How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

.....this is one of the many ways you "warmers" like to misrepresent the discussion and attempt to define the other side of the argument (if there is such a thing) that doesn't conform to your beliefs.

Boatloads of misrepresentation.

 

[varwoche]

No one has proven this yet. And, much of the so-called science used to substantiate the alarmist claims, quite frankly, sucks.

Fascinating.

 

[David Rodale]

Fascinating.

Maybe you should have Megaladon make some more pretty graphs after the February temperature data comes out?

Observations trump theory....every time.

 

[a_unique_person]

Maybe you should have Megaladon make some more pretty graphs after the February temperature data comes out?

Observations trump theory....every time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347c0b9baf2fdc.jpg

Except that you are doing exactly what you say the 'warmers' do, attributing everything to CO2. It's not that simple.

Understanding and attributing climate change.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

 

[a_unique_person]

No, this is one of the many ways you "warmers" like to misrepresent the discussion and attempt to define the other side of the argument (if there is such a thing) that doesn't conform to your beliefs.

There are three distinct possibilities: (1) we are in a normal-variant cycle right now; (2) the world is warming, but man has nothing to do with it; or, (3) manmade activity is currently causing the global climate to change.

I am willing to entertain any of those three possibilities, and my mind is far from made up on any of them. What I vehemently object to is those of you who believe that the science is settled, overwhelming, and beyond reproach. That it is clear that man has created global warming, that it is occurring, and that we need to do something about it or we're going to suffer irrevocable consequences.

No one has proven this yet. And, much of the so-called science used to substantiate the alarmist claims, quite frankly, sucks.

-Dr. Imago

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

Understanding and attributing climate change.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Except that you are doing exactly what you say the 'warmers' do, attributing everything to CO2. It's not that simple.

Don't be disingenous. CO2 is what the majority of this argument is centered around. AGW'ers are suggesting that we must immediately curb human emissions of this gas or suffer dire consequences. Or, on the other hand, are you now suggesting by your post that CO2 isn't as important as has been argued?

-Dr. Imago

 

[TrueSceptic]

No, this is one of the many ways you "warmers" like to misrepresent the discussion and attempt to define the other side of the argument (if there is such a thing) that doesn't conform to your beliefs.

You seem to be strangely ignorant of what most sceptics claim. It's all natural, they wail, over and over.

There are three distinct possibilities: (1) we are in a normal-variant cycle right now; (2) the world is warming, but man has nothing to do with it; or, (3) manmade activity is currently causing the global climate to change.

Why are (1) and (2) distinct, and where is
(4) Human activity is contributing to climate change. ?

I am willing to entertain any of those three possibilities, and my mind is far from made up on any of them. What I vehemently object to is those of you who believe that the science is settled, overwhelming, and beyond reproach. That it is clear that man has created global warming, that it is occurring, and that we need to do something about it or we're going to suffer irrevocable consequences.

No one has proven this yet. And, much of the so-called science used to substantiate the alarmist claims, quite frankly, sucks.

I suspect you will never be convinced, no matter how strong the evidence.

And what is this "so-called science"? Stuff you cannot understand, or will not understand?

 

[a_unique_person]

Don't be disingenous. CO2 is what the majority of this argument is centered around. AGW'ers are suggesting that we must immediately curb human emissions of this gas or suffer dire consequences. Or, on the other hand, are you now suggesting by your post that CO2 isn't as important as has been argued?

-Dr. Imago

Did you read my link. It's by actual scientists and represents the consensus of what is happening, and why, and how important CO2 is in the scheme of things. It just so happens, CO2 is the driving factor, at this time. They know a lot more about it than I do.

 

[CapelDodger]

Maybe you should have Megaladon make some more pretty graphs after the February temperature data comes out?

Observations trump theory....every time.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347c0b9baf2fdc.jpg[/URL]

How sweet, your picture starts in 1998. Truncated to perfection.

Where do you get these pictures from? Megalodon does his own, and explains them. If you think one month is going to make any difference I think you'll be disappointed.

As I recall, you got quite exercised about last November being really cold as well. Do you think the turning-point has come at last?

 

[CapelDodger]

And what is this "so-called science"? Stuff you cannot understand, or will not understand?

I think the operative word is rejects. The aspiring GW Sceptic must work on rejection. It's the backbone of the art.

I'm still waiting on the specs for Dr Imago's Box. Rodale's here, crowing about one month's figures with attached (unsourced) picture. mhaze is being delphic because he's got nothing to say but can't say nothing. We could ask for fresher examples, but not better .

 

[CapelDodger]

Did you read my link. It's by actual scientists and represents the consensus of what is happening, and why, and how important CO2 is in the scheme of things. It just so happens, CO2 is the driving factor, at this time. They know a lot more about it than I do.

The idea that CO2 doesn't influence weather but does influence climate has probably escaped Dr Imago. And quite possibly still has.

Something revealing about Rodale's (unsourced) picture is the CO2 line. There's a commonly expressed misapprehension that global temperatures should directly and immediately correlate with CO2. The CO2 line seems designed to cater to that. If we knew the source we'd have a better idea, of course. Perhaps he's embarrassed by it.

 

[Megalodon]

Maybe you should have Megaladon make some more pretty graphs after the February temperature data comes out?

Observations trump theory....every time.

Ask and you'll shall receive



Since you've proved time and time again your inability with graphs, I'll explain. What you're seeing is the evolution of the temperature anomaly and number of sunspots (a proxy for sun activity). The trendlines are polynomial, and only there to show the general trend of the data.
Additionally you have the CO2 data... Make of it what you will...

And to end with the stupidity of "there's no correlation between CO2 and temperature", please see:



You're depressing... everytime

 

[TrueSceptic]

The idea that CO2 doesn't influence weather but does influence climate has probably escaped Dr Imago. And quite possibly still has.

Something revealing about Rodale's (unsourced) picture is the CO2 line. There's a commonly expressed misapprehension that global temperatures should directly and immediately correlate with CO2. The CO2 line seems designed to cater to that. If we knew the source we'd have a better idea, of course. Perhaps he's embarrassed by it.

It seems to be from Joe D'Aleo at Icecap, although I've been going round in circles trying to find the original!

Just goes to show what cherry-picking can do...

 

[Dr. Imago]

The idea that CO2 doesn't influence weather but does influence climate has probably escaped Dr Imago. And quite possibly still has.

Besides calling me names, you love to overinterpret what I write and try to thought-insert, don't you? At the very least, you regularly insinuate that I am an idiot who knows nothing of science and the scientific process.

IT'S VERY SIMPLE! You, and your ilk, repeatedly try to obfuscate, misdirect, and shove the argument in a different direction.

If CO2 is the prime driver of climate change, climate being weather patterns averaged over time (nothing more), then CO2 would have to have a predominating, escalating effect given its ever increasing amounts. This presumes that there is, essentially, a static input from other climate drivers such as the sun (i.e., normal variation) or other mitigating climate factors - which is something 'warmers' have to do to make their models work and point the finger at CO2.

Energy into the system will necessarily effect different systems within the planet that affect weather. Your camp has dismissed solar variation as a prime driver. So, you have to presume that escalating CO2 levels - which you do - will create escalating global temperature mean. The assuption is that nothing else is predominate in current climatic change observations.

Given these things, it doesn't not fit with your hypothesis that one should see any dip in mean temperatures over even short periods of time, unless there is some other accounted for primary climate driver or "forcer". But, your camp won't even entertain this possibility. Your mind is made up that CO2 is the primary forcer. And, you are doing everything to re-affirm this conclusion, including promulgating and continuing to do bad science to meet your preconceived notions.

I've set out two very easy to conduct experiments that will corroborate (or disprove) a couple fast-held notions. Instead of doing these experiments, people are more content (because they are lazy and it's easier) to try to dismiss dissenters as buffoons.

The king is not wearing any clothes. I'm continually disappointed that you all do not realize that.

-Dr. Imago

 

[TrueSceptic]

Ask and you'll shall receive

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_28147cd552a6b14e.jpg[/qimg]

You're depressing... everytime

Just one thing: where are the X-axis labels?

 

[Megalodon]

Just one thing: where are the X-axis labels?

They're not . Every tick is a decade, and the timeseries starts in 1880... Sorry about that.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Besides calling me names, you love to overinterpret what I write and try to thought-insert, don't you? At the very least, you regularly insinuate that I am an idiot who knows nothing of science and the scientific process.

IT'S VERY SIMPLE! You, and your ilk, repeatedly try to obfuscate, misdirect, and shove the argument in a different direction.

This is exactly the way that GWS behave. You claim one thing without proof. It is shown to be false, so you shift the goalposts and claim something else, even if it contradicts the earlier claim.

If CO2 is the prime driver of climate change, climate being weather patterns averaged over time (nothing more), then CO2 would have to have a predominating, escalating effect given its ever increasing amounts. This presumes that there is, essentially, a static input from other climate drivers such as the sun (i.e., normal variation) or other mitigating climate factors - which is something 'warmers' have to do to make their models work and point the finger at CO2.

Your misrepresentation of climate models is so absurd that you are either simply lying or willfully ignorant.

Any such model attempts to include all relevant factors yet "sceptics" keep repeating drivel such as yours.

Energy into the system will necessarily effect different systems within the planet that affect weather. Your camp has dismissed solar variation as a prime driver. So, you have to presume that escalating CO2 levels - which you do - will create escalating global temperature mean. The assuption is that nothing else is predominate in current climatic change observations.

Solar variation has not been "dismissed". It is simply that there has been no such variation that can explain current warming. How many times do you have to be shown the graph of temps vs. solar activity?

Given these things, it doesn't not fit with your hypothesis that one should see any dip in mean temperatures over even short periods of time, unless there is some other accounted for primary climate driver or "forcer". But, your camp won't even entertain this possibility. Your mind is made up that CO2 is the primary forcer. And, you are doing everything to re-affirm this conclusion, including promulgating and continuing to do bad science to meet your preconceived notions.

Patent rubbish. Are you really this ignorant?

I've set out two very easy to conduct experiments that will corroborate (or disprove) a couple fast-held notions. Instead of doing these experiments, people are more content (because they are lazy and it's easier) to try to dismiss dissenters as buffoons.

The king is not wearing any clothes. I'm continually disappointed that you all do not realize that.

Buffoons or liars. Take your pick.

 

[Megalodon]

David seems to be ignoring my posts again... I wonder why...

 

[TrueSceptic]

David seems to be ignoring my posts again... I wonder why...

Thanks for the graphs. Saved me doing it again.

 

[Megalodon]

Just in case you need smth like this, here are the anual variations of global temperature (data from NOOA). It seems a waste to bury 15 minutes of work in a thread about weathermen



It tends to push the point across, except for Dave, who apparently can't read these graphs (or any graphs, I suspect).