Climate Change: Fact, Fiction, Something in Between?

[theanimal]

@Stevo- You fit under the "In" category on the following video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5PRSuCW1eY

[steveo73]

@Stevo- You fit under the "In" category on the following video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5PRSuCW1eY

This sums up to me the current status of the discussion. Science and facts just get overwritten via ignorant people within the cool media. For the record I like Bill Maher.

Why not simply educate yourself on the topic ? Is is that hard ?

I've provided patent proof on this thread that shows the 97% statistic is a lie. I've provided links to analysis that proves the GW models are not working as per expectations.

And yet this is the comeback that I get.

You'd think you would take a step back and state "well fuck me - I've been had" but no its onto the comic videos to prove your point.

This is honestly the state of the debate at this point. Don't use your brain. Don't think. Don't whatever you do use facts. If you do any of these things we will use ad-hominen attacks and false statistics to get you into line.

[theanimal]

Oh the irony!!

No, it sums up the current status of your discussion. Jacob and others have provided countless links to data, research and science but you refuse to acknowledge them. You don't listen (or read in this case). I don't know what can be used to educate you, because regardless of what anyone says you think you are right.

Re-read your post you just made in reply to me. One could say you'd basically be talking about yourself.

[jacob]

@Scrubby - In your first point, I'm the one concluding that the non-respondents aren't altering the conclusion materially. In order to change the/my conclusion a substantial number of the people who aren't talking about AGW and who chose not to respond would have to take a position against.

Do we agree that "no AGW position" means "did not mention AGW in the paper in any way"... or does it mean "has not decided either way"? The way I read it in the paper that the paper did not concern itself with AGW. Not that the paper or author has not decided. --- This could be a KEY point of confusion/disagreement here.

Actually, whereas only 761/7930=10% of the authors who hadn't written about AGW responded, 39/78=50% of those who had written and taken position against responded, and 1342/3896 = 34% of those who had written and taken position for responded. In other words, skeptics with an opinion were more likely to respond than non-skeptics with an opinion. This strengthens my conclusion because the fraction of self-selected rejecters in the sample is higher than it is in the whole population.

It's very unfortunate that they throw uncertain and undecided into the same group in table 5. However, unless the survey raters are completely off, I'd use table 3 as a proxy and say that the uncertain/no mention = 40/(40+7930) = 0.5% and so that the "No AGW postion or undecided" count in table 5 is 99.5% comprised on people who didn't mention it. Not people who state they haven't decided yet and who are even rarer than those who reject.

I will yield if you can somewhat show a calculation or data that indicates whether people who didn't write about AGW fall more towards one side than the other. Or provide some other explanation of why an increasing fraction of scientists are no longer talking about AGW. And in that case why there would be enough still skeptic or against in that group to change the conclusion away from those people who actually write and talk about it. In other words, is there a silent majority of "uncertain" or "reject" positions hiding somewhere?

My posit is as based on how these things work in other fields of science that those who are no longer concerning themselves with a particular issue are distributed similarly to those who still write about it.

[steveo73]

Oh the irony!!

Here comes the irony - did you read my posts and the links to the facts ?

Did you read that the 97% statistic is a lie ? Did you read that the website that Jacob is using has been caught out perverting the facts.

Thats the irony. You won't get it because you don't want to educate yourself on the topic. You want to stick with the cool crowd.

This whole discussion is bizarre.

[theanimal]

I did. You're still wrong. Jacob pointed that out above. I'm done here, you've clearly demonstrated in this thread you refuse to acknowledge facts and then make illogical arguments to assert your position.

[steveo73]

I did. You're still wrong. Jacob pointed that out above. I'm done here, you've clearly demonstrated in this thread you refuse to acknowledge facts and then make illogical arguments to assert your position.

This is hilarious. I am using logic and facts. You and everyone else arguing that man made GW is a proven fact have got nothing.

Go and read the facts and then debate the facts if you choose too. I don't think you will because the facts can't really be debated.

[George the original one]

3. We have no idea if GW is occurring and if it is if human being's are influencing this occurrence at all.

Wrong. GW is occuring and that's been proven. Human influence is pretty obvious merely from the link between GW rate over the past 10k years and human population growth.

[steveo73]

3. We have no idea if GW is occurring and if it is if human being's are influencing this occurrence at all.

Wrong. GW is occuring and that's been proven. Human influence is pretty obvious merely from the link between GW rate over the past 10k years.

Thanks for that. Unfortunately your opinion is not backed up via scientific proof.

GW of course occurs as does GC. Its part of the natural cycle of Earth as a planet. It is definitely not proven that man kind is contributing to GW in a significant fashion. This is where the facts currently are.

We have GW proponents who have been proven to distort facts which you can see within this thread who state that their models are accurate and man made GW is a significant problem for mankind. If you though are critically evaluating their models performance you can see that it is way too early to conclude that man made GW is a factor. Try to understand that my comments are factual and proven.

The reality of the situation is that the models are now appearing to not conform to the available data. We are at the stage where we have to re-evaluate the science behind the GW theory in mainstream society. If you read the facts regarding the data that I have showed you can easily see this for yourself.

If we want to discuss this as mature adults we have to think logically and rationally and use factual information. If you go back to your comment it is definitely not proven that humans are impacting the GW significantly at all.

[George the original one]

@steveo73 - the only "proof" against GW you've linked to have been charts only a few decades long. You haven't even linked to centuries worth of data that does exist. At the centuries mark, the pattern is obvious.

[steveo73]

@steveo73 - the only "proof" against GW you've linked to have been charts only a few decades long. You haven't even linked to centuries worth of data that does exist. At the centuries mark, the pattern is obvious.

You might be making a valid point however I hope you realize that your point here does not fit the current GW theory.

The current GW theory is based on the premise that increasing CO2 has a direct and clear impact on temperatures. This supposition is then used to extrapolate climate warming being a relatively recent event caused by the amount of fossil fuels being burned to provide power to humans with the by-product being increased C02 in the atmosphere and therefore increased temperatures.

This theory is definitely not proven. If anything the evidence is not conforming the "scientists" hypothesis.

If I haven't provided links to studies that show that the Earth's temperature has changed significantly over centuries I could do so. We do agree that this has occurred. The Earth has been warmer and colder.

I'm just clearly and factually articulating that there are massive holes in the current man-made GW proponents theories at this point. The science is not really scientific - even the physics of CO2 and atmospheric temperatures are definitely not proven. If you read the link that I created on the previous page this is clearly apparent. The facts are there for people to digest.

I'd like to hear clearly articulated factual reasoning to back up your viewpoint.

[George the original one]

If I haven't provided links to studies that show that the Earth's temperature has changed significantly over centuries I could do so. We do agree that this has occurred.

In that case, you're contradicting your own point 3 where you say global warming is a fiction.

For recent decades (instead of centuries), Jacob's already provided links to the documentation concerning fluorocarbons being a reflector that inhibits CO2 greenhouse effect.

[jacob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
[58 minutes, talk at the general audience level from UCSB]

The first half provides an overview of the history of the scientific understanding of global warming as well as the scientific case for the general audience level.

The second half is a discussion of the origins of the denial movement or project. How the same group of people have operated with various levels of success to create the illusion of a scientific debate in connecting between tobacco and cancer, sulfur emissions and acid rain, CFC gasses and the ozone hole, and most successfully for global warming.

Here are the slides...
http://www.ucar.edu/governance/meetings ... arming.pdf

[steveo73]

If I haven't provided links to studies that show that the Earth's temperature has changed significantly over centuries I could do so. We do agree that this has occurred.

In that case, you're contradicting your own point 3 where you say global warming is a fiction.

I'll try and clarify this. People call GW when what they are really referring to is the theory regarding enhanced GW due to increased CO2. I accept that the earths atmosphere goes through natural heating and cooling phases.

The enhanced GW theory is getting pretty close to being classified as fiction however I wouldn't go that far just yet. I will state that the science undermining this theory is definitely unproven. This proposition cannot be denied. It is still a theory. The most accurate data that we have is refuting the models that have been predicting all sorts of dire events and if this trend continues at some point within the next 10-20 years (maybe more) we will be able to state that this has been definitively proven to be false.

Basically if we are being factual and scientific we have to state that the enhanced GW theory is definitely not proven at this point. The current data that we have does not validate the science and is in fact refuting it however it is too limited a data-set to make a 100% clear cut call at this point.

[George the original one]

> The current data that we have does not validate the science

The data does validate that warming accelerated as the industrial revolution took hold (1760-1840) and further increased into the 20th century at a rapid rate. Nitpicking over the past couple of decades is where you are today.

[George the original one]

Evidence for the man-made portion is the "Keeling Curve", the measured CO2 concentration in the atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Cu ... pr2013.svg

[steveo73]

> The current data that we have does not validate the science

The data does validate that warming accelerated as the industrial revolution took hold (1760-1840) and further increased into the 20th century at a rapid rate. Nitpicking over the past couple of decades is where you are today.

I don't believe that this is true. I can agree that the last couple of decades might not be significantly relevant however they do throw a massive spanner into the science of the GW proponents. At the very least it shows that GW science is definitively not science at least on a hard and fast rule basis.

This though is where we start dwelling in reality and this is where I'd like to get too. We can state categorically a couple of points:-

1. The GW "science" is definitively not science in that we can accept and utilize the theories that have been propagated via the "scientists". The models that have been produced do not reflect reality and the science and the models that have been utilized need to be re-assessed.
2. There is a massive amount of disinformation regarding GW being propagated by pro-GW proponents. A classic example is the 97% statistic with regards to agreement on the enhanced GW theory.

[George the original one]

Disagree. When you put peer-reviewed scientists in quotes, then you have no credibility, so I'm done.

[KevinW]

@steveo

You aren't using the terms "fact," "theory," or "proof" as they are understood in scientific discourse. This is high school level terminology. If you want to have a serious discussion with PhD scientists you really need to at least meet them halfway on vocabulary. I'm kind of amazed no one has mentioned this.

[steveo73]

Evidence for the man-made portion is the "Keeling Curve", the measured CO2 concentration in the atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Cu ... pr2013.svg

This is a classic example of the hysteria and non-science that is being produced via the pro GW "scientists".

I'll just clear up a key point with regards to CO2. The science behind increased CO2 leading to increased temperatures doesn't exist. There is a theory that increased CO2 leads to other factors happening that increase temperatures. The theory is that increased CO2 leads to for instance increased cloud cover which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

We just need to be clear that with no feedback mechanisms within the Earth increasing CO2 significantly will not have a significant impact on the Earths temperature. So this chart that looks really bad is in fact nothing to worry about.