Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Corsair 115]

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.

With that much hand-waving, I almost expect you to take flight.

Look, I really can't make it any simpler. You have a binary choice: (1) all the evidence demonstrating the reality of AGW is honestly in error, or (2) all the evidence demonstrating the reality of AGW is deliberately false.

So which will it be? Choice number 1 or choice number 2? You're the one who doubts the evidence, evidence (in voluminous amounts) produced by scientists from around the world over several decades. Your personal incredulity is not sufficient reason to disregard it. To be taken seriously you MUST have more substantive objections to the established mountain of evidence. That means putting forward sensible, fact-supported reasons to show why the evidence is either honestly in error or deliberately false.

(Of course, I know why you won't make a choice. It's because you know BOTH options are untenable. There is no way that much evidence from that many sources over that long a period of time could all honestly be in error in the same way. Nor is the idea of a worldwide conspiracy to produce false evidence even remotely plausible—it's the stuff of pure quackery. So you're stuck playing the game you are, dancing around the edges, trying to dismiss the evidence of the reality of AGW without ever providing any meaningful reason to do so, other than your own protestations of personal incredulity.

You've painted yourself into an intellectual corner, so it's not surprising to me that you resort to desperate tactics to try and distract people from that fact. The problem for you is that no one is buying what you're selling. Everyone can clearly see the corner you're stuck in, surrounded by a sea of paint you cannot avoid.

Your predicament—one entirely of your own making—at least has the advantage of providing a little bit of amusement. It'd be more humorous if the subject matter wasn't serious.)

 

[Pixel42]

he has none...he got thoroughly trounced the last time he made that claim.

He was also trounced on the "theory of global warming" thing but he seems to have erased that from his memory too.

The Guardian has a good article on the Bengtsson paper story:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-science-paper-environmental-research-letters

 

[Trakar]

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

Funny you should mention that!

http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/climate_denial_20140509#

http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/early_climate_change_deniers_20140507

Financial Times
ft.com/global economy
"Climate change report was watered down says senior economist"

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e6722ec-cd46-11e3-99be-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz31xHWPpXm

...In the letter, Prof Stavins said it became clear that this was the only way the summary would be approved by the government representatives in the meeting, even though many were negotiators in the very climate talks the report was assessing, creating what he called “an irreconcilable conflict of interest”.

“In more than one instance, specific examples or sentences were removed at the will of only one or two countries, because under IPCC rules, the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeased,” he said...

 

[Trakar]

National Climate Assessment

Overview

The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

Individual Report Download site

Table of Contents

 

[Trakar]

Ice plug prevents irreversible discharge from East Antarctica

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2226.html

Changes in ice discharge from Antarctica constitute the largest uncertainty in future sea-level projections, mainly because of the unknown response of its marine basins1. Most of West Antarctica’s marine ice sheet lies on an inland-sloping bed2 and is thereby prone to a marine ice sheet instability3, 4, 5. A similar topographic configuration is found in large parts of East Antarctica, which holds marine ice equivalent to 19 m of global sea-level rise6, that is, more than five times that of West Antarctica. Within East Antarctica, the Wilkes Basin holds the largest volume of marine ice that is fully connected by subglacial troughs. This ice body was significantly reduced during the Pliocene epoch7. Strong melting underneath adjacent ice shelves with similar bathymetry8 indicates the ice sheet’s sensitivity to climatic perturbations. The stability of the Wilkes marine ice sheet has not been the subject of any comprehensive assessment of future sea level. Using recently improved topographic data6 in combination with ice-dynamic simulations, we show here that the removal of a specific coastal ice volume equivalent to less than 80 mm of global sea-level rise at the margin of the Wilkes Basin destabilizes the regional ice flow and leads to a self-sustained discharge of the entire basin and a global sea-level rise of 3–4 m. Our results are robust with respect to variation in ice parameters, forcing details and model resolution as well as increased surface mass balance, indicating that East Antarctica may become a large contributor to future sea-level rise on timescales beyond a century.

"Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs..."

 

[CapelDodger]

Is Berngtsson some kind of G-d in Sweden to be so powerful as Rabbit claims?

Presumably that's your interpretation of "It is increasingly clear to me that Lennart Bengtsson in recent years has brought great confusion and great harm to the Swedish climate debate". It doesn't take a supernatural being to do that, just somebody taking advantage of status accrued over a very long academic career.

You'll have noticed, from reading that post, that in May 2012 Bengsston had already taken a politicised attitude to climate science. As has been said, Bengsston's problem is only with people who take the wrong politicised attitude - which is to say, not that of him and the denizens (an amalgam of liars, freaks, and lying freaks) of the GWPF.

You'll also be aware by now that Bengtsson was lying when he said his rubbishy paper was rejected on political grounds. When someone with accrued status is happy to lie they can have a particularly easy time of it when creating confusion. With the Murdoch press behind them as well it would be hard to fail.

Bengtsson has succeeded in that his lies are now part of the AGW denier canon, just like SlimeItGate McIntyre's lies about Mann et al '98.

 

[AlBell]

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.

Consensus and peer review.

Warmer wheat? or Skeptic wheat?

http://www.steynonline.com/6342/six-degrees-of-warmerization

eta: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...keptic-lennart-bengtsson-paper-suppressed.htm

 

[DC]

Consensus and peer review.

Warmer wheat? or Skeptic wheat?

http://www.steynonline.com/6342/six-degrees-of-warmerization

eta: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...keptic-lennart-bengtsson-paper-suppressed.htm

it is hillarious that whenever a scientist expresses any doubt about AGW or the IPCC or anything like that, for the deniers he instantly becomes a leading scientist, a world leading expert, the most famous expert to ever speak out against AGW etc etc....
so hillarious.
no wonder people laugh about that nuttery

 

[AlBell]

it is hillarious that whenever a scientist expresses any doubt about AGW or the IPCC or anything like that, for the deniers he instantly becomes a leading scientist, a world leading expert, the most famous expert to ever speak out against AGW etc etc....
so hillarious.
no wonder people laugh about that nuttery

What is hilarious are meaningless, fact free, posts like that one.

 

[uke2se]

What is hilarious are meaningless, fact free, posts like that one.

And that one.

 

[AlBell]

And that one.

+1

 

[DC]

What is hilarious are meaningless, fact free, posts like that one.

the irony burns

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

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?



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 .

Well people are making claims, those claims are that global warming is a fact, that weather events are increasing in severity and that is attributable to global warming.

I expect you to prove or give evidence for those claims.

Those making these claims do so for political reasons and try to discredit those who disagree with them. Its a witchhunt

I think this is obvious

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

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?

Saying the earth is round and saying that the earth is warming due to man made CO2 levels are two claims

the global warming claim is not as strong as the first

It isn't a fact yet you keep insisting that it is

Then you claim that it is a theory with the same support as gravity or the shape of the earth

This is equally untrue

 

[uke2se]

Well people are making claims, those claims are that global warming is a fact, that weather events are increasing in severity and that is attributable to global warming.

I expect you to prove or give evidence for those claims.

Haven't you been paying attention at all in this thread? That's been done countless times.

Those making these claims do so for political reasons and try to discredit those who disagree with them. Its a witchhunt

I think this is obvious

The witch hunt is the politically motivated persecution against climate scientists. What we're doing here to you and other deniers is ridicule. You are ridiculed because you openly embrace ignorance.

 

[uke2se]

Saying the earth is round and saying that the earth is warming due to man made CO2 levels are two claims

the global warming claim is not as strong as the first

It isn't a fact yet you keep insisting that it is

It is as strong, and it is a fact.

Then you claim that it is a theory with the same support as gravity or the shape of the earth

This is equally untrue

No, it isn't. You have simply chosen to remain ignorant about the evidence. That makes you the equivalent of a creationist.

 

[DC]

Well people are making claims, those claims are that global warming is a fact, that weather events are increasing in severity and that is attributable to global warming.

I expect you to prove or give evidence for those claims.

Those making these claims do so for political reasons and try to discredit those who disagree with them. Its a witchhunt

I think this is obvious

when you are debating about AGW, i expect you to be familiar with the provided evdience. have you raken the time to inform yourself about this topic? or did you come here without preparing yourself ?

 

[lomiller]

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

It's worse than that. If you go back to when this thread was examining his "colder winter" claims it turned out he was looking at snow cover in certain regions and saying that if there was more snow cover "winters must have been colder."

 

[DC]

Saying the earth is round and saying that the earth is warming due to man made CO2 levels are two claims

the global warming claim is not as strong as the first

It isn't a fact yet you keep insisting that it is

Then you claim that it is a theory with the same support as gravity or the shape of the earth

This is equally untrue

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an observed fact, what is not a fact is what amount exactly of the observed warming can be attributed to humans. but the evidence for the late 20th century warming being mainly caused by human activity is overwhelming. so overwhelming that it convinced every national academy of science, all top universities around the world and every major scientific institution around the world.
what are your objections to the presented evidence and the observed fact of AGW?

 

[lomiller]

Well people are making claims, those claims are that global warming is a fact,

Ah so you weren't looking for evidence supporting a theory you were claiming the facts are all somehow wrong or manipulated.

Regardless, it is a fact that the earth is warming rapidly.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

BTW, You are expected to know the basic facts relevant to the discussion you are having. Demanding proof of simple basic facts over and over again is classic nuttery.