If CO2 causes global warming why does the temperature increase before 1940?
Seon Ferguson
temperature start rising BEFORE 1940? And why did it start getting cooler
during the 1970's when it should have been rising? Or is the graph the big
global warming swindle used made up? Do most scientists agree with it?
Seon Ferguson
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tMKdnWK9paAy1j7W...@westnet.com.au...
I was wrong, it increased after 1970. But shouldn't temperature have gone up
during the post war boom?
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>
>
>"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:tMKdnWK9paAy1j7W...@westnet.com.au...
>> If we are to believe that CO2 causes global warming, then why did the
>> temperature start rising BEFORE 1940?
Jesus Christ! You studied history! Ever hear of the industrial revolution?
Millions of people left the farm and moved to the cities, where they went
to work in factories. Factories powered by steam. Steam generated by
burning coal. Millions and millions of tons of coal!
http://www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/indrev.htm
Ships switched from sail to steam, burning coal. Trains were invented.
Trains burned coal. Notice a pattern here?
>>And why did it start getting cooler
>> during the 1970's when it should have been rising? Or is the graph the big
>> global warming swindle used made up? Do most scientists agree with it?
>I was wrong, it increased after 1970. But shouldn't temperature have gone up
>during the post war boom?
Maybe... something else happened then? Maybe there is more than one
influence on the climate. Maybe, while one influencer was increasing,
another was decreasing? The world is much more complex than you seem to be
able to grasp.
--
Shill #2
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
HD
> temperature start rising BEFORE 1940?
If you had build a house in industrial Germany before 1940 and had used nice
red bricks, Those bricks did turn black within a few years.
Pollution at that time was a lot worse than it is now, except now it is more
widespred.
Dawlish
This is a joke thread, right?
Seon Ferguson
"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fsl6q51iqu26235ae...@4ax.com...
But how do you know? How do I know? How does anyone know?
Seon Ferguson
"HD" <her...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:LjJon.13840$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tMKdnWK9paAy1j7W...@westnet.com.au...
>> If we are to believe that CO2 causes global warming, then why did the
>> temperature start rising BEFORE 1940?
>
> If you had build a house in industrial Germany before 1940 and had used
> nice red bricks, Those bricks did turn black within a few years.
> Pollution at that time was a lot worse than it is now, except now it is
> more widespred.
>
>
So in other words CO2 takes about 30 years to cause the temperature to
increase? Well if that's true then that's great because then we have 30
years to stop global warming.
bringyagrogalong
> "Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> temperature start rising BEFORE 1940?
>
> > Millions of people left the farm and moved to the cities, where they went
> > to work in factories. Factories powered by steam. Steam generated by
> > burning coal. Millions and millions of tons of coal!
> > http://www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/indrev.htm
>
> > Ships switched from sail to steam, burning coal. Trains were invented.
> > Trains burned coal. Notice a pattern here?
It's pretty fucking basic, Seon.
> >>> And why did it start getting cooler
> >>> during the 1970's when it should have been rising? Or is the graph the big
> >>> global warming swindle used made up? Do most scientists agree with it?
> >>
> >> I was wrong
No surprises there!
> >> it increased after 1970. But shouldn't temperature have gone
> >> up during the post war boom?
It did!
Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been
warmer
than the previous one.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm
> > Maybe... something else happened then? Maybe there is more than one
> > influence on the climate. Maybe, while one influencer was increasing,
> > another was decreasing? The world is much more complex than you seem to be
> > able to grasp.
>
> But how do you know? How do I know? How does anyone know?
Here you go...
Two of Australia's top research bodies - the Bureau of Meteorology and
the CSIRO - have come out strongly in defence of the science behind
global warming.
The leading research bodies say the evidence is irrefutable: climate
change is real and the link with human activity is beyond doubt.
The CSIRO says on its current path, the planet is heading for a rise
in temperature of a further 2 degrees Celsius this century.
The head of the organisation, Dr Megan Clark, says the evidence is
clear.
"Hotter days, more extreme heat and less rainfall are the snapshot of
Australia's climate now, not the forecast," she said.
"In Australia, we're seeing that all of Australia is warming, in every
state, over every season."
Dr Clark says it is clear the climate is being affected by the carbon
emissions caused by human activity.
"Our scientists and those around the world are now about 90 per cent
sure that these things are happening at the same time and are linked,"
she said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2846524.htm
No more need be said really.
bringyagrogalong
> bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> >"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>> If we are to believe that CO2 causes global warming, then why did the
> >> >>> temperature start rising BEFORE 1940?
>
> >> > Jesus Christ! You studied history! Ever hear of the industrial revolution?
> >> > Millions of people left the farm and moved to the cities, where they went
> >> > to work in factories. Factories powered by steam. Steam generated by
> >> > burning coal. Millions and millions of tons of coal!
> >> > http://www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/indrev.htm
>
> >> > Ships switched from sail to steam, burning coal. Trains were invented.
> >> > Trains burned coal. Notice a pattern here?
>
> > It's pretty fucking basic, Seon.
>
> >> >>> And why did it start getting cooler
> >> >>> during the 1970's when it should have been rising? Or is the graph the big
> >> >>> global warming swindle used made up? Do most scientists agree with it?
>
> >> >> I was wrong
>
> > No surprises there!
>
> >> >> it increased after 1970. But shouldn't temperature have gone
> >> >> up during the post war boom?
>
> > It did!
>
> > Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been
>
> 90% of the scientists in the world eh?
Yep!
90% of the scientists in the world are my authority.
Your authority is a bug-eyed, discredited conspiracist lunatic. LOL
I WIN !!
Dawlish
wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:38:15 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
>
>
>
>
>
> <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> >"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>> If we are to believe that CO2 causes global warming, then why did the
> >> >>> temperature start rising BEFORE 1940?
>
> >> > Jesus Christ! You studied history! Ever hear of the industrial revolution?
> >> > Millions of people left the farm and moved to the cities, where they went
> >> > to work in factories. Factories powered by steam. Steam generated by
> >> > burning coal. Millions and millions of tons of coal!
> >> >http://www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/indrev.htm
>
> >> > Ships switched from sail to steam, burning coal. Trains were invented.
> >> > Trains burned coal. Notice a pattern here?
>
> >It's pretty fucking basic, Seon.
>
> >> >>> And why did it start getting cooler
> >> >>> during the 1970's when it should have been rising? Or is the graph the big
> >> >>> global warming swindle used made up? Do most scientists agree with it?
>
> >> >> I was wrong
>
> >No surprises there!
>
> >> >> it increased after 1970. But shouldn't temperature have gone
> >> >> up during the post war boom?
>
> >It did!
>
> >Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been
>
> numbers. 90% of the scientists in the world eh?
> And of course the proof of that is some asshole said so?
> Keep spinning numbnuts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Some +sshole said so". Nice one First/Last. Best to link to the
actual research to show you:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Yes it is a web-based survey; yes the number of scientists who classed
themselves as "Climate scientists" asked numbered 79 and yes only 77
of those answered this question:
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
Only 75 answered "yes"........which leaves two sitting with you. *>))
Overall, out of 3146 Earth Scientists who answered the questionnaire,
only 90% had Doctorates and only 97% were educated to Masters standard
and only 50% of those participants had had work on climate science
published in peer-reviewed publications in the last 12 months. Of
those, only 2580 answered "yes" to that same question.
That's an awful lot of +ssholes, but it won't change your mind at all
that it is reality that very few climate scientists agree with your
standpoint; will it?
Seon Ferguson
"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:2140ec55-f4b6-436e...@n39g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>
>> >>> If we are to believe that CO2 causes global warming, then why did the
>> >>> temperature start rising BEFORE 1940?
>>
>> > Jesus Christ! You studied history! Ever hear of the industrial
>> > revolution?
>> > Millions of people left the farm and moved to the cities, where they
>> > went
>> > to work in factories. Factories powered by steam. Steam generated by
>> > burning coal. Millions and millions of tons of coal!
>> > http://www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/indrev.htm
>>
>> > Ships switched from sail to steam, burning coal. Trains were invented.
>> > Trains burned coal. Notice a pattern here?
>
> It's pretty fucking basic, Seon.
>
Yep it's a good thing.
>> >>> And why did it start getting cooler
>> >>> during the 1970's when it should have been rising? Or is the graph
>> >>> the big
>> >>> global warming swindle used made up? Do most scientists agree with
>> >>> it?
>> >>
>> >> I was wrong
>
> No surprises there!
>
>> >> it increased after 1970. But shouldn't temperature have gone
>> >> up during the post war boom?
>
> It did!
>
> Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been
> warmer
than the previous one.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm
>
So the graphs lie?
But did they measure global temperature or just the Australian one? And how
does he know that CO2 is affecting climate change?
Seon Ferguson
"First Post" <last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote in message
news:nfs6q51rv7u79b9nf...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:38:15 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
>>warmer ?than the previous one.
> Yeah yeah, the science is settled and all of that bullshit.
>
> Funny how you alarmists are always throwing out unsubstantiated
> numbers. 90% of the scientists in the world eh?
> And of course the proof of that is some asshole said so?
> Keep spinning numbnuts.
>
>
I also like how they say there is a scientific consensus but not all of the
2,500 signatures in the IPCC report are actual scientists.
Government Shill #2
wrote:
We don't KNOW! We NEVER really KNOW! We always take our best guess. That is
what science is about. How the hell do you KNOW that electrons flow through
wires? How the hell do you know that having flown (flowed?) through some
wires these electrons get modulated by a signal sent from a television
station 100 miles away and then fired at a phosphorous screen where the
impact causes photons of light to be ejected into your eyeballs? You DON'T!
But, by examining, measuring, theorising, experimenting, measuring,
hypothesising... You eventually get to a theory that seems to make more
sense than any other theory out there. Most of the time this is very close
to reality. Sometimes, someone else comes up with another theory which is a
better match and the old theory is discarded.
The current theory is that the billions upon billions of tons of greenhouse
gasses we have been pumping into the air for the past 150 years are having
an effect.
Don't believe that? Bring out a better theory! One that better matches the
observations.
Dawlish
wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:55:33 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
>
> Still waiting for anyone to cite the "law of manmade global warming".
> Hell cite the law that shows that the hundredths of a percent of CO2
> created by man causes planetary warming.
> All the rehtoric about settled science without ever a single
> scientific law being used or quoted.
> When you prove your case you can claim some stupid little victory.
> The claim that if enough people believe in something then it must be
> true has always been bullshit.
> So you believe in God because so many say it exists?
> After all, a billion or so believers in the world is one hell of a
> "consensus" So religion is settled. God definitely exists because
> there is a consensus.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I refer you to the survey above, which you have ignored after saying
that "some +sshole said so". There is no "Law of Manmade global
warming", but there is an enormous consensus of climate scientists and
earth scientists who don't believe in "settled science" but do feel
that CO2 is the main driver of GW and that GW actually exists - which
for some odd reason, you deny. OK, but the likelihood of you being
wrong is high, as is the likelihood of them being right - you must at
least accept that is the present position?
As has also been said - if CO2 isn't the main driver of the present
warming; what is?
Seon Ferguson
"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g3a7q599e9hm0q03j...@4ax.com...
I already posted it. Some scientists have found during the Maunder Minimum
sunspot activity was low. That should give you a clue. Also the temperature
has increased by 4 degrees before (more after the Ice Ages) and there was
never Armageddon.
Bill Ward
You learn basic physics, for a start.
Government Shill #2
wrote:
Yes... but... there... was... never... billions... and... billions... of
tons... of... EXTRA... greenhouse... gasses... in... the... atmosphere...
at... the ... same... time... as... these... other... contributors...
before!
It... is... different... this... time!
--
Shill #2
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates
what he hears into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
Seon Ferguson
"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5h79q5dbtgau05fnv...@4ax.com...
Yes that's true so have you ever stopped to think that maybe what's
happening is natural and would have happened regardless of humans however
all the extra CO2 we send to the atmosphere might be making it worse?
And also I understand the greenhouse effect. It is a good thing and without
it life would not exist on this planet. But too much CO2 could warm up the
planet. But the question is how much?
Dawlish
> "Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5h79q5dbtgau05fnv...@4ax.com...> >>"Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:g3a7q599e9hm0q03j...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:12:11 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
I think everyone has done this at some time Seon: then most people
with science backgrounds, have looked at the evidence and have come to
the conclusion that it is/is probably not completely natural at all
and that it is/is probably the CO2 which is causing the present
increase.
Government Shill #2
wrote:
Ever stopped to think it? I've been telling you that for months!
>And also I understand the greenhouse effect. It is a good thing and without
>it life would not exist on this planet. But too much CO2 could warm up the
>planet. But the question is how much?
There's that light bulb again. Struggling to come alight, above your head.
Almost... Nearly...
--
Shill #2
Bozone (n.):
The substance surrounding stupid people that stop bright ideas from
penetrating.
The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the
near future.
Earl Evleth
oKOdnVJ5l6U0IDnW...@westnet.com.au, "Seon Ferguson"
<seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But too much CO2 could warm up the
> planet. But the question is how much?
The limit is another 5-7°C globally.
Even 1°C can produce big problems with sea
level rises, local weather changes,
Northern sea ice will not be there in the
summers etc.
kdt...@earthlink.net
'> So in other words CO2 takes about 30 years to cause the temperature
to
'> increase?
This statement is not based upon science. There is no direct science
whatsoever for either CO2 to have this property or in climate
analysis.
Any such number for the effect of 400 ppm of CO2 on climate are merely
drawn from a hat.
If this statement is not true, refer some direct laboratory evidence
to support the statement that CO2 retains IR and causes higher
temperature. There is none and this idea was discarded by modern
chemistry until regurgitated by the idiots of theoretical science.
The year of the ice cores is shifted from actual year.
This is done blantantly and no one in the scientific community has the
balls to point this out to the head charlatan's. Jones, Trenberth, and
Hansen who are guilty of the fraud of this distortion of the
scientific fact.
The actual readings of CO2 cannot be explained by human impact. The
data on CO2, temperatures and the efficacy of any emission reductions
are blatantly falsified by charlatans of this science.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
John Kerry as the leader for the implementation of strangulation
taxation, of the US senate will be held for crimes against humanity
for his failure to heed this scientist warning which was written to
the US senate, and develop a valid basis of fact for this issue. These
politicians claim a level of scientific basis to strangle the economy
from the evils of CO2, they will be held and must live up to this
level of scientific credibility and to act without this and affect the
nation of the whole is a serious crime.
Notice that this is done because it is absolutely essential for the
false theory.
If the year of the ice cores is taken from the layers which are
counted, then the sharpness of the rise cannot in any way be
attributed to human contribution into the environment and the entire
theory that if all we do is strangulation regulation by taxes and
fines, we can affect the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and
mitigate the concentrations or the climate.
Pure bullshit based upon bullshit postulation and invalid theoretical
application and FALSIFIED scientific data.
'>Well if that's true then that's great because then we have 30
'> years to stop global warming.
While the mediocre little minds of the believers repeat the stale and
invalid propaganda that there is a general consensus among scientists
who have looked at the data, there are those with rational
capabilities who rightfully deny that the believers have any basic
science and this vague statement that we have 30 years to 'do
something about' is pure academic nonsense of their terminal
detachment from REALITY.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/30/what-the-future-holds-in-store/
CO2 emissions have risen with population. There is no means to reduce
CO2 other than elimination of the use of the fuel. Strangulation
taxation has no actual means of reducing emissions that can in any way
mitigate atmospheric concentrations.
If the world output of CO2 is 30 billion tons per yr, and US
contribution is 5 billion, and while world output did not increase and
US CO2 were COMPLETELY eliminated today, By the target date of 2050,
about 40 yrs, one would have only saved 8 yrs until same CO2 is
emitted into the environment.
30 billion tons per yr, x 40 yrs, = 1200 billion tons.
25 billion tons per yr, x 48 yrs, = 1200 billion tons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
By the time you do any other factoring at all such as considering that
China is increasing it's CO2 emissions by 10% relative to the US per
yerar, the most draconian emission reductions can only save perhaps a
few months UNTIL THE SAME RESULT. NO VALUABLE BENIFIT FOR THE COST
WHATSOVER.
KD
Dawlish
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> > ... that it is/is probably
> > ... that it is/is probably ... is causing the present
> > increase.
>
> Can you compose a sentence without your fallback phrases?
> The word "evidence" from your mouth sounds quite ridiculous in this case.
>
> And again, for carving into your forehead:
> There is no evidence whatsoever for a *causation*.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you aren't prepared to look properly at what has convinced so many
scientists, you are highly unlikely to see the most likely answer and
you are very likely to be convinced only by what you know already.
Just because *you* feel only that only you and a few others have the
real evidence does not, amazingly, make you correct in the eyes of
most who look at the same evidence and actually see what it shows.
Global temperatures are increasing and CO2 is the most likely cause.
Just saying that it doesn't, isn't much of an argument.
Increasing atmospheic CO2 concentrations increases global
temperatures. Fact. Now tell me something that, recently, has affected
the world's climate more than these increasing concentrations of CO2.
Hard question, I know.
Try to answer without resorting to insults and foul language, tough I
know you can find that very difficult.
kdt...@earthlink.net
>> > > No more need be said really.
>
> > Yeah yeah, the science is settled and all of that bullshit.
>
> > 90% of the scientists in the world eh?
>
> Yep!
>
> 90% of the scientists in the world are my authority.
>
> Your authority is a bug-eyed, discredited conspiracist lunatic. LOL
>
So some evidence or some sort of poll to support your statements of
the beleifs of scientists.
Right now in view of the exposed truth that Phil Jones and Mike Mann
forged proxies means that this consensus is based upon fraudulent
science they've been given.
That Jones had to falsify the data set averages of the proxies by
inserting temperatures, means that the proxies are not reading what
the puported statistics are.
This is because the statistics have been forged and the proxies must
be modified to the false statistics. This is done primarily by
depressing earlier temperatures which are harder to double check. But
in doing this, the proxies must be adjusted to the earlier
temperatures which are falsly depressed, and then forged to match the
temperatures of the later 20th century.
But Hansen changes recent temperatures also, by means of his
'corrections',
In these graphs from Hansen, the one produced in 1999 has 1934 0.6C
above that of 1998.
This does not suit the global warming theory, so he adjusts 1934 down
and 1998 up.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/
How come the damn thermometers in 1998 were reading cooler than the
ACTUAL TEMPERATURE?
Notice very clearly in the 1999 graph and the adjusted graph for the
US, the warming trend of the world statitistics depicted DOES NOT
EXIST. Clear and simple fact that must be psychologically refused by
the demented minds of Algore and his followers.
All part of the great fields of science, that know they must kiss
Hansen's ass or find another job. This must be why the senile
charlatan won't retire. Since without his control over his corrupt
web, it will fall apart and people will see the truth.
Only the objective analysis from McIntyre brings any honesty to the
field of climatology. CRU has only resisted at every point any
cooperation in producing their methodology or basic data. They have no
valid definition of the word science.
The met office has said they must review their statistics in light of
the apparent fraud of CRU, which produces the basic world statistics.
This means directly that the IPCC's rating of 90% probability of being
correct in their postulation cannot be correct. They and the
'consensus' can be proved to be operating on invalid and FALSIFIED
science.
KD
The ship of fools of the BELIEVERS in anthropogenic global warming
sails on,,,
Next stop, the marina on No Paddle Island, up Shit Creek
Seon Ferguson
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76f66648-abed-49af...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
Well where is the evidence that human produced CO2 causes global warming? I
just think Global Warming has other causes.
Seon Ferguson
"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fhg9q55ulsttr1pvl...@4ax.com...
And when I do that look where it gets me. I reject both the left and the
right and only look at the facts.
Bill Ward
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:76f66648-
abed-49af-8b5...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
Exactly. Ask Dawlish to show "the evidence" he's talking about, and
explain exactly what part convinces him CO2 could cause a catastrophe.
Then sit back and watch as he tries to bluff and intimidate his way out.
It's quite entertaining. He hasn't got a clue, because he depends on
others to do his thinking for him.
Unum
That evidence has been posted to the newsgroups thousands of times and
it is everywhere on the internet.
> explain exactly what part convinces him CO2 could cause a catastrophe.
He stated that "it is/is probably the CO2 which is causing the present
increase", now Bill Ward wants him to explain something he didn't say.
> Then sit back and watch as he tries to bluff and intimidate his way out.
>
> It's quite entertaining. He hasn't got a clue, because he depends on
> others to do his thinking for him.
Lol, I guess if you can't counter the argument you have to try
to denigrate the person making it.
Bill Ward
See? Isn't that fun? You get to see a little song and dance routine,
but never any "evidence". He hasn't got any to post. It's always on the
internet somewhere, but he can't actually explain any of it.
That's AGWer's problem. All you have to do is call their bluff and they
have to fold. They've got nothing but bogus recycled propaganda, smoke
and mirrors.
Oh, and incriminating emails. Can't forget those.
Seon Ferguson
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:C7CA8B54.1A51E7%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
Yeah but the majority of scientists have not come to an agreement on how big
the temperature will rise. They just agree that global warming is happening,
like I do,
Unum
Everything has been explained to Bill Ward many times, why bother?
> That's AGWer's problem. All you have to do is call their bluff and they
> have to fold. They've got nothing but bogus recycled propaganda, smoke
> and mirrors.
Every scientist except an unemployed Hungarian physicist is all smoke
and mirrors, lol.
>
> Oh, and incriminating emails. Can't forget those.
Bill Ward lied about the emails, and claimed honest people had
committed fraud.
Bill Ward
Oh, goody. An encore. Entertaining, but uninformative.
They'll keep going like this for post after post - but never any actual
explanation or evidence, just lame excuses and feeble attempts at
distraction. They try to bluff, but when called, can't show their cards.
Then they wonder why on one takes them seriously, except for other
believers.
Great fun, if you look at it the right way.
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:U9SdnV1BM_E6EjjW...@giganews.com...
If he had actually read the climategate email's he would never call those
involved in it "honest people" they censor anyone who disagrees with them
from scientific journals. That's not science.
Unum
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> news:U9SdnV1BM_E6EjjW...@giganews.com...
Lol, Bill Ward has found himself a disciple!
Bring it on out Sean. Ward has consistently run away. What do you have?
Bill Ward
> Seon Ferguson wrote
>> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:U9SdnV1BM_E6EjjW...@giganews.com...
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> > believers.
>> >
>> > Great fun, if you look at it the right way.
>> >
>> If he had actually read the climategate email's he would never call
>> those involved in it "honest people" they censor anyone who disagrees
>> with them from scientific journals. That's not science.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Emails?
>
> Is that all there is?
>
> As opposed to a giant work of peer reviewed science?
>
> Oh! Sorry, some of the morons don't like Peer Review.
>
> It's all a conspiracy. You see.
>
> In '82, I met Peggy Lee. And she was bigger than Elvis to me.
>
> She's known for a song.
>
> "Is that all there is?"
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe9kKf7SHco
Wow! Another act. Let's hear a big hand for that content-free bit of
entertainment. Who's next?
Bill Ward
Hey! Great! Now we get the clown act. Isn't this fun?
Next up, please, the audience is waiting...
Seon Ferguson
"Argent" <last_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.260f71f59...@news.x-privat.org...
> Seon Ferguson wrote
>> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:U9SdnV1BM_E6EjjW...@giganews.com...
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> > believers.
>> >
>> > Great fun, if you look at it the right way.
>> >
>> If he had actually read the climategate email's he would never call those
>> involved in it "honest people" they censor anyone who disagrees with them
>> from scientific journals. That's not science.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Emails?
>
> Is that all there is?
>
> As opposed to a giant work of peer reviewed science?
>
> Oh! Sorry, some of the morons don't like Peer Review.
>
Obviously you haven't read the climategate emails because you would see any
view that they disagree with is censored.
Seon Ferguson
"Unum" <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:ho4afd$5u6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I'm no one's disciple and I couldn't give a toss what he or you thinks. Now
go back to worshiping your messiah Obama and high priest Al Gore. Looser.
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:5ZadndwNsf4xJDjW...@giganews.com...
It's fun but it's also sad to see such willful ignorance. Even before I woke
up I knew the AWG were no good.
Bill Ward
Some may be honestly ignorant, but they don't seem to post here.
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:5ZadndkNsf5mTjjW...@giganews.com...
Maybe but they refuse to even read the climategate email's. At least I read
them but then again deep down I knew I was spouting crap.
Bill Ward
If they won't read the evidence, I claim they're dishonest. You read
enough to see for yourself what was going on, which is apparently all it
took to get you thinking for yourself.
Dawlish
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:21:12 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
> > "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:76f66648-
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah nice one Bill. The *could* cause a catastrophe bit is really,
really easy. The likelihood (notice that word Bill. It's what people
who feel that CO2 *is* probably going to cause a problem gives people
like you who feel they understand different physics to everyone else a
small hole that real scientists constantly have to defend against
exaggeration and deceit) that, 2 generations on, my descendents will
thank this generation for starting to address the problem is what
drives me. They are very unlikely to be thanking people like you. And
I'm not even fully convinced; I just feel that the evidence (yes Bill,
evidence) is so stacked against the sceptics and denialists that I'd
lay odds as long as 20/1 that they end up correct.
You are right, it is entertaining, as my question thread is proving to
every "AGW"er that is watching the skeptics and denialists struggle
with any kind of alternative explanation.........As you do too. *>))
Dawlish
> On 3/20/2010 6:56 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:21:12 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
>
> >> "Dawlish"<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:76f66648-
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's normal for the denialists Unum. That's what they do, feeling that
if they say "It's not ceee ooooh tooooo" to quote (and I'm sure spell
wrongly) one of them on here, enough times, it will become true. Then
if they denigrate the scientist/layman asking the questions, they'll
go away. I have a habit of not doing that.
It's when you ask them what the alternative, then be prepared to
debate with them why the plethora of alternatives may not be rooted in
sense, is when the squirming and the insults start.
Water off a duck's is the best way to deal with the abuse........ and
there will be lots.
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:5ZadndsNsf5IfzjW...@giganews.com...
Yep it also lead me to look at the facts the man made global warming
skeptics brought up.
Bill Ward
See, it's a never ending circus. No evidence, no explanation, but a
gripping sob story concerning his "feelings" about CO2, and how our
request he show and explain "the evidence" makes it harder for him to
continue the scam down through through the generations. (If it were a
book, that would make it a novel, wouldn't it.) He shows no evidence,
yet he feels that it's stacked against us. I guess drama is a good
change of pace - keep him in mind for the next Academy Award so he can
keep up with Al in the credentials department.
So who's next in this continuing saga? Let's have some more creative
excuses for not being able to post and explain "the evidence". Usually
about this point someone does the X-file routine, where they wave
generally towards the IPCC 4AR. and says knowingly, "The truth is in
there ... somewhere...". It's not original, but it always gets a laugh.
Bill Ward
And it continues on and on - never any actual evidence, or explanations,
but lots of drama and comedy explaining why they can't produce anything.
And, of course, complaints about the abuse they have to take from anyone
who dares to call their bluff. But the show must go on...
Who's next?
Dawlish
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:45:38 -0500, Unum wrote:
> > On 3/20/2010 6:56 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:21:12 +1100, Seon Ferguson wrote:
>
> >>> "Dawlish"<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:76f66648-
>
> - Show quoted text -
emails don't change the fact that, at the moment, global temperatures
are at record levels. I don't see them falling as a result of seeing
some emails. Do you Bill?
The only thing that matters are outcome global temperatures. Any
deflection from that is the "smoke and mirrors". The world is warming
and the only thing left to do is to identify the cause. Far more
evidence points to CO2 being the cause than anything else. If you
think it doesn't..........tell me what does; the thread is waiting.
"The things
No-one appears to have folded Bill and you are still in with the tiny
minority of scientists that you were before. That's fine by the rest
of us. *>))
Bill Ward
You just have to admit the AGWer entertainment channel is full of
surprises. Who'd have thought they didn't know that when their bluff is
called, they have to show their cards ("the evidence", and an explanation
of why they think it's convincing) or lose. Not one shred of evidence,
and no explanation, means they have lost. But the show goes on...
The song and dance routines are great. Maybe for a change of pace we
could have the dogs and ponies... Or polar bears and penguins.
Who's next? We're waiting impatiently for the next act.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Global temperatures Bill. Remember those?
Unum
Lame insults and you run away too. Ward has taught you well.
Unum
Its clear that a person will not be affected by ordinary reasoning if he
didn't arrive at his position or opinion by means of anything resembling
a logical thought process. Rational argument only makes deniers angry.
They will not be budged. For them it is not science, it is ideology.
Unum
This is all you'll get from Ward at this point. He is backed into a
corner as usual. The only thing remaining is to try to put you on the
defensive.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nah! No defence from me. Not from this position of strength!
Bill Ward
Well, I'll have to admit I'm disappointed with that feeble attempt to
change the subject. True, he still hasn't posted any actual evidence of
CO2 causing significant warming, or explained the mechanism by which it
could do so, but there's no creativity, no life to the dodge. It's like
he's not even trying. We deserve better.
Bring out the hook, get this guy offstage, and let's see the next act.
Put some effort into it this time. Go back to the vaudeville routine.
Make us laugh.
Bill Ward
See how predictable the dishonest AGWers are. No evidence, no
explanation, just a knee-jerk attempt at an insult. He apparently thinks
someone gives a hoot about what he says.
This can go on as long as you want - they never seem to realize how
funny their little ritual makes them look. But they seem to use up their
best material right away and have to fall back on their old favorites,
boring as they may be.
Bill Ward
OK, that's better, now we're getting back to some original stuff.
They've still not posted any actual evidence of catastrophic CO2 warming,
or any explanation of the physical mechanism that would make it possible.
But there's a song and dance routine excusing their nonperformance
because no one is affected (favorably) by their bluff. They sadly leave
the stage because their non-logic fails to convince anyone, poor babies.
OK, cue the next excuse for not showing and explaining "the science" that
you keep talking about. How many excuses have there been? I've lost
count.
If you make it original and entertaining enough, you might get some
applause.
Bill Ward
So unum surrenders after his bluff was called, without ever showing his
cards. He can't post "the evidence", or explain it, because he has none
to show or explain. He's well and truly busted.
Now wasn't that fun and easy? But now what will we do for entertainment?
The odds are he won't be able to gracefully admit he got caught bluffing,
and will try a parting shot pretending it never happened. That's always
good for a laugh.
Let's see whether he tries it here, or runs away and starts a new thread:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> It's quite entertaining. He hasn't got a clue, because he depends on
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
please show in this thread were the word catastrophe was used prior to
your post On Mar 20, 3:56 pm.
Unum
Nothing original about your stuff. Same thing every day, and many people
have been through this with you on the newsgroups. A complete waste of
time due to the fact that you aren't affected by reasoning because you
didn't arrive at your position via a logical thought process.
Are you saying now that there is no evidence of warming? CO2 not a greenhouse
gas? Al Gore will make some money? Clouds will reflect all the heat away?
Everything is better when the earth heats up? It was warmer in the past
so no amount of pollution we generate will matter? Everything is a fraud?
> But there's a song and dance routine excusing their nonperformance
> because no one is affected (favorably) by their bluff. They sadly leave
> the stage because their non-logic fails to convince anyone, poor babies.
>
> OK, cue the next excuse for not showing and explaining "the science" that
> you keep talking about. How many excuses have there been? I've lost
> count.
>
> If you make it original and entertaining enough, you might get some
> applause.
I'm noticing a Rodgers and Hammerstein flavor in Ward's prevarications
this week. A Lawrence Welk kind of thing. And a one, and a two!
Seon Ferguson
"Unum" <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:ho5pjk$lt9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Why would I run away when it is so easy to point out your hypocrisy?
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:hYOdnbwU0sYueDvW...@giganews.com...
I like how he accused me of being your disciple when Al Gore and the head of
the AGW is his disciple.
Bill Ward
It's called "projection". He can't think for himself, so he's dependent
on someone else to do his thinking for him. Then he projects his
actions outward on you, assuming you behave the same way he does. Like
himself, you must, in his view, be someone's "disciple". He literally
can't imagine anyone thinking independently.
It's kind of sad, really. I wouldn't want to live that way. But then,
he knows no other way, so he's not missing anything.
I think the point has been clearly established that the dishonest AGWers
can show no actual scientific evidence of, or explain any physical
mechanism for, CO2 causing more than a degree or two of warming.
They're so easy to manipulate, we could keep them dancing around
indefinitely bluffing and pretending they can do so, but always avoiding
actually showing their cards with some transparent excuse.
I keep hoping for them to come up with an original, creative excuse, but
they've failed to even do that. Let's see what's their next act is -
maybe they can do better.
Bill Ward
The dishonest AGWers can still show no evidence, and no explanation of
any mechanism allowing CO2 to increase temperatures more than a degree or
two. All they can do is bluff and hope no one notices their bluff has
been called. How many more times will they continue to tap dance around
the fact they have lost by default?
Let's see. Who's next up on the playbill?
You're on!
Break a leg! (That's show biz talk, not a threat, so whiners can rest
easy.)
Your audience awaits.
Seon Ferguson
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:s42dnTYcl9AZsjrW...@giganews.com...
Yeah I only lasted what, a few months? Imagine living like that your entire
life.
> I think the point has been clearly established that the dishonest AGWers
> can show no actual scientific evidence of, or explain any physical
> mechanism for, CO2 causing more than a degree or two of warming.
>
I couldn't before. I mean yeah pollution has gone up when temperature has
gone up but wouldn't you think temperature would increase from 1940-1970?
> They're so easy to manipulate, we could keep them dancing around
> indefinitely bluffing and pretending they can do so, but always avoiding
> actually showing their cards with some transparent excuse.
>
> I keep hoping for them to come up with an original, creative excuse, but
> they've failed to even do that. Let's see what's their next act is -
> maybe they can do better.
>
I doubt it. Pretty soon they will accuse me of working for the oil companies
even though I know Iraq was about oil. But if they are any oil company
representatives here...
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh we're not back on this one again Bill are we? And you have original
ideas.
Bill: there's a thread to say what you think drives climate. Despite
all your bluster, you've said next to nothing.
So easy for you to say (probably highly erroneously) why CO2 may not
be the cause; so difficult for you to say what is.
Don't project, or manipulate - though people are doing a very good job
of that with you; it's entertaining - Say what you actually think. You
may use science if you wish.
fritz
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> See how predictable the dishonest AGWers are. No evidence, no
> explanation, just a knee-jerk attempt at an insult. He apparently thinks
> someone gives a hoot about what he says.
You can't get enough of him, are you in love ?
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seon: temperatures did increase at that time. Every decade of the past
century was warmer than the previous decade.
There are no excuses Seon: just rising temperatures which need
explanation. The science of CO2 absorption is settled. That's why most
scientists accept that is it very probably (and I always use the
descriptive terms here with caution - never: "will"; not yet at least)
CO2 that has caused the global warming. If it is something else. Tell
me what it is.
No-one is likely to accuse you of working for an oil company because,
quite frankly, as far as I can see, no-one is that bothered.
Bill Ward
Do you think CO2 is really pollution? If so, why?
>> They're so easy to manipulate, we could keep them dancing around
>> indefinitely bluffing and pretending they can do so, but always
>> avoiding actually showing their cards with some transparent excuse.
>>
>> I keep hoping for them to come up with an original, creative excuse,
>> but they've failed to even do that. Let's see what's their next act is
>> - maybe they can do better.
>>
> I doubt it. Pretty soon they will accuse me of working for the oil
> companies
Bask in it. It shows how desperate they are.
> even though I know Iraq was about oil. But if they are any oil
> company representatives here...
Do you think all oil companies are evil? If so, why?
Bill Ward
Note the unsupported claim that "the science" is settled. Dawlish has
just been caught bluffing, yet here he goes again. If his claim were
true, he could easily post "the evidence", along with an explanation of
why he finds it convincing. He doesn't. He can't. All he can do is
continue his strategy of putting on a show, hoping no one will notice his
empty hand. When his bluff is called, he has nothing.
Insanity is sometimes defined as doing the same thing over and over,
expecting a different outcome. That's what dishonest AGWers do.
If it weren't for their dishonesty, I might feel sympathy for them, but
considering their attitudes, I simply sit back and enjoy their
predicament.
> No-one is likely to accuse you of working for an oil company because,
> quite frankly, as far as I can see, no-one is that bothered.
On with the show!
Bill Ward
Nah, he's not my type. Don't worry, you can have him.
And thanks for participating in the show. It was beginning to get a bit
dull.
bringyagrogalong
>
> Note the unsupported claim that "the science" is settled. Dawlish has
> just been caught bluffing, yet here he goes again. If his claim were
> true, he could easily post "the evidence", along with an explanation of
> why he finds it convincing.
So you think the evidence can be condensed down into a post do you?
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
What a card-carrying imbecile.
Suffice to say that *not one* reputable scientific body disputes
Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Proof enough I would have thought.
And who have you got in your corner?
A bug-eyed conspiracist lunatic who hasn't even got a science
background. LOL
We win! You lose!
Fucking cowboy!
fritz
Just let the thread die if it is going round in circles.
Bill Ward
Isn't that great? When his bluff is called, rather than producing "the
evidence", and explanation he claims to have ("the science" is settled),
he wants me to chat with him instead.
What kind of entertainment is that? A talk show? Come on, he can do
better than that. We need some good excuses for his failure to show his
cards. Maybe the dog ate them. I know - a polar bear ate them.
Come on, let's get some energy going here.
Who's up next?
bringyagrogalong
>
> Come on, let's get some energy going here.
>
> Who's up next?
I was.
But you obviously thought discretion was the better part of valour.
Bill Ward
OK, that's better. A good change of pace. Clowns are always funny,
especially when they run around in little circles shouting irrelevant
nonsense. At least this one admits he has nothing he can post that would
show CO2 can have more than a degree or so of warming. Since he's a
clown, I really wouldn't expect him to know much anyway.
But enough clowns.
Why can't you show the "evidence" you keep talking about? Why can't you
explain it? We've had enough warmup acts. Now let's see some really
creative excuses.
We're all anxiously waiting. Make it good.
Bill Ward
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> news:s42dnSwcl9DeyjrW...@giganews.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:04:28 +0100, fritz wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> See how predictable the dishonest AGWers are. No evidence, no
>>>> explanation, just a knee-jerk attempt at an insult. He apparently
>>>> thinks someone gives a hoot about what he says.
>>>
>>> You can't get enough of him, are you in love ?
>>
>> Nah, he's not my type. Don't worry, you can have him.
>>
>> And thanks for participating in the show. It was beginning to get a
>> bit dull.
>>
>>
> Just let the thread die if it is going round in circles.
I'm curious to see how long they'll let me manipulate them. Think of it
as trolling the trolls.
Bill Ward
Sorry, I missed your performance. Would you mind repeating it?
I'd hate to miss a good one - they're pretty rare.
Proceed:
Tom P
Bill doesn't say it, but the Miskolczi stuff he's so fond of actually
predicts that temperatures can't change at all. According to Miskolczi,
increasing CO2 decreases the WV content and vice versa. Exactly how, he
doesn't say. He also doesn't explain how in this case the Ice Ages or
the MWP or the LIA could have happened if the negative feedback is
supposedly so strong. So Bill takes this theory as an article of faith
and refuses to even attempt to understand real physics.
It's like pointing out to a flat earthist that gravity makes the
earth go round the sun and the moon go round the earth and he keeps
saying "prove it! prove it! show me a single experiment that proves it!"
Tom P
Positive feedbacks. The Water Vapour feedback. The Ice Albedo feedback.
The methane release feedback.
