Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[TrueSceptic]

Lucia's just an ordinary person who's been suddenly thrust into the limelight, and that's not easy for anybody to cope with. There's an understandable desire to cling onto fame, and to believe the hype.

The real message of Lucia is how little denialists have to call on. A world in which Lucia is regarded as a force to be reckoned with is a very small world indeed.

It's all about how low the bar is set, isn't? Remember that schoolgirl who allegedly trashed all of mainstream climate science? For a while you'd think all the GWSceptics couldn't wait to crown her Queen Climate. How embarrassing.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's all about how low the bar is set, isn't? Remember that schoolgirl who allegedly trashed all of mainstream climate science? For a while you'd think all the GWSceptics couldn't wait to crown her Queen Climate. How embarrassing.

Remember that German schoolteacher with his 1500 year cycle, which Singer translated into a 1500 +/- 500 year cycle to make it fit the MWP, which so much had already been invested in?

So many good memories. It's been a right carry-on, hasn't it ?

 

[mhaze]

Remember that German schoolteacher with his 1500 year cycle, which Singer translated into a 1500 +/- 500 year cycle to make it fit the MWP, which so much had already been invested in?

So many good memories. It's been a right carry-on, hasn't it ?

16 year old Kristian Byrnes trashed your and AUPs', arguments (or lack of), at least, that was my assertion. Either she's pretty sharp or you ain't, unless, of course you disagree with my opinion.

No clue what your babble about German school teachers might be.

Singer has hundreds of reference papers to back his opinions.

You don't.

 

[a_unique_person]

Lucia's just an ordinary person who's been suddenly thrust into the limelight, and that's not easy for anybody to cope with. There's an understandable desire to cling onto fame, and to believe the hype.

The real message of Lucia is how little denialists have to call on. A world in which Lucia is regarded as a force to be reckoned with is a very small world indeed.

Do you mean to say I'm not a force to be reckoned with in AGW science? My dreams have been shattered.

 

[TrueSceptic]

16 year old Kristian Byrnes trashed your and AUPs', arguments (or lack of), at least, that was my assertion. Either she's pretty sharp or you ain't, unless, of course you disagree with my opinion.

No clue what your babble about German school teachers might be.

Singer has hundreds of reference papers to back his opinions.

You don't.

No he doesn't. He has hundreds of papers which he misrepresents or simply lies about, common behaviour among "sceptics".

As for the schoolgirl, I wasn't here then but I'm not at all surprised that you would make such an assertion. Her stuff seemed tailor-made to convince the ignorant and credulous. BTW where is she now? She seemed to have her 15 minutes of fame and then disappear from sight.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Remember that German schoolteacher with his 1500 year cycle, which Singer translated into a 1500 +/- 500 year cycle to make it fit the MWP, which so much had already been invested in?

So many good memories. It's been a right carry-on, hasn't it ?

Are you confusing EG Beck, the German schoolteacher with the magical CO2 readings, with Dansgaard (Danish) and Oeschger (Swiss), who identified 1500-year cycles?

 

[Spud1k]

Singer has hundreds of reference papers to back his opinions.

You don't.

Ever tried counting the number of references in the IPCC report? I laugh in the face of mere 'hundreds'.

 

[easycruise]

As are the shadowy forces he seems to think are manipulating the mass media.

Seems to think? Ha! It's quite clear. Surely even you must realize that the major news media has not mentioned this years very cold Alaskan summer and it was kept local. I checked the following web sites..

NY Times-no mention, but they did mention a warm summer in Alaska back in 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/n...2&sq=alaska coldest summer&st=cse&oref=slogin

Washington Post-in an article of imperiled walrus from receding sea ice, it was briefly mentioned, but was buried well into the story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082803489.html

ABC News-no mention
NBC News-no mention
CBS News-nothing
LA Times-nothing
Chicago Tribune-nothing
Philadelphia Inquirer-nothing.

I still stand with what I said in post 658..
"If you are told at all. It seems that the contrary evidence is publicly kept localized and suppressed by the major national news media. "

CT proven! Do I hear crickets coming from the Capel Dodger corner?

 

[mhaze]

Ever tried counting the number of references in the IPCC report? I laugh in the face of mere 'hundreds'.

Non sequitor. The correct analogy is how well researched a topic was.

But you knew that.

Capeldodger misrepresents with no factual basis -

Remember that German schoolteacher with his 1500 year cycle, which Singer translated into a 1500 +/- 500 year cycle
​

In order to draw wrong conclusions -

to make it fit the MWP
​

With the intent being to smear a distinguished scientist who does not share his narrow views.

Warmlogy.

singer and avery on tv

It's all solid peer reviewed research, it all documents that we have these 1500 year cycles, and we have no physical evidence to document that human caused co2 has made any difference.​

 

[easycruise]

By all means, be the first to post some evidence in a more appropriate thread:

CTs Concerning Global Warming Science

see two posts above and feel free to put it in your thread as a CT proven.

 

[easycruise]

Ever tried counting the number of references in the IPCC report? I laugh in the face of mere 'hundreds'.

Ever tried reading about how many impartial scientists were actually involved in the IPCC review and conclusion and how many were shut out?

http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.12.NumbersHoax.htm

Their voices are heard here..

http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Sen._Inhofe's_400_Scientists

There is ANYTHING BUT a consensus on AGW. And trying to get to the actual data so that it can be properly peer reviewed is made difficult and you get the run around.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

 

[Pipirr]

There is a strong consensus on AGW.

Ever tried reading the IPCC reports?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Non sequitor. The correct analogy is how well researched a topic was.

Well researched? Surely well-distorted in Singer's case?

