Global warming?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Climate scientists disagree with you.

Peer reviewed like so many other papers peer reviewed by White House lawyers?

The Economist charts numbers are from the six major climate research organizations. All disagree ... so little as to confirm each other. Only wacko extremist political organizations disagree.

Each source is cited by The Economist. Your chart was previously found to be suspect. Your chart does not even cite its one source. So a discredited chart is reposted?

Global warming is challenged when, for example, a TV weatherman's political agenda promotes myths. Virtually no science disputes it. 117 peer reviewed papers from a poster who did not even read and could not understand any. That is proof that global warming does not exist? Yes, a political agenda can order the most naive to recite what they must believe. Hitler did the same with Jews. Also proven only because the most naive believed a political agenda.

Earth's climate is getting warmer at a dangerous rate. No responsible sources deny that - as The Economist so responsibly reports. A previous world record for climate change took 20,000 years. And took another 200,000 years to undo. Today mankind is accomplishing same in only hundreds of years. But White House lawyers and empty claims of 117 papers dispute reality. Therefore global warming must not exist.

Where is their science? Not found where a political agenda can even get many to believe lies such as Saddam's WMDs. Those too only existed for political reasons - reality be damned.

Wacko extremists touted denials by citing Dr Muller. They heard a conclusion - nothing more. Did not bother to learn details. Were shocked when Dr Muller said what he was always saying. Extremists only heard a bottom line. Only heard what their political agenda wanted them to hear - science and honesty be damned.

Why did they tout Dr Muller?

Expecting science to subvert climate change advocates, a Republican Congress sought immediate testimony from Dr Muller. Only to learn what their political agenda is again contradicted by science.

Where is responsible science that disputes Dr Muller? Never posted.

117 papers that somehow say global warming does not exist - and that poster did not even read one. Coign is a classic example of why so many are so easily brainwashed by a political agenda. He knew what the political agenda ordered him to believe - nothing more. That, BTW, meets the definition of brainwashing.

Charted are numbers from responsible science. All show temperature increases every decade as science also predicts. Only a political agenda disputes it. When Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck know science must be wrong. And when Coign could not even bother to read his 117 papers. Just more reasons to know global warming is created by mankind.

Why do facts and numbers from the Economist disagree with your previously discredited chart?

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

117 papers that somehow say global warming does not exist - and that poster did not even read one. Coign is a classic example of why so many are so easily brainwashed by a political agenda. He knew what the political agenda ordered him to believe - nothing more. That, BTW, meets the definition of brainwashing.

I came back to just see how this thread was going to find out you are STILL attacking me and lying about me.

That was NINE HUNDRED papers that said global warming is NOT caused by humans. And I READ 15 of them and had earlier posted examples from 4 of them. (They are very dry reading.)

But others on sites I trust have read them and posted over-reaching synopsis letting me know, they are proof if I would take the time to read more.

WHERE is your proof? I showed you proof and you dismiss it out of hand by saying it doesn't count because I did not read more than 15 of them. HOW MANY papers have you read and post them. I will post the paper that disproves it.

TW, you are a babbling loon that is guilty of exactly what you accuse me of.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Climate scientists disagree with you.

Here is the PDF of the paper from the researchers at the National Academy of Sciences:

http://cellar.org/2011/pnas-201102467.pdf

Here is the chart they created to indicate what various models suggested 1998-2008, and the actual temperature records are in black:



It's all peer-reviewed.

Wow! The few little steps we took saved our cynical asses. All hail Al Gore, Savior of the Temperate Zones and Slayer of Green House Gases.

[tw]

But again, numbers from major and responsible science. That was confirmed by Dr Muller - funded by some right wing political agendas including the Koch brothers. And reported by a news source that is not promoting a political agenda:

[Blib27]

Originally Posted by tw

I don't know where you are getting your beliefs from. But numbers say global temperatures even in the past decade have increased significantly.

Numbers from six sources differ significantly ... a subjective conclusion. Vary so little as to be virtually same ... a conclusion that also includes numbers. Same chart with two completely different declarations. Which conclusion do you entertain? The subjective one? Or one based in science?

It's wonderful what you can do with massaged figures and pretty pictures, isn't it?

Here's a quote from Professor Phil Jones. As you know, Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The chap at the centre of this "science".

Here's what he said in reply to a question posed to him by the BBC last year.

Originally Posted by Jones' Interview

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Now, he directly contradicts what you say.