I don't expect you to accept any of these, for the simple reason that
your mindset is locked into the Miskolczi garbage.
Bill Ward
Now, Tom, I consider you one of the honest AGWers in that I thought you
at least try to understand how things work. I'm disappointed, because if
you had actually read Miskolczi:
<http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>
you'd have seen right in the abstract:
"In Earth-type atmospheres sustained planetary greenhouse effect with a
stable ground surface temperature can only exist at a particular
planetary average flux optical depth of 1.841 . Simulation results show
that the Earth maintains a controlled greenhouse effect with a global
average optical depth kept close to this critical value."
In the body of the paper, of course, he derives the mathematical support
for that statement and describes the simulation in detail. So he in fact
does explain why increasing CO2 decreases the WV content. It does so to
maintain the required constant optical depth. I realize you are not
willing to read the paper, but it seems dishonest to claim to know what
Miskolczi says without even reading the abstract. Your lack of
understanding of the paper is hardly proof that it's wrong.
> He also doesn't explain how in this case the Ice Ages or the MWP or the
> LIA could have happened if the negative feedback is
> supposedly so strong.
That would be up to his critics. It's their claim,not his.
> So Bill takes this theory as an article of faith and refuses to even
> attempt to understand real physics.
If you understand "real physics" so well, why don't you show exactly what
in Miskolczi's paper you think is not real physics and why. First, you'd
need to read and understand it, of course.
> It's like pointing out to a flat earthist that gravity makes the
> earth go round the sun and the moon go round the earth and he keeps
> saying "prove it! prove it! show me a single experiment that proves it!"
Now that's more in the spirit of the dishonest AGWers this thread is bait
for. I'm surprised you'd stoop to such a ridiculous strawman. Are you
somehow channeling Lloyd Parker?
I'm maintaining this thread to ridicule dishonest AGWers who try to
bluff, or more precisely to allow the dishonest AGWers to show how
ridiculous they are when they get caught bluffing. I didn't expect you
to jump on stage and participate in the show. Are you sure you want to
do that?
Either way, the show must go on.
Next act please?
Bill Ward
So you don't accept Lindzen's finding of no net positive feedback? Or
the fact that in the warming of the late 1900s, the upper troposphere
dried out? Or that the temperature "signature" of AGW was not found?
And just what does ice albedo and methane release have to do with the
effect of CO2? Come on Tom, I know you can do better than that.
>
>
>> Let's see. Who's next up on the playbill?
>>
>> You're on!
>>
>> Break a leg! (That's show biz talk, not a threat, so whiners can rest
>> easy.)
>>
>> Your audience awaits.
Next contestant, please. We need more colorful excuses for your not
being able to show or explain "the science" you keep claiming you have.
Don't be shy, step right up and do your bit.
Bill Ward
> Not new, but always a juicy argument, merging reputation with truth and
> then run away.
>
> I really like to see those AGW trolls dance faster and faster.
They're so easy, I almost feel guilty. Almost.
Bill Ward
> Al Bore has stolen the evidence and made a video out of it, surely.
Yeah, it even got an Oscar. How could that possibly be wrong?
Unum
I guess I will continue to be waiting for Bill Ward to tell us what
his position is on any of these common denialist canards.
>>> But there's a song and dance routine excusing their nonperformance
>>> because no one is affected (favorably) by their bluff. They sadly
>>> leave the stage because their non-logic fails to convince anyone, poor
>>> babies.
>>>
>>> OK, cue the next excuse for not showing and explaining "the science"
>>> that you keep talking about. How many excuses have there been? I've
>>> lost count.
>>>
>>> If you make it original and entertaining enough, you might get some
>>> applause.
>>
>> I'm noticing a Rodgers and Hammerstein flavor in Ward's prevarications
>> this week. A Lawrence Welk kind of thing. And a one, and a two!
>
> The dishonest AGWers can still show no evidence, and no explanation of
> any mechanism allowing CO2 to increase temperatures more than a degree or
> two. All they can do is bluff and hope no one notices their bluff has
> been called. How many more times will they continue to tap dance around
> the fact they have lost by default?
Wow, now Bill Ward is abandoning the standard denialist lore. Surely his
cohorts here will notice that he doesn't agree with them about AGW. CO2
does in fact cause warming, the only question is how much will the
increase ultimately be?
One good explanation of the issue is here;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
"Converting the estimate for doubled CO2 to a more useful factor
gives ~0.75 ºC/(W/m2)...
Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at
equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there
(so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the
pipeline’. We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat
content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative
imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that this ‘unrealised’ forcing will lead to
another 0.7×0.75 ºC – i.e. 0.5 ºC.
Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7
W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC.
That is significant. "
And so we have a multitude of human-induced forcings. In the past Ward has
rejected RealClimate outright because they have better things to do than come
here to the newsgroups and clean the floor with him, but certainly he did
prevaricate when he claimed nobody could show explanation for warming beyond
"a degree or two".
Seon Ferguson
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85509490-c460-4bff...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
But how much did the temperature increase? I just think it would increase by
a lot after the post war boom but instead it increased a lot after the
1970's. Also it's obvious that greenhouse gasses cause warming. But the
question is is it natural warming or man made?
Seon Ferguson
"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:48bcd40a-3fbb-4df0...@l11g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
We want evidence. I don't want to believe in something just because the
majority believe in it. I want to know how we know that humans cause climate
change (which is real) the reason they are skeptics is no one can provide an
answer to a simple question.
bringyagrogalong
>
> >> Note the unsupported claim that "the science" is settled. Dawlish has
> >> just been caught bluffing, yet here he goes again. If his claim were
> >> true, he could easily post "the evidence", along with an explanation of
> >> why he finds it convincing.
>
> > So you think the evidence can be condensed down into a post do you?
>
> > BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> > What a card-carrying imbecile.
>
> > Suffice to say that *not one* reputable scientific body disputes
> > Anthropogenic Global Warming.
>
> > Proof enough I would have thought.
>
> > And who have you got in your corner?
>
> > A bug-eyed conspiracist lunatic who hasn't even got a science
> > background. LOL
>
> > We win! You lose!
>
> > Fucking cowboy!
>
> We want evidence. I don't want to believe in something just because the
> majority believe in it. I want to know how we know that humans cause climate
> change (which is real) the reason they are skeptics is no one can provide an
> answer to a simple question.
Carbon dioxide's a greenhouse gas, correct?
Well it's being pumped out at ever increasing rates, primarily
from
burning fossil fuels, and it's being pumped out faster then the
natural environment can absorb it, which is currently around 55%. The
other 45% is adding to the greenhouse gasses that trap heat radiation
coming off the earths surface and reradiates it back down, thus
warming the planet.
See, it's easy to understand, isn't it? It's called science.
Now, couple that with what the world's top scientific bodies are
saying, and you have proof of AGW.
