• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simpler Question About AGW

Pipirr said:
Apart from your one graphic design concern, do you have any comment on the 84 page chapter as a whole, with its 11 pages of references?

Personally, I find the chapter an excellent primer for understanding where the 'A' in in 'AGW' comes in.
Click to expand...
You slough off the missing areas in graph as if they were unimportant. It might be understandable if these were graphs of real data points and possibly they could be missing. However this is not real data. These graphs are simply output from computer models. As such there should be no white-out modified areas in the graphs, and if there are they should provide an explanation.

This leads to many questions. If they really have output from those areas why not show it? Don't they simulate the whole world? Are those areas too tough to explain? Are they hoping the public won't notice? No explanation at all leads me to think they don't want to show or explain the warts their models have. They'd rather try to slip one past the public.

As to what I thought of the chapter. I found nothing but a lot of conjecture about warming being caused mainly by humans, and not much other than some evidently wart-filled computer models and a weak correlation with CO2 to demonstrate it. The temperature hasn't risen in several years, but CO2 keeps steadily rising. Yet this needs no explanation as far as you're concerned. You might want to hone your skepticism.

Maybe you would be so kind as to demonstrate the reliability of their position by citing a few things from that chapter that shows they are so right about humans being the main cause of warming that the debate should be over. That only foolish ostriches would fail to get on the band-wagon along with them. I don't think you can.
 
BobK said:
You slough off the missing areas in graph as if they were unimportant. It might be understandable if these were graphs of real data points and possibly they could be missing. However this is not real data. These graphs are simply output from computer models. As such there should be no white-out modified areas in the graphs, and if there are they should provide an explanation.

This leads to many questions. If they really have output from those areas why not show it? Don't they simulate the whole world? Are those areas too tough to explain? Are they hoping the public won't notice? No explanation at all leads me to think they don't want to show or explain the warts their models have. They'd rather try to slip one past the public.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that is more informative than your earlier comment. Why be mysterious and coy when you can just say what the problem is?

Still, I wonder just how important the missing areas are. In the context of the entire chapter, is it a big deal, or just a small technical quibble? I tend toward the latter. Whichever, I do not think it reasonable to conclude that the authors wanted to try and "slip one past the public".

BobK said:
As to what I thought of the chapter. I found nothing but a lot of conjecture about warming being caused mainly by humans, and not much other than some evidently wart-filled computer models and a weak correlation with CO2 to demonstrate it. The temperature hasn't risen in several years, but CO2 keeps steadily rising. Yet this needs no explanation as far as you're concerned. You might want to hone your skepticism.
Click to expand...

My skepticism is doing fine, thanks.

I think the chapter is very useful for understanding why there is an A in AGW. It provides valuable context and a lot of background information for anyone interested in, for example, what climate scientists are doing, the state of play in climatology, and the evidence basis upon which policies will and are being enacted. If someone has a question about the atrribution of climate change, it is a useful and relevant place to find an answer.

Temperature hasn't risen in several years: I understand why people say that. I do not think that claim stands up well to scrutiny.

BobK said:
Maybe you would be so kind as to demonstrate the reliability of their position by citing a few things from that chapter that shows they are so right about humans being the main cause of warming that the debate should be over. That only foolish ostriches would fail to get on the band-wagon along with them. I don't think you can.
Click to expand...

To your satisfaction? I have to agree with you: I don't think I can! :)
 
Pipirr said:
Temperature hasn't risen in several years: I understand why people say that. I do not think that claim stands up well to scrutiny.
​
To your satisfaction? I have to agree with you: I don't think I can! :)
Click to expand...

The pop version, the pseudoscience of AGW, of course is not substantiated by the technical understandings.
 
rockoon said:
Several times I have asked people here on this forum to give me evidence of AGW where I was then given a big list of links (several times) compiled by someone on these forums.

I went through the first 4 or so links, and then looked at half a dozen more near the middle of that list.

Every link I visited was detailing evidence of climate change, specifically Global Warming. None of them was detailing evidence of AGW.

Further, I have engaged many of the AGW proponents on this forum on the specific subject of AGW and quite a few of them have gotten themselves confused by the distinction between GW and AGW.

Reading between the lines... I believe that several of the more vocal AGW proponents here really do believe that climate change is equivilent to anthropogenic, because it is the simplest explanation for why they confuse GW with AGW so frequently.
Click to expand...

Replace "GW" and "AGW" with "microevolution" and "macroevolution", and this argument is nearly identical to what a creationist would say.

Thanks, rockoon. I appreciate having your post as further confirmation that AGW denial is the same sort of woo as creationism. :D
 
BenBurch said:
JoeEllison; Not sure I would compare this with Creationism YET. But the certainty is growing and I think it won't be many more months before that comparison is totally fair.

-Ben
Click to expand...
Waiting for a scientific consensus? :D

How many matching points do you need?
 
BenBurch said:
Well, you know, I have some ideas about how one might change the Earth's orbit involving an asteroid and a solar sail; But it takes hundreds of thousands of years.
Click to expand...

We'd best get started on it then. As Algorean control-freaks we naturally demand a circular orbit, not this messy ellipse :cool:.
 
BenBurch said:
I'm sorry that happened. I liked him even if I never agreed with him.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry too. I don't like him one tiny bit, but he does more harm to his own cause than we're ever likely to. I think even his compadres have come to recognise that.

Ah well. There's plenty left.

What did he get banned for? Bad spelling? That would be harsh.
 
JoeEllison said:
Waiting for a scientific consensus? :D

How many matching points do you need?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the consensus thing. I remember the Famous 400 list that was supposed to drive a stake into the consensus. The Heritage Foundation has been touting 19,000 scientists in publicity for its upcoming "International Scientific Conference" on climate change. That figure probably derives from the Oregon Petition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition.

By the way, that conference may well be worth a thread when it comes off. Monckton will be speaking, which is juicy news.
 
CapelDodger said:
Ah yes, the consensus thing. I remember the Famous 400 list that was supposed to drive a stake into the consensus. The Heritage Foundation has been touting 19,000 scientists in publicity for its upcoming "International Scientific Conference" on climate change. That figure probably derives from the Oregon Petition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition.

By the way, that conference may well be worth a thread when it comes off. Monckton will be speaking, which is juicy news.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that should be... fun? :confused:
 
BenBurch said:
Cool! I'll need about 2000 Ares launches to get the basic equipment lofted, then we can begin.
Click to expand...

Only have faith, and the Algore will provide. The Algore doesn't just move mountains, he moves all mountains at the same time. Trust me on that. It would help if you sent my Algorean Foundation some money as well. Whatever you can afford; the widow's mite is worth more than ... I just can't carry on with a straight face :).
 
JoeEllison said:
Yeah, that should be... fun? :confused:
Click to expand...

Lord Munchkin's going to be given free rein, and he's already ramping up revelations of Fayedian proportions. Damn' straight there'll be fun available (if MI6 don't take him out beforehand, of course. Were I Munchkin I'd avoid underpasses. Dealey Plaza would be tantamount to suicide).
 
JoeEllison said:
Replace "GW" and "AGW" with "microevolution" and "macroevolution", and this argument is nearly identical to what a creationist would say.
Click to expand...

Such a replacement would be dishonest.

JoeEllison said:
Thanks, rockoon. I appreciate having your post as further confirmation that AGW denial is the same sort of woo as creationism. :D
Click to expand...

Being dishonest with yourself is the worst form of it.

*******

Joe Ellison is infact one of the more vocal proponents of AGW here on these forums.

Does Joe know that microevolution and macroevolution are two terms for the same thing?

I think that he does.

Therefore I also think that Joe thinks that GW and AGW are two terms for the same thing.

I rest my case. Some vocal AGW proponents commonly confuse GW with AGW because they truely believe that it is the same thing. This certainly leaves the impression that many AGW proponents also cannot make the distinction, because the vocalness of AGW proponents appears to be proportional to their ignorance.

Good stuff.
 
rockoon said:
Such a replacement would be dishonest.



Being dishonest with yourself is the worst form of it.

*******

Joe Ellison is infact one of the more vocal proponents of AGW here on these forums.

Does Joe know that microevolution and macroevolution are two terms for the same thing?

I think that he does.

Therefore I also think that Joe thinks that GW and AGW are two terms for the same thing.

I rest my case. Some vocal AGW proponents commonly confuse GW with AGW because they truely believe that it is the same thing. This certainly leaves the impression that many AGW proponents also cannot make the distinction, because the vocalness of AGW proponents appears to be proportional to their ignorance.

Good stuff.
Click to expand...

You've not shown any indication that you have even a basic understanding of the issues in this case. Your rant has done absolutely nothing for your case. Your best bet at this point is to quit while you are ahead only slightly behind.

Your behavior has been identified as being nearly identical to that of the creationists, on at least one occasion. I get the feeling that you'd prefer to distance yourself from the creationists. I don't blame you... but it also makes your own position seem more obviously foolish.

Please, tell me that I'm "projecting", or that I have a "religious attachment" to AGW... it fits my profile of you perfectly. :D
 
BobK said:
You slough off the missing areas in graph as if they were unimportant. It might be understandable if these were graphs of real data points and possibly they could be missing. However this is not real data. These graphs are simply output from computer models. As such there should be no white-out modified areas in the graphs, and if there are they should provide an explanation.

This leads to many questions. If they really have output from those areas why not show it? Don't they simulate the whole world? Are those areas too tough to explain? Are they hoping the public won't notice? No explanation at all leads me to think they don't want to show or explain the warts their models have. They'd rather try to slip one past the public.
Click to expand...

If this is the same chart McKitrick called the "scissor chart" over on CA, then there is a perfectly reasonable explanation given for the white bits in that same thread. Of course if people really were interested in figuring stuff like this out they could simply work it out for themselves, much as a couple of posters over there did. Instead McKitrick thinks it better just to insinuate fraud and the unsceptical yapping follows.
 
Last edited:
fsol said:
If this is the same chart McKitrick called the "scissor chart" over on CA, then there is a perfectly reasonable explanation given for the white bits in that same thread. Of course if people really were interested in figuring stuff like this out they could simply work it out for themselves, much as a couple of posters over there did. Instead McKitrick thinks it better just to insinuate fraud and the unsceptical yapping follows.
Click to expand...
You mean the McKitrick that is engaged in junk science with coal and oil executive Stephen McIntyre?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom