Which side is lieing?

[Claudius Denk]

Question:
Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?

Answer:
Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.

[Tunderbar]

The side with the science will demand a grand public debate, while the
ones doing the lying will do everything they can to avoid a public
debate.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?

[Tunderbar]

On May 10, 1:03 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

Well... there was a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist,
and the science won that one. So the original point is still valid.

[Chom Noamsky]

I just assume both sides are lying until one side makes a convincing case.

[emoneyjoe]

Chemists don't debate, they just fume,
and say "liar".

[JohnM]

Actually, the creationists say they won. Which shows the futility of
holding a debate of scientists vs. denialists and expecting the result
to be universally accepted.

[george152]

On 11/05/13 06:03, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?
>

YOU'RE GOING TO WEAR OUT THOSE GOALPOSTS MOVING THEM AT THAT RATE

[Chom Noamsky]

Doesn't matter which side claims victory, it's which side the public
believes. What we're learning is that so-called consensus science has
failed to settle a debate. Consensus is a political construct, it's not
a scientific one, and consensus is not required for scientific
validation of theory. The only purpose consensus has in a debate is
political validation.

[Tunderbar]

No one expects universal acceptance of anything. But the evolution
debate certainly turned public perception around pretty good.

Agreed on the consensus issues.

[Trevor Wilson]

**A debate is unnecessary. The science decides the truth. The
non-science (as espoused by Monckton, et al) is irrelevant.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

good' why don't you send the IPCC a treatise
on the use of Snell's law?

[Trevor Wilson]

On 5/11/2013 8:52 AM, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> good' why don't you send the IPCC a treatise
> on the use of Snell's law?
>

**Why don't you:

* Learn why top-posting is a sign of a sick mind.
* Read some science about AGW theory.
* Reconcile the fact that Monckton proclaims that science is on his
side, whilst he practices primitive supernatural beliefs.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Desertphile]

What the fuck is "lieing?"

Regarding human-caused climate change, the debate was held decades
ago.


--
"Looking at a few plants growing better due to more CO2 is like
ignoring that you killed a patient while curing their hangnail."

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:33:18 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 10, 11:29�am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Question:
> > Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> > opposed. �Both claim to have science on their side.
> > The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> > be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> > side that is. �How do you determine which side is lieing?
> >
> > Answer:
> > Hold a debate. �The side that doesn't show is lieing.

> The side with the science will demand a grand public debate, while the

"reationists demand that scientists debate them; almost no scientists
will do so. Therefore Creationists are correct."

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT), "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

Astronomers do not debate astrologers, for the same reason. The debate
about human-caused climate change ended decades ago.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 5/11/2013 9:30 AM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT), "erschro...@gmail.com"
> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Question:
>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
>>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
>>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
>>>
>>> Answer:
>>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>
>> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
>> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?
>
> Astronomers do not debate astrologers, for the same reason. The debate
> about human-caused climate change ended decades ago.
>
>

**In the 19th century, to be more precise. In 1996, Svante Arhhenius
confirmed Fourier's hypothesis. AGW theory is well established, unlike
the religious ideas of Monckton et al.

These Monckton fanbois have zero clue.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 5/11/2013 9:44 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 9:30 AM, Desertphile wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT), "erschro...@gmail.com"
>> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Question:
>>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
>>>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
>>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
>>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
>>>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
>>>>
>>>> Answer:
>>>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>>
>>> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
>>> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?
>>
>> Astronomers do not debate astrologers, for the same reason. The debate
>> about human-caused climate change ended decades ago.
>>
>>
>
> **In the 19th century, to be more precise. In 1996, Svante Arhhenius

**That would be _1886_ of course.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Chom Noamsky]

On 5/10/2013 4:29 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Question:
>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
>>
>> Answer:
>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>
> What the fuck is "lieing?"
>
> Regarding human-caused climate change, the debate was held decades
> ago.

So, why are you here on agw?

[Chom Noamsky]

On 5/10/2013 4:30 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT), "erschro...@gmail.com"
> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Question:
>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
>>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
>>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
>>>
>>> Answer:
>>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>
>> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
>> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?
>
> Astronomers do not debate astrologers, for the same reason. The debate
> about human-caused climate change ended decades ago.

If the debate was over decades ago, why are you here?

[Chom Noamsky]

Where is the validation? The IPCC has been coming out with forecasts
since 1990, yet we aren't even close to the projected temperature for
the emissions scenario we're tracking.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Predictions made by Arhhenius, with very little in the way of
comprehensive science, have been shown to be remarkably close.
Predictions made in the late 1970s - early 1980s have been shown to be
almost bang-on. We will see how close the IPCC predictions are at the
end of this century. Thus far, the real scientists (as opposed to
Monckton, et al) has been validated.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Chom Noamsky]

The first IPCC milestone is 2025, validation of "best estimate" would
require that warming immediately jump to triple the rate that it has
been since 1990, just to get back on the trajectory path. The Met
Office forecast that global temperature will remain flat from now until
at least 2017, so that's terribly unlikely. So, it's a forgone
conclusion that the 2025 milestone has already failed validation.

Also, do you think it's reasonable to expect the global village to act
as if the forecasts ARE valid, with no proof for a hundred years that
they actually are?

[Trevor Wilson]

**Of course. Predictions made more than 100 years ago have been shown to
be reasonably accurate. Predictions made more than 30 years ago, have
been shown to be very accurate. It's all about the science, not the
nutty religious ravings of Monckton, et al.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Chom Noamsky]

Whose prediction? Prediction of what? A citation or reference will do.

> Predictions made more than 30 years ago, have
> been shown to be very accurate.

Substantiation also required.

> It's all about the science, not the
> nutty religious ravings of Monckton, et al.

Yeah yeah, it's all about the science, I get it. So tell me, if science
is used to make a climate forecast, then what is the criteria and method
for validation? For example, if the IPCC forcasts a range of warming
over a timescale, and actual warming falls outside that range, is it a
valid forecast?

[Trevor Wilson]

**Certainly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

>
>> Predictions made more than 30 years ago, have
>> been shown to be very accurate.
>
> Substantiation also required.

**Certainly:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

>
>> It's all about the science, not the
>> nutty religious ravings of Monckton, et al.
>
> Yeah yeah, it's all about the science, I get it.

**It seems you don't.

So tell me, if science
> is used to make a climate forecast, then what is the criteria and method
> for validation?

**Actual observations.

For example, if the IPCC forcasts a range of warming
> over a timescale, and actual warming falls outside that range, is it a
> valid forecast?

**Given the chaotic nature of climate and the relative recent
quantification of climate effects, perhaps. Let me explain:

Let's say the planet warms more rapidly than the IPCC predicts it will.
That does not invalidate AGW theory. Let's say the planet warms, but not
quite as rapidly as the most optimistic predictions, then that does not
invalidate AGW theory. If, however, it is found that the average
temperature trend by 2100 is found to be heading down, then that would
certainly invalidate AGW theory.

Thus far, however, the planet is still undergoing a warming trend, thus
validating AGW theory.

I have a far more important question for you:

At what point will idiots like Monckton agree that the planet is in a
warming trend, that is caused by human emissions of CO2 (and other
greenhouse gases)?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[emoneyjoe]

Probably not, 1895 according to

http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_2.php


http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/arrhenius.php

http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_2.php


But he finally came to the conclusion
that the increase in temperature would
be beneficial;

http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_3.php

"if the quantity of carbonic acid [H2CO3] increases in geometric
progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in
arithmetic progression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

But what geometric progression?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression

[Trevor Wilson]

**I accept your correction.

>
>
> But he finally came to the conclusion
> that the increase in temperature would
> be beneficial;
>
> http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_3.php

**He did, indeed. He was wrong. SOME parts of the planet may benefit
from warming, but most will not.

>
> "if the quantity of carbonic acid [H2CO3] increases in geometric
> progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in
> arithmetic progression."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
>
> But what geometric progression?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression

**What are trying to suggest? That the first person to quantify AGW did
not get it 100% correct?

No argument from me.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:30:38 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

The Arrhenius geometric progression needs
a starting point for CO2 and temperature, who
would be able to pin that down, and is it clear
if it would be positive or negative progression?

[emoneyjoe]

Nothing has been shown other than a sloppy
manipulation of a bucket of worms weather station
list that is not complete in either starting or ending
dates.

UHI and siting problems cause recorded
temperatures to be as much as 5 degrees
too high.

[emoneyjoe]

But not even close to correct, unless the
temperatures rise a lot in the next few years,
the "theory" will have to be rethought.

The effects of all the atmospheric processes
are so complex there is no way to calculate them
all, even the cool air moving in front of a squall
line can vary too much to estimate.

Rain cooled air may not even be included
in any calculations, more than just the latent
heat of evaporation results if the rain is colder
when it falls than before it evaporated.

There isn't much science in climate science.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Christopher Monckton and his lunatic religious beliefs do not
constitute science. I suggest you read the science on the topic, rather
than the religious ravings of Monckton, et al.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:02:39 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

Could it have been dust or condensation
on the crystal ball?

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 13:55:34 +1000, Trevor Wilson

I don't do math, but does a progression
have to be whole numbers?

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 14:23:40 +1000, Trevor Wilson

I have never read him, I don't get Fox News,
or Rush, does that mean I can say what I think?

This has been by far the coldest spring at
this location, when the utility bill says the
month was a daily average of 10 degrees
colder than last year, that is a lot of cold,
240 degree hours per day.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Just because your insignificant part of the planet was slightly cooler
last week (or last year), that does not mean that the planet is not
warming.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:42:12 +1000, Trevor Wilson

Right, and just because weather station
sensors are at airports where jet blasts heat
them, that doesn't mean the Earth is warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/28/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-86-when-in-rome-dont-do-as-the-romans-do/


I wrote that and then decided to look for
a reference. :-)

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-not-to-measure-temperature.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/global_warming_oops_never_mind.html

[Trevor Wilson]

**Just because some idiot employed by the fossil fuel industry makes a
claim, doesn't make it true either. Not all weather stations are
situated at airports and not all the warming is confined to the atmosphere.

>
>
> I wrote that and then decided to look for
> a reference. :-)
>
> http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-not-to-measure-temperature.html
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/global_warming_oops_never_mind.html

**Like I said before: Read some fucking science on AGW. See if you can
find some science written by independent people, rather than those who
are employed by the fossil fuel industry.

Try here:

www.ipcc.ch



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:14:56 +1000, Trevor Wilson

There have been a lot of weather stations
moving to airports, just the move itself can
mean a couple of tenths of a degree because
of all the paving and roofs.

>Try here:
>
>www.ipcc.ch

Nah, I stay away from socialist sites.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 14:23:40 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> Rain cooled air may not even be included
>> in any calculations, more than just the latent heat of evaporation
>> results if the rain is colder when it falls than before it evaporated.
>>
>> There isn't much science in climate science.
>
> **Christopher Monckton and his lunatic religious beliefs do not
> constitute science. I suggest you read the science on the topic, rather
> than the religious ravings of Monckton, et al.

Really I don't know what are Monckton's religious opinions. Do you have
any hint on them? Another point in favour of Monckton he nearly never
argument without bringing a lot of factual elements to back what he says.

As an example, here are his comments on the IPCC draft. Clear
explanations and references are provided for most points.

http://tinyurl.com/c28gt6u

[Trevor Wilson]

**And I stated:

Not all weather stations are situated at airports and not all the
warming is confined to the atmosphere.


>

>> Try here:
>>
>> www.ipcc.ch
>
> Nah, I stay away from socialist sites.

**Ah, I see. Rather than reading the premier scientific documents about
AGW, you prefer to gain knowledge from deluded individuals and those who
are paid to lie. I get that.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 5/11/2013 5:44 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 14:23:40 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> Rain cooled air may not even be included
>>> in any calculations, more than just the latent heat of evaporation
>>> results if the rain is colder when it falls than before it evaporated.
>>>
>>> There isn't much science in climate science.
>>
>> **Christopher Monckton and his lunatic religious beliefs do not
>> constitute science. I suggest you read the science on the topic, rather
>> than the religious ravings of Monckton, et al.
>
> Really I don't know what are Monckton's religious opinions. Do you have
> any hint on them?

**Monckton is a religious loon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Monckton

"Monckton is a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Broderers, an
Officer of the Order of St John of Jerusalem, a Knight of Honour and
Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and a member of the
Roman Catholic Mass Media Commission."

Kinda says it all. Religious loons have no place dealing with science.

Another point in favour of Monckton he nearly never
> argument without bringing a lot of factual elements to back what he says.

**You call what he presents as "facts". Science calls them lies. Colour
me crazy, but I'm with the scientists, rather than with the religious
loons on this one.

>
> As an example, here are his comments on the IPCC draft. Clear
> explanations and references are provided for most points.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c28gt6u

Comment #1:

Bullshit. There HAS been warming over the past 16 years. Worse,
Monckton's cherry-picking of his starting years, is simply dishonest and
bad science.

Comment #2:

Utter bullshit. No other comment is required. Monckton fails to
understand why and how the IPCC was originally set up.

Comment #3:

Pure insanity. NO scientific document is perfect. Not even Monckton's
favourite scientific document - The Bible. Let's see him address the
errors in his own references. I'll wait.

Comment #4:

Fair comment. Let's see the same with any alleged "science" from Anthony
Watts, Monckton, himself (who is paid by fossil fuel interests) and others.

Comment #5:

More insanity. As knowledge is added to the topic, it is appropriate to
use present criteria to judge and present information.

I'm bored now.

Monckton is a religious loon, who is paid by fossil fuel interests to
cloud the minds of those who lack the intelligence to do their own study.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 18:22:19 +1000, Trevor Wilson

No, don't make stupid assumptions like
the AGW nuts here, I am capable of sorting
the BS from physical facts.

I know that there have been few to none
all time record highs for continents lately.
And some AGW literature states the
highs are not expected to increase, but
the nights are not expected to get as cold.

Best news I have had in a long time.

[Trevor Wilson]

**It seems not. Have you bothered reading AR4?

>
> I know that there have been few to none
> all time record highs for continents lately.

**So? Do you understand what a "trend" is?

> And some AGW literature states the
> highs are not expected to increase, but
> the nights are not expected to get as cold.

**So?

>
> Best news I have had in a long time.

**No, it isn't.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[josephus]

that answer is NO it does not.
josephus



--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

[AM]

You've just been shown that the predictions 30yr's ago were wrong yet
you are still claiming they are right ?

And how come temps have remained flat for the past decade when Co2
emissions have grown considerably ?


NVM.....

[JohnM]

On May 11, 2:31 pm, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/10/2013 9:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/11/2013 10:54 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> >> On 5/10/2013 5:33 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>> On 5/11/2013 10:30 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> >>>> On 5/10/2013 4:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/11/2013 9:30 AM, Desertphile wrote:

Which 1983 prediction are you saying is wrong?

> And how come temps have remained flat for the past decade when Co2
> emissions have grown considerably ?

Google ENSO and La Nina for the answer.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Some idiot CLAIMING that the predictions were wrong and providing some
actual scientific evidence to back that claim is another thing entirely.

>
> And how come temps have remained flat for the past decade when Co2
> emissions have grown considerably ?

**Four things:

* After you study some basic science, feel free to present a cogent
argument.
* Go study statistics and learn what a 'TREND' is.
* Temperatures HAVE risen over the past decade. Despite the use of an
extreme El Nino year as a baseline. That said, the significant increase
in aerosols is thought to play a part in the change in the trend.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/07/why-global-temperatures-held-s.html

* Ocean heat content has continued to rise significantly.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/oceans-continue-to-warm-especially-the-deeps/

Throw your Bible away and read some books on science.

Fucking cretin.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[AM]

Just couldn't answer the questions could you ?

Oh well.....

[josephus]

1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> good' why don't you send the IPCC a treatise
> on the use of Snell's law?
>
>> **A debate is unnecessary. The science decides the truth.

then you tell us why ALL DATA SETS do this. the centroid is the
motions of the record. tell us why.

I know why and it gives deniers heartburn.

no pausing, no cooling. BAD NEWSl

josephus

-0.0005994| 0.0005981| 0.0017956|
--------------------------------------------------------
2002 40 | . %|

2000 35 | . % |

1998 30 | . % |

1996 26 | . % |

1994 26 | . + * |

1992 21 | +.* |

1990 18 | + * . |

1988 11 | * + . |

1986 9 | *+ . |

1984 9 | +* . |

1982 6 | % . |

1980 3 | *+ . |

1978 4 | + * . |

1976 4 | + * . |

1974 2 | +* . |

1972 1 | % . |

1970 1 | % . |

1968 1 | % . |

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:56:51 -0700 (PDT), JohnM
<jmorgan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 10, 8:05�pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 1:03�pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

> >
> > <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 10, 12:29�pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Question:
> > > > Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> > > > opposed. �Both claim to have science on their side.
> > > > The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> > > > be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> > > > side that is. �How do you determine which side is lieing?
> >
> > > > Answer:
> > > > Hold a debate. �The side that doesn't show is lieing.
> >
> > > When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
> > > Between biologists and creationists? �Between chemists and alchemists?
> >

> > Well... there was a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist,
> > and the science won that one. So the original point is still valid.

> Actually, the creationists say they won.

Creationists have been claiming victory over science for over 50,000
years.

> Which shows the futility of holding a debate of scientists vs. denialists
> and expecting the result to be universally accepted.

Scientists as a rule do not debate an issue that has been "black
boxed" for decades. Human-caused climate change was "black boxed"
before most of us were born, just like evolution, the heliocentric
model of the Solar System, Earth being nearly spherical, etc. The
losers (ansd Claudius Denk here) always insist that scietists debate
them on subjects scientists have already debated.


--
"When asked by the arraignment judge, 'Why did you shoot the man 6 times?'
The woman replied under oath, 'Because, when I pulled the trigger the 7th
time, it only went click.'" --- The value of human life in Texas

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 13:16:28 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

> On 5/10/2013 12:56 PM, JohnM wrote:
> > On May 10, 8:05 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 10, 1:03 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> >>
> >> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Question:
> >>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> >>>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
> >>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> >>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> >>>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
> >>
> >>>> Answer:
> >>>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
> >>
> >>> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
> >>> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?
> >>
> >> Well... there was a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist,
> >> and the science won that one. So the original point is still valid.
> >

> > Actually, the creationists say they won. Which shows the futility of

> > holding a debate of scientists vs. denialists and expecting the result
> > to be universally accepted.

> Doesn't matter which side claims victory, it's which side the public
> believes.

Scientists in the hard sciences do not give a bloody shit what the
public believes--- why the hell should they?

> What we're learning is that so-called consensus science has
> failed to settle a debate.

... among non-scientists. Among scientists the debate ended decades
ago.

> Consensus is a political construct

No.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 10, 11:03 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Question:
> > Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> > opposed.  Both claim to have science on their side.
> > The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> > be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> > side that is.  How do you determine which side is lieing?
>
> > Answer:
> > Hold a debate.  The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>
> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?

Uh, my guess would be during the sixties and seventies.

> Between biologists and creationists?  Between chemists and alchemists?

Real scientists with genuine evidence of an impending global disaster
would/will *always* be eager to debate. Scientists with phoney
emergencies are very careful not to be put in a situation where they
are put on the spot to answer questions that they know they can't
answer.

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:10:15 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 10, 3:16嚙緘m, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:
> > On 5/10/2013 12:56 PM, JohnM wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 10, 8:05 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> On May 10, 1:03 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

> >
> > >> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Question:
> > >>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically

> > >>>> opposed. 嚙畿oth claim to have science on their side.

> > >>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> > >>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which

> > >>>> side that is. 嚙瘡ow do you determine which side is lieing?
> >
> > >>>> Answer:
> > >>>> Hold a debate. 嚙確he side that doesn't show is lieing.

> >
> > >>> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?

> > >>> Between biologists and creationists? 嚙畿etween chemists and alchemists?

> >
> > >> Well... there was a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist,
> > >> and the science won that one. So the original point is still valid.
> >
> > > Actually, the creationists say they won. Which shows the futility of
> > > holding a debate of scientists vs. denialists and expecting the result
> > > to be universally accepted.
> >
> > Doesn't matter which side claims victory, it's which side the public

> > believes. 嚙磕hat we're learning is that so-called consensus science has
> > failed to settle a debate. 嚙瘠onsensus is a political construct, it's not
> > a scientific one, and consensus is not required for scientific
> > validation of theory. 嚙確he only purpose consensus has in a debate is
> > political validation.

> No one expects universal acceptance of anything. But the evolution
> debate certainly turned public perception around pretty good.

Certainly consensus does not mean 100% acceptance: just a very large
majority.

> Agreed on the consensus issues.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 10, 3:41 pm, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

> On 5/11/2013 2:29 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
> > Question:
> > Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically

> > opposed.  Both claim to have science on their side.

> > The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> > be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which

> > side that is.  How do you determine which side is lieing?
>
> > Answer:
> > Hold a debate.  The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>
> **A debate is unnecessary. The science decides the truth. The
> non-science (as espoused by Monckton, et al) is irrelevant.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

Obviously the reason you don't want debate is because you know you
will lose.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 10, 4:29 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk

>
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Question:
> > Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> > opposed.  Both claim to have science on their side.
> > The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> > be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> > side that is.  How do you determine which side is lieing?
>
> > Answer:
> > Hold a debate.  The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>

> What the fuck is "lieing?"
>
> Regarding human-caused climate change, the debate was held decades
> ago.

Did nobody keep notes? How convenient.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 11, 6:14 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

> > You've just been shown that the predictions 30yr's ago were wrong yet
> > you are still claiming they are right ?
>
> **Some idiot CLAIMING that the predictions were wrong and providing some
> actual scientific evidence to back that claim is another thing entirely.

This is what we've been trying to tell you.

>
>
>
> > And how come temps have remained flat for the past decade when Co2
> > emissions have grown considerably ?
>
> **Four things:
>
> * After you study some basic science, feel free to present a cogent
> argument.

Typical enviro-groupy non argument.

> * Go study statistics and learn what a 'TREND' is.
> * Temperatures HAVE risen over the past decade. Despite the use of an
> extreme El Nino year as a baseline. That said, the significant increase
> in aerosols is thought to play a part in the change in the trend.
>

> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/07/why-globa...

>
> * Ocean heat content has continued to rise significantly.
>

> http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/oceans-continue-to-warm-especi...

[Chom Noamsky]

On 5/11/2013 10:28 AM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:10:15 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
> <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On May 10, 3:16 pm, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:
>>> On 5/10/2013 12:56 PM, JohnM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 10, 8:05 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 10, 1:03 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
>>>
>>>>> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Question:
>>>>>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically

>>>>>>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.

>>>>>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
>>>>>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which

>>>>>>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
>>>
>>>>>>> Answer:
>>>>>>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.

>>>
>>>>>> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?

>>>>>> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?

>>>
>>>>> Well... there was a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist,
>>>>> and the science won that one. So the original point is still valid.
>>>
>>>> Actually, the creationists say they won. Which shows the futility of
>>>> holding a debate of scientists vs. denialists and expecting the result
>>>> to be universally accepted.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter which side claims victory, it's which side the public

>>> believes. What we're learning is that so-called consensus science has
>>> failed to settle a debate. Consensus is a political construct, it's not

>>> a scientific one, and consensus is not required for scientific

>>> validation of theory. The only purpose consensus has in a debate is

>>> political validation.
>
>> No one expects universal acceptance of anything. But the evolution
>> debate certainly turned public perception around pretty good.
>
> Certainly consensus does not mean 100% acceptance: just a very large
> majority.

And how did that consensus on geocentrism hold up?

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:41:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 5/11/2013 2:29 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > Question:
> > Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> > opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
> > The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> > be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> > side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
> >
> > Answer:
> > Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
> >
>

> **A debate is unnecessary. The science decides the truth. The
> non-science (as espoused by Monckton, et al) is irrelevant.

Well-said.

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:11:15 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

> On 5/10/2013 4:29 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk

> > <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Question:
> >> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> >> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
> >> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> >> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> >> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
> >>
> >> Answer:
> >> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
> >

> > What the fuck is "lieing?"
> >
> > Regarding human-caused climate change, the debate was held decades
> > ago.

> So, why are you here on agw?

Notice my laughter?

[Chom Noamsky]

On 5/11/2013 11:40 AM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:11:15 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/10/2013 4:29 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
>>> <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Question:
>>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
>>>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
>>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
>>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
>>>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
>>>>
>>>> Answer:
>>>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>>>
>>> What the fuck is "lieing?"
>>>
>>> Regarding human-caused climate change, the debate was held decades
>>> ago.
>
>> So, why are you here on agw?
>
> Notice my laughter?

Yes, I hear nervous laughing coming from you. That happens when people
get hit by the "gotcha" and don't know how to respond.

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:44:06 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 5/11/2013 9:30 AM, Desertphile wrote:

> > On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT), "erschro...@gmail.com"
> > <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> Question:
> >>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> >>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
> >>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> >>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> >>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
> >>>
> >>> Answer:
> >>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
> >

> >> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
> >> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?
> >

> > Astronomers do not debate astrologers, for the same reason. The debate
> > about human-caused climate change ended decades ago.

> **In the 19th century, to be more precise. In 1996, Svante Arhhenius
> confirmed Fourier's hypothesis. AGW theory is well established, unlike
> the religious ideas of Monckton et al.
>
> These Monckton fanbois have zero clue.

I find it amusing that some Denialists accept evolutionary theory as
"settled science" even though human-caused climate change is older and
rigidly supported by the laws of physics.

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:30:38 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

> On 5/10/2013 4:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > On 5/11/2013 9:30 AM, Desertphile wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT), "erschro...@gmail.com"
> >> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>> Question:
> >>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> >>>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
> >>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> >>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> >>>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
> >>>>
> >>>> Answer:
> >>>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
> >>
> >>> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
> >>> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?
> >>
> >> Astronomers do not debate astrologers, for the same reason. The debate
> >> about human-caused climate change ended decades ago.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > **In the 19th century, to be more precise. In 1996, Svante Arhhenius
> > confirmed Fourier's hypothesis. AGW theory is well established, unlike
> > the religious ideas of Monckton et al.
> >
> > These Monckton fanbois have zero clue.

> Where is the validation?

What the bloody hell do you care?

[Trevor Wilson]

**Nope. It is just sad. Worse, while the idiots argue, this planet
slides closer to a point which it may not recover from.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**No. There is nothing to debate. On one side, there is a mountain of
solid science, on the other side there is................ [Sound of
crickets]

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[AM]

The planet will be just fine no matter what we do. You must not have got
the memo.


You are just never going to convince the worlds population to submit to
lowering their lifestyle and freedoms because something *might,
possibly, could, maybe, happen, someday* due to a trace amount of Co2 in
our atmosphere.

Tell us how Kyoto, Copenhagen, Rio+20, went for you ?

How did Cap & Trade go ?

Free people who get a vote will always vote for their own economic
future over being green. Witness Canada and the USA.

We as humans want to live the best lifestyle we can. And our own
economic future matters more than you CAGW theories, funny you haven't
noticed. Sorry for you...

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:49:31 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

Idiots laugh a lot.

[emoneyjoe]

Where do you get these ideas, how is
human-caused climate change older, who
even though CO2 would make a difference
before1980?

What does climate change have to do
with any other science or theory?

People might believe it is warming when
temperatures are going up, but why should
they when it is getting colder.

How can leftist atheists be so sure that
a God who is supposed to have created
the universe couldn't have created all the
fossils and everything?

Being cock sure is a good way to get
in plenty of hot water. People can have
faith and still understand evolution happens,
but they may feel there is an answer to
everything.

Do you jerks complain about the muslim
religion too? Do you take the scripture
literally, or interpret it your own way?
Do you think men lived to be 800
years old in the past? Those were
real people that were written about,
weren't they?


Why do you make these assinine
statements about religion and relate
them to the AGW myth, yet never
go into detail about climate science?

[Trevor Wilson]

**It would seem that English is not your first language. Read the
statement CAREFULLY.

>
> What does climate change have to do
> with any other science or theory?

**AGW theory is based on solid science, unlike the bullshit Monckton and
others sprout.

>
> People might believe it is warming when
> temperatures are going up, but why should
> they when it is getting colder.

**IF it was getting cooler, they would be entitled to think that it is
not warming. Sadly, since temperatures are trending up, then it is warming.

>
> How can leftist atheists be so sure that
> a God who is supposed to have created
> the universe couldn't have created all the
> fossils and everything?

**"leftist atheists"? One's political outlook does not determine one's
stupidity, or not. Religious loons are just that - loons. Ahteists are
sane, whether than be right or left of the political divide.

>
> Being cock sure is a good way to get
> in plenty of hot water. People can have
> faith and still understand evolution happens,
> but they may feel there is an answer to
> everything.
>
> Do you jerks complain about the muslim
> religion too?

**Dunno how others think, but, IMO, ALL people who subscribe to
supernatural beliefs are idiots. Muslims, Christians, astrologers,
whatever. They're all loony toons.

Do you take the scripture
> literally, or interpret it your own way?

**Again, for my part, the Christian Bible is a mix of history, poetry
and complete and utter bullshit.

> Do you think men lived to be 800
> years old in the past?

**Of course not.

Those were
> real people that were written about,
> weren't they?

**Who wrote about them? What were their qualifications?

>
>
> Why do you make these assinine
> statements about religion and relate
> them to the AGW myth, yet never
> go into detail about climate science?

**We do go into detail. You just don't understand.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[josephus]

you keep saying we should VOTE for scinece.... idiot. science
conssensus is about what DATA shows not religion or politicics.
anyone that suggests that scientists VOTE for effects is so stupid
it hurts.

josephus

[josephus]

I know you are talking about "The WORD OF GODD and them GODLESS
heathens."

there is an IDEA in American jurisprudence that you should not
discriminate race, religion or sex.

[Claudius Denk]

On May 10, 4:29 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk

>
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Question:
> > Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> > opposed.  Both claim to have science on their side.
> > The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> > be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> > side that is.  How do you determine which side is lieing?
>
> > Answer:
> > Hold a debate.  The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>

> What the fuck is "lieing?"
>
> Regarding human-caused climate change, the debate was held decades
> ago.

You know this how?

[Trevor Wilson]

**
https://atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 06:28:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> Obviously the reason you don't want debate is because you know you will
>> lose.
>>
>>
> **No. There is nothing to debate. On one side, there is a mountain of
> solid science, on the other side there is................ [Sound of
> crickets]

This is what you would very much like us to believe. Unfortunately
for you, if climate science is actually a part of geophysics, global-
warming (aka climate change) is not a science, it is a pseudo-science.
People like you spend their time trying to make us believe that we should
trust that what you added on the top of the scientific part is scientific
too. It is not. It is as uncertain, and probably as false as astrology is
false compared to astronomy is based on solid scientific grounds.

You want an example? Take the back-radiation energy loop. The down-
welling electromagnetic radiation is real, it carries real energy, the up-
welling radiation is real is evacuate real energy. But when it comes to
extract real energy from the "extra" global-warming "back-radiation", we
are told that it is impossible, that it is too diffuse. What is the
reality of an energy flux (supposed to be greater than what comes from
the Sun) which can produce no mechanical work (or no electrical current,
or no actual heat)?

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 12:36:26 -0600, Desertphile wrote:

> On Sat, 11 May 2013 08:41:39 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2013 2:29 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>> >
>> > Question:
>> > Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically opposed. Both
>> > claim to have science on their side.
>> > The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must be lieing
>> > but you don't have the expertise to know which side that is. How do
>> > you determine which side is lieing?
>> >
>> > Answer:
>> > Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>> >
>> >
>> **A debate is unnecessary. The science decides the truth. The
>> non-science (as espoused by Monckton, et al) is irrelevant.
>
> Well-said.

I agree that Moncton's comments on the AR5 SPM draft are mostly non
scientific, and it is normal: the SPM is a political document.
Your lack of factual answers to Monckton is a surrender.

For example, I would like to see why you disregard the comment nbr. 55 as
false, when to me, it seems quite justified.

"Comment #55:
Ch. SPM, from page SPM-7, line 28, to page SPM-7, line 29
To increase scientific precision, the statement “Globally, CO2 is the
strongest driver of climate change compared to other changes in the
atmospheric composition, and changes in surface conditions” should be
rewritten “Globally, in recent decades, increases in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 have proven more influential as forcers of global
warming than increases in the concentration of other greenhouse gases.”

"Reason: Some papers (e.g. Murphy et al.,2009) have shown the negative
aerosol forcing as being equal to the entire CO2 forcing in recent
decades. The redraftedsentence ensures accuracy even if this is so."

[emoneyjoe]

I don't see how water vapor can be ignored
so easily, a change from 40% humidity to 70%
humidity is a much greater change than any
ten year change in CO2 concentration.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 20:24:55 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>>> Regarding human-caused climate change, the debate was held decades
>>> ago.
>>
>> You know this how?
>>
>>
> **
> https://atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/
Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

You reference says:
- CO2 concentration is 335 to 340 in 1980
- the most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for
a doubling of the CO2 concentration.

- CO2 concentration in 2013: 400ppm 400/340=1.176
3.5 x 0.176 = 0.616°C
2.0 x 0.176 = 0.352°C
- mean warming suggested by the most sophisticated models [0.35 ; 0.62°C]
- RSS-MSU anomaly averaged over year 1980 : 0.0151
- RSS-MSU anomaly averaged over year 2012 : 0.1887 = 0.1736 + 0.0151
- Actually observed warming 0.17°C
- According to the IPCC AR4, CO2 concentrations explain most of the
warming (meaning something like 2/3 or more).

This suggests that the "most sophisticated models" overestimated the
actual warming by a factor between 2 and 3.5.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/05/2013 5:03 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 20:24:55 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>>> Regarding human-caused climate change, the debate was held decades
>>>> ago.
>>>
>>> You know this how?
>>>
>>>
>> **
>> https://atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/
> Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf
>
> You reference says:
> - CO2 concentration is 335 to 340 in 1980
> - the most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for
> a doubling of the CO2 concentration.

**Bullshit!

As more CO2 is added to the system, the total effect of that CO2 becomes
less significant.

>
> - CO2 concentration in 2013: 400ppm 400/340=1.176
> 3.5 x 0.176 = 0.616°C
> 2.0 x 0.176 = 0.352°C
> - mean warming suggested by the most sophisticated models [0.35 ; 0.62°C]
> - RSS-MSU anomaly averaged over year 1980 : 0.0151
> - RSS-MSU anomaly averaged over year 2012 : 0.1887 = 0.1736 + 0.0151
> - Actually observed warming 0.17°C
> - According to the IPCC AR4, CO2 concentrations explain most of the
> warming (meaning something like 2/3 or more).
>
> This suggests that the "most sophisticated models" overestimated the
> actual warming by a factor between 2 and 3.5.

**Bullshit.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**No one ignores water vapour. Water vapour:

* Is far less significant than CO2, per unit of mass in the atmosphere.
* Is something we can do nothing about (directly).
* Has an extremely short atmospheric life-span (as opposed to CO2,
methane and the others).

Cretins like you can bitch and complain all you wish, but the facts are
very real: More CO2 = more warming.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/05/2013 10:13 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 06:28:15 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> Obviously the reason you don't want debate is because you know you will
>>> lose.
>>>
>>>
>> **No. There is nothing to debate. On one side, there is a mountain of
>> solid science, on the other side there is................ [Sound of
>> crickets]
>
> This is what you would very much like us to believe. Unfortunately
> for you, if climate science is actually a part of geophysics, global-
> warming (aka climate change) is not a science, it is a pseudo-science.

**Your uninformed OPINION is duly noted. Remind me to ask all the
atmospheric physicists and related scientific disciplines what they
think of your moronic statement.

> People like you spend their time trying to make us believe that we should
> trust that what you added on the top of the scientific part is scientific
> too. It is not. It is as uncertain, and probably as false as astrology is
> false compared to astronomy is based on solid scientific grounds.

**Now you need to supply some proof.

Prove that AGW theory is as false as astrology, or Christianity. In your
proof, you may supply a page by page refutation of the IPCC AR4
document. Take your time. There's 1600-odd pages to deal with. I fully
accept that half a dozen pages of AR4 may contain less than perfect
science, so don't bother refuting one or two pages. You need to refute
the whole document.

>
> You want an example? Take the back-radiation energy loop. The down-
> welling electromagnetic radiation is real, it carries real energy, the up-
> welling radiation is real is evacuate real energy. But when it comes to
> extract real energy from the "extra" global-warming "back-radiation", we
> are told that it is impossible, that it is too diffuse. What is the
> reality of an energy flux (supposed to be greater than what comes from
> the Sun) which can produce no mechanical work (or no electrical current,
> or no actual heat)?
>

**Are you seriously attempting to suggest that more CO2 in the
atmosphere does NOT lead to more warming? None at all?


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**The planet will be fine. The biological organisms that reside on this
planet, however, may not be.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[AM]

Cites ??


Didn't think so...

[Trevor Wilson]

** www.ipcc.ch


>
>
> Didn't think so...

**Asked and answered, cretin.

Read IPCC AR4, then we can discuss.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:53:50 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf
>>
>> You reference says:
>> - CO2 concentration is 335 to 340 in 1980 - the most sophisticated
>> models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for a doubling of the CO2
>> concentration.
>
> **Bullshit!
>
> As more CO2 is added to the system, the total effect of that CO2 becomes
> less significant.

I know it, but the result would have been even more disappointing for
you, because most of the warming would have come at the beginning, with
the first extra ppm of CO2.
I only wanted to show you that even using your hypothesis, Hansen
predictions were greatly exaggerated.

>
>
>> - CO2 concentration in 2013: 400ppm 400/340=1.176 3.5 x 0.176 = 0.616°C
>> 2.0 x 0.176 = 0.352°C - mean warming suggested by the most
>> sophisticated models [0.35 ; 0.62°C]
>> - RSS-MSU anomaly averaged over year 1980 : 0.0151 - RSS-MSU anomaly
>> averaged over year 2012 : 0.1887 = 0.1736 + 0.0151 - Actually observed
>> warming 0.17°C - According to the IPCC AR4, CO2 concentrations explain
>> most of the warming (meaning something like 2/3 or more).
>>
>> This suggests that the "most sophisticated models" overestimated the
>> actual warming by a factor between 2 and 3.5.
>
> **Bullshit.

You explanation is a bit short. What is your problem here? Do you deem
the RSS-MSU data not to be accurate? Don't you agree that 0.17°C is two
times less than 0.352 and more than three times less than 0.616?

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:56:46 +1000, Trevor Wilson

Stupid idiots like you seem to think
people can stop heating homes and
work space, and stop driving vehicles.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:18:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>>>> This suggests that the "most sophisticated models" overestimated the
>>>> actual warming by a factor between 2 and 3.5.
>>>
>>> **Bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Cites ??
>
> ** www.ipcc.ch

A nice diversion technique, but it has been so many times used and used
again by your fellow alarmists that we don't even care now. If your
argument is somewhere in those 16,000 pages, please point the exact page
and give a short quote of the paragraph which justifies your argument.

As you know the AR4 part I has been published on Feb. 1st 2007. I don't
see how it could contain any indication which relates to the actual
evolution of temperatures between 1980 and 2012, on which my argument is
based.

>>
>> Didn't think so...
>
> **Asked and answered, cretin.
>
> Read IPCC AR4, then we can discuss.

Read them yourself, we will prepare you a 10 question quiz on random
points over the 16,000 pages of the report. You will have 10 minutes to
reply. If you fail the test, you will clearly show which side is actually
lying.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Cite where I ever stated such a thing.

Cretin.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Tom P]

On 05/12/2013 11:52 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:53:50 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf
>>>
>>> You reference says:
>>> - CO2 concentration is 335 to 340 in 1980 - the most sophisticated
>>> models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for a doubling of the CO2
>>> concentration.
>>
>> **Bullshit!
>>
>> As more CO2 is added to the system, the total effect of that CO2 becomes
>> less significant.
>
> I know it, but the result would have been even more disappointing for
> you, because most of the warming would have come at the beginning, with
> the first extra ppm of CO2.
> I only wanted to show you that even using your hypothesis, Hansen
> predictions were greatly exaggerated.
>
>>
>>
>>> - CO2 concentration in 2013: 400ppm 400/340=1.176 3.5 x 0.176 = 0.616°C
>>> 2.0 x 0.176 = 0.352°C - mean warming suggested by the most
>>> sophisticated models [0.35 ; 0.62°C]
>>> - RSS-MSU anomaly averaged over year 1980 : 0.0151 - RSS-MSU anomaly
>>> averaged over year 2012 : 0.1887 = 0.1736 + 0.0151 - Actually observed
>>> warming 0.17°C - According to the IPCC AR4, CO2 concentrations explain
>>> most of the warming (meaning something like 2/3 or more).
>>>

>>> This suggests that the "most sophisticated modelsse" overestimated the

>>> actual warming by a factor between 2 and 3.5.
>>
>> **Bullshit.
>
> You explanation is a bit short. What is your problem here? Do you deem
> the RSS-MSU data not to be accurate? Don't you agree that 0.17°C is two
> times less than 0.352 and more than three times less than 0.616?
>
>

Paul, you know perfectly well yourself the reason why what you wrote is
bullshit.
What you are telling us is that you can turn the temperature of the
planet up and down like turning a knob on the stove just by altering the
CO2 content of the atmosphere. Of course it doesn't work like that. If
you write nonsense like this, how do you expect us to take anything you
write seriously?

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/05/2013 7:52 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:53:50 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf
>>>
>>> You reference says:
>>> - CO2 concentration is 335 to 340 in 1980 - the most sophisticated
>>> models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for a doubling of the CO2
>>> concentration.
>>
>> **Bullshit!
>>
>> As more CO2 is added to the system, the total effect of that CO2 becomes
>> less significant.
>
> I know it

**Good. I'm pleased we have established that point. Explain it to the
cretins.

More CO2 = more warming. It ain't that difficult to understand.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[emoneyjoe]

Isn't that what people are saying when
they say the ppmV needs to be returned to
350 to avoid higher temperatures?


Think up a good one now.

[emoneyjoe]

Get Josephus to explain geometric progressions to you.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 00:54:50 +0200, Tom P wrote:

>> You explanation is a bit short. What is your problem here? Do you deem
>> the RSS-MSU data not to be accurate? Don't you agree that 0.17°C is two
>> times less than 0.352 and more than three times less than 0.616?
>>
>>
>>
> Paul, you know perfectly well yourself the reason why what you wrote is
> bullshit.
> What you are telling us is that you can turn the temperature of the
> planet up and down like turning a knob on the stove just by altering the
> CO2 content of the atmosphere. Of course it doesn't work like that. If
> you write nonsense like this, how do you expect us to take anything you
> write seriously?

It is more or less what is described in the 16,000 pages of the AR4:
climate sensibility to CO2 is something between 2 and 6°C and CO2
explains most of the long trend. Do you deny that 32 years (1981 to now)
is not a period long enough for high frequency noise to cancel? The
difference between 1981 (Hansen forecast) and now is, according to the
IPCC, mainly driven by the "anthropogenic signal", which seems weaker
than supposed by Hansen in those times.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:08:04 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> On 13/05/2013 7:52 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:53:50 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>> Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf
>>>>
>>>> You reference says:
>>>> - CO2 concentration is 335 to 340 in 1980 - the most sophisticated
>>>> models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for a doubling of the
>>>> CO2 concentration.
>>>
>>> **Bullshit!
>>>
>>> As more CO2 is added to the system, the total effect of that CO2
>>> becomes less significant.
>>
>> I know it
>
> **Good. I'm pleased we have established that point. Explain it to the
> cretins.

I am happy when you ask me to explain something to your fellow
warmists. I tried without success until now.

>
> More CO2 = more warming. It ain't that difficult to understand.

The real question is how much? Are those dreadful "positive feedbacks"
going to fry us? The answer from the atmospheric system itself is no.

[emoneyjoe]

Did you forget that GHGs are what cool
the atmosphere?

Why won't more GHGs cool the
atmosphere more?

[josephus]

you may not understand this BOZO but this is What he is talking about


these are a list of median slopes that show the TREND upward.
I published the data and the graphic that comes from the calculations.

18 items


I X Y Y_CALC Y-Y_Calc
1 2002 0.001796 0.001808 -0.00001193
2 2000 0.001521 0.001532 -0.00001021
3 1998 0.001205 0.001273 -0.00006846
4 1996 0.000974 0.001032 -0.00005810
5 1994 0.001007 0.000808 0.00019966
6 1992 0.000689 0.000601 0.00008840
7 1990 0.000499 0.000412 0.00008744
8 1988 0.000082 0.000239 -0.00015711
9 1986 -0.000027 0.000085 -0.00011144
10 1984 -0.000024 -0.000053 0.00002852
11 1982 -0.000180 -0.000173 -0.00000718
12 1980 -0.000375 -0.000276 -0.00009894
13 1978 -0.000305 -0.000362 0.00005708
14 1976 -0.000357 -0.000430 0.00007326
15 1974 -0.000475 -0.000481 0.00000639
16 1972 -0.000491 -0.000515 0.00002404
17 1970 -0.000599 -0.000532 -0.00006780
18 1968 -0.000504 -0.000531 0.00002637

Coefficients
A 8.38153880
B -0.00851363
C 0.00000216


My linear data is +
The data is *
Collisions are %
-0.0005994| 0.0005981| 0.0017956|
--------------------------------------------------------
2002 40 | . %|
2000 35 | . % |
1998 30 | . % |
1996 26 | . % |
1994 26 | . + * |
1992 21 | +.* |
1990 18 | + * . |
1988 11 | * + . |
1986 9 | *+ . |
1984 9 | +* . |
1982 6 | % . |
1980 3 | *+ . |
1978 4 | + * . |
1976 4 | + * . |
1974 2 | +* . |
1972 1 | % . |
1970 1 | % . |
1968 1 | % . |
--------------------------------------------------------
3 lines

* |
* * * | *
**** * * * * | * * * * *
1111111111|22222222223333333333
1234567890123456789|01234567890123456789

[Tom P]

What you are missing is that the warming effect is cumulative.

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 09:31:39 -0400, AM <sct...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 5/11/2013 8:57 AM, JohnM wrote:
> > On May 11, 2:31 pm, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/10/2013 9:08 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 5/11/2013 10:54 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> >>>> On 5/10/2013 5:33 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/11/2013 10:30 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:

> >>>>>> On 5/10/2013 4:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 5/11/2013 9:30 AM, Desertphile wrote:

> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT), "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> >>>>>>>> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>

> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Question:
> >>>>>>>>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> >>>>>>>>>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
> >>>>>>>>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> >>>>>>>>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> >>>>>>>>>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> Answer:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
> >>

> >>>>>>>>> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
> >>>>>>>>> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and
> >>>>>>>>> alchemists?
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Astronomers do not debate astrologers, for the same reason. The
> >>>>>>>> debate
> >>>>>>>> about human-caused climate change ended decades ago.
> >>
> >>>>>>> **In the 19th century, to be more precise. In 1996, Svante Arhhenius
> >>>>>>> confirmed Fourier's hypothesis. AGW theory is well established, unlike
> >>>>>>> the religious ideas of Monckton et al.
> >>
> >>>>>>> These Monckton fanbois have zero clue.
> >>

> >>>>>> Where is the validation? The IPCC has been coming out with forecasts
> >>>>>> since 1990, yet we aren't even close to the projected temperature for
> >>>>>> the emissions scenario we're tracking.
> >>
> >>>>> **Predictions made by Arhhenius, with very little in the way of
> >>>>> comprehensive science, have been shown to be remarkably close.
> >>>>> Predictions made in the late 1970s - early 1980s have been shown to be
> >>>>> almost bang-on. We will see how close the IPCC predictions are at the
> >>>>> end of this century. Thus far, the real scientists (as opposed to
> >>>>> Monckton, et al) has been validated.
> >>
> >>>> The first IPCC milestone is 2025, validation of "best estimate" would
> >>>> require that warming immediately jump to triple the rate that it has
> >>>> been since 1990, just to get back on the trajectory path. The Met
> >>>> Office forecast that global temperature will remain flat from now until
> >>>> at least 2017, so that's terribly unlikely. So, it's a forgone
> >>>> conclusion that the 2025 milestone has already failed validation.
> >>
> >>>> Also, do you think it's reasonable to expect the global village to act
> >>>> as if the forecasts ARE valid, with no proof for a hundred years that
> >>>> they actually are?
> >>
> >>> **Of course. Predictions made more than 100 years ago have been shown to
> >>> be reasonably accurate. Predictions made more than 30 years ago, have
> >>> been shown to be very accurate. It's all about the science, not the
> >>> nutty religious ravings of Monckton, et al.
> >>
> >> You've just been shown that the predictions 30yr's ago were wrong yet
> >> you are still claiming they are right ?
> >
> > Which 1983 prediction are you saying is wrong?
> >
> >> And how come temps have remained flat for the past decade when Co2
> >> emissions have grown considerably ?
> >
> > Google ENSO and La Nina for the answer.

> Just couldn't answer the questions could you ?

He did answer, and correctly, idiot.


--
"When asked by the arraignment judge, 'Why did you shoot the man 6 times?'
The woman replied under oath, 'Because, when I pulled the trigger the 7th
time, it only went click.'" --- The value of human life in Texas

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:05:23 -0600, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 May 2013 13:16:28 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/10/2013 12:56 PM, JohnM wrote:
> > > On May 10, 8:05 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 10, 1:03 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

> > >>
> > >> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> Question:
> > >>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> > >>>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
> > >>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> > >>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> > >>>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
> > >>
> > >>>> Answer:
> > >>>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
> > >>
> > >>> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?
> > >>> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?
> > >>

> > >> Well... there was a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist,
> > >> and the science won that one. So the original point is still valid.
> > >
> > > Actually, the creationists say they won. Which shows the futility of
> > > holding a debate of scientists vs. denialists and expecting the result
> > > to be universally accepted.
>
> > Doesn't matter which side claims victory, it's which side the public
> > believes.
>
> Scientists in the hard sciences do not give a bloody shit what the
> public believes--- why the hell should they?
>
> > What we're learning is that so-called consensus science has
> > failed to settle a debate.
>
> ... among non-scientists. Among scientists the debate ended decades
> ago.
>
> > Consensus is a political construct
>
> No.

That shut the anus.

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On May 10, 11:03 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Question:
> > > Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
> > > opposed.  Both claim to have science on their side.
> > > The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
> > > be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
> > > side that is.  How do you determine which side is lieing?
> >
> > > Answer:
> > > Hold a debate.  The side that doesn't show is lieing.

> > When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?

> Uh, my guess would be during the sixties and seventies.

You mean the 1860s.

[RedAcer]

On 11/05/13 01:13, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> On 5/10/2013 4:30 PM, Desertphile wrote:

>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT), "erschro...@gmail.com"
>> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 10, 12:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Question:
>>>> Suppose you have an issue with two sides diametrically
>>>> opposed. Both claim to have science on their side.
>>>> The facts are such that it is apparent that one side must
>>>> be lieing but you don't have the expertise to know which
>>>> side that is. How do you determine which side is lieing?
>>>>
>>>> Answer:
>>>> Hold a debate. The side that doesn't show is lieing.
>>
>>> When did a debate between geologists and young earthers take place?

>>> Between biologists and creationists? Between chemists and alchemists?
>>

>> Astronomers do not debate astrologers, for the same reason. The debate
>> about human-caused climate change ended decades ago.
>

> If the debate was over decades ago, why are you here?

To try and explain AGW to deniers.