No, they don't. You can have all the data, models, and research in the world, but it is all meaningless if questions are not allowed.
Might as well have data, models, and do research on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
For something to qualify as anything more than a hypothesis, it must stand up to scrutiny. Newtons laws of motion did it. Evolution did it. Now climate science has to do it.
I think the real problem here is that AGW is an economic argument presented as a scientific one. I think we all know the problem with economics.
Also, note that cap and trade is a fascist solution, not a libertarian one. There is no libertarian solution to this problem, because the problem is etherial if not non-existent, and the causes even more so. What libertarianism WOULD do is allow for the accumulation of enough capital that the problem can be fixed if or when it materializes, whether that is by geoengineering, abandoning the planet, or some other solution.
Uhh, the United States was a libertarian society from the end of reconstruction until the founding of the Federal Reserve, and was quasi-libertarian for two decades after that, and libertarian leaning centrist until 1971. What happened to the US during that time period, pray tell?
Of course, any time any other system is implemented and inevitably fails, it is always blamed on "imperfect implementation", yet with libertarian policy, a near miss is as good as a hit.
And, of course, you prove yourself stupid by making the idiotic claim that corporations would benefit from a libertarian society. If that was the case, then why don't corporations want libertarian policies implemented!? Why do they continuously support fascist aka CORPORATIST policies?
Further, the Heartland Institute is a right-fascist organization, which is very close to the opposite of libertarian.
And just how many people do you think will die or be displaced due to the loss of their freedoms?
And do you really think that the government will subject itself to the same regulations?
And even if they did, do you really think that they would work as advertised?
That's a lot of logical leaps for which you are willing to give away OTHER PEOPLE'S freedoms (apparently not your own).
And that doesn't even brush the subject of what will happen to prices for the basic necessities of life under this repressive regime of yours. Or do you think that the lower half lives off of sunshine and grass?
The Flat Earth Society doesn't do research. Climatologists can and would if there were money there. But PIs aren't going to screw over their students and ruin their careers by pursuing such lines of research.
There are legitimate questions to ask regarding AGW. But questioning is not allowed in that field. Something that any scientist should abhor.
Can you prove that a given candidate for a job was rejected because he was black?
This is about prejudice, and isn't falsifiable outside of an audit. And an audit SHOULD be performed. But it won't, because everyone involved knows the whole system is rotten from top to bottom. Everyone involved knows that there are some things you don't do on a grant application. Questioning AGW is one of them. God help you if you publish a paper questioning AGW.
How exactly was it "proven false"? They massaged the numbers to hide temperature declines. They have models that output hockey-stick graphs regardless of the inputs.
We can manipulate that information the same way that they will, and allow the same people that would otherwise compromise that information to compromise HIS information, stealing his identity, etc etc.
These idiots seem to think that a panopticon prevents crime, rather than allowing criminals access to all the information they want or need to do their dirty work and blame someone else.
Everyone involved in this fiasco should resign immediately if not prosecuted. This is insanity. If this poor man is murdered for this, then I want to see Khoo Boon Hui and Ronald Noble's heads on pikes.
And what would the nights be like in the mean time?
Pay attention, dipshit. Temperature sets the UPPER BOUNDARY for the amount of water in the atmosphere. NOT the lower one. The lower one is ZERO. You CAN take water out of the atmosphere, AND you can refrain from pumping more in. That is the POINT. This isn't rocket science. This the global warming theory based on a shorter time scale.
Note that your atmospheric scientist didn't even bother to address what "normal" is, nor did he seem to care much about regional variability, nor did he think about how some places would get back to "normal" faster than others due to *GASP* massive heat sources with water pouring over them (like power plants), or combusting fuel.
Christ, do you people ever think a single instant beyond the five seconds it takes to come up with a bullshit counterargument?
It's like trying to describe the concept of a "desert" to some tribal rube from the rainforest. You apparently can't comprehend the difference between "natural" water vapor in the atmosphere, and "natural + artificial" water in the atmosphere. You've never seen an atmosphere that wasn't 100% saturated with water, therefore there can be no such thing, in your eyes.
God, send me opponents with functioning brains, PLEASE.
Nice, the old "You're wrong, I'm right" argument. This is exactly the level of argument I have come to expect from AGW people.
WATER IS A GREENHOUSE GAS, YOU CRETIN. It is a much stronger GHG than CO2. Look it up. It's not hard.
It would self correct quickly IF it was fixed, which it hasn't been. Christ almighty, why can't they pay attention? Water is CONTINUOUSLY pumped into the atmosphere! It's not going to stop unless WE stop it.
Also, nice job on asserting that the amount of water "doesn't register", which is ludicrous given the fact that water vapor is an order of magnitude more efficient at trapping heat compared to CO2, and the fact that we output at least 4x as much. Not to mention that you can't effectively "scrub CO2" coming out of car exhausts or even that emanating from power plants and factories. It costs energy. Refluxing is as simple as adding a bend in the exhaust with a little drain.
Next you'll be telling me that we can't remove water from the atmosphere because it just goes right back in, ignoring the fact that the atmosphere isn't always saturated with water (yes, I actually had one of your children try to tell me this not long ago).
Even if you scrubbed 100% of the CO2, the damage has already been done, according to your own people. You would have to resort to extremely expensive remediation, which just plain isn't going to happen. But hey, you feel free to keep pounding the "destroy industrialized society" war drum. Don't bother to think about what life will be like if you people get your way.
Pardon? What, exactly, sounds "like I am pulling it out of my ass"?
That water vapor is a far greater greenhouse gas than CO2? That is basic science. That glaciers at high elevations far from water are melting slower than those at lower elevations that are closer to water? That's from the article. That reflux condensers would reduce the emission of water vapor? That is high school level science.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you need me to give you a link telling you why the sky is blue too?
Slashdot Mirror
Those two groups tend to release real information without doctoring. These unknown groups with no track record, who knows?
I heard about a bunch of glaciers that hadn't disappeared not three days ago. What's up with that?
Also, what's up with taking pictures of dead polar bears at sea and claiming they drowned without bringing any in for autopsy? That's kind of weird.
Please compare the money pouring into both sides before you draw conclusions like that.
AGW receives orders of magnitude more money.
97% of chiropractors agree that cracking your bones is important to health.
You do realize that you employed absolutely nothing but ad hominem in your post, right?
Who are we not supposed to take seriously again?
No, they don't. You can have all the data, models, and research in the world, but it is all meaningless if questions are not allowed.
Might as well have data, models, and do research on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
For something to qualify as anything more than a hypothesis, it must stand up to scrutiny. Newtons laws of motion did it. Evolution did it. Now climate science has to do it.
I think the real problem here is that AGW is an economic argument presented as a scientific one. I think we all know the problem with economics.
Looks at Democrats.
Looks at Republicans.
Who are the fools being lead by sociopaths again?
Also, note that cap and trade is a fascist solution, not a libertarian one. There is no libertarian solution to this problem, because the problem is etherial if not non-existent, and the causes even more so. What libertarianism WOULD do is allow for the accumulation of enough capital that the problem can be fixed if or when it materializes, whether that is by geoengineering, abandoning the planet, or some other solution.
Uhh, the United States was a libertarian society from the end of reconstruction until the founding of the Federal Reserve, and was quasi-libertarian for two decades after that, and libertarian leaning centrist until 1971. What happened to the US during that time period, pray tell?
Of course, any time any other system is implemented and inevitably fails, it is always blamed on "imperfect implementation", yet with libertarian policy, a near miss is as good as a hit.
And, of course, you prove yourself stupid by making the idiotic claim that corporations would benefit from a libertarian society. If that was the case, then why don't corporations want libertarian policies implemented!? Why do they continuously support fascist aka CORPORATIST policies?
Further, the Heartland Institute is a right-fascist organization, which is very close to the opposite of libertarian.
And just how many people do you think will die or be displaced due to the loss of their freedoms?
And do you really think that the government will subject itself to the same regulations?
And even if they did, do you really think that they would work as advertised?
That's a lot of logical leaps for which you are willing to give away OTHER PEOPLE'S freedoms (apparently not your own).
And that doesn't even brush the subject of what will happen to prices for the basic necessities of life under this repressive regime of yours. Or do you think that the lower half lives off of sunshine and grass?
The Flat Earth Society doesn't do research. Climatologists can and would if there were money there. But PIs aren't going to screw over their students and ruin their careers by pursuing such lines of research.
There are legitimate questions to ask regarding AGW. But questioning is not allowed in that field. Something that any scientist should abhor.
Can you prove that a given candidate for a job was rejected because he was black?
