quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Lets see.. baker's dozen reasons climate change is a farce.

1. All the planets have seen increases in temperature. As far as I know, no humans on mars. Or on the moons of jupiter. How do you explain warming on jupiter if you blame everything on AGW?

2. Climate always changes. We go through a period of a 20 degree temperature change every 75K years. We are due for one now. How do you know that what you abscribe to anthropogenic is, in fact, not not natural change.

3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yay! However, each 10fold increase in c02 concentration only makes a small contribution to temperature increase). Straight out of the IPCC.

4. Ice cores reveal that CO2 concentration lags temperature -it doesn't lead it. By 600 years.

5. Boyle's Law / Henry's Law says that every tiny increase in temperature due to insolation will result in massive amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. How would you differentiate planetary variability from insolation? Ie., how do you separate Boyles Law activity from AGW?

6. Svenmarks theory of non ionizing radiation (as confirmed by CERN) has a 96% R. Value. AGW R correlatin is less than .1.

7. Nasa published a paper that said -
a). The IPCC mechanism for aerosol formation is wrong.
b). We don't know the net effect of additional CO2. Low in the atmosphere it warms the earth. In the upper atmosphere it cools.

8. Judith Curry,a lead author of the IPCC says the aersol seciton is wrong, and the temperature record does not track the IPCC predictions.

9. Fraudulent data. More than two dozen instances of various meteorological organizations falsifying data. From Michael Mann (96% of all data sets treated as he does generates a hockey stick) to East Anglia refusing to release data, to Nasa modifying data and discarding the original, to nasa correcting weather temerpateure readings with changes 2x as large as permitted, to the attempt to use ship thermometers as opposed to well calibrated ground stations, to erasing the data from the 1920-1934; to proclaiming 1997-1998 the hottest year when 1934 was, to erasing more than 350 siberian weather station - to using the results of known defective Hadcrut-4 satelitte which is showing drift of .2 degrees per decade. The list goes on and on...

10. People that cannot predict the weather 5 days in advance believe they can predict it 10 years in advance. Some of their notable predictions - no snow in britain by 2016; no glaciers in the himalyas; no artic ice cap by 2016, mass extinctions of polar bears (record population btw). Record storms intensity. Also not true.

11. The guy that made the weather channel, the head of the french meteorological and the past emeritus president of the American Physics society have all labelled AGW 'a fraud'. Not to mention that the soviet nor the chinese academies of science have endorsed. At least as of the last time I checked.

12. More than 22,000 papers that disprove or disagree with the theory of AGW

13. The theory of global warming keeps adjusting temperature expectations downward, while increasing the certainty.

14. The primary intent and effect of the Paris accord was to extract cash from rich nations - and give it to poor nations. Primary target - US.

15. The yale report, which said, even if global warming were true, that it would be better to ignore it for 50 years and remediate.

16. Crop yields are up around 11% due to increased CO2. Benefits of higher CO2 are routinely discounted why the costs (250 million climate refugees!) even when not true, are bruited.

quote:

the side being called "deniers" will shows tons of evidence about how the accusing side has been wrong, lied, dissembled, cooked the books, censored and oppressed contrary research/researchers, been influenced by politics or preconceived notions, have exaggerated, changed the arugument, misinterpreted, left out data, made bad assumptions, etc etc...

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

the side being called "deniers" will shows tons of evidence about how the accusing side has been wrong, lied, dissembled, cooked the books, censored and oppressed contrary research/researchers, been influenced by politics or preconceived notions, have exaggerated, changed the arugument, misinterpreted, left out data, made bad assumptions, etc etc...

And for every ton of evidence that the deniers show, there will be a thousand tons of how they, the deniers, have been wrong, and have lied, dissembled, cooked the books, censored and oppressed contrary research/researchers. This is because the powers that be - which are very, *very* powerful in the USA - want to carry on doing exactly what they've always been doing.

Bounty, you may like to think that you're 'sensible' and 'balanced' on this matter. You are in fact really, really not. You don't seem to have even an embryonic notion of where power, wealth and influence actually lie in your own society, nor how it distorts what's taken to be 'scientific knowledge'.

Most of all, you don't appear to have the first idea of just how lunatic-extreme the right wing American opinion on climate change is in the context of the rest of the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

the side being called "deniers" will shows tons of evidence

True, but none of it will actually be credible evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

the side being called "deniers" will shows tons of evidence about how the accusing side has been wrong, lied, dissembled, cooked the books, censored and oppressed contrary research/researchers, been influenced by politics or preconceived notions, have exaggerated, changed the arugument, misinterpreted, left out data, made bad assumptions, etc etc...

And for every ton of evidence that the deniers show, there will be a thousand tons of how they, the deniers, have been wrong, and have lied, dissembled, cooked the books, censored and oppressed contrary research/researchers. This is because the powers that be - which are very, *very* powerful in the USA - want to carry on doing exactly what they've always been doing.

Bounty, you may like to think that you're 'sensible' and 'balanced' on this matter. You are in fact really, really not. You don't seem to have even an embryonic notion of where power, wealth and influence actually lie in your own society, nor how it distorts what's taken to be 'scientific knowledge'.

Most of all, you don't appear to have the first idea of just how lunatic-extreme the right wing American opinion on climate change is in the context of the rest of the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

the side being called "deniers" will shows tons of evidence about how the accusing side has been wrong, lied, dissembled, cooked the books, censored and oppressed contrary research/researchers, been influenced by politics or preconceived notions, have exaggerated, changed the arugument, misinterpreted, left out data, made bad assumptions, etc etc...

And for every ton of evidence that the deniers show, there will be a thousand tons of how they, the deniers, have been wrong, and have lied, dissembled, cooked the books, censored and oppressed contrary research/researchers. This is because the powers that be - which are very, *very* powerful in the USA - want to carry on doing exactly what they've always been doing.

Bounty, you may like to think that you're 'sensible' and 'balanced' on this matter. You are in fact really, really not. You don't seem to have even an embryonic notion of where power, wealth and influence actually lie in your own society, nor how it distorts what's taken to be 'scientific knowledge'.

Most of all, you don't appear to have the first idea of just how lunatic-extreme the right wing American opinion on climate change is in the context of the rest of the world.

Soooo....since the rest of the world believes something.....we should too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Soooo....since the rest of the world believes something.....we should too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Soooo....since the rest of the world believes something.....we should too?

What you *should* do is take it on board that your position is *extreme*. It's not 'middle-of-the-road', 'common-sense' and 'moderate' ... or all those other comforting terms that conservatives everywhere like to use. If you're a denier, you are an extremist - except in the context of American right-wingers, say, sitting around together of a warm summer's evening together with some beers, reassuring each other.

The worldwide problem isn't one of lefty radicals being 'alarmist'. It's actually one of righty radicals being utterly unaware that they're being radical - and radically "complacentist". Just saying. Do with that what you will. I've done this sort of argument, way, way too many times for me not to know that certain things won't shift in certain heads even if I were to chuck grenades at them. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji I'll change my tune when someone shows me a study I can read that accurately predicts future climate and is reproducible. I've been waiting over twenty (thirty) years to see one. The climate may be changing, but who says that's a bad thing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Soooo....since the rest of the world believes something.....we should too?

What you *should* do is take it on board that your position is *extreme*. It's not 'middle-of-the-road', 'common-sense' and 'moderate' ... or all those other comforting terms that conservatives everywhere like to use. If you're a denier, you are an extremist - except in the context of American right-wingers, say, sitting around together of a warm summer's evening together with some beers, reassuring each other.

The worldwide problem isn't one of lefty radicals being 'alarmist'. It's actually one of righty radicals being utterly unaware that they're being radical - and radically "complacentist". Just saying. Do with that what you will. I've done this sort of argument, way, way too many times for me not to know that certain things won't shift in certain heads even if I were to chuck grenades at them. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
It's funny, you mention all the conservatives sitting around having beer reassuring themselves. Yet, what I see is Phydeausx providing actual scientific quotes and liberals all spouting the exact same belief with no attachment to science at all. I think you're projecting there Peon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Isn't it supposed to continue expanding for a few billion years first before it begins to contract?

If it is then it could prove global warming is a natural occurrence of the sun growing bigger, but I don't remember reading about the expansion part.

Actually, the sun remains at a comparatively stable size. To my understanding of the sun, it is sunspot activity that effects earth's magnetism (magnetic field) rather than so much the earth's temperature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
this will be to no avail but nevertheless:
one side will call the others "deniers".
the side being called "deniers" will shows tons of evidence about how the accusing side has been wrong, lied, dissembled, cooked the books, censored and oppressed contrary research/researchers, been influenced by politics or preconceived notions, have exaggerated, changed the arugument, misinterpreted, left out data, made bad assumptions, etc etc...
and the one side will still call the other "deniers"

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

the side being called "deniers" will shows tons of evidence

True, but none of it will actually be credible evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
It's funny, you mention all the conservatives sitting around having beer reassuring themselves. Yet, what I see is Phydeausx providing actual scientific quotes and liberals all spouting the exact same belief with no attachment to science at all. I think you're projecting there Peon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
So bounty, you don't believe in climate change? What is the main reason?
I believe because, I have a great interest in wines, and vineyards in Europe are getting higher alcohol levels and riper fruits because they are experiencing warmer temperatures. And every year, it gets warmer. Australia is absolutely crazy. They used to be like 12.5% to 13.5% and now, many are like 15% to 16%. Results of global warming too.
I see it in wines, because, generally, the level of alcohol is determined by how hot the temperature of the region is, and the fruit that it came from. As if it will result in higher sugar levels, thus higher alcohol content. There is this unusual pattern of alcohol just going up up up. And it's due to warmer and warmer weather every year.
Bordeaux is benefiting from this because they are turning from cool climate to some serious hot climate, they grow grapes that benefit from hotter sun.
But for already hot climates, I think it's making all their wines excessively jammy.
Something is changing. But whether this is cylindrical, and will just pass, or if it will just get so hot until the whole north and south pole melts. I don't know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Lets see.. baker's dozen reasons climate change is a farce.

1. All the planets have seen increases in temperature. As far as I know, no humans on mars. Or on the moons of jupiter. How do you explain warming on jupiter if you blame everything on AGW?

2. Climate always changes. We go through a period of a 20 degree temperature change every 75K years. We are due for one now. How do you know that what you abscribe to anthropogenic is, in fact, not not natural change.

3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yay! However, each 10fold increase in c02 concentration only makes a small contribution to temperature increase). Straight out of the IPCC.

4. Ice cores reveal that CO2 concentration lags temperature -it doesn't lead it. By 600 years.

5. Boyle's Law / Henry's Law says that every tiny increase in temperature due to insolation will result in massive amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. How would you differentiate planetary variability from insolation? Ie., how do you separate Boyles Law activity from AGW?

6. Svenmarks theory of non ionizing radiation (as confirmed by CERN) has a 96% R. Value. AGW R correlatin is less than .1.

7. Nasa published a paper that said -
a). The IPCC mechanism for aerosol formation is wrong.
b). We don't know the net effect of additional CO2. Low in the atmosphere it warms the earth. In the upper atmosphere it cools.

8. Judith Curry,a lead author of the IPCC says the aersol seciton is wrong, and the temperature record does not track the IPCC predictions.

9. Fraudulent data. More than two dozen instances of various meteorological organizations falsifying data. From Michael Mann (96% of all data sets treated as he does generates a hockey stick) to East Anglia refusing to release data, to Nasa modifying data and discarding the original, to nasa correcting weather temerpateure readings with changes 2x as large as permitted, to the attempt to use ship thermometers as opposed to well calibrated ground stations, to erasing the data from the 1920-1934; to proclaiming 1997-1998 the hottest year when 1934 was, to erasing more than 350 siberian weather station - to using the results of known defective Hadcrut-4 satelitte which is showing drift of .2 degrees per decade. The list goes on and on...

10. People that cannot predict the weather 5 days in advance believe they can predict it 10 years in advance. Some of their notable predictions - no snow in britain by 2016; no glaciers in the himalyas; no artic ice cap by 2016, mass extinctions of polar bears (record population btw). Record storms intensity. Also not true.

11. The guy that made the weather channel, the head of the french meteorological and the past emeritus president of the American Physics society have all labelled AGW 'a fraud'. Not to mention that the soviet nor the chinese academies of science have endorsed. At least as of the last time I checked.

12. More than 22,000 papers that disprove or disagree with the theory of AGW

13. The theory of global warming keeps adjusting temperature expectations downward, while increasing the certainty.

14. The primary intent and effect of the Paris accord was to extract cash from rich nations - and give it to poor nations. Primary target - US.

15. The yale report, which said, even if global warming were true, that it would be better to ignore it for 50 years and remediate.

16. Crop yields are up around 11% due to increased CO2. Benefits of higher CO2 are routinely discounted why the costs (250 million climate refugees!) even when not true, are bruited.

17. Sea level rise; Desertification of the Sahara. As previously mentioned, we go through a periodic temperature inversions every 75K years or so. We alos have smaller fluctuations that occur every 10,000 years or so.

When the world is covered in ice - it starts to melt. This has been going on for roughly 10,000 years now (Read up on the minoan/roman warming. Guess what - until the cycle reverses itself (which is FAR more harmful to humanity) the ice melts.. and SEA LEVELS RISE. Have been, more or less for 10K years. And yes - the sahara gets slightly hotter - and slightly dryer - just like it has in every warming period as far back as we can discern.

18. The idea that the temperature changes we are seeing are unprecedented - are ridiculous. During the transition from the younger donbas - there was a temperature change of 12-15 degrees in TEN YEARS.

The IPC estimated we'd see 1.2 decrees in a decade We actually saw .4 - during the WORST of the "Global Warming".

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Soooo....since the rest of the world believes something.....we should too?

What you *should* do is take it on board that your position is *extreme*. It's not 'middle-of-the-road', 'common-sense' and 'moderate' ... or all those other comforting terms that conservatives everywhere like to use. If you're a denier, you are an extremist - except in the context of American right-wingers, say, sitting around together of a warm summer's evening together with some beers, reassuring each other.

The worldwide problem isn't one of lefty radicals being 'alarmist'. It's actually one of righty radicals being utterly unaware that they're being radical - and radically "complacentist". Just saying. Do with that what you will. I've done this sort of argument, way, way too many times for me not to know that certain things won't shift in certain heads even if I were to chuck grenades at them. [:)]

quote:


What I do take on board is that to call science "settled" before the science can be measured, shown to be repeatable, and completely opn to all inspection is extreme.