(01-21-2014 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:03 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Let's try a different angle "Dr" Torch.

Something like one paper denying climate change has been published in the last two years. 24 were published between 1991 and 2012.

So? That's not the issue. We had this discussion before

http://csnbbs.com/thread-668032-post-101...id10195528

so let's try a different angle. Why do you keep making the same refuted claims?

Why did you link me to something that has nothing to do with what I just posted? You talk a lot about refuted claims, but in my entire time posting here, I've never seen a smoking gun refutation of AGW. A lot of people make criticisms of peripheral aspects of climate change, but nobody attacks the meat of the issue. Why is that?

Also, why aren't there more than 25 papers debunking climate change published in the last couple of decades?

(01-21-2014 03:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Some of these statements are inaccurate, fyi. Nobody is saying that snow is going to completely disappear.

Nobody may have said that it will completely disappear, but Gore was a champion of the statement about snowpacks decreasing 30-70% due to man-made global warming.

You still get the point that regardless the observation in relation to the prediction, global warming is always to blame.

Your first problem is listening to Al Gore. He's not a scientist.

I don't hold a damn thing he says in any decent regard, but then I never claimed that scientists were making those claims, just man made global warming alarmists.

And you still get the point the regardless the observation made in relation to the prediction, man made global warming is always to blame.

That's not science, that's horseshit.

(01-21-2014 03:40 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Some of these statements are inaccurate, fyi. Nobody is saying that snow is going to completely disappear.

Nobody may have said that it will completely disappear, but Gore was a champion of the statement about snowpacks decreasing 30-70% due to man-made global warming.

You still get the point that regardless the observation in relation to the prediction, global warming is always to blame.

Your first problem is listening to Al Gore. He's not a scientist.

I don't hold a damn thing he says in any decent regard, but then I never claimed that scientists were making those claims, just man made global warming alarmists.

And you still get the point the regardless the observation made in relation to the prediction, man made global warming is always to blame.

That's not science, that's horseshit.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree that GW is blamed for everything. People were studying the connection between climate change and polar vortexes 13 years ago, long before this recent cold snap. It wasn't some quickly crafted alarmist excuse.

(01-21-2014 03:46 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:40 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Some of these statements are inaccurate, fyi. Nobody is saying that snow is going to completely disappear.

Nobody may have said that it will completely disappear, but Gore was a champion of the statement about snowpacks decreasing 30-70% due to man-made global warming.

You still get the point that regardless the observation in relation to the prediction, global warming is always to blame.

Your first problem is listening to Al Gore. He's not a scientist.

I don't hold a damn thing he says in any decent regard, but then I never claimed that scientists were making those claims, just man made global warming alarmists.

And you still get the point the regardless the observation made in relation to the prediction, man made global warming is always to blame.

That's not science, that's horseshit.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree that GW is blamed for everything. People were studying the connection between climate change and polar vortexes 13 years ago, long before this recent cold snap. It wasn't some quickly crafted alarmist excuse.

*sigh* and prior to that, "reputable" scientists were studying and sounding the alarm bells about us all living on glaciers by 2014 or so.

why you younger guys can't see this for what it is, is astonishing.

(01-21-2014 03:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:46 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:40 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Nobody may have said that it will completely disappear, but Gore was a champion of the statement about snowpacks decreasing 30-70% due to man-made global warming.

You still get the point that regardless the observation in relation to the prediction, global warming is always to blame.

Your first problem is listening to Al Gore. He's not a scientist.

I don't hold a damn thing he says in any decent regard, but then I never claimed that scientists were making those claims, just man made global warming alarmists.

And you still get the point the regardless the observation made in relation to the prediction, man made global warming is always to blame.

That's not science, that's horseshit.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree that GW is blamed for everything. People were studying the connection between climate change and polar vortexes 13 years ago, long before this recent cold snap. It wasn't some quickly crafted alarmist excuse.

