Ian Shlasko, can you provide proof that GW sceptics have lied?
-
fat_boy wrote:
OK, good point. But even if you allow yourself hersay you stil have only one lie.
Those were just a few selections from the first ten google results.
fat_boy wrote:
Well, in fact sceptical scientists such as Christy and LIndzen merely state the facts which are: 1) Troposphere warming is not as great as it should be according to AGW theory. 2) The south pole should be warming alot according to AGW theory. 3) Man made CO2 has no detectable effect on global temperature.
Again, not going into raw numbers yet again, but #3 is not a "fact." It's a hypothesis. None of the models have given conclusive results for either side. Claiming that this is a "fact" is itself a lie. This is, as I keep saying, your main problem... You ASSUME that you're right, and that everything on your side is factual. A real scientist assumes that NOTHING is factual until it's PROVEN.
fat_boy wrote:
None has been debunked.
Because you simply ignore any evidence that doesn't support your theory, or claim it to be fabricated. This is getting repetitive.
fat_boy wrote:
You stated that my statement that partial warming does not constitute global warming was stupid. I drew your attention to the fact that the same thing is said about the MWP by alarmists. I asked you to either criticise them the same way or explain your double standards.
Why should I bother criticizing the AGW side? You're doing plenty of that already. I'm not trying to push you to the AGW side... I'm trying to push you back to the center, which is, as I see it, the sensible position. If you started spouting crap about how we're all going to die in ten years because the planet is going to roast to a cinder, I'd be taking the anti-GW side to, again, bring you to the center.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Claiming that this is a "fact" is itself a lie
Ian Shlasko wrote:
None of the models have given conclusive results for either side
Models. :laugh: I am talking about the real world. OK, to quote Bob Watson AGW proponent. He stated, and I have provided the link in the past that there is no evidence man made CO2 caused the recent warming, but since they cannot account for it any other way it must be man made CO2 causing it. Not to mention the other scientist I quoted in my last reponse who said that there is no detectable effect of man made OC2 on temperature outside of natural variation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
A real scientist assumes that NOTHING is factual until it's PROVEN.
Absoloutely. And the theory of AGW is not proven because: 1) Its effect cant be detected on temperatured outside natural variation. 2) Troposphere warming is not as great as the theory dictates (its about a third what it should be BTW) 3) The south pole is not warming up whcih the theory dictates it should do. OK, lets redefine our position on the GW vs not GW point. I consider that an increase in AVERAGE global temperature is not global warming. Since CO2 is distributed evenly in the atmosphere, any effect of CO2 should be global. The fact that it isnt tends to imply that CO2 is not having such an effect as the theory suggests.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
anti-GW guys
Lets contain ourselves to scientists.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"Hey, my country was colder than average this year! It must be an ice age!"
Thats what Schnieder said by the way... However, I am pretty sure Lindzen or Christy or Palmer or any of the other thousands of sceptical scientists havent said that. Unless of course you can find a quote to back up your allegation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That global warming can't be happening unless every single point on the globe is getting warmer
Have you heard about the medieval warm period, and the traditional defence used by AGW alarmists that it doesnt make current warming unimportant because 'the MWP was a northern hemisphere only event'? Please do look it up. Well, guess what current warming looks like? (Here's a tip, the southern hemisphere isnt warming in any kind of stastically significant fashion). So come on, if thats the best you got, and quite frankly I have countered it without even drawing breath, then you lost.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:02 AM
fat_boy wrote:
Lets contain ourselves to scientists.
Define scientist. And shouldn't you also say, scientists that specialized in certain areas. I'm not going to go touting something from someone who is a medical researcher and claim they're a climate change expert. So, who should we limit it to? What do they need to have studied to make their views and interpretations of data credible? We certainly know you get most of your information from credible crackpot scientists journalists.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Lets contain ourselves to scientists.
Define scientist. And shouldn't you also say, scientists that specialized in certain areas. I'm not going to go touting something from someone who is a medical researcher and claim they're a climate change expert. So, who should we limit it to? What do they need to have studied to make their views and interpretations of data credible? We certainly know you get most of your information from credible crackpot scientists journalists.
William Winner wrote:
We certainly know you get most of your information from credible crackpot scientists journalists.
Its funny really how people make things up in order to attempt to discredit an argument. I would like you to find say more than 10 things I have quoted that came from journalists.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Claiming that this is a "fact" is itself a lie
Ian Shlasko wrote:
None of the models have given conclusive results for either side
Models. :laugh: I am talking about the real world. OK, to quote Bob Watson AGW proponent. He stated, and I have provided the link in the past that there is no evidence man made CO2 caused the recent warming, but since they cannot account for it any other way it must be man made CO2 causing it. Not to mention the other scientist I quoted in my last reponse who said that there is no detectable effect of man made OC2 on temperature outside of natural variation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
A real scientist assumes that NOTHING is factual until it's PROVEN.
Absoloutely. And the theory of AGW is not proven because: 1) Its effect cant be detected on temperatured outside natural variation. 2) Troposphere warming is not as great as the theory dictates (its about a third what it should be BTW) 3) The south pole is not warming up whcih the theory dictates it should do. OK, lets redefine our position on the GW vs not GW point. I consider that an increase in AVERAGE global temperature is not global warming. Since CO2 is distributed evenly in the atmosphere, any effect of CO2 should be global. The fact that it isnt tends to imply that CO2 is not having such an effect as the theory suggests.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
OK, to quote Bob Watson AGW proponent. He stated, and I have provided the link in the past that there is no evidence man made CO2 caused the recent warming, but since they cannot account for it any other way it must be man made CO2 causing it. Not to mention the other scientist I quoted in my last reponse who said that there is no detectable effect of man made OC2 on temperature outside of natural variation.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you're quoting one guy who says something, and claiming it to be a fact. Opinions are not facts unless backed up by evidence.
fat_boy wrote:
Absoloutely. And the theory of AGW is not proven because: 1) Its effect cant be detected on temperatured outside natural variation. 2) Troposphere warming is not as great as the theory dictates (its about a third what it should be BTW) 3) The south pole is not warming up whcih the theory dictates it should do.
"Not proven" is not the same thing as "Wrong." There's this HUGE area in between "Right" and "Wrong" called "Unknown." That's where we are now. We don't know. If people would just admit this, we'd all be a lot better off.
fat_boy wrote:
I consider that an increase in AVERAGE global temperature is not global warming. Since CO2 is distributed evenly in the atmosphere, any effect of CO2 should be global. The fact that it isnt tends to imply that CO2 is not having such an effect as the theory suggests.
CO2 is NOT distributed evenly in the atmosphere, due to circulation patterns. The northern and southern hemispheres are partially isolated from one another, among other things. We've discussed this before, but again, you just ignore anything that doesn't suit your purposes. EDIT: Oh, and by the way, what you "consider" to be the definition of global warming doesn't change the ACTUAL definition[^].
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modif
-
Simon_Whale wrote:
thought we were on about climate control?
We are, "climate control" means controlling all human behavior. Its MAN MADE global warming remember? MAN MADE, that means when governments crackdown with their flowery named CLEAN ENGERY and CLIMATE BILLS they will be cracking-down on the free will individual and the individual's reproductive organs.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
they will be cracking-down on ... the individual's reproductive organs.
You are obsessed by this. Where birth control is available, parents can decide for themselves how many children they wish to have. Population Reduction in 'the West', has been the sum of all these individual, freely made, Birth Control choices. That is how it will work elsewhere.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
I'm going to quote you on that, next time you post a video link.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Oh, the irony! :-D
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) Need sig - urgentz!!!
-
William Winner wrote:
We certainly know you get most of your information from credible crackpot scientists journalists.
Its funny really how people make things up in order to attempt to discredit an argument. I would like you to find say more than 10 things I have quoted that came from journalists.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
For the record, I didn't say you were quoting. But here you go:
fat_boy wrote:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/07/settled-science-can-everyplace-really.html\[^\] Ah, hang on, if most of the globe is getting hotter then so is the average, so these places must be continuously outdoing each other momentarially before the average catches up!
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3545849/Hmm-most-of-the-globe-is-warming-more-than-average.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Well yes, they have been caught out: UAH and RSS data shows that the June anomoly was pretty much zero: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/\[^\] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/10/rss-global-temperature-for-june-09-also-down/\[^\]
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3545448/Global-warming-lie-exposed-June-was-hottest-ever-r.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9W\_7MgPJQs\[^\] Its worth watching. It shows that nothing has changed, back then they talked about the destruction of science's credibility, intimidation, gaining funding, and a good media story.
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3543273/Interesting-video-from-20-years-ago-about-GW.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Seems like I am not the only one to see his life a one long tirade of hypocritical actions, not to mention lies and alarmist scare stories: Stephen Schneider—Death of an Unrepentant Hypocrite [^]
-
Oh, the irony! :-D
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) Need sig - urgentz!!!
It's always fun when someone falls into one of my traps :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
they will be cracking-down on ... the individual's reproductive organs.
You are obsessed by this. Where birth control is available, parents can decide for themselves how many children they wish to have. Population Reduction in 'the West', has been the sum of all these individual, freely made, Birth Control choices. That is how it will work elsewhere.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
I'm waiting for him to call me a climate cultist or a eugenicist. :laugh: ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
fat_boy wrote:
OK, to quote Bob Watson AGW proponent. He stated, and I have provided the link in the past that there is no evidence man made CO2 caused the recent warming, but since they cannot account for it any other way it must be man made CO2 causing it. Not to mention the other scientist I quoted in my last reponse who said that there is no detectable effect of man made OC2 on temperature outside of natural variation.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you're quoting one guy who says something, and claiming it to be a fact. Opinions are not facts unless backed up by evidence.
fat_boy wrote:
Absoloutely. And the theory of AGW is not proven because: 1) Its effect cant be detected on temperatured outside natural variation. 2) Troposphere warming is not as great as the theory dictates (its about a third what it should be BTW) 3) The south pole is not warming up whcih the theory dictates it should do.
"Not proven" is not the same thing as "Wrong." There's this HUGE area in between "Right" and "Wrong" called "Unknown." That's where we are now. We don't know. If people would just admit this, we'd all be a lot better off.
fat_boy wrote:
I consider that an increase in AVERAGE global temperature is not global warming. Since CO2 is distributed evenly in the atmosphere, any effect of CO2 should be global. The fact that it isnt tends to imply that CO2 is not having such an effect as the theory suggests.
CO2 is NOT distributed evenly in the atmosphere, due to circulation patterns. The northern and southern hemispheres are partially isolated from one another, among other things. We've discussed this before, but again, you just ignore anything that doesn't suit your purposes. EDIT: Oh, and by the way, what you "consider" to be the definition of global warming doesn't change the ACTUAL definition[^].
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modif
Ian Shlasko wrote:
ou're quoting one guy
Who hapens to be strongly associated with the AGW movement.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We don't know
We do know. We know its not having a noticable effect on temperature. And hasnt done for 70 years. POst war cooling for 35 years. Warming for 25 years, and not much of anything for the last 12 years. All the while CO2 is going up and up. What does that say?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the definition of global warming doesn't change the ACTUAL definition[^].
One of which states "by 1983 as the name for overall rising temperatures". Over all. Get it? Warming all over the place. Of course you know why GW was changed to CC. Its to get around the fact it isnt warming in many parts of the earth. And of those that are, the warming isnt as great as in the 1930's in some parts. US, Canada, Grenland,Arctic, Siberia, Scndanavia.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
For the record, I didn't say you were quoting. But here you go:
fat_boy wrote:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/07/settled-science-can-everyplace-really.html\[^\] Ah, hang on, if most of the globe is getting hotter then so is the average, so these places must be continuously outdoing each other momentarially before the average catches up!
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3545849/Hmm-most-of-the-globe-is-warming-more-than-average.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Well yes, they have been caught out: UAH and RSS data shows that the June anomoly was pretty much zero: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/\[^\] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/10/rss-global-temperature-for-june-09-also-down/\[^\]
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3545448/Global-warming-lie-exposed-June-was-hottest-ever-r.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9W\_7MgPJQs\[^\] Its worth watching. It shows that nothing has changed, back then they talked about the destruction of science's credibility, intimidation, gaining funding, and a good media story.
-http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3543273/Interesting-video-from-20-years-ago-about-GW.aspx[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Seems like I am not the only one to see his life a one long tirade of hypocritical actions, not to mention lies and alarmist scare stories: Stephen Schneider—Death of an Unrepentant Hypocrite [^]
- Tom Nelson is a blogger not a journalist. 2) Anthony Watts to quote: "About Anthony: I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun." 3) You tube vid: Quoted scientists. etc several more from Watts. 6 or 7, Delling pole. Yep, a journalist. Talking about the Jones inquiry. 9) Rich Trzupek quoting schnieder, a scientist. 10) Journalist reporting politicians so not a scientific point of view. So, lots of quotes form scientists on both sides. Do you consdier them crackpot? A financial journalist wuoting the events of a pollitical meting. Hardly crackpot. Watts. A weather man. And Delingpole, a commentor for the Telegraph. Tell me, didnt journalists expose the watergate scandal?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
This is not an argument [^] :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
ou're quoting one guy
Who hapens to be strongly associated with the AGW movement.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We don't know
We do know. We know its not having a noticable effect on temperature. And hasnt done for 70 years. POst war cooling for 35 years. Warming for 25 years, and not much of anything for the last 12 years. All the while CO2 is going up and up. What does that say?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
the definition of global warming doesn't change the ACTUAL definition[^].
One of which states "by 1983 as the name for overall rising temperatures". Over all. Get it? Warming all over the place. Of course you know why GW was changed to CC. Its to get around the fact it isnt warming in many parts of the earth. And of those that are, the warming isnt as great as in the 1930's in some parts. US, Canada, Grenland,Arctic, Siberia, Scndanavia.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Who hapens to be strongly associated with the AGW movement.
Yet again, you're confusing one man's statements with PROVEN FACTS. Unless you can understand this VERY simple distinction, any discussion with you is pointless.
fat_boy wrote:
We do know. We know its not having a noticable effect on temperature. And hasnt done for 70 years. POst war cooling for 35 years. Warming for 25 years, and not much of anything for the last 12 years. All the while CO2 is going up and up. What does that say?
We've been through this... Several of us have pointed out the errors in your numbers... I'm not going through this all over again.
fat_boy wrote:
One of which states "by 1983 as the name for overall rising temperatures". Over all. Get it? Warming all over the place.
Cute. Out of all the different dictionaries cited on that page, you pick the one that describes the ETYMOLOGY instead of the DEFINITION. Funny how every actual DEFINITION on that page uses the word "average." So until you can wrap your mind around the concept of a global AVERAGE, this discussion again becomes entirely pointless. Your homework for the day... Look up the definitions of "FACT" and "AVERAGE".
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Who hapens to be strongly associated with the AGW movement.
Yet again, you're confusing one man's statements with PROVEN FACTS. Unless you can understand this VERY simple distinction, any discussion with you is pointless.
fat_boy wrote:
We do know. We know its not having a noticable effect on temperature. And hasnt done for 70 years. POst war cooling for 35 years. Warming for 25 years, and not much of anything for the last 12 years. All the while CO2 is going up and up. What does that say?
We've been through this... Several of us have pointed out the errors in your numbers... I'm not going through this all over again.
fat_boy wrote:
One of which states "by 1983 as the name for overall rising temperatures". Over all. Get it? Warming all over the place.
Cute. Out of all the different dictionaries cited on that page, you pick the one that describes the ETYMOLOGY instead of the DEFINITION. Funny how every actual DEFINITION on that page uses the word "average." So until you can wrap your mind around the concept of a global AVERAGE, this discussion again becomes entirely pointless. Your homework for the day... Look up the definitions of "FACT" and "AVERAGE".
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yet again, you're confusing one man's statements with PROVEN FACTS
What proven facts?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We've been through this... Several of us have pointed out the errors in your numbers... I'm not going through this all over again.
Bullshit,
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So until you can wrap your mind around the concept of a global AVERAGE, this discussion again becomes entirely pointless.
Of course most of the internet, and god knows its the holy fucking grail of truth, uses the word average. They have to to explain the fact the what is happenig in the world DOESNT validate the THEORY of AGW. But, if you once actually read into the science of AGW you would realise that the fact that the entire world isnt heating up is a BIG problem. AND I note that not once have you attempted to tackle the fact that the troposphere isnt warming anywhere near as much as it should. It is absoloutely imperative that the troposphere warms MORE than the surface for AGW to be evident. Go back and read the basic scicence of AGW then come back to me when you have the slightest understanding.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
- Tom Nelson is a blogger not a journalist. 2) Anthony Watts to quote: "About Anthony: I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun." 3) You tube vid: Quoted scientists. etc several more from Watts. 6 or 7, Delling pole. Yep, a journalist. Talking about the Jones inquiry. 9) Rich Trzupek quoting schnieder, a scientist. 10) Journalist reporting politicians so not a scientific point of view. So, lots of quotes form scientists on both sides. Do you consdier them crackpot? A financial journalist wuoting the events of a pollitical meting. Hardly crackpot. Watts. A weather man. And Delingpole, a commentor for the Telegraph. Tell me, didnt journalists expose the watergate scandal?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
- Tom Nelson is a blogger not a journalist.
You're right...he's even less qualified.
fat_boy wrote:
- Anthony Watts to quote: "About Anthony: I’m a former television meteorologist
First, being a weather-man does not make you a scientist. Most have degrees in journalism, not science. Secondly, having looked at weather data for 25 years doesn't make you a credible climate change scientist. As for most of the others, sure they're using scientists, but you didn't use them, you used something written by a non-scientist and I think we can all agree that if you have a specific viewpoint to start with, you can find quotes and papers to back you up. As for number 10, well, it's great that you can tell how politicians feel about a subject by what they do, since we all know that there's no way they're politically motivated.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yet again, you're confusing one man's statements with PROVEN FACTS
What proven facts?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We've been through this... Several of us have pointed out the errors in your numbers... I'm not going through this all over again.
Bullshit,
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So until you can wrap your mind around the concept of a global AVERAGE, this discussion again becomes entirely pointless.
Of course most of the internet, and god knows its the holy fucking grail of truth, uses the word average. They have to to explain the fact the what is happenig in the world DOESNT validate the THEORY of AGW. But, if you once actually read into the science of AGW you would realise that the fact that the entire world isnt heating up is a BIG problem. AND I note that not once have you attempted to tackle the fact that the troposphere isnt warming anywhere near as much as it should. It is absoloutely imperative that the troposphere warms MORE than the surface for AGW to be evident. Go back and read the basic scicence of AGW then come back to me when you have the slightest understanding.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
What proven facts?
Exactly my point.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course most of the internet, and god knows its the holy f***ing grail of truth, uses the word average. They have to to explain the fact the what is happenig in the world DOESNT validate the THEORY of AGW. But, if you once actually read into the science of AGW you would realise that the fact that the entire world isnt heating up is a BIG problem.
That particular part of the Internet is derived from actual dictionaries, that ARE considered the holy grail of truth, since they define the actual language we're using. If you're going to argue that the average is irrelevant and that every single region has to get warmer, than make up your own terms instead of referring to it as "Global Warming."
fat_boy wrote:
AND I note that not once have you attempted to tackle the fact that the troposphere isnt warming anywhere near as much as it should. It is absoloutely imperative that the troposphere warms MORE than the surface for AGW to be evident.
If memory serves, William Winner actually explained that to you several months ago on an earlier thread. Since he seems to know more about the theory than me (And, I'm pretty sure, than you), I defer to him on that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
- Tom Nelson is a blogger not a journalist.
You're right...he's even less qualified.
fat_boy wrote:
- Anthony Watts to quote: "About Anthony: I’m a former television meteorologist
First, being a weather-man does not make you a scientist. Most have degrees in journalism, not science. Secondly, having looked at weather data for 25 years doesn't make you a credible climate change scientist. As for most of the others, sure they're using scientists, but you didn't use them, you used something written by a non-scientist and I think we can all agree that if you have a specific viewpoint to start with, you can find quotes and papers to back you up. As for number 10, well, it's great that you can tell how politicians feel about a subject by what they do, since we all know that there's no way they're politically motivated.
William Winner wrote:
As for most of the others, sure they're using scientists, but you didn't use them
Yeah, sorry, I didnt have the time to go and ask all the scientists individually, I used a video off youtube which had done it already. My profound alppologies for my lazyness and lack of professionalism. End of the day AGW theory has problems: 1) The troposphere isnt as warm as it should be. 2) The south pole is not warming. 3) Man made CO2 is not having a detectable effect on temperatute outside of normal variation. Almost every scientist in the world agrees with that, whether they be pro AGW or against it because they are the hard and fast facts. Bob Watson and Phil Jones, both in the pro AGW camp, have both stated as much. Lindzen and Christy both in the anti AGW camp the same. Lets forget the crap, and look at the basic empiracle evidence for AGW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
What proven facts?
Exactly my point.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course most of the internet, and god knows its the holy f***ing grail of truth, uses the word average. They have to to explain the fact the what is happenig in the world DOESNT validate the THEORY of AGW. But, if you once actually read into the science of AGW you would realise that the fact that the entire world isnt heating up is a BIG problem.
That particular part of the Internet is derived from actual dictionaries, that ARE considered the holy grail of truth, since they define the actual language we're using. If you're going to argue that the average is irrelevant and that every single region has to get warmer, than make up your own terms instead of referring to it as "Global Warming."
fat_boy wrote:
AND I note that not once have you attempted to tackle the fact that the troposphere isnt warming anywhere near as much as it should. It is absoloutely imperative that the troposphere warms MORE than the surface for AGW to be evident.
If memory serves, William Winner actually explained that to you several months ago on an earlier thread. Since he seems to know more about the theory than me (And, I'm pretty sure, than you), I defer to him on that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
than make up your own terms instead of referring to it as "Global Warming."
I dont have to. You provided on that fits perfectly.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If memory serves, William Winner actually explained that to you several months ago on an earlier thread
No he didnt. No one can since it is a well known problemn with the AGW theory.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You recently stated that GW sceptics had lied. Can you provide proof of this?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Late too the party, but: Sallie Baliunos: Claimed (2001): "measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. " In "Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy: Climate History and the Sun". George C. Marshall Institute. Claimed (2002): "Both satellites and balloons have carried instruments aloft to sense the temperature changes of those layers. In the case of the satellite record, which begins in 1979, there is a globally-averaged warming trend of only 0.04 C per decade, which projects to 0.4 C per century." In Science Rejects Kyoto by Sallie Baliunas - Capitalism Magazine One of them's a lie. I leave you to decide which one. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Late too the party, but: Sallie Baliunos: Claimed (2001): "measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. " In "Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy: Climate History and the Sun". George C. Marshall Institute. Claimed (2002): "Both satellites and balloons have carried instruments aloft to sense the temperature changes of those layers. In the case of the satellite record, which begins in 1979, there is a globally-averaged warming trend of only 0.04 C per decade, which projects to 0.4 C per century." In Science Rejects Kyoto by Sallie Baliunas - Capitalism Magazine One of them's a lie. I leave you to decide which one. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
This is an interesting story. The satelites showed no warming, and this was veririfed by weather ballon radings (Sonde readings). The satellite data was later adjusted for skin drag and time of day reading which produced a slight warming trend. This is the troposphere trend, which is about a third the surface trend. This raises a procedural question, given that weather ballons had been used for centuries why was their validation of the satellite data discarded? It was later suggested that the weather ballon data should be adjusted too. Again, why should centuries of accepted scientific method be changed because the data is unpalatable?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription