Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[Megalodon]

So many words, still no sense...

Whenever you're ready, mhaze. We're all hopefully waiting for one blog that says what you claimed...

 

[mythstifieD]

Still waiting on the magic fairy... I see a pattern here;

AGW Truthers JAQ they found on "the internets" and expect us to give them detailed educations in the science of AGW. They respond with criticisms they do not even comprehend they got off the "the internets" (its a series of tubes) and then when WE ask them difficult questions they answer some different question entirely or run away (brave Sir Robin.)

Sounds like you don't want to talk to them, and they don't want to talk to you.

Shame, I guess the debate really IS over: no one wants to talk to each other!

 

[mythstifieD]

Unfortunately, discussions on AGW in these forums (and many others) will just keep going round, and round, and round ... until it is much too late to do anything about it.

Awesome, you're convinced! It is a joyous day when someone finally finds the Truth.

...so are you ready to blot out the sun?

Hot off the press:

Simulated volcanic eruptions to block sun

They called for governments to establish a multimillion-pound fund for research into the simulated volcanoes and other solar-radiation management techniques for shielding the Earth against sunlight.

 

[mythstifieD]

Frankly, if you can't understand the words I write, it's your problem. I stated the initial AGW hypothesis, as a favour to you guys. It gave you a lot of things to falsify.

Hmm, if I recall correctly (and forgive me for being too lazy to scroll through page 8 and 9) I think he did an analysis of your stated hypothesis and all you did was say he doesn't know what a hypothesis is. Ehh. Not good enough, explain why, in more details please.

Again, I'm a fence-sitter, just gathering facts.. I think having a good, well defined hypothesis is a great place to start. With it, I will be able to determine if a certain issue is even relevant to AGW or if it's just a red herring and not worth my time.

Wikipedia seems to have listed a good checklist of a proper hypothesis:

According to Schick and Vaughn,[6] researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:
Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
Conservatism – the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems

 

[BenBurch]

Sounds like you don't want to talk to them, and they don't want to talk to you.

Shame, I guess the debate really IS over: no one wants to talk to each other!

Clearly you don't want to talk; I am waiting for you to tell me about the magic fairy that disappeared all the carbon from all the coal, oil, gas and concrete we have consumed?

 

[mythstifieD]

Still not one answer to;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5554606#post5554606

Lol. I actually started to answer this but I got WAY over my head sifting through FOR's and AGAINST's on each point. Geez, I'd need at least a week (of intense study) to answer your questions properly..

I have adapted all these questions into a mindmap, however, and I plan to use them as a bit of a 'guide' through this foggy mess of AGW.

All I am saying is don't be surprised if you don't get a proper answer to this any time soon, you asked a lot of BIG questions. It certainly doesn't prove anything that no one has responded in detail yet.

 

[mythstifieD]

Clearly you don't want to talk; I am waiting for you to tell me about the magic fairy that disappeared all the carbon from all the coal, oil, gas and concrete we have consumed?

Her name is Sinkerbell. She's like the tooth-fairy, but instead is a carbon-fairy. When us zany humans get out of control, she flies around the world and gobbles up all the excess carbon.

Btw, she's been around for a long time. She also did this for the Raptors when their civilization got a little out of hand.

...What, you think it was an asteroid that killed the dinos??

 

[BenBurch]

In other words, you are here to troll us?

You can join the short list of people I ignore here.

*click*

 

[lomiller]

I mostly lurk here when it comes to discussions on AGW, because I've only recently begun to read up on it. Funnily enough, I only got interested in the science behind AGW once 'Climategate' broke. What I have read since last November - and I have read *a lot* on both sides of the argument - has convinced me that the A in AGW is a *fact*. For me, two very accessible web pages that establish that fact are:

1. A page that shows how GHG forcing is the largest factor behind the temperature increase trend we are seeing, using statistical analysis rather than complex computer models:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/

Especially telling there is the chart labelled 'No GHG'. With all other climate forcings *except* GHG, the trend line doesn't fit the measured temperature anomaly at all. Put the GHG effect back in, and BAM! Perfect fit.

But how do we know that the atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely composed of CO2 generated by man? Here is how:

2. A page that explains how the distribution of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 is entirely consistent with that produced by the burning of fossil fuels:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

So those two pages nail it for me. Unfortunately, discussions on AGW in these forums (and many others) will just keep going round, and round, and round ... until it is much too late to do anything about it. Most of the AGW denialists seem to have an ideological/financial agenda that won't allow them to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for AGW. You can never convince them in the face of that, just as you can't convince a creationist of the fact of evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs *sigh*

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programme...

Two great sites I think it’s worth a note of caution that secondary sources are genernaly only as good as the primary sources they reference. Both Tamino and RC are good at referencing peer reviewed sources to back up their claims which is what makes them good sites to begin with.

 

[bobdroege7]

Umm,,,let me clarify...

I'm trying to get someone to cough up what the "AGW" is, the actual scientific hypothesis.

There isn't any reason for me to "make an argument against AGW" unless someone can adequately produce the explanation of "AGW", which explicitly in this context means the "AGW Hypothesis".

(By the way: I admit to knowing that real scientists do not use terms like AGW for these very reasons. But let's keep this little secret between you and me, so that Megalodon doesn't find out. It's fun to watch him keep thrashing trying to produce some premise that fits his conclusions. And it's fun to watch Warmers whose position is based on delusions like "AGW" squirm when simply asked to define it).

Uh, right,

How many years have we been discussing AGW on this forum and now we are back to square one?

You know as well as I do or Megalodon knows, what the AGW hypothesis is.

Of course, just between you and me, there is more than one human activity that is causing the planet to warm.

Asked and answered.

And now you are using the no real scotsman fallacy.

 

[Gytha Ogg]

I mostly lurk here when it comes to discussions on AGW, because I've only recently begun to read up on it. Funnily enough, I only got interested in the science behind AGW once 'Climategate' broke. What I have read since last November - and I have read *a lot* on both sides of the argument - has convinced me that the A in AGW is a *fact*. For me, two very accessible web pages that establish that fact are:

1. A page that shows how GHG forcing is the largest factor behind the temperature increase trend we are seeing, using statistical analysis rather than complex computer models:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/

Especially telling there is the chart labelled 'No GHG'. With all other climate forcings *except* GHG, the trend line doesn't fit the measured temperature anomaly at all. Put the GHG effect back in, and BAM! Perfect fit.

But how do we know that the atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely composed of CO2 generated by man? Here is how:

2. A page that explains how the distribution of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 is entirely consistent with that produced by the burning of fossil fuels:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

So those two pages nail it for me. Unfortunately, discussions on AGW in these forums (and many others) will just keep going round, and round, and round ... until it is much too late to do anything about it. Most of the AGW denialists seem to have an ideological/financial agenda that won't allow them to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for AGW. You can never convince them in the face of that, just as you can't convince a creationist of the fact of evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs *sigh*

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programme...

Argh! Logic! Skepticism! Science! Make it stop!

(Agree with your post. Learning a lot myself at the moment and it's really hard to come up with any other conclusion once you have looked at the evidence).

 

[metzomagic]

WTF?!

There isn't any reason for me to "make an argument against AGW" unless someone can adequately produce the explanation of "AGW", which explicitly in this context means the "AGW Hypothesis".

Not reading for comprehension the last coupla years, huh?

 

[GreyICE]

Not reading for comprehension the last coupla years, huh?

Yeah, I remember clearly outlining it to him and several others a few threads ago, and he responded by asking the same question (which was answered in the original text) twice, at which point he finally earned a spot on my ignore list.

It's no surprise he's dragging out the same hoary old chestnut that he's been using for the length of his entire tenure on these forums - that no one has explained global warming to him. Actually, it's been explained dozens of times, dozens of ways, and to each his response has always been to simply wait for the next thread and drag up his old claim of it being 'inexplicable.'

Since it takes him 10 seconds to write 'no one can explain it' and it takes at least 10 minutes to write a good explanation, it's a 'winning' strategy for him.

 

[mhaze]

Not reading for comprehension the last coupla years, huh?

Hahaha....that won't work. We've all seen once too many times basic Saul Alinksy tactics of insult, ridicule, pin the opponent, and so forth to pay attention to them.

But feel free to actually contribute.

On, and if you want, go look around at Tamino or RC for the "AGW Hypothesis".

Good Hunting!

Yeah, I remember clearly outlining it to him......it's been explained dozens of times, dozens of ways......

Are there dozens of "AGW Hypotheses" then?

That might certainly come closer to being true than just one hypothesis.

But wait....I already said that....

"AGW is whatever I feel it to be at this instant, and if you don't agree with what I think right now, you are a Denier...., and I have the right to modify AGW to suit the mood of the instant, and then call you a Denier at other times, until you understand what you should do is agree with whatever I say whenever I say it without question, since you are not as capable of understanding the Truthiness as me."

 

[BenBurch]

A whining strategy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mythstifieD]

In other words, you are here to troll us?

You can join the short list of people I ignore here.

*click*

...ask a stupid question...

 

[metzomagic]

Hahaha....that won't work. We've all seen once too many times basic Saul Alinksy tactics of insult, ridicule, pin the opponent, and so forth to pay attention to them.

Of course it won't work. But insult and ridicule is all that's left once every avenue of logic and rationality has been exhausted. It's a symptom of abject frustration, when people won't listen to a single thing you say, or read a single thing they're politely asked to read.

You didn't at any stage in your career happen to negotiate on behalf of a trade union, did you? Because that would explain a lot.

 

[Skwinty]

Should have posted here rather than in the e-mail hacking thread.

In my opinion, Prof Beddington hits the nail on the head with his (IMHO) valid criticism of AGW.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7003622.ece

Professor Beddington said that particular caution was needed when communicating predictions about climate change made with the help of computer models.
“It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.
“When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.”

 

[Megalodon]

Hmm, if I recall correctly (and forgive me for being too lazy to scroll through page 8 and 9) I think he did an analysis of your stated hypothesis and all you did was say he doesn't know what a hypothesis is. Ehh. Not good enough, explain why, in more details please.

Well, you recall wrong. And since the last time I wasted time answering you and explaining something you decided to ignore me, I would put your gracious request for details on my "to do" list even if you had recalled correctly. Which you didn't....

Again, I'm a fence-sitter, just gathering facts.. I think having a good, well defined hypothesis is a great place to start. With it, I will be able to determine if a certain issue is even relevant to AGW or if it's just a red herring and not worth my time.

Then you should take the time to read what was written in the last couples of pages.

 

[Reality Check]

IMHO, Prof Beddington states the obvious in his comments in
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7003622.ece,
e.g.

• Scientists should not be hostile to critics of their theories.
• Raw data should be available for verification of published results.

One nitpick though.

He said that it was wrong for scientists to refuse to disclose their data to their critics: “I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.”

There are a couple of assumptions there

1. That the scientists are free to disclose their data, e.g. there are no inteletual property rights (IPR) preventing diclosure.
2. That the data is not available through through other sources.

In the case of the CRU, 95% of the source material was already available from other sources. The rest is covered by IPR but negotiations are said to be underway to allow their release