How it is done
Richard Harter
For obscure reasons I am on the mailing list of an outfit called
"Americans for Limited Government". They send out an un-newsletter
that comments on current events. Below is part of an article that has
their take on climate change.
It is filled with lies and disinformation. These little newsletters
are how the campaign works.
BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL
Climate change. Calvert and Trillium correctly observe that
temperature, rainfall and other climate variability affects changes in
coffee yields around the world. Ditto for all crops, one might add.
However, for them to assert that climate changes result primarily from
human carbon dioxide emissions is a matter of ideological belief, not
scientific fact. Climate changes; it always has and always will on
regional and sometimes global scales. Greenhouse gases exert a warming
effect; but how much, especially in the context of countless
planetary, solar and other forces, is a matter of intense debate.
Calvert and Trillium can certainly find support for their views among
IPCC and Climate Research Unit stalwarts. However, other scientists,
books and reports present a far less alarmist, far more nature-driven
theory of climate change.
The absence of warming since 1998, despite steadily rising CO2 levels,
calls into question the entire manmade global warming/climate
change/climate disruption hypothesis especially the assertion that
any changes will be catastrophic and can be prevented by slashing the
use of carbon fuels that power the vast majority of what people make,
ship, eat and do. Climate models begin by assuming that carbon dioxide
drives climate change, input rising atmospheric CO2 projections, and
(voila) output a warming planet.
END QUOTED MATERIAL
Rodjk #613
> For obscure reasons I am on the mailing list of an outfit called
> "Americans for Limited Government". They send out an un-newsletter
> that comments on current events. Below is part of an article that has
> their take on climate change.
>
> It is filled with lies and disinformation. These little newsletters
> are how the campaign works.
>
> BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL
>
> Climate change. Calvert and Trillium correctly observe that
> temperature, rainfall and other climate variability affects changes in
> coffee yields around the world. Ditto for all crops, one might add.
>
> However, for them to assert that climate changes result primarily from
> human carbon dioxide emissions is a matter of ideological belief, not
> scientific fact. Climate changes; it always has and always will on
> regional and sometimes global scales. Greenhouse gases exert a warming
> effect; but how much, especially in the context of countless
> planetary, solar and other forces, is a matter of intense debate.
>
> Calvert and Trillium can certainly find support for their views among
> IPCC and Climate Research Unit stalwarts. However, other scientists,
> books and reports present a far less alarmist, far more nature-driven
> theory of climate change.
>
> The absence of warming since 1998, despite steadily rising CO2 levels,
No warming since 1998? Seriously?
(Yes, I understand the article. 1998 was a freakishly warm year, even
accounting for the general warming going on...)
But even 1998 has now been surpassed.
It is interesting that they do not even update their inaccurate
arguments...but again, why should they?
Rodjk #613
Frank J
It's simple. If "Americans for Limited Government" was truly for
limited government, they would not think of pulling that bait-and-
switch. In one sense, they're right, that how much effect
(anthropogenic) Greenhouse gases has on warming "in the context of
countless planetary, solar and other forces" is a matter of "intense
debate." But it's a debate ampong *scientists* not armchair
pseudoskeptics. And from what I can tell, there is almost as much
agreement among scientists - those with the most to gain by
successfully *challenging* the status quo - for significant AGW as
there is for Darwinian evolution.
Spreading anti-science misconceptions like that will have the ultimate
effect of *increasing* not decreasing government meddling in our
lives. It will start with taxpayer handouts to those who want to teach
falsified and unfalsifiable, but most importantly *unearned*,
pseudoscience in science class. Eventually the economic crises, and
govt. bailouts will accelerate, because wishful-thinking, science-
illiterate Americans will spend even more on worthless snake oil,
while competing countries will continue to produce more of the
products and services that actually *work*.
JTEM
"Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is interesting that they do not even update their inaccurate
> arguments...but again, why should they?
Speaking of which...
We are deep inside an "interglacial period." Not, not an
"inter ice age" period, we are actually inside an ice age
right now.
Think of these interglacial periods like the eye of a
hurricane, with it's clear skies and no wind.
Anyhow, the best climate science tells us that the last
interglacial period during this ice age was global
temperatures peak higher than we are presently
experiencing. One may extrapolate from this that the
earth will see higher temperatures -- "Global Warming --
even if we depopulated the planet.
I hate to say it, but let's put this to the reasonable
man test:
A reasonable man just walking into this "global warming"
argument, a man with no bias towards anyone, would
have to conclude that the man-made global warming folks
are a bunch of odd balls. After all, even if we didn't exist,
if there were no people at all we would still expect to see
average global temperatures to continue to rise. At the
same time, though the "Greenhouse Gas" argument is
popular, nobody has seen any model that ranks above
conjecture.
There is simply no hard data telling us what present
temperatures "should be," given a lack of fossil fuels.
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
Your ignorant claim is noted and dismissed. Just because you have no
idea what the evidence shows is not evidence that scientists do not.
Friar Broccoli
.
Just out of curiosity; do you also deny that the pH of the oceans is
dropping or the result of human activity?
Harry K
before in the records (ice cores, etc). In fact at a pace that
surprised the people who know what they are talking about .
Denial is fine but don't lie about known data.
Harry K
JTEM
Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity; do you also deny that the pH of the oceans is
> dropping or the result of human activity?
I'm a little confused, which answer is it, exactly, which
would undo reality? I mean, what answer could I give
you which would realign reality in such a way as to
make us not in an interglacial period, and so we can't
expect average global temperatures to rise no matter
what?
I only ask because I know you wouldn't stoop to a
fallacious argument in some pathetic attempt to win
emotional (rather than scientific or "intellectual") points.
So, please, which answer is it?
JTEM
Check this out, he's worse than a young earth
creationist....
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >A reasonable man just walking into this "global warming"
> >argument, a man with no bias towards anyone, would
> >have to conclude that the man-made global warming folks
> >are a bunch of odd balls. After all, even if we didn't exist,
> >if there were no people at all we would still expect to see
> >average global temperatures to continue to rise. At the
> >same time, though the "Greenhouse Gas" argument is
> >popular, nobody has seen any model that ranks above
> >conjecture.
>
> >There is simply no hard data telling us what present
> >temperatures "should be," given a lack of fossil fuels.
>
> Your ignorant claim is noted and dismissed.
anything other than an emotional fit to offer you most
certainly would have done so.
You have nothing, not even the decency to sit on your
hands KNOWING you have nothing.
JTEM
Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The "hard data" shows that the warming is proceeding a pace never seen
> before in the records (ice cores, etc).
dramatic fluctuations have occurred frequently.
You'll find some great graphs here, and some wonderfully
informative explanations of the data to help you better
understand:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html
> Denial is fine but don't lie about known data.
Karel
scientists handled this issue? To my (imperfect)
knowledge, they have excluded end-of-ice-age
factors for warming as relevant for the current GW.
Regards,
Karel
Friar Broccoli
>
> So, please, which answer is it?
JTEM
Karel <GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> Wouldn;t the reasonable man look at how climate
> scientists handled this issue?
It's the intellectual equivalent to, "Obey your leaders."
Another way of stating it, of you prefer, is "Go along
with the status quo."
I can think of a number of times when people have
followed authorities into ignorance. One clear example
is Neanderthals, when for decades the status quo
stood on the wrong side of the interbreeding evidence.
Karel
handled it" and "blindly believing them at their word".
If the first is no option for a "reasonable man", I don't
know what is.
Regards,
Karel
r norman
wrote:
The statement was to look at the argument that climate scientists used
to handle this issue, not merely to listen to the conclusions they
came to.
JTEM
A case study in hypocrisy.....
Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm a little confused, which answer is it, exactly, which
> > would undo reality? I mean, what answer could I give
> > you which would realign reality in such a way as to
> > make us not in an interglacial period, and so we can't
> > expect average global temperatures to rise no matter
> > what?
>
> > I only ask because I know you wouldn't stoop to a
> > fallacious argument in some pathetic attempt to win
> > emotional (rather than scientific or "intellectual") points.
but germane to my points, it didn't and couldn't impact
on what I was saying.
My statements above, which you quoted, make that quite
clear. No matter that answer I gave your question it would
not nor could not change the facts, and I had laid down
facts.
We are in an ice age, an interglacial period.
The best climate science tells us to expect average
global temperatures to rise EVEN IF WE COMPLETELY
DEPOPULATE THE EARTH.
Correlation is not causation. This is basic stuff. This is
rudimentary stuff. The best results reported can show
correlation between greenhouse gasses and temperatures,
but they can't establish a cause. As global temperatures
rise more CO2 is released from the ground, such as from
permafrost, and the oceans.
The fact is -- and it is a fact -- if it wasn't the position of
the status quo you wouldn't support it, not given the
evidence as you know it to be.
Nobody here would.
JTEM
> The statement was to look at the argument that
> climate scientists used to handle this issue, not
> merely to listen to the conclusions they
> came to.
Physician, heal thyself.
JTEM
Karel <GCPAXSZJI...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> I can see a difference between "looking at how they
> handled it" and "blindly believing them at their word".
data which may or may not map to global temperatures,
and if it does than one way you can interpret it is that
increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures. Another
way you can look at it is that those same scientist are
right about the idea that higher temperatures result in
increased CO2, which they do claim. They claim that
global warming will result in methane from the oceans
and the release of trapped CO2 from the ground.
Karel
research at global cooling. According to the data
gathered and the models created, based on earlier
interglacials, we should now be well past the peak
of the interglacial, ruling that factor out as contributor
to global warming.
Regards,
Karel
r norman
wrote:
>
posts, it is clear that you may have looked at the arguments but you
clearly did not understand them.
JTEM
r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Given your
Ironically, again, one of us has articulated a position
here, one predicated on facts, and it's not you.
Nope.
And as much as I appreciate your pulling your fingers
out of your nose long enough to bash out a
hysterical rant, I now formerly challenge you to rise
above your customary knee-jerk and present a
valid argument supported by scientific fact.
I'm not holding my breath though.
So, are you up to it, or won't your mommy let you
play with the big boys?
r norman
wrote:
>
jillery
Friar Broccoli
If you agree to provide a meaningful response to my question, I will
be happy to lay out my position as completely as I can in a few
paragraphs. If you agree I am willing to go first, although I would
like you to just answer my question about ocean pH, after which I will
lay out my position for you - covering your points.
John Vreeland
wrote:
>
>A case study in hypocrisy.....
>
>Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I'm a little confused, which answer is it, exactly, which
>> > would undo reality? I mean, what answer could I give
>> > you which would realign reality in such a way as to
>> > make us not in an interglacial period, and so we can't
>> > expect average global temperatures to rise no matter
>> > what?
>>
>> > I only ask because I know you wouldn't stoop to a
>> > fallacious argument in some pathetic attempt to win
>> > emotional (rather than scientific or "intellectual") points.
>
>> The one I expected. �You evaded making a response.
>
>Actually, you evaded me. Your question was anything
>but germane to my points, it didn't and couldn't impact
>on what I was saying.
>
>My statements above, which you quoted, make that quite
>clear. No matter that answer I gave your question it would
>not nor could not change the facts, and I had laid down
>facts.
>
>We are in an ice age, an interglacial period.
>
>The best climate science tells us to expect average
>global temperatures to rise EVEN IF WE COMPLETELY
>DEPOPULATE THE EARTH.
Did you mean to say what you just said? The best climate science
predicts that temperatures will continue to rise due to current levels
of CO2, but subtract human generated atmospheric and land-use changes
and we might have glaciers forming in Newfoundland.
>Correlation is not causation. This is basic stuff. This is
>rudimentary stuff. The best results reported can show
>correlation between greenhouse gasses and temperatures,
>but they can't establish a cause.
What would establish a cause for you?
> As global temperatures
>rise more CO2 is released from the ground, such as from
>permafrost, and the oceans.
The ocean-CO2 cycle is not that simple. The oceans will not be
releasing any CO2 for the forseeable future.
>The fact is -- and it is a fact -- if it wasn't the position of
>the status quo you wouldn't support it, not given the
>evidence as you know it to be.
>
>Nobody here would.
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.
wiki trix
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin OM, GCVO, PC, PRS, PRSE said:
-Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
-We know that light is propagated like sound through pressure and
motion.
-The radio has no future.
-It seems as if we may also be forced to conclude that the supposed
connection between magnetic storms and sunspots is unreal, and that
the seeming agreement between the periods has been mere coincidence.
JTEM
Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's make a deal !!
>
> If you agree to provide a meaningful response to my question,
I did. I gave a honest, accurate and logical response. I
pointed out that there is no answer I could give you
which is capable of altering the facts as they have been
presented here.
JTEM
John Vreeland <john.vreel...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >The best climate science tells us to expect average
> >global temperatures to rise EVEN IF WE COMPLETELY
> >DEPOPULATE THE EARTH.
> Did you mean to say what you just said?
The best climate science says this. Temperatures
during the last interglacial period peaked higher
than they are today, and we may infer from this that
temperatures during THIS interglacial period have
yet to see their NATURAL peak.
>The best climate science
> predicts that temperatures will continue to rise due to current levels
> of CO2,
Wrong.
