NationStates Jolt Archive

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

Linky?

That timothy ball dude.

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

Quoi?

I heard about this today on WOAI. :rolleyes:

In other words, there is a 50/fifty chance it actually happened. You might want to dig up a source, although it sounded like a man arguing against man-made global warming really did have people send him shit.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

I never saw a problem with scientists promoting alternate theories to begin with. If a researcher honestly believes in a different explaination and has data to support his conclusion, it should be considered. Someone who threatens a scientist for promoting an idea isn't "no better" than that scientist - they're a good deal worse.

I never saw a problem with scientists promoting alternate theories to begin with. If a researcher honestly believes in a different explaination and has data to support his conclusion, it should be considered. Someone who threatens a scientist for promoting an idea isn't "no better" than that scientist - they're a good deal worse.

Well, anthropogenic global warming isn't 'science' for obvious reasons. But no-one who advocates it has ever bothered to examine their motivations or beliefs.

Guess what? Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal disease. We're all gonna die, global warming or no ;)

Wait...What?

See, the thing is I would give sources, but the MMGW crowd are just as bad as the national association of realtors. They would simply just attack the source and shit.

The facts are, and you can believe them or not as you choose, that a scientist named timothy ball chose to reject in part - not in whole - the idea that global warming is a man made event. Subsequent to this he received death threats, showing the level of the creationists who buy into this nonsense.

Anyway, if the industrial revolution pulled us out of the little ice age, well that's the greatest story never told.

Linky?



http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

For all you link whores

Exteremists giving the majority a bad name again

Google "global warming death threats" or something similar. Common people, learn to do some basic web research.

I'm pretty sure one of the unwritten rules of NSG is OP responsibility to provide supporting material. The rest of us just can't be arsed. Oh, and you meant "C'mon, people," as in "Come on, people." Or do special people not need to learn?
We special people already know how to "speel".

Google "global warming death threats" or something similar. Common people, learn to do some basic web research.

I'm pretty sure one of the unwritten rules of NSG is OP responsibility to provide supporting material. The rest of us just can't be arsed. Oh, and you meant "C'mon, people," as in "Come on, people." Or do special people not need to learn?

I'm pretty sure one of the unwritten rules of NSG is OP responsibility to provide supporting material. The rest of us just can't be arsed. Oh, and you meant "C'mon, people," as in "Come on, people." Or do special people not need to learn?

I think the rule is the opposite. You can't just post something and then not provide commentary.


I provided commentary, just not a source. You could of course claim it was spam or something I suppose. And if you think it is go ahead, report it.

See, the thing is I would give sources, but the MMGW crowd are just as bad as the national association of realtors. They would simply just attack the source and shit.

The facts are, and you can believe them or not as you choose, that a scientist named timothy ball chose to reject in part - not in whole - the idea that global warming is a man made event. Subsequent to this he received death threats, showing the level of the creationists who buy into this nonsense.

Anyway, if the industrial revolution pulled us out of the little ice age, well that's the greatest story never told.

So, what, your sources suck out loud and you know it? And you thought instead of arguing the specific source you'd have people argue for a source at all?

Well, I heard that a global warming critic totally ate a baby. I'd give you a source but you'll just have to believe me and take my interpretation at its word because I too have decided to get butt hurt about sources...

I provided commentary, just not a source. You could of course claim it was spam or something I suppose. And if you think it is go ahead, report it.

You provided commentary, but no context to understand it, which is what sources sometimes provide. But, yeah, it's stupid and arrogant to threaten someone with death just because they don't share your opinion; I doubt those threats come from the scientific community, it's much more likely that some eco-nuts just don't get it.

Fanaticism is not reserved for the religious.

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become.He's right about that.

I'm not saying some **** didn't send him death threats. There's no reason to doubt a public figure at the center of a public controversy, won't get a few of those as a matter of course. Even a nobody like myself has recieved one.

But I think this is very typical of the direction the denial camp's been headed towards over the past couple of years. They are manufacturing an image of themselves as victims of persecution, while using every opportunity to launch personal attacks on climatologists, and attacks on the scientific community in general. In fora where there's a chance they might get engaged in debating the merits of their opinion, the last thing they seem to want to talk about, is the actual science.

And I understand them. I wouldn't want to try defending arguments like CO2 not being a GHG, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to confront the actual science, rather than the strawmen they usually attack (like Timothy Ball and others do in Swindle, for example). It's highly reminicent of US religious fanatics claiming persecution, levelling personal attacks and fabricating strawmen, because nobody takes their pseudoscience seriously.

Still, I find it rather unfortunate the media continues to indulge these people in it. Yes, perhaps it's newsworthy than people are threatened with physical harm for nothing more than stating their personal opinion, but if that's the case, I think we need to ask why politicians, commedians and fucking cookbook publishers don't recieve this kind of coverage. When was the last time you read about the death threats Maddox recieves, outside his own hatemail page? Why wasn't I in the Sunday Telegraph when I recieved a death threat for voicing my opinion on immigration?

Perhaps more to the point, I think we need to ask what possible difference it makes. Does being threatned mean you're right, for example? And if not, would it not be more relevant to let the police deal with deaththreats than the media, even if the victim's world famous for being a lying sack of shit?

I think the rule is the opposite. You can't just post something and then not provide commentary.


I provided commentary, just not a source. You could of course claim it was spam or something I suppose. And if you think it is go ahead, report it.

I was told by a mod a few days ago that its best, not a rule, but best to post a link, so that way people can undestand what the hell is going on.

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

What? I've never sent death threats to anyone.

So, what, your sources suck out loud and you know it? And you thought instead of arguing the specific source you'd have people argue for a source at all?

Well, I heard that a global warming critic totally ate a baby. I'd give you a source but you'll just have to believe me and take my interpretation at its word because I too have decided to get butt hurt about sources...

I don't have sources. I don't need them. I don't have the burden of proof.

Let me ask you this: will 2011 be warmer than 2006?

He's right about that.

I'm not saying some **** didn't send him death threats. There's no reason to doubt a public figure at the center of a public controversy, won't get a few of those as a matter of course. Even a nobody like myself has recieved one.

But I think this is very typical of the direction the denial camp's been headed towards over the past couple of years. They are manufacturing an image of themselves as victims of persecution, while using every opportunity to launch personal attacks on climatologists, and attacks on the scientific community in general. In fora where there's a chance they might get engaged in debating the merits of their opinion, the last thing they seem to want to talk about, is the actual science.

And I understand them. I wouldn't want to try defending arguments like CO2 not being a GHG, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to confront the actual science, rather than the strawmen they usually attack (like Timothy Ball and others do in Swindle, for example). It's highly reminicent of US religious fanatics claiming persecution, levelling personal attacks and fabricating strawmen, because nobody takes their pseudoscience seriously.

Still, I find it rather unfortunate the media continues to indulge these people in it. Yes, perhaps it's newsworthy than people are threatened with physical harm for nothing more than stating their personal opinion, but if that's the case, I think we need to ask why politicians, commedians and fucking cookbook publishers don't recieve this kind of coverage. When was the last time you read about the death threats Maddox recieves, outside his own hatemail page? Why wasn't I in the Sunday Telegraph when I recieved a death threat for voicing my opinion on immigration?

Perhaps more to the point, I think we need to ask what possible difference it makes. Does being threatned mean you're right, for example? And if not, would it not be more relevant to let the police deal with deaththreats than the media, even if the victim's world famous for being a lying sack of shit?

Well okay, you have a grasp on climate, you tell me, what is the world climate going to be in the next ten years?

You don't know. Just admit it. Either make your falsifiable claims or walk away.

Well okay, you have a grasp on climate, you tell me, what is the world climate going to be in the next ten years?

You don't know. Just admit it. Either make your falsifiable claims or walk away.

*slowly strolls away*

:cool:

*slowly strolls away*

:cool:

Stroll away all you want. What are you going to do if the next ten years are not the hottest on record?

Really, what are you going to do? Say "sorry, I was full of bullshit about things I didn't even begin to understand or monitor, but I thought they were a good idea at the time".

Do you people even know how much like george bush you sound?

Stroll away all you want. What are you going to do if the next ten years are not the hottest on record?

Really, what are you going to do? Say "sorry, I was full of bullshit about things I didn't even begin to understand or monitor, but I thought they were a good idea at the time".

Do you people even know how much like george bush you sound?

I wasn't about to make any sort of climate-change claim, so I walked away... sheesh.

Here's the thing. We regulate emissions and form action plans to contain its effects to be on the safe side, and if global warming we keeps happening then we're safe and ready to deal with it. If it doesn't, we can just rescind the caps and go from there since we'll know for sure that man-made CO2 has a minute effect on the climate..

Either way, we really don't lose. This way, we cover our bases and avoid the fearmongering extremists on all sides of the debate. It's a rational policy that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the risks and losses.

You can start believing in God on the same logic : )

Here's the thing. We regulate emissions and form action plans to contain its effects to be on the safe side, and if global warming we keeps happening then we're safe and ready to deal with it. If it doesn't, we can just rescind the caps and go from there since we'll know for sure that man-made CO2 has a minute effect on the climate..

Either way, we really don't lose. This way, we cover our bases and avoid the fearmongering extremists on all sides of the debate. It's a rational policy that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the risks and losses.

But, alas! there are people like Gore that demand action now.

what is your response to that?

Here's the thing. We regulate emissions and form action plans to contain its effects to be on the safe side, and if global warming we keeps happening then we're safe and ready to deal with it. If it doesn't, we can just rescind the caps and go from there since we'll know for sure that man-made CO2 has a minute effect on the climate..

Either way, we really don't lose. This way, we cover our bases and avoid the fearmongering extremists on all sides of the debate. It's a rational policy that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the risks and losses.

We could do the same for the mutant star goat too.

All's I want in some kind of coherent theory, then, I will fall into the man made global warming side. But as long as they continue to be spectacularly wrong with their predictions, they should shut up.

I think the real factor is not the long-term rise and fall of global warming, which is natural, but the tremendous rate of global warming recently, which is not natural.

Since it's an aberration, we'd do well to consider the causes and, given the very strong correlation between atmospheric Co2 and global temperature, and the dramatic rise of Co2 in the atmosphere over the same time as the dramatic rise in warming - then, regardless of whether it's proven or not, we should take the preliminary action of reducing Co2.

If nothing else, it will either prove or disprove the theory as a result

We could do the same for the mutant star goat too.

Not the same. Global warming has been proven to happen; whether it is man-made or not is where some dispute lies, but the effect itself does exist and can have serious effects on the environment.

We risk a lot more by doing nothing than by doing something.

All's I want in some kind of coherent theory, then, I will fall into the man made global warming side. But as long as they continue to be spectacularly wrong with their predictions, they should shut up.

I think the problem is that climate is difficult to make predictions of, which in turn makes it difficult to draw trends except retroactively. Of course, if you've got a clear trend it makes sense to guard against the possibility that something serious but preventable or mitigatable will happen.

But, alas! there are people like Gore that demand action now.

what is your response to that?

Well, we do have to do it some time. Economically speaking, now would be better because companies would not have to plan based upon the uncertainty of when those caps will be applied. If they have a clear date for when it will happen, it makes the transition a lot smoother.

In fact, that's one of the main reasons why there are companies calling for emissions caps on their industries even though it would have a negative effect.

I think the problem is that climate is difficult to make predictions of, which in turn makes it difficult to draw trends except retroactively. Of course, if you've got a clear trend it makes sense to guard against the possibility that something serious but preventable or mitigatable will happen.

And there really isn't a clear trend schatzi.

Other than the claim by the man maders who think that the industrial revolution pulled us out of the little ice age, which would of course be the greatest story never told.

I mean, who would want a warmer and wetter world?

And there really isn't a clear trend schatzi.

Other than the claim by the man maders who think that the industrial revolution pulled us out of the little ice age, which would of course be the greatest story never told.

There's a pretty clear trend; it's shown a remarkable and sudden spike coinciding with the start of the Industrial Revolution that has only accelerated in recent years except for a short cooling period that interestingly enough coincided with the Great Depression and WWII as well as the first energy crisis in 1973.

I mean, who would want a warmer and wetter world?

Provided we'd be prepared to evacuate the areas flooded, it wouldn't be too bad. Might significantly increase the amount of arable land as well as decrease our need for energy consumption during the winter. But then again, it would make more sense to control warming if possible, prepare for the climate changes and then take advantage of any possible benefits.

But, of course, there's also the risk that it could disrupt ocean currents and wind patterns, causing some areas to become very cold and other areas to suffer severe droughts, especially those already afflicted by desertification.

But, of course, there's also the risk that it could disrupt ocean currents and wind patterns, causing some areas to become very cold and other areas to suffer severe droughts, especially those already afflicted by desertification.

Well quite. As the man maders will tell us, the globe is warming causing the ice caps to melt, and hence a new ice age in the northern latitudes is just around the corner.

It's the most incoherent theory I have ever heard.

Are average global temps changing? Yes.

Are we in a warming period? I don't know.

What causes the warming, if any? I don't know.

I'm not going to change my life because of this, however.

It should be in your interest to change,

If we reduce Co2 and nothing changes then you can sit smug in self-righteousness

It should be in your interest to change,

If we reduce Co2 and nothing changes then you can sit smug in self-righteousness

Rubbish, that is an out of the money option.

It cost me nothing to do what I am doing right now, and still be proved right.

So what is the average global temp. in 2011 going to be?

Well okay, you have a grasp on climate, you tell me, what is the world climate going to be in the next ten years?

You don't know. Just admit it. Either make your falsifiable claims or walk away.Just like you, I made no claims. Does this means we get to walk into the sunset holding hands?

It seems to me you're either trying to appeal to people's emotions by portraying people like Ball as persecuted, because you cannot appeal to reason, or that you're trying to bait the majority of us into flaming the shit out of you by implying we send deaththreats to people we disagree with. I'm sure I'm simply getting the wrong impression and that it's no fault of yours, but I can't help but wonder what the hell your point is, if indeed you have one?

