And Fogger would say, its a conspiracy, NASA photoshopped the xray!
arguing with you is like arguing with someone who believes an x ray does not show a broken bone, no matter what evidence is presented.
On a number of issues I have reviewed my position in the light of new evidence
You however are clearly incapable of doing so on this issue, and I suspect on a number of other issues.
Perhaps such intransigence is reflective of some personal investment in the outcome, or perhaps it is because you cannot stand to be wrong, even when new information suggests a rational person would change their mind
Show me an empirical link between X-rays and fractures.
No one has done the research dissecting every X-ray to see if a real fracture exists. It's just a theory. Besides, I know a blog that proves X-rays can't penetrate more than six centimeters of tissue.
It's a theory the medical field buys into because- guess what- they make money with every X-ray! Their incomes depend upon it!!
Flogger-logic in a nutshell!
So please provide a link to one showing the empirical link between human CO 2 emissions and temperature
there are numerous sources from credible organisations. AS I am based in Australia, I tend to gravitate towards Australian sources.
CSIRO have put a free book online which you can download in PDF format.
Here, educate yourself: Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia | CSIRO
Perhaps because it pays better and is healthier for your career to be part of the collective groupthink. None have yet established this alleged empirical link with human activity to date as doubtless you are just discovering. Indeed the human fingerprint on climate has not as yet even been established much less quantified.
that statement would only come from someone who subscribes to the AGW as a conspiracy theory line
Thats a good very good question actually .
so what do you think, flogger?
How do you establish what is the correct starting point given your entire hypothesis is dependent on it ? Couple that with the current inability to model major factors like clouds ,water vapour and CO 2 climate sensitivity and you really are just taking a shot in the dark.
I can see that you are not familiar with standards in scholarly research.
I'm not arguing with you I'm asking that you affirm your position using published literature
But you havent provided any 'new' evidence. Indeed all you have provided thus far are personal opinions ,assertions and snide remarks
I'm prepared to do so if such evidence actually existed and was presented here
Once again what is this 'new information' you are referring to ?
there are numerous sources from credible organisations. AS I am based in Australia, I tend to gravitate towards Australian sources.
CSIRO have put a free book online which you can download in PDF format.
Here, educate yourself: Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia | CSIRO
that statement would only come from someone who subscribes to the AGW as a conspiracy theory line
so what do you think, flogger?
I can see that you are not familiar with standards in scholarly research
I would be amazed that someone who has access to the internet needs to ask this question, however I do know that there are a lot of reasons why some people are incapable of taking on board new information
This is not a Peer reviewed study. Apologies perhaps I should have been more specific in my request of you. I need the formula that confirms the impact of 20,50 or even 1000 extra PPM of CO 2 on temperature . This is what would constitute empirical proof and could thus then theoretically be legislated for. Obviously if we do not know this formula then whats the point of all this ?
Or somebody who has discovered that the emperor has no clothes
I'd made that plain I thought . Climate modelling is a crock and here is why
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi
Given this entire hypothesis relies on the accuracy of these its not hard to understand why skepticism thrives today
I'm a skeptic because I've read the science not in spite of it . I wasnt always one
... your beliefs are too closely aligned with conspiracy theory for that to be true
What new information .... again ! :roll:
.
Clearly I'm wasting my patience on yet another timewaster that when challenged chooses to protect thier faith by hiding behind ad hominem and smears. We have enough of those here already .Up until now I had actually credited you with a little more integrity than that
I was obviously mistaken :bolt
How about the new peer reviewed information in the OP, or all the other peer reviewed studies I posted that you've denied.
We're already dead:This doesn't bode well.
We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It - Climate Desk - The Atlantic
I think maybe it's time to kiss our asses goodbye.
The good news: We probably don't double in population again.
President 'has four years to save Earth'US must take the lead to avert eco-disaster!
Robin McKie in New York
The Observer, Saturday 17 January 2009
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.
Eh ? What ones would those be then because to date its clear you wouldnt know what one of those looked like if you fell over it !
As ever just provide the one clearly demonstrating empirical proof of human culpability for temperature increases ? Should be Easy peasy for you really given your assertion that such studies exist in great numbers.
I wont hold my breath :lamo
Climate Change is pure bull****.
Given Bob Honeycutt is actually a non academic packaging manufacturer ,why is it we should be caring about his opinion on anything to do with any scientific discipline whatsoever much less climate change ?
I have been in the IT industry for over 20 years. In that time I have worked as a technician, network administrator, web developer, programmer and a consultant. Currently I am employed as a Computer Analyst for a large corporation with over 10,000 employees.
I provided you empirical evidence from NASA and you reverted back to your conspiracy theories. There is nothing that anyone can provide to convince a denier that believes all the worlds scientific organizations are in conspiracy together.
Good evening, Pero. :2wave:
I've had too many "fair and sunny tomorrow" predictions cancel plans to believe them. They used to be far more accurate in the past---what happened? Did they start using different computer programs for some reason? :werd: Now I just look out of my windows to see what the weather is like...it's more accurate anyway!
We're already dead:
Climate Change is pure bull****.
Empirical evidence of AGW
Which NONE of these are. Did you actually read any of these before posting them or did you hope that by posting a blizzard of them that somehow I wouldnt ? There is nothing whatsoever here quantifying the impact of human emissions on temperature. Yes temperatures have increased till the late 90s and these reports do a good job of cataloguing that increase which is not whats in question. Human emissions have doubtless been responsible for much of the 100PPM CO 2 increase in our atmosphere since 1800 and thats not in question either Its the dubious methodologies evidence here that try and link the two that are the issue. All of which rely on climate modelling of course. There is also a whole load of faith being put in fitting data to match climate model simulations here too which is clearly misplaced in light of static temperatures observations in the real world. Where in these studies is the impact of that empirically quantified outwith models and what would be the the value per 25 PPM CO 2 increase on temperature for example ?
The inability to model clouds and water vapour has not been addressed here either and thats pretty important given it represents 95% of the greenhouse gas system. Thats before we get to the feedback systems which are still so poorly understood we still dont know whether they are a positive or a negative impact on temperature. Even Hansen has conceded temperatures have been flat over the last decade or more and that is a major problem for the assumptions being made here given CO 2 emissions have actually accelerated during that period. At least you tried but I'm still waiting for the definitive study quantifying human impact in terms of temperature
Closer to the shore, between the sea lions’ Channel Island rookeries and the beaches, the water is getting warmer, and something weird is going on with fish populations, said Eric Miller, a senior scientist at MBC Applied Environmental Sciences.
Miller doesn’t think fish populations have relocated. He thinks they’ve disappeared.
“Over the last forty years, we’ve seen a pretty stark decline in the coastal fish populations,” Miller said. The number of fish collected between 1999 and 2010 is just 22 percent of the total collected between 1972 and 1984, Miller said. And in addition to overall population declines, “we are seeing a lot of strange things,” he said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?