the Piwd Pipers of Denialism

[SSDD]

And this is the problem, really, because if you guys were honest, you would absolutely accept the aspects of climate change that were easily measured and verified. You'd accept that 97% of the world's glacers were retreating. You'd accept that global temperatures have been rising, and you'd accept that ocean water levels are rising as well. You would accept those things because are straightforward, measurable facts that most of the world accepted ten years ago. Essentially every scientific source will confirm them, and certainly every scientific organisation will confirm them.

The problem is that they aren't true.....and even if they were true, or partially true, that does not mean that human activities are the cause.

 

[westwall]

Ian -

That is a quote from the American Meterological Society. Do get in touch with them and explain the details, as they may not understand this issue as well as you do.

only an alarmist would admit to plagiarism rather than just admit there is evidence to contradict his statement. strange set of ethics you have there.

He's a "journalist". They have no ethics. They call themselves the Fourth Estate, because they think they are part of the ruling elite so they will lie, cheat, and steal to push their agenda.

 

[Saigon]

And this is the problem, really, because if you guys were honest, you would absolutely accept the aspects of climate change that were easily measured and verified. You'd accept that 97% of the world's glacers were retreating. You'd accept that global temperatures have been rising, and you'd accept that ocean water levels are rising as well. You would accept those things because are straightforward, measurable facts that most of the world accepted ten years ago. Essentially every scientific source will confirm them, and certainly every scientific organisation will confirm them.

The problem is that they aren't true.....and even if they were true, or partially true, that does not mean that human activities are the cause.

Well obviously they ARE true, and anyone who has followed the debate can confirm that.

You are EXACTLY right that were you guys honest enough to admit things like collapsing glaciers and rising temperatures - that would not in itself prove CO2 was to blame. Which is exactly why honest people would admit to it.

What we have established here is simply that you guys reject anything and everything out of hand. I don't know why, but it's been established here beyond much measure of doubt, I would have thought.

 

[westwall]

And this is the problem, really, because if you guys were honest, you would absolutely accept the aspects of climate change that were easily measured and verified. You'd accept that 97% of the world's glacers were retreating. You'd accept that global temperatures have been rising, and you'd accept that ocean water levels are rising as well. You would accept those things because are straightforward, measurable facts that most of the world accepted ten years ago. Essentially every scientific source will confirm them, and certainly every scientific organisation will confirm them.

The problem is that they aren't true.....and even if they were true, or partially true, that does not mean that human activities are the cause.

Well obviously they ARE true, and anyone who has followed the debate can confirm that.

You are EXACTLY right that were you guys honest enough to admit things like collapsing glaciers and rising temperatures - that would not in itself prove CO2 was to blame. Which is exactly why honest people would admit to it.

What we have established here is simply that you guys reject anything and everything out of hand. I don't know why, but it's been established here beyond much measure of doubt, I would have thought.

On what planet are they true? 'Cause it sure isn't this one. Computer models are not data for the umpteenth time.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Perhaps at the time you start listening to your own sources (the Innuit, Der Speigel, tidal gauges etc) it will be slightly less obvious that you have 0 interest in anything except fundamentalist denial.

 

[SSDD]

Well obviously they ARE true, and anyone who has followed the debate can confirm that.

Obviously you have been following the debate rather than looking at the actual research as opposed to the output of climate models. They are for the most part not true and the parts that are true are only obliquely true. You are the willing victim of a hoax.

 

[SSDD]

Westwall -

Perhaps at the time you start listening to your own sources (the Innuit, Der Speigel, tidal gauges etc) it will be slightly less obvious that you have 0 interest in anything except fundamentalist denial.

He has been listening...all of us skeptics have been listening...that's why we are skeptics. You haven't been listening...you have been drinking the kool aid.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows sea levels around Australia have declined over the past 7000 years

A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews is the "First synthesis of post-glacial sea level data around Australia in over 25 years," and shows that sea levels around Australia were from about 1 to 2.5 meters higher than the present 7000 years ago during the Holocene Thermal Maximum [which lasted 4000 years between 9000 to 5000 years ago]. The authors note that Australia is relatively stable tectonically and thus sea level data is not complicated by post-glacial isostatic and other adjustments, which would add considerable uncertainty to sea level reconstructions.

ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Science Reviews - Post-glacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Sea levels were much higher and ice sheets less stable 120,000 years ago with 'safe' CO2 levels

ScienceDaily (Sep. 11, 2011) — New evidence of sea-level oscillations during a warm period that started about 125,000 years ago raises the possibility of a similar scenario if the planet continues its more recent warming trend, says a research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).

In a paper published online in the Sept. 11 Nature Geoscience, the researchers report data from an improved method of dating fossil coral reef skeletons in the Bahamas. By calculating more accurate ages for the coral samples than previously possible, they found that sea levels were considerably less stable than earlier believed--oscillating up and down by 4 to 6 meters (13-20 feet) over a few thousand years about 120,000 years ago during a period known as the Last Interglacial.

Sea levels much less stable than earlier believed, new coral dating method suggests



THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds sea level trends are biased by natural ocean oscillations

A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that much of the observed variation in Pacific Ocean sea levels is explained by natural ocean oscillations such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] and El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO]. The authors caution that sea level trends over the short period observed by satellites [less than 20 years] can be erroneously biased by this natural variability.

Sea level trends, interannual and decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean - Zhang - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library



THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Sea level rise in Southwest Pacific dropped by factor of 6 during latter half of 20th century

According to a paper published last week in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, the rate of sea level rise in the Southwest Pacific region (Tasmania & New Zealand) dropped by a factor of 6 from 4.2 mm/yr between 1900-1950 to only 0.7 mm/yr between 1951-2000.

ScienceDirect.com - Earth and Planetary Science Letters - Nineteenth and twentieth century sea-level changes in Tasmania and New Zealand

 

[IanC]

during the last 10,000 years since the interglacial period started it is well accepted that temperatures spiked at the beginning and are gradually decreasing,

And yet all of the 10 hottest years since 2001 occurred in the past 15 years.

That may be "well-accepted", but not by the American Meteorological Society

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you obviously know about the quote function, you used it once in this message. where is the quote from AMS?

I have received a couple of PMs telling me I should report you to the moderators for breaking the rules of quotation but I simply cannot be bothered. but I think you should start cleaning up your act.

and I still think you are a total asshole for turning

and yet you think I am a conspiracy theorist for being concerned that there are very few temp stations in northern canada

into

I am a conspiracy theorist for being concerned that there are very few temp stations in northern canada

and then refusing to fix the quote attributed to me. your ethics suck, are you related to Peter Gleick by any chance?

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

Seriously dude - it is not hard to find. I am not going to spend a half hour trying to find something I am 100% certain that I posted.

Go and look, and get back to me when you've found it if you have something you wish to add or ask.

As you may have noticed, I tend to avoid the usual red herrings, wild tangents and goose chases - I'm not about to change tune on that here.

 

[IanC]

Ian -

Seriously dude - it is not hard to find. I am not going to spend a half hour trying to find something I am 100% certain that I posted.

Go and look, and get back to me when you've found it if you have something you wish to add or ask.

As you may have noticed, I tend to avoid the usual red herrings, wild tangents and goose chases - I'm not about to change tune on that here.

what are you talking about?

I quoted your non-quote of AMS in its entirety, and if you want to revisit your ugly misquote of me simply follow the neg rep I gave you. misquoting is just about the only thing I neg rep for.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

Perhaps this well end the goose chase.

This is the policy of the American Meterological Society on climate change, and this is what I quoted (in part):

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have absolutely no idea why you needed this re-posting.

btw. As for the quote - I'm quite comfortable with it. I prefer not to quote massive texts because it takes up room on the page - hence I usually snip a paragraph, sentence or phrases that I am replying to. I don't feel I changed the tone of your statement and certainly that wasn't my intention to do so. I also think anyone confused could easily check your original statement to read the context.

 

[SSDD]

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.

So lets see the unequivocal evidence that the dominant cause of warming since the 1950's is human activities. There must be some pretty hard evidence out there in support of such a statement. Lets see it. Just for the record, unequivocal is defined as:

1. not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent; unequivocal proof.

2. absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions: The cosigner of a note gives unequivocal assurance that it will be paid when due.

Show me some unequivocal evidence that man is responsible for most of the climate change since the 1950's. Is this unequivocal evidence observable?, repeatable?, quantifiable?, empirical?, testable?...any of the above?

There is no doubt that the climate is changing as it is always changing...you will find it difficult to produce any empirical evidence whatsoever, much less unequivocal evidence that man is responsible for any global climate change, much less is the dominant cause for climate change over the past half century.

That statement is clear evidence that they have lied. If such evidence exists, surely you can bring it here and prove that they aren't lying through their teeth. My bet is that no such evidence will be forthcoming because it does not, in fact, exist.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Will you apply the same standards to climate change as you do to gravity? To radiation?

In most areas of science, we can observe and measure what we see around us, but to explain what we see we have to use logic and science.

To answer your question - yes, there is total and absolute proof of climate change in today's world, which is why there is also scientific consensus on those changes. These can be seen, measured, analysed and proven beyond any doubt. Unequivocal, definitely.

For the future, and for the causes, obviously there are few hard and fast signs in nature. We do not look at the remains of a retreating glacier and see a sign marked "CO2 did this". Most scientists, however, agree on the causes and on the future effects.

At the moment your only interest here seems to be political, so it is only at the point that you get beyond that that you will be able to really look at the evidence with an open mind and view the evidence accordingly. At that point I am sure any number of posters will be able to point you towards useful material and links.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Will you apply the same standards to climate change as you do to gravity? To radiation?

I didn't apply the standard of unequivocallity, the American Meterology Society did and you did by referencing their statement. You see, I already knew that there was no such evidence and that neither you, nor all of climate science would be able to produce anything even approaching the surety that they claim. I know that present day climate science is a joke...a guessing game...a scam....a hoax...but you and they claim unequivocal proof that man is the major cause of climate change so lets see the unequivocal evidence.

In most areas of science, we can observe and measure what we see around us, but to explain what we see we have to use logic and science.

So are you saying that they lied and no such unequivocal evidence exists? The statment was political in nature and not factual?

To answer your question - yes, there is total and absolute proof of climate change in today's world, which is why there is also scientific consensus on those changes. These can be seen, measured, analysed and proven beyond any doubt. Unequivocal, definitely.

You are weaseling again....the issue isn't whether or not the climate is changing...it has always been changing...it would be unprecedented if it remained static.....the issue is whether man is causing the present change. The claim has been made that there is unequivocal evidence to support that claim. Lets see it, or admit that the claim is a lie.

For the future, and for the causes, obviously there are few hard and fast signs in nature. We do not look at the remains of a retreating glacier and see a sign marked "CO2 did this". Most scientists, however, agree on the causes and on the future effects.

Agree based on what? Unequivocal evidence? Lets see it. Or do they agree based on the money available to those who "believe"...or do they believe in computer models because that is what they have been educated to believe in? If there is unequivocal evidence then show it...if there isn't, then at least be grown up enough to acknowledge the lie.

At the moment your only interest here seems to be political, so it is only at the point that you get beyond that that you will be able to really look at the evidence with an open mind and view the evidence accordingly. At that point I am sure any number of posters will be able to point you towards useful material and links.

In case you haven't noticed during the course of our conversation, it is me who keeps posting peer reviewed, material published in respectable, credible publications that state quite clearly that your claims are false. It is you who is more interested in pushing a political agenda, than actual science.