Just like you, I made no claims. Does this means we get to walk into the sunset holding hands?

It seems to me you're either trying to appeal to people's emotions by portraying people like Ball as persecuted, because you cannot appeal to reason, or that you're trying to bait the majority of us into flaming the shit out of you by implying we send deaththreats to people we disagree with. I'm sure I'm simply getting the wrong impression and that it's no fault of yours, but I can't help but wonder what the hell your point is, if indeed you have one?

I am glad that you agree, as do I, that there is not enough evidence to support the whole idea of man made global warming. So yes, we can walk into the sunset hand in hand in that respect.

But death threats are a no-no. And I would think that anyone would be against them. It stifles science doesn't it?

Rubbish, that is an out of the money option.

It cost me nothing to do what I am doing right now, and still be proved right.

So what is the average global temp. in 2011 going to be?

There was plenty of debate about CFCs, action was taken, didn't cost you any money, hole in ozone repaired, debate over.

The average global temperature in 2011? Ammm....54.2F What does this achieve?

While I'm tempted to say something along the lines of "it [the inquisition] begins" this is a very small number of death threats and no more indicates a trend than a year or ten of above or below average temperatures.

All this incident shows is that there are some activist alarmists who employ the same insane tactics and flawed reasoning of creationists. It's disturbing yes, but when one man dies it's a tragedy, when a hundred die it's a statistic. Until this man receives a hundred threats or a hundred men like him are threatened this is nothing but disapointing news.

There was plenty of debate about CFCs, action was taken, didn't cost you any money, hole in ozone repaired, debate over.

No there wasn't. China totally ignored it. Anyway, the hole is still there.

The average global temperature in 2011? Ammm....54.2F What does this achieve?


If you are wrong, that means you don't know what you are talking about, and hence should no opine for the rest of us.

Other than the claim by the man maders who think that the industrial revolution pulled us out of the little ice age, which would of course be the greatest story never told.


Mmmm ... read "The Little Ice Age" by Brian Fagan.

Are we in a warming period? I don't know.

What causes the warming, if any? I don't know.


Also, try reading some scientific publications ... your ignorance does not justify inaction.

No there wasn't. China totally ignored it. Anyway, the hole is still there.




If you are wrong, that means you don't know what you are talking about, and hence should no opine for the rest of us.

Lord how tragic - I'd thought the ozone was repairing and seems you're right, it's not.

That's not to say reducing CFCs is still not a good thing, nor would reducing carbon output. The problem is the same as with Kyoto, easy for countries to sign, doesn't mean they care to act.

As for the temperatures, I will certainly stop posting in 2012 if my 2011 figures are wrong, give or take a % point.

No there wasn't. China totally ignored it. Anyway, the hole is still there.
That's seasonal. One shows up over the south pole by the end winter and disappears by the end of summer. It's as due to the tilt of the earth and the instability of the ozone molecule as it is to CFC's.

Also, try reading some scientific publications ... your ignorance does not justify inaction.

You've not read a single scientific paper about this either. If you had, you'd know what crap the current panic is.

All I want is predictions from this man made warming theory. Everyone claims that x amount of gas being released into the atmosphere causes x amount of temprature change. Yet no-one can tell you how much.

Look, if it really was the forcing effect, every year would be hotter than the last one. Right? 'Cos there is more CO2, so it has to be hotter, because of greenhouse gasses made by man.

But that is simply not the case. Last year was not the hottest on record. The theory is BS. All I want is skepticism, and no death threats for people who are also skeptical of this obviously flawed theory.

I am glad that you agree, as do I, that there is not enough evidence to support the whole idea of man made global warming. So yes, we can walk into the sunset hand in hand in that respect.Sorry, I was responding on topic. I disagree there's not enough evidence, so no sunset stroll for us.

But death threats are a no-no. And I would think that anyone would be against them. It stifles science doesn't it?Indeed. I just asked why these particular death threats are newsworthy. Incidentally, saying it stifles scientific debate in this particular case, is hardly accurate. Ball is, after all, not engaging in any.

It's not a scientific debate to claim CO2 isn't a GHG. It's easily demonstrable that it is. Nor is it to claim the current consensus is wrong because the consensus on global cooling was wrong. That's what's called a lie, not a debate.

I guess there could be a scientific debate if he'd publish his basis for claiming solar activity adequately accounts for the climatic and atmospheric changes we observe, but since he prefers to keep his research secret (yes, yes, I'm sure it exists.. Really), he's not really inviting debate. He's simply asking us to believe him, because though it appears his conclusions are cracked, and though he's yet to offer any sort of criticism of the actual science behind the current consensus (other than strawmen, non sequiturs and outright lies), he must be right. He's the Christ after all... Or something like that, right?

I have to ask: why the hell would any rational human being pay attention to this guy, and what debate is it you think is taking place?

There was plenty of debate about CFCs, action was taken, didn't cost you any money, hole in ozone repaired, debate over.

The average global temperature in 2011? Ammm....54.2F What does this achieve?

Incidently, the Montreal protocall banning CFCs has home of an effect on reducing green house gasses than the Kyoto protocall.

CFCs have a global warmming potential of 10,000 ish where as CO2 is 1. (Its a relative scale.)

That is my only nagging doubt about Co2 - there's bugger all of it in the atmosphere and the human contribution is less that 1%.

Despite that, I still see no reason NOT to reduce carbon output. As I say, if nothing else it helps to prove or disprove the theory.

In any system, rapidly introducing a new factor produces great instability, whether thats toads in Australia, the common cold in the USA or....huge amounts of industrial output into the atmosphere.

Indeed. I just asked why these particular death threats are newsworthy. Incidentally, saying it stifles scientific debate in this particular case, is hardly accurate. Ball is, after all, not engaging in any.


You don't need to engage in research when a theory is obviously flawed. I could say that F=ma+k for example, and you wouldn't have to go and test that is was wrong: it obviously just fails as a theory. (For obvious, non experimental reasons )

In the same way, the man maders fail, and you don't have to do your own research to prove them wrong either. I mean, we are, after all, at their much publicized point of catastrophic climate change. And yet, nothing is happening. And it isn't. So let's issue death threats to those who said is was bullshit.

Believe what you want, but don't expect me to treat you any differently to those who sympathize with those who bomb abortion clinics.

You've not read a single scientific paper about this either. If you had, you'd know what crap the current panic is.I have, and it's true that some of the more sensational shit is shit. The science doesn't seem to be thogh, buut then, it's hardly the basis for the sensationalism either.All I want is predictions from this man made warming theory. Everyone claims that x amount of gas being released into the atmosphere causes x amount of temprature change. Yet no-one can tell you how much.

Look, if it really was the forcing effect, every year would be hotter than the last one. Right? 'Cos there is more CO2, so it has to be hotter, because of greenhouse gasses made by man.

But that is simply not the case. Last year was not the hottest on record. The theory is BS. All I want is skepticism, and no death threats for people who are also skeptical of this obviously flawed theory.You don't understand the theory, so you set up a strawman and demolish that. How exceptional :rolleyes:

How about you stop jumping to conclusions and start asking your librarian for some help? Bashing strawmen doesn't mean the consensus is wrong, it just means you're capable of misrepresenting what it's about. I am too. It's fucking easy. The moon isn't made of green cheese, ergo climate change isn't happening. See?

It just isn't relevant though. You're not being skeptical about the current consensus, you're being skeptical of a strawman of your own making. It's nothing more than dishonest intellectual masturbation, and it is absofuckinglytely no basis for trying to influence policy makers.

I recently came accross a lovely little story in the Sunday Times magazine: it prommised that with a 6C increase in global temperature

People will be incinerated where they stand, burnt survivors will battle over food.

Media scare story anyone?

.You don't understand the theory, so you set up a strawman and demolish that. How exceptional :rolleyes:


I understand the theory perfectly. It essentially states that an increase in CO2 will reduce the earth's albedo in the non visual spectrum.

I don't deny that. What I do deny is the extent to how much, and whether or not it is in any way a forcing function for further climate change.

I also am not going to get on my high horse and say how much of this increase in caused by man.

Call me a denier and give me death threats for that if you will.

CO2 has never been at the levels they are right now - EVER - IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH !!!

And the only time the average temperature was hotter was when the planet WAS A BALL OF MOLTEN LAVA !!!

This planet is so screwed

I mean even if we act now
which we are not

it will take like 50 years before things stop getting worse

it makes me so angry

Politicians are all for the greater good

except everyone knows that the greater good 4 them is money

who would care about THE FUTURE OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT ON THIS PLANET

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

haha. so now its a death THREAT to tell someone their about to kill THEMSELVES???

ooooooooooookkay.

all it would take to avoid this fate is to stop using combustion to generate energy and propell transportation. of course putting a little something in the water supply or some other how, that would lower all human fertility accross the board without bias or exception wouldn't hurt either.

the future doesn't belong to oil, coal and nuclear, but to wind, solar and hydro, or it belongs to our own self destruction.

that's NOT a "death treat" but a simple observation of a reality becoming increasingly obvious, not only to those with the experience and access to hardware to observe them more readily, but increasingly obvious, to where it will eventualy become totaly obvious, to even the simplest joe sixpack.

i well even go so far as to predict, that within the next 20 years, anyone with half a brain we come to deeply regret that the use of combustion to generate and propell transportation hadn't been banned outright and forever beggining sometime back arround between 1967 and 1971.

man on the moon was cool and i like having these computers and this internet. but these things will be small comfort when we are all suffocating because there is no longer enough oxygen being pumped back into the atmospere.

and there's no reason wind, solar and hydro, could not be sufficient for everyone to still have a refrigerator and a computer with access to some sort of internet.

=^^=
.../\...

and there's no reason wind, solar and hydro, could not be sufficient for everyone to still have a refrigerator and a computer with access to some sort of internet.


Oh God, it's more than sufficient. Solar alone is more than sufficient once we tap it from space:

Every 12 hours, the sun alone provides the Earth with energy equal to all of the fossil fuels consumed in all of human history. There's more tappable energy there than we could even think of consuming now, on the order of around 174 Petawatts.

That's equal to 100,000 times the current energy consumption of the entire world in 2004.

Or, for another perspective: That's enough energy to run 394 trillion Blue Gene/L 16-rack supercomputers at maximum capacity, which would provide 362,243 YottaFLOPS of computing power...

Or, for another perspective: That's enough energy to run 394 trillion Blue Gene/L 16-rack supercomputers at maximum capacity, which would provide 362,243 YottaFLOPS of computing power...

In other words - just about enough to run Vista with all bells and whistles enabled.

Sorry, I thought I should make an on topic post, but couldn't be arsed.
Umm...
Lacadaemon - I'm willing to put money on the climate of the next 50 years being less stable than the past 50 years. That's what we are dealing with here, not the average global temperature on a Tuesday afternoon three years from now.

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

Here's your linky:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

That is disgusting. No disagreement deserves a death threat.

man on the moon was cool and i like having these computers and this internet. but these things will be small comfort when we are all suffocating because there is no longer enough oxygen being pumped back into the atmospere.


Are you for real?

That's seasonal. One shows up over the south pole by the end winter and disappears by the end of summer. It's as due to the tilt of the earth and the instability of the ozone molecule as it is to CFC's.

Nah, it's there year-round. It's slowly shrinking, but the CFCs are still there, and will be for about another thirty years.

You've not read a single scientific paper about this either. If you had, you'd know what crap the current panic is.

I've read tons of scientific papers on this. Enough to convince me that global warming is almost certainly occuring and is alost certainly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Recognizing that the future is alwys uncertain, and that we can only ever make decisions based on the best information we have, and that the best information we have says that the above is true, then we need to act.


All I want is predictions from this man made warming theory. Everyone claims that x amount of gas being released into the atmosphere causes x amount of temprature change. Yet no-one can tell you how much.


Predicting this kind of things to the level of exactitude you desire is enormously difficult; there are too many variables. We can't even provide completely accurate information for past occurences. But does the fact that we can't provide a to the number accurate figure for deaths during the holocaust mean it didn't happen?


Look, if it really was the forcing effect, every year would be hotter than the last one. Right? 'Cos there is more CO2, so it has to be hotter, because of greenhouse gasses made by man.


No, because there are other variables at play. That is the difference between a trend and an event. Increasing CO2 levels means that on average the temperature will continue to increase. It does not mean that each year will be hotter than the last.

I've read tons of scientific papers on this. Enough to convince me that global warming is almost certainly occuring and is alost certainly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Recognizing that the future is alwys uncertain, and that we can only ever make decisions based on the best information we have, and that the best information we have says that the above is true, then we need to act.


Phillipe Sands (-?) right.

It's obviously untrue, and no one believes it. If we did, the first thing we would do is shut down 90% of the colleges in this country. But we don't, so it can't be that convincing, can it?

Of course, if I really believed in this bullshit, I would do everything I could to minimize emissions. And not only that, I would advocate a complete restructuring of society because all these emissions are going to kill us.

It's funny that the loudest voices are pretty much unconcerned about the whole deal, isn't it? But keep on being part of the sheeple.

Also, you can't be a true left winger and sign onto this bullshit either, so the next, so called NS socialist who wants to support this man made theory can fuck off back to the right where he or she belongs.

Of course, if I really believed in this bullshit, I would do everything I could to minimize emissions. And not only that, I would advocate a complete restructuring of society because all these emissions are going to kill us.

It's funny that the loudest voices are pretty much unconcerned about the whole deal, isn't it? But keep on being part of the sheeple.

Also, you can't be a true left winger and sign onto this bullshit either, so the next, so called NS socialist who wants to support this man made theory can fuck off back to the right where he or she belongs.

I don't see the people who yell the loudest cutting back their emissions by 90% - and the carbon offsets are bullshit.

I don't see the people who yell the loudest cutting back their emissions by 90% - and the carbon offsets are bullshit.

One would assume that if this was going to kill us all, as has been predicted, then they would be buying the carbon offsets and conserving anyway.

It obviously can't be such a threat since the loudest voices are not panicking about it.

I liked Man on the Moon. I thought Jim Carrey was good in it.

