How's that saying go, past performance is no guarantee of future results. The Andes used to be under water for thousands of years; the continents used to all be one big land mass. If we lived back then I'm sure we'd be hearing about Anthropogenic Tectonic Drift.
AGW is not purely the result of environmental alarmism. There is an actual scientific argument which is ignored in the public discourse, as people like you impugn the motives of others. (Since that is far easier then actually going after the science.)
NOBODY has made a sound scientific argument that the AGW science is wrong. So go ahead, keep calling the scientists alarmists. Afterall, the must know nothing about climate at all.
But then what would he know? He's only the chair of a climatology department...
Haha, you would believe anything you read/heard, so long as it means that there is no AGW! Ah yes, I smell a mirror image projection coming from you write now as you read these very words.
It only strengthens the case that warming is unnatural, because the rates of ice-decrease in the arctic is way outstripping model projections based on AGW.
This is a clear case of people conveniently misinterpreting the context of what is being said.
Nah, all the scientists are just wrong. There is no such thing as an environmental problem, and we don't want socialists increasing the size of government under that pretext. So the scientists are obviously wrong. Any warming is obviously natural. Move along. There is nothing to see here.
Who is having kittens over phony reduction of Greenland ice-sheet? What on earth are you talking about? Surely not an atlas that used the wrong map by mistake?
The AGW argument doesn't fit into a single factoid. We know the climate change is man-made as follows:
CO2 has increased since the industrial revolution.
We know the CO2 is man-made by two independent methods. Firstly, we can account for it by recording the amount of coal/oil that has been burnt. Secondly, coal/oil has a different mixture of carbon isotopes, and these particular isotopes are accumulating in the atmosphere.
We know CO2 is a green-house gas
We have detailed models for how much forcing CO2 causes. These models make predictions which have been confirmed. (e.g.: go look at what models in the first IPCC report said about temperatures in 2011.)
We know that the sun hasn't changed solar output, and that there are no systematic changes in cosmic rays, etc. There is no way to account for modern warming/without/ including CO2
AGW opponents will make any argument of convenience, but the case is straight-forward, and there was a scientific consensus on the basic details in 1979, according to an independent NAS report of that year.
Climate scientists have made *conservative* estimates of CO2 forcing and temperature predictions. The models did not predict the rapid decline of arctic ice, because they were so *conservative*. We could be in for much worse warming than what the IPCC reports say. But real scientists doing the work want to be careful about provided unbiased and factual evidence based science -- and so eschew anything that could be interpreted as hyperbole.
That is the reason why these melting icesheets give no evidence for man-made or natural climate change. The AGW argument isn't written in them. It is, after-all, a global phenomenon.
Oh yes, and all those scientists are suffering from the confirmation bias, but the *real* scientists (who are out-numbered by intelligent designers) know the truth. Namely: that there can never be such a thing as an environmental issue, because we already know that people who think of these things are just crazy.
Less sarcastically... Irrelevant to what a persons opinion is on global warming, the fact that a paper was written 150 years ago does not mean people have their heads in the sand
The fact that the science has a 150 year history does. The rough conclusions were correct 100 years ago -- 4-5C warming for a doubling of CO2.
But no! Anything but accept that there might be such a thing as an environmental issue! Those guys are socialist nutcases!!!!
What a fucking loser. And you guys worship this clown.. such sad little people.
"Al Gore, the super-rich conniving businessman, selling a lie to make an even hugerest stack-a-cash! I heard he bought a beach-front house! He doesn't even believe in global warming! Oh that villain! Listen to me! I know what I'm talking about!!!!"
Yeah... that's what I think when people like you start talking about Al Gore.
"Look your Honour, we know he is a bad man, he sent these angry emails to his friends."
There as been numerous independent inquiries into this matter, and Phil Jones has been cleared in all cases. Guess *everybody* is in on the conspiracy, and only Steve McIntyre knows the "truth"
I wonder how easy it would be to assassinate your character by trolling through your emails. All we have to do is snip a sentence here and there, and then impugn your motives, and then the angry mob will take care of the rest.
You really gotta avoid information to hold on to opinions like yours.
That CO2 is plant-food, and a great thing, and there is so little of it that it can have little impact if any... that is just one of my denier canards.
As a non-teabagger, I think this is totally unfair and stupid, and spineless. Rick Perry might have blind-spots, but name one person on this world who doesn't. He deserves some respect for his stand on racism, and also for speaking his mind on social security, even if you don't agree with him. There is some authenticity and guts there that the AC just doesn't have, and doesn't get.
The typical climate denier is like the 9/11 conspiracy theorist -- a mind that is never still, prone to hyperbole, and always clutching at straws. Kinda like what the AC just did.
I had a math teach who couldn't pronounce the word "X" after he had a stroke. We all hated him because he was so boring to listen to -- he had lost a lot of his speech. Reflecting back, we all acted like spoilt arrogant asses. The guy was doing his best, and we certainly didn't try. Apparently he was a math genius, and we weren't interested in math.
At some stage, children have to learn to drop their sense of entitlement in order to become adults.
It does not mean that CEOs are by and large psychopaths.
Look up the psych-literature on the topic. Rate of psychopathy in CEO boardrooms is the same as that in prison -- roughly 25% of these sub-populations (for men).
There is also extensive literature on ethics in the business world. A mixed bag.
Yes, I am implying that there are employed, funded scientists. One of them is even reputable.
Let's see how this works... if there were no such scientists, then AGW is false because of some conspiracy.
But if there is just one such scientist, then AGW is false, because at least one person who studies the issues disagrees with the consensus of many thousands of scientists.
Scientists obsess about error bars and make very conservative estimates. If a scientist says that doubling the CO2 will bring at least a 2C temperature change world-wide, then there is almost no chance that the figure is less then that, but it really could be much higher.
People like you live in a black and white world where this is no such thing as an error bar. Scientists are just wrong, and they don't even understand the scientific method, except a select few crusaders who know what error bars are, but often don't use them.
There is no uncertainty in your position, which exposes you for what you are -- in denial.
If someone had a line of evidence that essentially concluded "burn all the coal you want", then politicians and oil conglomerates world-wide would be jumping over each other to give that scientist money.
Any climate scientist who wants to put bread on the table merely needs to buck the consensus with some vacuous argument, and get a hand-out from Exxon-Mobile via one of their shells, such as the Heartland or Marshall Institute.
There is so much evidence for this type of political manipulation in the debate; however, evidence of being wrong is too confronting for typical people.
Good luck ever working in your field again if you dissent.
If I gave you the names of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on AGW, and are nonetheless employed at universities and are well funded -- then would that change your mind on the conspiracy theory?
Nah... wouldn't make a snot of difference, would it.
This isn't even true; global temperatures haven't risen since 1998.
Ocean cycles were responsible for the record temperatures in 1998.
So... take a single outlier, run your data from the present to that outlier, and claim that temperatures haven't risen.
What about the decade averages? Mmm?? Doesn't support your talking point? Your argument would be dishonest; however, that implies that you actually understand the issues.
Slashdot Mirror
How's that saying go, past performance is no guarantee of future results. The Andes used to be under water for thousands of years; the continents used to all be one big land mass. If we lived back then I'm sure we'd be hearing about Anthropogenic Tectonic Drift.
AGW is not purely the result of environmental alarmism. There is an actual scientific argument which is ignored in the public discourse, as people like you impugn the motives of others. (Since that is far easier then actually going after the science.)
NOBODY has made a sound scientific argument that the AGW science is wrong. So go ahead, keep calling the scientists alarmists. Afterall, the must know nothing about climate at all.
But then what would he know? He's only the chair of a climatology department...
Haha, you would believe anything you read/heard, so long as it means that there is no AGW! Ah yes, I smell a mirror image projection coming from you write now as you read these very words.
It only strengthens the case that warming is unnatural, because the rates of ice-decrease in the arctic is way outstripping model projections based on AGW.
This is a clear case of people conveniently misinterpreting the context of what is being said.
Nah, all the scientists are just wrong. There is no such thing as an environmental problem, and we don't want socialists increasing the size of government under that pretext. So the scientists are obviously wrong. Any warming is obviously natural. Move along. There is nothing to see here.
Who is having kittens over phony reduction of Greenland ice-sheet? What on earth are you talking about? Surely not an atlas that used the wrong map by mistake?
AGW opponents will make any argument of convenience, but the case is straight-forward, and there was a scientific consensus on the basic details in 1979, according to an independent NAS report of that year.
Climate scientists have made *conservative* estimates of CO2 forcing and temperature predictions. The models did not predict the rapid decline of arctic ice, because they were so *conservative*. We could be in for much worse warming than what the IPCC reports say. But real scientists doing the work want to be careful about provided unbiased and factual evidence based science -- and so eschew anything that could be interpreted as hyperbole.
That is the reason why these melting icesheets give no evidence for man-made or natural climate change. The AGW argument isn't written in them. It is, after-all, a global phenomenon.
Oh yes, and all those scientists are suffering from the confirmation bias, but the *real* scientists (who are out-numbered by intelligent designers) know the truth. Namely: that there can never be such a thing as an environmental issue, because we already know that people who think of these things are just crazy.
Less sarcastically... Irrelevant to what a persons opinion is on global warming, the fact that a paper was written 150 years ago does not mean people have their heads in the sand
The fact that the science has a 150 year history does. The rough conclusions were correct 100 years ago -- 4-5C warming for a doubling of CO2.
But no! Anything but accept that there might be such a thing as an environmental issue! Those guys are socialist nutcases!!!!
What a fucking loser. And you guys worship this clown.. such sad little people.
"Al Gore, the super-rich conniving businessman, selling a lie to make an even hugerest stack-a-cash! I heard he bought a beach-front house! He doesn't even believe in global warming! Oh that villain! Listen to me! I know what I'm talking about!!!!"
Yeah... that's what I think when people like you start talking about Al Gore.
"Look your Honour, we know he is a bad man, he sent these angry emails to his friends."
There as been numerous independent inquiries into this matter, and Phil Jones has been cleared in all cases. Guess *everybody* is in on the conspiracy, and only Steve McIntyre knows the "truth"
I wonder how easy it would be to assassinate your character by trolling through your emails. All we have to do is snip a sentence here and there, and then impugn your motives, and then the angry mob will take care of the rest.
You really gotta avoid information to hold on to opinions like yours.
That CO2 is plant-food, and a great thing, and there is so little of it that it can have little impact if any... that is just one of my denier canards.
Yours in Christ,
Rick Perry
As a non-teabagger, I think this is totally unfair and stupid, and spineless. Rick Perry might have blind-spots, but name one person on this world who doesn't. He deserves some respect for his stand on racism, and also for speaking his mind on social security, even if you don't agree with him. There is some authenticity and guts there that the AC just doesn't have, and doesn't get.
The typical climate denier is like the 9/11 conspiracy theorist -- a mind that is never still, prone to hyperbole, and always clutching at straws. Kinda like what the AC just did.
No sane person decides that cold-blooded mass murder
And only Germans would commit the holocaust.
DON'T FOOL YOURSELF
I had a math teach who couldn't pronounce the word "X" after he had a stroke. We all hated him because he was so boring to listen to -- he had lost a lot of his speech. Reflecting back, we all acted like spoilt arrogant asses. The guy was doing his best, and we certainly didn't try. Apparently he was a math genius, and we weren't interested in math.
At some stage, children have to learn to drop their sense of entitlement in order to become adults.
in the US its a civil rights issue
The many faces of racism.
It does not mean that CEOs are by and large psychopaths.
Look up the psych-literature on the topic. Rate of psychopathy in CEO boardrooms is the same as that in prison -- roughly 25% of these sub-populations (for men).
There is also extensive literature on ethics in the business world. A mixed bag.
Companies are sitting on gi-normous piles of cash.
So we need to cut the taxes so that they will start hiring again! Really!!! Anything else will doom America!!!!!
It's all going to shit!
And the cost of litigation is tabulated into the GDP. America is getting richer!
They lost their reputation in the standard way -- by being idiots.
Yes, I am implying that there are employed, funded scientists. One of them is even reputable.
Let's see how this works... if there were no such scientists, then AGW is false because of some conspiracy.
But if there is just one such scientist, then AGW is false, because at least one person who studies the issues disagrees with the consensus of many thousands of scientists.
Have I got that correct?
Are you ready to know who these scientists are?
Yep, all the climate scientists are biased. It is true.
/anything/ to know that you know better.
Therefore, you don't need to know
Good for you.
Scientists obsess about error bars and make very conservative estimates. If a scientist says that doubling the CO2 will bring at least a 2C temperature change world-wide, then there is almost no chance that the figure is less then that, but it really could be much higher.
People like you live in a black and white world where this is no such thing as an error bar. Scientists are just wrong, and they don't even understand the scientific method, except a select few crusaders who know what error bars are, but often don't use them.
There is no uncertainty in your position, which exposes you for what you are -- in denial.
If someone had a line of evidence that essentially concluded "burn all the coal you want", then politicians and oil conglomerates world-wide would be jumping over each other to give that scientist money.
Any climate scientist who wants to put bread on the table merely needs to buck the consensus with some vacuous argument, and get a hand-out from Exxon-Mobile via one of their shells, such as the Heartland or Marshall Institute.
There is so much evidence for this type of political manipulation in the debate; however, evidence of being wrong is too confronting for typical people.
Good luck ever working in your field again if you dissent.
If I gave you the names of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on AGW, and are nonetheless employed at universities and are well funded -- then would that change your mind on the conspiracy theory?
Nah... wouldn't make a snot of difference, would it.
This isn't even true; global temperatures haven't risen since 1998.
Ocean cycles were responsible for the record temperatures in 1998.
So... take a single outlier, run your data from the present to that outlier, and claim that temperatures haven't risen.
What about the decade averages? Mmm?? Doesn't support your talking point? Your argument would be dishonest; however, that implies that you actually understand the issues.
Here is a short video on the subject.