Climate sensitivity

So??? Just because someone alters their bio does not mean there is some grand conspiracy. But you have to admit it has been there in the past so it was never really a secret. But this is what I mean about defamation - you are implying here that being a cartoonist is somehow "shameful" when in fact since John Cook also holds a degree in physics (something the denialists NEVER say) all it truly proves is that he is a rare individual who is capable of using both right and left brain thinking

So - how can a POSITIVE fact about someone also be an "inconvenient truth that people do not know"?

No someone who has a degree in physics who has put together a website with academic level referencing - who is also a scientist

Mate I really hope for your sake this never ends up in a Qld court because you would be forking over very large amounts of money. My statement is as "factual" as yours but yours is derogatory - and again ignoring the science that is on the website.

Yep! it is "scarce" AND "Useless" also "waste of bandwidth" because it does not "prove" anything it does not come to a conclusion, give an alternative hypothesis for what is happening or even rebut what is accepted by the scientific community. It is the usual denialist (*)(*)(*)(*) - post anything and hope someone else will do the hard work for you

 

No, what I am saying is Cook was once honest about his background and later when he learned people were not taking him seriously, chose to hide the inconvenient parts, then inflate and pad his credentials. I am not implying any of your strawman arguments. What I am actually saying is someone with an over decade long career as a Cartoonist is not qualified to discuss climate science. His SS crew knew this and thus likely convinced him to alter his bio. My argument has nothing to do with an education he spent most his time drawing cartoons in, "Too much doodling in lectures, I think." - John Cook.

I have never heard anything a "denialist" says because I do not know what that is.

I consider a socialist someone who does not understand economics and most skeptics are not socialists so this is useful information to them.

The Cartoonist is not a scientist, please stop making things up and further padding his resume with fantasies.

Since I have no plans of ever visiting Australia, that will be one case that would have no bearing on me nor stop anyone from reading my articles.

You want it to be useless, which is why you perpetually make strawman arguments against it. It certainly proves these papers exist. You are also the first to call over 1100 papers a "scarce" resource, clearly many people with disagree with you.

Please read the, "Rebuttals to Criticism" section again. The list is a resource and does not attempt to prove anything but that these papers exist.

With your never ending strawman arguments you throw out claims that are never made anywhere. The list however does provide various papers that present alternative hypothesis for AGW. Which is the point ...so people can read them.

How is, what is "accepted in the scientific community" determined?

I have no idea what a "denialist" is.

 

Which joker said solar minimum?

 

Attention ~

Focus on the topic. Stop the back & forth personal bickering.

 

Bowerbird believes we are in a solar minimum. We are currently at a maximum and the lowest one in over 100 years. The cycle may last longer also which does not bode will for the CAGWers.

- - - Updated - - -

Denialist is a proxy word for CAGWers to denote crazy, stupid, evil, you can choose anything you like but basically it means they believe they know all the facts and anyone that does not agree with them is crazy. It is a way to stop conversations with dismissal. Inconvenient things like facts get in the way.

 

NOOOOO I do not believe we are at a total solar minima - but there are solar minima and solar minima - the last sunspot cycle was delayed and has fewer than predicted spots - that makes it a "mini minima" if you like

Please stop ascribing things to me that I have not posted

 

That list is less useful than used toilet paper. IT is a grab bag of papers that, if one uses imagination, cherry picking, and downright misinterpretation MIGHT and only MIGHT provide some sort of fodder for some kind of rebuttal

IS not even consistent with one theory and what there is there is contradictory

 

Cook is more claim to being a scientist than a "computer analyst" has.

But the Popular Technology site is exactly what Exxon and Co have paid money for (and hopefully you did get some renumeration for this). A site that does not present evidence but is designed to cast doubt.

Now I would like to know - what alternative hypothesis are the papers supposed to support because from what I can determine the evidence is contradictory when taken as a whole

 

We have heard your baseless ad hominems about the list already.The only valid claim of cherry picking that can be made - is if I intentionally did not included any peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments.

Which paper on the list does not support a skeptic argument?

The list is a RESOURCE not a theory. You have made this strawman argument already and it is debunked in the, "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section,

How many times are you going to post the same debunked nonsense?

 

No, we are in a solar maxima that is the weakest in over 100 years. Delaying the "cycle" has even more implications than you think. The longer the cycle at minimal sun spots, the more cooling we will have. That is why some think we may be heading for a Dalton Minimum that heralded the Little Ice Age. I am not saying that is the case but it has just as much viability as any "prediction" by the CAGWers.

 

The Cartoonist is not remotely a scientist, while I am actually employed as a computer analyst.

This is a libelous lie and has been reported.

The list has nothing to do with your strawman argument. There are multiple alternative theories to AGW in the papers on list such as,

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark

 

LOL, let me know when a cartoonist receives an honorary degree in climate science, which, BTW, is a really new and unproven science.

 

"Renumeration."

 

Here's more, from Henrik:

http://thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/Home.html

Say! Knowing how Milankovitch cycles work, and knowing the greenhouse effect, and knowing what ducks say, and how they walk, and how they act, and how Coach Frost calls the plays, from up in the pressbox, at Autzen, I have this to say:

QUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKfreakingQUACK!

Moreover:

http://www.desmogblog.com/henrik-svensmark

QUACKQUACKQUACK, for Heartland Corporation!

Shut up, DUCKS:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

Read more, at skepticalscience, linked above.

Elmer sez: IT'S DUCK SEASON, huhuhuhuhuhuhuh!

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There is much that is not known about the sun’s variations and their impact on climate and the current low is an example. No one saw it coming. No one knows how it will affect climate.

 

They put all their money on CO2, but it's beginning to look like a 3 legged horse.

 

The problem with this thread is it becomes a forum, for deflection, as to what role CO2 is playing, relative to posts, which are not evident.

That marks this forum, as one to be avoided, basically, while CO2 is still the leading forcer, of GHG out-gassing AND warming, of all climate-affected masses, no matter what some horse or whatever said, who has not been quoted or linked.

 

Sounds like a plan, so I expect you'll be taking your own advice shortly?

 

Evidently you missed that the projections have not panned out and the IPCC has reduced their assessment of sensitivity to CO2. Wonder why? They have reduced their projections every cycle. Wonder why? Ever ask yourself those questions? Curiosity of the hallmark of an active mind.

 

You keep making this claim - where is your evidence?

 

You evidently did not read the report.

 

Looks like you need to spell the rest, of 'assume,' since you keep getting stuck, after the first few letters, you look around, and fail, again.

You still haven't justified your 'three-legged horse' allegory, so I guess you are happy, to deflect, from your earlier deflections, and then divert the thread, completely.

 

Evidently you missed English grammar and sentence structure, completely, so your nearly all your posts are totally incoherent or ambiguous fragments, without any linked reports or studies.

So much wasted bandwidth, is what I'd suggest, for your moniker.

 

Typical CAGWer, can't answer simple questions without going on the attack.

 

It's all they have left.