Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Below are just a few things caused by man-made Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption Excessive Climate Change Research Funding."

The big self parodying “climate change blame” list

Seems climate alarmists want it all-ways :rolleyes:

i just looked at the first example, and as both papers Point out, it is a Topic that is poorly understood and seem they first thought te models were wrong, adn later seem to be that the model were actually correct.
yet it still is poorly understood.

i prefer such papers above the denier Blogs that are like, climate changed in the past without humans so humans can't Change the climate..... end of Research.....

scientists actually try to udnerstand the climate System into the smalest Details.... no Problem with that.
 
and do you have any evidence that the number of AGW Deniers is increasing?
Sure, After all the AGW alarmist hype has died down a bit the gap is increasing (in America) since about 2009.

lzkq-dvt60ap6yb-jyggcw.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/americans-concerns-global-warming-rise.aspx
 
Yip, there are more AGW skeptics now as the alarmist predictions fail.

The claim by alarmists used to be 97% of Scientists believe in AGW (was that "climate" scientists or "working" scientists? lol) although there is doubt in how accurate that consensus was.

Now that is down to 54% of scientists with 37% saying NO! ...

Do Scientists Generally Agree that Human Activity Causes Warming?

it is Climate Scientists, not scientists in General. why should we care if a non experts believes AGW or not?
and i am not Aware of any study that Shows anthing different than 95+% of climatologists agreeing with AGW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...rveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

if you have a study showing anything different, present it.
 
Yip, there are more AGW skeptics now as the alarmist predictions fail.

The claim by alarmists used to be 97% of Scientists believe in AGW (was that "climate" scientists or "working" scientists? lol) although there is doubt in how accurate that consensus was.

Now that is down to 54% of scientists with 37% saying NO! ...

Do Scientists Generally Agree that Human Activity Causes Warming?
Come on man. Your conclusion is ridiculous. The survey isn't of climate scientists. It is asking other people what they think climate scientists believe! The only valid way to use that poll is in understanding how the political and news bias effects public opinion.
 
Last edited:
"Friends of Science" and an astronaut Haig. Is that really all you got? :D

No my friend, there is much more ... If you have ever wondered why Co2 continues to rise but the warming has plateaued it's because the Sun defines our climate and as Solar Cycle 24 passes it's maximum in a very very weak state the prediction among skeptics is for it to decline into a Solar Grand Minimum and the facts appear to be bearing that out ...

Distinguished Swedish Climate Scientist Warns Of Solar Grand Minimum … LITTLE ICE AGE In As Little As 15 Years!
 
No my friend, there is much more ... If you have ever wondered why Co2 continues to rise but the warming has plateaued it's because the Sun defines our climate and as Solar Cycle 24 passes it's maximum in a very very weak state the prediction among skeptics is for it to decline into a Solar Grand Minimum and the facts appear to be bearing that out ...

Distinguished Swedish Climate Scientist Warns Of Solar Grand Minimum … LITTLE ICE AGE In As Little As 15 Years!

for a LIA we would also need increased volcanic activity.

else a grand solar minima does not much to global average temperatures.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50361/abstract
 

It's ridiculous. Global warming is not a threat to me during my lifetime, no matter I might live beyond 100. I belong to a race that has air conditioners, overeat quality food and can dislodge complete ecosystems to make room for its food production facilities. Fossil fuels guarantee my race is not threatened during my lifetime.
 
I have done in this PDF and it destroys the 97% concensus myth.

Please, provide a link to anyone, even in the blogsphere, that has read it and commented extensively about its content.

I tend to avoid those books, articles and posts for people looking for a public around them, whether about electric comets, reincarnations in the astral at Ganymede or "I disprove global warming". It's not much about saving time or being unwilling to provide a critical view; it's more like not looking to the midline of strangers that suddenly open their overcoats in parks.
 
I have done in this PDF and it destroys the 97% concensus myth.

No my friend, there is much more ... If you have ever wondered why Co2 continues to rise but the warming has plateaued it's because the Sun defines our climate and as Solar Cycle 24 passes it's maximum in a very very weak state the prediction among skeptics is for it to decline into a Solar Grand Minimum and the facts appear to be bearing that out ...

Distinguished Swedish Climate Scientist Warns Of Solar Grand Minimum … LITTLE ICE AGE In As Little As 15 Years!

So now it's a paper published in pattern recognition physics. Do you ever check your sources Haig or is the fact that they confirm your bias enough for you?
 
.
There are many other views if you prefer ... here is just one more to get you thinking

97% Climate Consensus ‘Most Nonsensical, Stupid Number in the World’

It doesn't contain any analysis about any consensus. So, you're basically saying "my opinion is the truth and as proof of it I'm offering these other similar opinions".

If this is going to be a pattern, you better have your timing well about when does it become spamming. I know you haven't real arguments so trying to stay on the platform and talk and talk through links to other people's doing the same may seem a valid strategy for you ... or if not valid, something better than silence.

The problem is how are you going to do to hide that is all you have and there's only that.
 
Even by the very low standards of AGW deniers this is pathetic stuff, Haig. It's like they're not even trying any more.
 
I know you haven't real arguments so trying to stay on the platform and talk and talk through links to other people's doing the same may seem a valid strategy for you ... or if not valid, something better than silence.
That seems to me like Projection

Why don't you try facing the failed predictions of AGW alarmists and why they don't reflect the reality of our climate today?

To spell it out in simple terms how many wild claims of the AGW crowd have actually came about?

:rolleyes:
 
That seems to me like Projection

Why don't you try facing the failed predictions of AGW alarmists and why they don't reflect the reality of our climate today?

To spell it out in simple terms how many wild claims of the AGW crowd have actually came about?

:rolleyes:

And that seems to me like Crap (except for the Freudian projection, which is legit). Are you trying to do manipulative tricks with psychologic terminology? To a Buenos Aires' born and raised? Not surprisingly, again, very misinformed of you :rolleyes:

Be nice and get some link showing a figure linking direct solar activity, direct cosmic ray measurements, Beryllium-10 and cloud formation for at least half of the 1970-2014 period, in support of your Deestingooished Svedeesh Cleemete-a Sceeentist's meme, so far the only element of your posting spree having a remote resemblance with science.

When you're done shouting from the platform I will be sad. I'm so much enjoying your contribution, but there's an on-topic, you know.
 
Why don't you try facing the failed predictions of AGW alarmists and why they don't reflect the reality of our climate today?

To spell it out in simple terms how many wild claims of the AGW crowd have actually came about?

:rolleyes:
Why focus on the failed wild claims a very small minority of AGW alarmists have made? Why not focus instead on the successful predictions made by the vast majority in climate science?

It seems you are cherry picking both sides. First cherry picking only the most extreme predictions from climate science, then cherry picking rebuttals to them, and making fallacious conclusions that those apply to the scientific community at large.
 
I'm not able to see well into the data because I don't know which data is worth looking at nor without a lot of work would I be able to look at it as an objective scientist. So rising temps now vs cooling temps 30+ years ago is confusing the issue.

1. I know for a fact that CO2 levels are rising and that is something to be concerned about.

2. I know for a fact that there are a lot of glaciers that are melting although not all some of which are increasing. But the overall effect is 'currently' less glacial ice or the most part. This is concerning and dovetails with fact 1.

3. I know for a fact this is a polarizing subject. When that happens then it means we don't know enough yet or the issue is cloudy. It doesn't help the lay person that 'facts' are being fudged. It seldom helps for people to start labeling others as 'deniers' and the like as it increases polarization of the issue and people themselves.

4. I know for a fact I meaning me personally should be concerned not necessarily alarmed....yet.

5. I know for a fact that for one nation to unilaterally stop as much CO2 emissions as possible at the expense of its economy and national security is madness. It's insane. That's not saying it should be ignored because 'everyone' else is. Ignoring it is also madness.

6. I know for a fact that drastically stopping the use of fossil fuels will have a dramatic effect on the well being of humans. They come first whether that's 'fair' or not. The answer is not to drastically decrease the use of fossil fuels. We as the world and the US cannot do that without incredibly damaging consequences. Peoples lives depend on it. The industrial revolution has more than doubled our lifespans.

7. I know for a fact that we must do something about CO2 emissions to 'fix' all the above. The answer is alternate forms of energy. We are not at a point where it is practical for wind, tide, and solar to make much headway. That's not saying give up on them but develop them. And use the money for development into making them efficient enough for practical use. Stop the ridiculous expenses of trying to mass product them now and use the money on research.

8. I know for a fact that acidification of the ocean is not getting the attention it deserves as well as the overall temperature of the ocean at all depths. We can survive rising sea levels and weather. We cannot survive as we are if the ocean becomes a hostile environment esp to the bottom of the food chain and the organisms absorbing a lot of CO2 and making a lot of O2. There will be a dying if not a great dying.

9. I know for a fact that fusion is the answer. Why we are not pouring money into developing this is not a mystery but the way governments work. As humans we should be more responsible about 'fixing' the priorities of government although I don't have 'the' answer for that. Fusion is the next leap forward for humans and one that is critical for our way of life if not survival. That's the band wagon to jump on. Then we can save all the fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians as is possible without harming ourselves too much. In the meantime we need a more balanced approach to conservation.

10. I know for a fact I'm not putting this out there as a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or right or left wing extremist. I'm saying this sincerely from my heart in the wish we actually address the problem without all the drama and hysterics as well as politicalization and demonization of the issue and people. As a scientist I'm a skeptic and that is not a good thing but a great thing for all scientists especially the ones who are responsible for educating and informing the rest of us on these issues.

11. I know for a fact that this diatribe means little unless we all start thinking about the big picture and drive our resources into a more beneficial manner. Every organism on this planet deserves respect. We cannot save every one of them from our mistakes and possibly not nearly enough if we continue to go at this in the same manner.
 
3. I know for a fact this is a polarizing subject. When that happens then it means we don't know enough yet or the issue is cloudy.

That is key. Not only you, but 70% of people or more may believe that. That makes business for polarization, that is, if you can argue non-stop like barristers in a trial without a judge to stop them when they abuse, it doesn't matter what you say as you'll make people to believe the issue is cloudy. It suffices to do some rhetorical tricks and provide some science-like material and some science-related graduates to make laypeople like you to believe the issue is cloudy. Take into account that the goal is not to "uncloud" the issue but to hinder any action.

You hit the nail in the head maybe without even realising it: that is what is happening about the whole AGW issue. Haig starts a posting spree because it works in other places different than a science related thread in a forum about scepticism. And, no matter the inconvenience and ridiculousness of doing so, that happens here periodically because denialists (not deniers, who are a different category) DO believe what they say so they feel compelled "to cross swords" where science is talked.

So, the matter is, what is going to be your epistemological approach to the subject? (not that you have to reply; it's thought more to trigger reflection)
 
Last edited:
7...

We are not at a point where it is practical for wind, tide, and solar to make much headway. That's not saying give up on them but develop them. And use the money for development into making them efficient enough for practical use. Stop the ridiculous expenses of trying to mass product them now and use the money on research.

Do you have any figure or source to back this? (now a reply is expected)

Beware of what you "know for a fact". I have no problem with suspended conclusions, oxymoron and all, so the "for a fact" part may be OK as long as you are permanently willing to accept new evidence pointing in other direction. What I wonder is the "know" part. Phrases like "I know for a fact that fusion is the answer" look a bit of a stretch. When facts are caught by the gravity force of expectations it all starts to mix up, when gravity increases a desirous pulsar is born in Haig's constellation.
 

By the way, this Distinguished Yada Yada of yours is an old acquaintance of the randi.org family.

LOOKING IN ON SWEDEN

I've described here previously how a pompous-assed "dowsing expert"
named Nils-Axel Morner, associate professor of geology from Stockholm
University, has consistently refused to be tested for the Pigasus
Prize. A helpful correspondent in Sweden referred me to
http://www.tdb.uu.se/~karl/dowsing/ where I found that Morner was
tested -- amateurishly -- on a prominent Swedish TV show, "The Plain &
Simple Truth," on TV2 on February 27th. Morner was first provided the
opportunity to brag about anecdotal successes, then he was tested. A
local celebrity -- a singer -- was involved, as is usual with these
drearily predictable affairs. The singer chose one of ten cups under
which to conceal a packet of sugar. He chose number seven; are we
surprised? Morner had designed this test, saying that it was
especially difficult for him to do. (???) He said that water or
metal could be located "right away," but not sugar. Morner blathered
on about "interference" and mumbled about "influences" and "might be
here" and the usual alibis, then chose number eight. Wrong. But,
said Morner, it was "in the right sector!" But no cigar.

There were 3 serious errors in what could have been a good test: One,
the target was not selected by a random means. (3 and 7 are the
most-often-chosen positions in a line-up of 10.) Two, an audience
member could have secretly signaled Morner. Three, Morner was allowed
to do a test of his own choice, one that he said in advance was
difficult and strange for him, instead of doing one which he'd done
before, for which he has claimed 100% success. Why were water and/or
metal not used? This is ridiculous!

Did Morner mention that I've offered him the million-dollar prize if
he can do his usual, familiar dowsing trick? No.

James Randi
The link at the top is from 1998. This is a text-only version of it in March 1999

I stand corrected. I said that last June was the worst month ever in everything related to denialists in this thread. Now I know the worst month ever is this July.
 
If you have ever wondered why Co2 continues to rise but the warming has plateaued
Since there is no evidence for a change in the warming trend, no I haven’t wonders about this.
it's because the Sun
Have you wondered why your bloggers ignore the conservation of energy in their claims?

Solar Cycle 24 passes it's maximum in a very very weak state

Have you ever wondered why the warmest decade in the instrumentational record corresponded to the weakest solar output in the instrumentational record?
 
When Nature publishes a scientific paper by working climate scientist, you can usually be certain it's peer reviewed actual science.
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming3, 4, 5, 6, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

It's why I ignore internet pundits and non scientist who keep trying to tell everyone that the warming has continued. Which is of course a complete lie.
Since there is no evidence for a change in the warming trend, no I haven’t wonders about this.
Meanwhile, actual working scientist are busy figuring out why, rather than denying it has happened.

The paper looks at the period 1970 to 2012, which includes the current "hiatus" and a period of faster global warming between the 1970s and the late 1990s.


When the scientists included measurements of Pacific sea surface temperature over the 42-year period, they found their model reproduced recent global temperatures much better than when they only included changes in radiative forcing.


This shows the tropical Pacific plays an important role in climate, despite the fact it only accounts for 8.2 per cent of the earth's surface, the authors say.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/new-study-natural-cycles-in-the-pacific-ocean-are-key-to-surface-warming-%E2%80%9Chiatus%E2%80%9D/

So actual working researchers used science and found that including the effect of the tropical Pacific explains the warming, and then no warming, better than only using changes caused by CO2 and other radiative forcings.

Science, it works better when you don't ignore reality, but study it instead.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the term is "skeptic"

No, it is not. Climate science deniers are not skeptical in any sense of the word. There is a large and distinct difference between skepticism and the gullible rejectionism that are the hallmarks of fervent climate science deniers.


and here is 107 reasons why they are increasing ... The big list of failed climate predictions

You do realize that quoting and linking to Watt's site for support for your arguments is roughly the equivalent of linking to bozo's big-top site, don't you?

Looking at this list, it appears to be a Wattsoid retread previously demonstrated to be a flawed confabulation that was made up out of whole cloth. The fragments of which bear not even a passing likeness to reality. I checked a handful of the "examples" listed as they appeared to be quote-mined statement fragments lacking in qualification or reference. It appears that they were worse than that, they are whole cloth fabrications. It isn't that the statements represent failed predictions by climate science or even misunderstood scientists, all of those I checked, and presumably the overwhelming majority of the rest are quite simply completely fabricated statements being attributed to climate scientists and fictitious individuals being labeled as climate scientists.

Anyone like to show the list of correct climate predictions by climate alarmists?

All of the "climate alarmists" appear to be regular posters over at the BOZO site where you seem to get all of your "science" understandings from, I agree that their record of projections isn't too good, but what do you expect from the pseudoscience woo they do? Samples from the innumerable list of correct climate science projections over the last 2 centuries have been posted multiple times in this thread, but I can link you to one of those earlier iterations if you like.
 
Actually, the term is "skeptic" and here is 107 reasons why they are increasing
That is 107 reasons not to read a climate science denier web site, Haig!
Your 107 reasons make your "skeptics" really deluded about climate science.
A web page so ignorant that it thinks personal opinions and press releases are the scientific literature :eek:!
A web page idiotically listing "predictions" (mostly from web pages, not scientific literature) and then not showing that each prediction was actually wrong is a really ignorant citation :eye-poppi.
A web page so ignorant about climate science that they are surprised that some models get their results wrong.

You have cited an incredibly stupid web page that tries to answer the question "what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming.” by listing remarks from 2006 :jaw-dropp!

Anyone like to show the list of correct climate predictions by climate alarmists?
That is a stupid question, Haig, because climate alarmists are ignored by anyone with any sense, just like climate science deniers should be.
Climate scientists have made thousands of correct predictions. Juts look in the scientific literature.

And the still unsupported assertion that climate science deniers are increasing, Haig!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom