Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation

Posted on 11 October 2013 by gpwayne



Quote:

For a while now, I’ve considered climate change denial to be akin to superstition, which the Oxford Dictionaries site defines as “a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences.” I mention this because when challenged, contrarians often claim that the climate changes we are witnessing are not man-made, but products of ‘natural variability’.  In this context, I find that ‘natural variability’ appears to be a synonym for ‘supernatural influence’. Why? Because they can’t explain it. Not just that: many seem to believe they are not obliged to do so, which is suspiciously convenient, and all too reminiscent of those who would claim they don’t need to ‘explain’ God. In this, they share a view once expressed in a Guardian forum which, to this day, remains one of my favourite denialist non-sequiturs. When challenged, a poster calling himself Hamlet 4 insisted “I don’t need to prove climate change is caused by natural variability. It just is.” ***** Recently in the Guardian, Dana Nuccitelli wrote an interesting article entitled Magical climate contrarian thinking debunked by real science. The first sentence creates the context: “One of the most important concepts to understand when trying to grasp how the Earth’s climate works, is that every climate change must have a physical cause”. He follows that up with the premise on which his argument is based: “It’s not sufficient to say global warming is the result of “a natural cycle” – which cycle is causing the change? For example, is it due to the Earth’s orbital cycles around the Sun, which operate very slowly over periods of thousands of years? Is it changes in solar activity, which has on average remained flat and even declined slightly over the past 60 years? Is it ocean cycles, which shift heat between the oceans and air, and don’t cause the Earth to accumulate more heat?” Dana is taking issue with a specific paper, authored by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, a retired geophysicist and former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks: “[Akasofu] claimed that the current global warming is merely a result of the planet “recovering” from the Little Ice Age – a cool period (the cooling mostly isolated in Europe) that lasted between the years of about 1550 and 1850. Problem – Akasofu didn’t identify any physical cause for this supposed ‘recovery.’” I’ve often remarked that climate change contrarians have no science. A common retort is that since we ‘warmists’ are making the claims, it is us that need to produce the evidence to support it. On the face of it, this seems fair enough – and indeed we have produced the evidence, not that contrarians are prepared to acknowledge any of it. (No surprise there). However, as with calls for probity, accuracy and transparency, one might imagine that such virtues, attributes or burdens of proof would be applicable to us all, not just scientists, advocates or journalists. Evidently, one would be wrong. Clearly, the pseudo-sceptics do not care to understand that when they make claims, the same rules ought to apply. Describing the changes we have already witnessed as ‘natural variability’ without explaining the forcing or its origin is exactly the superstitious ‘magical thinking’ that Dana discusses, which explains absolutely nothing and has as much credibility in scientific terms as claiming that God did it. ***** Since theological explanations are no longer popular, contrarians need some kind of new, unknowable force to conveniently explain climate change; the new superstition of ’natural variability’. They don’t seem to understand that, in the scientific context in which these claims are usually made, this is yet another hypothesis, and requires exactly the same standard of scientific examination they demand of existing climate science.

Quote:

Natural variability is not an explanation of cause, but the observation of a pattern of effect. It is not a mechanism, nor is it a description or function. Natural variability is an attribution, a generalisation, a vague but convenient catch-all. All phenomena are 'natural' and they vary a lot. Citing 'natural variation' as an explanation, explains nothing. The missing component in this 'explanation' is how and why ‘natural variability’ takes place at all - and to discover this, we must turn to science. To bring about a ‘natural’ change still requires an energy input or output. Climate change contrarians cannot produce any science that attests to energy changes that might cause this recent ’natural variability’ any more than creationists can produce science (or evidence) to support their claim that 'it was God what done it'. This should not be surprising, because climate change denial is a belief system, founded not on science and evidence, but something akin to a religion, or superstition. The problem with the claim that all the climate changes we are already witnessing are within the bounds of natural variability is that those making the claim cannot identify the forcing – the change in energy levels – required to increase the global temperatures rapidly over three decades, to melt glaciers, to warm oceans, to change seasonal periodicity, to expand deserts, to cause extreme weather, change precipitation patterns, to decrease Arctic ice volume or increase Antarctic sea ice extent. All these and many more changes in our environment require energy, and what climate change contrarians cannot produce is even a convincing alternative hypothesis to explain where this energy is coming from, let alone produce empirical evidence for it. Yet this is their ‘theory’, their alleged explanation for what is happening to the climate. I think they owe us more than some vague, hand-waving generalisation. They owe us a scientific explanation of what drives this ‘natural variability’, because without it, they are asking us to dismiss a cohesive, consistent, consilient scientific theory in favour of nothing but untestable, unprovable, unfalsifiable superstition. They might as well be asking us to dump science in favour of magic – and then again, perhaps that’s exactly what they are doing. ***** When it comes to credibility, a source of information should surely maintain some kind of balance. That isn’t to say that an editorial policy can’t be applied – the Guardian is still (barely) a left-wing media outlet but that doesn’t mean its output is mere propaganda, even though its detractors might conveniently characterise it as such. This point is particularly salient when considering the main contrarian websites. These sites cannot possibly be considered sceptical, for a simple reason; they find fault in all climate science, not just some of it. Think about it: thousands of papers published over the last 50 years. I just wrote about the Charney report – a remarkably prescient bit of work dating from 1979 – but the audit trail goes a long way further back than that, all the way back to Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius with his greenhouse theory, published in 1896. (Arrhenius received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903 by the way, and in 1905 became Director of the Nobel Institute, where he remained until his death). Surely I can’t be alone in thinking that a site calling itself ‘sceptical’ would find some papers to be accurate, some to be debatable, and some to be in error. That would be the logical assumption in regard of any statistical breakdown of technical materials, particularly when the material originates from scientists so geographically and culturally diverse. The probability that all climate science is wrong (or right, for that matter) is, statistically speaking, zero. Indeed, Skeptical Science, while lauding many papers for their insight, had no compunction in finding fault with a recent paper about an alleged methane bubble. (A fine demonstration of true scepticism, the lack of an agenda – and the pernicious corruption of proper spelling by the colonies. Have they no respect?). The unfortunate result of finding fault in everything is that one can no longer be seen to persuade, but to hector and harass, to denigrate and deny. Without a counter-argument, all that’s left is propaganda. Persuasion requires a counter-position at least as credible as the one argued against; propaganda requires only a credulous audience willing to believe something that confirms a view they already hold. When the subject is climate science, it isn’t a valid argument to dismiss one theory without being able to propose an alternative. As I’ve said before, to knock down an edifice, all that’s required is brute strength and a sledgehammer. Constructing a new edifice out of the rubble requires more; intelligence, architecture, planning, skills and crafts, design and construction. Contrarians certainly know how to wield the hammer, but there’s not much evidence of anything constructive in their position.

Quote:

Why do I claim that criticism without a counter-theory is invalid? For the same reason Dana eschews ‘magical thinking’. At the heart of the climate change debate there is a question being asked, and to answer it requires science. (The Oxford Dictionary on-line defines science as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”). We study the physical and natural world for many reasons, but chief among them must surely be the desire to understand changes in the world around us that may affect us for better or worse. So we find ourselves contemplating an important question; the climate is changing – why is that? If contrarians want to argue their case, it is not sufficient to be dismissive of climate science, any more than it is appropriate to pitch opinion against theory. There is no material explanation for climate change proposed by deniers, except the magical thinking of ‘natural variation’. The only valid way to improve science is through better science, and better science is not achieved by taking a sledgehammer to the existing canon, any more than it could be improved by burning books. We have a really important question to answer: why is the climate changing? This question cannot be answered through rhetoric or debate. It is the stuff of science, and until those who take issue with anthropogenic climate change can produce an alternative theory of equal merit, they must rely entirely on hyperbole, demagoguery, personal attacks, misrepresentation, and bad science to promote their invidious case. I’m open to persuasion, but only by one means; science. ‘Natural variation’ doesn’t explain anything. It doesn’t answer the fundamental question, which cannot be put back in the Pandora’s box it came from. We need an answer, and ‘natural variability’ isn’t it. What contrarians cannot do is persuade us that such a pressing question does not require an urgent answer. All physical change involves changes in energy states. Until climate change contrarians can come up with a plausible, testable alternative explanation as to where this energy is coming from and why it is changing in distribution and quantity, they cannot present an argument that will persuade by force of logic. Appealing to pseudo-superstitions like ‘natural variation’ is an appeal to a mob mentality. It depends on predisposition, a certain ignorance, a credulous audience and a lack of sceptical enquiry. What it will never do is stop the ice melting, nor explain why it is.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scientific-explanation-climate-change-contrarians.html

What would be the point??
It's like arguing evolution with a creationist, they won't accept the (scientific) explanations anyway.