I keep asking for evidence and you keep not providing it. I ask for the evidence you claim proves man is cauing the climate to change and you post evidence of change as if the two were the same....they are not. I don't dispute that the climate is changing.....it is always changing. I dispute that man is even a minor player in the global climate, much less a major cause. You have, via the AMS claimed that unequivocal proof exists that man is the major cause for global climate change.....lets see it. Post it here for all to view....convince me with some actual unequivocal proof that man is responsible for the observed change in the climate.

And I have asked any number of posters before you for a link to the claimed evidence....none has ever been forthcoming. Rocks posts dogma and when asked which part of the links he provides represents proof of anything, he has no answer. Others do the same. You have made the claim of unequivocal proof...are you now unable to produce it?

Why make the claim if you can't back it up? Why repeat the claim of others if you know it can't be backed up? Or did you believe it could be backed up and just never took the time to think that maybe, just maybe you have been lied to? Now that you see that you can't provide the unequivocal proof that you were told exists, does your attitude change?.....does your position begin to change?.....or are you still a faithful member of the congregation stating what you have been told knowing that the claimed proof does not exist?

My bet is the latter as it is the easiest course for an intellectual slacker.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

As I mentioned - if at any point you can get beyond the politics and become interested in science, I'm sure you'll want to look at some of the absolutely excellent science out there.

It is this science that convinced oil companies, conservative politicians etc to change their thinking - but at the moment I don't believe it is possible for you to learn.

it is me who keeps posting peer reviewed, material published in respectable, credible publications

Oh, right! That's good to know! So you don't just quote Norwegian politicians, then!!

It's really good as someone who dismisses out of hand the work of every major scientific organisation and research unit known to man is the one posting good science here!!

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

As I mentioned - if at any point you can get beyond the politics and become interested in science, I'm sure you'll want to look at some of the absolutely excellent science out there.

I am interested in science...ergo the request for the unequivocal proof that you claimed was out there in support of the claim that mankind is the major cause of the present changes in the climate.

Obviously, the claim was a lie. Obviously you can provide no actual science in support of your claims but insist that I belive anyway. You can't even provide the most basic evidence that I have asked for repeatedly....but you insist that I believe. what the hell?

It is this science that convinced oil companies, conservative politicians etc to change their thinking - but at the moment I don't believe it is possible for you to learn.

The science has convinced them, but you can't produce even one shred of hard scientific evidence? Is it secret science? Is it top secret science that can't be revealed to the population of the world? Or is it just money that has bought cooperation in the hoax?

You can't produce the claimed unequivocal scientific evidence so occam's razor says that the cooperation isn't based on science.

Oh, right! That's good to know! So you don't just quote Norwegian politicians, then!!

Are you saying that professor Ole is a politician? Hell of an academic record for a politician. You get even more stupid when you get pissy.

It's really good as someone who dismisses out of hand the work of every major scientific organisation and research unit known to man is the one posting good science here!!

I keep asking for the work and you keep not producing it....none of you guys ever produce it but you keep claiming that it exists.....where is it?

The work itself doesn't exist...what exists is an appeal to authority that is, itself, the cornerstone of the hoax.

You claim the work is out there that unequivocally proves man is driving the climate.....post it or acknowledge the lie.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

When you are prepared to leave the politics to one side and look at the science with an open mind, you'll have no problem finding it.

We both know you aren't there yet.

btw - We both know that you have usee politicians as sources.

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

When you are prepared to leave the politics to one side and look at the science with an open mind, you'll have no problem finding it.

We both know you aren't there yet.

btw - We both know that you have usee politicians as sources.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Perhaps you can go back to explaining to us what good sources the Inniut people and Der Speigel are!!

I do think it is absolutely priceless when you talk about logic - the same week that you find that even your own recommended sources don't agree with you!!!

btw. I know that you have also used politicians as sources, even when they have no background in science at all.

 

[Si modo]

Poor Saigon. The stove really is hot, so you don't need to keep touching it to figure that out.