• 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.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

Great link, but please let us not throw the good people at CRU under the bus for no good reason.

Climate change deniers are clearly aware that they have lost the scientific argument, and are going for personal smear attacks instead. If we let the people at CRU become victims of this, no scientist will be safe again.
 
Merko said:
Great link, but please let us not throw the good people at CRU under the bus for no good reason.

Climate change deniers are clearly aware that they have lost the scientific argument, and are going for personal smear attacks instead. If we let the people at CRU become victims of this, no scientist will be safe again.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't plan to, I am just pointing out that EVEN if you do, you do not invalidate AGW.
 
Guys guys guys, there is no such thing as scientific data to prove AGW. AGW is and invention of cultists to attack capitalism by the left.
 
Sparky said:
If you're going to keep generalizing this as a Left vs. Right issue, I'll choose to ignore you.
Click to expand...

I wasn't too happy with that spin on the issue either.

Knee jerk development of opinions based on partisan views is a real phenomena though and in this particular case most of the criticism of AGW theories does seem to come from the right when the political leaning can be identified of the critics.

However, why a particular group tends to favor one view over another is a very different issue than a discussion of the merits of the view. BenBurch's opening post is going to lead to a conflation of the two issues I suspect.
 
Thanks for all the links Ben, I am glad to see someone has started this thread.

Merko said:
Great link, but please let us not throw the good people at CRU under the bus for no good reason.
Click to expand...

True, but if a credible investigation reveals scientific impropriety, then under the bus they go! The key word there is "investigation" - the GW-deniers seem to think that simply spamming the Internet with a bunch of cherry-picked & out-of-context emails constitutes an investigation :rolleyes:

Climate change deniers are clearly aware that they have lost the scientific argument, and are going for personal smear attacks instead. If we let the people at CRU become victims of this, no scientist will be safe again.
Click to expand...

This is something that worries me as well. Will the GW-deniers start to target top climate scientists in general in this manner? Of course, there is an interesting remedy to that...

File FOIA requests on all of the top GW-deniers themselves and their communications, websites, blogs, etc.

Now wouldn't the results of that be interesting?
 
Few dispute the GW part. The A part is where the controversy begins.

Which of your posts best demonstrate the effects solely, or even mostly, attributable to A?
 
AlBell said:
Few dispute the GW part. The A part is where the controversy begins.

Which of your posts best demonstrate the effects solely, or even mostly, attributable to A?
Click to expand...

That it was predicted FAR in advance by physics, matches that physics, and has no other valid explanation is why we have consensus that there is an "A" in AGW.

EDIT: Of course the physics just predicts the effects of the CO2 - As for where the CO2 came from see the isotope graph, above.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
AlBell said:
Few dispute the GW part. The A part is where the controversy begins.

Which of your posts best demonstrate the effects solely, or even mostly, attributable to A?
Click to expand...

That it was predicted FAR in advance by physics, matches that physics, and has no other valid explanation is why we have consensus that there is an "A" in AGW.

EDIT: Of course the physics just predicts the effects of the CO2 - As for where the CO2 came from see the isotope graph, above.
Click to expand...
Do I conclude the answer is "none of the exhibits you've provided here" demonstrate the "mostly A" part of AGW?

I'm reasonably sure the various models are what you take as proof that CO2 is the culprit.
 
BenBurch said:
Learn to read, because I did say which.
Click to expand...
Here are your words

"That it was predicted FAR in advance by physics, matches that physics, and has no other valid explanation is why we have consensus that there is an "A" in AGW.

EDIT: Of course the physics just predicts the effects of the CO2 - As for where the CO2 came from see the isotope graph, above. "

Where do you say which?
 
The isotope graph. It shows that we put the carbon there.

The carbon rise does not prove "A" - just that carbon rose. We know that GW is caused by carbon and the other greenhouse gases, but we need to source the gases. The exotic chemicals are no problem to source, agricultural fumigants do not occur in nature, but the CO2 you source with isotope ratio and this proves a fossil origin of the rise.
 
BenBurch said:
No. Not what I said at all and I will thank you not to deliberately misrepresent my words.
Click to expand...
The isotope graph says nothing. You have the correlation - causation hurdle to jump before anything is said about the A part of AGW. And that problem just opens the door to other equally difficult problems, not least of which is the actual temperatures during the MWA and to a lesser extent LIA.

If you wish your words to not be misrepresented perhaps you should actually say what you mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom