Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[Frankfooter]

Fuji:

You've got so much manure in your post, it's hardly worth addressing. But I'll tackle a few of your biggest whoppers.

The "deniers" don't dispute the greenhouse effect. What is in dispute is whether its impact is statistically significant.

Once again, the odds that the last 15 of 16 years would be the warmest on record are statistically close to nil.
There is no dispute that your claim is spectacularly wrong.

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...possible-without-manmade-climate-change-study

The odds that moviefan is wrong are now calculated as 99.99%.

 

[**Sophie**]

Do you realize that the chart they are talking about is a chart on mid-atmospheric temperatures?
Its really only useful in this argument if you live in the clouds and want to know what the weather outside your door is.

We are talking surface temperature here, for those of us who live on the planet.

Here Frank, learn something for once
Ivar Giaever -Wiki Page

April 5, 1929 (age 87) Bergen, Norway
Nationality	Norway, USA (1964)
Fields	Physics
Alma mater	Norwegian Institute of Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Known for	Solid-state physics
Notable awards	Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965) Nobel Prize in Physics (1973)

 

[Moviefan-2]

If you are a believer in science and evidence, as you claim, bring it.

I don't think I ever saw your answer to my question.

Does the definition of believers in climate climate change apply to:

1) Researchers who support the IPCC position that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?

2) Any researcher who believes man-made emissions might have an effect, no matter how minuscule?

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are going to have to deal with the fact that the Nature study was hard science that directly proved AGW.

Total nonsense. That study did no such thing. You don't understand the study and don't know what you're talking about.

A study that confirmed there is merit to the greenhouse effect in no way proves that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950. In fact, the evidence shows there are enormous problems with that hypothesis.

And, for the record, a paper in Nature isn't carved in stone. The scientific journals have published papers with competing views, such as the competing viewpoints on whether there was a temperature "slowdown" in the 21st century.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here Frank, learn something for once
Ivar Giaever -Wiki Page

April 5, 1929 (age 87) Bergen, Norway
Nationality	Norway, USA (1964)
Fields	Physics
Alma mater	Norwegian Institute of Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Known for	Solid-state physics
Notable awards	Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965) Nobel Prize in Physics (1973)

Giaever was awarded his Nobel Prize in physics.

Franky will say he's not a climate researcher, which is apparently a high religion unto itself.

And, of course, Giaever might have his Nobel Prize in physics but he doesn't have a fake "Nobel Peace Prize" like Michael Mann. :biggrin1:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331738/michael-manns-false-nobel-claim-charles-c-w-cooke

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/9000-nobel-pretenders

 

[FAST]

I'm trying to parse your views, fool, those aren't my ideas.
You are the one who is trying to claim that scientists who work for a government all are paid to have the same opinion, or at least that's what I think you are trying to say.
Your punctuation and grammar are so bad that its really hard to tell if you have a point there at all.

But if you agree those claims are wrong, then we'll confirm that you have no arguments against the consensus and move on from there.

Agreed?

Your childish game of avoidance and then lying,...is getting rather tiresome.

Did NOT say that "experts" who work for a tax funded government agency are TOLD what opinion to have.

But some one who has been able to acquire enough education to attain such a position, is intelligent enough to know when to toe the line or not,...is really very simple,...well for some maybe.

Done all the time in a place of employment were their job is more complicated than sweeping a floor, groogy.

There is no intergovernmental conspiracy as you claim,...that's ridiculous.

The Americans have a saying,..."You'r either on the bus, or in front of it."

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Here Frank, learn something for once
Ivar Giaever -Wiki Page

April 5, 1929 (age 87) Bergen, Norway
Nationality	Norway, USA (1964)
Fields	Physics
Alma mater	Norwegian Institute of Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Known for	Solid-state physics

No doubt he's done some solid work in physics.
But he's never studied the climate and never published a paper.
And because of his stand he resigned from the APS, so he's no longer a scientist in good standing.

His research in the field of climatology?

“I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned.”

In fact, if you want to check out Ivar's body of real work, the best place to start is here:
https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/

Yes, he graduated from tobacco denial into climate change denial.

So lets start with a question about his research.
Do you think tobacco smoking is harmful or not?

Is Giaever's work credible or not?

 

[Frankfooter]

But some one who has been able to acquire enough education to attain such a position, is intelligent enough to know when to toe the line or not,...is really very simple,...well for some maybe.

...

There is no intergovernmental conspiracy as you claim,...that's ridiculous.

The Americans have a saying,..."You'r either on the bus, or in front of it."

FAST

Your prose is terrible and your train of thoughts derailed.
Its really hard to understand what you are claiming because you are a terrible writer and poor thinker.

It sounds like you are saying that you think all scientists hired by all governments, regardless of whether the government is pro or anti environmental issues, all think that they are hired to tow an imaginary line or opinion. But its such an incredibly crazy claim, as it would have to be true in over 100 countries and through 30 years of governments.

That's what I understand your poor writing to be trying to communicate.
Is that really what you believe?

 

[Frankfooter]

Giaever was awarded his Nobel Prize in physics.

Franky will say he's not a climate researcher, which is apparently a high religion unto itself.

You are learning.

And we have established that Giaever is as credible a source as Al Gore, neither are researchers in the field and both have Nobel's.
According to your metrics both have the same credibility, correct?

 

[**Sophie**]

No doubt he's done some solid work in physics.
But he's never studied the climate and never published a paper.
And because of his stand he resigned from the APS, so he's no longer a scientist in good standing?

You have to be a climate scientist to read a graph and chart now? Are you a climate scientist? Lol. Oh boy! He is an actual Nobel prize winner and yes I agree with him on climate change. He resigned because he stood up for his convictions and wasn't a sell out. He did not have to lie about getting one like Mann did lol. LIARS!! We can go back and forth until the cows come home Father Frank but I'm tired of going in circles with you.

You cannot tell me the sky is black when I know it is not!

Have yourself a lovely day Father Frank

 

[Frankfooter]

You have to be a climate scientist to read a graph and chart now? Are you a climate scientist? Lol. Oh boy! He is an actual Nobel prize winner and yes I agree with him on climate change. He resigned because he stood up for his convictions and wasn't a sell out. He did not have to lie about getting one like Mann did lol. LIARS!! We can go back and forth until the cows come home Father Frank but I'm tired of going in circles with you.

You cannot tell me the sky is black when I know it is not!

Have yourself a lovely day Father Frank

It is lovely out, have a nice day.

Ivar's example is also useful as he helps prove the consensus claim.

Their was an attempt to get APS members to sign a petition saying they didn't believe climate science. They went through the 27,000 members and got only 0.45%, or 206, to sign, including your retired friend, Ivar. Using that poll, the APS consensus numbers look to be 99.55%.

http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed

 

[Moviefan-2]

Their was an attempt to get APS members to sign a petition saying they didn't believe climate science.

Six years old. Meaningless.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And we have established that Giaever is as credible a source as Al Gore, neither are researchers in the field and both have Nobel's.
According to your metrics both have the same credibility, correct?

That's hilarious. Gore has a Nobel Peace Prize -- nothing to do with science.

Mann is the worst one of them all. His "Nobel Peace Prize" from Kinko's not only has nothing to do with science (for obvious reasons), it's not even real. :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

So lets start with a question about his research.
Do you think tobacco smoking is harmful or not?

Is Giaever's work credible or not?

His work was on second-hand smoke. Apparently, you don't know the difference between second-hand smoke and "smoking." :frusty:

I'll have to bookmark this page. You're handing me some real gems if I have to update your greatest hits again.

 

[Frankfooter]

Six years old. Meaningless.

Nope, lets add it to the toll.

7 papers/surveys plus one petition = 8 for team science
zilch for team denial

8 to nothing for the good guys so far.

 

[Frankfooter]

His work was on second-hand smoke. Apparently, you don't know the difference between second-hand smoke and "smoking." :frusty:

This should be good, are you now going to argue that while smoking is bad for you, second hand smoking has been proven to be healthy by your retired source, Ivar?
Are you claiming working on second hand smoke isn't working for the tobacco industry any more?

Please add it your greatest hits list, it should be good.

So, to summarize the good work of Ivar Giaever.
Worked for years for tobacco industry.
Has been paid by the Heartland industry.
Has spent less time on climate change research then moviefan has spent copying and pasting here.
Never published an article on climate change.
Criticizes climate science but has no alternate theory and zero evidence.
Resigned from the APS over his contrary views.
Signed a petition on climate change that moviefan says was 'meaningless'.
Was part of the 0.45% of APS members that were climate change deniers.

Is that the best you've got?

 

[fuji]

Total nonsense. That study did no such thing. You don't understand the study and don't know what you're talking about.

A study that confirmed there is merit to the greenhouse effect in no way proves that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950. In fact, the evidence shows there are enormous problems with that hypothesis.

And, for the record, a paper in Nature isn't carved in stone. The scientific journals have published papers with competing views, such as the competing viewpoints on whether there was a temperature "slowdown" in the 21st century.

Let's agree on what the study did confirm: AGW creates exactly the amount of additional heat predicted by the models. That additional heat was measured. It's fact. Isn't weakly theorized, it has been measured with high precision.

Having confirmed that AGW heats the way it is expected to, we can move on to other studies to examine the follow-on question about what OTHER sources of heat and cooling may have affected the temperature.

 

[basketcase]

The 66% is arrived at by adding up different responses....

So is the 11%.

66% support Human produced CO2 as causing at least half of global warming.
11% support human CO2 as causing less than half of global warming.

Why do you continue to back a view supported by only 11% of scientists?

 

[basketcase]

Here Frank, learn something for once
Ivar Giaever ...
Known for Solid-state physics

Yep. Solid-state physics studies in the 60's and 70's. That sure makes him an expert in climate. He even admits he knows next to nothing about it. :crazy:

 

[canada-man]

Yep. Solid-state physics studies in the 60's and 70's. That sure makes him an expert in climate. He even admits he knows next to nothing about it. :crazy:

and Al Gore and company many of which have no science background are experts in climate? most of the climate change propagandists have no background in climmatology