The best climate science says that there is a
correlation between CO2 and temperature. It
is not capable of determining a cause.
> but subtract human generated atmospheric and land-use changes
> and we might have glaciers forming in Newfoundland.
No, the best climate science says we will have glaciers
again, just like during the last glacial period, as soon as
this interglacial period ends. But, THIS interglacial period
is expected to see global average temperatures rise
even if we depopulate the planet.
> >Correlation is not causation. This is basic stuff. This is
> >rudimentary stuff. The best results reported can show
> >correlation between greenhouse gasses and temperatures,
> >but they can't establish a cause.
>
> What would establish a cause for you?
We have an established cause: The climate cycles
of an ice age. Nature all by itself would and is raising
the temperature, and will continue to raise it. The
claim here is that our use of fossil fuels is altering this
pattern, speeding it up, but there is no data showing
this.
> > As global temperatures
> >rise more CO2 is released from the ground, such as from
> >permafrost, �and the oceans.
>
> The ocean-CO2 cycle is not that simple.
Actually, most of the green house gasses coming out of
the oceans, attributed to rising temperatures, come out
in the form of methane.
> The oceans will not be
> releasing any CO2 for the forseeable future.
Again, I misspoke. It's coming out in the form of methane
gas, which is actually more of a greenhouse gas than
CO2.
: While aboard a research ship sailing off the coast of
: Siberia, scientists observed high levels of methane in
: the water, and then spotted several areas where the
: gas bubbles were fizzing up from the ocean floor,
: which contains vast amounts of frozen methane.
:That was enough to ring the alarm bells:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/24/methane-bubbles-in-the-arctic-ocean-give-climate-scientists-the-willies/
Harry K
<snip>
I don't think anyone is claiming that we are not in a natural warming
cycle.
What you are doing is ignoring man's addition to it.
Harry K
JTEM
, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think anyone is claiming that we are not in a natural warming
> cycle.
majority of people seem to be entirely unaware of this
fact.
> What you are doing is ignoring man's addition to it.
upsetting fact that no such thing has been established.
The best climate science that I know of is able to demonstrate
a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but correlation is
not causation, and even the correlation comes with all sorts of
delays and exceptions.
Paul J Gans
known. Increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere MUST raise the
temperature. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has seriously
increased. Therefore the temperature must be going up.
Or are you saying that chemistry and physics are all wrong?
Or are you saying that there is some unknown agency keeping the
temperature from going up?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Harry K
climatology?
Harry K
JTEM
Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So you know better than all the people who actually _work_ in
> climatology?
They're the ones who determined that temperatures should
rise no matter what, even if we didn't exist. They know that
correlation is not causation. They know that even the
correlation has issues, that their data shows lags and
exceptions.
Seriously, have you never looked?
JTEM
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> I'll give this another shot. The physical properties of CO2 are
> known. Increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere MUST raise the
> temperature. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has seriously
> increased. Therefore the temperature must be going up.
>
> Or are you saying that chemistry and physics are all wrong?
this, yes.
It shows exceptions as well as lags.
> Or are you saying that there is some unknown agency keeping the
> temperature from going up?
the temperatures are going up and will go up, even without
humans. Even if we could go back in time and remove fossil
fuels from our history, temperatures will rise.
Richard Harter
wrote:
>
Names of authors, references to journal articles, even a whacko
website? Inquiring minds wonder whether you are anything more than a
four flusher.
Harry K
normally would.
Fortunately, denial has _never_ had an effect on reality.
Harry K
Glenn
"Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:90e52107-a39d-4d68...@n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
wiki trix
to that "correlation is not causation". That is obviously true. I am
very sure that virtually all the people who actually _work_ in
climatology, like any rational people, would agree with that the
specific statement "correlation is not causation". Besides, what a
lame approach... to believe anything without question simply because
the pros think of it a certain way. Sheep much?
wiki trix
Increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature, if
and only it is the only forcing factor, and if all known and unknown
processes (some complex, some chaotic, some counter-intuitive)
cooperate. Therefore the temperature might go up. It has been measured
to have gone up while CO2 has increased, several times over the ice
core record, and we see it directly over the last 100 or so years.
But how much is directly the result of CO2 increases is far from
simple. And things are different enough now to be uncertain about how
similar things will now be compared to ice core record data. In the
long run, increases in CO2 might trigger a process that puts us into a
cold spell at some point. Most of the known processes are expected to
warm up things in a positive feedback scenario.
However, cloud formation is a big unknown. Who knows what else might
come into it that could disrupt what you think is so simple? Solar
flare effects on cloud formation? Volcanism? Galactic dust clouds?
Solar output variation? And there are of course the Donald style
unknown unknowns. So we do not know all the possible processes that
might be triggered. Ice core samples do seem to make a warmer trend
expected. But we do not know for sure.
Also, cause and effect is hard to determine without controlled
experiments. Without a good experiment validated model, we may not
know if CO2 warming works in the simple way you imagine. We do not
have that luxury with a historic-only data set. So we are left with
the prudence principal, which needs to be weighed against short term
economic and political factors. They do count for something as well.
On the other hand, I think that human population growth is really the
big bugaboo, no matter how you slice the global warming debate. We are
doomed to growing population as a result of oil for transportation,
food production, plastic, etc.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
flusher.
RAM
It is not about sheeple.
It is about the detailed understanding that matches the pros.
If you have it you will be justified in your non-belief, otherwise
your are part of the ignorant noise that distracts from what is best
known.
wiki trix
prize for? I rest my case.
wiki trix
validity, consequences, and truth of that statement is independent of
how arrogantly it is expressed. To view it otherwise would be ad
hominem.
RAM
some major area of study and made a discovery that transformed the
disciple?
JTEM
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> You wouldn't have any references for your "best science" would you?
science, yet you clearly have an opinion on the matter.
Why? What do you have against an educated opinion
instead of going-along-and-calling-it-science?
Shame on you.
RAM
and problems associated with a complex science issue enough to make
scientifically reasonable criticisms. My criteria for accepting one
as a pro in a science area is they can pick up the professional
journals that cover controversial issues and assess the theory,
methods and conclusions in comparison with other extant science
research.
I know damn well I don't much with respect to climatology. And I know
damned well most (and I'm going with 98 percent) of the peoples
critical of AGW don't know enough to make anything but distractions
and the two percent who do know something have some exceptionalist
beliefs that are well understood by the pros in the area. So it is
overwhelmingly the case that some self described non-sheeple
independent thinker adds nothing to the understanding of complex
science issues. And if they are right about AGW is an ignorant
accident.
JTEM
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> At the rate he generates it he'll soon need to be a five
> flusher.
telling everyone is that you haven't got a fucking
clue. You don't. You words are born from ignorance.
And I say that's ironic not just because you're so
snarky, but because NOBODY here noticed, nor
will anyone notice, not even after I just pointed it
out.
Here you go, dipshit....
http://web.me.com/uriarte/Earths_Climate/6._The_Eemian.html
JTEM
> And they also show that mankind is causing it to happen faster than it
> normally would.
> Fortunately, denial has _never_ had an effect on reality.
wiki trix
JTEM
wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What a stupid response... He simply said in the bit you respond there
> to that "correlation is not causation". That is obviously true. I am
> very sure that virtually all the people who actually _work_ in
> climatology, like any rational people, would agree with that the
> specific statement "correlation is not causation".
I'll spell it out: The best of the climate scientist are aware of
the fact that they can demonstrate a correlation between
CO2 and temperature -- granting many exceptions and lags --
but that they can't establish CO2 as the cause.
Their work can't do that. Their data simply can't do that.
RAM
Harry K
about now?
Harry K
Harry K
Their data shows sthe planet is warming, warming rapidly, warming
faster than even their predictions.
Denial is fine but it doesn't change reality.
You are trying to argue ONE part of climatology, CO2, there are many
others. As for CO2 and temperature there is one correlaltion that for
sure holds true. If CO2 is high, so is (or shortly will be)
temperature and the reverse is also true.
Harry K
Richard Harter
wrote:
>
> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>> You wouldn't have any references for your "best science" would you?
>
>You wouldn't ask if you did have references to the best
>science, yet you clearly have an opinion on the matter.
This is yet another of your many "jump to silly conclusions". As it
happens I do have references to the current best science. It is you,
little grasshopper, who has been huffing and puffing about "the best
science" without providing (until I asked) any references whatsoever.
The truth is that I have little reason to trust either your knowledge
or your ability to read for comprehension. Judging from the reference
you gave, it is your ability to read for comprehension since the cited
page does not support most of your exotic claims.
>
>Why? What do you have against an educated opinion
>instead of going-along-and-calling-it-science?
>
>Shame on you.
Huh uh. Rattle on.
Michael Siemon
<5a12ab45-47d7-416e...@n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 4:05�pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > �wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What a stupid response... He simply said in the bit you respond there
> > > to that "correlation is not causation". That is obviously true. I am
> > > very sure that virtually all the people who actually _work_ in
> > > climatology, like any rational people, would agree with that the
> > > specific statement "correlation is not causation".
> >
> > I'll spell it out: �The best of the climate scientist are aware of
> > the fact that they can demonstrate a correlation between
> > CO2 and temperature -- granting many exceptions and lags --
> > but that they can't establish CO2 as the cause.
> >
> > Their work can't do that. Their data simply can't do that.
Of course they can, you dimwit. The chemical and thermodynamic
properties of CO2 are quite well known. The basics of this were
predicted over a century ago. 2nd or 3rd order details in the
way it works out are complex, but the complexities of climate
only modulate some extremely basic and totally understood physics.
We're screwing ourselves, and you are carrying water for the ones
who profit from it.
Jeffrey Turner
> JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> , Harry K<turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I don't think anyone is claiming that we are not in a natural warming
>>> cycle.
>
>> Perhaps in the case of most people here, but the vast
>> majority of people seem to be entirely unaware of this
>> fact.
>
>>> What you are doing is ignoring man's addition to it.
>
>> What I'm doing is pointing out the startling and (to some)
>> upsetting fact that no such thing has been established.
>
>> a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but correlation is
>> not causation, and even the correlation comes with all sorts of
>> delays and exceptions.
>
> known. Increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere MUST raise the
> temperature. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has seriously
> increased. Therefore the temperature must be going up.
>
> Or are you saying that chemistry and physics are all wrong?
He did say the best he knew of. I think that shows how big the error
bars are.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Turner
Anton Uriarte Cantolla[1] es un ge�grafo espa�ol nacido y residente en
San Sebasti�n especializado en climatolog�a. Doctor en geograf�a por la
Universidad de Zaragoza, FRMetS (Fellow Royal Meteorological Society) ,
ha sido catedr�tico en la Universidad del Pa�s Vasco y es especialmente
conocido por su posici�n esc�ptica respecto a la influencia
antropog�nica sobre el clima.
[...]
Ant�n Uriarte afirma que existe un cambio clim�tico.[2] [3] Sin embargo
mantiene posiciones relativamente contrarias a la influencia que tiene
el ser humano en ese cambio: afirma que tal influencia es
irrelevante,[4] y que el principal causante del aumento de temperaturas
no es el di�xido de carbono,[5] e incluso no considera que el CO2 sea
un contaminante ya que no es t�xico[6] sino al contrario, un
fertilizante necesario para la vida vegetal,[7] por lo que una mayor
cantidad favorecer� el crecimiento de las plantas.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3n_Uriarte
Jeffrey Turner
>
unusually high. The complete temperature history shows how high the
current temperature really is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
The peak before the previous one didn't get this hot.
--Jeff
Harry K
> In article
> <5a12ab45-47d7-416e-b48d-582b5ffdc...@n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Correct but you tied that to the wrong post.
Harry K
JTEM
Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Their data shows sthe planet is warming, warming rapidly, warming
> faster than even their predictions.
during the last interglacial than we are presently
experiencing, suggesting we should see higher
temperatures.
There data shows that abrupt warming & cooling is
unspectacular. It has occurred many times before.
> Denial is fine but it doesn't change reality.
> You are trying to argue ONE part of climatology,
JTEM
Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> Cherrypicking data, how unsurprising.
Are you disputing the data?
> The last big temperature peak was
> unusually high.
perfect at determining temperature. As is
sometimes pointed out, changes in wind
or weather patterns (short of any rise in
global temperatures) could account for
the same results.
> The complete temperature history
There is no complete temperature history.
JTEM
> This is yet another of your many "jump to silly conclusions".
Oh, come on! Hoe much hypocrisy can you people stand?
One would think that you were drowning in it already...
>�As it happens I do have references to the current best science.
And you're misunderstanding it.... how?
Anyhow, let's see your cite....
<Crickets Chirping>
You've got nothing, again.
JTEM
Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Their work can't do that. Their data simply can't do that.
>
> Of course they can, you dimwit.
> The chemical and thermodynamic
> properties of CO2 are quite well known.
scientist insist that increased global warming results
in an increase in so-called greenhouse gasses.
Secondly, their data does show exceptions/delays.
> We're screwing ourselves,
Again, pure fantasy. We're running out of fossil fuels.
If they are causing global warming then the problem
will solve itself. Period.
So, pretending you're right, you're pointless.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Jeffrey Turner<jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Cherrypicking data, how unsurprising.
>
> Are you disputing the data?
I'm disputing the honesty of Sr. Uriarte - and anyone who uses his data
in this manner.
>> The last big temperature peak was
>> unusually high.
>
> Well, maybe, The science is far less than
> perfect at determining temperature.
Thanks for proving you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about
and merely keep parroting talking points.
> As is
> sometimes pointed out, changes in wind
> or weather patterns (short of any rise in
> global temperatures) could account for
> the same results.
As is sometimes pointed out, you're a complete fool.
>> The complete temperature history
>
> There is no complete temperature history.
Well, going back 800,000 years in this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
--Jeff
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Michael Siemon<mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Their work can't do that. Their data simply can't do that.
>>
>> Of course they can, you dimwit.
>
> No, you imbecile. It can't.
>
>> The chemical and thermodynamic
>> properties of CO2 are quite well known.
>
> Great. It's not the only factor, and those same climate
> scientist insist that increased global warming results
> in an increase in so-called greenhouse gasses.
none...?
> Secondly, their data does show exceptions/delays.
>> We're screwing ourselves,
>
> Again, pure fantasy. We're running out of fossil fuels.
> If they are causing global warming then the problem
> will solve itself. Period.
> So, pretending you're right, you're pointless.
--Jeff
Paul J Gans
Not to nitpick, he said as he started to nitpick... ;-)
<Nitpick>
If the CO2 is high and increasing, and everything else is
essentially unchanged, then the temperature will go up.
If the CO2 drops, and everything else is essentially unchanged,
then the temperature will go down.
But in either case things are unlikely to be unchanged. A major
effect would be the melting of the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean.
That leads to its own warming effect as open water will absorb
far more sunlight than will ice cover.
So, for example, if the CO2 level decreases *after* a significant
amount of the arctic ocean is bare of ice, the temperature will
not drop.
I do not believe all the factors that will come into play as the
mean temperature increases are well-known. We could, for example,
experience a runaway greenhouse effect leaving us in a position
similar to that of Venus. This, of course, would be catastrophic.
But our current situation of rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2
concentration is known to overwhelm currently available CO2
absorprtion processes such as the growth of more vegetation and
increased absorption of CO2 in ocean water.
So there is little doubt of the effect of an increase in CO2 in
the atmosphere.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
JTEM
Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > Great. It's not the only factor, and those same climate
> > scientist insist that increased global warming results
> > in an increase in so-called greenhouse gasses.
>
> Positive feedback? What a surprise! And your evidence that there is
> none...?
but anyone pretending to be science based has no
excuse for demanding that I prove a negative.
The fact is, we know that the average temperature has
been on the rise since the end of the last glacial period.
There have been some setbacks during that time -- ups
and down -- but the overall trend has been warmer.
JTEM
Check this out....
> > Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And they also show that mankind is causing it to happen faster than it
> > > normally would.
he claims. Here, look:
Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Since I didn't mention either CO2 _or_ temperature, WTH are you on
> about now?
JTEM
Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > Are you disputing the data?
>
> I'm disputing the honesty of Sr. Uriarte - and anyone who uses his data
> in this manner.
So it's an ad hominem thing. I see.
You're wasting everybody's time, but it's not like
they'll notice...
I'm not aware of any source disputing the data.
Come up with one or have the guts to retract.
Mark Isaak
> On Sep 24, 10:00 am, RAM<ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 10:59 am, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 23, 8:19 pm, Harry K<turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 23, 4:22 pm, JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> cycle.
>>
>>>>> Perhaps in the case of most people here, but the vast
>>>>> majority of people seem to be entirely unaware of this
>>>>> fact.
>>
>>>>>> What you are doing is ignoring man's addition to it.
>>
>>>>> What I'm doing is pointing out the startling and (to some)
>>>>> upsetting fact that no such thing has been established.
>>
>>>>> The best climate science that I know of is able to demonstrate
>>>>> a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but correlation is
>>>>> not causation, and even the correlation comes with all sorts of
>>>>> delays and exceptions.
>>
>>>> climatology?
>>
>>> What a stupid response... He simply said in the bit you respond there
>>> to that "correlation is not causation". That is obviously true. I am
>>> very sure that virtually all the people who actually _work_ in
>>> climatology, like any rational people, would agree with that the
>>> lame approach... to believe anything without question simply because
>>> the pros think of it a certain way. Sheep much?
>>
>> Wow! Arrogance much?
>
> Arrogance is neither a virtue nor a sin. If one makes a statement, the
> validity, consequences, and truth of that statement is independent of
> how arrogantly it is expressed.
That is not true. Arrogant people are less likely to doubt their
conclusions and change their minds, so they are less likely to correct
mistakes, so they are more likely to say things that are untrue.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
I don't believe you. Climate modelling starts with well-known causal
laws and known data, and it shows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere in
quantities that human have added will increase the temperature. (And
the accuracy of the models has been determined by various independent
tests.) Sounds like demonstrating a cause to me.
wiki trix
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Arrogant people are not less likely to doubt their conclusions and
change their minds.
I am arrogant and I doubt my conclusions all the time.
It only bothers me when others doubt my conclusions.
Jeffrey Turner
Bwahahahahahaha!
--Jeff
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Jeffrey Turner<jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>>> Great. It's not the only factor, and those same climate
>>> scientist insist that increased global warming results
>>> in an increase in so-called greenhouse gasses.
>>
>> Positive feedback? What a surprise! And your evidence that there is
>> none...?
>
> If you're a young earth creationist you can be excused,
> but anyone pretending to be science based has no
> excuse for demanding that I prove a negative.
Evidence isn't proof, idjit. Do you believe a lot of things without
evidence?
> The fact is, we know that the average temperature has
> been on the rise since the end of the last glacial period.
> There have been some setbacks during that time -- ups
> and down -- but the overall trend has been warmer.
How long's it been and when do we hit the inflection point?
--Jeff
Robert Grumbine
> On Sep 17, 3:44 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> For obscure reasons I am on the mailing list of an outfit called
>> "Americans for Limited Government". They send out an un-newsletter
>> that comments on current events. Below is part of an article that has
>> their take on climate change.
>>
>> It is filled with lies and disinformation. These little newsletters
>> are how the campaign works.
>>
>> BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL
>>
>> Climate change. Calvert and Trillium correctly observe that
>> temperature, rainfall and other climate variability affects changes in
>> coffee yields around the world. Ditto for all crops, one might add.
>>
>> However, for them to assert that climate changes result primarily from
>> human carbon dioxide emissions is a matter of ideological belief, not
>> scientific fact. Climate changes; it always has and always will on
>> regional and sometimes global scales. Greenhouse gases exert a warming
>> effect; but how much, especially in the context of countless
>> planetary, solar and other forces, is a matter of intense debate.
>>
>> Calvert and Trillium can certainly find support for their views among
>> IPCC and Climate Research Unit stalwarts. However, other scientists,
>> books and reports present a far less alarmist, far more nature-driven
>> theory of climate change.
>>
>> The absence of warming since 1998, despite steadily rising CO2 levels,
>
> I love this part...
> No warming since 1998? Seriously?
> (Yes, I understand the article. 1998 was a freakishly warm year, even
> accounting for the general warming going on...)
> But even 1998 has now been surpassed.
Don't use stock market pricing to decide your trends. If
you were buying in 1998 and selling today, the only thing that
matters is the prices on those endpoints.
But if you compute a least squares trend, the trend line has a
positive slope for almost any period ending this month (whether you
consider starting anywhere in the record any time back to 1880 or
1850, or even just from 1980-present). Also without regard for what
month 'this' month is. I blogged about that, with illustration, in:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-cooling-trend.html
-- you'll note from the date that it was before 2010 beat 2005/1998
in most records for warmest. I'll add that 2011 has generally been
warmer than 2009.
> It is interesting that they do not even update their inaccurate
> arguments...but again, why should they?
I still see them using the claim that 'the satellites, which are
the most reliable source of information, show a cooling trend even
though the the surface record shows warming'. Even for a value
of 'the satellites' which includes only the Spencer and Christie
analysis, this has been false since 2003-ish, when, after several
iterations of correcting errors in their methods, S+C wound up with
a warming trend in good agreement with the surface observations --
and with other analyses of data from the same satellites. A
snarky person might also observe that every one of the many significant
errors was in the same direction.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Arkalen
>> climatology?
>
>
> They're the ones who determined that temperatures should
> rise no matter what, even if we didn't exist. They know that
> correlation is not causation. They know that even the
> correlation has issues, that their data shows lags and
> exceptions.
>
> Seriously, have you never looked?
>
This has been posted on the group already but in case you missed it :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRc_9nNTZg0&feature=player_embedded#!
Notice specifically what Dr. Stroeve says from 3:10 about the effect of
greenhouse gas forcing and lack thereof on the models.