We will never convince the deniers.

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Let me see....

Caught fabricating data.....

Caught fabricating data...... hundreds of times...

Using models that use fabricated data....

Using models that have no predictive power and fail, without exception...

Caught fabricating data to get a correlation. (never mind that correlation doe not prove causation)...

Caught retraining models, right before touting them as able to be predictive, when they have just trained away the divergence and have no predictive phase shown...


Can you see a problem with alarmists and those they claim are the "authority" on a given subject?

AN "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy...

 

[Oddball]

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.

Let me see....

Caught fabricating data.....

Caught fabricating data...... hundreds of times...

Using models that use fabricated data....

Using models that have no predictive power and fail, without exception...

Caught fabricating data to get a correlation. (never mind that correlation doe not prove causation)...

Caught retraining models, right before touting them as able to be predictive, when they have just trained away the divergence and have no predictive phase shown...


Can you see a problem with alarmists and those they claim are the "authority" on a given subject?

AN "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy...

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

~Kevin Trenberth, Archbishop of the Church of G̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶W̶a̶r̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ C̶l̶a̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶C̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ Extreme Weather Events

 

[Olde Europe]

There's no convincing those whose sense of belonging and peace of mind depend on not understanding any of it.

Before industrialization, CO₂ constituted 280ppm, today it's above 400ppm.

Humans added 120ppm, that's 0.012% - not 0.000012%. But... who's calculating.

And yes, these 0.012% are decisive, as CO₂ acts as the earth's thermostat even while constituting just a tiny fraction of the atmosphere:

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"​

 

[Crick]

Caught fabricating data.....

Who has been caught fabricating data? Link please

Caught fabricating data...... hundreds of times...

Who has been caught fabricating data? Links please

Using models that use fabricated data....

Is there data available to model makers that you do NOT believe to have been fabricated? Links please.

Using models that have no predictive power and fail, without exception...

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

Climate model projections compared to observations

Caught fabricating data to get a correlation. (never mind that correlation doe not prove causation)...

Who was caught fabricating data to get a correlation? And how does this differ from your first two charges? Link please. And why don't you find us some examples of cause and effect that do not display any correlation.

Caught retraining models, right before touting them as able to be predictive, when they have just trained away the divergence and have no predictive phase shown...

It is normal to train models. But if you think someone was being deceptive, who was it? Link please.

Can you see a problem with alarmists and those they claim are the "authority" on a given subject?

No. I see a problem with your vast ignorance on a topic in which you claim to be an expert.

AN "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy...

In this case - as any instance in which the authority actually is an authority on the topic in question - IT IS NOT A FALLACY. You have been told this but keep making this claim. That makes you a willful liar.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Oddball]

 

[danielpalos]

Climate change happens regardless of Man's input to our environment.

Modern cities for modern times.

 

[Crick]

That's such a catchy tune it must be true.

 

[kwc57]

To whichever mod deleted my post, I understand abortion wasn't part of the OP. However, science denial is part of the OP and I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the climate warriors claiming science on one hand and then denying science on the other hand. They cherry pick the science they like politically and then deny the science they don't like politically. It was pertinent to the discussion of science and denial.

 

[skookerasbil]

There's no convincing those whose sense of belonging and peace of mind depend on not understanding any of it.

Before industrialization, CO₂ constituted 280ppm, today it's above 400ppm.

Humans added 120ppm, that's 0.012% - not 0.000012%. But... who's calculating.

And yes, these 0.012% are decisive, as CO₂ acts as the earth's thermostat even while constituting just a tiny fraction of the atmosphere:

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"​

Yeah but entering "uncharted territory" means its uncharted territory. Nobody knows where we go from here. Accordingly, you dont make a decision to throw all of society in the poor house based upon a calculated guess.....which thank God, most folks recognize.

 

[skookerasbil]

To whichever mod deleted my post, I understand abortion wasn't part of the OP. However, science denial is part of the OP and I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the climate warriors claiming science on one hand and then denying science on the other hand. They cherry pick the science they like politically and then deny the science they don't like politically. It was pertinent to the discussion of science and denial.

Agree....and how ironic. Why is it progressives are in a constant state of evolving? Doesnt quite square with the whole science argument, does it? Its "science" only when its convenient and only when it's their science. Pretty hysterical.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Caught fabricating data.....

Who has been caught fabricating data? Link please

Caught fabricating data...... hundreds of times...

Who has been caught fabricating data? Links please

Using models that use fabricated data....

Is there data available to model makers that you do NOT believe to have been fabricated? Links please.

Using models that have no predictive power and fail, without exception...

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

Climate model projections compared to observations

Caught fabricating data to get a correlation. (never mind that correlation doe not prove causation)...

Who was caught fabricating data to get a correlation? And how does this differ from your first two charges? Link please. And why don't you find us some examples of cause and effect that do not display any correlation.

Caught retraining models, right before touting them as able to be predictive, when they have just trained away the divergence and have no predictive phase shown...

It is normal to train models. But if you think someone was being deceptive, who was it? Link please.

Can you see a problem with alarmists and those they claim are the "authority" on a given subject?

No. I see a problem with your vast ignorance on a topic in which you claim to be an expert.

AN "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy...

In this case - as any instance in which the authority actually is an authority on the topic in question - IT IS NOT A FALLACY. You have been told this but keep making this claim. That makes you a willful liar.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
LOL.... Another Appeal to YOUR Authority....

What have you done currently to remove this massive failure?

 

[skookerasbil]

Caught fabricating data.....

Who has been caught fabricating data? Link please

Caught fabricating data...... hundreds of times...

Who has been caught fabricating data? Links please

Using models that use fabricated data....

Is there data available to model makers that you do NOT believe to have been fabricated? Links please.

Using models that have no predictive power and fail, without exception...

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

Climate model projections compared to observations

Caught fabricating data to get a correlation. (never mind that correlation doe not prove causation)...

Who was caught fabricating data to get a correlation? And how does this differ from your first two charges? Link please. And why don't you find us some examples of cause and effect that do not display any correlation.

Caught retraining models, right before touting them as able to be predictive, when they have just trained away the divergence and have no predictive phase shown...

It is normal to train models. But if you think someone was being deceptive, who was it? Link please.

Can you see a problem with alarmists and those they claim are the "authority" on a given subject?

No. I see a problem with your vast ignorance on a topic in which you claim to be an expert.

AN "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy...

In this case - as any instance in which the authority actually is an authority on the topic in question - IT IS NOT A FALLACY. You have been told this but keep making this claim. That makes you a willful liar.

[/QUOTE]
LOL.... Another Appeal to YOUR Authority....

View attachment 244289

What have you done currently to remove this massive failure?[/QUOTE]

Yep.....models are ghey. And the public knows it too!

 

[SSDD]

1) Shakun and Marcott's work established quite clearly that natural tempertature changes take place at a tiny fraction of the rate at which they are taking place now.

Really? What proxy did they use that had sufficient resolution to make such a claim?

Reams of data...no evidence at all...but good enough to fool you...right?

 

[Billy_Bob]

1) Shakun and Marcott's work established quite clearly that natural tempertature changes take place at a tiny fraction of the rate at which they are taking place now.

Really? What proxy did they use that had sufficient resolution to make such a claim?

Reams of data...no evidence at all...but good enough to fool you...right?

You beat me to it... Their proxies are 250+ year plots.. He is up in the damn night...

 

[Crepitus]

We will never convince the deniers. .

Not without

1. Observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. Observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. A published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

We all know that you can produce none of those...and without them, the real question is "What convinced you?"

Those are all out there son, but I ain't gonna bother posting them again just so you can pretend they aren't real.

 

[Sunsettommy]

We will never convince the deniers. .

Not without

1. Observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. Observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. A published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

We all know that you can produce none of those...and without them, the real question is "What convinced you?"

Those are all out there son, but I ain't gonna bother posting them again just so you can pretend they aren't real.

Here were are on page 4 waiting for a cogent post from Crepitus, who started the thread with name calling headline, and zero science in all his comments up to here in the thread.

How can you convince anyone when you write the way you do?

 

[skookerasbil]

Thought the President blasted it out of the park tonight on climate change in SOTU speech!

 

[MisterBeale]

I would like to see some redistribution of wealth. I would like to see a narrower gap between the rich and the poor. I would like to see everyone decently fed with full healthcare and access to all the education they can take. That can be done in this country in a number of ways: an end to fossil fuel subsidies, cuts in defense spending and the reduced cost of medical care and increased productivity the lead changes would produce. But that has NOTHING to do with my desire to avoid global warming beyond 2C.

You people have such a simplistic view of your political opponents.

Actually, it is pretty simple.


. . . . and. . .

We don't need to be opponents to understand a basic relationship. We really don't. We just have to observe it, point it out, and be honest.

The more energy that a nation, region, or people use, the more productive they are going to be, and hence, the more prosperous and wealthy they are going to be.


Your agenda wants to be the kibosh on that.

These are the plane and simple facts. I ever remember Bill Clinton getting caught on a hot mic admitting off the record that this was the goal once. . . to limit growth, to retard GDP. There are two ways to limit damage to the planet;

There are some elites that want to create more infertile folks and limit breeding, and then there are those folks that want to limit consumption.

This one shows, generally, the more energy you burn, the more productive and higher your GDP. In the last several decades there has been a decoupling though. So this is just a snap shot in time, it is actually a three dimensional relationship.

Wow, we hear that "subsidies" word a lot, but what does that mean? You folks are counting that car accident I had a few years back as a subsidy? Or supposed damaged done by CO2 that you can't really prove as oil companies being the source, rather than CO2 coming from the ocean or tundra thaw? Not buying it. . . .

"A 2016 IMF study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3] The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."[3] The authors estimated that the elimination of "subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP."[3] This study is controversial for its radical break with previous definitions of subsidies by redefining externalities as a subsidy, as well as an excessively broad application of social costs as oil externalities. The externalities accounted for are broad enough that oil companies not paying for automobile accidents is considered a subsidy.[16] [17]

According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming.[4] In May 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.[18]"
Energy subsidies - Wikipedia

 

[SSDD]

We will never convince the deniers. .

Not without

1. Observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. Observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. A published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

We all know that you can produce none of those...and without them, the real question is "What convinced you?"

Those are all out there son, but I ain't gonna bother posting them again just so you can pretend they aren't real.

So you guys keep saying...but none of you seem to be able to produce the first bit. Why do you suppose that is? I started a thread specifically based on the 3 statements above...more than 1200 posts in now and still not the first shred of observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements above...so no...they are not out there..and you are a bald faced liar if you claim to have ever posted such observed, measured evidence...

In fact, you don't post evidence...you post opinions...when asked for evidence to support the opinion someone else gave you, you are inevitably at a loss to produce...you are a puppet....a useful idiot...a poor slob with no informed opinion of his own...only the one someone with a political agenda gave you.

 

[cnm]

I want you folks who are proving my point over and over to know i appreciate your help.

Keep up the good work!!

No problem, spend whatever you need, don't worry about showing actual results, eh?

Good work!