*sigh* and prior to that, "reputable" scientists were studying and sounding the alarm bells about us all living on glaciers by 2014 or so.

why you younger guys can't see this for what it is, is astonishing.

Tell me, how many reputable scientist predicted global cooling 50 years ago? That should give you a good idea about how serious global cooling was being taken by scientists (and not just the media).

(01-21-2014 03:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:03 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Let's try a different angle "Dr" Torch.

Something like one paper denying climate change has been published in the last two years. 24 were published between 1991 and 2012.

So? That's not the issue. We had this discussion before

http://csnbbs.com/thread-668032-post-101...id10195528

so let's try a different angle. Why do you keep making the same refuted claims?

Why did you link me to something that has nothing to do with what I just posted?

Read your own words. First you mention "climate change" then below you talk about AGW. Which is it?

Quote:You talk a lot about refuted claims, but in my entire time posting here, I've never seen a smoking gun refutation of AGW. A lot of people make criticisms of peripheral aspects of climate change, but nobody attacks the meat of the issue. Why is that?

They do. Why do you think the 16 year pause is so widely discussed? Or that water is the most important greenhouse gas. Or that CO2 can come from other sources than humans. You think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In fact, it's your own ignorance.

Others believe that CO2 might have an effect, but it's much lower than the catastrophists claim, and that it's not a crisis. But those types of studies take time, by definition. Frankly, they're doing the science you ask for, carefully and w/ rigor, and then you complain about it.

But, why should anyone try to disprove AGW? It's the advocates who have the burden of proof. That goes back to that basic science you're always writing about, claiming I don't understand.

(01-21-2014 04:01 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:03 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Let's try a different angle "Dr" Torch.

Something like one paper denying climate change has been published in the last two years. 24 were published between 1991 and 2012.

So? That's not the issue. We had this discussion before

http://csnbbs.com/thread-668032-post-101...id10195528

so let's try a different angle. Why do you keep making the same refuted claims?

Why did you link me to something that has nothing to do with what I just posted?

Read your own words. First you mention "climate change" then below you talk about AGW. Which is it?

Quote:You talk a lot about refuted claims, but in my entire time posting here, I've never seen a smoking gun refutation of AGW. A lot of people make criticisms of peripheral aspects of climate change, but nobody attacks the meat of the issue. Why is that?

They do. Why do you think the 16 year pause is so widely discussed? Or that water is the most important greenhouse gas. Or that CO2 can come from other sources than humans. You think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In fact, it's your own ignorance.

Others believe that CO2 might have an effect, but it's much lower than the catastrophists claim, and that it's not a crisis. But those types of studies take time, by definition. Frankly, they're doing the science you ask for, carefully and w/ rigor, and then you complain about it.

But, why should anyone try to disprove AGW? It's the advocates who have the burden of proof. That goes back to that basic science you're always writing about, claiming I don't understand.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which both "sides" have made.

Climate scientists have addressed their claims with 14,000 papers worth of evidence. Skeptics are separately claiming those 14,000 papers are bullsh!t (among other things).

Both claims require evidence, and only one side has actively gathered it.

(01-21-2014 04:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 04:01 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:03 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Let's try a different angle "Dr" Torch.

Something like one paper denying climate change has been published in the last two years. 24 were published between 1991 and 2012.

So? That's not the issue. We had this discussion before

http://csnbbs.com/thread-668032-post-101...id10195528

so let's try a different angle. Why do you keep making the same refuted claims?

Why did you link me to something that has nothing to do with what I just posted?

Read your own words. First you mention "climate change" then below you talk about AGW. Which is it?

Quote:You talk a lot about refuted claims, but in my entire time posting here, I've never seen a smoking gun refutation of AGW. A lot of people make criticisms of peripheral aspects of climate change, but nobody attacks the meat of the issue. Why is that?

They do. Why do you think the 16 year pause is so widely discussed? Or that water is the most important greenhouse gas. Or that CO2 can come from other sources than humans. You think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In fact, it's your own ignorance.

