Issues the Climate Change Contrarians Need to Address [W:95]

[ttwtt78640]

Maybe we can address this: EXCLUSIVE: State Department oversight of climate change spending abroad is a mess, watchdog reports | Fox News

 

[Deuce]

Since instrumental records are a nanosecond of earths weather record they are just as relevant as how many times i have farted in the last nanosecond, not once. Therefor I never fart. Silly huh

You know what is relevant?

The effects of temperature change on the things we eat, both in rate of change and magnitude of change.

 

[flogger]

You know what is relevant?

The effects of temperature change on the things we eat, both in rate of change and magnitude of change.

And as you've been shown many times now that is well within the natural norms of recent millenia. Why is it so difficult for you to take this simple fact on board or do you simply choose not to ?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Why so US centric ? Much of Europe has had crap summers for the last 4 years and here in the UK its been the coldest wettest summer in living memory. Theres a whole big wide world outside of the US you know . Get an atlas (you should find one in any good rare book shop over there) and you'll see I'm not kidding.

That's a good point, I didn't think of that when I was watching those beach volleyball girls sticking their feet in slippers and shivering.

 

[Matt Foley]

If Global Warming comes then Phoenix is sitting on prime real estate.

The entire area would become the new Adriatic sitting right next to a new floodplain. The gulf of California would become the new Adriatic. More cloud cover combined with Pacific Winds would have a temperature moderating effect, and it wouldn't be as muggy and miserable as other flood plains like New Orleans.

Bring it on.

 

[Deuce]

And as you've been shown many times now that is well within the natural norms of recent millenia. Why is it so difficult for you to take this simple fact on board or do you simply choose not to ?

Climate has changed before, therefore no harm can come of it?

 

[flogger]

Climate has changed before, therefore no harm can come of it?

Its like worrying about an asteroid strike and just as pointless

 

[Deuce]

Its like worrying about an asteroid strike and just as pointless

False comparison based on the mistaken assumption that it's impossible for humans to influence climate.

 

[flogger]

False comparison based on the mistaken assumption that it's impossible for humans to influence climate.

Given that nobody has yet shown that to be possible its no mistaken assumption, and to date the computer models that try and say that it is arent worth squat :roll:

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Has anyone ever said it's impossible that man could effect the climate? seems like what I hear is people saying they don't believe man is changing the climate, kind of a big difference.

 

[Deuce]

Given that nobody has yet shown that to be possible its no mistaken assumption, and to date the computer models that try and say that it is arent worth squat :roll:

Really? Can't think of one thing anyone has brought up that would make it potentially possible to have some influence on climate?

Say, somehow altering the rate at which energy escapes from the earth to space? Any possibility that might have any influence?

Has anyone ever said it's impossible that man could effect the climate? seems like what I hear is people saying they don't believe man is changing the climate, kind of a big difference.

The asteroid example gives the "outside variable we can't change" impression.

 

[flogger]

Really? Can't think of one thing anyone has brought up that would make it potentially possible to have some influence on climate?

If you start worrying about every hypothetical scenario that is 'potentially possible' there will be no end to your hand wringing

Say, somehow altering the rate at which energy escapes from the earth to space? Any possibility that might have any influence?

We dont know anything like enough about this to tell one way or the other though Roy Spencer brought out a paper last year showing far more heat was escaping into space than was previously believed.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

The asteroid example gives the "outside variable we can't change" impression.

If you think we can somehow 'control' climate by modulating our minute contribution of a tiny trace gas then you really have got it bad

 

[Deuce]

If you start worrying about every hypothetical scenario that is 'potentially possible' there will be no end to your hand wringing



We dont know anything like enough about this to tell one way or the other though Roy Spencer brought out a paper last year showing far more heat was escaping into space than was previously believed.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News



If you think we can somehow 'control' climate by modulating our minute contribution of a tiny trace gas then you really have got it bad

Ahh yes the old "trace gas" meme.

There are substances that can kill you at 400ppm. You can't just handwave the question with "there's not very much of it" because "very much" is some arbitrary concept you came up with in your own head.

Climate "skeptics" would have a better argument if they would stop repeating logical fallacies like this.

"Climate has always changed!" So? That's not evidence that the current change is natural or that humans can't cause changes.
"It's within natural parameters!" So is Venus. That doesn't mean it's healthy.
"It's a trace gas!" Arbitrary and irrelevant.
"Al Gore flies a jet!" Infrared radiation doesn't particularly care what Al Gore does.
"There isn't any evidence." Straight-up lie right there.

Incidentally, you'll have to forgive me if I don't take the word of a lawyer from the Heartland Institute at face value, as you seem to have done. Especially considering his blatant and egregious misrepresentation of a CERN study regarding cloud formation. You know why I keep telling people to go with scientists as primary sources instead of letting journalists and the like translate science for you? That guy. That guy is why.

 

[flogger]

Ahh yes the old "trace gas" meme

.

Are you suggesting it somehow isnt ?

There are substances that can kill you at 400ppm. You can't just handwave the question with "there's not very much of it" because "very much" is some arbitrary concept you came up with in your own head.

400PPM of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas that we actual exhale isnt going to kill anything. The way you guys go on you would think it was cyanide gas ! :roll:

Climate "skeptics" would have a better argument if they would stop repeating logical fallacies like this.

I dont need 'logical fallacies' when the facts work just fine for me

"Climate has always changed!" So? That's not evidence that the current change is natural or that humans can't cause changes.

And its not evidence they can either. Remember the onus is on you guys to show we are causing the sky to fall not the opposite. Theres plenty of paleoclimatic evidence thats been presented to you many times already that shows just how normal todays conditions are. That you dont like what that evidence is saying is irrelevant.

"It's within natural parameters!" So is Venus. That doesn't mean it's healthy.

Good grief ! I wondered when that idiotic comparator would surface :lamo

"It's a trace gas!" Arbitrary and irrelevant.

Prove it ?

"Al Gore flies a jet!" Infrared radiation doesn't particularly care what Al Gore does.

Niether do I so why mention it ?

"There isn't any evidence." Straight-up lie right there.

And there never has been . Computer models are not evidence

Incidentally, you'll have to forgive me if I don't take the word of a lawyer from the Heartland Institute at face value, as you seem to have done. Especially considering his blatant and egregious misrepresentation of a CERN study regarding cloud formation. You know why I keep telling people to go with scientists as primary sources instead of letting journalists and the like translate science for you? That guy. That guy is why.

By all means feel free to show us where it has been 'misrepresented' .... thats a favourite word you guys fall back on when your arguments get a trashing :lol:

You'll find a link to the full PDF paper here.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/our-feedback-diagnosis-paper-is-published-today/

 

[Catawba]

Science Deniers: Hand Over Your Cellphones!

"From creationists who deny the veracity of evolution to climate deniers who hold global warming is a hoax, there is vocal minority out there who see scientific activity as buffet of ideas. They believe they are free to choose which parts of scientific endeavor to believe and which parts to reject. But, in truth, their actions belie their words. Living in a culture saturated with science, they routinely accept its authority on matters of life and death. Only when the consequences of science appear remote are they willing to take their politically charged stands against mountains of evidence and decades of effort."

"In their worldview the scientists are in it for the money or the fame or the power. Scientists are overstating the case. They are ignoring other evidence. The science itself is not just wrong, it's purposely wrong and designed only to fool the general public. How does that sentiment line up with their every day dependence on science for the miracles of modern life? Like my New Age friends and their alien pyramid builders, science deniers talk one game and play another.

Climate science is corrupt, the deniers tell us. But they have no problem with medical science when it tells them to take pills for high blood pressure. If they were given a diagnosis of treatable cancer that required major surgery, would they damn the doctors as fraudulent fools? Would they seek out a well-known alternative practitioner and accept his treatment, even when 100 other doctors told him the science was clear and the operation necessary?

This situation with climate science bears a scary similarity to battles over evolution. Evolution, they claim, is "just a theory;" it can be rejected. But general relativity (GR) is "just a theory" too and yet the evolution deniers don't mind having their airliners guided by GPS systems dependent on GR."

"Don't pick and choose between the science you like and the ones you deny. Chose between science and no science at all.

Hand in your cell phones, please."


[url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/05/31/136817357/science-deniers-hand-over-your-cellphones
[/URL]

 

[Catawba]

 

[flogger]

When you actually produce some of this legitimate 'science' you claim underpins your case rather than evasive appeals to authority and bogus consensus I'll take notice. :roll:

 

[Catawba]

 

[Catawba]

"If 19 out of 20 doctors said you needed surgery to save your life, would you sit in the hospital bed and argue about their motives?"

"Not a single scientific organization worldwide disputes the consensus view, and many have published statements explicitly supporting it. A full list is available here, but here are some samples:

Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change[.]
-Thirteen national academies of science

It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.
-Royal Society (UK)

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
-American Association for the Advancement of Science

[C]omprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.
-American Chemical Society

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate…The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
-American Physical Society

The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system…are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
-American Geophysical Union

It’s clear that a scientific consensus on climate change does exist. Since unanimity is virtually impossible in science, agreement over climate change can’t get much stronger than it is already.

Could all of these scientists, papers, reports, and organizations be wrong? Of course – nobody is infallible. Could that 3% of dissenting scientists triumph like Galileo? It’s possible.

But how much are you willing to risk on that chance?"

Is There Consensus? « ClimateSight

 

[flogger]

Opinions ,opinions, opinions and still no scientific evidence .... ahhh well same sh*t different day :roll:

 

[Deuce]

Opinions ,opinions, opinions and still no scientific evidence .... ahhh well same sh*t different day :roll:

Well here's a post I did ages back.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-some-basic-empirical-evidence-favor-agw.html

If you think none of that counts as evidence, well, I don't know what to tell you. Obviously it's not comprehensive proof and is just a tiny part of the big picture, but to call it "no evidence" is just plain dishonest.

Turns out I might have had the wrong dude, I think. I remember a yahoo news article about the CERN CLOUD experiment, and I could have sworn it was this James Taylor guy. I recall "lawyer from heartland institute" being a key player in that deception. Different lawyer, perhaps, or maybe all these bad blog articles just run together over time. Memory sucks that way. The CLOUD experiment was misrepresented by other bloggers.

THIS lawyer, on the other hand, is probably familiar because this exact article and paper have come up before. The paper wasn't misrepresented, it was just bad. The model it used (remember those models you despise) was just plain stupid. A grossly simplified model that can be tweaked to show any climate sensitivity desired. The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing actually resigned over its being published.

The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round [see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.] During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. The ocean cools as the atmosphere responds with characteristic El Niño weather patterns forced from the region that influence weather patterns world wide. Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model.

RealClimate: “Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback”

So, the entire paper rests on a highly simplified model. Models, incidentally, you've already claimed are not evidence.

 

[flogger]

Well here's a post I did ages back.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...-some-basic-empirical-evidence-favor-agw.html

If you think none of that counts as evidence, well, I don't know what to tell you.

It does not count as empirical evidence because the basic climate sensitivity value for CO 2 is an unknown variable ergo it cannot therefore be empirical. This is obviously a fundamental problem given the whole doomsday hypothesis rests on the predictions from such modelling. Models as I hope you know are mathematical constructs whose accuracy depends on the reliability of thier inputs so garbage in = garbage out .

Obviously it's not comprehensive proof and is just a tiny part of the big picture, but to call it "no evidence" is just plain dishonest.

Most of that 'big picture' you allude to is entirely unknown to us as yet ,so making firm claims that it represents 'evidence' of any sort is a highly subjective interpretation of it.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Opinions ,opinions, opinions and still no scientific evidence .... ahhh well same sh*t different day :roll:

Do you have a doctorate in climate science? How about a master's degree? No??? Then even if all the evidence were delivered to your desk in a pretty box with a bow it wouldn't do you one bit of good. You'd still have to rely on someone else's opinion to make any sense of it.

 

[flogger]

Do you have a doctorate in climate science? How about a master's degree? No??? Then even if all the evidence were delivered to your desk in a pretty box with a bow it wouldn't do you one bit of good. You'd still have to rely on someone else's opinion to make any sense of it.

Given that this AGW hypothesis is wholly dependent on mathematical constructs (and I can do math) it gets itself into extremely murky waters when the inputs are either unknown or subjectively valued to fit a certain hypothesis. They arent even close to knowing what all those variable are yet much less thier values and interactions with one another . Here is why these models will always fail.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

This is why direct observations and comparing those with the known paleoclimatic records are a far more reliable way of making determinations about what is or is not abnormal about todays temperatures or rate of change. Believe me if James Hansen himself was debating me I'd be putting forward those same points to him and I'd demand proper answers too.

 

[Deuce]

Given that this AGW hypothesis is wholly dependent on mathematical constructs (and I can do math) it gets itself into extremely murky waters when the inputs are either unknown or subjectively valued to fit a certain hypothesis. They arent even close to knowing what all those variable are yet much less thier values and interactions with one another . Here is why these models will always fail.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

This is why direct observations and comparing those with the known paleoclimatic records are a far more reliable way of making determinations about what is or is not abnormal about todays temperatures or rate of change. Believe me if James Hansen himself was debating me I'd be putting forward those same points to him and I'd demand proper answers too.

So models are bad.

Like the Spencer paper you posted?