Global Warming Scam

[Floyd]

Hi Kids.
I'm back from weeks of extensive research on the net, including those reports posted here. For the life of me I couldn't find ONE scientific report showing compelling evidence of anthropogenic global warming. All the scientists promoting this idea based their conclusions on computer models and assumptions, not observed data.

Can anyone show me a scientific study linking temperature rise with human activity that is not conjecture?

Please?

 

[casebro]

Hi Kids.
I'm back from weeks of extensive research on the net, including those reports posted here. For the life of me I couldn't find ONE scientific report showing compelling evidence of anthropogenic global warming. All the scientists promoting this idea based their conclusions on computer models and assumptions, not observed data.

Can anyone show me a scientific study linking temperature rise with human activity that is not conjecture?

Please?

Ditto

 

[Cuddles]

Hi Kids.
I'm back from weeks of extensive research on the net, including those reports posted here. For the life of me I couldn't find ONE scientific report showing compelling evidence of anthropogenic global warming. All the scientists promoting this idea based their conclusions on computer models and assumptions, not observed data.

Can anyone show me a scientific study linking temperature rise with human activity that is not conjecture?

Please?

On a more serious note, where do you think the models come from? Yep, observed data.

 

[Diamond]

As usual, the real story is more complicated than the Deniers would want you to believe:

Re: Deniers

Roger Pielke Jr, 9 October 2006
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000952on_language.html

Let's be blunt. The phrase "climate change denier" is meant to be evocative of the phrase "holocaust denier". As such the phrase conjurs up a symbolic allusion fully intended to equate questioning of climate change with questioning of the Holocaust.

Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. Let those who would make such an allusion instead be absolutely explicit about their assertion of moral equivalency between Holocaust deniers and those that they criticize.

This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system.

Let's declare a moratorium on the phrases "climate change denier" and "climate change denial." Let's invoke the equivalent of Godwin's Law in discourse on climate policy. Maybe call it the Prometheus Principle.

No more invocation of "climate change deniers."

Besides which, other that the appalling lack of respect for the dead of the Holocaust, I know of no skeptics that have ever claimed that climate change is not happening, has not happened in the past, will not happen in the future. It's a smear and somewhat amazingly, it's propagated on the JREF Forum by some as if it was a received truth from the Almighty.

 

[Diamond]

[qimg]http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg[/qimg]

On a more serious note, where do you think the models come from? Yep, observed data.

But not just observed data (even if that data were pristine), and there's the catch.

Curiously enough, Jacques Benveniste made the same claim that the conclusions followed solely from the observed data. It was just as invalid.

 

[Piggy]

All the scientists promoting this idea based their conclusions on computer models and assumptions, not observed data.

Can anyone show me a scientific study linking temperature rise with human activity that is not conjecture?

I'm not sure what you're asking for.

You're asking for evidence which does not involve any extrapolation from the data?

Do you mean something like, say, tracking emitted particles and observing their reactions in the atmostphere and directly measuring the resulting changes in temperature?

 

[Calcas]

Michael Creighton's novel "State of Fear" covers this topic in an interesting and entertaining way. Granted, it's a novel but a number of issues are raised. At the end of the book he notes a number of facts and trends, but the main one is along the lines that any Global Warming is insignificant.

Climate changes are cyclical. The have been occuring for literally millions of years. Humans and their florocarbons, etc have ZERO impact on Climate.

Weather isn't the same as climate.

Again, there is nothing we can do to influence climate. And climate changes happen over a very long period of time.

 

[Buckaroo]

Hi Kids.
I'm back from weeks of extensive research on the net, including those reports posted here. For the life of me I couldn't find ONE scientific report showing compelling evidence of anthropogenic global warming. All the scientists promoting this idea based their conclusions on computer models and assumptions, not observed data.

Can anyone show me a scientific study linking temperature rise with human activity that is not conjecture?

Please?

It's pretty clear from this post that your mind is made up, and that you are immune to presentations of the actual scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming. I don't see any point in beating my head against this brick wall any longer.

Re: Deniers



Besides which, other that the appalling lack of respect for the dead of the Holocaust, I know of no skeptics that have ever claimed that climate change is not happening, has not happened in the past, will not happen in the future. It's a smear and somewhat amazingly, it's propagated on the JREF Forum by some as if it was a received truth from the Almighty.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your OPINION, man.*

*Apologies to Jeff Lebowski

 

[Buckaroo]

Michael Creighton's novel "State of Fear" covers this topic in an interesting and entertaining way. Granted, it's a novel but a number of issues are raised. At the end of the book he notes a number of facts and trends, but the main one is along the lines that any Global Warming is insignificant.

Climate changes are cyclical. The have been occuring for literally millions of years. Humans and their florocarbons, etc have ZERO impact on Climate.

Weather isn't the same as climate.

Again, there is nothing we can do to influence climate. And climate changes happen over a very long period of time.