Others believe that CO2 might have an effect, but it's much lower than the catastrophists claim, and that it's not a crisis. But those types of studies take time, by definition. Frankly, they're doing the science you ask for, carefully and w/ rigor, and then you complain about it.

But, why should anyone try to disprove AGW? It's the advocates who have the burden of proof. That goes back to that basic science you're always writing about, claiming I don't understand.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which both "sides" have made.

Climate scientists have addressed their claims with 14,000 papers worth of evidence. Skeptics are separately claiming those 14,000 papers are bullsh!t (among other things).

And most are. 14K worth of BS does not transmute into gold. A decade ago I posted a link to an AGW advocate from Scripps, he started his paper by saying that the AGW community had not demonstrated their point.

Done, throw out everything prior to that.

Now you can look at all those papers w/ competing models that disagree with each other. If they disagree, they can't all be right, so the majority get tossed right there.

Furthermore, if they disagree w/ the actual measurements, then you can toss those too.

14K may be interesting in the psychology community, where consensus is key, but it's not meaningful in science.

Quote:Both claims require evidence, and only one side has actively gathered it.

Another claim that's readily falsefied. WUWT, McIntyre, etc all publish evidence that runs contrary to the AGW hypothesis. They publish scores of articles and analyses every week.

Your bias is so bad you ignore the obvious. Maybe you ought to see a shrink about that.

(01-21-2014 04:39 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 04:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 04:01 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  So? That's not the issue. We had this discussion before

http://csnbbs.com/thread-668032-post-101...id10195528

so let's try a different angle. Why do you keep making the same refuted claims?

Why did you link me to something that has nothing to do with what I just posted?

Read your own words. First you mention "climate change" then below you talk about AGW. Which is it?

Quote:You talk a lot about refuted claims, but in my entire time posting here, I've never seen a smoking gun refutation of AGW. A lot of people make criticisms of peripheral aspects of climate change, but nobody attacks the meat of the issue. Why is that?

They do. Why do you think the 16 year pause is so widely discussed? Or that water is the most important greenhouse gas. Or that CO2 can come from other sources than humans. You think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In fact, it's your own ignorance.

Others believe that CO2 might have an effect, but it's much lower than the catastrophists claim, and that it's not a crisis. But those types of studies take time, by definition. Frankly, they're doing the science you ask for, carefully and w/ rigor, and then you complain about it.

But, why should anyone try to disprove AGW? It's the advocates who have the burden of proof. That goes back to that basic science you're always writing about, claiming I don't understand.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which both "sides" have made.

Climate scientists have addressed their claims with 14,000 papers worth of evidence. Skeptics are separately claiming those 14,000 papers are bullsh!t (among other things).

And most are. 14K worth of BS does not transmute into gold. A decade ago I posted a link to an AGW advocate from Scripps, he started his paper by saying that the AGW community had not demonstrated their point.

Done, throw out everything prior to that.

Now you can look at all those papers w/ competing models that disagree with each other. If they disagree, they can't all be right, so the majority get tossed right there.

Furthermore, if they disagree w/ the actual measurements, then you can toss those too.

14K may be interesting in the psychology community, where consensus is key, but it's not meaningful in science.

Quote:Both claims require evidence, and only one side has actively gathered it.

Another claim that's readily falsefied. WUWT, McIntyre, etc all publish evidence that runs contrary to the AGW hypothesis. They publish scores of articles and analyses every week.

Your bias is so bad you ignore the obvious. Maybe you ought to see a shrink about that.

I find it laughable that you think blog posts on WUWT completely invalidate global warming. Most of it doesn't address the bulk of the 14,000 peer reviewed papers in question. If you find some low hanging fruit and criticize it, you're only addressing that low hanging fruit. It'd be funny to see Anthony Watts try to address well supported climate change studies that have been repeated.

Also, what the flying f!ck does psychology have to do with this? This is another one of your completely irrelevant attacks.

(01-21-2014 03:19 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:16 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Why the hell would they apply predictive models to other planets that have nothing in common with the Earth in relation to atmosphere? That is the most incredibly laughable statement I've seen regarding climate change. It doesn't matter what would happen on other planets. WTF?!?!

