APS and the Global Warming Scam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I thought science was theory, experiment, results, compare results to theory to see if theory was right. The IPCC model ,heh, you say goes theory, experiment , results compare results to theory, then ignore results that are not what the theory said they would be(ocean levels, current non warming) keep theory, keep theory..?

Tad,

In essence, that's what's going on. On the surface, there is a lot of blah blah blah, but underneath, the IPCC folks attribute the damaging results to unknown unknowns as yet unknown. But the AGW theory is "unequivocal," as in the sage words of IPCC's very own heroic illustrious Hartmann, the man who single-handedly proved AGW in one mighty college textbook in the 1990s.

For the present, look at how these folks dance a tightrope about the "hiatus" in warming (and this from Nature, which I referenced earlier in this thread):

Climate change: The case of the missing heat

Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

Jeff Tollefson

15 January 2014

Nature

From the article:

The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997. These winds normally push sun-baked water towards Indonesia. When they slackened, the warm water sloshed back towards South America, resulting in a spectacular example of a phenomenon known as El Niño. Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled.

For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.

And off they go trying to fit the square peg in a round hole. The rest of the article is about that.

From a propaganda angle, notice the language, even in an article that deals with failed predictions. (Nature has a reputation to maintain, after all...)

Climate sceptics "seize on" information that is observable and measurable by all. On the other hand, climate scientists "know" stuff.

What do climate skeptics "seize on"? Evidence.

What do climate scientists "know"? That the heat must be building up somewhere...

Must be? Somewhere? Damn, that's specific. I'm glad they know it.

Shouldn't that be the contrary where one group of scientists knows the evidence, and the other seizes on the heat must be building up somewhere to explain their predictive failure?

I wouldn't mind completely neutral language (no spin)--to tell the truth, I would prefer it--but this stuff is almost laughable once you start seeing it.

Michael

[Selene]

WILL 97% OF SCIENTISTS LIKE THE COSTS OF CARBON RULES?

The Journal reports that next week the Obama administration will "unveil a cornerstone of its climate-change initiative with a proposed rule aimed at allowing states to use cap-and-trade systems, renewable energy and other measures to meet aggressive goals for reducing carbon emissions by existing power plants.

"Energy companies and others affected by the proposal will be watching for key details, including the percentage by which companies and states must reduce carbon emissions, which is expected to be proposed in a range instead of a single number. The baseline year against which those reductions are calculated will also be closely monitored."

As the price tag comes into view for measures aimed to prevent global warming, Americans may wish to reflect on whether the benefits really justify the costs. Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer write in today's Journal that "the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research."

Shh don't let her know about this...

A,,,

Folks here is the entire article:

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua

And there is much more on other issues and papers at this

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK

If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...

Lots of papers and charts and graphs and shit!!!!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Earlier in this thread, our AGW truther yapped on and on and on that nobody could prove this or that.

Well, I dug around and came up with something. I'm still reading it (and it looks like this is going to take some time), but it is based on serious work by reputable scientists. Let's see what they've got to say. (Our AGW truther has already condemned it without even looking based on an elementary error.)

But when called on to clarify her own views and get specific, she was oddly silent.

Look here:

Naomi,

I'll list four statements and then ask you a couple questions.

1) If there's been CO2-implicated average global temperature increase over about the last 100 years, human-produced CO2 has contributed a small amount to that warming.

2) Human-produced CO2 is having a "disruptive" to "catastrophic" effect on climate dynamics, the statement which, in post #183, you said is what you mean by "AGW."

3) "Human produced CO2 will increase average global temperatures, which will in turn feed into other positive feedbacks on the climate, which will lead to further increases in average global temperatures" - the statement which, in post #254, you said is what you're saying.

4) "Humans are [the] dominant cause of changes in the climate system" - wording I picked up from Michael's post 247, in which he gave a link to a panel discussion which included Dennis Hartmann.


First question: Do you recognize that the four statements above are different claims?

Second question, assuming you've answered "yes" to the first: Which of these claims is the one which you assert has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none?

Ellen

Any answer?

Nope.

Crickets chirping on that score.

But lots of noise about everything else.

Then the comedy.

Where's Ellen?

I'm mentioning this because it is another propaganda form used by AGW truthers.

They just:

1. Ignore the things they can't answer,
2. Create tangential fusses to let time pass and contexts change, then
3. Try to pretend the unanswered stuff did not exist or is resolved when they later engage the same person (or try to).

Oddly enough, a variation of this is Obama's crisis management pattern: WSJ's Strassel: Obama's Five-Step "Scandal Manual"

Here are the 5 steps in Kimberley Strassel's own words from the video in that link, but I numbered them:

... they can't say that they did know or else the next question is going to be, why didn't you do anything about it or why were you allowing this to go on? You almost -- you have to wonder if there is a scandal manual in the top drawer of the president's desk. It isn't just the I heard about it from the media. There is five steps that this administration keeps repeating every time the scandal comes up.

1. Step one is, well, I didn't know about it,

2. Step two is to express great outrage. When that doesn't work,

3. Step three is to fire some low level bureaucrat.

4. The study comes next. Then, you know, we're going to wait and see what the I.G. says or the FBI investigation or whatever it is.

5. And then when that doesn't stop, six months later, you say it's either A, done or B, all the results are the partisan pushed by Republicans.

And it just goes on and on. You could take -- this is not just the clips of him repeating again and again I didn't know about this, when you listen to some of his press conferences, they're eerie. It's the exact same language every time.

I mention this because people who are into pushing agendas do fall into this kind of pattern about things they can't or don't want to talk about. But it's a propaganda technique. Notice that Strassel's identification of the Obama 5-step system is essentially the same thing I said above: ignore the substance, create diversionary fusses to gain time, later pretend it is resolved or never happened or whatever.

I prefer the pattern of scientific method, but as the NIPCC mentioned, there is a methodological flaw at the root of the climate change approach on the IPCC side.

Still, is there a way to understand our little AGW truther's logic of how she can define AGW as one thing one minute, then another thing another minute until she has gone through Ellen's four different statements?

I believe there is:

I want to reiterate the following statement from the "Summary for Policymakers" quote above for those who don't want to read the full thing:

"In contradiction of the scientific method, the IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis's favor."

People who are not seeking the truth about an hypothesis, but instead, seeking to prove an agenda, believe it's OK to take shots in the dark and pretend they are exercising all due scientific rigor.

There's nothing wrong with testing out different hypothesis to exhaust a suspicion. There is everything wrong with claiming a suspicion is proven when it isn't.

The reason our AGW truther did not answer Ellen's questions about what AGW means is not because she has no answers. It's because--using the crusade of the faithful method mentioned in my quote from the NIPCC--the correct answer is it doesn't matter what AGW means just so long as humans are to blame. And that sounds really ugly and boneheaded if one is pretending to talk about proven science.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Earlier in this thread, our AGW truther yapped on and on and on that nobody could prove this or that.

Well, I dug around and came up with something. I'm still reading it (and it looks like this is going to take some time), but it is based on serious work by reputable scientists. Let's see what they've got to say. (Our AGW truther has already condemned it without even looking based on an elementary error.)

But when called on to clarify her own views and get specific, she was oddly silent.

Look here:

Any answer?

Nope.

Crickets chirping on that score.

But lots of noise about everything else.

Then the comedy.

Where's Ellen?

The reason our AGW truther did not answer Ellen's questions about what AGW means is not because she has no answers. It's because--using the crusade of the faithful method mentioned in my quote from the NIPCC--the correct answer is it doesn't matter what AGW means just so long as humans are to blame. And that sounds really ugly and boneheaded if one is pretending to talk about proven science.

Michael

Well actually I did answer her questions, right in the post after hers:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No you didn't.

Nice try, though...

(These people love their smoke-and-mirrors... )

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here, let me help.

We'll go slow so it won't be difficult to understand what answering a question means.

Let's start with one, shall we?

First question: Do you recognize that the four statements above are different claims?

Anybody who refuses to answer a question like that, but instead furnishes a long copy/paste dump, is trying to deceive people.

"Yes" and "no" are words we all learned when children. They shouldn't be difficult to deploy for alleged experts...

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Here, let me help.

We'll go slow so it won't be difficult to understand what answering a question means.

Let's start with one, shall we?

First question: Do you recognize that the four statements above are different claims?

Anybody who refuses to answer a question like that, but instead furnishes a long copy/paste dump, is trying to deceive people.

"Yes" and "no" are words we all learned when children. They shouldn't be difficult to deploy for alleged experts...

Michael

I'm not sure where she's getting 1. 4 is out of context. 3 is a more detailed version of 2. My post after hers is supposed to be a direct answer to: "Which of these claims is the one which you assert has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none?"

Happy?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Blah blah blah...

Let the reader look and judge for himself.

When people consistently run from clarity, my view is that they are generally trying to deceive you.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Blah blah blah...

Let the reader look and judge for himself.

When people consistently run from clarity, my view is that they are generally trying to deceive you.

Michael

Run from clarity? Post #258 couldn't be clearer if you melted it into glass.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Run from clarity? Post #258 couldn't be clearer if you melted it into glass.

Not often and not there, but sometimes she is clear, for example:

Well I guess if you repeat it often enough, it must be true...

[Selene]

[Selene]

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is
assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question.
It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other,
but it is "not done"... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy
finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely
unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in
the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."
-- George Orwell
[Eric Arthur Blair] (1903-1950) British author

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

Why don't you educate yourself on statistical analysis before you start spouting mere ignorant contradiction of everything I say?

Read chapter 10 section 10.2 of the full IPCC report, and maybe then you'll have some idea of how science is done by the grown-ups.

10.2 Evaluation of Detection and Attribution

Methodologies

Detection and attribution methods have been discussed in previous

assessment reports (Hegerl et al., 2007b) and the IPCC Good Practice

Guidance Paper (Hegerl et al., 2010), to which we refer. This section

reiterates key points and discusses new developments and challenges...

Frantic Tard,

Why don't you start answering direct questions with direct answers? I'm not interested in wasting my time digging through one of your document dumps and trying to guess what you think it means, and how you think that it answers the questions that you're being asked.

In post 302, I responded to your false assertions about results that would not count as falsifying a hypothetical scenario that you proposed. You didn't respond to my question about what standards you are using to judge a "discrepancy" to be "minor" versus "major," and, more importantly, you didn't answer my question about how large a "discrepancy" would have to be before it would count as falsifying AGW. How far off from reality could AGW models be in their predictions before you would classify the models as falsified?

J

[Jonathan]

What do climate scientists "know"? That the heat must be building up somewhere...

Must be? Somewhere? Damn, that's specific. I'm glad they know it.

I wonder how long it will be before the Consensus Alarmists believe that skeptics are the ones who have taken the "missing heat" and hidden it somewhere.

"We know that the heat must be building up somewhere! Let's search the Deniers' closets!"

J

[Jonathan]

And off they go trying to fit the square peg in a round hole. The rest of the article is about that.

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

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Jonathan,

Why don't you educate yourself on statistical analysis before you start spouting mere ignorant contradiction of everything I say?

Read chapter 10 section 10.2 of the full IPCC report, and maybe then you'll have some idea of how science is done by the grown-ups.

10.2 Evaluation of Detection and Attribution

Methodologies

Detection and attribution methods have been discussed in previous

assessment reports (Hegerl et al., 2007b) and the IPCC Good Practice

Guidance Paper (Hegerl et al., 2010), to which we refer. This section

reiterates key points and discusses new developments and challenges...

Frantic Tard,

Why don't you start answering direct questions with direct answers? I'm not interested in wasting my time digging through one of your document dumps and trying to guess what you think it means, and how you think that it answers the questions that you're being asked.

In post 302, I responded to your false assertions about results that would not count as falsifying a hypothetical scenario that you proposed. You didn't respond to my question about what standards you are using to judge a "discrepancy" to be "minor" versus "major," and, more importantly, you didn't answer my question about how large a "discrepancy" would have to be before it would count as falsifying AGW. How far off from reality could AGW models be in their predictions before you would classify the models as falsified?

J

It's difficult to answer your questions because answering them would require me to give you an entire course on statistics, specifically with regard to regression analysis, and on top of that I'm using a simplified example to explain very complicated and subtle concepts. But I guess I can try anyway:

When climate scientists report that "greenhouse gasses explain at least 50% of the variation in temperatures with 95% certainty", what that means is that, we can expect that 95% of the time, if a model (that accounts for only ghgs) predicts that the temperature will go up by 1 degree, then the observed temperature increase will fall within at most a 50% range of that prediction , i.e. between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees.

The null hypothesis is that, at the 95% level, the models using only ghgs will be able to explain less than 50% of the variance in temperature. So that, if we collected the data and found that, more than 5% of the time, a predicted increase of 1 degree matched with an observed increase that fell outside of the range between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees, then we cannot reject the null hypothesis, and the model's predictions would not be statistically significant at the 95% level. That is, any fit between the model and the data would more likely be due to mere chance than anything else.

EDIT: It's actually a lot more complicated than this, but this is the basic gist of it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here, let me help.

We'll go slow so it won't be difficult to understand what answering a question means.

Let's start with one, shall we?

First question: Do you recognize that the four statements above are different claims?

Anybody who refuses to answer a question like that, but instead furnishes a long copy/paste dump, is trying to deceive people.

"Yes" and "no" are words we all learned when children. They shouldn't be difficult to deploy for alleged experts...

Michael

I'm not sure where she's getting 1. 4 is out of context. 3 is a more detailed version of 2. My post after hers is supposed to be a direct answer to: "Which of these claims is the one which you assert has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none?"

Happy?

I'm not.

I see on trying to catch up with the material on this thread that Naomi asked, "Where's Ellen?"

Sick. Intestinal upset, I'm not sure from what, something I ate or a couple days of 90-degree (F) weather. I often do get sick when the first blast of hot weather hits.

Back to the subject in the next post.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here, let me help.

We'll go slow so it won't be difficult to understand what answering a question means.

Let's start with one, shall we?

First question: Do you recognize that the four statements above are different claims?

Anybody who refuses to answer a question like that, but instead furnishes a long copy/paste dump, is trying to deceive people.

"Yes" and "no" are words we all learned when children. They shouldn't be difficult to deploy for alleged experts...

Michael

I'm not sure where she's getting 1. 4 is out of context. 3 is a more detailed version of 2. My post after hers is supposed to be a direct answer to: "Which of these claims is the one which you assert has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none?"

Happy?

Note, you don't answer "yes" or "no."

It looks as if you don't recognize that 3 is different from 2.

I'll repeat my full post and your "answer" next.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Naomi,

I'll list four statements and then ask you a couple questions.

1) If there's been CO2-implicated average global temperature increase over about the last 100 years, human-produced CO2 has contributed a small amount to that warming.

2) Human-produced CO2 is having a "disruptive" to "catastrophic" effect on climate dynamics, the statement which, in post #183, you said is what you mean by "AGW."

3) "Human produced CO2 will increase average global temperatures, which will in turn feed into other positive feedbacks on the climate, which will lead to further increases in average global temperatures" - the statement which, in post #254, you said is what you're saying.

4) "Humans are [the] dominant cause of changes in the climate system" - wording I picked up from Michael's post 247, in which he gave a link to a panel discussion which included Dennis Hartmann.

First question: Do you recognize that the four statements above are different claims?

Second question, assuming you've answered "yes" to the first: Which of these claims is the one which you assert has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none?

Ellen

I'm not sure where she's getting 1. 4 is out of context. 3 is a more detailed version of 2. My post after hers is supposed to be a direct answer to: "Which of these claims is the one which you assert has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none?"

#1 is a statement with which most of those often called "denialists" would agree.

#3 isn't a more detailed version of #2. For one thing, it changes the verb tense from present to future. For another, #2 does not specify warming, just a vague "'disruptive' to 'catastrophic' effect on climate dynamics." I deliberately used the non-specific wording when I stated what I surmised you meant by "AGW," since that wording has become a common fall-back among alarmists confronted with no "global mean temperature" increase (according to the data bases used by the IPCC itself) for the last 15-17 years.

You first acceded to #2 as your meaning, but then a bit later (see the links) changed to #3 as expressing what you're saying. #3 is a prediction that we will get warming ahead due to positive feedbacks set off by human-produced CO2.

#4 is the position apparently held by the person, Dennis Hartmann, to whose book you referred readers of the thread as the source of your claims.

You then say that your post #258 "is supposed to be a direct answer to: 'Which of these claims is the one which you assert has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none?"

However, what you posted, after attempting to explain how atmospheric temperature regulation works (including a number of assumptions and errors in your explanation) is material from the Fifth IPCC Summary Report - material which you had never read when you made your earlier assertions. So how can that material have been what you meant?

Furthermore, what the summary material gives is partly outright false (with its use of wording like "unequivocal" and "clear"), partly questionable statements of fact (with confidence levels assigned) and partly prognostications, again with confidence levels assigned. Prognostications haven't been proven. Nor is any of the report "subscribed to by every 'reputable' climate scientist," not by a long way - unless you define "reputable" as subscribing to the report. Nor is the material in the Summary Report "supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none." It isn't even supported by all the articles in the body of the report itself.

Ellen

[SoAMadDeathWish]

#1 is a statement with which most of those often called "denialists" would agree.

#3 isn't a more detailed version of #2. For one thing, it changes the verb tense from present to future. For another, #2 does not specify warming, just a vague "'disruptive' to 'catastrophic' effect on climate dynamics." I deliberately used the non-specific wording when I stated what I surmised you meant by "AGW," since that wording has become a common fall-back among alarmists confronted with no "global mean temperature" increase (according to the data bases used by the IPCC itself) for the last 15-17 years.

You first acceded to #2 as your meaning, but then a bit later (see the links) changed to #3 as expressing what you're saying. #3 is a prediction that we will get warming ahead due to positive feedbacks set off by human-produced CO2.

#4 is the position apparently held by the person, Dennis Hartmann, to whose book you referred readers of the thread as the source of your claims.

You then say that your post #258 "is supposed to be a direct answer to: 'Which of these claims is the one which you assert has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none?"

However, what you posted, after attempting to explain how atmospheric temperature regulation works (including a number of assumptions and errors in your explanation) is material from the Fifth IPCC Summary Report - material which you had never read when you made your earlier assertions. So how can that material have been what you meant?

Furthermore, what the summary material gives is partly outright false (with its use of wording like "unequivocal" and "clear"), partly questionable statements of fact (with confidence levels assigned) and partly prognostications, again with confidence levels assigned. Prognostications haven't been proven. Nor is any of the report "subscribed to by every 'reputable' climate scientist," not by a long way - unless you define "reputable" as subscribing to the report. Nor is the material in the Summary Report "supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none." It isn't even supported by all the articles in the body of the report itself.

Ellen

I don't see why any of this is relevant. post #258 makes my position clearer than I ever could have by myself. If you disagree with any of the claims made there, then say which ones and why, and we can have a debate.

[Wolf DeVoon]

So is anyone actually prepared to criticize the IPCC position on climate change described in my big post?

Sure. It fails to explain the Medieval Warm Period when Greenland was green. Personally I'm in favor of global warming, which is much preferable to global cooling. I'm also in favor of industrial production, mechanized farming, and kicking the U.N. out of New York. For a good laugh, check out the East Anglia Climate Centre's history. It was founded by oil companies to gin up the global cooling scare of the 1970s. East Anglia University doesn't even dent the Top 10 UK research ranking. Until recently, it was a little community college known for bookbinding, American media studies, and Victorian architecture hooey.

[BaalChatzaf]

So is anyone actually prepared to criticize the IPCC position on climate change described in my big post?

Sure. It fails to explain the Medieval Warm Period when Greenland was green. Personally I'm in favor of global warming, which is much preferable to global cooling. I'm also in favor of industrial production, mechanized farming, and kicking the U.N. out of New York. For a good laugh, check out the East Anglia Climate Centre's history. It was founded by oil companies to gin up the global cooling scare of the 1970s. East Anglia University doesn't even dent the Top 10 UK research ranking. Until recently, it was a little community college known for bookbinding, American media studies, and Victorian architecture hooey.

Human caused global warming goes back much further than the recent industrial revolution (less the 400 years of significant industrialization). It goes back 8 to 10 thousand years. When humans busted the sod over millions of acres on land they changed the earth's albido (reflectivity). Human influence on climate starts with human herds chewing the grass and human plows busting the sod..

So humans have had an influence on the climate for something like 8 to 10 thousand years. This in no way diminishes the effect of natural climate drivers which have been in operation for over 4 -billion- years. As the late Carl Sagan would say --- billyuns and billyuns.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't see why any of this is relevant.

That's for sure.

Total brain shut-down.

Rand called it a blank-out.

Gotta like this discussion style:

We can debate anything you agree with me on--and it doesn't have to make sense. But anything you disagree with me about doesn't count. And by the way, don't ask me for a fucking yes or no!

I've never seen a clearer case of this.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

So is anyone actually prepared to criticize the IPCC position on climate change described in my big post?

Sure. It fails to explain the Medieval Warm Period when Greenland was green. Personally I'm in favor of global warming, which is much preferable to global cooling. I'm also in favor of industrial production, mechanized farming, and kicking the U.N. out of New York. For a good laugh, check out the East Anglia Climate Centre's history. It was founded by oil companies to gin up the global cooling scare of the 1970s. East Anglia University doesn't even dent the Top 10 UK research ranking. Until recently, it was a little community college known for bookbinding, American media studies, and Victorian architecture hooey.

This has already been addressed in the thread earlier. The Medieval Warm Period was restricted to parts of the north hemisphere, while the global temperature overall was lower than today.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I don't see why any of this is relevant.

That's for sure.

Total brain shut-down.

Rand called it a blank-out.

Gotta like this discussion style:

We can debate anything you agree with me on--and it doesn't have to make sense. But anything you disagree with me about doesn't count. And by the way, don't ask me for a fucking yes or no!

I've never seen a clearer case of this.

Michael

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It's a simple "yes or no" question.