Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

global warming FAQ

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:18:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Q. Is the earth warming?

A. Yes, but the historical record is very faulty and exaggerated, and there has been no warming for 10 years

Q. Does man made CO2 cause warming?

A. On a historical basis it seems CO2 causes temperatures, but this is false temperatures seem to be driving CO2. CO2 has a lag time historically, so hundreds of years ago CO2 was not a driver of climate. This is refuted often times by saying CO2 amplified the warming, but this fails as CO2 would also have a l time to decrease, so it would be at its high when the temperatures decreased then CO2 would follow. So temperatures drove CO2, not vice versa. This may also be countered by the warming is unprecedented, but the first IPCC report shows the medieval warming period rose at the same rate is did 10 years ago and was even hotter. We are in a PDO warm period and the sun is fairly active.

It is likely CO2 is heating to an extent, but the main causes are ocean currents and the sun. And again, no heating for the last 10 years as CO2 is still rising.

Q. will warming be substantial?

A. Even using IPCC data, an alarmist society, the increased temperatures due to CO2 will likely be low. The predictions on these computer models that say we will see huge increases are very false, and overstated. They predict huge warming, we observe very little warming. Hansen is a perfect example, predicts huge increases we see minimal upward trend.

So no, we might see a degree or no change by the end of our century.

Q. Catastrophic events?

A. No, warming is preferred to cooling. No upward trend in droughts, mainly a flat line. No upward trend in wet weather, it has ups and downs and is about the same. No upward trend in hurricane or tornadoes, I actually see a slight downward trend based on my source. Glaciers have been shrinking before we began emitting CO2. Some of them are growing again. The north pole might have an all time low when Antarctica is at an all time high. Also, the ice caps are not melting. SO answer: Probably not, and not yet anyway. It was good for people and animals, i.e. ,idevial warm period and the roman warming.

Q. Do CO2 abatement laws like AB32 make sense?

A. No.
> Other emissions are more likely to cause warming then CO2. Though have less of an impact then natural cycles.
> Turning food to car fuel, is dumb, feeding people is more effective.
> other reductions are possible in other emissions that are less harmful to the economy and will slow out very minimal impact on the warming, and again warming > cooling.
> Places with thee laws have the highest energy prices: California, Europe...
> Warmer weathers are linked to better economies anyway
Answer in short: Costs far more than it helps. Many more important priorities.

Source: http://www.climate-skeptic.com...

>>Why am I a skeptic?<<

Ironically it is science. The reason I dont think CO2 causes warming is refuted by long term correlations as well as recent ones in the last decade. And math. Carbon is .04% of atmosphere. Lets say humans make about 4% of that. That means .0016%. This means human contribution to the atmosphere in carbon is a mere 16 ppm (parts per million), or 1.6 out of 100,000. So lets assume CO2 can heat to a large extent. But the CO2 in this analogy is people. There are 100,000 people in a room, heating it up. We add 1.6 people or remove 1.6 people. That will have no measurable effects. If I argued it did it would be absurd right? Same with CO2. With the low amount humans are adding it is absurd CO2 is the main cause of the warming.

global warming links:

http://a-sceptical-mind.com...
http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
http://wattsupwiththat.com...
http://www.paulmacrae.com...
http://members.shaw.ca...
http://epw.senate.gov...
http://nrsp.com...
http://globalwarmingcause.wordpress.com...
http://friendsofscience.org...
http://noconsensus.org...
http://heartland.org...
http://lomborg.com...
http://www.co2science.org...
http://geocraft.com...

Those are just a few of them. I hope all of you visit some of these, I recommend the friends of science one and the paul macrae one.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:41:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:18:23 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Q. Is the earth warming?

A. Yes, but the historical record is very faulty and exaggerated, and there has been no warming for 10 years

Q. Does man made CO2 cause warming?

A. On a historical basis it seems CO2 causes temperatures, but this is false temperatures seem to be driving CO2. CO2 has a lag time historically, so hundreds of years ago CO2 was not a driver of climate. This is refuted often times by saying CO2 amplified the warming, but this fails as CO2 would also have a l time to decrease, so it would be at its high when the temperatures decreased then CO2 would follow. So temperatures drove CO2, not vice versa. This may also be countered by the warming is unprecedented, but the first IPCC report shows the medieval warming period rose at the same rate is did 10 years ago and was even hotter. We are in a PDO warm period and the sun is fairly active.

It is likely CO2 is heating to an extent, but the main causes are ocean currents and the sun. And again, no heating for the last 10 years as CO2 is still rising.

Q. will warming be substantial?

A. Even using IPCC data, an alarmist society, the increased temperatures due to CO2 will likely be low. The predictions on these computer models that say we will see huge increases are very false, and overstated. They predict huge warming, we observe very little warming. Hansen is a perfect example, predicts huge increases we see minimal upward trend.

So no, we might see a degree or no change by the end of our century.

Q. Catastrophic events?

A. No, warming is preferred to cooling. No upward trend in droughts, mainly a flat line. No upward trend in wet weather, it has ups and downs and is about the same. No upward trend in hurricane or tornadoes, I actually see a slight downward trend based on my source. Glaciers have been shrinking before we began emitting CO2. Some of them are growing again. The north pole might have an all time low when Antarctica is at an all time high. Also, the ice caps are not melting. SO answer: Probably not, and not yet anyway. It was good for people and animals, i.e. ,idevial warm period and the roman warming.

Q. Do CO2 abatement laws like AB32 make sense?

A. No.
> Other emissions are more likely to cause warming then CO2. Though have less of an impact then natural cycles.
> Turning food to car fuel, is dumb, feeding people is more effective.
> other reductions are possible in other emissions that are less harmful to the economy and will slow out very minimal impact on the warming, and again warming > cooling.
> Places with thee laws have the highest energy prices: California, Europe...
> Warmer weathers are linked to better economies anyway
Answer in short: Costs far more than it helps. Many more important priorities.

Source: http://www.climate-skeptic.com...

>>Why am I a skeptic?<<

Ironically it is science. The reason I dont think CO2 causes warming is refuted by long term correlations as well as recent ones in the last decade. And math. Carbon is .04% of atmosphere. Lets say humans make about 4% of that. That means .0016%. This means human contribution to the atmosphere in carbon is a mere 16 ppm (parts per million), or 1.6 out of 100,000. So lets assume CO2 can heat to a large extent. But the CO2 in this analogy is people. There are 100,000 people in a room, heating it up. We add 1.6 people or remove 1.6 people. That will have no measurable effects. If I argued it did it would be absurd right? Same with CO2. With the low amount humans are adding it is absurd CO2 is the main cause of the warming.

global warming links:

http://a-sceptical-mind.com...
http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
http://wattsupwiththat.com...
http://www.paulmacrae.com...
http://members.shaw.ca...
http://epw.senate.gov...
http://nrsp.com...
http://globalwarmingcause.wordpress.com...
http://friendsofscience.org...
http://noconsensus.org...
http://heartland.org...
http://lomborg.com...
http://www.co2science.org...
http://geocraft.com...

Those are just a few of them. I hope all of you visit some of these, I recommend the friends of science one and the paul macrae one.

BUT MANBEARPIG IS COMING!!!nac
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 2:17:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Very well put in a Q&A format. I have the exact same position that you do in that the evidence for CO2 warming is weak given the other correlations that you mentioned and others (like albedo), and that's being generous to AGW alarmists.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:52:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:18:23 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Q. Is the earth warming?

A. Yes, but the historical record is very faulty and exaggerated, and there has been no warming for 10 years

A2: the historical record is not so faulty as to eliminate our ability to understand trends in the temperature.


Q. Does man made CO2 cause warming?

A. On a historical basis it seems CO2 causes temperatures, but this is false temperatures seem to be driving CO2. CO2 has a lag time historically, so hundreds of years ago CO2 was not a driver of climate.

A2: Answer #1 is incorrect. CO2 has been shown to both lead and lag. It is part of basic chemistry. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas (a fact figured out over 150 years ago) so it can lead, it is also a gas dissolved in ocean water so if you warm the oceans the CO2 will exsolve (this is a part of Chemistry 101 that people learn called "Henry's Law")

The fact that one graph shows CO2 lagging doesn't mean anything in the context that it can and has been seen to lead in the past as well.

Q. will warming be substantial?

A. Even using IPCC data, an alarmist society, the increased temperatures due to CO2 will likely be low. The predictions on these computer models that say we will see huge increases are very false, and overstated. They predict huge warming, we observe very little warming. Hansen is a perfect example, predicts huge increases we see minimal upward trend.

A2: Again A#1 appears to be somewhat confused about what Hansen "predicted". Hansens' famous 1988 predictions were actually three SCENARIOS. Even today the IPCC doesn't predict what is going to happen but rather provides a series of "SCENARIOS" which they call "SRES's" and rely on various inputs such as how people change their use of fossil fuels, population growth, etc. Each of these plays out differently.

It is hardly alarmist to make a variety of "scenarios" and see how they play out. The fact that the skeptical community doesn't understand this point, and in fact misrepresents it repeatedly as if there's one super-scary "alarmist" scenario is more telling of the state of the debate.

Q. Catastrophic events?

A. No, warming is preferred to cooling.

A2: A#1 appears to have no real appreciation of the earth's history. Some researchers believe that the End Permian Extinction event which wiped out ~95% of the earth's lifeforms may have been caused or made much worse due to global warming. It would be hard to determine how that is "preferred".

The fact of the matter is that we simply don't really know what will happen other than the fact that it will drive us into a climate that humanity has never known since settling into permanent settlements, so if we don't know the potential knock-on effects it seems rather stupid to court that kind of change without sober reflection.

Also, the ice caps are not melting.

Strange thing to say when we are by most estimates only a couple of years from a completely ice-free north pole, the first time in recorded history (!) and while the original answer will probably focus on the increase in the ice sheet in eastern Antarctica there is still the matter of massive ice loss in Western Antarctica. (It's never as simple as skeptics would like it to be).

>>Why am I a skeptic?<<

Ironically it is science. The reason I dont think CO2 causes warming is refuted by long term correlations

Correlations it must be noted that are not scientific. Climate sensitivity studies have shown that the current estimate of climate sensitivity for CO2 is confirmed through numerous methods.

as well as recent ones in the last decade. And math. Carbon is .04% of atmosphere.

Again math that isn't particularly robust in its reasoning. Simply marvelling at the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is arguing from personal incredulity. As has been noted much of the majority of the atmosphere is essentially transparent to IR, so it's always going to be the small fraction.

Lets say humans make about 4% of that. That means .0016%. This means human contribution to the atmosphere in carbon is a mere 16 ppm (parts per million), or 1.6 out of 100,000.

Again, science shows a rather more direct measure of human impact. The stable isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 is shifting to lighter (more 12-C) just exactly as one would expect when gigatons of fossil fuels are burned daily. And interestingly enough this trend of "lightening" of the carbon isotopes starts in the middle of the 19th century when people were really getting quite good at pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Prior to that the 13-C/12-C ratio was relatively stable for thousands of years (!)

So lets assume CO2 can heat to a large extent.

Again a confusion of terminology: CO2 is an IR absorber which means it slows the rate of heat re-radiated back into space from the surface of the earth by absorbing and re-emitting the IR, transfering energy to neighboring molecules etc.

global warming links:

http://a-sceptical-mind.com...
http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
http://wattsupwiththat.com...
http://www.paulmacrae.com...
http://members.shaw.ca...
http://epw.senate.gov...
http://nrsp.com...
http://globalwarmingcause.wordpress.com...
http://friendsofscience.org...
http://noconsensus.org...
http://heartland.org...
http://lomborg.com...
http://www.co2science.org...
http://geocraft.com...

How about some REAL climate links (not just skeptic blogs) for a balanced source of information:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov... (Oak Ridge National Labs CO2 Information Analysis Center)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov... (NASA GISTEMP)
http://www.noaa.gov... (NOAA)
http://www.pnas.org... (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch... (IPCC Working Group I: Physical Science Group)
http://www.wag.caltech.edu... (Explains how CO2 molecules work)
http://www.nature.com... (Climte sensitivity study, Nature)
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu... (Atmospheric IR absorption spectrum)
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov... (C isotope discussion)

For "Blog Type" stuff here's a blog written by several professional researchers:
http://www.realclimate.org...

And a nice blog which discusses pretty much every skeptic point point-for-point but is not put out by a scientist. It does however make use of peer reviewed references which are quite unpopular with skeptoids:
http://www.skepticalscience.com...

Those are just a few of them. I hope all of you visit some of these, I recommend the friends of science one and the paul macrae one.

I always recommend actual scientific sources but that is just my bias.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 11:25:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 2:17:34 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Very well put in a Q&A format. I have the exact same position that you do in that the evidence for CO2 warming is weak given the other correlations that you mentioned and others (like albedo), and that's being generous to AGW alarmists.

What about the albedo do you find compelling? What data do you rely on for this?

NOte, I'm not debating that albedo plays a role as a forcing factor, I'm just curious how you arrive at a position of skepticism of the AGW hypothesis based on "albedo".
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 10:54:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
BUT MANBEARPIG IS COMING!!!nac

Are you totally serial?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 6:24:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 8:52:23 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:18:23 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Q. Is the earth warming?

A2: the historical record is not so faulty as to eliminate our ability to understand trends in the temperature.

My answer I believe said yes there is some warming, but it is exaggerated -_-



Q. Does man made CO2 cause warming?

A2: Answer #1 is incorrect. CO2 has been shown to both lead and lag. It is part of basic chemistry. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas (a fact figured out over 150 years ago) so it can lead, it is also a gas dissolved in ocean water so if you warm the oceans the CO2 will exsolve (this is a part of Chemistry 101 that people learn called "Henry's Law")

Base rate fallacy. Also your argument fails as it never looks at past trends...
http://www.debate.org...


The fact that one graph shows CO2 lagging doesn't mean anything in the context that it can and has been seen to lead in the past as well.

Q. will warming be substantial?


A2: Again A#1 appears to be somewhat confused about what Hansen "predicted". Hansens' famous 1988 predictions were actually three SCENARIOS. Even today the IPCC doesn't predict what is going to happen but rather provides a series of "SCENARIOS" which they call "SRES's" and rely on various inputs such as how people change their use of fossil fuels, population growth, etc. Each of these plays out differently.

No I am talking about these IPCC not Hansen scenarios: http://www.ipcc.ch...

They predicted his A was most likely too, but his B was correct.


It is hardly alarmist to make a variety of "scenarios" and see how they play out. The fact that the skeptical community doesn't understand this point, and in fact misrepresents it repeatedly as if there's one super-scary "alarmist" scenario is more telling of the state of the debate.

Q. Catastrophic events?

A2: A#1 appears to have no real appreciation of the earth's history. Some researchers believe that the End Permian Extinction event which wiped out ~95% of the earth's lifeforms may have been caused or made much worse due to global warming. It would be hard to determine how that is "preferred".

The fact of the matter is that we simply don't really know what will happen other than the fact that it will drive us into a climate that humanity has never known since settling into permanent settlements, so if we don't know the potential knock-on effects it seems rather stupid to court that kind of change without sober reflection.

1882 - 1910 Cooling -> Economic hard times
1910 - 1944 Warming -> Depression, warming has no effect
1944 - 1975 Cooling -> if CO2 is rising how did this cool?
1975 - 2001 Warming -> See 1910

Medieval warming -> Vikings move into US, Canada, Greenland, plants farming population boom
Roman warming -> Lead to great farming times
Roman cooling -> Helped barbarians invade according to fred singer


Also, the ice caps are not melting.

Strange thing to say when we are by most estimates only a couple of years from a completely ice-free north pole, the first time in recorded history (!) and while the original answer will probably focus on the increase in the ice sheet in eastern Antarctica there is still the matter of massive ice loss in Western Antarctica. (It's never as simple as skeptics would like it to be).

Lol, did you watch the global warming swindle? it explains a lot of those studies point blank.

I am lazy, read this: http://news.heartland.org...


>>Why am I a skeptic?<<

Ironically it is science. The reason I dont think CO2 causes warming is refuted by long term correlations

Correlations it must be noted that are not scientific. Climate sensitivity studies have shown that the current estimate of climate sensitivity for CO2 is confirmed through numerous methods.

IF ITS SENSITIVE THEN WHY DOES IT LOOK LIKE THIS?
http://www.debate.org...

Also 100 years of correlation interrupted by co2 boom and decrease in temp (1940-70) mean there is not even 100 years of correlation. If you can provide me with 400,000 years of correlation I might change my mind.


as well as recent ones in the last decade. And math. Carbon is .04% of atmosphere.

Again math that isn't particularly robust in its reasoning. Simply marvelling at the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is arguing from personal incredulity. As has been noted much of the majority of the atmosphere is essentially transparent to IR, so it's always going to be the small fraction.

Lets say humans make about 4% of that. That means .0016%. This means human contribution to the atmosphere in carbon is a mere 16 ppm (parts per million), or 1.6 out of 100,000.

Again, science shows a rather more direct measure of human impact. The stable isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 is shifting to lighter (more 12-C) just exactly as one would expect when gigatons of fossil fuels are burned daily. And interestingly enough this trend of "lightening" of the carbon isotopes starts in the middle of the 19th century when people were really getting quite good at pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Prior to that the 13-C/12-C ratio was relatively stable for thousands of years (!)

http://geocraft.com...


So lets assume CO2 can heat to a large extent.

Again a confusion of terminology: CO2 is an IR absorber which means it slows the rate of heat re-radiated back into space from the surface of the earth by absorbing and re-emitting the IR, transfering energy to neighboring molecules etc.

You know what I mean ;)


How about some REAL climate links (not just skeptic blogs) for a balanced source of information:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov... (Oak Ridge National Labs CO2 Information Analysis Center)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov... (NASA GISTEMP)

Surface data = faulty

http://www.noaa.gov... (NOAA)

cooling trend 1997 on

http://www.pnas.org... (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch... (IPCC Working Group I: Physical Science Group)

"review by governments" = political agenda.

http://www.wag.caltech.edu... (Explains how CO2 molecules work)
http://www.nature.com... (Climte sensitivity study, Nature)

They have been of many times to exaggerate their claims. And I have rad books that show their biases when refuting studies and letting the study maker respond for one page. etc. Bias.

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu... (Atmospheric IR absorption spectrum)
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov... (C isotope discussion)

I agree with global warming, just not only AGW. Alhe links you show that prove this have some bias.

For "Blog Type" stuff here's a blog written by several professional researchers:
http://www.realclimate.org...

And a nice blog which discusses pretty much every skeptic point point-for-point but is not put out by a scientist. It does however make use of peer reviewed references which are quite unpopular with skeptoids:
http://www.skepticalscience.com...

Read all their entries.


Those are just a few of them. I hope all of you visit some of these, I recommend the friends of science one and the paul macrae one.

I always recommend actual scientific sources but

Most of my sources either source very credible studies or books or are written by scientists. I doubt you have even ever clicked those links too.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 10:37:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Other than "yes, the Earth is warming," I can't think of a single piece of that OP that isn't propagandistic bullsh!t.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 10:46:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 10:37:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Other than "yes, the Earth is warming," I can't think of a single piece of that OP that isn't propagandistic bullsh!t.

Then refuting should be a piece of cake.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 11:03:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 10:46:14 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/23/2012 10:37:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Other than "yes, the Earth is warming," I can't think of a single piece of that OP that isn't propagandistic bullsh!t.

Then refuting should be a piece of cake.

Yes and no. It's like refuting a Gish Gallop.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 11:05:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is 16k's OP, reduced to a series of logical, empirical propositions. Please let me know, 16k, if there are any logical, empirical propositions from your OP that I neglected to add or that I misrepresented here.

.

(1) The Earth is warming.

(2) The historical record is very faulty and exaggerated.

(3) There has been no warming for 10 years, even though CO2 is rising.

(4) On a historical basis it seems CO2 causes temperatures, but this is false; temperatures seem to be driving CO2.

(5) CO2 has a lag time historically.

(6) Hundreds of years ago CO2 was not a driver of climate.

(7) It is false that CO2 amplifies the warming, as CO2 would also have time to decrease, so it would be at its high when the temperatures decreased then CO2 would follow.

(8) Temperatures drove CO2, not vice versa.

(9) It is false that the warming is unprecedented, as the first IPCC report shows the medieval warming period rose at the same rate it did 10 years ago and was even hotter.

(10) We are in a PDO warm period.

(11) The sun is fairly active.

(12) The main causes for global warming are ocean currents and the sun. And again, no heating for the last 10 years as CO2 is still rising.

Q. will warming be substantial?

(13) The IPCC data is alarmist.

(14) Even using the IPCC data, the increased temperatures due to CO2 will likely be low.

(15) The computer models that predicted huge increases in temperatures are false and overstated, as we observe very little warming.

(16) Hansen predicted huge inreases, while we have observed a minimalist upward trend.

(17) We will only see a change of zero to one degree by the end of the century.

(18) Global warming is preferred to global cooling.

(19) There has been no upward trend in droughts.

(20) Despite local variations, there has been no overall upward trend in wet weather.

(21) There is a slight downward trend in hurricanes and tornadoes.

(22) Glaciers shrank before humans began emitting CO2.

(23) Some glaciers are growing again.

(24) The amount of Antarctica ice is at an all-time high.

(25) The ice caps are not melting.

(26) The medieval warm period was good for people and animals.

(27) Emissions other than CO2 are more likely to cause warming.

(28) All human emissions have less of an impact than natural cycles.

(29) Food is more effectively used to feed people than to be turned into car fuel.

(30) Other emissions might cancel out or minimize the warming caused by greenhouse emissions.

(31) Places with CO2 abatement laws, such as California and Europe, have the highest energy prices.

(32) Warm weather is linked to better economy.

(33) Human emissions account for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

(34) Human emissions account for a negligible amount of CO2, in terms of climate impact.

.

Is that about right, 16k?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 11:33:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, 16k, can you explain what you mean by number 7? I frankly have no idea what you were trying to say there.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 1:00:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Base rate fallacy. Also your argument fails as it never looks at past trends...

Here's an example of CO2 leading:
http://www.nature.com...

1944 - 1975 Cooling -> if CO2 is rising how did this cool?

It's called POLLUTANT AEROSOLS. This was discussed at length elsewhere. This is why understanding the topic in detail as the scientists do is best. The scientists involved in this is that ALL the forcings are taken into account. Just an FYI

http://www.iac.ethz.ch...


Medieval warming -> Vikings move into US, Canada, Greenland, plants farming population boom
Roman warming -> Lead to great farming times
Roman cooling -> Helped barbarians invade according to fred singer

How nice! Such a ridiculously short bit of time from all of the earth's history! That's a nice myopic view of the planet.

Just ignore the first 4.49billion years I guess.

Lol, did you watch the global warming swindle? it explains a lot of those studies point blank.

I tend to rely on science and not politically, charged, biased stuff. When I read the word "swindle" I think "Oh this isn't science, this is biased trash talk! I'll wait to look at some science instead".

IF ITS SENSITIVE THEN WHY DOES IT LOOK LIKE THIS?
http://www.debate.org...

I hope you know what I mean when I use the technical term "Climate Sensitivity" and I hope you don't think it is a loosely define term. Google it sometime if you want to talk seriously about global climate change!

Also 100 years of correlation interrupted by co2 boom and decrease in temp (1940-70) mean there is not even 100 years of correlation. If you can provide me with 400,000 years of correlation I might change my mind.

I'm curious why you want a simple 1-1 correlation between temperature and CO2. The scientists you are debating against don't even believe it is that simple!

Really, I don't understand. Is it the attraction of the strawman argument?

You want to know why the warming is moderated the last 10 years? But you don't want to listen to the fact that scientists understand there are LARGE NUMBER of forcings both positive and negative in play?

You want a cartoon of global warming? So you don't have to think about the real responsibility that added CO2 is a real concern?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov... (Oak Ridge National Labs CO2 Information Analysis Center)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov... (NASA GISTEMP)

Surface data = faulty

Not as faulty as you need it to be for your debate point! :)

cooling trend 1997 on

Please provide the f-test and p-value for this "cooling trend".


This is an important point. You cannot claim a cooling trend unless the statistical test for the trend shows a statistically significant non-zero trend. This is a somewhat complex aspect of statistics on time-series analyses. It is a simpler matter for linear trends without autocorrelation, but time series data often has autocorrelation.

You need to show a p-value (you do know what that is I assume) for the slope that would indicate a statistically significant trend one way or the other.

By all means, produce that value.


"review by governments" = political agenda.

Reviewed by governments? Really? How about the countless PEER REVIEWED science articles underpinning the conclusions in the IPCC?

They have been of many times to exaggerate their claims. And I have rad books that show their biases when refuting studies and letting the study maker respond for one page. etc. Bias.

Really? Did you actually look at the Nature article? Can you show me evidence where ROYER, BERNER and PARK have been shown to have exaggerated their claims? Frankly until I saw this article I'd never heard of them. But you must have some pretty hard dirt on these scoundrels! By all means SHOW THE EVIDENCE! I mean it's good to make ACCUSATIONS but it's BETTER to provide evidence.

I agree with global warming, just not only AGW. Alhe links you show that prove this have some bias.

I must point out that the the links I'm providing by and large include peer reviewed publications in a major journals, agencies such as NOAA and NASA and the best you can come up with is conspiracy theory "bias" accusations? Good! I see the robustness of your science.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 1:06:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 10:46:14 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/23/2012 10:37:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Other than "yes, the Earth is warming," I can't think of a single piece of that OP that isn't propagandistic bullsh!t.

Then refuting should be a piece of cake.

That's what I'm attempting to do, point-by-point.

But again, I must caution readers that reliance on mostly blogs and non-scientific outlets does not bode well for the OP.

Writer Dave is on target by referring to some of the points as "Gish Gallop". While I don't actually think that the OP is "lying" or undertaking "half truths", I rather assume he is (based on his preference for non-science sources for his information) unduly influenced by blogs representing poorly understood scientific concepts.

There is little that is usually "substantial" on the AGW "Skeptic" side on these boards, and unfortunately the skeptic cause on these boards often looks almost indifferentiable from creationist and YEC debates. So the "Gish Gallop" of burying the opposition in a rain of poorly developed science is quite apropos.

I actually call a variant of this "Creationist Whack-a-mole". They start off with one set of topics which they will seldom discuss in detail and when you try to engage them in details on a topic suddenly they move onto another topic altogether.

It's a "science lite" debate from the skeptoid side.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 1:29:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The atmosphere only contains 0.039% carbon dioxide...

I really really REALLY fail to see how such a MINUSCULE amount of anything can change the CLIMATE of the entire PLANET.

Especially when water vapor is just as strong as a greenhouse gas as CO2 and that is WAY more abundant.

The whole CO2 thing is a crock.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:27:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 1:29:10 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The atmosphere only contains 0.039% carbon dioxide...

I really really REALLY fail to see how such a MINUSCULE amount of anything can change the CLIMATE of the entire PLANET.

First off: argument from personal incredulity is not convincing of anything. I can find a chemical compound that in microgram quantities can kill someone instantly. That's micrograms in a 100kg person.

0.000001g/100000g = 0.000000001% by mass.

But let's dig into it a bit. The reason greenhouse gases do what they do is that the majority of the earth's atmospheric content (N2 and O2) are largely transparent to IR. So if there were NO greenhouse gases the temperature of the earth's surface could easily be calculated using the STEFAN-BOLTZMANN equation and information on how much energy was coming from the sun. It would average about -18degC on average. Instead, because we have greenhouse gases in our atmosphere the earth's surface averages about +14degC.

Within these gases there are some that much stronger greenhouse gases than CO2, like H2O. But the big difference is H2O can easily re-equilibrate if excess is put into the atmosphere through PRECIPITATION. Excess CO2 has a tougher time coming out.

AND the simple fact that if you warm the air near the surface you can also put more H2O in the air which can increase the warming further still (the "feedback" effect).

Especially when water vapor is just as strong as a greenhouse gas as CO2 and that is WAY more abundant.

But again, excess water can rain back out. Excess CO2 stays up there a lot longer because it has to rely on the carbon cycle to remove it. That's why we are having the impact we are having.

The whole CO2 thing is a crock.

Unless you have at least a nodding acquaintance with the actual science behind it. At which point it makes a lot of sense. This could be why the vast majority of people who study this stuff for a living believe it to be a likely hypothesis.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 12:02:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 1:29:10 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Especially when water vapor is just as strong as a greenhouse gas as CO2 and that is WAY more abundant.
Water vapor overwhelms CO2 by FAR. I've seen charts where water vapor accounts for 95% of green house effect and others where it's 36% to 72%. This leaves CO2 at 3.6% and 9% to 26% respectively.

What amount of CO2 is anthropogenic? I've seen 0.12% and even 41.7%. Now let's take the "worst case" scenario for both (ie 26% and 41.7%) and we can see that 42% of 26% is 10.92%. So humans are responsible for 11% of the greenhouse effect and nature for 89%. So HTF are humans the primary source of GW? Answer: they aren't.

Let's take a more reasonable 9% for CO2 GH contribution and still stick with the 42% and we now have 3.78% or 4%. Since when is 4% to 11% > than 96% to 89%?

Personally, I think that it's closer to 0.05% AGW but whatever.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 2:42:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 12:02:26 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/24/2012 1:29:10 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Especially when water vapor is just as strong as a greenhouse gas as CO2 and that is WAY more abundant.
Water vapor overwhelms CO2 by FAR. I've seen charts where water vapor accounts for 95% of green house effect and others where it's 36% to 72%. This leaves CO2 at 3.6% and 9% to 26% respectively.

What amount of CO2 is anthropogenic? I've seen 0.12% and even 41.7%. Now let's take the "worst case" scenario for both (ie 26% and 41.7%) and we can see that 42% of 26% is 10.92%. So humans are responsible for 11% of the greenhouse effect and nature for 89%. So HTF are humans the primary source of GW? Answer: they aren't.

Let's take a more reasonable 9% for CO2 GH contribution and still stick with the 42% and we now have 3.78% or 4%. Since when is 4% to 11% > than 96% to 89%?

Personally, I think that it's closer to 0.05% AGW but whatever.

A lot of this seems to miss the important bits:

1. H2O can re-equilibrate out of the atmosphere a LOT faster than excess CO2 once its put up in the atmosphere

2. A gas that can cause warming in the atmosphere can increase the amount of H2O

3. Small amounts of greenhouse gas in an atmosphere almost exclusively made up of IR-transparent gases will have a big effect relative to their "population"

4. Humans have pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere that it has shifted the isotopic composition of the C in the CO2 in the atmosphere almost exactly as one expects from burning gigatons of fossil fuels.

The incontrovertible fact is that humans have been a HUGE force for the rapid liberation of carbon that was formerly sequested from the carbon cycle for millions of years. We have, in the geologic "blink of an eye" blasted all that carbon back into the system and once in the system it takes a LONG time to come back down.

That's why CO2 is a big factor. H2O is a feedback and a strong one, CO2 is a forcing and we have really amped up the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere because of our activities. This is the CO2 that is significantly above and beyond the natural flux of CO2, and that's the stuff under discussion.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:42:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 11:05:18 PM, WriterDave wrote:
This is 16k's OP, reduced to a series of logical, empirical propositions. Please let me know, 16k, if there are any logical, empirical propositions from your OP that I neglected to add or that I misrepresented here.

.

(1) The Earth is warming.

yes it is


(2) The historical record is very faulty and exaggerated.

depends, tree ring data and ice core data is ok, but the data using modern surface scanners are faulty and exaggerated warming. Satellites are the best.


(3) There has been no warming for 10 years, even though CO2 is rising.

During the last century we have seen 60 year cycles, we will likely cool then temperature will rise again


(4) On a historical basis it seems CO2 causes temperatures, but this is false; temperatures seem to be driving CO2.

Yes, we see a 800-1000 year lag time


(5) CO2 has a lag time historically.

Yes


(6) Hundreds of years ago CO2 was not a driver of climate.

Correct


(7) It is false that CO2 amplifies the warming, as CO2 would also have time to decrease, so it would be at its high when the temperatures decreased then CO2 would follow.

Yes, this lag time means there may be high CO2 in cool temperatures and vice versa. So the question is if it failed millions years ago to have effect, why is it happening now?


(8) Temperatures drove CO2, not vice versa.

In the past yes, in the now most likely.


(9) It is false that the warming is unprecedented, as the first IPCC report shows the medieval warming period rose at the same rate it did 10 years ago and was even hotter.

Correct


(10) We are in a PDO warm period.


Yes

(11) The sun is fairly active.

Yes


(12) The main causes for global warming are ocean currents and the sun. And again, no heating for the last 10 years as CO2 is still rising.

Q. will warming be substantial?

Define substantial. It will be like any other warming, temperatures seem to be peaking according to the 1990 IPCC data, as well as NOAA data.


(13) The IPCC data is alarmist.

Depends, but generally yes


(14) Even using the IPCC data, the increased temperatures due to CO2 will likely be low.

Correct


(15) The computer models that predicted huge increases in temperatures are false and overstated, as we observe very little warming.

Yes


(16) Hansen predicted huge inreases, while we have observed a minimalist upward trend.

His section B was correct, which falls under a natural scale.


(17) We will only see a change of zero to one degree by the end of the century.

Correct


(18) Global warming is preferred to global cooling.

For humanity it is


(19) There has been no upward trend in droughts.

Yes


(20) Despite local variations, there has been no overall upward trend in wet weather.

Yes

(21) There is a slight downward trend in hurricanes and tornadoes.

Overall, yes


(22) Glaciers shrank before humans began emitting CO2.

yes


(23) Some glaciers are growing again.

mmmhmmm


(24) The amount of Antarctica ice is at an all-time high.

It is increasing, not an all time high.


(25) The ice caps are not melting.

yes


(26) The medieval warm period was good for people and animals.

yes


(27) Emissions other than CO2 are more likely to cause warming.


Likely, but natural factors will still dominate.

(28) All human emissions have less of an impact than natural cycles.

(29) Food is more effectively used to feed people than to be turned into car fuel.

Yes


(30) Other emissions might cancel out or minimize the warming caused by greenhouse emissions.

Yes


(31) Places with CO2 abatement laws, such as California and Europe, have the highest energy prices.

Yes


(32) Warm weather is linked to better economy.

generally


(33) Human emissions account for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

1-5%, yes.


(34) Human emissions account for a negligible amount of CO2, in terms of climate impact.

yes


.

Is that about right, 16k?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:44:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thautumergy, seriously the great global warming swindle refutes everything you say
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:49:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:44:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Thautumergy, seriously the great global warming swindle refutes everything you say

You do know that that film has itself been thoroughly refuted, right?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:56:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:49:57 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:44:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Thautumergy, seriously the great global warming swindle refutes everything you say

You do know that that film has itself been thoroughly refuted, right?

I even have to admit this one.

They doctored some of the data at the dispute of two scientists. It's not as clear as they say it is, especially what they did with solar data, which, by the way, does show some correlation, but not NEAR the exactness put on their graphs. Same as they did wit 1940-1970 cooling. There was cooling, but the graph isn't anything near what they put up, and misrepresented the scientist (a skeptic) who proposed it.

You can gather some things from the video, some of which I put up, and even some of the correlations that they doctored (they didn't even have to do it!), but doctored data = pretty much invalidation.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:05:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:42:59 PM, 16kadams wrote:

(2) The historical record is very faulty and exaggerated.

depends, tree ring data and ice core data is ok, but the data using modern surface scanners are faulty and exaggerated warming. Satellites are the best.

In what way are the data from modern surface scanners faulty and exaggerated?


(3) There has been no warming for 10 years, even though CO2 is rising.

During the last century we have seen 60 year cycles, we will likely cool then temperature will rise again

Is that a yes?

(12) The main causes for global warming are ocean currents and the sun. And again, no heating for the last 10 years as CO2 is still rising.

Q. will warming be substantial?

Define substantial. It will be like any other warming, temperatures seem to be peaking according to the 1990 IPCC data, as well as NOAA data.

The "Q" part of that was a mistake left over from the process of distilling and separating your statement into logical and empirical propositions. Does 12 accurately reflect your position?

Are there any logical and empirical statements in your OP that I missed, other than "check out these links?"
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:05:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:56:59 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:49:57 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 5/24/2012 5:44:00 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Thautumergy, seriously the great global warming swindle refutes everything you say

You do know that that film has itself been thoroughly refuted, right?

I even have to admit this one.

They doctored some of the data at the dispute of two scientists. It's not as clear as they say it is, especially what they did with solar data, which, by the way, does show some correlation, but not NEAR the exactness put on their graphs. Same as they did wit 1940-1970 cooling. There was cooling, but the graph isn't anything near what they put up, and misrepresented the scientist (a skeptic) who proposed it.

You can gather some things from the video, some of which I put up, and even some of the correlations that they doctored (they didn't even have to do it!), but doctored data = pretty much invalidation.

not even close to the alarmist data frauds that deleted whole data sets to prove their point ;)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 12:25:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
not even close to the alarmist data frauds that deleted whole data sets to prove their point ;)

Would you mind showing us the evidence of fraudulent treatment of the data by the scientists involved?

I'd be very interested in seeing this because as of last count every single independent investigation of the climategate kerfluffle has come up with a finding of NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION OF DATA. Every single one.

The worst so far that has been found is that one group drug its feet in FOIA compliance.

But hey, I understand in the game skeptoids play the only people who have to provide evidence are the scientists. The skeptoids can just make claims right and left and never have to provide one ounce of evidence.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 7:46:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 12:25:30 AM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
not even close to the alarmist data frauds that deleted whole data sets to prove their point ;)

Would you mind showing us the evidence of fraudulent treatment of the data by the scientists involved?

I'd be very interested in seeing this because as of last count every single independent investigation of the climategate kerfluffle has come up with a finding of NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION OF DATA. Every single one.

The worst so far that has been found is that one group drug its feet in FOIA compliance.

But hey, I understand in the game skeptoids play the only people who have to provide evidence are the scientists. The skeptoids can just make claims right and left and never have to provide one ounce of evidence.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

"……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

Aka you never googled the emails.

Skeptics show no evidence? Find a non computer model evidential peice. Also facts are facts, not computers. Further, as you go against geologic history you have the BOP therefore only I can say prove it, not vice versa.
See this:
- http://epw.senate.gov...
- Also you claimed no studies prove a skeptic point, false http://www.populartechnology.net...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:22:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 7:46:05 AM, 16kadams wrote:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Not determined to be fraudulent manipulation of data. Good try.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Part of the first round of Climategate e-mails: no findings of fraudulent manipulation of data. Good try.

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

Evidence of what, exactly?


"……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

Aka you never googled the emails.

Oh, no I have. I've seen all this before. Yet somehow NUMEROUS independent reviews have FAILED to find evidence of fraudulent manipulation of data! Maybe you are simply too smart and should go show those folks a thing or two!

Even Cuccinelli in Virginia recently had his "witchhunt" shut down.

Climategate is a dead duck.


Skeptics show no evidence? Find a non computer model evidential peice. Also facts are facts, not computers. Further, as you go against geologic history you have the BOP therefore only I can say prove it, not vice versa.
See this:
- http://epw.senate.gov...
- Also you claimed no studies prove a skeptic point, false http://www.populartechnology.net...