Einstein said best, " Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results"

Dana Nuccitelli, hey?

"First and only warning - I'm Blocking anyone who continues with the 'Dana is funded by Big Oil' BS. Cut the crap."

https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/360422898902642690

What an interesting little alarmist blogger he is.

He's one of the 97% consensus clowns:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/05/warmist-dana-nuccitelli-chokes-on-his-own-vomit-cites-his-own-laughable-97-study-to-push-carbon-tax-climate-debate-is-settled-carbon-tax-is-vital/

Too funny   ;D

Quote:

For a while now, I’ve considered climate change denial to be akin to superstition, which the Oxford Dictionaries site defines as “a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences.” I mention this because when challenged, contrarians often claim that the climate changes we are witnessing are not man-made, but products of ‘natural variability’.  In this context, I find that ‘natural variability’ appears to be a synonym for ‘supernatural influence’.

The very first paragraph of these writings describes the attitude this person has to sceptics.

The funny thing is that he talks as though the science is settled and there is nothing left to argue about.

Science is about scrutiny, today there are still scientists who scrutinise Newton's and Einstein's work.

Not that anthropogenic global warming has ever been a settled science since MOST of the IPCC's predictions have been way of the mark or just down right lies.

In fact so much of their predictions have been off the IPCC is now under pressure to explain why....????

Ajax wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

The funny thing is that he talks as though the science is settled and there is nothing left to argue about.

His alarmist colleague - Dana Nuccitelli- claims "Now that the science is settled that humans are causing global warming ... "

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/05/5471547/climate-debate-is-settled-carbon.html

Another one who thinks that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature".

Ajax wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

Quote: For a while now, I’ve considered climate change denial to be akin to superstition, which the Oxford Dictionaries site defines as “a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences.” I mention this because when challenged, contrarians often claim that the climate changes we are witnessing are not man-made, but products of ‘natural variability’.  In this context, I find that ‘natural variability’ appears to be a synonym for ‘supernatural influence’. The very first paragraph of these writings describes the attitude this person has to sceptics. The funny thing is that he talks as though the science is settled and there is nothing left to argue about. Science is about scrutiny, today there are still scientists who scrutinise Newton's and Einstein's work. Not that anthropogenic global warming has ever been a settled science since MOST of the IPCC's predictions have been way of the mark or just down right lies. In fact so much of their predictions have been off the IPCC is now under pressure to explain why....????

Which predictions are wrong, and name some scientists who are scrutinising Newtons and Einsteins work at a macro level ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:27am:

Which predictions are wrong, and name some scientists who are scrutinising Newtons and Einsteins work at a macro level ?

The missing heat of the last 15 years in somewhere in the oceans.

There was no medieval warm period or mini ice age.

All glaciers would be gone by 2035.

All the ice in the arctic would be gone by 2013.

There is a hot spot in the tropopause.

Co2 & temperature correlate.

Mosquitos and malaria would spread because of AGW.

All natural disasters are caused from anthropogenic global warming.

Ocean acidity of 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years will be catastrophic when ocean acidity changes much more than this on a daily bases.

The shonkey hockey stick which no one is allowed to analyse..............climate gate......????

Sea levels are rising uncontrollably...!!!!!

The IPCC's 1990 prediction of unequivocal warming of 0.2 degrees celcius per decade when for the last 15 years we have only had 0.05 degrees celcius per decade.

research on Newton's work
http://crosscut.com/2011/08/02/hanford/21132/Was-Newton-wrong-about-gravity/

Research on Einstein's work
http://phys.org/news193581095.html


Quote:

"We physicists, we're skeptical of every theory," explains physicist Paul Boynton of the University of Washington.

Ajax wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:59am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 9:27am: Which predictions are wrong, and name some scientists who are scrutinising Newtons and Einsteins work at a macro level ? The missing heat of the last 15 years in somewhere in the oceans. There was no medieval warm period or mini ice age.

Can you give me IPCC links to these, because they sound like you've made them up:

Quote:

All glaciers would be gone by 2035. All the ice in the arctic would be gone by 2013. All natural disasters are caused from anthropogenic global warming.

If the IPCC makes a claim, then is found wanting, the burden of proof for their claims still lies with them. It isn't like debating creationism, it's the opposite. Atheism is the null-hypothesis, exactly like climate skepticism. Sure you can find people who offer their own explanations, I'm trying to look for an article where some skeptics actually predicted the current temperatures with their own model, but can't remember where I saw it. Apart from that the null-hypothesis does not have the burden of proof, they can deconstruct an argument however and offer up their own ideas, however it isn't necessary.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 11:21am:

If the IPCC makes a claim, then is found wanting, the burden of proof for their claims still lies with them. It isn't like debating creationism, it's the opposite. Atheism is the null-hypothesis, exactly like climate skepticism. Sure you can find people who offer their own explanations, I'm trying to look for an article where some skeptics actually predicted the current temperatures with their own model, but can't remember where I saw it. Apart from that the null-hypothesis does not have the burden of proof, they can deconstruct an argument however and offer up their own ideas, however it isn't necessary.

Maybe the posts are not related, but, it seems to me that the post above yours is actually asking for the IPCC "claim" to be evidenced....

Now, it would seem that there is room for some burden of proof to back that claim up surely...

In short, if the IPCC makes a claim that is found wanting then absolutely the burden of proof is on them, but, by that same standard, if an individual makes a claim about what the IPCC has claimed, then, the burden of proof is on them... Otherwise, Doctor Jolly points out, the counter claims (Mini Ice ages, glaciers gone by 2035 just to point at two, however, there are several...) run the risk of being dismissed as simply being made up. Pretty easy stuff really.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 9:08am: The funny thing is that he talks as though the science is settled and there is nothing left to argue about. His alarmist colleague - Dana Nuccitelli- claims "Now that the science is settled that humans are causing global warming ... " ...

Didn't some credible body recently report 95-100% certainty that humans are the major cause of global warming?

I'll look forward to the attacks on the author or host blog, as is their habit, and the continuation of the circular arguments of bullstish from the rusted on supporters of doom, doom and more doom....

Such confidence built on such narrow and misplaced foundations, what fools are these alarmists?


Another Reason Why IPCC Predictions (Projections) Fail. AR5 Continues to Let The End Justify the Unscrupulous Means

Posted on October 14, 2013      by Guest Blogger      


IPCC_progressionsNoble cause corruption in the process.

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Someone said economists try to predict the tide by measuring one wave. The IPCC essentially try to predict (project) the global temperature by measuring one variable. The IPCC compound their problems by projecting the temperature variable with the influence of the economic variable.

Use of circular arguments is standard operating procedures for the IPCC. For example, they assume a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. They then create a model with that assumption and when the model output shows a temperature increase with a CO2 increase they claim it proves their assumption.

They double down on this by combining an economic model that projects a CO2 increase with their climate model projection. To make it look more accurate and reasonable they create scenarios based on their estimates of future developments. It creates what they want, namely that CO2 will increase and temperature will increase catastrophically unless we shut down fossil fuel based economies very quickly.

All their projections failed, even the lowest as, according to them, atmospheric CO2 continued to rise and global temperatures declined. As usual, instead of admitting their work and assumptions were wrong, they scramble to blur, obfuscate and counterattack.



One part of the obfuscation is to keep the focus on climate science. Most think the IPCC is purely about climate science, they don’t know about the economics connection. They don’t know that the IPCC projects CO2 increase on economic models that presume to know the future. Chances of knowing that are virtually zero as history shows.

See more myth busting at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/another-reason-why-ipcc-predictions-projections-fail-ar5-continues-to-let-the-end-justify-the-unscrupulous-means/

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 9:59am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 9:27am: Which predictions are wrong, and name some scientists who are scrutinising Newtons and Einsteins work at a macro level ? The missing heat of the last 15 years in somewhere in the oceans. There was no medieval warm period or mini ice age. Can you give me IPCC links to these, because they sound like you've made them up: Quote: All glaciers would be gone by 2035. All the ice in the arctic would be gone by 2013. All natural disasters are caused from anthropogenic global warming.

I didn't say the IPCC predicted all of the above, but alarmists in general.

All I can say is thank goodness we have sceptics who jump on all IPCC and other alarmist propaganda to see whether they are bullshit or ok.

If we where all like the alarmist camp and accepted everything the IPCC and other alarmist organisations told us verbatim, imagine where the bugger we would be.

And lets not forget climategate, how anyone can put there faith in alarmist propaganda after they have been caught red handed has me dumbfounded.

Climategate emails
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

IPCC predicted no glaciers by 2035
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

Alarmists that predicted no ice in the arctic by 2012
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/

IPCC predictions facts vs fiction
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/the-2013-ipcc-ar5-report-facts-vs-fictions/

IPCC computer circulation models get it wrong
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=post;num=1381688819;virboard=;quote=9;title=PostReply

Let’s quote the IPCC Prediction:


Quote:

“If emissions follow a Business-as-usual pattern" Under the IPCC Business as Usual emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C – 0.5C)” [IPCC FAR summary]

Quote:

5. In 2007, the AR4 made much of the fact that the warming trend over the previous 15 years exceeded 0.2°C/decade. In 2013, the AR5 plays down the fact that there is no significant warming at all during the previous 15 years. (But AR5 cites 0.05°C/decade without mentioning that this figure is ±0.14°C). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/to-the-ipcc-forget-about-30-years/

How anyone can not be at least a little sceptical defies belief, then again a billion people think there is an allah on the basis of nothing so I guess anythings possible, humans are funny, I reckon that if the computer chips in my brain were rearranged a little differently as I was developing in the womb I could very well be here calling you all deniers instead, just the luck of the draw I guess   ;D

Rider wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 6:46am:

I'll look forward to the attacks on the author or host blog ...

When you've already pointed out your risible source, is there any need?

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

How anyone can not be at least a little sceptical defies belief...

Scepticism involves making a genuine attempt to consider all of the evidence. You're no sceptic.

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 8:53am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 8:35am: How anyone can not be at least a little sceptical defies belief... Scepticism involves making a genuine attempt to consider all of the evidence. You're no sceptic.

Unfortunately for you there is more evidence to disprove AGW than prove it, please bear in mind that x amount of people saying it is so because we said so does not count as evidence when it comes to science, not that you would ever understand that concept.  ;D

Quote:

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes By Larry Bell So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.) The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation? http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 8:56am:

... there is more evidence to disprove AGW than prove it ...

Yet another assertion that you have no hope of substantiating.

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 8:56am: ... there is more evidence to disprove AGW than prove it ... Yet another assertion that you have no hope of substantiating.

Hey Innocent_bystander

I wouldn't bother with this lazy dude.

He's a one liner who cant be bothered have a debate.

Don't waste your time...... 8-)

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 9:14am:

Quote: That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes By Larry Bell ...

Quote:

​Larry Bell Credentials     Professor of Architecture at the University of Houston.     AIAA, ASCE. Registered Architect and urban planner.     Master of Fine Arts, University of Illinois.     Bachelor of Architecture, University of Illinois, Background Larry Bell is a professor of architecture and space architecture at the University of Houston. He is the founder and director of the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA). According to his profile at climateofcorruption.com, Bell also co-founded several high-tech companies. Bell has not published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate. He is  best known as the author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. In an Accuracy in Media interview, Bell described how he started on his book shortly after meeting Fred Singer. His book talks about how "politics is responsible for the global warming hoax." Key Deeds May 21 - 23, 2012 Larry Bell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations. Heartland's president Joe Bast revealed at the end of the conference that the Institute has no plans for future ICCCs. This could be in part due to the defections of corporate sponsors following Heartland's unsuccessful Unabomber billboard campaign and the unintended release of their confidential documents. June 30-July 1, 2011 Bell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change. [7]

Quote:

Monday, April 30, 2012 Larry Bell is a Liar! I don't subscribe to antagonistic rhetoric, but the facts are the facts and Larry Bell is a liar and this needs to be said. He knows where to find me if he thinks I'm committing libel. For those of you that aren't familiar with this person, Larry Bell is an architecture professor who has decided he is an expert in climate science and writes global warming denial articles for Forbes magazine. Forbes is a little strange in that I have seen both very good, scientific articles about global warming and I have also seen articles written by the deniers, such as Larry Bell. I guess they are willing to go both ways. Typically, Bell's articles are merely ridiculous and easily debunked. ...

Hardly an impartial or credible source.

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:08am:

... He's a one liner who cant be bothered have a debate. ...

Is your ignorant proselytising debate?

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 9:14am: Quote: That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes By Larry Bell ... [quote]​Larry Bell Credentials     Professor of Architecture at the University of Houston.     AIAA, ASCE. Registered Architect and urban planner.     Master of Fine Arts, University of Illinois.     Bachelor of Architecture, University of Illinois, Background Larry Bell is a professor of architecture and space architecture at the University of Houston. He is the founder and director of the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA). According to his profile at climateofcorruption.com, Bell also co-founded several high-tech companies. Bell has not published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate. He is  best known as the author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. In an Accuracy in Media interview, Bell described how he started on his book shortly after meeting Fred Singer. His book talks about how "politics is responsible for the global warming hoax." Key Deeds May 21 - 23, 2012 Larry Bell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations. Heartland's president Joe Bast revealed at the end of the conference that the Institute has no plans for future ICCCs. This could be in part due to the defections of corporate sponsors following Heartland's unsuccessful Unabomber billboard campaign and the unintended release of their confidential documents. June 30-July 1, 2011 Bell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change. [7]

Quote:

Monday, April 30, 2012 Larry Bell is a Liar! I don't subscribe to antagonistic rhetoric, but the facts are the facts and Larry Bell is a liar and this needs to be said. He knows where to find me if he thinks I'm committing libel. For those of you that aren't familiar with this person, Larry Bell is an architecture professor who has decided he is an expert in climate science and writes global warming denial articles for Forbes magazine. Forbes is a little strange in that I have seen both very good, scientific articles about global warming and I have also seen articles written by the deniers, such as Larry Bell. I guess they are willing to go both ways. Typically, Bell's articles are merely ridiculous and easily debunked. ...

Hardly an impartial or credible source.[/quote]

Are you saying that this isn't how this AGW consensus was first formed.....???????

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:19am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:08am: ... He's a one liner who cant be bothered have a debate. ... Is your ignorant proselytising debate?

Hey i'm just stating the facts.....???

Isn't science about scrutinising a hypothesis to arrive at a scientific theory backed up by scientific laws.....????

The alarmists should welcome the scrutiny of the sceptics.

If their hypothesis is true there can be no denying it...!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:21am:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:18am: Ajax wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 9:14am: Quote: That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes By Larry Bell ... [quote]​Larry Bell Credentials     Professor of Architecture at the University of Houston.     AIAA, ASCE. Registered Architect and urban planner.     Master of Fine Arts, University of Illinois.     Bachelor of Architecture, University of Illinois, Background Larry Bell is a professor of architecture and space architecture at the University of Houston. He is the founder and director of the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA). According to his profile at climateofcorruption.com, Bell also co-founded several high-tech companies. Bell has not published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate. He is  best known as the author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. In an Accuracy in Media interview, Bell described how he started on his book shortly after meeting Fred Singer. His book talks about how "politics is responsible for the global warming hoax." Key Deeds May 21 - 23, 2012 Larry Bell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations. Heartland's president Joe Bast revealed at the end of the conference that the Institute has no plans for future ICCCs. This could be in part due to the defections of corporate sponsors following Heartland's unsuccessful Unabomber billboard campaign and the unintended release of their confidential documents. June 30-July 1, 2011 Bell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change. [7] [quote]Monday, April 30, 2012 Larry Bell is a Liar! I don't subscribe to antagonistic rhetoric, but the facts are the facts and Larry Bell is a liar and this needs to be said. He knows where to find me if he thinks I'm committing libel. For those of you that aren't familiar with this person, Larry Bell is an architecture professor who has decided he is an expert in climate science and writes global warming denial articles for Forbes magazine. Forbes is a little strange in that I have seen both very good, scientific articles about global warming and I have also seen articles written by the deniers, such as Larry Bell. I guess they are willing to go both ways. Typically, Bell's articles are merely ridiculous and easily debunked. ...

Hardly an impartial or credible source.[/quote]

Are you saying that this isn't how this AGW consensus was first formed.....???????[/quote]
Do you have credible substantiation?

Ajax wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:19am: Ajax wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 10:08am: ... He's a one liner who cant be bothered have a debate. ... Is your ignorant proselytising debate? Hey i'm just stating the facts.....??? ...

If so, then you'll be able to substantiate what you're "just stating".

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

How anyone can not be at least a little sceptical defies belief ...

It does, doesn't it?

These alarmists claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature".

Can you think of a more closed-minded and arrogant group than this mob?

These are the sort of people who believe everything they see on ACA and 60 Minutes.  Let's just hope their kids get a better education, and have more inquiring minds as a result.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:03am:

... These alarmists claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". ...

Where have I claimed that? All you need to do is link to it.

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:03am: ... These alarmists claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". ... Where have I claimed that? All you need to do is link to it.

No backing away from it now, old boy.

The damage is done.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:03am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 8:35am: How anyone can not be at least a little sceptical defies belief ... It does, doesn't it? These alarmists claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". Can you think of a more closed-minded and arrogant group than this mob? These are the sort of people who believe everything they see on ACA and 60 Minutes.  Let's just hope their kids get a better education, and have more inquiring minds as a result.

The lack of scepticism is an indication of a closed mind.  the better scientists are always sceptical of their results.  the less qualified join the IPCC and write chapters on subjects they are scarcely qualified for predicting the end of the world while it continues to go on its way merrily with a MASSIVE 0.12 degree warming in 20 years and none for the last 17.

with the amount of predictive failure, a lack of scepticism is frankly enough to warrant totally ignoring that person.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:06am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:03am: ... These alarmists claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". ... Where have I claimed that? All you need to do is link to it. No backing away from it now, old boy. ...

So you can't substantiate. Lying again, young troll.

Contemplating your original assertion, you imply that all "alarmists" (by which I assume you mean anyone who accepts the opinion of the vast majority of the best qualified on global warming):
Quote:

claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature".

That puts you in the position of having to substantiate you assertion for everyone on this board who is not, like yourself, a denialist.

Do you get bulk discounts on lies?

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:11am: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:06am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:03am: ... These alarmists claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". ... Where have I claimed that? All you need to do is link to it. No backing away from it now, old boy. ... So you can't substantiate. Lying again, young troll. Contemplating your original assertion, you imply that all "alarmists" (by which I assume you mean anyone who accepts the opinion of the vast majority of the best qualified on global warming): Quote: claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". That puts you in the position of having to substantiate you assertion for everyone on this board who is not, like yourself, a denialist. Do you get bulk discounts on lies?

Umm no 'alarmists' are those who absolutely believe (and won't accept criticism of) one theory of the reasons for increasing global temperatures. And who think the world's ending because of that particular theory.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:11am: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:06am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:03am: ... These alarmists claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". ... Where have I claimed that? All you need to do is link to it. No backing away from it now, old boy. ... So you can't substantiate. Lying again, young troll. Contemplating your original assertion, you imply that all "alarmists" (by which I assume you mean anyone who accepts the opinion of the vast majority of the best qualified on global warming): Quote: claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". That puts you in the position of having to substantiate you assertion for everyone on this board who is not, like yourself, a denialist. Do you get bulk discounts on lies? Umm no 'alarmists' are those who absolutely believe (and won't accept criticism of) one theory of the reasons for increasing global temperatures. And who think the world's ending because of that particular theory.

I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them.

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:29pm: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:15pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:11am: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:06am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 11:03am: ... These alarmists claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". ... Where have I claimed that? All you need to do is link to it. No backing away from it now, old boy. ... So you can't substantiate. Lying again, young troll. Contemplating your original assertion, you imply that all "alarmists" (by which I assume you mean anyone who accepts the opinion of the vast majority of the best qualified on global warming): Quote: claim that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature". That puts you in the position of having to substantiate you assertion for everyone on this board who is not, like yourself, a denialist. Do you get bulk discounts on lies? Umm no 'alarmists' are those who absolutely believe (and won't accept criticism of) one theory of the reasons for increasing global temperatures. And who think the world's ending because of that particular theory. I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them.

Well unfortunately it's not 'legitimate' majority view...it's based (mostly) on getting funding. And you probably DO believe that you are 'better' than them, because real scientists are never 100% sure of anything...but you seem to be 110% sure.

Sadly, there is always, in every generation, a belief that the world's going to end for whatever reason, the AGW idea is just the latest version of the apocalyptic world view

MOTR wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 4:26am:

Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation

Anyone who tells you that he knows how the global climate actually works is lying.

Scientific fact.

Soren wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Oct 14th, 2013 at 4:26am: Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation Anyone who tells you that he knows how the global climate actually works is lying.

Well, this hurts but, here goes:  I agree with Soren.

While I don't agree we can necessarily do anything about climate change, those who pursue denial as an agenda are degenerates and should be liquidated as members of a dangerous cult.

Winston Smith wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

While I don't agree we can necessarily do anything about climate change, those who pursue denial as an agenda are degenerates and should be liquidated as members of a dangerous cult.

Awesome!, you would have been handy at Auschwitz, thats the trouble with clowns like you, you were born way too late and missed the show  ;D

Dana Nuccitelli bwhhaaaa. He is funded by big oil man. He must be one of those trying to fry your brain, but on the opposite side man. Cooool.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:38pm: ... I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them. Well unfortunately it's not 'legitimate' majority view...it's based (mostly) on getting funding.

A belief which you have no hope of substantiating.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

And you probably DO believe that you are 'better' than them, because real scientists are never 100% sure of anything...but you seem to be 110% sure. ...

Of what?

# wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them.

Have a look into science history....!!!

How many times have the majority of scientists been wrong.....???????

The foundation of anthropogenic global warming rests on Computer Circulation models.

What's the chance........??????

# wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:50pm: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:38pm: ... I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them. Well unfortunately it's not 'legitimate' majority view...it's based (mostly) on getting funding. A belief which you have no hope of substantiating. gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:50pm: And you probably DO believe that you are 'better' than them, because real scientists are never 100% sure of anything...but you seem to be 110% sure. ... Of what?

Of course I can substantiate my statement.
They (the scientists) are research scientists, which means they get paid to do their research, in the form of grants or other forms of funding (by universities, governments or private individuals/companies). So if the funding is offered for study into the 'affects of human action on climate change' (for example) a scientist isn't gonig to get the funding, if his/her results or his/her opinion is that humans have NO affect on climate change.


As for the second question, no climate scientist has yet to say for absolutely certain, that humans are causing AGW, the best they'll state is '95% sure'. Whereas you seem to be 110% certain that mankind is the cause of AGW (or ACC).

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:

Winston Smith wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 7:17pm: While I don't agree we can necessarily do anything about climate change, those who pursue denial as an agenda are degenerates and should be liquidated as members of a dangerous cult. Awesome!, you would have been handy at Auschwitz, thats the trouble with clowns like you, you were born way too late and missed the show  ;D

Except what the Nazi's did to the Jews at Auschwitz was irrational and a crime against humanity.

Winston Smith wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:41pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 7:21pm: Winston Smith wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 7:17pm: While I don't agree we can necessarily do anything about climate change, those who pursue denial as an agenda are degenerates and should be liquidated as members of a dangerous cult. Awesome!, you would have been handy at Auschwitz, thats the trouble with clowns like you, you were born way too late and missed the show  ;D Except what the Nazi's did to the Jews at Auschwitz was irrational and a crime against humanity.

And calling for the death penalty for people who have a different opinion to you ISN'T 'irrational and a crime against humanity'????

I swear these global warming cranks get loonier by the day, I guess no global warming will do that  ;D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

# wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 7:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:50pm: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:38pm: ... I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them. Well unfortunately it's not 'legitimate' majority view...it's based (mostly) on getting funding. A belief which you have no hope of substantiating. gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:50pm: And you probably DO believe that you are 'better' than them, because real scientists are never 100% sure of anything...but you seem to be 110% sure. ... Of what? Of course I can substantiate my statement. They (the scientists) are research scientists, which means they get paid to do their research, in the form of grants or other forms of funding (by universities, governments or private individuals/companies). So if the funding is offered for study into the 'affects of human action on climate change' (for example) a scientist isn't gonig to get the funding, if his/her results or his/her opinion is that humans have NO affect on climate change.

So the tiny minority who produce results favoured by (for example) the fossil fuel industry don't get funding?


gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

As for the second question, no climate scientist has yet to say for absolutely certain, that humans are causing AGW, the best they'll state is '95% sure'. Whereas you seem to be 110% certain that mankind is the cause of AGW (or ACC).

Actually, they say they're 95 to 100% certain, which is about as certain as science gets.

I don't claim to be qualified to judge the science at all, let alone "to be 110% certain", one way or another. I am reasonably confident, however, that the vast majority of the best qualified are as certain as possible that humanity is substantially responsible for global warming.

As a true sceptic, I'm not fool enough to say otherwise.

Ajax wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

# wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:38pm: I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them. ... How many times have the majority of scientists been wrong.....??????? ...

How many times have they been right?

It was bloody cold this morning, and guess what, the climate changed and this afternoon it's been smacking roasting.......there ya go climate change....

It's been like this for eons.....

viewpoint wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

It was bloody cold this morning, and guess what, the climate changed and this afternoon it's been smacking roasting.......there ya go climate change.... It's been like this for eons.....

No, according to the global warming cult we used to live in a climate controlled paradise where every day was perfect, just the right amount of wind, just the right amount of Sun and just the right amount of rain for millions of years right up until right wing conservatives buggered it all  ;D

# wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 2:11pm: # wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 7:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:50pm: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:38pm: ... I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them. Well unfortunately it's not 'legitimate' majority view...it's based (mostly) on getting funding. A belief which you have no hope of substantiating. gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:50pm: And you probably DO believe that you are 'better' than them, because real scientists are never 100% sure of anything...but you seem to be 110% sure. ... Of what? Of course I can substantiate my statement. They (the scientists) are research scientists, which means they get paid to do their research, in the form of grants or other forms of funding (by universities, governments or private individuals/companies). So if the funding is offered for study into the 'affects of human action on climate change' (for example) a scientist isn't gonig to get the funding, if his/her results or his/her opinion is that humans have NO affect on climate change. So the tiny minority who produce results favoured by (for example) the fossil fuel industry don't get funding? gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 2:11pm: As for the second question, no climate scientist has yet to say for absolutely certain, that humans are causing AGW, the best they'll state is '95% sure'. Whereas you seem to be 110% certain that mankind is the cause of AGW (or ACC). Actually, they say they're 95 to 100% certain, which is about as certain as science gets. I don't claim to be qualified to judge the science at all, let alone "to be 110% certain", one way or another. I am reasonably confident, however, that the vast majority of the best qualified are as certain as possible that humanity is substantially responsible for global warming. As a true sceptic, I'm not fool enough to say otherwise.

Umm you do know that the 'fossil fuel industry' doesn't really run around, throwing huge amounts of money at scientists to intimidate them into selling out, don't you??

They probably do fund some scientists who don't accept the current theory, but then the oil companies fund lots and lots of scientists, in all sorts of fields.

The 'fossil fuel industry' isn't anti-alternative energy, or even 'anti' AGW, their only real concern is trying to make sure that whatever alternative fuel system eventually gets used runs on fuel sold by THEM.

I mean it's fairly good idea, inventing an 'evil empire' to blame when people poke holes in the doctrine, but it doesn't really work these days. The public is a little too switched on to fall for the Reds Under the Bed ploy.

So it would seem from a few commentators here that "threats" are somehow problematic or inappropriate.

So, does that mean that death threats made against the lives of scientists would be unacceptable also?

I am curious, would you be outraged by that should it ever occur?

# wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:59pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 8:35am: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:38pm: I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them. ... How many times have the majority of scientists been wrong.....??????? ... How many times have they been right?

You tell me because I can't recall not even one time that their computer models have been correct......????

Some of their failures are.....!!!


Can you deny the following,

Climategate - showed how Mann and Co. operate, more politics than science.

IPCC stated glaciers would all be gone by 2035.

Alarmists where saying in 2005 2006 that by 2013 the arctic would be free of ice.

The hot spot in the tropopasue, once upon a time it was the mantle piece of AGW.

The missing heat is in the oceans, after a 15 years of no warming.

The consensus was fabricated from an online two question survey.

Cook et al a fraudulent attempt to prove the consensus.

1990 IPCC computer model forecasts got it wrong, proven in the last 15 years when we had 0.05 degree warming per decade instead of the 0.2 degree warming per decade forecast by their computer models.

IPCC overestimates CO2 forcing and CO2 lifetime in our atmosphere.

Can you give me an example of where the science based on computer circulation models got it right.....????

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:36am:

So it would seem from a few commentators here that "threats" are somehow problematic or inappropriate. So, does that mean that death threats made against the lives of scientists would be unacceptable also? I am curious, would you be outraged by that should it ever occur?

Have you seen the sh!t that's in the media, of alarmists saying things about sceptics like their heretics and need to be hanged or killed.....!!!!!

When you have the science there is no need to bully.

You hang it out like dogs balls for all to see.

Some of the alarmists are really sick in the head.

http://youtu.be/JfnddMpzPsM

Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

# wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 2:59pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 8:35am: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:38pm: I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them. ... How many times have the majority of scientists been wrong.....??????? ... How many times have they been right? You tell me because I can't recall not even one time ...

So the majority of scientists have never been right?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:56pm:

# wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 2:54pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 2:11pm: # wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 7:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:50pm: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:38pm: ... I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them. Well unfortunately it's not 'legitimate' majority view...it's based (mostly) on getting funding. A belief which you have no hope of substantiating. gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:50pm: And you probably DO believe that you are 'better' than them, because real scientists are never 100% sure of anything...but you seem to be 110% sure. ... Of what? Of course I can substantiate my statement. They (the scientists) are research scientists, which means they get paid to do their research, in the form of grants or other forms of funding (by universities, governments or private individuals/companies). So if the funding is offered for study into the 'affects of human action on climate change' (for example) a scientist isn't gonig to get the funding, if his/her results or his/her opinion is that humans have NO affect on climate change. So the tiny minority who produce results favoured by (for example) the fossil fuel industry don't get funding? gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 2:11pm: As for the second question, no climate scientist has yet to say for absolutely certain, that humans are causing AGW, the best they'll state is '95% sure'. Whereas you seem to be 110% certain that mankind is the cause of AGW (or ACC). Actually, they say they're 95 to 100% certain, which is about as certain as science gets. I don't claim to be qualified to judge the science at all, let alone "to be 110% certain", one way or another. I am reasonably confident, however, that the vast majority of the best qualified are as certain as possible that humanity is substantially responsible for global warming. As a true sceptic, I'm not fool enough to say otherwise. Umm you do know that the 'fossil fuel industry' doesn't really run around, throwing huge amounts of money at scientists to intimidate them into selling out, don't you?? ...

I presume you're implying that someone does?

In brief, you assert much and substantiate nothing.

viewpoint wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

It was bloody cold this morning, and guess what, the climate changed and this afternoon it's been smacking roasting.......there ya go climate change.... It's been like this for eons.....

The alarmists will dismiss this post as just being "silly", however, it actually is a very good demonstration of exactly how ridiculous the AGW "argument" is.

Who determines the appropriate time frame for measuring climate and weather?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

viewpoint wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 3:02pm: It was bloody cold this morning, and guess what, the climate changed and this afternoon it's been smacking roasting.......there ya go climate change.... It's been like this for eons..... The alarmists will dismiss this post as just being "silly", however, it actually is a very good demonstration of exactly how ridiculous the AGW "argument" is. Who determines the appropriate time frame for measuring climate and weather?

Is EXXON an alarmist fossil fuel corporation?

The conclusions of EXXON's internal reports and analyses as well as their own scientists support urgent international action to mitigate the effects of AGW.

THey may secretly fund crack pot spin doctors, right wing fossil fuel think tanks and liars, as well as pour money into lobbying politicians etc., but officially EXXON have a very strong commitment to tackling climate change. I suggest you check out the official stance of ALL of the fossil fuel corporations, including the Peabody Coal company and mining giants such as BHP. RIO TINTO and Vale.

You seem to have taken their bait - its easy to do if you see what you WANT to see rather than examine the data in an honest and open manner.

good luck with the therapy muso

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 7:46pm: viewpoint wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 3:02pm: It was bloody cold this morning, and guess what, the climate changed and this afternoon it's been smacking roasting.......there ya go climate change.... It's been like this for eons..... The alarmists will dismiss this post as just being "silly", however, it actually is a very good demonstration of exactly how ridiculous the AGW "argument" is. Who determines the appropriate time frame for measuring climate and weather? Is EXXON an alarmist fossil fuel corporation?

Do you always answer questions with a question?

# wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:28pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 3:56pm: # wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 2:54pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 2:11pm: # wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 7:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:50pm: # wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:38pm: ... I believe there's a majority view among the best qualified. I don't believe I know better than them. Well unfortunately it's not 'legitimate' majority view...it's based (mostly) on getting funding. A belief which you have no hope of substantiating. gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 3:50pm: And you probably DO believe that you are 'better' than them, because real scientists are never 100% sure of anything...but you seem to be 110% sure. ... Of what? Of course I can substantiate my statement. They (the scientists) are research scientists, which means they get paid to do their research, in the form of grants or other forms of funding (by universities, governments or private individuals/companies). So if the funding is offered for study into the 'affects of human action on climate change' (for example) a scientist isn't gonig to get the funding, if his/her results or his/her opinion is that humans have NO affect on climate change. So the tiny minority who produce results favoured by (for example) the fossil fuel industry don't get funding? gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 2:11pm: As for the second question, no climate scientist has yet to say for absolutely certain, that humans are causing AGW, the best they'll state is '95% sure'. Whereas you seem to be 110% certain that mankind is the cause of AGW (or ACC). Actually, they say they're 95 to 100% certain, which is about as certain as science gets. I don't claim to be qualified to judge the science at all, let alone "to be 110% certain", one way or another. I am reasonably confident, however, that the vast majority of the best qualified are as certain as possible that humanity is substantially responsible for global warming. As a true sceptic, I'm not fool enough to say otherwise. Umm you do know that the 'fossil fuel industry' doesn't really run around, throwing huge amounts of money at scientists to intimidate them into selling out, don't you?? ... I presume you're implying that someone does? In brief, you assert much and substantiate nothing.

No, I'm implying that NO ONE does. Basically, the whole 'skeptics in the pay of...' concept is a fantasy, made up as a way to explain why some people don't accept the theory of AGW (rather than admit to the real reason, that there are a number of holes in the AGW argument.)

the basis for the AGW denialist religious doctrine is that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas

the degree of delusional lunacy from this crack pot cultist freak religion is breath taking to say the least

I hope modern medicine and cranial surgeons discover a suitable therapy or cure soon

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:43pm:

the basis for the AGW denialist religious doctrine is that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas

I've never heard anyone say that.

Have you got crickets in your ears, Chimp?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:46pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 9:43pm: the basis for the AGW denialist religious doctrine is that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas I've never heard anyone say that. Have you got crickets in your ears, Chimp?

there can be NO other conclusion drawn based upon the evidence presented by these priests of AGW denialism

EVery single piece of data and rationale presented has either been misinterpreted data or straight out deceptions.

I can only sit here and listen to the

*crickets*

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:52pm:

I can only sit here and listen to the *crickets*

Enjoy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjvwORy4SdE

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:43pm:

the basis for the AGW denialist religious doctrine is that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas the degree of delusional lunacy from this crack pot cultist freak religion is breath taking to say the least I hope modern medicine and cranial surgeons discover a suitable therapy or cure soon

No actually it isn't.
The basis is whether or not the temperature is AFFECT by greenhouse gases, such as Co2.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:52pm:

there can be NO other conclusion drawn based upon the evidence presented by these priests of AGW denialism EVery single piece of data and rationale presented has either been misinterpreted data or straight out deceptions. I can only sit here and listen to the *crickets*

Sorry Rabi but you have failed to make any statements of consequence in the AGW debate.

You continually fabricate these nonsensical statements that go of on a tangent instead of addressing the issue at hand.

Typical of all anthropogenic global warming high priests....!!!

Why don't you start debating whatever the subject matter might be instead of flying out on a tangent.

Is it because you haven't got the fire power oh exuberant one......?????

I don't owe anyone anything.
I do look at the claims...unselectively....and see what the evidence supports...and currently there isn't even a case to address...there's a cluster of anecdotes and assertions where AGW zealots claim scientific certainty in a myopic or religious fundamentalist approach to things like evidence, cause and effect.

In any case if this is the standard we're supposed to aspire to from your  side....

Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said this of Professor Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit (CRU):


"...Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community..."

Along with refusal of FOI requests and destruction of evidence.

Standard of integrity....zero!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 1:03am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 9:43pm: the basis for the AGW denialist religious doctrine is that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas the degree of delusional lunacy from this crack pot cultist freak religion is breath taking to say the least I hope modern medicine and cranial surgeons discover a suitable therapy or cure soon No actually it isn't. The basis is whether or not the temperature is AFFECT by greenhouse gases, such as Co2.

I see

So now you are claiming that there is DOUBT as to whether temperature can be changed by the presence or increase in greenhouse gases in the earths atmosphere?/

best if you don't post any of your religious dogma - it only gets you into deeper and deeper trouble.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 11:54am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 1:03am: I see So now you are claiming that there is DOUBT as to whether temperature can be changed by the presence or increase in greenhouse gases in the earths atmosphere?/ In a test tube no, when it comes to the Earth's atmosphere, definetly. [quote]best if you don't post any of your religious dogma - it only gets you into deeper and deeper trouble.

That statement is about you....!!!...so follow your own advice please........!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 12:13pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 11:54am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 1:03am: I see So now you are claiming that there is DOUBT as to whether temperature can be changed by the presence or increase in greenhouse gases in the earths atmosphere?/ In a test tube no, when it comes to the Earth's atmosphere, definetly. [quote]best if you don't post any of your religious dogma - it only gets you into deeper and deeper trouble. That statement is about you....!!!...so follow your own advice please........!!!!

list the models that predict cooling or static global temperature as CO2 levels rise

good luck

you have until the end of 2019

*crickets*

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 12:19pm:

list the models that predict cooling or static global temperature as CO2 levels rise good luck you have until the end of 2019 *crickets*

I haven't heard of any such models, so i'm afraid I can't list them.....!!!!

What I can tell you is the IPCC's model projections for the future (1990 to present) where way of and didn't forecast the temperature flat lining while more and more manmade CO2 emissions kept going into the atmosphere.

So what I want to tell you again for the xth time is the IPCC models are wrong therefore how can we have any faith in the future projections of the earths weather and what it will do.

According to the IPCC projections.

Ajax wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 12:19pm: list the models that predict cooling or static global temperature as CO2 levels rise good luck you have until the end of 2019 *crickets* I haven't heard of any such models, so i'm afraid I can't list them.....!!!! What I can tell you is the IPCC's model projections for the future (1990 to present) where way of and didn't forecast the temperature flat lining while more and more manmade CO2 emissions kept going into the atmosphere. So what I want to tell you again for the xth time is the IPCC models are wrong therefore how can we have any faith in the future projections of the earths weather and what it will do. According to the IPCC projections.

where are the cooling models?

cant you find any BS pseudo religious science to derive a crack pot cooling model?

keep trying mr ajax

you have until the end of 2019

*crickets*

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 12:33pm:

where are the cooling models? cant you find any BS pseudo religious science to derive a crack pot cooling model? keep trying mr ajax you have until the end of 2019 *crickets*

I think you have lost it my friend.................!!!!

I don't wont to be a bully, so I will let your crazy remarks evaporate into thin air..... :D ;D 8-) :P

Ajax wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 12:59pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 12:33pm: where are the cooling models? cant you find any BS pseudo religious science to derive a crack pot cooling model? keep trying mr ajax you have until the end of 2019 *crickets* I think you have lost it my friend.................!!!! I don't wont to be a bully, so I will let your crazy remarks evaporate into thin air..... :D ;D 8-) :P

so the only models in the scientific peer reviewed literature predict warming of the planet as CO2 levels rise???

Gee Mr Ajax, I wonder why that is the case?

Keep looking for your delusional science that predicts cooling and static temperature

end of 2019 remember

*crickets*

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 1:08pm:

so the only models in the scientific peer reviewed literature predict warming of the planet as CO2 levels rise??? Gee Mr Ajax, I wonder why that is the case? Keep looking for your delusional science that predicts cooling and static temperature end of 2019 remember *crickets*

About your models..........!!!!

Yes we were told unequivocal warming with a 0.2 degree increase per decade from your beloved computer circulation models.

Too bad its only been warming 0.05 degree per decade for the last 15 years or so.

Now what have you to say about that...............?????


I told you no such model exists as far as I know.

But what I do know is more than one third of all manmade CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since 1998 and temperatures are flat lining.

Now what have you to say about this................????????

Mr Ajax has been given a simple task and adequate time to tackle a simple request.

Were are the models that predict cooling or static temperatures as CO2 levels rise?

Describe the theory and scientific assumptions that underpin these models.

cite the peer reviewed literature that has published these models

plenty of time - end of 2019

*crickets*

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Mr Ajax has been given a simple task and adequate time to tackle a simple request. Were are the models that predict cooling or static temperatures as CO2 levels rise? Describe the theory and scientific assumptions that underpin these models. cite the peer reviewed literature that has published these models plenty of time - end of 2019 *crickets*

I've already told you banana breath.

Now about your models..........!!!!

Yes we were told unequivocal warming with a 0.2 degree increase per decade from your beloved computer circulation models.

Too bad its only been warming 0.05 degree per decade for the last 15 years or so.

Now what have you to say about that...............?????


I told you no such model exists as far as I know.

But what I do know is more than one third of all manmade CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since 1998 and temperatures are flat lining.

Now what have you to say about this................????????

