Goat Boy© Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 you find one researcher among tens of thousands that has an unproven hypothesis on cosmic rays and cloud formation vapour and now that is the absolute last word, too funny... connection between solar activity and extra warming ended 30 yrs ago... The dogmatism expressed is unparalleled. Just stunning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 connection between solar activity and extra warming ended 30 yrs ago... No it hasn't. You're lying again. Stop lying. You've already been proven wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 The dogmatism expressed is unparalleled. Just stunning. The delusional blind faith expressed is unparalleled. Just stunning. a lone researcher among tens if not hundreds of thousands comes out with a out of the blue hypothesis on cosmic radiation and you buy it in a second merely because it's contrary to the norm and cool...do you still believe the lunar landing was faked? that aliens built the pyramids? the 2nd sniper on the grassy knoll? the 2012 prophesies are real right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 No it hasn't. You're lying again. Stop lying. You've already been proven wrong. go away...it's not even fun making you look uneducated any more, you do that all by yourself each time you post... did you complete grade 7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) Shady, Wyly, Why don't you reiterate your points and prove them with a cite as this once-interesting conversation is degenerating. This seems like a point you can either refute or confirm: wyly, on 27 November 2009 - 04:11 PM, said:connection between solar activity and extra warming ended 30 yrs ago... Edited November 27, 2009 by Michael Hardner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Shady, Wyly, Why don't you reiterate your points and prove them with a cite as this once-interesting conversation is degenerating. This seems like a point you can either refute or confirm: I agree but I've already done that with a link but shady's best response is to launch an ad hominem attack repeatedly calling me a liar....someone wants to change the debate to personal levels I have no problem responding in kind...keep it civil and I will respond in kind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 The intent is enough to establish the low ethical standards of the scientists and cast doubt on the integrity of the process. We need a public inquiry with people testifying under oath to find out what actually happened. Also there were two different incidents. In the JGL case the editor was, in fact, fired. Utter and complete rubbish - you'll need a lot more than a handful of hacked emails, that truly show nothing substantive... no matter how hard you try to spin it. I'd suggest you take your head out of the denier blogs and actually poke around the "independent" consensus - "much ado about nothing". As for the specifics of your lengthy diatribe, the hacked email reference I'm familiar with relates to the Climate Research journal... and the ensuing discussion that we've beat on. Is there another email that reflects upon, as you say, "the JGL case"? Off the top I'm not familiar with the JGL incident you allege - links? (of course, far be it from me to suggest your own conspiracy at work attempting to tie that JGL incident (alleged, whatever it is) to the hacked emails). In any case, I eagerly await you providing said ties - thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Boy© Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 The delusional blind faith expressed is unparalleled. Just stunning. a lone researcher among tens if not hundreds of thousands comes out with a out of the blue hypothesis on cosmic radiation and you buy it in a second merely because it's contrary to the norm and cool...do you still believe the lunar landing was faked? that aliens built the pyramids? the 2nd sniper on the grassy knoll? the 2012 prophesies are real right? You sound like a Mormon zealot preaching. NO! NO! NO! I Have what I believe! You're wrong! I am not in any way shape or form trying to deny that we are changing the physical environment. What I am trying to explain to you, like anything else in the dynamic atmosphere, there is no way to empirically prove or disprove anything. It is not possible. There is no way to claim that global warming is directly linked to CO2 alone, just as there is no way to claim that it is directly linked to solar activity alone. It isn't physically possible, is that so hard to understand? There are too many contributing factors, to many variables. It is an infinite number of permutations, we cannot control that in an experiment. It seems clear though, that you are only interested in re-posting what everybody knows, and not considering all aspects. One of the fundamental problems we're experiencing trying to deal with this mess. What everybody knows has also been derived from cooked books, that doesn't make it any more or less true. In the early 20th century they talked of closing the patent office, because everything worth inventing was evidently invented. Striking correlation to what you sound like right now. If you like, I can post links from 100 different scientists, it seems that will make you feel it to be more true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) Utter and complete rubbish - you'll need a lot more than a handful of hacked emails, that truly show nothing substantive.The only denier is you. The emails revealed that climate science is a corrupt enterprise that needs a thorough house cleaning. You can look up what happened to Saiers who attracted the ire of the cabal for insisting on following GRL's policies when it came to dealing the responses to the McIntyre and McKitrick paper. He was replaced with an editor who was a true believer and did not let things like rules or ethics discourage him from the conspiracy to cover up the problems with the hockey stick papers.Here is the complete sequence of events from SteveMc point of view. The emails confirmed the climate establishment actively compaigned to have Saiers removed and replaced with Famiglietti. The emails also confirmed that the journal deliberately falsified its records in order to allow the bogus W&A paper to be included in the AR4 report. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 You sound like a Mormon zealot preaching. NO! NO! NO! I Have what I believe! You're wrong! I am not in any way shape or form trying to deny that we are changing the physical environment. What I am trying to explain to you, like anything else in the dynamic atmosphere, there is no way to empirically prove or disprove anything. It is not possible. There is no way to claim that global warming is directly linked to CO2 alone, just as there is no way to claim that it is directly linked to solar activity alone. It isn't physically possible, is that so hard to understand? There are too many contributing factors, to many variables. It is an infinite number of permutations, we cannot control that in an experiment. It seems clear though, that you are only interested in re-posting what everybody knows, and not considering all aspects. One of the fundamental problems we're experiencing trying to deal with this mess. What everybody knows has also been derived from cooked books, that doesn't make it any more or less true. In the early 20th century they talked of closing the patent office, because everything worth inventing was evidently invented. Striking correlation to what you sound like right now. If you like, I can post links from 100 different scientists, it seems that will make you feel it to be more true. you're looking for odd ball suspects on another planet when the smoking gun is hands of the blood splattered killer standing over the body... what i believe to be true is the consensus of 97% of climatologist, the evidence is there and the science supports it...I support it because it's logical... your searching the dark obscure corners of scientific knowledge is what's bizarre...a lone scientist can have an hypothesis but nothing more than that...when 97% of a scientific community support a hypothesis they've moved in to the realm of mere hypothesis to "accepted" Theory... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 You sound like a Mormon zealot preaching. NO! NO! NO! I Have what I believe! You're wrong! I am not in any way shape or form trying to deny that we are changing the physical environment. What I am trying to explain to you, like anything else in the dynamic atmosphere, there is no way to empirically prove or disprove anything. It is not possible. There is no way to claim that global warming is directly linked to CO2 alone, just as there is no way to claim that it is directly linked to solar activity alone. It isn't physically possible, is that so hard to understand? There are too many contributing factors, to many variables. It is an infinite number of permutations, we cannot control that in an experiment. of course there is no absolute "proof" in any of this - hence why it's referred to as a theory... one with associated and calculated risk and uncertainty. If what you offered to wyly was in the context of an alternative, one not generally (remotely) accepted within the scientific community, your posturing might have credence. However, I believe you offered Swensmark's position/paper implying much more than that. And hey now - a revelation... there's a carbon cycle dynamically played out across a physical environment. What a concept - revolutionary... quick, somebody inform climate scientists... can anyone take this forward with the IPCC? Times a wasting now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Boy© Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) you're looking for odd ball suspects on another planet when the smoking gun is hands of the blood splattered killer standing over the body... what i believe to be true is the consensus of 97% of climatologist, the evidence is there and the science supports it...I support it because it's logical... your searching the dark obscure corners of scientific knowledge is what's bizarre...a lone scientist can have an hypothesis but nothing more than that...when 97% of a scientific community support a hypothesis they've moved in to the realm of mere hypothesis to "accepted" Theory... Did you even read anything that I just wrote? Now you're laying assumptions on what my beliefs are? Where the hell do you come up with that? I'm not searching for an alternate hypothesis, an acceptable hypothesis is yet to be reached. It will only be a matter of time before that conclusion is publically drawn, by the scientific community, even if it's true or not. Damage control from group think necessitates that regardless. I'll put it in big letters for you so it's easier. I AM NOT REFUTING THE CARBON-GREENHOUSE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY. Is that a little bit easier? Edited November 27, 2009 by Goat Boy© Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 The only denier is you. The emails revealed that climate science is a corrupt enterprise that needs a thorough house cleaning. You can look up what happened to Saiers who attracted the ire of the cabal for insisting on following GRL's policies when it came to dealing the responses to the McIntyre and McKitrick paper. He was replaced with an editor who was a true believer and did not let things like rules or ethics discourage him from the conspiracy to cover up the problems with the hockey stick papers.Here is the complete sequence of events from SteveMc point of view. The emails confirmed the climate establishment actively compaigned to have Saiers removed and replaced with Famiglietti. The emails also confirmed that the journal deliberately falsified