Sorry, but that novel is complete bulls**t. No nicer way to say it. Zero credibility. I think it's telling that the best the deniers could do when they spoke before congress recently was trot out a fiction writer.

I think you should do a little more reading on the subject before you make such sweeping pronouncements. What you say here simply isn't true.

 

[Dr Richard]

can you tell me if junkscience.com is a credible source

Welcome back after your weeks of extensive research, Floyd, To return to your original question, after reading the links and reports posted here, do YOU think junkscience.com is now a credible source?

 

[Piggy]

Michael Creighton's novel "State of Fear" covers this topic in an interesting and entertaining way. Granted, it's a novel but a number of issues are raised. At the end of the book he notes a number of facts and trends, but the main one is along the lines that any Global Warming is insignificant.

Climate changes are cyclical. The have been occuring for literally millions of years. Humans and their florocarbons, etc have ZERO impact on Climate.

Weather isn't the same as climate.

Again, there is nothing we can do to influence climate. And climate changes happen over a very long period of time.

So you're willing to ignore an unprecedented level of human activity involving massive deforestation, water diversion, and release of CO2, and instead to defer to general assertions about "nothing we can do" and "very long period of time" served up by a novelist.

 

[delphi_ote]

Granted, it's a novel...

Right. A fictional novel.

 

[a_unique_person]

Michael Creighton's novel "State of Fear" covers this topic in an interesting and entertaining way. Granted, it's a novel but a number of issues are raised. At the end of the book he notes a number of facts and trends, but the main one is along the lines that any Global Warming is insignificant.

Climate changes are cyclical. The have been occuring for literally millions of years. Humans and their florocarbons, etc have ZERO impact on Climate.

Weather isn't the same as climate.

Again, there is nothing we can do to influence climate. And climate changes happen over a very long period of time.

The two credible scientific authorities who are AGW skeptics, Lindzen, and the other guy whose name I can't recall at this moment, both say it is real, but won't cause any disasters, and the temperature rise won't be that large. They basically agree with the science behind AGW, but just disagree on the magnitude.

The claim of ZERO is a big one, that even these guys don't buy.

 

[Floyd]

On a more serious note, where do you think the models come from? Yep, observed data.[/quote]

The "pirates vs climate change graph comes from observed data too.

I'm not sure what you're asking for.

You're asking for evidence which does not involve any extrapolation from the data?

I'm asking for evidence of cause and effect.

Do you mean something like, say, tracking emitted particles and observing their reactions in the atmostphere and directly measuring the resulting changes in temperature?

No.

It's pretty clear from this post that your mind is made up, and that you are immune to presentations of the actual scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming. I don't see any point in beating my head against this brick wall any longer.

I haven't made up my mind yet. Just waiting for the evidence.

Welcome back after your weeks of extensive research, Floyd, To return to your original question, after reading the links and reports posted here, do YOU think junkscience.com is now a credible source?

Sort of (is that a cop-out?) I think the CATO Intstitute is credible, but that may just be my Libertarian views coming through.

Still waiting for that study...

 

[Floyd]

Looks like I haven't got the hang of quotes in replies yet. Sorry.

 

[Piggy]

No.

That doesn't really help, Floyd.

What is it you want?

I seriously don't understand what kind of study would qualify -- or even could qualify theoretically -- as "evidence of cause and effect" based on what you posted.

Can you help me out, here?

 

[DeviousB]

Floyd, how about we break Global Warming down into a series of claims. Then we can discuss what particularly you are disputing.

1. Earth's atmosphere exhibits the so-called 'greenhouse effect'.

2. The greenhouse effect warms the Earth's climate.

3. This warming is dependent upon the amount of 'greenhouse gasses' in the atmosphere.

4. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

5. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes a significant contribution to the level of the greenhouse effect.

6. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.

7. The increase in carbon dioxide is anthropogenic in origin.

8. The Earth's climate is warming.

A simple true/false should suffice.

(And sorry if I keep going quiet, my bosses will insist that their problems are somehow more important than JREF!)

 

[casebro]

5b) CO2 is .000071% (from memory, with exageration) of the green house gas. Water vapor is the most important GH gas.

c) The amount of CO2 goes up with the temperature. As well as the amount of water vapor.

d) Which came first, the higher temp, or the higher amount of green house gasses?


Proof of #7 has not been shown, except in 'models'

9) "Models" means "possible concepts" , not "fact"

 

[Deathshead]

Right. A fictional novel.

Wow.... that is profound. A fictional novel. Nice work.

 

[casebro]

Did anybody else see the TV show about the Wooly Mammoth in the Siberian Tundra?

Seems that 20,000 years ago, the mammoth sunk in the tundra. Since that would be hard to do in frozen tundra, I deduce that 20,000 years ago, the tundra was warmer than it is now. In fact, it was melted. Just like the AGW estimates predict is happening again.

I don't know what Mammoths ate. But it was a bunch. Not much grows there now. But perhaps if was warmer there now, like it was then, we would still have enough growth above the arctic circle to support mammoths?