Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Corsair 115]

But Obama told me global warming was a fact

It sounds more like a religion

Assuming your reply is earnest rather than tongue-in-cheek, to fully flesh out and support your thesis you'll need to do some additional research. For example, when did this 'religion' begin? Who was its founder? How did it acquire additional followers? Who or what provides the operating funds? What is the purpose of this 'religion'?

As I have posted several times already, those wishing to claim that anthropogenic climate change is not happening have but two options:

(1) Claim that all the peer-reviewed published studies supporting AGW, by scientists from around the world and going back thirty-plus years, are somehow wrong. They all got it wrong. In which case a substantive explanation is needed is how such a persistent and widespread error can be maintained.

(2) It's an active conspiracy by scientists around the world to deliberately provide false evidence. In which case one must provide the evidence which shows when this conspiracy was started, who founded it, who runs its administration, how is it funded, how are new members recruited to be a part of it, and what the purpose of this conspiracy is.

Neither option seems particularly plausible. But perhaps someone will (finally) step up to provide solid evidence for one or the other of these options being the case if AGW is not real.

 

[r-j]

Nobody can prove AGW isn't real. It would be like proving there is no gravity.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

Assuming your reply is earnest rather than tongue-in-cheek, to fully flesh out and support your thesis you'll need to do some additional research. For example, when did this 'religion' begin? Who was its founder? How did it acquire additional followers? Who or what provides the operating funds? What is the purpose of this 'religion'?

As I have posted several times already, those wishing to claim that anthropogenic climate change is not happening have but two options:

(1) Claim that all the peer-reviewed published studies supporting AGW, by scientists from around the world and going back thirty-plus years, are somehow wrong. They all got it wrong. In which case a substantive explanation is needed is how such a persistent and widespread error can be maintained.

(2) It's an active conspiracy by scientists around the world to deliberately provide false evidence. In which case one must provide the evidence which shows when this conspiracy was started, who founded it, who runs its administration, how is it funded, how are new members recruited to be a part of it, and what the purpose of this conspiracy is.

Neither option seems particularly plausible. But perhaps someone will (finally) step up to provide solid evidence for one or the other of these options being the case if AGW is not real.

I'll have to do additional research?

If you hope to prove any scientific theory you'll have to provide evidence and scapegoating scientists who disagree with you just hurts your case.

Global warming is political and it has the same features as blind religion

You could call Al Gore the founder and Obama a disciple. He rants about the global warming fact and how every natural disaster is caused by global warming.

This is not a fact, a hurricane is not attributable to global warming. That is a lie it is politicizing natural disasters.

Someone wants to support green energy fine don't use global warming as justification and scare tactics about made up natural disasters caused by global warming.

 

[r-j]

As I have posted several times already, those wishing to claim that anthropogenic climate change is not happening have but two options:

Because the person who is skeptical of something is required to do all the work. The person making a claim isn't required to prove anything.

It's how science works.

 

[r-j]

Someone wants to support green energy fine don't use global warming as justification and scare tactics about made up natural disasters caused by global warming.

Well, since there isn't actually any observable warming, we have to use something to motivate the rulers of the world, so they will stop using fossil fuels.

The slow warming of the oceans is far too slow to be much use. And with winters growing much colder, fear of warming isn't of much use. We have to focus on weather events, because that is what scares people.

Plus, if people burn less fuel, the weather will be better. It's a scientific fact.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

Nobody can prove AGW isn't real. It would be like proving there is no gravity.

You can't disprove that god exists...

wait that was your point I guess

Yes you can't disprove AGW or prove it to make it fact

There is a lot of evidence but it isn't proven

Its a tough one because there aren't a lot of scientific theories that are not proven to the point where they are accepted as facts.

Gravity, physical properties of matter etc... the evidence for most theories are overwhelming

We need a new definition of theory and fact in science to address the issue

 

[lomiller]

If you hope to prove any scientific theory you'll have to provide evidence and scapegoating scientists who disagree with you just hurts your case.

Which theory is it you want us to prove, Conservation of energy? Quantum mechanics? Composition of the earths atmosphere? Emission/absorption properties of it's gasses? Black-body radiation spectrum?

scapegoating scientists who disagree with you just hurts your case.

What "scapegoating" are you referring to? Keep in mind the "paper" you referred to in your post on the previous page is already demonstrated to be really really bad with near zero science content .

 

[lomiller]

Nobody can prove AGW isn't real.

Not if they stick to real facts instead of ones they just make up anyway...

Because the person who is skeptical of something is required to do all the work.

When they are skeptical of established science that's exactly how it works.

Do you think Truthers get to sit back and be "skeptical" a plane caused the WTC to collapse and conclude it didn't unless someone "proves" otherwise.

Do you think moon landing hoaxers get to sit back and be "skeptical" man walked on the moon without addressing any of the evidence to the contrary?

Do you think birhters get to sit back and be "skeptical" of where President Obama was born without facts or evidence?

 

[macdoc]

Elf grinder this is a science forum ....not a spot for your conspiracy notions.
Answer a simple science question.

Does CO2 trap IR?

 

[Corsair 115]

Nobody can prove AGW isn't real. It would be like proving there is no gravity.

That is not your task. Your task is to show why all the published peer-reviewed evidence by scientists from around the world over the last thirty-plus years demonstrating that AGW is a reality is wrong.

Your position is that you refuse to accept the mountains of published evidence on the subject of the reality of AGW as being correct. In which case it is up to you to provide some reasons (with factual support) why that evidence is wrong and should not be believed. Your personal incredulity is not sufficient. Please offer plausible reasons as to why that huge amount of peer-reviewed evidence is wrong. And as I see it you've only got two options on that score:

(1) the evidence is honestly in error (in which case you need to show what that is the case, and why folks from around the world keep getting it wrong); or

(2) the evidence is intentionally incorrect (in which case you need to show some proof for what would be an organized conspiracy to defraud the public).

 

[Corsair 115]

I'll have to do additional research?

Yes. Opinions don't matter. Informed opinions matter.

Global warming is political and it has the same features as blind religion.

Now you just need some evidence to back that claim up.

(Fun tibdits: the IPCC was formed in 1988. The USGCRP—United States Global Change Research Program—was founded in 1989, mandated by Congress after a Presidential initiative. [Say, who was President back in 1989?] Wow, this political agenda goes way back!)

If you hope to prove any scientific theory you'll have to provide evidence and scapegoating scientists who disagree with you just hurts your case ...

You could call Al Gore the founder and Obama a disciple. He rants about the global warming fact and how every natural disaster is caused by global warming.

This is not a fact, a hurricane is not attributable to global warming. That is a lie it is politicizing natural disasters.

Someone wants to support green energy fine don't use global warming as justification and scare tactics about made up natural disasters caused by global warming.

The same task that fell to r-j falls to you:

Your task is to show why all the published peer-reviewed evidence by scientists from around the world over the last thirty-plus years demonstrating that AGW is a reality is wrong.

Your position is that you refuse to accept the mountains of published evidence on the subject of the reality of AGW as being correct. In which case it is up to you to provide some reasons (with factual support) why that evidence is wrong and should not be believed. Your personal incredulity is not sufficient. Please offer plausible reasons as to why that huge amount of peer-reviewed evidence is wrong. And as I see it you've only got two options on that score:

(1) the evidence is honestly in error (in which case you need to show what that is the case, and why folks from around the world keep getting it wrong); or

(2) the evidence is intentionally incorrect (in which case you need to show some proof for what would be an organized conspiracy to defraud the public).

 

[r-j]

Your position is that you refuse to accept the mountains of published evidence on the subject of the reality of AGW as being correct.

As usual, you speak about the person, not the subject at hand. If you make a claim, it's on you to support it. Demanding everyone else prove you wrong is what woo woo frauds do. As a skeptic, I expect people making wild unbelievable claims to back them up with science. Or at least sound logic and reason. Like when the 2007 IPCC report and the people using it claimed a billion people might die from the loss of their water supply. because of rapid global warming, and all the glaciers melting. The global warmer would demand you prove that wrong, and refused to listen to reason.

But then, after the wild claim was soundly shown to be pure fraud, terrible pseudo-science, the global warmer isn't slowed even for a moment. They wave their hands, say it wasn't important, and go back to saying the exact same nonsense as before. Never realizing even for a moment how this appears to a skeptic.

And then there is the classic case of "There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming" claim.

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.

Once more, even when this was completly debunked, the global warmer doesn't even pause to consider, for even a second, that they might need to be skeptical, and not just believe any nonsense claim that is made. .

Serious answer - there is no such thing as your Googleing and Wikipedia searches found.

There is climate science.
There are climate models.
There is the facts about climate, e.g. that the global surface temperature are warming. This is not a theory.
There is the relatively simple physics that increases in CO2 basically lead to increases in global surface temperatures.

Once again, the entire issue of global warming is reduced to "global warming is just a fact", it's just laws of physics.

That sort of claim, nothing can stand before it. Because it isn't a scientific theory, there isn't even any point to discussing it. It's just a fact, like gravity.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Elf Grinder 3000 View Post
If you hope to prove any scientific theory you'll have to provide evidence and scapegoating scientists who disagree with you just hurts your case

so EG - what would you say to scientists who offer their services to fossil fuel interests for pay to obfuscate the situation ....as happened with big tobacco.
Will you be duly outraged?

You are attempting to make the case that there is a debate about the reality of AGW.
There is not in the working climate science community.

Where the debate needs to be is "what to do about it".
Both mitigation of further damage.
and coping with the existing changes we have already engendered.

THAT is a difficult set of policy decisions each nation and state and province has to face.
Many are moving forward towards a carbon neutral industrial society.

I suggest you save your energy for an arena where there are no easily discernable "best approach" paths.

I'd say trying to challenge AGW as a reality in current state of the worldwide body of knowledge regarding it is rather fraught.

 

[DC]

It sounds like a political tool

Its not a fact, its a fact that CO2 is a global warming agent

However there is no fact that the earth's temperature is rising due to man made CO2, there is plenty of evidence but not a fact

neither IR radiation nor CO2 care about politics. we have to use politic as a tool to solve the problem.

yes it is an observed fact that the main cause of the late 20th century warming was Anthropogenic.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If you hope to prove any scientific theory you'll have to provide evidence and scapegoating scientists who disagree with you just hurts your case.

Is the Earth not round? There's a heap of observations that indicates that it is, but since you seem to be of the view that any observations that support a particular theory can't actually be used as evidence for that theory, the flat-Earthers must have a legitimate point of view, right?

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, since there isn't actually any observable warming, we have to use something to motivate the rulers of the world, so they will stop using fossil fuels.

The slow warming of the oceans is far too slow to be much use. And with winters growing much colder, fear of warming isn't of much use. We have to focus on weather events, because that is what scares people.

Plus, if people burn less fuel, the weather will be better. It's a scientific fact.

evidence that winters are growing colder?

 

[a_unique_person]

Because the person who is skeptical of something is required to do all the work. The person making a claim isn't required to prove anything.

It's how science works.

It's also required that people try to understand the evidence.

 

[macdoc]

evidence that winters are growing colder?

he has none...he got thoroughly trounced the last time he made that claim.
Do you perhaps see the irony here...

Originally Posted by r-j View Post
The person making a claim isn't required to prove anything.

..some live in a fantasy world of their own concoction disregarding what the actual evidence shows.

A Cold U.S. Winter for Sure, but 8th Warmest Globally
Published: March 19th, 2014

Andrea Thompson By Andrea Thompson

Despite the frigid temperatures that kept those in the eastern United States shivering all winter, the period from December 2013 to February 2014 was the 8th warmest on record globally, the U.S. National Climatic Data Center reported Wednesday. That warmth early in the year could set the stage for another record or near-record warm year, one NCDC scientist said.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/a-cold-u.s.-winter-for-sure-but-8th-warmest-globally-17196

Globally, Earth had its fourth warmest January this year since modern temperature record-keeping began in 1880, according to a report released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

http://www.weather.com/news/science...ntinuing-warming-trend-20140220Administration.

March Was 4th Warmest on Record Globally March 2014 was the fourth-warmest March on record globally, according to recently released NASA data, making it the 349th month — more than 29 years — in which global temperatures were above the h istoric average.

Overall, winters have warmed the fastest between 1948 and 2007, while autumn temperatures remained relatively stable. But some regions show surprising exceptions to this general pattern.
The most dramatic warming has taken place during winters in the northwest portion of the country. December, January and March in the Yukon and northern British Columbia are now nearly 5 °C (9 °F) warmer than they were 60 years ago.

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/Canada/trends-temperature-seasonal.php

Where has Siberia's winter gone? - Weather - Al Jazeera ...
www.aljazeera.com/.../where-siberia-winter-gone-201312199233231255...
Dec 19, 2013 - Remote northern region of Russia is experiencing a long-term warming trend, changing the very nature of the landscape.

http://www.aljazeera.com/weather/2013/12/where-siberia-winter-gone-2013121992332312557.html

One outlier cold winter in North America does not make a colding trend....60 years of getting warmer does.

Just as one outlier in 1998 due to El Nino does not mean a plateau of global warming......
They are outliers....wait til the one hits this year.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

evidence that winters are growing colder?

He's pretending that an apparent cooling in certain regions during the winter months equates to a cooling across the entire globe.

It doesn't. That's the change in temperature from 1995 to 2012 during December, January, and February. Even with the cooling in those regions, the overall global average has apparently risen.

Here's the map for the "other winter".

 

[greybeard]

As usual, you speak about the person, not the subject at hand. If you make a claim, it's on you to support it. Demanding everyone else prove you wrong is what woo woo frauds do. As a skeptic, I expect people making wild unbelievable claims to back them up with science. Or at least sound logic and reason. Like when the 2007 IPCC report and the people using it claimed a billion people might die from the loss of their water supply. because of rapid global warming, and all the glaciers melting. The global warmer would demand you prove that wrong, and refused to listen to reason.

But then, after the wild claim was soundly shown to be pure fraud, terrible pseudo-science, the global warmer isn't slowed even for a moment. They wave their hands, say it wasn't important, and go back to saying the exact same nonsense as before. Never realizing even for a moment how this appears to a skeptic.

And then there is the classic case of "There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming" claim. Once more, even when this was completly debunked, the global warmer doesn't even pause to consider, for even a second, that they might need to be skeptical, and not just believe any nonsense claim that is made. . Once again, the entire issue of global warming is reduced to "global warming is just a fact", it's just laws of physics.

That sort of claim, nothing can stand before it. Because it isn't a scientific theory, there isn't even any point to discussing it. It's just a fact, like gravity.

Yet just the other day you told us how impressed you were with the link you followed to a site claiming that over 30,000 scientists had signed a petition saying we shouldn't limit co2 emissions . Less than five minutes on google was all that was needed to show that the claim was highly suspect.
You are not a sceptic at all r-j, you are just another wishful thinker who will clutch at any straw that suggests AGW is a fraud.