I guess that is you admitting that the scientific evidence does not support your hoped for fantasy.
And your 'plausible' explanations are as hypothetical as the evidence you hope exists.
ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
And your 'plausible' explanations are as hypothetical as the evidence you hope exists.
Believe me, the whole man-made global "cooling" idiocy didn't come from the peer reviewed papers. It came from your bizarre post (#379) where you claimed the water vapour feedback -- the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas in the AGW models -- produces global "cooling."
http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2016/10/AAA25-1024x759.png
Yeah, I'll have to be careful. He complained to the mods last year when I made fun of his theory of man-made global "cooling."
There's so much that's wrong here.
To begin with, I didn't quote Naomi Klein as a "climate expert." I quoted her as one of the people driving the political and economic agenda that is at the heart of climate change activism -- proving that your allegations about K Douglas and others pushing a "conspiracy theory" are false, since Ms Klein's writings are quite public (a bestseller, according to the popular press).
As for climate researchers being political, many of the leading figures in the movement -- James Hansen, Michael Mann, etc. -- have been very political. Try reading Mann's Twitter feed.
Most importantly, you're failing to understand how scientists who have spent years championing a cause aren't likely to abandon that position overnight.
To the best of my knowledge, you have no vested interest in the issue, other than it's something you care about. Yet you can't bring yourself to admit that the models got it completely wrong and that there's a problem with the AGW hypothesis.
If it's that difficult for you to accept what the data show, imagine what it's like for a climate researcher who has spent years championing this cause.
Certainly, there are enormous research dollars involved, along with a certain degree of fame and political influence. But even if the AGW proponents are able to put all that aside, there's still the fact that their positions have become deeply entrenched. Few are going to simply turn around and admit they were wrong, as James Lovelock did a few years back.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html
Their obstinacy isn't due to a secret plot or anything of the sort. The real explanation is much more straight forward. It's called human nature.
I see people are still pointing to that zero percent of the planets life long climate data humans have managed to record so far. Amazing how much we have learned with zero percent, just imagine how much about we'll know about the earths climate tomorrow...TWICE as much!
Refusing to do your homework for you is hardly an admission of anything other than pointing out I am not your lackey
You can not seem to grasp the fact that 100% absolute as you claim means there is zero probability of alternative explanation(s)
Until you can prove that all other explanations are false you can not claim 100% absolute
Here is an article you should read
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php
Highly uncertain does not imply 100% absolute
The article does acknowledge the majority of scientists do have a big concern wrt greenhouse gases
However it also states
as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of Global warming down to sunspots and whatever faculae is
This sounds pretty plausible to me
You may want to tone down the absolute rhetoric
Respected by it "peers",...not by anybody who doesn't agree with its anonymous, biased and flawed "peer" reviewers.
Including, never a retraction of fraudulent articles.
Uniforum is also highly respected by its "peers",...am I supposed take what ever bull shit they publish as 100% correct,...???
Pot and kettle,...
Thanks for that fuji,...I always need a good giggle in the morning,...
And the point shouldn't be to win academic or political arguments, but to figure how to keep the crops from frying in the fields and the water out of our basements.
Unfortunately for you, that is a political discussion.
If the goal were truly to reduce man-made emissions, the focus would be on more nuclear power and natural gas -- and putting fewer resources into money-sucking losers like wind and solar power.
You have a very amusing style of debating.
It was you who stated that many climate scientists have changed their view from CO2 being the major driver to claiming it is other factors. Sadly when challenged on it you start into an Abbot and Costello routine. In the absence of any evidence, your claim is unsupportable.
The vast majority of experts see human CO2 as having a major impact on current climactic changes. Either you think they are all making the same mistake analyzing the evidence or you think they are in K Douglas' conspiracy.
I see you still refuse to understand that it is human society at risk and it has only existed for less than that zero percent.
Thank you for clarifying your point. Sadly it doesn't change anything. K said scientists are in a conspiracy. How does quoting Klein have any bearing on those scientists?
I'll let K. Douglas speak to his own quotes. However, it's certainly unclear to me what we think the "conspiracy" is.
Thanks to the Climategate emails, we know for a fact that there was a concerted effort among the leading AGW proponents to try to create a false sense of certainty and consensus. Even worse, there was a deliberate effort to prevent the public from knowing about the enormous uncertainties, and aggressive tactics were used to try to prevent papers that expressed doubt from getting published.
Indeed, skeptic Judith Curry was part of a recent panel discussion on ABC radio in Australia. She spoke about how the Climategate emails turned her into a skeptic. Most interesting is her reaction to the host's comments that the Climategate emailers were supposedly "exonerated."
Judith Curry: "From what? Basically what I saw from those emails, and I read pretty much all of them, was that I really did not like the sausage-making that went into this consensus. It was a lot of skulduggery and bullying going on, and trying to hide uncertainties and thwart people from getting papers published and trying to keep data out of the hands of people who wanted to question it. I realized that there was a lot of circular reasoning, a lot of uncertainties, a lot of tuning, just a lot of things that made me not have any confidence at all in what they had done. So I started speaking out. This basically turned me into an outcast amongst the establishment climate scientists."
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/has-‘denying’-won/8618606
Many of the leading researchers -- Mann, Santer, Jones, Schmidt, Trenberth and others -- have crossed over the line from objective scientists to militant advocates.
Indeed, Mann refers to the debate as the "climate wars" (https://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick...11874&sr=8-11&keywords=michael+mann+-+climate) -- hardly the type of description one would expect from a true scientist who would supposedly welcome skepticism and research that tries to determine if results can be falsified.
The topic was the article which you posted from Nature. It noted that AGW has a different effect on the troposhere (warms it by retaining heat) than the stratosphere (cools it by preventing heat from the troposhere reaching it). It said that satellite data used in the models inaccurately included parts of the stratosphere in measurements intended to record the troposhere temperature and therefore resulted in an error in the AGW model. This error resulted in some parameters being wrong, understating the temperature in the original sample periods and therefore overestimating it in the prediction.
It proposed a fine tuning of that data which seems to be accepted by the IPCC and is expected to be included in the next revision.
One result clearly highlighted in your article was that CO2 sensitivity in the model seemed correct. Your article from Nature therefore strongly supported AGW overall while quibbling with some specific parameters.
I was quite happy to see that you have embraced AGW.
This is water under the bridge. Since then the warming effect of CO2 has been directly observed and carefully measured. The AGW concept has been proven. What remains to do is get the details of the model right, we know that humans are warming the planet at a significant rate, but just how fast is open to debate as your helpful Nature article demonstrated.
Ok so why dont we just halt the tectonic plates from shifting and stop the expansion of our star in its stellar evolution? Thats a start. Yaw?
Thats right I forgot about the facts we picked up with all that historical climate data we have gathered. Lets go back and figure out what we did to give us this climate we all feel comfortable living in. What do you figure we have done throughout our evolution to set the planets thermostat to "comfy"?
