No one is offering that up as a proposal in any way. Legitimate scientific debate is of course always legitimate.
But that's not what we have here. What we have here is deliberately engineered "doubt" regarding consensus science.
That doubt is going to lead to trillions of dollars in damages and millions of deaths, or more.
Anyone who thinks they have a clever way , a clever argument, an appeal to some First Principle, which will let them get away with that kind of crime is delusional.
Yeah like the other posters your only problem is the existence of objective reality. See it's not what FoxNews and your kindergarten teacher told you- that both sides of any "issue" are equally valid.
There is just one objective reality and science is mankind's best method for arriving at it.
People are going to die because deniers did what they did. It's really just that simple.
What you're saying makes sense if there were not such a thing as a shared objective reality which effects us all.
Here's what deniers don't grasp on some deep psychological level- there is such a thing out there as objective reality.
They live in some sort of libertarian/conservative Post Modern construct where they're told that THEIR reality is as valid as anyone else's.
What we see here is the systematic refusal to accept legitimate, earned authority and a narcissistic sense of entitlement to be considered equal to any other authority.
This argument is not about AGW, which is real, as in, it represents objective reality.
This argument is about whether this nation will align itself with that reality or we'll turn the whole world into a Jonestown-style massacre at the hands of people who are fundamentally unhinged from objective reality.
Do you really believe that everyone is going to stand around and just let their children die because enough libertarians and conservatards refused to act? Really? Really?
The first organizing prinicple of society is not libertarian freedom to inflict a false belief system on others. The first organizing principle of society is survival. Let a sub-group threaten that- through any means or philosophy they care to devise- and see how it goes for them.
You don't have unlimited rights. Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. . Deal with it.
The architects of doom will get a chance to defend themselves and their lunacy- in court.
This Conservative Post-Modern/ Many Realities shit is the direct result of letting creationism run wild in society. Sorry, but creationsim is nothing but an extended attempt to deny a reality which you find unpleasant.
Society let it go because it wasn't seen as dangerous, just stupid.
But the systematic and deliberate falsification of science and scientific theories and facts for the purpose of deceiving large segments of society on an issue of life and death is a CRIME. It was always a crime , always a form of murder and society is presently going to be making that clear.
The people who are culpable are the people who designed, created and sold the lies knowing that they were false or were likely false.
Everyone else, regardless of how defective their thinking, is a victim of this first set.
No one understands the impulse to say "just fuck em" better than I do but this is not the point. The point is to make damn sure that we never come to this. Every life is as deserving as the next to go on living thinking loving.
So in other words you're putting forth a false picture of degree of culpability and intent behind the lawyer's actions. IN fact the promulgation and spreading of software patents can be traced directly to a single lawyer working for Microsoft and now IBM, a certain Brad Smith:
You,re overlooking recommendation, the fact that lawyers have directly participated in the pursuit, drafting and sustaining of these same bad laws and they are the direct beneficiaries of these same bad laws.
Sure lawyers have a key role to play in civil society.
Not one SINGLE climatologist has EVER said that even the worst possible projections of climate change will result in reaching the point "where civilization cannot be sustained". Spreading that bullshit propaganda does nothing but harm to the attempt to make the public aware of this problem.
A conference in Melbourne next week featuring a whoâ(TM)s who of climate scientists will explore what warming of 4 degrees or more means, including for Australia.
Apocalyptic is the only word for it, and understanding the implications is equally important for policymakers, business and the community.
Keynote speaker Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute and climate adviser to the German Chancellor and to the EU, has said that in a 4-degree warmer world, the population carrying capacity estimates [are] below 1billion people.
Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change in Britain, was quoted in The Scotsman ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen conference saying the consequences were terrifying.
For humanity its a matter of life or death... we will not make all human beings extinct, as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive. But I think its extremely unlikely that we wouldnâ(TM)t have mass death at 4 degrees.
If you have got a population of 9 billion by 2050 and you hit 4 degrees, 5 degrees or 6 degrees, you might have half a billion people surviving.
The paleoclimate record does not provide a case with a climate forcing of the magnitude and speed that will occur if fossil fuels are all burned. Models are nowhere near the stage at which they can predict reliably when major ice sheet disintegration will begin.
Nor can we say how close we are to methane hydrate instability. But these are questions of when, not if. If we burn all the fossil fuels, the ice sheets almost surely will melt entirely, with the final sea level rise about 75 meters (250 feet), with most of that possibly occurring within a time scale of centuries.
Methane hydrates are likely to be more extensive and vulnerable now than they were in the early Cenozoic. It is difficult to imagine how the methane clathrates could survive, once the ocean has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top of the fossil fuel warming.
After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, Ive come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.
Right now, the climate scientists feel that if all humans shut off carbon emissions today, it will still glide up by about 1 degree centigrade. In the business-as-usual scenarios, Nicholas Stern says there's a 50 percent chance we may go to 5 degrees centigrade.... And certain tipping points might be triggered. We can adapt to 1 or 2 degrees. More than that, there is no adaptation strategy.
So the big fear is that once the tundra thaws, those microbes wake up, they digest all that carbon. It goes up in the atmosphere. At th
Oh BTW Ayn Rand? An egomaniac, cigarette-addicted/ tobacco-company-excusing, life long amphetamine addict who also tried repeatedly to force a sexual relationship on the no longer willing Nathaniel Brandon who himself is famous for having said "I agree with Ayn Rand about most things and I admire most of her philosophy, but I don't see how any of that means I have to sleep with an old woman".
Almost certainly an obsessional autism case also given her total inability to understand human relationships and her doctrinaire and mechanical (to say the least !!! I am a great philosopher - you must fuck me! )approach to human relationships, and human events.
I love talking with Ayn Rand Assholes. You're all delightfully defective in exactly the same way (so much for individuality!) and pulling your crank is nothing if not jolly good good sport.
Yeah you failed utterly to rebut the rebutall to the idea that "it's just change" which I posted and you did not even address.
You're in denial. You want to comfort yourself with fictions about "it's just change" when that is not what the scientific record says at all
I love this "it's a historical fact..." well known on the internet to be the MOST IMPRESSIVE kind of fact.
.I also love this: "The net result, though, in the long term, is unlikely to be a net negative"
Well thank you Toomol for giving this your close scrutiny and I guess we can all put this whole AGW thing to rest now.
Seriously, is not the attitude on parade here truly something to contemplate. Here we have this guy who's willing to dismiss the entire corpus of scientific record and investigation (while presuming to -incorrectly and without citations- use it for his own) and substitute in the kind of phrases you that give you a winning card at while you're playing Bullshit Bingo at your next office meeting.
This is the essence of the conservative mind. Stupid and doesn't know it. Arrogant beyond belief Paranoid that science is conspiring to get him. Assured of his own expertise across subject matter he knows nothing about. Dismissive and contemptuous of earned authority if that authority dares to disagree with him.
I encourage everyone to look up:"narcissistic personality disorder". It couldn't be clearer.
What a joke you are. You have nothing to say about all the points you offered yet you have "methodological issues" with the PEER REVIEWED paper which shows you exactly what you deny.
Thank goodness we have careful consumers of the peer reviewed literature that this nation's PhDs just toss over their shoulders without even giving a thought to their methods.
First let's compare your demand(!) for citations from me with your own utter lack of any any kind of scinetific refernce whatsoever.
Apparently I'm to be held to one standard and your're to be held to another.
`1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of the most debunked denier talking points all just trotted out in a few sentences.
Here's the thing- I don't care what you think or what any denier thinks. The rebutals to yoru non-scientific "points" which you scraped off of some denier's web site have been available to you for years now. The fact that you're still reciting them- Mann's hockey stick, little ice age, medeval warming period all this shit just means that you fail to look for AT ALL for disconfirmatory evidence. You're a true denier.
But it's important to rebut this crap if it comes up 10 times a hundred times or a thousand times, which i have done by now I think, because while there's always another denier who's not worth talkign to, there could be another reader for whom this is the first time they've heard these points.
Yeah you rolled those out bappity bappity bap with such authority! Damn you MUST know what you're talking about. Of course, like any good narcissist, seeming to know what yu're talking about is your first priority while doing the work to really understand what you're talking about is irrelevant.
First the 98%:
Yes, it's 97.4% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change- the people for whom this is their life's work.
Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
Now on to the denier talking points
1) MWP and Little Ice Age:
Yeah well it's sufficient to eliminate the denier hypothesis that thee reason temps are rising is we're coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA) and MWP , which is done handily here:
Comparison of empirical evidence with proxy-based
reconstructions demonstrates that natural factors appear to
explain relatively well the major surface temperature changes
of the past millennium through the 19th century (including
hemispheric means and some spatial patterns). Only
anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the
recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century.
Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.
2) Hockey Stick:
Nope not broken in any significant way at all, says yet another investigation which yet agains clears him entirely, this time by the National Science Foundation (NSF):
Temperatures of North Atlantic âoeare unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warmingâ â" Science (20
Yeah buddy the world needs to listen to your ideas about a technical subject you never studied in any way especially when those ideas contravene the deeply considered opinions of duly qualified experts, an expertise you have exactly none of.
From the DSM IV, number one in list of characteristics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
My approach is to do what needs to be done to prosecute criminals and secure the continuance of civilization.
Climate change denial is a Crime Against Humanity. That's a fact. Those who created this falsification of science and cost the world's peoples hundreds of millions of lives are criminals who will be pursued like criminals, prosecuted like criminals and hung like criminals.
No one cares what criminals think of the fairness of the process through which they're prosecuted. What matters is what society thinks of it.
Read history. Sociopaths always think they've hatched the perfect plan to use the law to evade the law. They think there's some clever legalese tactic that will just spin justice around and around itself so much that it will just have to let them go in the end.
This is exactly what Goring attempted in his trial.
"It was my honest opinion!!!".
"It was my religious belief!!!"
They told me to gas those Jews; I was under orders!"
"We were the law, so we broke no law!"
"The scientific evidence was inconclusive"
Yeah. You know what? You need to read history to see how this goes. Here's a good place to start.
Yeah this is exactly what he is. A non scientist attempting to tell scientists HOW to conduct themselves and WHAT constitutes valid science while advocating for policies which predictably result in the deaths of hundreds of millions.. yeah , you're right.. deniers are worse than Stalin .
Yeah too bad the world's scientists disagree with you.
The world's scientists: "we know KNOW FOR A FACT that computer modeling of complex systems is valid science.
me: The world's scientists think that computer models are a valid way top conduct science
you:t's pretty funny to see somebody spout on about "arrogance" in the same breath as declaring that computer models portending to model anything anywhere near as complex as planetary climate as "how science is done."
The thing is, society is not constrained to convince it's least gifted members of the veracity of the last details of the most complicated science before they utilize that science to direct policy.
Go ahead Mr. President. Do whatever you need to do to maintain the national security of the United States of America.
Oh fuck I love it when someone shows up with this argument.
Do you know where you got this from?
Warmer earth = larger temperate zones = more food production. More CO2 = more vegetation growth = more food production.
Do you know at all the origin of that, because it has ZERO basis in scientific reality.
Plants grown artificially in enhanced CO2 environments have reduced nutritional value, tougher leaves higher concentrations of defensive chemicals making them a poorer food source.
the denier talking point you made was literally created out of whole cloth by an oil executive who just thought it up one day and then said it in an interview with the media. It's a joke.
Also there's way too much stock put in computer models. Not that they are used, but that people think they "prove" something. No, a computer model proves nothing, it is a model. It makes predictions. If the predictions are repeatedly accurate, it is probably a good model of reality and can be counted on to produce accurate predictions in the future. If they are inaccurate, it needs to be revised. However it doesn't "prove" shit. It models.
So we should listen to you instead of scientists on this topic because why again?
You're right because why again? YOU decide how science is to be conducted, is that it? Never mind that LEGION of THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
You're no different than fucking Joseph Stalin dictating how the study of genetic shall be conducted.
I'll be anything you're a libertarian too. You thin government has no place telling business how to conduct itself. Yet you think YOU can tell scientists how to do science.
Actually, computer models and modeling are how science is done and for you to sweep them aside when the world's scientists use them every day and all those people agree that they're valid, is breathtaking arrogance, narcissism and egomania all rolled into one.
Do I detect a theme here? Deniers are non-scientists who don't know how science is even conducted but nevertheless believe they have a god given (literally) right to barge into a field they know ZERO about and declare what is and is not valid and how that field should consider its own work products.
It goes on. There are other mechanisms that can explain the late 20th century warming. If you want to seriously talk about skeptics, you really should study them a bit more.
Yeah I don't want to talk to skeptics. I want my government to neutralize them through any means necessary.
1 - History. I'm a student of history. I became a skeptic when they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
\
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics because WHY again?
2 - Statistics/Data Analysis. M&M made Michael Mann's Hockey Stick look like a total fraud.
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics AND statistics because WHY again?
3 - Physics. Most serious skeptics will grant that CO2 absorbs energy at one important wavelength. They will grant as much as 1.4 degrees warming for a doubling of CO2. The thing they won't grant is the feedback necessary to get dangerous warming.
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands the relative importance of isolated "facts" in physics he scrapped off some denier's site online because WHY again?
4 - Instrumentation. Anthony Watts has demonstrated the pathetic state of some of our temperature records.
It goes on. There are other mechanisms that can explain the late 20th century warming.
If you want to seriously talk about skeptics, you really should study them a bit more.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's not what we have here. What we have here is deliberately engineered "doubt" regarding consensus science.
That doubt is going to lead to trillions of dollars in damages and millions of deaths, or more.
Anyone who thinks they have a clever way , a clever argument, an appeal to some First Principle, which will let them get away with that kind of crime is delusional.
There is just one objective reality and science is mankind's best method for arriving at it.
People are going to die because deniers did what they did. It's really just that simple.
What you're saying makes sense if there were not such a thing as a shared objective reality which effects us all.
Here's what deniers don't grasp on some deep psychological level- there is such a thing out there as objective reality.
They live in some sort of libertarian/conservative Post Modern construct where they're told that THEIR reality is as valid as anyone else's.
What we see here is the systematic refusal to accept legitimate, earned authority and a narcissistic sense of entitlement to be considered equal to any other authority.
This argument is not about AGW, which is real, as in, it represents objective reality.
This argument is about whether this nation will align itself with that reality or we'll turn the whole world into a Jonestown-style massacre at the hands of people who are fundamentally unhinged from objective reality.
Do you really believe that everyone is going to stand around and just let their children die because enough libertarians and conservatards refused to act? Really? Really?
The first organizing prinicple of society is not libertarian freedom to inflict a false belief system on others. The first organizing principle of society is survival. Let a sub-group threaten that- through any means or philosophy they care to devise- and see how it goes for them.
You don't have unlimited rights. Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. . Deal with it.
The architects of doom will get a chance to defend themselves and their lunacy- in court.
This Conservative Post-Modern/ Many Realities shit is the direct result of letting creationism run wild in society. Sorry, but creationsim is nothing but an extended attempt to deny a reality which you find unpleasant.
Society let it go because it wasn't seen as dangerous, just stupid.
But the systematic and deliberate falsification of science and scientific theories and facts for the purpose of deceiving large segments of society on an issue of life and death is a CRIME. It was always a crime , always a form of murder and society is presently going to be making that clear.
Everyone else, regardless of how defective their thinking, is a victim of this first set.
No one understands the impulse to say "just fuck em" better than I do but this is not the point. The point is to make damn sure that we never come to this. Every life is as deserving as the next to go on living thinking loving.
http://www.superlawyers.com/washington/article/Brad-Smith-20/e3c068fb-949d-4ff0-bcb0-d6d7c204d32a.html
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2005dltr0012.html
I respect the law. I think the law is the single greatest human engineering achievement in all of history. Full stop, no qualifications. And no, IANAL
Saying I'm attacking lawyers just for doing their job is sure to provoke a response.
It's not a fight you're going to win.
Move along please.
You,re overlooking recommendation, the fact that lawyers have directly participated in the pursuit, drafting and sustaining of these same bad laws and they are the direct beneficiaries of these same bad laws.
Sure lawyers have a key role to play in civil society.
So what?
Not one SINGLE climatologist has EVER said that even the worst possible projections of climate change will result in reaching the point "where civilization cannot be sustained". Spreading that bullshit propaganda does nothing but harm to the attempt to make the public aware of this problem.
A conference in Melbourne next week featuring a whoâ(TM)s who of climate scientists will explore what warming of 4 degrees or more means, including for Australia.
Apocalyptic is the only word for it, and understanding the implications is equally important for policymakers, business and the community.
Keynote speaker Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute and climate adviser to the German Chancellor and to the EU, has said that in a 4-degree warmer world, the population carrying capacity estimates [are] below 1billion people.
Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change in Britain, was quoted in The Scotsman ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen conference saying the consequences were terrifying.
For humanity its a matter of life or death ... we will not make all human beings extinct, as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive. But I think its extremely unlikely that we wouldnâ(TM)t have mass death at 4 degrees.
If you have got a population of 9 billion by 2050 and you hit 4 degrees, 5 degrees or 6 degrees, you might have half a billion people surviving.
from http://www.smh.com.au/environment/too-hot-to-handle-can-we-afford-a-4degree-rise-20110709-1h7hh.html#ixzz1jmhquMNK
The paleoclimate record does not provide a case with a climate forcing of the magnitude and speed that will occur if fossil fuels are all burned. Models are nowhere near the stage at which they can predict reliably when major ice sheet disintegration will begin.
Nor can we say how close we are to methane hydrate instability. But these are questions of when, not if. If we burn all the fossil fuels, the ice sheets almost surely will melt entirely, with the final sea level rise about 75 meters (250 feet), with most of that possibly occurring within a time scale of centuries.
Methane hydrates are likely to be more extensive and vulnerable now than they were in the early Cenozoic. It is difficult to imagine how the methane clathrates could survive, once the ocean has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top of the fossil fuel warming.
After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, Ive come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.
From http://www.sindark.com/2010/02/04/is-runaway-climate-change-possible-hansens-take/
Nobel physicist and Secretary of Energy Chu:
Right now, the climate scientists feel that if all humans shut off carbon emissions today, it will still glide up by about 1 degree centigrade. In the business-as-usual scenarios, Nicholas Stern says there's a 50 percent chance we may go to 5 degrees centigrade.... And certain tipping points might be triggered. We can adapt to 1 or 2 degrees. More than that, there is no adaptation strategy.
So the big fear is that once the tundra thaws, those microbes wake up, they digest all that carbon. It goes up in the atmosphere. At th
Oh BTW Ayn Rand? An egomaniac, cigarette-addicted/ tobacco-company-excusing, life long amphetamine addict who also tried repeatedly to force a sexual relationship on the no longer willing Nathaniel Brandon who himself is famous for having said "I agree with Ayn Rand about most things and I admire most of her philosophy, but I don't see how any of that means I have to sleep with an old woman".
Almost certainly an obsessional autism case also given her total inability to understand human relationships and her doctrinaire and mechanical (to say the least !!! I am a great philosopher - you must fuck me! )approach to human relationships, and human events.
I love talking with Ayn Rand Assholes. You're all delightfully defective in exactly the same way (so much for individuality!) and pulling your crank is nothing if not jolly good good sport.
Do stop by again!
Please bookmark this page and refer to it as needed.
Thank you. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
You're in denial. You want to comfort yourself with fictions about "it's just change" when that is not what the scientific record says at all
I love this "it's a historical fact..." well known on the internet to be the MOST IMPRESSIVE kind of fact.
Well thank you Toomol for giving this your close scrutiny and I guess we can all put this whole AGW thing to rest now.
Seriously, is not the attitude on parade here truly something to contemplate. Here we have this guy who's willing to dismiss the entire corpus of scientific record and investigation (while presuming to -incorrectly and without citations- use it for his own) and substitute in the kind of phrases you that give you a winning card at while you're playing Bullshit Bingo at your next office meeting.
This is the essence of the conservative mind. Stupid and doesn't know it. Arrogant beyond belief Paranoid that science is conspiring to get him. Assured of his own expertise across subject matter he knows nothing about. Dismissive and contemptuous of earned authority if that authority dares to disagree with him.
I encourage everyone to look up :"narcissistic personality disorder". It couldn't be clearer.
Thank goodness we have careful consumers of the peer reviewed literature that this nation's PhDs just toss over their shoulders without even giving a thought to their methods.
Narcissist. You're a narcissist. Look it up.
Apparently I'm to be held to one standard and your're to be held to another.
`1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of the most debunked denier talking points all just trotted out in a few sentences.
Here's the thing- I don't care what you think or what any denier thinks. The rebutals to yoru non-scientific "points" which you scraped off of some denier's web site have been available to you for years now. The fact that you're still reciting them- Mann's hockey stick, little ice age, medeval warming period all this shit just means that you fail to look for AT ALL for disconfirmatory evidence. You're a true denier.
But it's important to rebut this crap if it comes up 10 times a hundred times or a thousand times, which i have done by now I think, because while there's always another denier who's not worth talkign to, there could be another reader for whom this is the first time they've heard these points.
Yeah you rolled those out bappity bappity bap with such authority! Damn you MUST know what you're talking about. Of course, like any good narcissist, seeming to know what yu're talking about is your first priority while doing the work to really understand what you're talking about is irrelevant.
First the 98%:
Yes, it's 97.4% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change- the people for whom this is their life's work.
From EOS Vol 20, Number 3 Jan 2009:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
Now on to the denier talking points
1) MWP and Little Ice Age:
Yeah well it's sufficient to eliminate the denier hypothesis that thee reason temps are rising is we're coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA) and MWP , which is done handily here:
http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/jones_mann_2004.pdf
Comparison of empirical evidence with proxy-based reconstructions demonstrates that natural factors appear to explain relatively well the major surface temperature changes of the past millennium through the 19th century (including hemispheric means and some spatial patterns). Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century.
and here http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/jones_mann_2004.pdf
Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.
2) Hockey Stick:
Nope not broken in any significant way at all, says yet another investigation which yet agains clears him entirely, this time by the National Science Foundation (NSF):
From http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
Recent Studies Vindicating the Hockey Stick:
Temperatures of North Atlantic âoeare unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warmingâ â" Science (20
Yeah buddy the world needs to listen to your ideas about a technical subject you never studied in any way especially when those ideas contravene the deeply considered opinions of duly qualified experts, an expertise you have exactly none of.
From the DSM IV, number one in list of characteristics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
Climate change denial is a Crime Against Humanity. That's a fact. Those who created this falsification of science and cost the world's peoples hundreds of millions of lives are criminals who will be pursued like criminals, prosecuted like criminals and hung like criminals.
No one cares what criminals think of the fairness of the process through which they're prosecuted. What matters is what society thinks of it.
Read history. Sociopaths always think they've hatched the perfect plan to use the law to evade the law. They think there's some clever legalese tactic that will just spin justice around and around itself so much that it will just have to let them go in the end.
This is exactly what Goring attempted in his trial.
"It was my honest opinion!!!".
"It was my religious belief!!!"
They told me to gas those Jews; I was under orders!"
"We were the law, so we broke no law!"
"The scientific evidence was inconclusive"
Yeah. You know what? You need to read history to see how this goes. Here's a good place to start.
http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2010/10/a-new-kind-of-vicious-crime-against-humanity-the-fossil-fuel-industrys-disinformation-campaign-on-cl.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/01/climate-science-disinformation-crime
Here's some more: http://climateforce.net/2012/01/17/crimes-against-humanity-pat-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data/
My mistake.
Yeah too bad the world's scientists disagree with you.
The world's scientists: "we know KNOW FOR A FACT that computer modeling of complex systems is valid science.
me: The world's scientists think that computer models are a valid way top conduct science
you:t's pretty funny to see somebody spout on about "arrogance" in the same breath as declaring that computer models portending to model anything anywhere near as complex as planetary climate as "how science is done."
The thing is, society is not constrained to convince it's least gifted members of the veracity of the last details of the most complicated science before they utilize that science to direct policy.
Go ahead Mr. President. Do whatever you need to do to maintain the national security of the United States of America.
Where am I getting the fact that the problem is how much (how many molecules of) GHG we're putting into the atmosphere?
Really? Did you really just ask me that?
You need to read my other thread. Scan for Nuremberg in this thread. That says it all.
Anything to say?
Oh fuck I love it when someone shows up with this argument.
Do you know where you got this from?
Warmer earth = larger temperate zones = more food production. More CO2 = more vegetation growth = more food production.
Do you know at all the origin of that, because it has ZERO basis in scientific reality.
Plants grown artificially in enhanced CO2 environments have reduced nutritional value, tougher leaves higher concentrations of defensive chemicals making them a poorer food source.
the denier talking point you made was literally created out of whole cloth by an oil executive who just thought it up one day and then said it in an interview with the media. It's a joke.
Have some reality: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-is-plant-food-too-simple.html
Also there's way too much stock put in computer models. Not that they are used, but that people think they "prove" something. No, a computer model proves nothing, it is a model. It makes predictions. If the predictions are repeatedly accurate, it is probably a good model of reality and can be counted on to produce accurate predictions in the future. If they are inaccurate, it needs to be revised. However it doesn't "prove" shit. It models.
So we should listen to you instead of scientists on this topic because why again?
You're right because why again? YOU decide how science is to be conducted, is that it? Never mind that LEGION of THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
You're no different than fucking Joseph Stalin dictating how the study of genetic shall be conducted.
I'll be anything you're a libertarian too. You thin government has no place telling business how to conduct itself. Yet you think YOU can tell scientists how to do science.
Do I detect a theme here? Deniers are non-scientists who don't know how science is even conducted but nevertheless believe they have a god given (literally) right to barge into a field they know ZERO about and declare what is and is not valid and how that field should consider its own work products.
The level of arrogance here borders on insanity.
Uh I think this is known as teaching reality to the next generation. That's how society keeps civilization going.
It goes on. There are other mechanisms that can explain the late 20th century warming. If you want to seriously talk about skeptics, you really should study them a bit more.
Yeah I don't want to talk to skeptics. I want my government to neutralize them through any means necessary.
1 - History. I'm a student of history. I became a skeptic when they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
\
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics because WHY again?
2 - Statistics/Data Analysis. M&M made Michael Mann's Hockey Stick look like a total fraud.
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics AND statistics because WHY again?
3 - Physics. Most serious skeptics will grant that CO2 absorbs energy at one important wavelength. They will grant as much as 1.4 degrees warming for a doubling of CO2. The thing they won't grant is the feedback necessary to get dangerous warming.
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands the relative importance of isolated "facts" in physics he scrapped off some denier's site online because WHY again?
4 - Instrumentation. Anthony Watts has demonstrated the pathetic state of some of our temperature records.
Anthony Watts is a non-scientist, college drop out full blown, outed fraud: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/07/29/204427/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
It goes on. There are other mechanisms that can explain the late 20th century warming. If you want to seriously talk about skeptics, you really should study them a bit more.