Search the Community
Showing results for 'Greenhouse' in content posted by Jonathan.
Found 4 results
They're operating under the assumption that, since you disagree with them, you are therefore retarded. So, when you ask them what GHE stands for (or any other TLA -- three letter acronym), it doesn't occur to them that you're simply asking what the letters stand for. The only thought in their pompous twat heads is that you've never heard of the greenhouse effect, which confirms their view that you're retarded, and why you disagree with them. This is how their minds work. And it spills over into their approach to science. J
Seriously? You don't see, or remember, a reply from me?Maybe the problem is that you've not reread the thread closely enough to remember that it shifted over to the "Scientic Fraud becoming endemic?" thread? In the discussion, I asked you to define what you meant by "the consensus." You replied, not with specific numbers of one single scientific model, but with the vague statement "AGW is happening." You provided links to what "the consensus" means and how it was allegedly established "scientifically," I responded by revealing the unscientific slop that was used to come to that pretend consensus, and you conceded my points and backed away from your earlier implied acceptance of the slop. I continued to press for specifics on the issue of "consensus," and specifically what your views are, and you disappeared. The only actual "consensus" that the information at your own links supports is not that "AGW is happening," but that it is only "likely" happening to one vague degree or another. Yet here you are today, with all of that forgotten, and back to talking about a vague "consensus" again. For this AGWer, a demonstration that CO2 does not act as advertised in the consensus, does not contribute to a 'greenhouse' effect, does not have a relationship with Earth's long-term temperature swings, that would tend to make me question the fundamentals. [...] More close to home, a swing to world-wide temperature decreases, a cooling ocean, a resurgence of lost icefields and glaciers, a lowering of sea levels -- despite increasing CO2 -- these would cause me to get back to my climate science homework! Even sharper situations I can think of: if I live for another twenty-five years, say, until 2040. There is going to be a point on that road where I would get doubtful about my understanding. If the arctic regions of Canada began to experience a downward trend in warming. When the arctic processes reverse themselves, especially with regard to sea ice. If indicators begin to 'recover' in various regional frameworks (ie, ocean acidity, permafrost lake loss, pest-killing deep freeze winters). It comes to mind that another useful question is 'what evidence helped solidify your opinion?' I have begun laying that groundwork, I think, but await your feedback. In reading this over and digging into my Big Files, I see that there are a couple of posts by you, addressed to me in other threads, which together render a list of strong questions. I have attempted answering them -- but the answer languishes. It is one of my secret OL shames. I think it would do good for my bona fides if I went back and finished the long-owed set of answers. It's good. I wonder how one could turn this to ask of a climate-change skeptic what "outcomes in reality" would lead to doubt their 'side,'" so to speak. Or maybe 'what kinds of evidence would be likely to alter your understanding. I am one of the squirmers and skirters. It is good that Jonathan links to his questions. Since I am having a small run of extra mental energy lately, and since his questions are still pendant, I will put effort into finishing the overdue answers -- and do that first. Well, except for a note in the APS thread about the new APS climate-change statement whoopee. But i will have to let some excellent commentaries here pass by unremarked in the meantime. The questions that I asked remain unanswered. They're the ones that I asked of Naomi, and included at the end of my last post, but which you clipped and didn't address:"Okay, so, now, which single climate model and its single set of predictions represents the "scientific consensus" view and is considered to be "settled science"? Who created the model, when were its predictions made, and when were they announced publicly? How and when, and by whom, was it decided that the model's predictions had been going on long enough to have "settled" the science? How was the timeline derived for accepting the "settling" of the science? Was that timeline explicitly identified prior to the predictions being made? "Please post graphs of the model's predictions. Include visual indicators of when the predictions began, which areas are included in the "95% certainty" range, and a line representing observations recorded in reality." My questions from the "Scientific Fraud" thread also remain unanswered. As I've said, when AGWers are asked to identify the specific numbers from the single model which represents the "settled science," they punt. It seems to me that they don't want to get that specific because they need to rely on much more that one predicted outcome, and, in fact, they need to be able to claim ALL possible outcomes as supporting their theory. The pseudoscience of unfalsifiabilty. J
My favorite part of the rest of the article is this: "But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared." I love the author's classification of "sceptics" and "scientist" as two mutually exclusive categories. Heh. If you're a sceptic, you are, by the author's definition, not a scientist! J
"A noted researcher who questioned the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story..." http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051614-701249-climate-skeptic-lennart-bengtsson-paper-suppressed.htm#ixzz32DhwvleW