We will never convince the deniers.

[ding]

No. I blew it down the stretch and came in second in the golf tourney I was in.

I blame global warming.

Typical. Can't even follow simple instructions.

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

Kid, nobody with any real education doubts AGW.

What’s your education level?

 

[bripat9643]

Typical. Can't even follow simple instructions.

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

Who's the source of the quote in your signature?

That's not a quote, it's a hypocritical rant.

How is it hypocritical?

 

[danielpalos]

we need better modeling software; maybe quantum computing can help.

 

[bripat9643]

And yet models are not science in and of themselves as they are only as good as the assumptions they use. The reality is their performance hasn’t been very good

Who fed you such nonsense, and why did you blindly believe them, without even thinking of fact-checking it yourself? The models have been excellent.

Climate model projections compared to observations

I suspect it is because of the feedback they have to add to get the results they want.

I suspect you're projecting your side's propensity for open fraud. Don't assume that the ethical people act like you do. We are not like you. We won't lie for money.

But putting all that aside the science tells us we are in an interglacial cycle and our present temperature is still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.

The stratospheric warming, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands all flatly contradict your "It's a natural cycle!" theory. Therefore, your theory is wrong. It really is as simple as that.

Furthermore, the science and inspection tells us that atmospheric CO2 reinforces climate change, it does not cause climate change. We entered glacial cycles when atmospheric CO2 was similar to what it is today.

That's a major logical fallacy on your part, your assumption that anyone is saying CO2 is the only driver of climate. You don't see any scientists making such a mistake.

But what I find most disturbing is the attempt to silence dissenting opinions and investigations.

Then tell your side to stop doing it. After all, your side is the only side doing it.

Silencing Climate Science - Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

There is a bias in the climate science community which is disturbing to me. It is driven by money.

If all the hard data didn't flatly contradict your bizarre claims, you wouldn't need to invoke conspiracy theories to explain away such a politically inconvenient reality. But it does, so you do.

Nice attempt at obscuring the facts. Here's the real situation with model accuracy. 95% of them are dead wrong:

 

[IanC]

Ian, you accept greenhouse warming. So why are you putting up arguments that sound as if you do not?

What an odd thing to say to me. I stand up for things I believe to be true and speak out against the false or exaggerated.

Just recently you put up a graph of estimated anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing. I pointed out that clouds were a much larger effect and unknown, at least at this time.

You then asked for peer review papers on all the unknown factors (which still makes me chuckle). When I put up a pair of interconnected papers questioning the value of aerosols being used in climate Models, the adjustments that would need to be made to climate sensitivity estimates, and the possible resurgence of the Iris Effect as a necessary mechanism to save the climate models themselves.

You went on to other topics.

Over and over again I have responded to your exaggerated claims with alternate aspects that need to be taken into consideration . Sometimes you make a few token responses but you always act like you have never heard of them the next time they are mentioned.

I believe CO2 is a large part of the greenhouse effect that is already in place. I believe that increasing CO2 will have a warming influence that may or may not cause additional warming, depending on the many other factors that contribute.

I do not believe that water vapour effects triple the 1C/doubling calculated for increasing CO2. I do not think that various satellite altimetry methods are correctly calibrated. e.g. SLR went from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr at the exact time that satellites came into use. What are the odds of that happening?

I could go on and on, switching from one aspect of climate science to another. And I have in the past. Basically to no avail. No one here changes their mind in any meaningful way.

 

[Crepitus]

Typical. Can't even follow simple instructions.

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

Kid, nobody with any real education doubts AGW.

What’s your education level?

BA, but that doesn't really tell the whole story either.

 

[boedicca]

We will never convince the deniers. Giant world wide conspiracy theories are fun and exciting to think about. Slowly changing climates, where the action happens over years or even decades, just can't compete with that for entertainment value.
Then there is the feeling of belonging these socially handicapped tRumpkins get from high-fiving each other every time they think they've scored some sort of point. For instance the 2 dozen or so threads that were started about the polar vortex disruptions last week.

And finally there's the way these things are presented to them, as if they are some kinda privileged information that only a chosen few get to know. It makes them feel (falsely) superior to everyone else, even if only for a few minutes, and that can be a powerful thing if you suffer from low self esteem like the vast majority of these nut-bars do.

Translation:

You will never be able to dupe rational people into worshipping your fake Climate Change God so that you can enslave them under a Socialist-Slave State regime.

 

[IanC]

We will never convince the deniers. Giant world wide conspiracy theories are fun and exciting to think about. Slowly changing climates, where the action happens over years or even decades, just can't compete with that for entertainment value.
Then there is the feeling of belonging these socially handicapped tRumpkins get from high-fiving each other every time they think they've scored some sort of point. For instance the 2 dozen or so threads that were started about the polar vortex disruptions last week.

And finally there's the way these things are presented to them, as if they are some kinda privileged information that only a chosen few get to know. It makes them feel (falsely) superior to everyone else, even if only for a few minutes, and that can be a powerful thing if you suffer from low self esteem like the vast majority of these nut-bars do.

Translation:

You will never be able to dupe rational people into worshipping your fake Climate Change God so that you can enslave them under a Socialist-Slave State regime.

Yup. Science has pretty consistently moved humanity away from being the centre of the universe.

On the other hand, Climate Science has returned them to importance even if it in a bad light. Children like to get attention and feel important .

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Kid, nobody with any real education doubts AGW.

An absurd statement on its face. There are plenty of people, far better educated than you will ever be, who have not fallen for this hoax.

My own education is rather modest—two Associate Degrees in fields completely unrelated to the topic of this discussion—so you may safely dismiss my education, if you wish.

My brother, however, has a Master's Degree in geology, and is now employed as a college professor teaching in this field. He doesn't believe in the AGW hoax; and this falls solidly in his area of education and expertise. He is one of more than thirty thousand signatories to the Global Warming Petition Project—scientists who are far more educated than you will ever be—who oppose the AGW scam.

 

[Blackrook]

We will never convince the deniers. Giant world wide conspiracy theories are fun and exciting to think about. Slowly changing climates, where the action happens over years or even decades, just can't compete with that for entertainment value.
Then there is the feeling of belonging these socially handicapped tRumpkins get from high-fiving each other every time they think they've scored some sort of point. For instance the 2 dozen or so threads that were started about the polar vortex disruptions last week.

And finally there's the way these things are presented to them, as if they are some kinda privileged information that only a chosen few get to know. It makes them feel (falsely) superior to everyone else, even if only for a few minutes, and that can be a powerful thing if you suffer from low self esteem like the vast majority of these nut-bars do.

Or maybe we're right and you're wrong.

You discount that as a possibility because you have the whole corporate, university, media, Hollywood elite establishment backing your side of the story.

But science isn't decided by a vote of scientists, with the majority always being right.

There was a time when scientists believed Earth was the center of the universe, and that view was backed by the full force of the Catholic Church.

Galileo believed otherwise, and for that he was punished.

Now, we know Galileo was right and all those other scientists were wrong.

And so it with global warming.

And I am old enough to remember global cooling, nuclear winter, and all the other doomsday theories that have come down the pike in the last 30 years.

 

[Crick]

Ian, you accept greenhouse warming. So why are you putting up arguments that sound as if you do not?

What an odd thing to say to me. I stand up for things I believe to be true and speak out against the false or exaggerated.

Climate models are always runs in hindcast during development. I believe it would be a safe assumption that models that took solar radiation variations, volcanic activity, changes in ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt and (as we have seen lately) decreases in human population [thanks to Wikipedia for the list] ought recreate the LIA and the MWP to some extent. None of those factors, however, can be shown to be primary causes for the warming of the 20th and 21st century. All have been studied, which is what I was suggesting you bring forward at the point you claim I asked for peer reviewed studies of unknowns.

Just recently you put up a graph of estimated anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing. I pointed out that clouds were a much larger effect and unknown, at least at this time.

"Much larger effect and unknown"? Was that to make me chuckle?

When I put up a pair of interconnected papers questioning the value of aerosols being used in climate Models, the adjustments that would need to be made to climate sensitivity estimates, and the possible resurgence of the Iris Effect as a necessary mechanism to save the climate models themselves.

I may have been bored. I may have been on travel.

You went on to other topics.

Boredom then.

Over and over again I have responded to your exaggerated claims with alternate aspects that need to be taken into consideration . Sometimes you make a few token responses but you always act like you have never heard of them the next time they are mentioned.

I have stated here before, Ian, that you know more of this topic than do I. You often go off into details that I have neither the depth nor the inclination to join you. My apologies for not at least acknowledging your efforts.

I believe CO2 is a large part of the greenhouse effect that is already in place. I believe that increasing CO2 will have a warming influence that may or may not cause additional warming, depending on the many other factors that contribute.

I have a predilection to suspect things will take a route close to the worst case. I see no cooling factors with anything like the magnitude to stave off further warming.

I do not believe that water vapour effects triple the 1C/doubling calculated for increasing CO2.

I do.

I do not think that various satellite altimetry methods are correctly calibrated. e.g. SLR went from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr at the exact time that satellites came into use. What are the odds of that happening?

Given the SLR has been accelerating for some time, what are the odds of it NOT happening?

I could go on and on, switching from one aspect of climate science to another. And I have in the past. Basically to no avail. No one here changes their mind in any meaningful way.

No one we can see.[/QUOTE]

 

[danielpalos]

Why not study the feasibility of conduits for public goods and public services. Energy, communication, and potable and waste water capability should be included.

 

[Crepitus]

Kid, nobody with any real education doubts AGW.

An absurd statement on its face. There are plenty of people, far better educated than you will ever be, who have not fallen for this hoax.

My own education is rather modest—two Associate Degrees in fields completely unrelated to the topic of this discussion—so you may safely dismiss my education, if you wish.

My brother, however, has a Master's Degree in geology, and is now employed as a college professor teaching in this field. He doesn't believe in the AGW hoax; and this falls solidly in his area of education and expertise. He is one of more than thirty thousand signatories to the Global Warming Petition Project—scientists who are far more educated than you will ever be—who oppose the AGW scam.

How nice for him. Weird that he could make it through all that schooling and still be a total moron.

 

[Crepitus]

We will never convince the deniers. Giant world wide conspiracy theories are fun and exciting to think about. Slowly changing climates, where the action happens over years or even decades, just can't compete with that for entertainment value.
Then there is the feeling of belonging these socially handicapped tRumpkins get from high-fiving each other every time they think they've scored some sort of point. For instance the 2 dozen or so threads that were started about the polar vortex disruptions last week.

And finally there's the way these things are presented to them, as if they are some kinda privileged information that only a chosen few get to know. It makes them feel (falsely) superior to everyone else, even if only for a few minutes, and that can be a powerful thing if you suffer from low self esteem like the vast majority of these nut-bars do.

Or maybe we're right and you're wrong.

You discount that as a possibility because you have the whole corporate, university, media, Hollywood elite establishment backing your side of the story.

But science isn't decided by a vote of scientists, with the majority always being right.

There was a time when scientists believed Earth was the center of the universe, and that view was backed by the full force of the Catholic Church.

Galileo believed otherwise, and for that he was punished.

Now, we know Galileo was right and all those other scientists were wrong.

And so it with global warming.

And I am old enough to remember global cooling, nuclear winter, and all the other doomsday theories that have come down the pike in the last 30 years.

Yeah, nope. You are the wrong ones.

 

[ding]

If there had been less CO2 in the atmosphere the tree I didn’t clear wouldn’t have been as tall and I would have won the tournament.

Did you ever say what you did for a living that would qualify you to be able to discuss scientific issues?

Minimum wage, right?

You kids wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Not a kid, bro. And you dodge like a minimum wager. So on what level do you think it makes sense that a practicing engineer of 35 years should take advice on scientific issues from a minininum wager who denies the natural causes of climate change?

Kid, nobody with any real education doubts AGW.

What’s your education level?

BA, but that doesn't really tell the whole story either.

In what?

Of course it doesn’t tell the whole story. For starters you don’t say what the BA is in.

So what is it that you have done that would make me believe you have done any independent investigation to determine if what you have accepted on the authority of others wasn’t blindly accepted?

 

[IanC]

There is a famous quote about how reasonable men can come to different conclusions even though they are looking at the same evidence. Disraeli perhaps.

One of the problems with AGW is that the warmers demand that you believe everything, no matter how farfetched.

Can I believe CO2 causes warming without accepting a metre of SLR by 2100? Not without being called a denier.

 

[Crick]

There is a famous quote about how reasonable men can come to different conclusions even though they are looking at the same evidence. Disraeli perhaps.

One of the problems with AGW is that the warmers demand that you believe everything, no matter how farfetched.

Can I believe CO2 causes warming without accepting a metre of SLR by 2100? Not without being called a denier.

I'll do my best to just call you Ian.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How nice for him. Weird that he could make it through all that schooling and still be a total moron.

Like you're anyone to call someone else a moron. Either my brother or myself are each likely several times as intelligent as you. All that you seem to have going for you is a bad case of Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Crepitus]

How nice for him. Weird that he could make it through all that schooling and still be a total moron.

Like you're anyone to call someone else a moron. Either my brother or myself are each likely several times as intelligent as you. All that you seem to have going for you is a bad case of Dunning-Kruger effect.

I know I know, some dumbass republican commentator told you to repeat that
It doesn't make it true, nor does it make you or your brother smart.

 

[SSDD]

We will never convince the deniers. Giant world wide conspiracy theories are fun and exciting to think about. Slowly changing climates, where the action happens over years or even decades, just can't compete with that for entertainment value.
Then there is the feeling of belonging these socially handicapped tRumpkins get from high-fiving each other every time they think they've scored some sort of point. For instance the 2 dozen or so threads that were started about the polar vortex disruptions last week.

And finally there's the way these things are presented to them, as if they are some kinda privileged information that only a chosen few get to know. It makes them feel (falsely) superior to everyone else, even if only for a few minutes, and that can be a powerful thing if you suffer from low self esteem like the vast majority of these nut-bars do.

Do you know what an interglacial cycle is, Einstein?

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Are you saying that glacial cycles have nothing to do with climate?

You're off topic.

And you can't support your position...