You take a climate change model, plug in the atmospheric components, relative distance from the sun, and compare the predicted temperature with actual temperature. The fact that it's atmosphere is drastically different actually helps the argument that the models are fairly strong predictor of actual results.

it's the same way we predicted how much weight the moon lander would have on the moon, for instance. the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

I've got several years of college physics under my belt, I'm aware that generally speaking the laws of physics are the same nearly everywhere.

In relation to using other planets, what would such information tell you about climate change here on Earth? The atmospheres on other planets remain largely constant, even on a planet such as Jupiter which has massive amounts of 'weather'. The problem I have with your line of thought is that factors that drive weather and natural climate change here on earth do not exist on other planets, namely liquid water. Most of the other planets can be compared to one another because they are reasonably similar, (gases to gases, solids to solids at least) the Earth however is entirely unique, not just because of the presence of humans, but also because of the presence of liquid water. As such I don't see the relevance or validity of climate models on other planets compared to here on Earth.

Regardless of the perceived relevance or validity, what applicable information can be harvest from the models? The Earth is in a state of change unlike any of the other planets. Thus climate models that predict temperatures on other planets, no matter who accurate, would not be a good indicator of the predicted versus observed temperature here on Earth since the other planets are not suitable to use as a control.

Do humans effect global climate change? Probably. Is the net effect of humans on the planet significant? The jury is out, at this point I would say probably not. Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, would be perceived as much more credible if there wasn't so much special interest influence and if the predictive models were more consistent. The other thing that hurts the argument is that every time a predicted outcome fails to develop, the lack of desired result is also claimed as an effect of global warming.

There won't be snow in the near future because of global warming.
It's freezing cold because of global warming.

The ice caps are melting because of global warming.
The ice sheets are thicker than ever because of global warming.

Hurricanes will be stronger and more frequent because of global warming.
There aren't as many hurricanes because of global warming.

Need I go on?

The only significant special interest taking part in climate change is on the conservative side, the scientists who are doing their own work all find the same outcome. Those being paid for by the special interests literally just try to find anything they can do discredit that actual research, often just relying on lazily dismissing the claims by pointing out exactly what we don't know. You've got a few years of physics under your belt, then I assume you understand and stood by the theory of gravity despite us not finding the higgs boson until now, yes? We weren't sure about the Higgs Boson, which provides the entire basis of the theory itself, but repeated experiment and data showed we still understand the basics pretty well. Poking holes in research doesn't mean the research is bad, or even that it's wrong, it just means this is a complex problem that we're still trying to fully predict accurately.

The climate change science is not perfect, and will never be perfect for something this complex, but slightly altering models isn't evidence against climate change.

I'm not going to derail this into a physics conversation quite frankly because I'm too far removed from classes to speak of it accurately and I no longer follow most physics research. More to the point though, you made my argument for me by stating how complex of an issue climate change is. Is it feasible that humans don't have a significant impact on climate change? Absolutely. Will one single proponent of climate change and man made global warming admit to this? Hardly. This is a complex issue that has naturally occurring factors that we aren't even close to understanding yet. Lets get a grasp on them before proclaiming that the sky is falling due to man's relatively insignificant influence over global climate change.

If the only special interest groups taking part in this debate are on the conservative side, then why is my energy costs necessarily skyrocketing? Government is creating regulations based upon shaky models. Conservatives cast doubt and raise questions and are immediately labeled ignorant buffoons for not believing while liberals scream at the top of their lungs without solid evidence and proclaim nearly every change in weather to be a result of man made climate change and their point of view is to be unquestionably accepted?

Every paper I've ever read on AGW openly admits that there is a chance humans are causing it, as expressed in their P-values of their data. It's just that the chance is deemed statistically insignificant.

If I were convinced of coming disaster, I'd spend a whole lot more time and effort trying to find a solution. Right now, we have no good solutions. Shouldn't that be a bigger concern than trying to convince every single person in the world to agree with you?

(01-22-2014 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were convinced of coming disaster, I'd spend a whole lot more time and effort trying to find a solution. Right now, we have no good solutions. Shouldn't that be a bigger concern than trying to convince every single person in the world to agree with you?

Oh, they're on it!

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la...z2r8zuqyJE

(01-22-2014 11:09 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were convinced of coming disaster, I'd spend a whole lot more time and effort trying to find a solution. Right now, we have no good solutions. Shouldn't that be a bigger concern than trying to convince every single person in the world to agree with you?

Oh, they're on it!
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la...z2r8zuqyJE

Oh yeah. We've got lots of things that are minuscule compared to the scale of the problem, but at least they make people feel good. Some people, anyway. And feeling good is what's important, right? Just ask the left.

(01-21-2014 01:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 10:53 AM)Crebman Wrote:  When are you Global Warming guys going to get on a plane to China and demand and begin protesting that the Chinese cut their CO2 polluting? I just heard on the radio that they have cities that are anywhere from triple to 10 times the particulates considered safe.

Oh yeah, and when we shut down all the coal plants and stop burning fossil fuels - what replaces it? And don't give me solar and wind - they can't. What?

I'm only arguing that those who think Climate Change is some liberal plot are blind to the actual plot behind the scenes, I'm not commenting on current US policy regarding CO2 output. But I find the reaction of 'LOOK, THEY'RE WORSE THAN US!' to be a fascinating response even if I actually were claiming our policy needed to be changed. It's such a childish reaction, and one which inherently implies that you know there are negative consequences to using of coal for energy, yet are more focused about the actions of another nation than limiting those negative consequences in our own nation. I'm proud that we're nothing like China currently, and take insult to the thought we should do anything to emulate their environmental regulations. Let's compare the beautiful susents in each of our capital cities, as a quick demonstation of these differences I take such pride in.





As for the answer, we've had it since the 70's; Nuclear.

You didn't answer the more important questions. You want to stop using fossil fuels, what are the replacements? Nuclear - your liberal buddies won't allow it. After that, what? What are the replacements?

This is all just wishful, bullsh!t talk unless you have replacements?

Creb, I think you have hit on a big part of the argument. The left wants people off fossil fuels as an article of faith. But they don't have anything for people to go TO instead. So therefore the plan is to stir up so much hysteria about global warming that people will willingly go from fossil fuels to nothing, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

Why not instead say that too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is almost certainly a bad thing, so we should engage in an orderly process of reducing such emissions, including a transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as non-polluting alternatives become both physically and economically feasible, and that this process should extend to the whole world?

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 11:06 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I predict that temperatures will rise in the summer months and fall in the winter months. Over long enough periods of time, short-term increases and decreases in average global temperatures will average out, and any net increase or decrease will be statistically insignificant. Special interest groups from both sides of the argument will present flawed data and research in order to further their cause. Developed countries will be punished through taxes and carbon caps, while developing countries will be allowed pollute the environment in the name of fairness despite the same groups of people screaming about global warming disasters also pushing for relaxed regulations on developing nations in the name of equality.

I have sunscreen for the summer and firewood for the winter. Don't tell me my energy costs are going to necessarily skyrocket because of shaky research and without giving me a feasible and cost-effective replacement.

The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything. It's just easy to instill doubt when people want a reason to believe it anyways; see the Tobacco Companies in the 1950-60's.

The only difference between then and now is that if the same 1964 Surgeon Generals finding about tobacco came out now, there is a media machine in place to allow for the echo chamber necessary to dismiss such a convincing report and valid scientific report as part of the 'liberal conspiracy'.

Funny that ucf makes this claim, when it's the AGW crowd that's hiring the tobacco lawyers.

http://www.steynonline.com/6063/stick-yourself-up

of course ucf kept repeating the 97% lie too

Its funny because anti-agw campaigns are coming out of the same think tanks as pro tobacco campaigns once did.