How strange is that? Care to comment?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Blib27

Now, he directly contradicts what you say.
How strange is that? Care to comment?

Did you read what he said? Or just do as Limbaugh, Hannity, et al do?

Data from ten years is significant. But not statistically significant; does not meet necessary confidence levels. Meanwhile, data that demonstrates global warming is from hundreds of years. And from millions of years. Is well beyond statistically significant. In fact Dr Muller's report before a very Republican Congress said data is of the highest quality.

What do we know? Global warming created by mankind (at something slightly faster than 0.12 degrees C per decade) is at least 50 times faster than any previous world record for destructive global climate change. That once and rare previous disaster also took 200,000 years to correct.

Statistically significant data is further confirmed so many other sources including deep core geological studies. By changes in atmospheric content. Even confirmed by world wide ocean data. It even explains the degradation of reefs including the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Where is all the data that disputes it. Never posted.

Ten years of data is not statistically significant. Read what he said.

Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,

And data from those "longer periods" exists from numerous independent sources. Worse, data to contradict is virtually null. All data comes to similar conclusions.

Your soundbyte intentionally distorted what he really said. It is called 'brainwashing by soundbyte'.

Since that source so intentionally harmed an honest discussion, then we should have the name of that scumbag. So that the enemies of moderates can be cited repeatedly as disciples of Limbaugh and Hitler. Who do we go after for intentionally perverting a logical discussion? Who intentionally misquoted Phil Jones? And what is their political agenda and party affiliation? Your soundbyte was obviously provided by someone with the integrity of a rapist or pedophile. An honest quote would have included what Phil Jones really said.

[Blib27]

Originally Posted by tw

Your soundbyte intentionally distorted what he really said. It is called 'brainwashing by soundbyte'.

Since that source so intentionally harmed an honest discussion, then we should have the name of that scumbag. So that the enemies of moderates can be cited repeatedly as disciples of Limbaugh and Hitler. Who do we go after for intentionally perverting a logical discussion? Who intentionally misquoted Phil Jones? And what is their political agenda and party affiliation? Your soundbyte was obviously provided by someone with the integrity of a rapist or pedophile. An honest quote would have included what Phil Jones really said.

Blimey TW. The more I read those words the more I wonder what on earth is going on? The quote was a direct and FULL one from a Q&A session conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February of last year.

Are you really willing to say that the BBC are scumbags, paedophiles or rapists?

Here's a link to the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

If you do not, I shall report you.

He disagrees with your contention. You are wrong. Either you debate with me sensibly or you continue to rant.

What is it to be TW?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

"Strategic posturing for nuclear winter."

If the planet warms up enough, we can set off a few conveniently placed nukes to cool things down again (pursuant to the Weapons of Mass Salvation Doctrine).

The counteracting effect of some pollution on global warming may be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. It treats global warming symptomatically; but, doesn't address the underlying cause. The long term side effects indicate that reliance on symptomatic treatment should be limited. An ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by sexobon

An ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure.

But people are saying that there is no prevention - it's a natural thing that's not our fault.

[classicman]

off tangent/
I love when tw quotes himself to back up HIS own assertions.
back on tangent

[Undertoad]

Peer reviewed like so many other papers peer reviewed by White House lawyers?

This is a peer-reviewed paper from the Publication of the National Academy of Sciences.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This is a peer-reviewed paper from the Publication of the National Academy of Sciences.

Let's view both sources of your claims.

"Center for Research on Globalization" is a valid research organization? It is a newspaper chock full of political news - not science. A classic example of a source with a political agenda.

An Australian newspaper article also cited as a research source? The newspaper claims, "lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements ... show little if any global warming since 1979". Completely contradicts what has been reported by virtually all responsible science. Even contradicts the Economists' analysis from six major research organizations well regarded for their science. Organizations that do not report politics - as your paper does.

Your citation cites political sources as proof that global warming does not exist. Then says this should not happen with increased "emissions of radiatively active gases" and greenhouse gases. Problem with your source: their premise is based in political newspapers. Not is numbers from science. Responsible science reports temperatures have increased. A chart provided by the Economist reports numbers from science; not from political newspapers.

Your paper makes no valid claim that temperatures are falling. Just claims from political newspapers. Did I make the point blunt enough yet?

Meanwhile it also says, "The finding that the recent hiatus in warming ... does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” In short, your paper also acknowledges that mankind is largely responsible what causes global warming. Once their assumed natural downturn in temperatures is over, then global warming will increase with a vengeance. Did you also forget to grasp that from your paper?

It continues: "The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution in general and acid deposition in particular, which cause sulfur emissions to decline while the concentration of greenhouse gases continues to rise." In short. We must go increase massive pollution to avert global warming. Making air cleaner for human and other earthborne life increases global warming.

Well yes, responsible science also has been saying that pollution slows global warming. The computer models also suggest that. Increases pollution has been proposed by responsible science as a solution - with little useful conclusions. Other resulting damage (including reduced crop yields) are too negative.

Your citation does not quote responsible science to prove temperatures are remaining stable. Instead it cites sources that are political newspapers. According to your citation, if we attempt clean air, then global warming will only get worse. That is what your citation says. That is not what you have represented it to say.

Please report what your paper is really says. It says mankind is a significant contributor to global warming. That once a natural event reverses, then global warming will be worse. And it discusses how pollution slows global warming. Read what your citation says; not what extremists want a soundbyte "executive summary" to say.

Meanwhile, responsible sources of science (not political news) report global warming is ongoing at unhealthy levels.

Please quote numbers from science. Not from newspapers with a political agenda.

[Undertoad]

Read just a little bit harder. The paper cites those sources:

...prompts some popular commentators
(2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship
among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface
temperature.

Footnote 2 is the Center for Research on Globalization and 3 is the Australian newspaper.

They weren't scientific cites, otherwise the paper would not appear in the Publication of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors go on to disagree with these commentators.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

They weren't scientific cites, otherwise the paper would not appear in the Publication of the National Academy of Sciences.

The paper is not about world temperatures decreasing. It is about how pollution can obstruct / reflect sunlight energy.

This same soundbyte spin occurred with the Tsonis paper. That paper also was touted as proof of global cooling. Touted because that poster did not bother to read the paper. He only heard a soundbyte - and that was enough to *know*.

Tsonis paper was about a new simulation technique. But those inspired by a political agenda only heard the irrelevant, erroneous soundbyte conclusion. Global cooling. That soundbyte was sufficient to be an expert?

Global cooling was irrelevant to Tsonis' purpose. A global cooling mistake only reported because his simulation failed. But extremists only heard a soundbyte conclusion. Did not read every detail and number like it was more important than a hardon.

You saw what was irrelevant to a PNAS paper. Then touted the irrelevant as a fact. Chart from The Economist demonstrate what science really says.

Coign did same. He never read any of those 117 papers. He only recited extremist propaganda. 'Brainwashing by soundbyte'. Extremist Congressman did same with Dr Muller. As extremists with a political agenda, they also ignored details and numbers. In every case to prove a political myth - global cooling.

Why do extremists do this? They are told what to believe - facts, details, and numbers be damned. Extremists cannot be bothered to think scientifically or logically. Apparently are taught only how to believe, invent, and recite propaganda. No wonder wacko extremist White House lawyers had to rewrite so many science papers.

Your paper says global warming is due to mankind. More specifically, it says mankind's generation of greenhouse gases ARE creating global warming. More details that contradict your global cooling conclusions.

They rushed Dr Muller to Congressional testimony because soundbytes (and the Koch brothers) said he would prove global cooling. Knowledge from soundbytes. Another example of deception and evil because they did not bother to do what educated people must always do - learn details and numbers. Coign, the Tsonis paper, and Dr Muller are previous examples of what your PNAS citation has done.

Coign cited 117 papers as proof when he did not even read one. Soundbytes and junk science reasoning are sufficient to be expert? Don't waste time getting educated. And so our younger generation males have less education than their parents. Fertile ground for wacko extremists such as Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity.

[Undertoad]

Unlike yourself, I don't have any conclusions, just data.

It has taken us three days for you to agree that your statement...

Originally Posted by tw

But numbers say global temperatures even in the past decade have increased significantly.

...is wrong, based on the actual data.

Is the warming being cancelled by anthropogenic forces? Maybe. The paper argues it's possible. I say it's possible.

But the most interesting part about this exchange is how you attempted to discredit the science when you thought it disagreed with you.

Your intrepid belief in science led you down exactly the wrong path to the truth: if it's contradictory, it must not be science, you said, and pursued the matter just long enough to prove it to yourself.

I know: I sound harsh. But I expect that you will be harsher on yourself for this mistake than I have been.

Meanwhile, my statement:

Originally Posted by UT

This all just adds such a new layer of complexity over it all that the debate starts to be overwhelming.

...has borne out right before our eyes.