This is about prejudice, and isn't falsifiable outside of an audit. And an audit SHOULD be performed. But it won't, because everyone involved knows the whole system is rotten from top to bottom. Everyone involved knows that there are some things you don't do on a grant application. Questioning AGW is one of them. God help you if you publish a paper questioning AGW.
How many millions in grant funding are given to climate scientists? How much is given to climate scientists who question global warming?
That is a great way to manufacture consent, especially in a tiny, tight knit field like that.
Stop waving your hands and produce them, then.
Give me the source code and raw, unadjusted measurement data so I can replicate these results.
But those aren't available (to my knowledge). One must wonder why.
How exactly was it "proven false"? They massaged the numbers to hide temperature declines. They have models that output hockey-stick graphs regardless of the inputs.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/
I don't like people who massage numbers and call it science.
So we shouldn't seek justice for people who are murdered?
Fuck you, coward.
I doubt you have to go that far.
There was a poem written for people like you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6
And the incidence of narcissism among politicians?
Let me help you: ~100%
We can manipulate that information the same way that they will, and allow the same people that would otherwise compromise that information to compromise HIS information, stealing his identity, etc etc.
These idiots seem to think that a panopticon prevents crime, rather than allowing criminals access to all the information they want or need to do their dirty work and blame someone else.
Right, people in places of power should not be held accountable for their actions. And you wonder why every year the world become less and less free.
Everyone involved in this fiasco should resign immediately if not prosecuted. This is insanity. If this poor man is murdered for this, then I want to see Khoo Boon Hui and Ronald Noble's heads on pikes.
And what would the nights be like in the mean time?
Pay attention, dipshit. Temperature sets the UPPER BOUNDARY for the amount of water in the atmosphere. NOT the lower one. The lower one is ZERO. You CAN take water out of the atmosphere, AND you can refrain from pumping more in. That is the POINT. This isn't rocket science. This the global warming theory based on a shorter time scale.
Note that your atmospheric scientist didn't even bother to address what "normal" is, nor did he seem to care much about regional variability, nor did he think about how some places would get back to "normal" faster than others due to *GASP* massive heat sources with water pouring over them (like power plants), or combusting fuel.
Christ, do you people ever think a single instant beyond the five seconds it takes to come up with a bullshit counterargument?
It's like trying to describe the concept of a "desert" to some tribal rube from the rainforest. You apparently can't comprehend the difference between "natural" water vapor in the atmosphere, and "natural + artificial" water in the atmosphere. You've never seen an atmosphere that wasn't 100% saturated with water, therefore there can be no such thing, in your eyes.
God, send me opponents with functioning brains, PLEASE.
Nice, the old "You're wrong, I'm right" argument. This is exactly the level of argument I have come to expect from AGW people.
WATER IS A GREENHOUSE GAS, YOU CRETIN. It is a much stronger GHG than CO2. Look it up. It's not hard. It would self correct quickly IF it was fixed, which it hasn't been. Christ almighty, why can't they pay attention? Water is CONTINUOUSLY pumped into the atmosphere! It's not going to stop unless WE stop it.
Also, nice job on asserting that the amount of water "doesn't register", which is ludicrous given the fact that water vapor is an order of magnitude more efficient at trapping heat compared to CO2, and the fact that we output at least 4x as much. Not to mention that you can't effectively "scrub CO2" coming out of car exhausts or even that emanating from power plants and factories. It costs energy. Refluxing is as simple as adding a bend in the exhaust with a little drain.
Next you'll be telling me that we can't remove water from the atmosphere because it just goes right back in, ignoring the fact that the atmosphere isn't always saturated with water (yes, I actually had one of your children try to tell me this not long ago).
Even if you scrubbed 100% of the CO2, the damage has already been done, according to your own people. You would have to resort to extremely expensive remediation, which just plain isn't going to happen. But hey, you feel free to keep pounding the "destroy industrialized society" war drum. Don't bother to think about what life will be like if you people get your way.
Pardon? What, exactly, sounds "like I am pulling it out of my ass"?
That water vapor is a far greater greenhouse gas than CO2? That is basic science. That glaciers at high elevations far from water are melting slower than those at lower elevations that are closer to water? That's from the article. That reflux condensers would reduce the emission of water vapor? That is high school level science.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you need me to give you a link telling you why the sky is blue too?
Think about why human cities are heat islands then get back to me.