Simple Question About AGW

[bobdroege7]

Actually I was referring lo the summaries posted of the papers.

Having not read the papers themselves.

Ah, the dog ate my homework defense.

If one is to be a skeptic, one must be willing to do two things.

One is to critially examine the evidence and the second is to be willing to change one's mind.

If you expect our side to read what you post and give it some critical attention then you must do the same.

 

[mhaze]

right. a list including a crappy, skewed agitprop documentary (at least the music's not... too.... spooky). have you been fitted for your tinfoil hat yet?

i'll check out the list of apparent science papers you posted though. meanwhile, watch out for those Bilderbergers.

rather than fighting hype with science, fight it with.... hype. it's about as entertaining (and only slightly less poorly crafted) as "Loose Change."

no... wait... THERE'S the spooky music.

i guess credibility's not in your best interest.

(yawn). I await YOUR list, zeus. You know what they say, beggers can't be choosers...

 

[mhaze]

Ah, the dog ate my homework defense.

If one is to be a skeptic, one must be willing to do two things.

One is to critially examine the evidence and the second is to be willing to change one's mind.

If you expect our side to read what you post and give it some critical attention then you must do the same.

My point is that no one is going to pay $9 - 35 to refute or read an article, including you. But that doesn't make the poster's assertions as to it's comments (or his cut and paste of someone else's assertions as to it's comments) authoritative. It's his job to substantiate the assertions, either by producing the actual articles, substantial excerts from them, etc, whatever would do the job.

Just produce the documents that you think support your case, whatever you think your case is.

It's really pretty simple. There isn't any need for a lot of chatter and personal attacks, unless you actually don't have much to produce.


"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" - Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor

 

[zeusbheld]

(yawn). I await YOUR list, zeus.

seems like, as a deeply entrenched anti-AGW, you'd be eager to show that rational people are skeptical of AGW rather than resorting to documentaries with spooky music like a 9-11 troofer. but i guess 'deeply entrenched' trumps 'rational.'

i may never have a list, but here's the thing: if someone asks for a cheeseburger, and i don't have one, i don't give them anything. and i definitely dont give them a dog diarrhea sandwich.

You know what they say, beggers can't be choosers...

hey! nice cliche! *yawn*.

i thought maybe, just maybe, i thought you'd notice the difference between "beggers" (sic) and giving you a chance to augment your case against AGW (rather than, oh i don't know, make it clear your tinfoil hat is more than a fashion statement).

you know what they say, dog diarrhea in a sandwich is still dog diarrhea. enjoy your usual meal.

 

[zeusbheld]

My point is that no one is going to pay $9 - 35 to refute or read an article, including you. But that doesn't make the poster's assertions as to it's comments (or his cut and paste of someone else's assertions as to it's comments) authoritative. It's his job to substantiate the assertions, either by producing the actual articles, substantial excerts from them, etc, whatever would do the job.

translation: do as mhaze says, not as he does.

Just produce the documents that you think support your case, whatever you think your case is.

and if the documents come from mhaze's blog list, make sure you're wearing your tinfoil hat.

 

[zeusbheld]

First you call it the AGW theory. Just couldn't resist, huh? Sorry, bub, it's a hypothesis, if anything.

have to agree with that. a context like this, 'theory' should be used rigorously. 'evolution' is a theory in the scientific sense (as i understand it; i'm not a scientist). AGW is a hypothesis at this point.

i do find this to be an important distinction.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Hawking's views are pretty out there; day-after-tomorrow type stuff.

Yes, but that wasn't why I told the story. The point was that a "sceptic" said that he respected Hawking and was sure that someone that clever wouldn't be taken in by AGW. Yet, when I presented the evidence of Hawking's actual views, did the sceptic reconsider his own views? Did he hell! He then shifted to claiming that Hawking couldn't have really looked at the subject. This is denialism, not scepticism, and it infests this subject.

 

[TrueSceptic]

(yawn). I await YOUR list, zeus. You know what they say, beggers can't be choosers...

Wow, Zeus, a real sceptic, asks the GW "sceptics" here for credible sceptical sites and you say this?!

I already posted links to the 2 most credible ones (IMO), Climate Audit and Prometheus. Care to add those?

 

[mhaze]

These are already on the list in post 422.

 

[a_unique_person]

These are already on the list in post 422.

The OISM?

 

[mhaze]

Yes, it appears they are not there. Very few web links to them so they did not come up. They are a skeptical organization, therefore they should be included.

The list in #422 isn't meant to be my best choices, but all inclusive.

A feast. A carnival.

 

[mhaze]

Hawking has also said that one way or another we could possibly really mess the planet up, and we needed to progressively develop ways to get a part of the human race permanently off planet. In this context he was mainly talking about designer bugs. (just to put his remarks in a wider context).

 

[zeusbheld]

Yes, it appears they are not there. Very few web links to them so they did not come up. They are a skeptical organization, therefore they should be included.

The list in #422 isn't meant to be my best choices, but all inclusive.

A feast. A carnival.

again i have to ask: why the carnival when all i wanted was your (or anyone's) best choices?

and if you just felt the urge, why pretend your response had anything to do with what i asked?

i owe you one, oh great benefactor. so basically in the unlikely event you ever ask me what the best movies i've ever seen are, out of gratitude i'll give you a link to IMDB and say "i've seen about ten thousand of 'em. some of 'em were good, some of them were dog diarrhea, most are somewhere in between."

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I'd rather play Poker.....who plays Texas Hold'em?

 

[zeusbheld]

The OISM?

already got 'em.

not much of a website though. decent enough overview, handy downloadable power point presentation, haven't seen it yet (major backlog of downloaded stuff to read, not just GW). may be some links to papers (if i'm not mistaken they've published some).

so far i find Lindzen interesting but as far as i can tell he doesn't blog.

 

[Slimething]

Slime, AGW theory requires a "hotspot" in the middle troposphere levels, this hotspot being most pronounced in the tropics due to radiative effects being the most pronounced. As I have presented research which shows this hotspot does not exist, or arguably exists but is a faint shadow of what AGW theory would require, it seems that at here is a hypothesis of AGW that has been refuted pretty nicely.

Not you too, mhaze! Please repeat after me: hypothesis, not theory. (Slime curls up in fetal position.)

What I consider to be primal to the AGW thought-experiment is that artifacts, any artifacts, are systematically warming the planet. I can't argue that it's not happening because the mere existence of blacktop where there once were trees would make that true in a trivial sense. I have not examined the various popular hypotheses as you have so I don't know of the hot-spot you speak of is common to all variants of the greenhouse gas AGW hypotheses. I doubt it is so, for the moment, let's say that one or several hypotheses requiring the formation of a hotspot have been falsified on the basis of one false prediction. However, there must be some hypotheses that don't predict that so AGW hypotheses are still alive.

I have noted before that, based on the physics underpinning the basic concept of greenhouse gases adding insulation and thus warming the planet, I believe that the hypotheses are probably true but not proven. I am begining to reach the opinion, though, that such signal as AGW is generating is weaker than first expected and may be unresolvable for quite some time. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[mhaze]

again i have to ask: why the carnival when all i wanted was your (or anyone's) best choices?

and if you just felt the urge, why pretend your response had anything to do with what i asked?

i owe you one, oh great benefactor. so basically in the unlikely event you ever ask me what the best movies i've ever seen are, out of gratitude i'll give you a link to IMDB and say "i've seen about ten thousand of 'em. some of 'em were good, some of them were dog diarrhea, most are somewhere in between."

Now pick your best choices.

 

[CapelDodger]

quite familiar with the Huff book and the principles contained therein. used to do graphics in an investment bank, and boy did those people use every trick in the book!

When PC's and spreadsheets and graphics and cheap printers and PowerPoint came in ... I was already primed to advise people on what chart option to select depending on the intention. It's been a valued part of my toolkit since I was a teenager.

yeah, i have ample blog resources on the 'yes AGW' side. still keenly interested in links to any papers though. the IPCC report is de facto a policy recommendation, what i'm interested in is scientific papers attempting to establish the A in AGW.

IPCC reports are packed with references in the scientific parts. The primary task of the IPCC is not to recommend policy but to collate current scientific research and understanding, for the benefit of actual policy-makers. That's where the meat is.

for blogs, etc i'd be interested in CREDIBLE 'no AGW' material, because all i can find is partisan horse droppings by zero-credibility political hacks like Steven Miloy, the Ann Coulter of science.

It's a bit of a give-away, isn't it? The GW Sceptic presentation reeks of defensiveness, the consensus presentation doesn't. Only one side is associating themselves with such scoundrels. Only one side is shrill and often at least borderline hysterical.

And only one side whines so much.

 

[mhaze]

Not you too, mhaze! Please repeat after me: hypothesis, not theory. (Slime curls up in fetal position.)

Ewwee... Stupid mistake me.

What I consider to be primal to the AGW thought-experiment is that artifacts, any artifacts, are systematically warming the planet. I can't argue that it's not happening because the mere existence of blacktop where there once were trees would make that true in a trivial sense. I have not examined the various popular hypotheses as you have so I don't know of the hot-spot you speak of is common to all variants of the greenhouse gas AGW hypotheses. I doubt it is so.......

Well. it would have to be for CO2. As for the atmospheric effects hypothe sized for the other gases, good question.

But note even with CO2, what is refuted is the strong greenhouse warming and high climate sensitivity.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, just start with Andrew's list.


That should keep you busy for a while.

If you thought that was going to buy you some respite from zeusbheld you've clearly choosen hope over reason.