its records in order to allow the bogus W&A paper to be included in the AR4 report. you generally have no problem providing links - put one up for the hacked email that represents this latest concern of yours... so it's the GRL journal, and not "JGL" as you previously mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 Did you even read anything that I just wrote? Now you're laying assumptions on what my beliefs are? Where the hell do you come up with that? I'm not searching for an alternate hypothesis, an acceptable hypothesis is yet to be reached. It will only be a matter of time before that conclusion is publically drawn, by the scientific community, even if it's true or not. Damage control from group think necessitates that regardless. I'll put it in big letters for you so it's easier. I AM NOT REFUTING THE CARBON-GREENHOUSE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY. Is that a little bit easier? ok, respectively... I read back on your comments to wyly. You didn't preface your related posts with a statement on your overall AGW position, nor did you offer one on through the iteration. When you offer up a link to a remotely held view of a small select group of scientists, one that in itself calls into question the very thing you've just offered an acknowledgment to... offered in a manner that can only be interpreted as a challenge (to the science, to the poster), is it possible you might consider that could all influence how one might interpret your link/posts? carry on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 you generally have no problem providing links - put one up for the hacked email that represents this latest concern of yours... so it's the GRL journal, and not "JGL" as you previously mentioned. The plan Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think thatSaiers s in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Mission complete The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have "ClimateResearch" and "Energy and Environment", and will go there if necessary. They are telegraphing quite clearly where they are going w/ all of this... The cover up. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give thoseskeptics something to amuse themselves with. There is more than enough evidence to require a full public inquiry to find out how far the rot extends beyond the group captured in the emails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Boy© Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 ok, respectively... I read back on your comments to wyly. You didn't preface your related posts with a statement on your overall AGW position, nor did you offer one on through the iteration. Directly stated my position in general My position directly in relation to the topic in hand Offered yet another view to my positions My end game position on the current methods of fighting pollution Had to put this one in text, a direct response to the ignorance being displayed. The key factor here, is that to blame rising temperatures to solar activity alone, is as foolish as trying to blame them on carbon dioxide alone. The earth is a complex, dynamic system, the answers cannot be found in one sentence. When you offer up a link to a remotely held view of a small select group of scientists, one that in itself calls into question the very thing you've just offered an acknowledgment to... offered in a manner that can only be interpreted as a challenge (to the science, to the poster), I offered up the links in response to the claim that all other aspects beyond Carbon Dioxide have nothing to do with the theory of global warming. I mean come on: that's absolutely false...research has ruled out any connection between the suns activity and recent warming, it's just the opposite...don't believe it go find a reputable link proving otherwise... :lol: The continual increase in solar activity has nothing to do with the climate of the planet? Really? I'm sorry but I burst out laughing when I read that. is it possible you might consider that could all influence how one might interpret your link/posts? carry on More than possible, I did my very best to spell it out plainly. The links were posted in response to wyly asking for a link proving him/her incorrect. What's being displayed is pretty much a shining example of this: My problem with it, is that it has turned religious. "No!" "Because it is!" "Well, I believe it!" "We already have the answer, why look at other things?" But enough of this, it's gone far off topic. If it's to continue then in warrants another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 10% is 10%. It is not more or less because of the earth is big. I have already given you one paper that shows that cloud albedo changed suddenly and it has a climatically significant effect. That should be enough to put an end to this point since the real data says cloud cover changes. While your right I doubt a 10% increase would happen that just seems like to much of an increase to happen at one time. Fair enough but the first video did misrepresent the science by implying that CO2 was the only feedback operating and that increasing CO2 was likely to cause running awy warming today. He builds on other videos so I can see why you would think that. As for run away warming any positive feedback will change temperture rapidly it's like a chemical reaction with a catalyst but eventually the subsrates will run on and the reaction will stop. And they are vilified and attacked by gatekeepers like Mann and Jones. Pielke has been complaining for years that the fix is in and that his research is being ignored/excluded from assessments like the IPCC because it does not support the political agenda. Since these emails have come out there have been other scientists speaking up and agreeing that the scientific debate has been stifled so I think your claim that there is an open environment cannot be supported. How many scientist have said that and what did they propose? In science they allow free speech but if you can't back up your claims with evidence they will ignore you, do it enough they will then shun you. There are quite a few scientists that have brought up different hypothesis but they were proven wrong. Climate science is not really a science because there are no experiments that can be done. Science consists entirely of data collection and analysis and the disagreements come down to opinions on whether one analysis technique is better than another. This fact actually enhances the power of the climate establishment because no one can 'prove' them wrong - they can simply declare that their analysis method is correct end the discussion. That is what has happened with the tree ring studies and other paleo reconstructions. It is also happening with climate models and the analyses use to determine whether they are correct or not. What do you mean they can't do experiments? They can do plenty of things like take different concentrations of CO2 expose it to the same amount of heat and see which ones get hotter. Or they start with all of the gases that exsist in earths atmosphere and then remove them to see which ones have the most effect on temperature. They can do plenty of experiments. Increased CO2 means stuff will get hotter. that's a fact. How much it will increase the temperature is hard to tell. So they can experiment tp find out just how much, but they also have to do that with everything else. CO2 and the sun are the main players in the earth temperature but get all the other bit players together and they can have a large efftect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) your timeline is questionable...CO2 levels will keep rising long after the ice is gone, no ice means warmer oceans result in more CO2 and methane, this is the CO2 lag found in ice core samples that happens about 800 yrs after peak temps...currently CO2 is spiking ahead of temps which not the typical process... God it was just a simple little example. CO2 is usually a lagging indicator but now as human activity increases CO2 it has become the trigger. plenty of scientists disagree? it's relative ...those that disagree are very few in number compared to those who do,97% agree it's CO2...where you'll find disagreement is how severe the damage will be and on how soon it will happen not the cause... And? It doesn't matter how many scientists believe it that doesn't make it right, all scientists used to believe the sun orbited the earth that was wrong. I don't care if you have 1 scientist or a thousand on your side give me the evidence then I'll make my choice. Edited November 28, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) What do you mean they can't do experiments? They can do plenty of things like take different concentrations of CO2 expose it to the same amount of heat and see which ones get hotter.And that is why nobody really debates the trivial points like whether CO2 is a GHG. But such experiments provide no useful information about climate change and whether man is causing it and what is likely to happen in the future. All of those questions cannot be answered by experiments. What this means is scientists concoct hypotheses, find data that supports them and ignore data that does not. Theories are then judged as correct or not based on how many other people agree that the data the scientist choose to ignore can be ignored. That reduces climate science down to a contest of opinions and that gives extraordinary power to established scientists who get to peer review papers. If you disagree then please explain to me how any of the IPCC claims outside of the basic GHG effect can be verified experimentally? Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) CO2 causes heating, Humans increased the amount of CO2, so humans are the cause of the earths heating. Edited November 28, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 CO2 causes heating, Humans increased the amount of CO2, so humans are the cause of the earths heating. So there would be no heating without humans? Are we going to affix "heating" on Mars to the human rover machines and orbiters? What about Jupiter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 So there would be no heating without humans? Are we going to affix "heating" on Mars to the human rover machines and orbiters? What about Jupiter? Maybe I should refine that to the current heating on earth since the industrial revolution is caused by humans especially the heating in the last fifty years or so. Better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Maybe I should refine that to the current heating on earth since the industrial revolution is caused by humans especially the heating in the last fifty years or so. Better? Better...yes...but a long way from conclusive. I believe there is "warming"....from many sources...just as there has always been "warming" and "cooling". So we must adapt....just as before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Better...yes...but a long way from conclusive. I believe there is "warming"....from many sources...just as there has always been "warming" and "cooling". So we must adapt....just as before. That's basically my position, humans have caused warming but the end effect is unknown so there is no point in trying to do anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) CO2 causes heating, Humans increased the amount of CO2, so humans are the cause of the earths heating.Come on. That tells us nothing useful. What we need know is how MUCH heating. And when it comes to answering that question there are no experimental results. Just data collection, data estimation fabrication and analysis. The difference between who is "right" and who is "wrong" comes down to a popularity contest among scientists. Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.