Thread: Cold and Snow VS Global Warming

Again, we have examples of the technique of dealing with those who question the non-consensus and presents evidence that contradicts AGW dogma.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Wrong, as usual. I presented the facts, you presented the false denialist talking points about hockey sticks and the personal emails of scientists that you take way out of context.

No, Andrew you present ideological politicized twisted mythology presented as science. Fact: the hockey stick has been debunked by several impartial researchers. Here is where you present a link from Michael Mann’s website defending his own research. Please show me where I have presented or commented on excerpts of personal emails of scientists.

You are the most dishonest person i have ever had the displeasure of engaging on this topic.

Ah … Andrew, insulting me is not “engaging” me on this topic.

No. A terrible person deliberately ignores scientific data and consensus in favor of bullshit propaganda provided by industry funded lobby groups. That is precisely what you do and what makes you a very unethical person.

An unethical person engages in character assassination when they cannot defend their position with a reasoned argument based on evidence gathered in the field.

Wrong again, i provided the facts as i always do.

The only “facts” you accept and provide are those that confirm your AGW dogma. All other evidence is ignored, rejected, or denied.

Right. You claimed you were going to engage on the science but you provided the same old non-peer reviewed outdated bunk that has been repeatedly discredited over and over and over again.

Wrong. False.

Why would i waste my time discussing this with someone who is so clearly dishonest and refuses to acknowledge the science as it stands today in favor of non-science and conspiracy theories?

Like Al Gore, you refuse to debate or “discuss” those who question AGW dogma and would rather call them names.

Please, show me the peer reviewed science that invalidates the theory of AGW? Waiting…

I have already provided all of the above, as anyone who has taken the time to do the necessary search on the Environmental issues forum would know. You ignore and deny and then insult. So tell me, “Why would i waste my time discussing this with someone who is so clearly dishonest and refuses to acknowledge the science as it stands today in favor of non-science and conspiracy theories?”

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Nothing there.

CPOM - Research - Sea Ice

I fixed the link before I read your post.

From 2006. Its outdated. The NASA grace satellite and the INsar satellites show that the continent in now losing ice overall at an accelerated rate.

Provide the links please. I would like to see the data that comes from CryoStatII.

The heartland institute is not a legitimate source of scientific information. Its a industry funded think tank specifically geared towards confusing people. Please, try again with actual science. not ideological drivel from former tobacco industry lobbyists who have now taken up the mantle of denying AGW through carefully concocted PR campaigns.

I consider this complaint baseless and an attempt to change the argument rather than address the evidence and questions being presented. When you stop using Mann's website to defend Mann's debunked junk science or when you stop using AGW propaganda sites as evidence to support your assertions or when you stop engaging in insults and the usual AGW extrimist rhetoric in your attempts to silence anyone who questions the religion of extremist environmentalism I'll consider your point of view as possibly having some value.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

So the Question
Are we in a Global Warming or are we just able to see the heating and cooling cycles that have been going on for longer than modern man?

Well, Cold and Snow come and go with the seasons. Global warming's scope is climate trend, not seasonal weather.

No conclusions should be drawn solely from weather data from our lifetime, let alone from current weather observations.

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Well, Cold and Snow come and go with the seasons. Global warming's scope is climate trend, not seasonal weather.

No conclusions should be drawn solely from weather data from our lifetime, let alone from current weather observations.

And yet 90% of the so called climate change is based on the last 60 years.

Yes snow and cold come with the season and so does the warm and rain .

Just How Sure are we of what was going on with in the climate in the 1500's where there where NO People to record the information?

Just How Sure are we of what was happening with the Ice Sheets 500 years ago with no Statutes to take the photos that we have today?

We do have Some of the Puzzle parts but Not ALL of them.

Even today there is NO clear picture as to how the Great Pyramids of Egypt or South America.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Again, we have examples of the technique of dealing with those who question the non-consensus and presents evidence that contradicts AGW dogma.

You are still not being truthful. There is a consensus, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Fact: the hockey stick has been debunked by several impartial researchers.

Wrong. Any valid criticisms of the hockey stick were addressed by the original researchers and corrected, they had no significant impact on the conclusion of rapid late 20th century warming in the northern hemisphere.

Even the NAS confirmed this when it was politicized by people like you.

Ah … Andrew, insulting me is not “engaging” me on this topic.

Like i said, just providing the facts.

An unethical person engages in character assassination when they cannot defend their position with a reasoned argument based on evidence gathered in the field.

Kinda like what you guys have tried to do to Mann??

I have provided all the evidence to back up the fact that AGW is real, you simply choose to ignore it.

I have already provided all of the above...

No you have not. Just name one peer reviewed study in climate science that has invalidated the theory or stood up to any wider scrutiny?

Andrew

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

And yet 90% of the so called climate change is based on the last 60 years.

Yes snow and cold come with the season and so does the warm and rain .

Just How Sure are we of what was going on with in the climate in the 1500's where there where NO People to record the information?

Just How Sure are we of what was happening with the Ice Sheets 500 years ago with no Statutes to take the photos that we have today?

We do have Some of the Puzzle parts but Not ALL of them.

Even today there is NO clear picture as to how the Great Pyramids of Egypt or South America.

Which is why we should be skeptical of the scientific conclusions and yet still retain an open mind.

There seems to be no silver bullet that either proves or disproves a dangerous warming trend.

The ramifications are what are important, and considering what could potentially happen if most climatologists are right, we should still be in a frame of mind to let them make their case. I wouldn't reject any of the science or methods out of hand without an individual analysis of a particular study.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

CPOM - Research - Sea Ice

I fixed the link before I read your post.

Also from 2006. Im not really sure what you are trying to show here that has not already been discussed and/or acknowledged in this thread.

Provide the links please. I would like to see the data that comes from CryoStatII.

I provided the links already, you obviously are still stuck in the pattern of ignoring whatever does not prove your wacky conspiracy theory.

I consider this complaint baseless and an attempt to change the argument rather than address the evidence and questions being presented.

I just want you to provide science, not fucked up neo-conservative industry funded garbage from a non-scientific totally ideologically driven organization like the Heartland Institute. Good god man, get a fucking grip.

Andrew

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

Even today there is NO clear picture as to how the Great Pyramids of Egypt or South America.

What?

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

What?

I'm guessing that "were built" completed that thought.

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

And yet 90% of the so called climate change is based on the last 60 years.

No its not. Its based largely on the entire pale-climate record going back hundreds of millions of years in proxy records.

Just How Sure are we of what was going on with in the climate in the 1500's where there where NO People to record the information?

Nature records this information for us.

Just How Sure are we of what was happening with the Ice Sheets 500 years ago with no Statutes to take the photos that we have today?

Ice cores mainly.

We do have Some of the Puzzle parts but Not ALL of them.

That is very true. Essentially we know that CO2 is a very important greenhouse gas in earths climate history and we also know that the earth has warmed up as a response to increasing CO2 emissions over the last 100 years.

What we really don't know with much certainty is how it all plays out in the long term. But it is important to note that the history of earth's climate shows us that it is sensitive to changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses. We know the climate can change and we know past climate change episodes coincide with mass extinction events.

Also, keep in mind one troubling fact. The last 10K years of climate has been ideal for creating human industrial civilization and allows us to feed ~ 7 billion people. Even a slight change in climate conditions can radically alter the ability of the planet to accommodate that many people.

Even today there is NO clear picture as to how the Great Pyramids of Egypt or South America.

Right, so the "mystery' of how the pyramids were constructed are relevant to climate science how? That is a pretty silly strawman.

Andrew

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Anecdotal evidence is no basis for a system of science. Supreme scientific knowledge derives from a mandate from properly measured statistics, not from some farcical precipitation stories.

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

I'm guessing that "were built" completed that thought.

I'm guessing tectonic plates had something to do with the building of South America.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

You are still not being truthful. There is a consensus, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

As you know I have provided more than enough evidence that challenges any assertion of a consensus. You simply refuse to acknowledge that evidence and would rather engage in petty insults and little games.

Wrong. Any valid criticisms of the hockey stick were addressed by the original researchers and corrected, they had no significant impact on the conclusion of rapid late 20th century warming in the northern hemisphere.

Even the NAS confirmed this when it was politicized by people like you.

I'll accept that is a conclusion you hold strongly to. I do not accept the excuses or the rationalization of Mann and his fellow travelers. The hockey stick is junk science. If the criticisms had been addressed with satisfaction and the original research had been corrected, why has the IPCC refused to included it in any of the yearly reports since it was dropped? Because it is still junk.

Like i said, just providing the facts.

I disagree that you are just providing the facts. I have concluded after looking at all of the evidence, you are providing a mythic belief system dressed up in scientific rhetoric.

Kinda like what you guys have tried to do to Mann??

No one engaged in attacking an innocent respected scientist when they critizied Mann and his flawed and debunked hockey stick.

I have provided all the evidence to back up the fact that AGW is real, you simply choose to ignore it.

No, you have provided mythic beliefs dressed up in scientific drag. After reading nearly a hundred books, reading hundreds of web pages, looking at hundreds of mag articles I have come to the conclusion that AGW is at best an unproven theory and at worse a mythic belief. As I have said several times, this is a conclusion that I have come to that radically differs from my environmentalist beliefs 20 years ago when I did buy into so much of the eco-extremist dogma.

No you have not. Just name one peer reviewed study in climate science that has invalidated the theory or stood up to any wider scrutiny?

Anyone, even you, can do the necessary search on the Environmental issues forum for the threads I have begun and the posts I have presented to determine the validity of the evidence I have given. But, as someone who thinks highly of their own ability to determine the truth and falseness of what people say,

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Why would i waste my time discussing this with someone who is so clearly dishonest and refuses to acknowledge the science as it stands today in favor of non-science and conspiracy theories?

Why don't you address: For those interested in an example of one of my multi-linked posts that directly rebuts many of Andrew’s claims go here, though I will supply just the links:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? | ScienceBits
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...g_from_LIA.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf
Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC
An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter)
http://www.nipcc.ch/datei/1256830332.pdf

tashi deleks,

M