• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming Scam

The original quote is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Carl Sagan), and is specificly aimed at claims that overturn, contradict or greatly extend or reinterpret an area of current science.

Which part of AGW do you feel contradicts known science?
 
Ceritus said:
Your claim of AGW is astounding and because of that, it requires astounding evidence.

I would be happy to provide a rebuttal for each reason that persuades you to believe in AGW. Please provide it in a segmented format I.E. step by step so I can get to them in a timely matter when I finish my work.

I don't have enough time to write every single reason AGW is rediculous but I think I can manage to refute each reason you think it is true.
Click to expand...

That's not the way it works, kid. Anthropogenic Global Warming is hardly an "astounding claim". You're the one flouting the conventional wisdom here, so it's incumbent on you to show your evidence to the contrary. Again, put up or shut up.
 
IPCC -- bunch of freaks. I saw them all passing the beer bong and rubbing crystals on their maps before the '01 conference. And the next time I hear one of those cranks blame temperature change on aliens, I swear I'm gonna scream.
 
stocks said:
But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a man who knows nothing at all about modern scientific computation. This criticism is a fabrication, as no climate model is going to gain wide support in the scientific community which cannot reproduce known quantities. In fact, the more ways you find to validate the model, the more it's going to be accepted. That's the gold standard of scientific computation. I know. I've actually worked in the field, and my work was published in Science.
There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.
Click to expand...
Hey, look! It's the old creationist "we can't go back in time and view evolution, so there's no evidence" argument in reverse!

I haven't been this ill about an author whose work I once enjoyed peddling nonsense since Orson Scott Card.
 
Ceritus said:
AGW is about as woo as it gets.
Click to expand...
And so it goes. Another anonymous persona on the internet who somehow has it all figured out contrary to expert scientific opinion yet presenting no supporting evidence.

Ah, but you don't stop there Ceritus. The experts don't merely have it wrong. Since they are "about as woo as it gets", this means the expert scientific community is completely delusional and/or deliberately spreading lies.

Which is it?
 
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/09/26/tech-warming-060926.html

Some evidence show temperatures now are approaching temperatures as they were 12,000 years ago, and water levels could approach as high as they were during the pliocene Epoch (3 million years ago).

Long time skeptic David Attenborough had doubts about human induced global warming and now he has considered the evidence of the possibility of human induced global warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5012266.stm

Some people in this thread claim there is no evidence to suggest we should change our behaviours and attitudes to our consuming of fossil fuels. "no need to carpool if you don't want to"

If science and the evidence for or against "Is there global warming, or is human consumption of fossil fuels contributing to global warming" (he theory is testable) is to be ignored because of how we feel or because it does not agree with what we want or don't want to do, why use science as a tool at all? Are we going to only accept science that agrees with our lifestyle, our wants and feelings, and reject the science that does not support our feelings?
Science: to be applied only when it makes us feel good and secure and if it supports our world view.

Is the GW theory testable? I may have this wrong, and given evidence I will reconsider if GW is a testable, falsifiable theory.

While the melting of ice caps and Glaciers is not proof of an increase in global temperatures, the claim that ice caps and glaciers reducing in mass is measureable, and observable. Ocean salinity and CO2 saturation and rises in acidity (PH level) of the worlds oceans is not proof of an increase of water levels or of CO2 accumlating from the burning or fossil fuels, but the claim that the ocean's acidity is increasing is measureable. The question that remains is do these measureable values relate to an increase in global temperatures. This is a testable claim. I don't think we have found with certainty the smoking gun, but the concensus in the scientific community is these values show there could be a relationship to global warming.

I could be confusing measureable values with factors that could be used to test the theory, but it appears the scientific community is attempting to show a relationship using tools to measure these values.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
And so it goes. Another anonymous persona on the internet who somehow has it all figured out contrary to expert scientific opinion yet presenting no supporting evidence.

Ah, but you don't stop there Ceritus. The experts don't merely have it wrong. Since they are "about as woo as it gets", this means the expert scientific community is completely delusional and/or deliberately spreading lies.

Which is it?
Click to expand...

An overwhelming amount of experts claim that GW is real but AGW is false.

Why should I present the evidence when it is you who is making the claim against the majority of the scientific community?

Post your evidence and I will dispute it using correct/sane evidence.
 
casebro said:
"((t)he theory is testable)"?
Click to expand...

Yes, in much the same way that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is.

While it is possible to do small scale experiments to prove some aspects of both, the true tests are the falsifiable predictions each makes about data that has yet to be collected (Barnett et al. Science, June 2005; Hansen et al. Science, April 2005).
 
Ceritus said:
An overwhelming amount of experts claim that GW is real but AGW is false.

Why should I present the evidence when it is you who is making the claim against the majority of the scientific community?
Click to expand...

Well that in itself is a claim. Where are your figures that the majority of climate scientists reject an anthropogenic cause? A study of meteorological organisations and peer-reviewed journals published in Science, does not agree ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 ).

N.b., that a majority of all scientists do would be no more meaningful than the fact that a majority of Americans believe in miracles.

Post your evidence and I will dispute it using correct/sane evidence.
Click to expand...
There are thousands of pages of papers on global warming. It is impractical to post them all, so I am asking that you narrow it down. You have claimed that AGW is unscientific. What aspect of AGW are you dismissing? What claim of AGW are you saying there is no scientific basis for? If I know what you are disputing, I can present evidence for it.
 
Last edited:
One of the potential problems/complaints with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) issue is how the data is often presented for public consumption. Frequently one will see graphs such as these two,

attachment.php


attachment.php


Clearly the trend line (the white lines in the two graphs) are statistically significant. But is anybody out willing to say that these trends are “real”?


If you answered “No,” then you pass. The problem with first one is that it is genereted via a random walk,


yt = yt-1 + et.

The problem with the second graph is that it was generated by an autoregressive process of order 1 (AR1),


yt = b*yt-1 + et,

where b is greater than zero and less than one in absolute value, and in both equations e is the error term that is normally distributed. In short, the trends are spurious. Further, in both of the specific cases above if one were to extend the data set to N = 1,000 the sign of the coefficient for the trend variable would reverse itself Now, at the same time just because this potential problem exists it does not mean that it is indeed a problem with the data.

This brings us to studies of attribution. That is the study where the causes of global warming are disentangled. How much of global warming is due to man, changes in solar irradiance, etc. These are things that are not discernable from a simple linear trend model. Take for example the second model. The coefficient on the trend variable is .00898. If this were temperature data that might be 100 years worth of temperature data and the coefficient would represent the increase in temperature per year (about 1 degree per century). However, even if this trend is legitimate it might still be the case that the anthropogenic portion of that warming is say 20%, that is about .2 degrees for the last century. This is important because it gets to the heart of the mitigation issue. If the anthropogenic portion is not large then mitigation efforts might do very little and we’d be essentially wasting money.

Further, there are problems with the data that is used for this. The data has a short history. The data has both anthropogenic and natural influences that are not related to global warming (the urban heat island effect for example). There is also paleoclimate reconstructions, but in looking at the IPCC reports on this a limited number of studies are referenced virtually all of these are in some way connected to Mann et. al. 1998 which is the cause for a great deal of controversy.

For all of these reasons, I find the portrayal of global warming via simple linear trends dubious at best and quite possible outright misleading. Having a good understanding of the underlying process is essential to good modelling. Personally, I’m not convinced, based on what I’ve read, that the understanding is all the good. In any event I wish the use of simple linear trends were not used. Granted it makes communicating the results more difficult, but I think it would be more informative.
 

Attachments

  • TrendModel1.gif
    TrendModel1.gif
    12.9 KB · Views: 196
  • TrendModel2.gif
    TrendModel2.gif
    12.9 KB · Views: 194
Vorwache. Seriously though, we are going to go no where with this. You apparently are set in your beliefs and are unwilling to analyze the data.

I honestly suggest that you devote more of your time to a more worthy of a cause. Like finding a cure for cancer or helping the homeless.

Sometimes it all just seems so useless doesn't it?

Until I see solid evidence that AGW is true I will treat it the same way I treat the idea of God.
Its a nice idea and all but it is utterly false in my mind until it is proven correct.

I would find ways to deal with the rising temp though as well as the rising waters. Invest in boat houses perhaps?
 
Last edited:
So, are you retracting your claim that "An overwhelming amount of experts claim that GW is real but AGW is false."?
 
Ceritus said:
One of the potential problems/complaints with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) issue is how the data is often presented for public consumption. Frequently one will see graphs such as these two...

...For all of these reasons, I find the portrayal of global warming via simple linear trends dubious at best and quite possible outright misleading. Having a good understanding of the underlying process is essential to good modelling. Personally, I’m not convinced, based on what I’ve read, that the understanding is all the good. In any event I wish the use of simple linear trends were not used. Granted it makes communicating the results more difficult, but I think it would be more informative.
Click to expand...

Cool, now we have something we can chew on. Nice try, but no kewpie doll for you, unfortunately. Your first claim is that GW is a random walk. Why? Because it looks like one! Yeah, well, I can show you a dog's ass that looks like Jesus. So what? Sorry, but the resemblance is coincidental. The processes of the atmosphere are not a random walk, being subject to predictible forcings and feedbacks. Furthermore, the random walk claim does not explain why so many GCMs closely replicate the observed trends, a fact that you conveniently ignore. And attacking Mann et al will get you nowhere. These findings have been confirmed many times over.

Now, attribution. We know that when forced with realistic amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the models produce the observed trend. We also know that natural sources and sinks cannot account for current observed CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The implication of these two facts is -- drum roll please ---

.........

We are contributing to the warming trend!

I'll agree with you that the question of what to do about it is a thorny one. My personal opinion is that it's probably too late to do anything, and adaptation is our only realistic strategy. But it's important to give credit where credit is due. Other reasonable people will probably disagree.

In closing I'd like to suggest some outside reading for you, Ceritus. A good start is How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie. Your attitude isn't doing your case any good at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom