'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

If the AGW religion was based on solid fact, the AGW fundamentalists wouldn`t need to resort to shallow & desperate tactics, they could provide CONFIRMED scientific evidence. The reality is, AGW isn`t even close to being proven scientific fact.

 

I didn't say the Article was peer-reviewed, I said the Science they have used to make their case has been.

Care to address any of it?

You understand where to find it, right?

If not, let me know, I will point you to it, yet again...

 

Most of the true Science comes from those who dispute it. And those who don't can't address any of it, they simply dismiss it out of hand, as we have seen in these threads.

Imagine that.

 

What do you think you are addressing when you talk about the person I have presented the information from rather than the information they provide?

I believe it is a person, right?

Or do you think the information and Site provided themself?

((((Sigh))))

 

Oh! Dear! Perhaps you should review your own posts otherwise you may be accused of telling Porkies

And the science they have used was peer reviewed yes, often denialists do use peer reviewed science but they then quote mine and cherry pick to twist facts

Rebuttal of the Robinson and Soon paper

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf

 

What?

It does in fact have many peer-reviewed documents associated with it, they cite them in the paper.

Again, I never said the Article I posted was peer-reviewed, I simply said they had peer-reviewed Science to support their assertions.

 

In the case of the OISM yes they do make it up themselves

The OISM is not a "science Institute" as it claims but a privately funded body that provides "home schooling kit" (which says a lot about the level of home schooling in America)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

 

Religious fanatics the world over have the same defensive reactions to the questioning of their faiths. One of the problems confronting AGW fundamentalists, is that burning heretics produces too much carbon.

 

Bowerbird,

I spent the evening reading your rebuttal piece.

They begin by saying they do in fact use peer-reviewed Science, they then goes on to cite many instances where they "believe" they got it wrong or used bad assertions, yet they do they exact same thing with their rebuttals.

They also state that they don't give alternatives to the CO2 'theory', but they in fact do, they actually give several, citing the much more prevelant role of water vapor as well as solar input. They attempt to refute the solar input side by showing how much it may be 'over stated' with mathematical calculations, while completely ignoring the water vapor (i.e. clouds and the like) affect on the solar side of the equation, doing exactly what they say the other side is doing.

Also, no where do they account for their OWN discrepencies with regard to their "modeling" of Climate change and go on about how much change there will be in this century alone. Yet they forget to address the very same models that predicted a vast increase in temperature by the beginning of THIS century, which never came about. They also never get around to addressing the recent cooling which their modelling has been unable to account for, yet the solar theorists are able to explain, in detail...

So you will have to excuse me if I dismiss your "rebuttal" piece as just more of the same, from your side.

But thanks for trying and at least having some sort of means to address the real SCIENCE, even as lacking as it turned out to be.

 

But I will continue to call them out on it, every time they employ such tactics. It is not a legitimate point of debate and should be pointed out every time they try to use it.

 

Not a lot of time but I just wanted to address the water vapor lie. Climatologists do incorporate water vapor into the models. Simple reason why water vapor and clouds are not the cause of the current warming in the last 150 years: they have not increased; CO2 has.
Nice scientific based explanation of water vapor's effects and how climatologists have not ignored WV:
Clouds and Water Vapor – Part One

and
The Role of Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction in the CO2 Climate Problem
putting a lie to the deniers' claims of WV being ignored.

 

Actually they have.

With increasing temperatures you have increasing Water Vapor in the atmosphere.

Watch a pot of water boil and tell me that increasing temperatures don't cause increasing water vapor.

 

And what came first: the increase in temps (caused by ???) or the increase in WV?
And I noticed you did not address the "WV has been ignored" lie.

 

Until you hit saturation - what? you never heard of 100% humidity? But if you read Mannies link you would have seen that they actually modelled off both absolute and relative humidity

so they did factor in water vapour and to those who claim they did not I ask

Just how dumb do you think scientists are?

Do you honestly think they would be dumb enough to "forget" about water vapour? With all the denialism out there do you think they would EVER be able to cover this up?

And some more evidence that scientists did not "forget" water vapour

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

 

CO2 alone cannot cause the warming that is predicted, and that is from the IPCC. They plan on multiplying factors to do the rest, one of them is water vapor. All theory unproven in the real world.

 

Tell me, how does an increase in solar input cause a rise in CO2 when the sun has been in a low sunspot cycle?

I mean we have all of these denialists running around screaming about "cycle 25 will cause global cooling" while at the same time telling us that it is the sun causing warming



Now please consider this - for this data to be part of a vast conspiracy of scientists you are moving from climate scientists to astronomers - are they too part of the vast conspiracy of scientists??

 

Actually the models are pretty close to what has happened - which in itself proves they were right

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

 

Then there is reality:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/18/trust-climate-models

 

Yerrrrs

That article is saying there are limits to the accuracy - not saying they have it completely wrong

Now I said "pretty close" we KNOW we will not get it 100% accurate which is why they are displayed with "confidence levels" but what we do know is that the overall trends are tracking within those confidence levels so we have the broad picture right.

Oh! BTW the subtitle for that article is

 

So far the only thing anyone has proved is that it is still warming after the last glaciation, but no one has proved why. That is the debate replete with many theories.

 

So what is driving the climate change if not CO2?

 

Climate change, the only thing you can count on as a constant.

We are at an Earth minimum for CO2. It has been much higher in the past with colder climates. Gosh, I am not sure, but I would guess that there are many more factors affecting climate than CO2.

 

There are - like orbit, solar output, Massive volcanic eruption, meteorite strike, growth of bacteria,etc

Want to point to which one of those is CURRENTLY causing the current observed climate change

Now as to the "Earth minimum" Gods but I cannot let ignorance this deep go by - have a look at one of the proxy data records



Does that not sort of suggest CO2 has been lower in the past?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

 

There is no complete agreement on any of the causes, though most everyone agrees that man is a factor and there is warming. The amount that man is a factor is the center of debate.

 

97% - which is unprecedented for ANYTHING 97% of scientists believe it is anthropogenic CO2

And we even have a fair idea of how much that is