But you knew that.

If only you did.

Capeldodger misrepresents with no factual basis -

Remember that German schoolteacher with his 1500 year cycle, which Singer translated into a 1500 +/- 500 year cycle
​

In order to draw wrong conclusions -

to make it fit the MWP
​

With the intent being to smear a distinguished scientist who does not share his narrow views.

Correction: to finger someone who used to be a distinguished scientist but who sold his reputation some years ago and is now well known for shameless and unapologetic lying.

Warmlogy.

singer and avery on tv

It's all solid peer reviewed research, it all documents that we have these 1500 year cycles, and we have no physical evidence to document that human caused co2 has made any difference.​

Lying tripe remains lying tripe no matter how often it is repeated, and didn't you use to accept the CO2 GHG effect anyway?

 

[a_unique_person]

There is ANYTHING BUT a consensus on AGW. And trying to get to the actual data so that it can be properly peer reviewed is made difficult and you get the run around.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

The usual scientific process is to get your own goddam data and write your own goddam paper.

 

[a_unique_person]

Ever tried reading about how many impartial scientists were actually involved in the IPCC review and conclusion and how many were shut out?

http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.12.NumbersHoax.htm

Their voices are heard here..

http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Sen._Inhofe's_400_Scientists

There is ANYTHING BUT a consensus on AGW. And trying to get to the actual data so that it can be properly peer reviewed is made difficult and you get the run around.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

I tried a quick look for the Australian frauds that I know of.

An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean

The first Australian from Inhofe's list. He is no more a climate researcher than I am. He is no more qualified than I am. The only difference is that he is quite happy to pass himself off as someone who is qualified in this area of science to pass as an authority.

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia, not a paleoclimatolgist, and a regular denier on the conservative lecture circuit.

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia

Yes, a political scientist.

Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia;

All round nutcase. Doesn't believe in any current science, let alone AGW. You would be well advised to distance yourself from him.

Jon Jenkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Jenkins Weirdo, say no more.

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia; Not a scientist.

29. John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia. No, he's actually retired.

John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia

Look, he's there twice.

Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia;

An engineer, and I'm sure he's a good one.

I don't know how long this list goes on, but I'm sure you get the idea. Inhofe is a fraud, and a pretty lazy one at that.

 

[CapelDodger]

Are you confusing EG Beck, the German schoolteacher with the magical CO2 readings, with Dansgaard (Danish) and Oeschger (Swiss), who identified 1500-year cycles?

No, it came pre-confused .

 

[Spud1k]

Ever tried reading about how many impartial scientists were actually involved in the IPCC review and conclusion and how many were shut out?

http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.12.NumbersHoax.htm

These are some seriously dodgy use of numbers here. He's claiming that only seven people reviewed chapter 9 (not counting 55 with 'vested interests' - not sure what he means by that). However, the point he completely ignores is that just because a reviewer didn't comment on that section, it doesn't mean they didn't agree with it. In fact, if it was such a scientific fraud, more people would have done. And done so since in the literature as well. He has basically found two reviewers with dissenting opinions. Two.

And of course, that article chooses to focus on one section as if the whole IPCC report hinges on it but doesn't actually say what is wrong with the contents.

Their voices are heard here..

http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Sen._Inhofe's_400_Scientists

Credentials and fruitcakery aside, you do realise that the authors of that list are outnumbered by contributing authors on the report? Through various conferences and such I've met well over 400 scientists who don't disagree with it. How do you explain that one?

There is ANYTHING BUT a consensus on AGW. And trying to get to the actual data so that it can be properly peer reviewed is made difficult and you get the run around.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

That concerns two proxy records out of twelve, which are now fully published. What's your point? If McIntyre had laid his hands on that data he would have been able to tear the entire report down?

 

[Spud1k]

Non sequitor. The correct analogy is how well researched a topic was.

But you knew that.

Capeldodger misrepresents with no factual basis -

Remember that German schoolteacher with his 1500 year cycle, which Singer translated into a 1500 +/- 500 year cycle
​

In order to draw wrong conclusions -

to make it fit the MWP
​

With the intent being to smear a distinguished scientist who does not share his narrow views.

Warmlogy.

singer and avery on tv

It's all solid peer reviewed research, it all documents that we have these 1500 year cycles, and we have no physical evidence to document that human caused co2 has made any difference.​

My beef is with the very last bit. We have lots of evidence to say anthropogenic CO2 is mainly responsible for global warming, supported by more peer-reviewed papers than I care to count (I'd guess at least two orders of magnitude more than the 1500 year cycle thing as a bare minimum). It's just that you people simply choose to ignore its existence the instant someone gets something published that claims otherwise.

ETA: My overall point is that if you try to play the 'it's peer-reviewed so it must be true' angle, you've already lost the argument. While your camp keep repeating this mantra that the majority of journal articles oppose AGW, the reality is so completely different as to be comical (from our perspective).

 

[CapelDodger]

Do you mean to say I'm not a force to be reckoned with in AGW science? My dreams have been shattered.

If sweet-sixteen Kristian Byrnes is a force to be reckoned with you're stellar, mate. (mhaze actually picked up that cowpat and ran with it; it's like pressing a button. Like the Bourbons, mhaze forgets nothing and learns nothing.)

 

[mhaze]

If sweet-sixteen Kristian Byrnes is a force to be reckoned with you're stellar, mate. (mhaze actually picked up that cowpat and ran with it; it's like pressing a button. Like the Bourbons, mhaze forgets nothing and learns nothing.)

Babble at passing of your more idiotic errors as a refined and sublime bait does not change the nature of your argument.