Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:

Hey Vuk. That was a quick change into your batman outfit

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:


Not at all chimp. I just make a distinction between the green house effect and man made global warming or "anthropogenic" GW.

There is no integrity loss only a misunderstanding of the meaning of terms and the perceptions you and I have of those terms.

To clarify when I say AGW I say "human induced global warming" whether that's from c02 or whatever it isn't black and white to me. This to me is different then the green house effect "greenhouse gasses trap heat and produce positive feedback and help to increase precipitation". The AGW theory isn't as simple as we pump out c02 = earth warms. It's more like "Are we responsible for any current changes and what predictions are there for the future", while yes humans produce c02 the evidence is against the black and white answer of "muh greenhouse effect", because there are many factors, the AGW theory must take into account all drivers and all external agents. The greenhouse effect is what a single driver does in a controlled environment without any fluctuating changes and external factors.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:



It's not me fool
It's the weekend I was out with the partner, reading up on some philosophy and economics. I'm only just replying now to this thread.

You know the IP addresses are logged right? You can clearly see the distance between Ajax and I, clearly we aren't the same person.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:


I have to support you on that front vuk11.

Although I was pleasantly surprised to discover that you can actually read.

Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:


Why thankyou, but really just credible is enough 
Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:


Hmm, well we can't deny climategate, because the emails were stolen and the title was applied (Climategate) when presenting the information.
As to it showing Mann and Co... etc, that much is at best doubtful, because, as I suspect you know, the situation was investigated, well, in as much as the content of the stolen emails was investigated as to whether it had impact on the actual science.
Do you deny this? Do you deny that the emails were illegally obtained?
Or, do you deny the following findings;

"Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of  research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions." "

SOURCE: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-mi...
Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:


Yes.
I think you are referring to this;
"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005). "

The language is quite important here, because, they clearly state the likelihood of them disappearing is high which is substantially different from an unequivocal "they will be gone"... Also, quite pointedly the final sentence says that it will likely shrink. I know you can read that for yourself and I am sure you won't miss the point.

Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:


meh, Alarmists say a lot of things. That's not particularly scientific though. So I would not deny this, but, it is not worth worrying about either.
Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:


Well I can't confirm or deny that one, not too sure what a tropopasue is.
However, I am aware that modelling is pretty much the only option that science has to go on and that there will be errors. Does an error make every other model wrong?
Do you deny that models developed by a James Hansen have proven to be accurate?
Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:


Well I can't off the top of my head answer the time frame (15 years) but I am aware that attempts have been made to demonstrate this yes.
I am curious, are you suggesting that ocean temperatures are not changing?
Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:


I don't deny this has been stated emphatically in some quarters. However, I do not presently believe it to have been unchategorically proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:


Jury is still out.
Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:


See above re: models


Cont.

I can't help but agree with your observations Phermanderac.
I think there's a little bit more to it than that, but you summed it up nicely.

Also investigation or not, stolen or not the emails of the climategate scandal are legitimate, the issue is in the context and interpretation. Does it seem suss to you or do you agree it was completely out of context every email? Or no opinion?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:


Does the below graph help? Or should I get different/more?
I'll find the graph showing the southern hemisphere remaining stagnant and the northern hemisphere having like 0.5 degrees warming creating a global rise of 0.25 degrees over so many years, this isn't catastrophe, this isn't man made, it's just natural slow warming that happens after a mini ice age does it not?