Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[WWWTT]

no - did not. What I did do was not offer comment to your unsubstantiated claim... is that your definition of... "denial"?

Then you deny the "impact" of the Earths radiation of energy!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

now, since you've offered nothing to substantiate anything... anything... you've stated... ever, given your expressed "research", please provide scientifically accepted substantiation to your, apparent claim, that the relatively recent (accelerated) rise in global temperature is attributed to, as you state, "the earth's inner molten core". Make sure to provide a direct correlation - thanks in advance. Oh, wait... you don't accept it's warming!

You ever thought of doing stand up comedy?

The Earths average temperature is well into the thousands of degrees!

And why would there be an abundant amount of research easily available connecting a rise of the Earths "surface" temperature with the Earths core temperature?

As far as I know,the core temperature has not even been accurately measured?The numbers I have quoted are only estimations.

The source of energy that keeps the Earths average temperature well into the thousands of degrees is not even exactly determined.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

clearly - too busy to actually show/present a genuine skeptic position. Too busy to offer anything to substantiate your unsubstantiated, uneducated, denier opinion.

It is YOU that denies the facts!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

What I have said elsewhere is that Canada is an independent nation and as such speaks its own language, Canadian.

Just as Mexico is an independent nation and speaks its own language: Mexican.

Just as Brazil is an independent nation and speaks its own langauge: Brazilian.

Just as Israel is an independent nation and speaks its own language: Israeli.

Just as Belgium is an independent nation and speaks its own language: Belgian.

[cybercoma]

A climate change denier in the NDP? Inconceivable.

[Wild Bill]

all that impressive research and yet he refuses to do the simplest of web searches into CO2 to verify it's a GHG...

Verify? Seems to me you could do a search for sources on both sides of the argument. It's "pick your expert" time with that game!

You always imply that what you believe is absolute gospel. If someone disagrees they must be either completely ignorant, stupid or hiding a crooked agenda.

Do you not grant the possibility and the right to hold a contrary opinion at all? Are we talking science or faith here?

Sometimes wyly you make those who disagree sound like heretics. That comes across as simple righteousness.

[wyly]

Verify? Seems to me you could do a search for sources on both sides of the argument. It's "pick your expert" time with that game!

You always imply that what you believe is absolute gospel. If someone disagrees they must be either completely ignorant, stupid or hiding a crooked agenda.

Do you not grant the possibility and the right to hold a contrary opinion at all? Are we talking science or faith here?

Sometimes wyly you make those who disagree sound like heretics. That comes across as simple righteousness.

denial of confirmed science is what?..

denying CO2 is a GHG is idiotic as denying H2O freezes at 0c and boils at 100c...there are no two scientific opinions on this, there is science and there is denier-ism...this is hard verified chemistry the properties of CO2 confirm it like H2O, CH4, N2O and O3 are GHG's, there is no scientific debate on it, NONE!...

denierism? ignorant? stupidity? call it what you want but to refuse to look at scientific fact because it destroys the blind faith deniers have borders on insanity...

Edited September 27, 2012 by wyly

[Wild Bill]

denial of confirmed science is what?..

denying CO2 is a GHG is idiotic as denying H2O freezes at 0c and boils at 100c...there are no two scientific opinions on this, there is science and there is denier-ism...this is hard verified chemistry the properties of CO2 confirm it like H2O, CH4, N2O and O3 are GHG's, there is no scientific debate on it, NONE!...

denierism? ignorant? stupidity? call it what you want but to refuse to look at scientific fact because it destroys the blind faith deniers have borders on insanity...

Yep! "Heavier than air flight is impossible!" "Light moves through an ether!" "An engine traveling faster than 30 mph will never happen!""Man will never reach the Moon!"

" There are also two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible: truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. When a truth is necessary, reason can be found by analysis, resolving it into more simple ideas and truths, until we come to those which are primary.

— Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnz

Edited September 27, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

Yep! "Heavier than air flight is impossible!" "Light moves through an ether!" "An engine traveling faster than 30 mph will never happen!""Man will never reach the Moon!"

Those are all things that we didn't know before that science taught us. We didn't know about the greenhouse effect before. Science brought us to where we are now. Your examples are terrible.

[Wild Bill]

Those are all things that we didn't know before that science taught us. We didn't know about the greenhouse effect before. Science brought us to where we are now. Your examples are terrible.

Terrible in hindsight, Smallc. At the time they were considered scientific fact.

When it comes to climate science today, how is the situation any different?

[Smallc]

Terrible in hindsight, Smallc. At the time they were considered scientific fact.

When it comes to climate science today, how is the situation any different?

Because they were proven wrong. So far, this hasn't been proven wrong, and there's no evidence that it will be.

[Wild Bill]

Because they were proven wrong. So far, this hasn't been proven wrong, and there's no evidence that it will be.

Well, I've no doubt that we can both cite "experts" with some easy googling.

I also have no doubt that you would consider any and all for my side of the argument to simply be dead wrong.

So we may as well just agree to disagree. Sooner or later Mother Nature will prove who is right.

[Smallc]

Well, I've no doubt that we can both cite "experts" with some easy googling.

I'm pretty sure you can't. Well, maybe 'experts' but not, experts.

[Wild Bill]

I'm pretty sure you can't. Well, maybe 'experts' but not, experts.

"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.

-- Carl Sagan"

[Smallc]

That's nice, and all, but there are not really two differing opinions on this subject from actual experts.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Smallc

[wyly]

Terrible in hindsight, Smallc. At the time they were considered scientific fact.

When it comes to climate science today, how is the situation any different?

"science today", H2O froze at 0c 150 yrs ago and it does the same today do you honestly want to dispute and debate that?...CO2 properties as a GHG is 150 yrs old, it's not an opinion, it's observed/measured/verified, it's high school chemistry...it's as solid as the Periodic Table and molecular weight...

you're defending an indefensible position...which is denier-ism, and verifies that people like wwwtt not only don't understand basic chemistry they don't even know what the debate is actually about...the debate was never about whether CO2 is a GHG but is our planet warming? if it is how much? and what is causing the warming, is it CO2 or something else?...

[Moonbox]

does it help your failed comprehension to isolate parts of my quote, while ignoring the pertinent statements? Or is it just your mechanism to try to hide that failed comprehension?

I isolate parts of your response because you write poorly, you over-quote and you try and win your arguments through long-winded brute force and exhaustive nattering rather than making clear points. The distinction you're making between emissions reduction targets and transfer payments for mitigation/adaptation is noted. It simply has no bearing on my argument.

another stat: between 1900-to-2008, China emitted ~ 117 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere..... and in that same period, the United States emitted ~ 337 Gt. Do you see any disparity here, Moonbox?... notwithstanding, again, the actual outsourcing of emissions from developed countries to developing countries.

The disparity is obvious but the emissions were simply a bi-product of being wealthy and industrialized. The attitude seems to be that the USA nefariously churned out pollution and in became wealthy by polluting, as if this in itself is a profitable business. The developing world didn't pollute because they were under-developed and poorly governed, not because of any strong moral stance. When claiming that long-industrialized countries should 'pay' for their past emissions, we're complicating a debate which for all intents and purposes has only one goal: reducing current and future emissions.

do you have any silver bullet negotiating solution to deal with the historical emissions aspect when getting countries... all countries... to agree to per country emission reference levels and emission reduction target levels that reflect upon those reference levels?

Reference levels and overall reduction targets are going to be ham-fisted and fairly arbitrary. No agreement will be reached if it's based on the instistence that old polluters pay meaningfully for past pollution. This is not a statement on the fairness of the situation, but merely a practical assessment of human selfishness, particularly on a macro/geo-political level. If climate change is such a big concern, an agreement should be reachable based on emission reduction alone.

The only way we're going to reduce emissions is to tax emissions themselves to the point where industry/consumers start to alter their behaviour. This, however, has to be universal or it's going to be pointless. The revenues from this can be pooled centrally and re-distributed to clean energy research and, if necessary, mitigation for countries coping with climate change, but moreso the first as far as I'm concerned, as it leads us towards an actual solution rather than damage control.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Moonbox

[WWWTT]

A climate change denier in the NDP? Inconceivable.

Climate change is a reality!

Never denied this,in fact there are millions of examples "climate change" happens.

In fact it would be very odd if Earth's climate DID NOT change.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Verify? Seems to me you could do a search for sources on both sides of the argument. It's "pick your expert" time with that game!

You always imply that what you believe is absolute gospel. If someone disagrees they must be either completely ignorant, stupid or hiding a crooked agenda.

Do you not grant the possibility and the right to hold a contrary opinion at all? Are we talking science or faith here?

Sometimes wyly you make those who disagree sound like heretics. That comes across as simple righteousness.

Maybe I'm not on Wild Bill's ignore list anymore???

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

denial of confirmed science is what?..

denying CO2 is a GHG is idiotic as denying H2O freezes at 0c and boils at 100c...there are no two scientific opinions on this, there is science and there is denier-ism...this is hard verified chemistry the properties of CO2 confirm it like H2O, CH4, N2O and O3 are GHG's, there is no scientific debate on it, NONE!...

denierism? ignorant? stupidity? call it what you want but to refuse to look at scientific fact because it destroys the blind faith deniers have borders on insanity...

From the recent research I have done,CO2 has increased by 150 ppm.Or doubled.

But where was the CO2 levels recorded and what are the fluctuations?At what levels of our atmosphere?And at what levels does this CO2 actually cause global warming?

And what about the rest of the Earth?

The 99.2% of the planet that is at a temperature so hot that every solid becomes liquified!

Keep in mind that this debate is strictly about the temperature of Earth's atmosphere!

It is you whom continuously ignores this fact!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Because they were proven wrong. So far, this hasn't been proven wrong, and there's no evidence that it will be.

Really?

CO2 in our atmosphere can be increasing by two basic methods.

The first is that more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere.

And the second is that CO2 is not being scrubbed(dissolved into water) or used up by life forms that consume it.

When the automatic conclusion is CO2 is increasing because of human activity,then I have a problem with the individuals making this claim!

There are many variables that have influence that are not discussed.

WWWTT

[TimG]

Well, I've no doubt that we can both cite "experts" with some easy googling.

The trouble with this debate is alarmists always engage in what I call a 'bait and switch'. i.e. they start with a proposition which is extremely well supported by reproducible experiments (e.g. CO2 is a GHG and adding more will increase temperatures) and use that to claim that unrelated assumptions are also scientifically valid (that CO2 warming will be large enough to have adverse effects on the human population).

People who don't understand the science are often tricked by this scam and can get sucked into debating the wrong scientific point.

This is what is happening in this thread. You know there is a debate about the important scientific issues but I think you have confused them with the issue of whether CO2 is a GHG. There is absolutely no scientific support for the position that CO2 is not a GHG.

[Smallc]

The trouble with this debate is alarmists always engage in what I call a 'bait and switch'. i.e. they start with a proposition which is extremely well supported by reproducible experiments (e.g. CO2 is a GHG and adding more will increase temperatures) and use that to claim that unrelated assumptions are also scientifically valid (that CO2 warming will be large enough to have adverse effects on the human population).

Don't group me in with those people. It seems from the models that it will have a large impact, but, with changing technology, I'm quite confident we'll solve any problems it creates.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Smallc

[CPCFTW]

I know there have been plenty of studies regarding the supposed economic costs of GW, but I'm wondering if there have been any studies considering the economic benefits?

For example the opening of the artic passage, greater exploration opportunities in the far north, longer resource extraction seasons, more arable land, lower road maintenance costs, less heating, less snow removal, lower incidence of traffic accidents, faster delivery, more opportunity to use alternative transportation (eg. Bicycles) all year round, etc.

[wyly]

From the recent research I have done,CO2 has increased by 150 ppm.Or doubled.

But where was the CO2 levels recorded and what are the fluctuations?At what levels of our atmosphere?And at what levels does this CO2 actually cause global warming?

And what about the rest of the Earth?

The 99.2% of the planet that is at a temperature so hot that every solid becomes liquified!

Keep in mind that this debate is strictly about the temperature of Earth's atmosphere!

It is you whom continuously ignores this fact!

WWWTT

it was you that questioned CO2 was a GHG...now you want distance yourself from that and pretend you understand more complex questions?...