazingly enough correlating with observations from the Vostock Ice cores. Of course as a scientist I realise that correlation does NOT equal causation so I am not so bold as to say it is the truth. Unlike you arrogant warmers.

And that's the essence of my point. They refuse, for politico-religious reasons to separate the fact that the mere fact man's industrial era began in a time of cold and has since warmed from those lows. They refuse to admit because of their desired pre-determined outcome that all ecological change is both negative and man's fault as an excuse to put into action their fascist desires for ruling their fellow men.

All their solutions are fascist. All their goals are Malthusian. All their ethics are bankrupt to meeting their greed for power for everything justifies anything to achieve it.

 

[Dragon]

I never said any of that!

Sure you did, or implied it anyway. Recent experiments cast doubt on a central idea of special relativity, therefore those who want action taken against global warming are being "arrogant" because their science can't be any more certain than Einstein's.

There is always a possibility of being wrong; that's part of doing science. That doesn't mean we sit paralyzed and unable to take action when all the available evidence says we need to in order to avert a catastrophe. Sure, the science could be wrong. It probably isn't, but it could be. But since that can be said at any state of knowledge, the conclusion if you want to go that direction is that we should never do anything.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I never said any of that!

Sure you did, or implied it anyway. Recent experiments cast doubt on a central idea of special relativity, therefore those who want action taken against global warming are being "arrogant" because their science can't be any more certain than Einstein's.

There is always a possibility of being wrong; that's part of doing science. That doesn't mean we sit paralyzed and unable to take action when all the available evidence says we need to in order to avert a catastrophe. Sure, the science could be wrong. It probably isn't, but it could be. But since that can be said at any state of knowledge, the conclusion if you want to go that direction is that we should never do anything.

There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.

I've been asking for years and I've never gotten any Warmer to post the experiment with results described

 

[Dragon]

There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.

I've been asking for years and I've never gotten any Warmer to post the experiment with results described

Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

The science is sound. About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt. There remains considerable uncertainty about the exact amount of warming to be expected and about the consequences for life on earth and for humanity/civilization. Also, as Bill Clinton said recently in a speech on the subject, there's room for political dispute about the best and most economical way to reduce our carbon footprint, but that can't even start until the irrational denialism, driven by a well-funded propaganda campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry, is dropped from serious politics.

Your own argument in the OP is no more logical than those who say we can't trust science because scientists lie about their findings in order to get more funding. With that attitude, we return to the Dark Ages.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.

I've been asking for years and I've never gotten any Warmer to post the experiment with results described

Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

The science is sound. About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt. There remains considerable uncertainty about the exact amount of warming to be expected and about the consequences for life on earth and for humanity/civilization. Also, as Bill Clinton said recently in a speech on the subject, there's room for political dispute about the best and most economical way to reduce our carbon footprint, but that can't even start until the irrational denialism, driven by a well-funded propaganda campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry, is dropped from serious politics.

Your own argument in the OP is no more logical than those who say we can't trust science because scientists lie about their findings in order to get more funding. With that attitude, we return to the Dark Ages.

What you're describing is not science; it's somewhere between alchemy and astrology.

 

[Big Fitz]

I never said any of that!

Sure you did, or implied it anyway. Recent experiments cast doubt on a central idea of special relativity, therefore those who want action taken against global warming are being "arrogant" because their science can't be any more certain than Einstein's.

There is always a possibility of being wrong; that's part of doing science. That doesn't mean we sit paralyzed and unable to take action when all the available evidence says we need to in order to avert a catastrophe. Sure, the science could be wrong. It probably isn't, but it could be. But since that can be said at any state of knowledge, the conclusion if you want to go that direction is that we should never do anything.

There is always a possibility of being wrong;

Yes, and there is more and more proof showing that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a failed theory, just like land bridges, Phrenology, Spontaneous Generation and an Earth Centered Universe.

Can be and is wrong seems to be more and more the case.

 

[Dragon]

What you're describing is not science; it's somewhere between alchemy and astrology.

I'm sorry, but I'll accept the views of the climate science community over yours on that assessment.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, and there is more and more proof showing that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a failed theory

No, there is not.

 

[Big Fitz]

There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.

I've been asking for years and I've never gotten any Warmer to post the experiment with results described

Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

The science is sound. About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt. There remains considerable uncertainty about the exact amount of warming to be expected and about the consequences for life on earth and for humanity/civilization. Also, as Bill Clinton said recently in a speech on the subject, there's room for political dispute about the best and most economical way to reduce our carbon footprint, but that can't even start until the irrational denialism, driven by a well-funded propaganda campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry, is dropped from serious politics.

Your own argument in the OP is no more logical than those who say we can't trust science because scientists lie about their findings in order to get more funding. With that attitude, we return to the Dark Ages.

What you're describing is not science; it's somewhere between alchemy and astrology.

Now let's not be TOO hasty to put it so highly in the pantheon of science. After all, it's a climatological philosopher's stone.

It's hot, AGW
It's cold, AGW
It's wet, AGW.
It's dry, AGW.
It snows, AGW.
Comets, AGW.
Monkeys fly out our butts, AGW.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes, and there is more and more proof showing that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a failed theory

No, there is not.

The first stage of grief is denial.

:::slaps forehead as he sees all the dumbasses trying to be witty about this snappy remark.:::

Show to me proof the source of any CO2 in the atmosphere.

Secondly, show me that our insignificant portion of this part of the atmosphere is actually directly able to affect climate change.

Thirdly, show me that this is a BAD thing.

Fourthly, give me a solution that is NOT an excuse for global ecofascism.

This type of challenge has been failed for the entire time I've been posting here. So don't feel bad when you do too.

 

[Dragon]

The first stage of grief is denial.

The first step in proving your assertion is NOT making a wisecrack.

 

[Big Fitz]

The first stage of grief is denial.

The first step in proving your assertion is NOT making a wisecrack.

Sorry, you have to prove the existence. I do not have to prove a non-existence. that's the way it works. You assert AGW exists, you must prove it exists. You have not. You have only alleged and when open debate and HONEST debate has been done, and your numbers have been checked... they've been found wanting at best, an utter joke and fraud at the worst.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What you're describing is not science; it's somewhere between alchemy and astrology.

I'm sorry, but I'll accept the views of the climate science community over yours on that assessment.

Why do you even bother responding if you punt at the first chance you get?

My entire point is that there is no real science in the "science" of global warming and the first and only hint anyone needs is that they're calling it "Settled science" where there is no such a thing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

The science is sound. About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt. There remains considerable uncertainty about the exact amount of warming to be expected and about the consequences for life on earth and for humanity/civilization. Also, as Bill Clinton said recently in a speech on the subject, there's room for political dispute about the best and most economical way to reduce our carbon footprint, but that can't even start until the irrational denialism, driven by a well-funded propaganda campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry, is dropped from serious politics.

Your own argument in the OP is no more logical than those who say we can't trust science because scientists lie about their findings in order to get more funding. With that attitude, we return to the Dark Ages.

What you're describing is not science; it's somewhere between alchemy and astrology.

Now let's not be TOO hasty to put it so highly in the pantheon of science. After all, it's a climatological philosopher's stone.

It's hot, AGW
It's cold, AGW
It's wet, AGW.
It's dry, AGW.
It snows, AGW.
Comets, AGW.
Monkeys fly out our butts, AGW.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate. We have consensus.

 

[Dragon]

My entire point is that there is no real science in the "science" of global warming

And again, I don't consider you an authority to be making a statement like this. At least when you were talking about the inevitable uncertainty in science, with the recent experiments possibly invalidating special relativity as a background, you were on solid ground as far as that went.

I don't know that "settled science" is a phrase actually used in the scientific community. However, it may be used from an outsider's perspective to observe that, in the major peer-reviewed publication, the evidence for or against AGW is no longer even being discussed. Here's an experiment of mine that you can repeat to illustrate this.

Journal home : Nature

There is a link to Nature on line, the internet publication of arguably the most prestigious general-science peer-reviewed journal in the world. It has an onboard search engine. Put the words "climate change" into the search engine and do a search.

Read the abstracts of the first 100 articles that come up from the search. On the basis of the abstracts, divide the articles into three categories:

1) Those that either argue in favor of AGW, or accept it as a given and discuss something more specific under its rubric.
2) Those that argue against AGW, either claiming that the planet is not warming or positing some non-anthropogenic cause for the warming that is observed and claiming on that basis that AGW may be false.
3) Those that have nothing to do with AGW (e.g., studies of fossil records of prehistoric climate change).

Every time I have done that in recent years, category 2 has been empty. The number of articles seriously trying to refute AGW has been zero. That doesn't mean there hasn't been plenty of controversy, but it's been around the fine points, not the overall idea that the planet is warming and human activity is the primary culprit. It also doesn't mean that you can't find some discussion of natural causes of part of the warming that's observed. But while you should not find scientists using the phrase "settled science" in a professional context, we as laypersons may observe from the outside that yes, the science on this does appear to be settled. The only "scientists" (by which I mean persons who have earned a PhD in some science or other) remaining on the other side of the debate are not publishing real science in real peer-reviewed journals, but instead their views are given a platform by the fossil-fuel industry.

 

[wirebender]

Really? Come on Walleyes, this is the second time you have made this nonsense statement. Stand and deliver, boy, or be branded a lying flap yap.

I already provided you with the studies of CO2 levels in the past couple of centuries rocks. Well over 400 ppm in the 1800's. I don't have time to find the post for you right now but if you can't manage it, I will find it for you later.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How about posting that study that showed CO2 levels rising to a very high level and for the next 1000 years there were two cycles of heating and cooling while the CO2 levels remained elevated, thus showing no correlation at all between CO2 levels and temperatures. C'mon olfraud repost it, I dare you!

Very stupid of you, Walleyes. For if you look at the graph, the variation in CO2 is about 282 to 272 ppm. And the 282 was during the MWP, while the 272 was during the Little Ice Age. Yes, I will post that site and it's graphs again.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

Nice attempt there olfraud but that's not the study I'm thinking of. Post the correct one. Chicken!

The question is why should I accept one study over possibly thousands that say otherwise? Those tree and plant "studies" don't show it as high as today, but higher then the ice cores, yes.

 

[westwall]

The first stage of grief is denial.

The first step in proving your assertion is NOT making a wisecrack.

No, you have made the extraordinary claim that the weather we are seeing today is somehow exceptional. I look forward to your supporting evidence. Please note however, we require EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, not computer models. They are so poor as to be unusable.