We don't disagree here. And yet, it's the people who are pushing AGW who keep on shouting down the opposition, keep chanting that we have a consensus and insisting that consensus = proof.
But I really have to ask... *What* is the mechanism that prevents the absolute fact of increased percentage of greenhouse gases causing increased heat retention?
Good question. AIUI, most of the heat retention is caused by water vapor, not carbon dioxide, so the change as the percentage of CO2 goes up is rather small, and mostly found in cold, dry parts of the world.
Also, I just ran across something that might interest you: large numbers of members of the American Chemical Society are calling to have the editor of their magazine fired after an editorial of his in which he claimed that AGW is "well established." From what I gather, this is not the view of his readership, and they don't like having such facts misrepresented.
Believe as you wish. Your belief or mine mean absolutely nothing to the truth.
How true, how true. Alas, most of the people on your side of the question act as though they think that consensus actually means something in the physical sciences.
It does for them, not me. It also can become a matter of faith that it's true, as it seems to have done in your case. Unlike your friends, I don't pounce on a single data-point and claim that AWG has been debunked. I look at numerous facts that don't fit into the theory and ask people how they explain them. Mostly they don't. Either that, or they deny them. (There are AGW fanatics that claim that the Early Medieval Warm and the Little Ice Age didn't happen, even though there's mounds of evidence that they did.) They keep pointing out how the CO2 level is rising, and ignoring the twin facts that H2O is a far bigger greenhouse gas and CO2 levels follow the temperature, not precede it. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to buy into any theory that requires me to ignore both physical facts and the historic record.
Of course that will never happen. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy explains why: essentially, the main purpose of any bureaucracy is to maintain its own existence, not to do whatever job it was supposedly set up to do.
Just to mzake sure this thing is as popular as possible, they should make the avatar pink. Yeah, that's it, a pink pony. OMH, PONIES!!1! LOTS AND LOTS OF PINK PONIES11!!!1!11!
Read my post again, carefully, with no blinkers on, and you'll see that I never bashed Microsoft. My point was that people are settling for a version of Windows that's almost as fast as XP when they should be demanding one that's faster. As far as your hardware issues go, you have my sympathy. I know what it's like to be stuck with something sub-par and not being able to afford an upgrade.
And if there is a conspiracy as you seem to believe, then the matter is simple and statistical.
Oh, nothing so formal as that! It's more a case of individuals doing what they think is in their own best interests. As there's a lot of money to gain by buying in or lose by going against the current, it's not surprising (to me) that many of them come to the same decision.
And I have mt own theories as to why it hasn't been done yet
Do tell. After all, if there is no bias (as the AGW people claim) a study like that would prove it. You'd think they'd be eager to get evidence of that nature, but as you say, they're not.
The word I'm hearing, here and there, is that a fair number of climatologists don't buy in, but also don't get funding, grants or their papers published in mainstream journals. Some of them were well respected before they decided to go their own way. Alas, I have no cites so you can believe or disbelieve as you wish and I shan't argue the point. There's also the fact that once you find out that it's incredibly easier to get funding if you toe the "party line," it's very tempting to do exactly that regardless of what you believe.
And, just as a reminder, I'm not arguing that the climate isn't changing, because the only thing constant about the Earth's climate is that it's constantly changing. I do, however, refuse to accept the claims that the climate was completely stable for thousands of years, then suddenly started changing in or around 1900 as the hockey puck seemed to claim. In fact, if you take a close look at the graph, it never said that at all. What made it look that way is the fact that the margin of error for each year was also displayed, providing so much fuzz that it looked smooth right up to the point where it started to climb. Thus, claims that the climate used to be stable are based on the misreading of the graph.
Physical Fact #0: H2O is not only a GHG with well known properties, it's considerably more common than CO2.
Now, add in the fact that not one computer model takes that into account because the math gets too messy to handle and you'll understand why none of them can predict the present. Also, as I've mentioned, CO2 levels follow a temperature rise, not precede it. Last, of course, all that physical evidence of the Early Medieval Warm that took place centuries before the Industrial Revolution. Oh, wait: you're an AGW proponent, aren't you? You don't believe that the EMW took place, even though there's both physical and anecdotal evidence.
Exactly: they're not passing peer review. You assume it's poor methodology that's causing it. I find it odd and interesting that it's only the contrarian views that suffer this way. Considering how the AGW crowd is doing its best to force their side of the story down the public's throat (All that "the debate is over; WE WON@" stuff.) I tend to suspect that they're not passing the articles because they don't like what they say.
When the "global warming is HOAX" sites receive any bit of information that they feel is beneficial in debunking the global warming story they immediately jump on it
Which is why I never visit them. I try to get my information undigested, rather than just looking at what somebody else has decided I need to see.
Oh, I do listen to the experts; I just don't always think they're right. That's partially because I've listened to experts on both sides of the issue, rather than just those who are True Believers in AGW.
Alas, I haven't gotten any of my novels published yet. Two of them are still hanging fire at about 60K words. Not that I can't decide how to finish them but because I just ran out of the eagerness to write. I do, however, have a humor book in print through XLibris, and you'll find a link to it on my site. (Hint, hint, hint...)
The more I look at it, the more I see that contrarian reports, studies and research arn't being given space in peer reviewed journals. This doesn't happen in most fields because the reviewers understand that theories need to be tested both against the facts, and against other theories. I wonder why, in climate research only, is it so important to stifle dissent. I also try to look at all of the facts, not just those that support my side, but those that don't, and the more I look, the more I see that makes me believe that I'm right.
I happen to think that there's not really as much of a consensus as is claimed, and that for whatever reason, those who believe in AGW are trying to prevent anybody from seeing the other side. And, as I can't think of any logical reason for disinterested scientists to act that way, it makes me suspect that they're not disinterested, and that they're hoping to profit in some way from their actions. Maybe prestige, maybe tenure, but most probably money in some way. If you disagree, I shan't argue the point, because all I have is an opinion, not proof.
And aren't you aware that volcano activity was heightened during the Little Ice Age?
Yes, indeed it was. The subject is very complex, and we're learning more about it every year. One thing that I find amusing, BTW, is how some of the more dedicated AGW evangelists keep insisting that vulcanism isn't a factor, even with all the historical evidence. Wasn't Krakatoa responsible for the Year Without a Summer?
But let's be intellectually honest here and stop the unwarranted baseless attacks.
You must be new here. Bush-bashing is considered Insightful and Informative here and mentioning any facts that suggest that he might not be Evil Incarnate are considered Troll and/or Flamebait, even if none of the responses are angry.
*Sigh!* Did you even read all of my post before you hammered out that knee-jerk response? I didn't say they are wrong, but that my opinion is that they're wrong. Big difference. And yes, I have looked at such facts as the Early Medieval Warm, the Little Ice Age and the way that CO2 increase in the atmosphere follows a temperature rise, not precedes it. Of course, that's not as sexy as AGW, so I can understand why most people don't bother to check little embarrassing things like that before panicking.
You are aware, aren't you, that the start of the Industrial Revolution roughly coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age? Things started to get warmer long before industry turned from water power to steam.
Reliance on academic authories has its pitfalls of course, but a certain point you need the humility to accept that there is no debate over this particular point among experts.
We're talking about physical science here, not the humanities. Facts are facts, and it doesn't matter how much of a consensus you have if the facts don't support your conclusions. I've looked at the facts and, although I'm no expert on the matter, I'm not convinced. I'm also not convinced that AGW is a bunch of hogwash, but I'm coming closer to that conclusion every day. That doesn't mean that it is any more than your insistence that it's proven means that it's true. It means that to me, the question is still open.
I'm not the least bit surprised. After all, he got elected by exploiting the hate liberals had (and still have) for Bush, and by avoiding any specifics of what kind of change he stood for. To paraphrase Alan Sherman, he was elected by being all things to all people, and if he continues the way he's started, in four years he'll be called all things by all people.
Any place located on any cost has the possibility of hurricanes,
Correction: any place located on the East Coast is subject to hurricanes because they travel from east to west. Yes, there's other weather issues on the West Coast as well as earthquakes in California and your point is well taken. Just wanted to correct the part about hurricanes.
Slashdot Mirror
That's probably because in Oz most people remember enough history to know that they live in a country that used to hang people for stealing one sheep.
We don't disagree here. And yet, it's the people who are pushing AGW who keep on shouting down the opposition, keep chanting that we have a consensus and insisting that consensus = proof.
Good question. AIUI, most of the heat retention is caused by water vapor, not carbon dioxide, so the change as the percentage of CO2 goes up is rather small, and mostly found in cold, dry parts of the world.
Also, I just ran across something that might interest you: large numbers of members of the American Chemical Society are calling to have the editor of their magazine fired after an editorial of his in which he claimed that AGW is "well established." From what I gather, this is not the view of his readership, and they don't like having such facts misrepresented.
Believe as you wish. Your belief or mine mean absolutely nothing to the truth.
How true, how true. Alas, most of the people on your side of the question act as though they think that consensus actually means something in the physical sciences.
It does for them, not me. It also can become a matter of faith that it's true, as it seems to have done in your case. Unlike your friends, I don't pounce on a single data-point and claim that AWG has been debunked. I look at numerous facts that don't fit into the theory and ask people how they explain them. Mostly they don't. Either that, or they deny them. (There are AGW fanatics that claim that the Early Medieval Warm and the Little Ice Age didn't happen, even though there's mounds of evidence that they did.) They keep pointing out how the CO2 level is rising, and ignoring the twin facts that H2O is a far bigger greenhouse gas and CO2 levels follow the temperature, not precede it. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to buy into any theory that requires me to ignore both physical facts and the historic record.
Of course that will never happen. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy explains why: essentially, the main purpose of any bureaucracy is to maintain its own existence, not to do whatever job it was supposedly set up to do.
In modern, democratic, capitalist Russia, digital overlords still welcome you!
Just to mzake sure this thing is as popular as possible, they should make the avatar pink. Yeah, that's it, a pink pony. OMH, PONIES!!1! LOTS AND LOTS OF PINK PONIES11!!!1!11!
Read my post again, carefully, with no blinkers on, and you'll see that I never bashed Microsoft. My point was that people are settling for a version of Windows that's almost as fast as XP when they should be demanding one that's faster. As far as your hardware issues go, you have my sympathy. I know what it's like to be stuck with something sub-par and not being able to afford an upgrade.
Oh, nothing so formal as that! It's more a case of individuals doing what they think is in their own best interests. As there's a lot of money to gain by buying in or lose by going against the current, it's not surprising (to me) that many of them come to the same decision.
And I have mt own theories as to why it hasn't been done yet
Do tell. After all, if there is no bias (as the AGW people claim) a study like that would prove it. You'd think they'd be eager to get evidence of that nature, but as you say, they're not.
The word I'm hearing, here and there, is that a fair number of climatologists don't buy in, but also don't get funding, grants or their papers published in mainstream journals. Some of them were well respected before they decided to go their own way. Alas, I have no cites so you can believe or disbelieve as you wish and I shan't argue the point. There's also the fact that once you find out that it's incredibly easier to get funding if you toe the "party line," it's very tempting to do exactly that regardless of what you believe.
And, just as a reminder, I'm not arguing that the climate isn't changing, because the only thing constant about the Earth's climate is that it's constantly changing. I do, however, refuse to accept the claims that the climate was completely stable for thousands of years, then suddenly started changing in or around 1900 as the hockey puck seemed to claim. In fact, if you take a close look at the graph, it never said that at all. What made it look that way is the fact that the margin of error for each year was also displayed, providing so much fuzz that it looked smooth right up to the point where it started to climb. Thus, claims that the climate used to be stable are based on the misreading of the graph.
Now, add in the fact that not one computer model takes that into account because the math gets too messy to handle and you'll understand why none of them can predict the present. Also, as I've mentioned, CO2 levels follow a temperature rise, not precede it. Last, of course, all that physical evidence of the Early Medieval Warm that took place centuries before the Industrial Revolution. Oh, wait: you're an AGW proponent, aren't you? You don't believe that the EMW took place, even though there's both physical and anecdotal evidence.
I see: they "handle" inconvenient facts by pretending they don't exist. How scientific. And people still believe them? Why?
Exactly: they're not passing peer review. You assume it's poor methodology that's causing it. I find it odd and interesting that it's only the contrarian views that suffer this way. Considering how the AGW crowd is doing its best to force their side of the story down the public's throat (All that "the debate is over; WE WON@" stuff.) I tend to suspect that they're not passing the articles because they don't like what they say.
Which is why I never visit them. I try to get my information undigested, rather than just looking at what somebody else has decided I need to see.
Repeat after me: "Correlation does not equal causation."
Alas, I haven't gotten any of my novels published yet. Two of them are still hanging fire at about 60K words. Not that I can't decide how to finish them but because I just ran out of the eagerness to write. I do, however, have a humor book in print through XLibris, and you'll find a link to it on my site. (Hint, hint, hint...)
I happen to think that there's not really as much of a consensus as is claimed, and that for whatever reason, those who believe in AGW are trying to prevent anybody from seeing the other side. And, as I can't think of any logical reason for disinterested scientists to act that way, it makes me suspect that they're not disinterested, and that they're hoping to profit in some way from their actions. Maybe prestige, maybe tenure, but most probably money in some way. If you disagree, I shan't argue the point, because all I have is an opinion, not proof.
Yes, indeed it was. The subject is very complex, and we're learning more about it every year. One thing that I find amusing, BTW, is how some of the more dedicated AGW evangelists keep insisting that vulcanism isn't a factor, even with all the historical evidence. Wasn't Krakatoa responsible for the Year Without a Summer?
You must be new here. Bush-bashing is considered Insightful and Informative here and mentioning any facts that suggest that he might not be Evil Incarnate are considered Troll and/or Flamebait, even if none of the responses are angry.
*Sigh!* Did you even read all of my post before you hammered out that knee-jerk response? I didn't say they are wrong, but that my opinion is that they're wrong. Big difference. And yes, I have looked at such facts as the Early Medieval Warm, the Little Ice Age and the way that CO2 increase in the atmosphere follows a temperature rise, not precedes it. Of course, that's not as sexy as AGW, so I can understand why most people don't bother to check little embarrassing things like that before panicking.
Is that what religious/political extremists take to make them act the way they do?
You are aware, aren't you, that the start of the Industrial Revolution roughly coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age? Things started to get warmer long before industry turned from water power to steam.
We're talking about physical science here, not the humanities. Facts are facts, and it doesn't matter how much of a consensus you have if the facts don't support your conclusions. I've looked at the facts and, although I'm no expert on the matter, I'm not convinced. I'm also not convinced that AGW is a bunch of hogwash, but I'm coming closer to that conclusion every day. That doesn't mean that it is any more than your insistence that it's proven means that it's true. It means that to me, the question is still open.
I'm not the least bit surprised. After all, he got elected by exploiting the hate liberals had (and still have) for Bush, and by avoiding any specifics of what kind of change he stood for. To paraphrase Alan Sherman, he was elected by being all things to all people, and if he continues the way he's started, in four years he'll be called all things by all people.
Correction: any place located on the East Coast is subject to hurricanes because they travel from east to west. Yes, there's other weather issues on the West Coast as well as earthquakes in California and your point is well taken. Just wanted to correct the part about hurricanes.