Why AGW must be wrong.

[SpidermanTuba]

Your post could also answer the reason we had global warming for the last 30 years.

No, none of those factors account for the recent warming. But Dude is fast at work on what will be the first global climate model to account for the warming without man made CO2.

You don't know if those factors account for the warming, or not. There is no data to back your assumption.

Yes, we do. They don't account for it. You simply haven't bothered to do any research whatsoever.

 

[Oddball]

There is no perfect temperature.

Are you going to stop posting here and get to work falsifying AGW, are you just going to keep saying stupid things?

If there is no perfect, or correct temperature, how can you give a reference point for global warming?

The choice of reference point is irrelevant to the question of whether or not temperatures are rising.

It is relevant when you're trying to prove causality...Which you cannot.

Game over.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There you have it...."Settled science" isn't a definitive set of data........Like I said already; totally bogus and deceptive semantics.

BTW....I'm whining about nothing.

So, what's the "perfect" temperature for the planet?

There is no perfect temperature.


Are you going to stop posting here and get to work falsifying AGW, .....

Whether you choose to admit it or not, I just did.

You have no fixed point for reference....No reproducible static control, hence no reproducible results in proper context.

Bubba, all you have an overly elaborate version of Piltdown Man.

You sir, are quite simply a moron. The reference point is irrelevant. You can pick 0 degrees if you like, the temperature are still WARMING.

 

[Oddball]

You, sir, are a blind lemming cultist, who wouldn't know scientific method if it ran you over.

 

[Meister]

No, none of those factors account for the recent warming. But Dude is fast at work on what will be the first global climate model to account for the warming without man made CO2.

You don't know if those factors account for the warming, or not. There is no data to back your assumption.

Yes, we do. They don't account for it. You simply haven't bothered to do any research whatsoever.

Past history disagrees with your assumption. There have been plenty of heating and cooling periods without the Man made CO2

 

[Oddball]

"Settled science"

 

[Oddball]

"Hide the decline"

 

[Meister]

"Hide the decline"

yep

 

[Oddball]

"We'll keep it (contravening evidence) out (of IPCC reports) if we have to redefine what peer review is."

 

[Oddball]

"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."

 

[Meister]

That's the little secrets that they don't want to address, and just pretend it was never said

 

[Oddball]

"I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not
always the same."

 

[Xenophon]

SHUTTUP!!

Global warming is killing polar bears you bastards!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You don't know if those factors account for the warming, or not. There is no data to back your assumption.

Yes, we do. They don't account for it. You simply haven't bothered to do any research whatsoever.

Past history disagrees with your assumption. There have been plenty of heating and cooling periods without the Man made CO2

The present warming trend cannot be accounted for without man-made Co2.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"Hide the decline"

You don't even know what they are talking about.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Trenberth says his quote "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment." was taken out of context: "We've always had some problems with the observing system," he said. "It's obviously not as good as we would like, and that's true of the temperature record, as well. What this is saying is we need better observations. What it's not saying is that global warming is not here."







Kevin says ... "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". I do not

agree with this.

Tom.

 

[Hum Dinger]

It's amazing that while 99% of the scientists in the world agree that GW is a reality, conservatives 99% of whom are not scientists have the gaul to challenge the scientific world on this issue.

Talk about a bunch of politically brainwashed drones!

Their compete misconception of what constitutes scientific proof is idiotic - maybe it reflects a high school education in science at best.

The "scientific method", which is taught in High Schools, calls for the creation of a isolated model in the lab. Tests are run against the model to collect data, then deductive reasoning is applied to create a theory based on the data. The theory is then tested against more laboratory models and tested against known instances outside the laboratory - accounting for factors that may influence that are not included in the isolated laboratory models.

What these H.S. geniuses don't account for is the fact that some things cannot be recreated to any meanful extent in the laboratory. Absolute pure data cannot be obtained. So Science then can only obtain limited data or data that is produced in non-isolated conditions. In this case mathematics, including statistical analysis, combined with deductive reasoning are used to analyze data and create theories.

The conservative object to this, requiring absolute proof, which is not possible in the case of GW.

In fact, we do have proof that GW is occurring, we just can't absolutely prove that it's being caused or accelerated by mankind. But by all reason we know that it most probably is.

The worst aspect of this whole argument is that it is abundanly clear that there are special interests - industrialist that do not want to be taxed based on carbon admissions - that DO NOT want actions taking to reduce carbon admissions simply becuase it would mean a business loss for them.

They in turn fund this massive conservative effort to debunk the GW theory. Of course the brainwashed conservative sycophants regurgitate the political bullshit of their masters like the good little drones that they are.

The facts are:

1. The earth is warming.No doubt about that whatsoever.

2. Almost every qualified scientist in the world agrees that carbon admissions are either causing or contributing to GW.

3. Industrialists do not want cap & trade for personal financial reasons.

Until Conservatives can show absolute proof that GW is NOT being caused or accelerated by carbon admissions, they should SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the people who are qualified take charge of this issue.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's amazing that while 99% of the scientists in the world agree that GW is a reality, conservatives 99% of whom are not scientists have the gaul to challenge the scientific world on this issue.

Talk about a bunch of politically brainwashed drones!

Their compete misconception of what constitutes scientific proof is idiotic - maybe it reflects a high school education in science at best.

The "scientific method", which is taught in High Schools, calls for the creation of a isolated model in the lab. Tests are run against the model to collect data, then deductive reasoning is applied to create a theory based on the data. The theory is then tested against more laboratory models and tested against known instances outside the laboratory - accounting for factors that may influence that are not included in the isolated laboratory models.

What these H.S. geniuses don't account for is the fact that some things cannot be recreated to any meanful extent in the laboratory. Absolute pure data cannot be obtained. So Science then can only obtain limited data or data that is produced in non-isolated conditions. In this case mathematics, including statistical analysis, combined with deductive reasoning are used to analyze data and create theories.

The conservative object to this, requiring absolute proof, which is not possible in the case of GW.

In fact, we do have proof that GW is occurring, we just can't absolutely prove that it's being caused or accelerated by mankind. But by all reason we know that it most probably is.

The worst aspect of this whole argument is that it is abundanly clear that there are special interests - industrialist that do not want to be taxed based on carbon admissions - that DO NOT want actions taking to reduce carbon admissions simply becuase it would mean a business loss for them.

They in turn fund this massive conservative effort to debunk the GW theory. Of course the brainwashed conservative sycophants regurgitate the political bullshit of their masters like the good little drones that they are.

The facts are:

1. The earth is warming.No doubt about that whatsoever.

2. Almost every qualified scientist in the world agrees that carbon admissions are either causing or contributing to GW.

3. Industrialists do not want cap & trade for personal financial reasons.

Until Conservatives can show absolute proof that GW is NOT being caused or accelerated by carbon admissions, they should SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the people who are qualified take charge of this issue.

crickets... crickets... crickets...

 

[Meister]

It's amazing that while 99% of the scientists in the world agree that GW is a reality, conservatives 99% of whom are not scientists have the gaul to challenge the scientific world on this issue.

Talk about a bunch of politically brainwashed drones!

Their compete misconception of what constitutes scientific proof is idiotic - maybe it reflects a high school education in science at best.

The "scientific method", which is taught in High Schools, calls for the creation of a isolated model in the lab. Tests are run against the model to collect data, then deductive reasoning is applied to create a theory based on the data. The theory is then tested against more laboratory models and tested against known instances outside the laboratory - accounting for factors that may influence that are not included in the isolated laboratory models.

What these H.S. geniuses don't account for is the fact that some things cannot be recreated to any meanful extent in the laboratory. Absolute pure data cannot be obtained. So Science then can only obtain limited data or data that is produced in non-isolated conditions. In this case mathematics, including statistical analysis, combined with deductive reasoning are used to analyze data and create theories.

The conservative object to this, requiring absolute proof, which is not possible in the case of GW.

In fact, we do have proof that GW is occurring, we just can't absolutely prove that it's being caused or accelerated by mankind. But by all reason we know that it most probably is.

The worst aspect of this whole argument is that it is abundanly clear that there are special interests - industrialist that do not want to be taxed based on carbon admissions - that DO NOT want actions taking to reduce carbon admissions simply becuase it would mean a business loss for them.

They in turn fund this massive conservative effort to debunk the GW theory. Of course the brainwashed conservative sycophants regurgitate the political bullshit of their masters like the good little drones that they are.

The facts are:

1. The earth is warming.No doubt about that whatsoever.

2. Almost every qualified scientist in the world agrees that carbon admissions are either causing or contributing to GW.

3. Industrialists do not want cap & trade for personal financial reasons.

Until Conservatives can show absolute proof that GW is NOT being caused or accelerated by carbon admissions, they should SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the people who are qualified take charge of this issue.

crickets... crickets... crickets...

No, not crickets. it's just that his post has already been debated in this thread. Nothing new, and no need to go in circles with it. The fear mongers do not address the bias of the tainted research.

 

[Oddball]

It's amazing that while 99% of the scientists in the world agree that GW is a reality...

Do you have a definitive source for that outrageously exaggerated number, or are you --like IPCC, CRU and NASA-- just pulling a figure out of your ass?