Ajax wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 5:37pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 1:41pm: Mr Ajax has been given a simple task and adequate time to tackle a simple request. Were are the models that predict cooling or static temperatures as CO2 levels rise? Describe the theory and scientific assumptions that underpin these models. cite the peer reviewed literature that has published these models plenty of time - end of 2019 *crickets* I've already told you banana breath. Now about your models..........!!!! Yes we were told unequivocal warming with a 0.2 degree increase per decade from your beloved computer circulation models. Too bad its only been warming 0.05 degree per decade for the last 15 years or so. Now what have you to say about that...............????? I told you no such model exists as far as I know. But what I do know is more than one third of all manmade CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since 1998 and temperatures are flat lining. Now what have you to say about this................????????

put an effort in Mr Ajax freak

you have plenty of time

*crickets crickets crickets*

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 5:39pm:

put an effort in Mr Ajax freak you have plenty of time *crickets crickets crickets*

Answer my questions or your just blowing hot methane.

Ajax wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 5:43pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 5:39pm: put an effort in Mr Ajax freak you have plenty of time *crickets crickets crickets* Answer my questions or your just blowing hot methane.

You have your assignment to complete

diverting attention away from yoru responsibility to show some integrity and credibility in here is very embarrassing for you publically

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 5:45pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 5:43pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 22nd, 2013 at 5:39pm: put an effort in Mr Ajax freak you have plenty of time *crickets crickets crickets* Answer my questions or your just blowing hot methane. You have your assignment to complete diverting attention away from yoru responsibility to show some integrity and credibility in here is very embarrassing for you publically

Still monkeying around Rabi......!!!!!

Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Is it really worth arguing against the true faithful who can just about master basic arithmetic but have absolutely no grasp of basic atmospheric science?

Probably not. The best we can do is point out the  inconsistencies in their arguments. Of course, they will not understand themselves, but those reading just might.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:14am:

Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Is it really worth arguing against the true faithful who can just about master basic arithmetic but have absolutely no grasp of basic atmospheric science? Probably not. The best we can do is point out the  inconsistencies in their arguments. Of course, they will not understand themselves, but those reading just might.

surely it cant be true that you masquerade in here as an AGW denier fermenting pseudo debate?

I would be very disappointed if it was true muso

What? The true faithful are the AGW deniers.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:14am:

Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed.

Lots has changed, haven't you heard?, the Australian electoral system is causing bushfires to break out all over Australia   ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:19pm:

muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:14am: Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Lots has changed, haven't you heard?, the Australian electoral system is causing bushfires to break out all over Australia   ;D

your crack pot fascist corporate religious priests are recommending an uncontrolled massive increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration so that the earth can be cooled

These are deranged lunatics that you worship

And we all know what that makes you, don't we you smelly freak

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 8:14am:

Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Is it really worth arguing against the true faithful who can just about master basic arithmetic but have absolutely no grasp of basic atmospheric science? Probably not. The best we can do is point out the  inconsistencies in their arguments. Of course, they will not understand themselves, but those reading just might.

It's been said many times:
A fool is certain; an ignorant fool, absolutely so.
The more a wise man learns, the more he comes to appreciate how much he doesn't know.
The more I learn, the more I realise how little I know.
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.

The first, I saw on a railway cutting in Sydney, some time in the 1970s, the second is Confucian and the last is from Will Rogers. The source of the penultimate escapes me.

Committed denialists, who often misrepresent themselves as sceptics, are by and large lost causes. Innocent bystanders (by which I don't mean the rabid right-winger who uses that handle in this forum) need protection from them. The best we can offer is truth.

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:19pm:

muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:14am: Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Lots has changed, haven't you heard?, the Australian electoral system is causing bushfires to break out all over Australia   ;D

An "undeniable fact of nature", apparently.

The "brain" washing continues.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:19pm: muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:14am: Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Lots has changed, haven't you heard?, the Australian electoral system is causing bushfires to break out all over Australia   ;D An "undeniable fact of nature", apparently. The "brain" washing continues.

So you are disputing the fact that human driven CO2 levels that are rising with time act to warm the planet?

You have a lot of explaining to do Greggy

Get to it, keep searching those google-ised crack pot web sites to back up your religious doctrine and defend your delusional priests.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 9:56am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:36am: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:19pm: muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:14am: Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Lots has changed, haven't you heard?, the Australian electoral system is causing bushfires to break out all over Australia   ;D An "undeniable fact of nature", apparently. The "brain" washing continues. So you are disputing the fact that human driven CO2 levels that are rising with time act to warm the planet? You have a lot of explaining to do Greggy

No, you do actually.

AGW is your theory: the onus is on you to provide some convincing evidence.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 11:01am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:56am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:36am: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:19pm: muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:14am: Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Lots has changed, haven't you heard?, the Australian electoral system is causing bushfires to break out all over Australia   ;D An "undeniable fact of nature", apparently. The "brain" washing continues. So you are disputing the fact that human driven CO2 levels that are rising with time act to warm the planet? You have a lot of explaining to do Greggy No, you do actually. AGW is your theory: the onus is on you to provide some convincing evidence.

Anthropogenically induced Global Warming is when human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de-forestation cause increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration which acts to warm the planet.

You obviously have a problem with this primary school level Scientific fact, which was first proposed in the mid 19th century and was empirically validated in the late 1980s.

You have a lot of explaining to do on behalf of your church group and its priests

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:01am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:56am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:36am: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:19pm: muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:14am: Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Lots has changed, haven't you heard?, the Australian electoral system is causing bushfires to break out all over Australia   ;D An "undeniable fact of nature", apparently. The "brain" washing continues. So you are disputing the fact that human driven CO2 levels that are rising with time act to warm the planet? You have a lot of explaining to do Greggy No, you do actually. AGW is your theory: the onus is on you to provide some convincing evidence. Anthropogenically induced Global Warming is when human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de-forestation cause increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration which acts to warm the planet.

That's the theory.  Well done.

Your assignment now is to come up with some convincing evidence to show that this is actually happening.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:16am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:01am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:56am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:36am: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:19pm: muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:14am: Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Lots has changed, haven't you heard?, the Australian electoral system is causing bushfires to break out all over Australia   ;D An "undeniable fact of nature", apparently. The "brain" washing continues. So you are disputing the fact that human driven CO2 levels that are rising with time act to warm the planet? You have a lot of explaining to do Greggy No, you do actually. AGW is your theory: the onus is on you to provide some convincing evidence. Anthropogenically induced Global Warming is when human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de-forestation cause increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration which acts to warm the planet. That's the theory.  Well done. Your assignment now is to come up with some convincing evidence to show that this is actually happening.

let me see if I can summarise your religious sermon

You dispute the FACT that rising CO2 levels caused by human activities drive the global temperature upwards??

Interesting....

Can you think of any reasons why your religious beliefs are true?

Apart from CO2 NOT been classed as a greenhouse gas AND/OR CO2 NOT being a by product of fossil fuel combustion.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:27am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:16am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:01am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:56am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:36am: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:19pm: muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:14am: Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Lots has changed, haven't you heard?, the Australian electoral system is causing bushfires to break out all over Australia   ;D An "undeniable fact of nature", apparently. The "brain" washing continues. So you are disputing the fact that human driven CO2 levels that are rising with time act to warm the planet? You have a lot of explaining to do Greggy No, you do actually. AGW is your theory: the onus is on you to provide some convincing evidence. Anthropogenically induced Global Warming is when human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de-forestation cause increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration which acts to warm the planet. That's the theory.  Well done. Your assignment now is to come up with some convincing evidence to show that this is actually happening. let me see if I can summarise your religious sermon You dispute the FACT that rising CO2 levels caused by human activities drive the global temperature upwards?? Interesting.... Can you think of any reasons why your religious beliefs are true? Apart from CO2 NOT been classed as a greenhouse gas AND/OR CO2 NOT being a by product of fossil fuel combustion.

Your assignment is due next week.

I suggest you get on with it.

Chimp:

http://www.quotesvalley.com/images/07/never-argue-with-stupid-people-they-will-drag-you-down-to-their-level.jpg

chimp, never argue with smart people, they will kick your big red monkey arse every time.  :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:16am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:01am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:56am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 9:36am: Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 12:19pm: muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2013 at 8:14am: Well I'm back, but I see nothing has changed. Lots has changed, haven't you heard?, the Australian electoral system is causing bushfires to break out all over Australia   ;D An "undeniable fact of nature", apparently. The "brain" washing continues. So you are disputing the fact that human driven CO2 levels that are rising with time act to warm the planet? You have a lot of explaining to do Greggy No, you do actually. AGW is your theory: the onus is on you to provide some convincing evidence. Anthropogenically induced Global Warming is when human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de-forestation cause increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration which acts to warm the planet. That's the theory.  Well done. Your assignment now is to come up with some convincing evidence to show that this is actually happening.

So let me see if I can pin point the main brunt of your illness.

You are claiming that it is impossible for human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation to cause the CO2 levels to rise, and therefore increase the earths thermal retention rate?

Are you also disputing that the ozone depletion mechanism is not catalysed by the presence of CFCs in the earths atmosphere?

That's rather strange don't you?

Chump, you should refer to this if you want to know how silly the argument over this piddly bit of extra co2 really is ... http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/07/what-does-800-ppm-co2-look-like-vs-300-ppm-this-is-what-panics-the-ecofascists.html


I've never seen a more convincing example that clearly illustrates the insanity of it all  ;D

Dear Mr Greggy,

Lets try to simplify this matter to the point where even you can comprehend the basic ideas

I will assume that YOU accept the natural phenomenon of rain fall or precipitation as a FACT.

Now the FACT of precipitation does have an accepted scientific theoretical foundation which describes how and why rain forms and falls etc. The precipitation theory forms the basis of computer modelling. And both the theory and the modelling techniques can have varying degrees of complexity and predictive accuracy depending upon the assumptions made and other factors.

But as we all know, Mr Greggy would have us all believe that RAINFALL is just a theory - like gravity, We can have a subjective opinion on it and deny its very existence.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

But as we all know, Mr Greggy would have us all believe that RAINFALL is just a theory - like gravity, We can have a subjective opinion on it and deny its very existence.

AGW is a theory (a theory full of holes and laden with faults, by the way).

It is not "an undeniable fact of nature".

Sorry.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 3:56pm:

You are claiming that it is impossible for human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation to cause the CO2 levels to rise, and therefore increase the earths thermal retention rate?

No, not at all.

You might need to get your eyes checked.

http://www.specsavers.com.au/eyecare/eye-exam/

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

Your assignment is due next week. I suggest you get on with it.

Now you're using my material? I am flattered.

Are you aware that the tobacco corporations still refuse to accept any direct causal link between smoking their products and health risks such as cancer?

Of course the causal links between smoking tobacco and increased detrimental health risks is just theoretical in nature. The medical science is not settled yet, there is insufficient evidence to support this connection.

With respect to the AGW fact, even the fossil fuel corporations accept the science and are calling for urgent action to be taken on a global scale.

So mr. Greggy is very much fixed to the altar of his weekly church. Praying.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:43am: Your assignment is due next week. I suggest you get on with it. Now you're using my material? I am flattered. Are you aware that the tobacco corporations still refuse to accept any direct causal link between smoking their products and health risks such as cancer? Of course the causal links between smoking tobacco and increased detrimental health risks is just theoretical in nature. The medical science is not settled yet, there is insufficient evidence to support this connection. With respect to the AGW fact, even the fossil fuel corporations accept the science and are calling for urgent action to be taken on a global scale. So mr. Greggy is very much fixed to the altar of his weekly church. Praying.

You're a joy to watch.

Resigned to the fact that you've lost the argument, you now try to deflect by introducing irrelevant points.

Rain, gravity, and now tobacco.

AGW is a theory.  It is not "an undeniable fact of nature".

Stay focused.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 6:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 11:43am: Your assignment is due next week. I suggest you get on with it. Now you're using my material? I am flattered. Are you aware that the tobacco corporations still refuse to accept any direct causal link between smoking their products and health risks such as cancer? Of course the causal links between smoking tobacco and increased detrimental health risks is just theoretical in nature. The medical science is not settled yet, there is insufficient evidence to support this connection. With respect to the AGW fact, even the fossil fuel corporations accept the science and are calling for urgent action to be taken on a global scale. So mr. Greggy is very much fixed to the altar of his weekly church. Praying. You're a joy to watch. Resigned to the fact that you've lost the argument, you now try to deflect by introducing irrelevant points. Rain, gravity, and now tobacco. AGW is a theory.  It is not "an undeniable fact of nature". Stay focused.

Careful greggy you are starting to avoid my superb arguments.

You're in the corner at the moment, punching yourself up.

I don't need to do anything, but watch the self slaughter.

Can you distinguish between the two major theories concerning gravity and the real and factual aspects of gravity as an undeniable verifiable force of nature?

Is rainfall a fact of nature? Can you deny it because there are several theories pertaining to the precipitation of moisture in the lower atmosphere?

You do understand that you have been public ally slaughtered on every level. Exposed by a primate in public with the simplest of basic logic and truth.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Careful greggy you are starting to avoid my superb arguments.

You have no arguments: superb or otherwise.

AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature".

Stay focused.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:16pm: Careful greggy you are starting to avoid my superb arguments. You have no arguments: superb or otherwise. AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature". Stay focused.

You can't seem to distinguish between the theory of gravity and the scientific fact that gravity is one of the major forces of nature.

Are you denying that gravity is a scientific fact because  there are two theories that describe it in the field of physics?

Greggy is being educated in public without charge. I care about greggy's future ladies and gentlemen

uncertainty principle again lol

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 1:11am:

uncertainty principle again lol

you mean as in Quantum mechanics? Heisenberg?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:21pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:16pm: Careful greggy you are starting to avoid my superb arguments. You have no arguments: superb or otherwise. AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature". Stay focused. You can't seem to distinguish between the theory of gravity and the scientific fact that gravity is one of the major forces of nature.

You can't seem to stay focused.

This is an AGW theory thread.

AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature".

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:32pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:21pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 25th, 2013 at 7:16pm: Careful greggy you are starting to avoid my superb arguments. You have no arguments: superb or otherwise. AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature". Stay focused. You can't seem to distinguish between the theory of gravity and the scientific fact that gravity is one of the major forces of nature. You can't seem to stay focused. This is an AGW theory thread. AGW is not "an undeniable fact of nature".

...so the force of gravity or rainfall are NOT undeniable aspects of the natural environment because they have theoretical foundations?

There is also a theory floating around that people who Smoke tobacco increase their risk of getting cancer and other diseases.

You do understand that every single scientific fact proclaimed by science, has one or more theoretical frameworks coupled to it?

And thus Anthropogenically induced Global Warming (AGW) is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature.

FOr you to deny is shear lunacy and political derangement of the highest order

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 11:00am:

And thus Anthropogenically induced Global Warming (AGW) is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature.

No, it is not.

And, try to stay focused: this thread isn't about gravity, tobacco or rainfall (you're making a fool of yourself).

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 11:03am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:00am: And thus Anthropogenically induced Global Warming (AGW) is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature. No, it is not. And, try to stay focused: this thread isn't about gravity, tobacco or rainfall (you're making a fool of yourself).

So you deny the gravity FACT because Newton and Einstein formulated THEORIES to explain this force?

Interesting....

Are you denying that human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de-forestation are causing the CO2 levels to rise and therefore increasing the thermal retention rate of the planet?

Are you denying the fact known as Anthropogenic Global Warming ?

You must believe that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas OR you believe Human activities cannot increase the CO2 levels in the environment. Or both.

Do you have anything else Greggy?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 11:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:03am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 11:00am: And thus Anthropogenically induced Global Warming (AGW) is an undeniable verifiable FACT of nature. No, it is not. And, try to stay focused: this thread isn't about gravity, tobacco or rainfall (you're making a fool of yourself). So you deny the gravity FACT because Newton and Einstein formulated THEORIES to explain this force?   No.  You must be thinking of someone else.  I've never mentioned gravity. Interesting....  Not really.  You just seem very, very confused. Are you denying that human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de-forestation are causing the CO2 levels to rise and therefore increasing the thermal retention rate of the planet?  That's a theory, not a fact.  Keep up. Are you denying the fact known as Anthropogenic Global Warming ?  The theory of AGW exists, that's a fact.  However, the AGW theory is not a fact. You must believe that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas OR you believe Human activities cannot increase the CO2 levels in the environment. Or both.  Neither.  Once again, you're mistaking me for someone else.  I've never said anything like that. Do you have anything else Greggy?  Yes, try to remain focused.  This thread isn't about gravity, it's about the thory of AGW.  Your constant attempts to change the subject are making you look quite the fool.

Polemical Score Update

Chimp_Logic:        237
Greggerypeccary:  11

nazis try and own words

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

nazis try and own words

The Nazis didn't lose the war, Germany did.

The Nazis are still ruling the world today.....!!!!!

And by supporting the AGW religion your helping them....!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 4:10pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 1:40pm: nazis try and own words The Nazis didn't lose the war, Germany did. The Nazis are still ruling the world today.....!!!!! And by supporting the AGW religion your helping them....!!!

I have to agree with you on that point

Although you do realise that its those very NAZIs that you refer to who are running the fossil fuel industry and profiting from all the OIL wars, OIL taxes and CO2 emissions

Cant have it both was Ajax

Corporate Profit is a tax on the buyer