For example here's what Australia's scientific elite are saying...
"Two of Australia's top research bodies - the Bureau of Meteorology
and the CSIRO - have come out strongly in defence of the science
behind global warming.
"The leading research bodies say the evidence is irrefutable: climate
change is real and the link with human activity is beyond doubt.
"The CSIRO says on its current path, the planet is heading for a rise
in temperature of a further 2 degrees Celsius this century.
"The head of the organisation, Dr Megan Clark, says the evidence is
clear that climate is being affected by the carbon emissions caused by
human activity."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2846524.htm
Now only a lunatic would dismiss that in favour of what rabble
conspiracists are saying.
The AGW sceptics came out with the same sort of nonsense about ozone
depletion.
And who won that debate, Seon?
Science!
Bill Ward
Note the focus here on agreement with authority rather than correctly
understanding the physics. His projection gives us some insight into his
thinking, or lack of same.
> One good explanation of the issue is here;
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-
in-6-easy-steps/
> "Converting the estimate for doubled CO2 to a more useful factor gives
> ~0.75 ºC/(W/m2)...
Of course he omits the bit from "step 4":
<quote>
Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be
calculated
Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated
GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from
whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface
temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2%,
the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/m2
(taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative
forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a change in the
albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance. However, calculation of
the radiative forcing is again a job for the line-by-line codes that take
into account atmospheric profiles of temperature, water vapour and
aerosols. The most up-to-date calculations for the trace gases are by
Myhre et al (1998) and those are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.
<\quote>
There's the dirty little secret - RC assumes radiative transfer is
sufficient to explain the surface temperature. It's too hard to include
clouds and latent heat transfer even in their expensive models (not
enough spatial resolution), so they ignore or parametrize them. It's the
same principle as looking for your keys under the streetlight rather than
in the dark bushes where you lost them.
So they end up with numbers based on false assumptions like:
> Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would
> occur at equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are
> not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining
> 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’. We can estimate this independently using
> the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly
> equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that
> this ‘unrealised’ forcing will lead to another 0.7×0.75 ºC – i.e. 0.5
> ºC.
>
> Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3
> to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2
> to 5 ºC. That is significant. "
Based not on actual measurements, but on incomplete climate models with
false assumptions of positive WV feedback.
> And so we have a multitude of human-induced forcings. In the past Ward
> has rejected RealClimate outright because they have better things to do
> than come here to the newsgroups and clean the floor with him, but
> certainly he did prevaricate when he claimed nobody could show
> explanation for warming beyond "a degree or two".
RealClimate, now let's see, where have I heard about them? Oh, now I
remember, they're the propaganda arm for those top climate experts who
were "hiding the decline", silencing opponents by infiltrating Wikipedia
and threatening to redefine peer review. Those guys. The ones that write
emails bragging about about controlling dissenting opinion through
censorship. Now why would would I doubt such an objective source as
that?
But I have to give credit to unum, as he finally showed the hand they
were bluffing with, rather than continue the song and dance routines.
All he could show was the propaganda blog RealClimate, hosted by the same
people that perpetrated the AGW hoax. There's no actual measured data,
and no explanation of a plausible mechanism. It's all dependent on
radiative transfer models.
Are they still able to fool anyone? They must think so, but I don't.
Unum
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:56:57 -0500, Unum wrote:
>>>>>> Its clear that a person will not be affected by ordinary reasoning
>>>>>> if he didn't arrive at his position or opinion by means of anything
>>>>>> resembling a logical thought process. Rational argument only makes
>>>>>> deniers angry. They will not be budged. For them it is not science,
>>>>>> it is ideology.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, that's better, now we're getting back to some original stuff.
>>>>> They've still not posted any actual evidence of catastrophic CO2
>>>>> warming, or any explanation of the physical mechanism that would make
>>>>> it possible.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing original about your stuff. Same thing every day, and many
>>>> people have been through this with you on the newsgroups. A complete
>>>> waste of time due to the fact that you aren't affected by reasoning
>>>> because you didn't arrive at your position via a logical thought
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying now that there is no evidence of warming? CO2 not a
>>>> greenhouse gas? Al Gore will make some money? Clouds will reflect all
>>>> the heat away? Everything is better when the earth heats up? It was
>>>> warmer in the past so no amount of pollution we generate will matter?
>>>> Everything is a fraud?
>>
>> I guess I will continue to be waiting for Bill Ward to tell us what his
>> position is on any of these common denialist canards.
I am still waiting on these, Ward is too cowardly to tell us where he
stands.
>>>>> But there's a song and dance routine excusing their nonperformance
>>>>> because no one is affected (favorably) by their bluff. They sadly
>>>>> leave the stage because their non-logic fails to convince anyone,
>>>>> poor babies.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, cue the next excuse for not showing and explaining "the science"
>>>>> that you keep talking about. How many excuses have there been? I've
>>>>> lost count.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you make it original and entertaining enough, you might get some
>>>>> applause.
>>>>
>>>> I'm noticing a Rodgers and Hammerstein flavor in Ward's prevarications
>>>> this week. A Lawrence Welk kind of thing. And a one, and a two!
>>>
>>> The dishonest AGWers can still show no evidence, and no explanation of
>>> any mechanism allowing CO2 to increase temperatures more than a degree
>>> or two. All they can do is bluff and hope no one notices their bluff
>>> has been called. How many more times will they continue to tap dance
>>> around the fact they have lost by default?
>>
>> Wow, now Bill Ward is abandoning the standard denialist lore. Surely his
>> cohorts here will notice that he doesn't agree with them about AGW. CO2
>> does in fact cause warming, the only question is how much will the
>> increase ultimately be?
>
> Note the focus here on agreement with authority rather than correctly
> understanding the physics. His projection gives us some insight into his
> thinking, or lack of same.
Simply noting Ward's departure from the standard denialist meme.
It is a cogent "explanation of any mechanism allowing CO2 to increase
temperatures more than a degree or two", which Bill Ward claims has never
been made. Its obvious that the effects of forcing that will take place
in the future can't be measured yet, but they can be estimated as explained
above. The 'false assumptions' Ward refers to have been debunked here several
times in the alt.global-warming newsgroup.
>> And so we have a multitude of human-induced forcings. In the past Ward
>> has rejected RealClimate outright because they have better things to do
>> than come here to the newsgroups and clean the floor with him, but
>> certainly he did prevaricate when he claimed nobody could show
>> explanation for warming beyond "a degree or two".
>
> RealClimate, now let's see, where have I heard about them? Oh, now I
> remember, they're the propaganda arm for those top climate experts who
> were "hiding the decline", silencing opponents by infiltrating Wikipedia
This "hiding the decline" nonsense also recently debunked. Remaining mindless
bluster snipped.