Also, you can't be a true left winger and sign onto this bullshit either, so the next, so called NS socialist who wants to support this man made theory can fuck off back to the right where he or she belongs.

???

I'm afraid I don't understand how you draw your political lines on this issue. TO my understanding, the right opposes global warming--man made or otherwise--and it is the left who supports it. Now this is of course a generalization, but I am unsure about your conclusions...

CO2 has never been at the levels they are right now - EVER - IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH !!!
Yes they have.

And the only time the average temperature was hotter was when the planet WAS A BALL OF MOLTEN LAVA !!!
Wrong again.

This planet is so screwed
Hardly. It's been hit with more large asteroids than you've had hot dinners and it's still here as is the life that inhabits its every nook and cranny.

I mean even if we act now
What action do you propse?

which we are not
What do you define as necessary action?

it will take like 50 years before things stop getting worse
What makes you think that?

it makes me so angry
Calm down. Think.

Politicians are all for the greater good
That's debatable.

except everyone knows that the greater good 4 them is money
Again, that's debatable.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
I suggest you reduce the number of animated smilies in your posts. They, combined with the poorly formatted and unsupported text of your post make it difficult to take you seriously.

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

Just make sure you don't confuse the majority with the few lunatics.
I'm a man-mad global warming zealot but I don't send death threats.

Ilaer

You've not read a single scientific paper about this either. If you had, you'd know what crap the current panic is.

All I want is predictions from this man made warming theory. Everyone claims that x amount of gas being released into the atmosphere causes x amount of temprature change. Yet no-one can tell you how much.

Look, if it really was the forcing effect, every year would be hotter than the last one. Right? 'Cos there is more CO2, so it has to be hotter, because of greenhouse gasses made by man.

But that is simply not the case. Last year was not the hottest on record. The theory is BS. All I want is skepticism, and no death threats for people who are also skeptical of this obviously flawed theory.
So your argument basically reduces to this:
Because some guy who claims to be a climatologist* makes the claim that he's being threatened this somehow invalidates all evidence towards global warming.
further, because no-one can accurately predict exactly what will happen in the future, this invalidates all evidence towards global warming.

hmmm...fresh tasty strawman. Makes me wish I was a rabbit or a horse.

Seems to me you are confused about statistical analysis and extrapolating data. We base future predictions on prior experience and accumulated data. If I flip a coin 100 times and 99 times it comes out 'heads', I can make the prediction the next flip will also be 'heads'. Will it be? No idea until I flip it. There's still the possibility it will be tails, or land on it's side, or be swallowed by a low flying crow, or....
Can I say 2011 will be one of the hottest years on record? nope.
Can I even say the sun will rise in the East tomorrow? nope.
However, with both I can use prior data to make an extremely good prediction as to what the most likely outcome will be.
Just because I can't say with 100% certainly doesn't mean every bit of data collected up to this point is wrong.

*As for Ball's credentials, they're sorely lacking. He claims to be the former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. The fact that the university has no such department speaks volumes. It would appear to me that he is actively creating these strawmen to draw attention to himself and his crusade. The 'oh woe is me' persecution complex used to attack the other side, cause their arguments are too strong to refute logically and scientifically

So your argument basically reduces to this:
Because some guy who claims to be a climatologist* makes the claim that he's being threatened this somehow invalidates all evidence towards global warming.
further, because no-one can accurately predict exactly what will happen in the future, this invalidates all evidence towards global warming.

hmmm...fresh tasty strawman. Makes me wish I was a rabbit or a horse.

Seems to me you are confused about statistical analysis and extrapolating data. We base future predictions on prior experience and accumulated data. If I flip a coin 100 times and 99 times it comes out 'heads', I can make the prediction the next flip will also be 'heads'. Will it be? No idea until I flip it. There's still the possibility it will be tails, or land on it's side, or be swallowed by a low flying crow, or....
Can I say 2011 will be one of the hottest years on record? nope.
Can I even say the sun will rise in the East tomorrow? nope.
However, with both I can use prior data to make an extremely good prediction as to what the most likely outcome will be.
Just because I can't say with 100% certainly doesn't mean every bit of data collected up to this point is wrong.

*As for Ball's credentials, they're sorely lacking. He claims to be the former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. The fact that the university has no such department speaks volumes. It would appear to me that he is actively creating these strawmen to draw attention to himself and his crusade. The 'oh woe is me' persecution complex used to attack the other side, cause their arguments are too strong to refute logically and scientifically
I'm pretty sure a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Manitoba and a Ph.D. in Climatology from the University of London, England qualify someone to speak about climate.

Ball taught at the University of Winnipeg from 1973 to 1996, starting as a Sessional Lecturer in Geography and retiring as a Professor of Geography. A movie called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" credited him with as professor from the Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg.

And no one is saying the data is wrong, just misinterpreted.

Get your facts straight.

I'm pretty sure a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Manitoba and a Ph.D. in Climatology from the University of London, England qualify someone to speak about climate.

Get your facts straight.
you should get your facts straight.
Ball is claimed to be many things:
That he was the first Canadian to get a PhD in Climatology.
He is regularly called in popular press as 'a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada' (see the links provided)
That he has published many research papers about global warming.

The actual truth is a little different:
Many Canadians have received PhDs in Climatology - and unlike Ball, their PhDs have actually been in Climatology.

His PhD was a doctor of Philosophy for a start, not doctor of science.
Also, it was in Geography with a thesis in "Climatic Change in Central Canada: A preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850."
Certainly relates to historical climate change, but does it relate to global climate change and Climatology?

While one can certainly argue that it's the popular (right wing) press that continue making these claims, I notice he does nothing to dissuade them from doing so.
Why?
Cause that immediately gives him more credence and credibility than he would gain from being reported as a "former professor in geography who once wrote a thesis about climate in the Hudson Bay during the 18th Century".

I say he's being at best obfuscating and at worst delibrately deceitful.

Coupled with the fact that nearly all his reports focus not on science, but just on either personal attacks on the author's credentials (irony!) or the inevitable "it's just a political agenda!" knee-jerk wail whenever new evidence on global warming is furnished, and I say he is little better than an internet troll.

Well quite. As the man maders will tell us, the globe is warming causing the ice caps to melt, and hence a new ice age in the northern latitudes is just around the corner.

It's the most incoherent theory I have ever heard.

Are average global temps changing? Yes.

Are we in a warming period? I don't know.

What causes the warming, if any? I don't know.

I'm not going to change my life because of this, however.

Ha. This is the best argument ever.

"I don't know so it's not happening."

You see, the point of science, ALL science is to examine what we know and us it to predict what will happen, in experiments and in general operation of the universe. Global warming analysis does that. It examines the causes and it looks at correllation, which may not be causation, but it is suggestive. Adding that we know the effect of CO2 and we have plenty of evidence for the conclusion.

Your response -"Since I don't know anything about the subject, I'll require a level of proof that science never requires like people do with evolution, and I'll claim that unless they can predict exact weather which is virtually impossible they are necessarily wrong."

It's funny that you compare this to creation, because you sound very much like creationists talking about how evolution isn't proven because we can't be 100% sure.

It's obviously untrue, and no one believes it. If we did, the first thing we would do is shut down 90% of the colleges in this country. But we don't, so it can't be that convincing, can it?

This statement makes no sense ...

A movie called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" credited him with as professor from the Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg.


Sounds like a credible source ...


And no one is saying the data is wrong, just misinterpreted.


So all of the qualified scientists have misinterrpreted data that Ball has correctly interpreted?

According to sourcewtach, this Ball fellow is allied with the Canadian energy industry.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

But I don't want to poison the well, so I would like to see the science of Mr. Ball before I make a decision about his claims.

That would be difficult though, since he has not actually done the science:

Matthew Letts is an Assistant Professor of Geography at the U of L and says that “within the scientific community, he [Ball] has not established a reputation as an important contributor to the field of climate change. The basis of this statement is that he hasn’t published on future climate change in peer reviewed journals.”

http://www.themeliorist.com/?q=lawsuit_filed_against_professor_board_of_governors_and_n

According to sourcewtach, this Ball fellow is allied with the Canadian energy industry.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

But I don't want to poison the well, so I would like to see the science of Mr. Ball before I make a decision about his claims.

That would be difficult though, since he has not actually done the science:



http://www.themeliorist.com/?q=lawsuit_filed_against_professor_board_of_governors_and_n

Oh brother. This is why I do not like Global Warming nuts. If ya ain't published, your shitty. Yea nice. :rolleyes: so much for science being openminded.

Oh brother. This is why I do not like Global Warming nuts. If ya ain't published, your shitty. Yea nice. :rolleyes: so much for science being openminded.
Heaven forbid that you actually publish your scientific findings and let your peers read through and analyse your work.
No no no.
Much more 'open-minded' if you just tell people they're wrong and that you're right, but then refuse to offer up any credible data to back your claims up.

Because we all know that highly respected scientific journals are obviously going to be biased against any well-researched, compiled and analysed data accompanying serious discourse. It goes without saying, doesn't it?

yep. why waste time letting others see your work. You know you're right and they're not. Just jump the gun and launch right into attacking their postion. No need to defend your own with published data and research. That's just what those global-warming nuts want you to do.

Just make sure you don't confuse the majority with the few lunatics.
I'm a man-mad global warming zealot but I don't send death threats.

Ilaer

Um... I'm surprised no-one has pounced on this, actually...
I'm not actually mad for men...
Stupid typos.

Oh brother. This is why I do not like Global Warming nuts. If ya ain't published, your shitty. Yea nice. :rolleyes: so much for science being openminded.

So much for global-warming skeptics being fair-minded and intelligent.

Do you have a digital copy of his papers? If so, then send them to me and I shall carefully read through them, each step of the way pointing out the inaccuracies, flaws and most likely unscientific methods used.

Ilaer

Oh brother. This is why I do not like Global Warming nuts. If ya ain't published, your shitty. Yea nice. :rolleyes: so much for science being openminded.

That is exactly why science IS open-minded. We don't accept or dimiss a source as credible until it has been peer-reviewed. We are appropriately skeptical until we've been given reason not to be. This gentlement is treating his claims as established fact when not only do they not stand up to peer-review, but they've not even been submitted for peer-review.

Do you treat everyone here as if they are Einstein? Or are you appropriately skeptical absent corroborating evidence? That's all we're expecting with a peer-reviewed publication. Corroboration.

Otherwise, we'd have to treat all flawed science as true until we can figure out what they're actually doing.

That is exactly why science IS open-minded. We don't accept or dimiss a source as credible until it has been peer-reviewed. We are appropriately skeptical until we've been given reason not to be. This gentlement is treating his claims as established fact when not only do they not stand up to peer-review, but they've not even been submitted for peer-review.

Do you treat everyone here as if they are Einstein? Or are you appropriately skeptical absent corroborating evidence? That's all we're expecting with a peer-reviewed publication. Corroboration.

Otherwise, we'd have to treat all flawed science as true until we can figure out what they're actually doing.

I think that you should save this and post it everytime it is needed. I think also that it should a thread killer. When this has to be posted, the thread has failed and a new one will be started if people are willing.

Honestly... why do you have to explain this? At any rate, thanks for doing so.

I think that you should save this and post it everytime it is needed. I think also that it should a thread killer. When this has to be posted, the thread has failed and a new one will be started if people are willing.

Honestly... why do you have to explain this? At any rate, thanks for doing so.

It really is sad that reasonable people act like having your peers review your work is a bad thing. They aren't looking to judge whether they like your conclusion or not, but to evaluate the science, to keep you honest. It's purpose is accountability, not politics.

For people who can't evaluate an issue without letting their personal beliefs overwhelm reason, it's hard for them to believe that people, who's job it is not to do that, would be capable of doing so.

It really is sad that reasonable people act like having your peers review your work is a bad thing. They aren't looking to judge whether they like your conclusion or not, but to evaluate the science, to keep you honest. It's purpose is accountability, not politics.

For people who can't evaluate an issue without letting their personal beliefs overwhelm reason, it's hard for them to believe that people, who's job it is not to do that, would be capable of doing so.

This has actually affected my mood. I'm less happy right now.

This has actually affected my mood. I'm less happy right now.

Because some people don't know that? Come on. This is the world we live in. What you should be happy about is regardless of views there are people out there of all stripes that wish discuss any and all topics reasonably. There are many on this site.

And there are some who are all emotion and all dogma and we're going to see that too. And they have their place too. There are many on this site.

It's not anything to be upset about. If you prefer the first group, be an example. The power of a positive example is incredible.

Seperately, I'm sure you have your pet topic that you struggle to be rational about. I know I have a couple. You can't get to upset that some people have more than others.

EDIT: Or is it because I said what I said? If so, sorry to ruin your day. If it helps your mood, these pants make my butt look outstanding.

Because some people don't know that? Come on. This is the world we live in. What you should be happy about is regardless of views there are people out there of all stripes that wish discuss any and all topics reasonably. There are many on this site.

And there are some who are all emotion and all dogma and we're going to see that too. And they have their place too. There are many on this site.

It's not anything to be upset about. If you prefer the first group, be an example. The power of a positive example is incredible.

Seperately, I'm sure you have your pet topic that you struggle to be rational about. I know I have a couple. You can't get to upset that some people have more than others.

EDIT: Or is it because I said what I said? If so, sorry to ruin your day. If it helps your mood, these pants make my butt look outstanding.
Pants which makes butts look good will raise my mood any day.

Pants which makes butts look good will raise my mood any day.

Is it just your mood that will be raised?

I walways wonder about the motivations of this scepticism against Scientific consensus on such issues as global climate change, because more often than not (in my experience) it's been about the "sceptic's" politics more than anything else. Too many "libertarian" capitalist blogs or too much caffeine?

Is it just your mood that will be raised?


Which makes me think of funny pet names for the anatomy. I mustn't go down this road of naughtiness.

Is it just your mood that will be raised?

I walways wonder about the motivations of this scepticism against Scientific consensus on such issues as global climate change, because more often than not (in my experience) it's been about the "sceptic's" politics more than anything else. Too many "libertarian" capitalist blogs or too much caffeine?

I count myself as a libertarian, if I had to apply a label. Be careful about who you assign these beliefs to. You're not particularly likely to be right.

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

Now you have me quaking in my boots! I thought the enviro-wackos were above those sorts of tactics.

I count myself as a libertarian...

Anarcho-syndicalist?

Now you have me quaking in my boots! I thought the enviro-wackos were above those sorts of tactics.

What a reasoned and careful argument. I'm certain you recognize that it's not all environmentalists doing this, but a select few zealots, just like there are among Christians, or Atheists, or people for the advancement of those jeans Eric is wearing.

Anarcho-syndicalist?

Ha. Nice

What a reasoned and careful argument. I'm certain you recognize that it's not all environmentalists doing this, but a select few zealots, just like there are among Christians, or Atheists, or people for the advancement of those jeans Eric is wearing.

That sure was a defensive qualifier. Of course, not all enviro-wackos want to kill me, the few that don't want to ruin the capitalistic world.

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

Lolz.

That sure was a defensive qualifier. Of course, not all enviro-wackos want to kill me, the few that don't want to ruin the capitalistic world.

Do you think these posts make you appear reasonable or otherwise? I could tell you, but I doubt you'd believe me.

People who actually believe they're right can demonstrate it without flame-baiting and trolling with words like "wacko". It's fine if it's an amusing part of your argument. When it's the core of your argument it suggests that you think the most valuable part of your argument is hyperbole. What's the matter? Reasonable people won't buy your argument if you present it fairly so you have to kick it up a couple notches?

Pointing out that majority of most movements are not murderous isn't defensive. It's a response to people irrationally claiming it is otherwise despite all evidence.

Do you think these posts make you appear reasonable or otherwise? I could tell you, but I doubt you'd beliee me.

People who actually believe they're right can demonstrate it without flame-baiting and trolling with words like "wacko". It's fine if it's an amusing part of your argument. When it's the core of your argument it suggests that you think the most valuable part of your argument is hyperbole. What's the matter? Reasonable people won't buy your argument if you present it fairly so you have to kick it up a couple notches?

Man, you do have a stick up your ass. Lighten up a little and try to enjoy things a little more. Sorry to have offended you and the stick that you brought to the party.

Man, you do have a stick up your ass. Lighten up a little and try to enjoy things a little more. Sorry to have offended you and the stick that you brought to the party.

I am enjoying things. Mostly because I have the luxury of being right. Thus it's not necessary to call people wackos or tell people to lighten up because I can't make an argument.

So is the crux of your argument that people who disagree with you have a stick up their ass?

Well, people COULD try to lighten the fuck up a little bit around here.

Except me. I get to take anyone seriously at any time and chew them a new asshole.

I am enjoying things. Mostly because I have the luxury of being right. Thus it's not necessary to call people wackos or tell people to lighten up because I can't make an argument.

So is the crux of your argument that people who disagree with you have a stick up their ass?

Your ass seems to be a popular tool for debate this evening.

Your ass seems to be a popular tool for debate this evening.

I was thinking that too. It's the jeans. In these jeans he could see the stick if there was one.

Meanwhile, I think it's funny that I'm uptight for explaining to him the all to obvious flaw in his statements about the murderous enviro-wackos. Wouldn't be nice if obvious meant, you know, people would notice it.

Your ass seems to be a popular tool for debate this evening.

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that this evening is unusual. You don't know me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHODxDlRdRQ

For all those who dont believe in climate change...

I don't have sources. I don't need them. I don't have the burden of proof.
These days, the burden of proof is on those who deny that man contributes significantly to global climate change.

That sure was a defensive qualifier. Of course, not all enviro-wackos want to kill me, the few that don't want to ruin the capitalistic world.
You think environmentalism is a conspiracy to destroy capitalism?

You think environmentalism is a conspiracy to destroy capitalism?
I think there are a lot of former communists that have found a new identity in the environmental movement.

I think there are a lot of former communists that have found a new identity in the environmental movement.

And? Oh of course, communism is inherently evil and wrong. Never mind the fact that what it actually says is very enlightened just very difficult to impliment.

I think there are a lot of former communists that have found a new identity in the environmental movement.

Ha. This is classic stuff. I really hope you're trolling, because this stuff is gold. Now we're communists? Because we look at scientific data and, you know, draw a conclusion on that, rather than on what's best for business? You do realize that despite some trends at universities, the job of a scientist has nothing to do with reaching the conclusion that's best for business, no? We analyze data and take it where that date leads. We don't start with what we want to hear and set out to prove it. In fact, we do the opposite. It's called the scientific method. Now if a lot of scientists are former communists, then you're correct that a lot of former communists are now environmentalists. Because these days it's pretty hard to find a person knowledge on the science of climate that doesn't recognize the problem.

Apparently, science has a communist, oh, I mean, environmental bias. Just go back to calling us wackos because this argument is more lame.

Ha. This is classic stuff. I really hope you're trolling, because this stuff is gold. Now we're communists? Because we look at scientific data and, you know, draw a conclusion on that, rather than on what's best for business? You do realize that despite some trends at universities, the job of a scientist has nothing to do with reaching the conclusion that's best for business, no? We analyze data and take it where that date leads. We don't start with what we want to hear and set out to prove it. In fact, we do the opposite. It's called the scientific method. Now if a lot of scientists are former communists, then you're correct that a lot of former communists are now environmentalists. Because these days it's pretty hard to find a person knowledge on the science of climate that doesn't recognize the problem.

Apparently, science has a communist, oh, I mean, environmental bias. Just go back to calling us wackos because this argument is more lame.

Hes not talking about scientists, he is talking about enviromentalists. Thats a completely different breed of people.

Hes not talking about scientists, he is talking about enviromentalists. Thats a completely different breed of people.

So people who believe scientitists who are the people as Jocabia describe are fools?

Hes not talking about scientists, he is talking about enviromentalists. Thats a completely different breed of people.

The people who are behind the global warming are scientists. Global warming as a man-made phenomena is the scientific concensus. Their conclusions have nothing to do with communism. Whether non-scientists who support the issue were communists is just an attempt to muddy the waters, because it changes nothing about the science or whether you should believe that its occurring.

So people who believe scientitists who are the people as Jocabia describe are fools?

No, they're communists. Are you not following? Duh!

So people who believe scientitists who are the people as Jocabia describe are fools?

Thats not what an environmentalist is, not in common usage anyway.l

I know this is just an internet forum, and people can get passionate about debating, but this Lacadaemon character is either really stupid or one of the most clever, unethical debaters I've ever seen on NSG. The way that constantly tries to imply directly and indirectly that those who believe in man-made global warming is real don't understand science and are all violently opposed to the right of deniers is disgusting. But, judging by his amazingly first post which lacked content and context, and some of his obvious 'mistakes' he has made in this thread, I'm guessing he is actually just an idiot spouting all the crap he has heard other deniers already say.

The people who are behind the global warming are scientists. Global warming as a man-made phenomena is the scientific concensus. Their conclusions have nothing to do with communism.

On the contrary; reality has a proven left-wing bias and as such can be safely ignored in favour of right-wing punditry and unscientific rubbish.

Seriously though: this is the first time I've seen someone admit that they're in favour of the continuing destruction of the environment in the name of capitalism. We all knew it. They knew that we knew it. I've just never seen them say it. It's brilliant. Kudos, Jocabia.

Thats not what an environmentalist is, not in common usage anyway.l

An environmentalist is someone who wants to protect the environment. Specifically in this thread, we're discussing the scientists and the science that supports evironmentalism.

More importantly, environmentalism has grown to include those scientists in order to muddy the waters, and make it seem as if those scientists are acting on a political movement like Ball is, instead of performing good science, like Ball isn't.

I never saw a problem with scientists promoting alternate theories to begin with. If a researcher honestly believes in a different explaination and has data to support his conclusion, it should be considered. Someone who threatens a scientist for promoting an idea isn't "no better" than that scientist - they're a good deal worse.

The problem is, they don't.

Some argue it honestly, but with no data or real research to back up their claim. Others do so dishonestly with nothing backing up their claim but hundreds of thousands of Exxon's dollars.

Al Gore is the smartest guy in the whole wide world. He has taught me that all skeptical right-wing people are actually nothing more than holocaust deniers and that only people who believe in global warming can be progressive free-thinkers. I wanna live in a world of only progressives, so my idea to make Ameica better is put all skeptical right-wing people into camps. If we get rid of them, there will be nothing but progressive people and a classless society. And there won't be any hunger, poverty, or homeless people because all the evil environment-hating right-wing nuts will be dead. The end.

Al Gore is the smartest guy in the whole wide world. He has taught me that all skeptical right-wing people are actually nothing more than holocaust deniers and that only people who believe in global warming can be progressive free-thinkers. I wanna live in a world of only progressives, so my idea to make Ameica better is put all skeptical right-wing people into camps. If we get rid of them, there will be nothing but progressive people and a classless society. And there won't be any hunger, poverty, or homeless people because all the evil environment-hating right-wing nuts will be dead. The end.

Anyone else smell that?

Anyone else smell that?It's what makes NSG so great. All my friends are neo-Nazis and now I'm apparently suggesting we get rid of the rightwingers so we can have our lebensraum.

..And here I thought I was an anti-Fascist and just didn't want our bioshpere mangled needlessly and have to deal with tens of millions of environmental refugees.. Boy was I ever wrong.

Are you saying we shouldn't take drastric and immediate action against those killing our mother, the Earth? And here I thought you were on the side of good and rightousness, progressive free-thinkers like myself. Don't you understand that unless the republicans are stopped from destroying the world that all the cute fuzzy creatures of our mother, the Earth, will drown and die horrible deaths? Think of the children. Won't someone please think of the children.:(

The way I see it only those trying to halt our enlightened progress to a better future, a future of change and stability, would ever question our enlightened views. The reason they've never been accepted is because they're too complicated for most to understand or are sabotaged by the upper class waging their war against the poor and the environment. We must act now to preserve of our environment.

All the right-wing nuts want to do is cut down trees to burn in their tree-eating factories to power their election-rigging machines and pollute rivers with the toxic waste produced by burning wood. It makes me sad. Not just to know what they're doing but that only I and the few other like-minded individuals both here and in RL know these inconvenient truths because corporate media is supressing us.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

For all you link whores

Exteremists giving the majority a bad name again

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Of course the greens want to micromanage everyone. Most of the greens are former communists (most green parties sprung up out of former communist parties that disappeared around 1991).

This is their window of opportunity. They go round intimidating all those who dissent (and despite the socalled consensus, that's still a staggering number).

They will block 'dissenters' from publishing in top scientific magazines, intimidate them, try to cut funding. It's stormtrooper tactics from the greenshirts.

Are you saying we shouldn't take drastric and immediate action against those killing our mother, the Earth? And here I thought you were on the side of good and rightousness, progressive free-thinkers like myself. Don't you understand that unless the republicans are stopped from destroying the world that all the cute fuzzy creatures of our mother, the Earth, will drown and die horrible deaths? Think of the children. Won't someone please think of the children.:(

Uh-huh. Trolling is against site rules. You should read them, methinks.

I guess everyone just ignores the most logical solution to the problem...

For the millionth time, by regulating emissions we hedge our bets against the possibility of man-affected climate change with little negative impact and quite a bit of positive impact. Not only do we insure against the risk of economic damage from climate change, but we also encourage a shift to a cleaner, more sustainable world overall which will have positive effects on our environment, our economies as well as our collective national security. And if man has nothing to do with it, it's easy to revoke emissions laws and allow industry to develop on its own.

Either way, we win or at the very least minimize potential losses. That is the wisest, most strategic decision we could make at this point in time.

Of course the greens want to micromanage everyone. Most of the greens are former communists (most green parties sprung up out of former communist parties that disappeared around 1991).

This is their window of opportunity. They go round intimidating all those who dissent (and despite the socalled consensus, that's still a staggering number).

They will block 'dissenters' from publishing in top scientific magazines, intimidate them, try to cut funding. It's stormtrooper tactics from the greenshirts.

Links? Evidence? Or do you think anyone buys this crap? Scientist love seeing current theories disproven. It's the absolute and specific purpose of most scientific experimentation.

For example, if you disproved evolution today, you'd be on the cover of every major science magazine in the world.

But, hey, prove me wrong. Show some evidence for this big scientific conspiracy to conceal the truth that, conveniently they couldn't conceal to you.

I guess everyone just ignores the most logical solution to the problem...

For the millionth time, by regulating emissions we hedge our bets against the possibility of man-affected climate change with little negative impact and quite a bit of positive impact. Not only do we insure against the risk of economic damage from climate change, but we also encourage a shift to a cleaner, more sustainable world overall which will have positive effects on our environment, our economies as well as our collective national security. And if man has nothing to do with it, it's easy to revoke emissions laws and allow industry to develop on its own.

Either way, we win or at the very least minimize potential losses. That is the wisest, most strategic decision we could make at this point in time.

I am NOT paying more in taxes. I pay enough already.

All 'solutions' to this 'problem' involve extra taxes (that will of course, never dissappear).

I am NOT paying more in taxes. I pay enough already.

All 'solutions' to this 'problem' involve extra taxes (that will of course, never dissappear).

I see. So this is about greed.

Meanwhile, I wait for the evidence for this mass conspiracy to conceal the truth, you just happen to know.

But, hey, prove me wrong. Show some evidence for this big scientific conspiracy to conceal the truth that, conveniently they couldn't conceal to you.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon and always has been. Those who say otherwise are deniers.

And if all of a sudden many (but nowhere nearly all) start bleating it's not a natural phenomenon, then I notice a scam.

I am NOT paying more in taxes. I pay enough already.

Do you know how much in taxes you pay to fund America's addiction to imported oil? It's in the billions of dollars, easily enough if applied to gasoline to push the price to around $10/gallon...those fleets stationed in the Gulf are there only to keep it open and to put pressure on the region's regimes. Our soldiers lives' are at stake to protect cheap gas.

However, since it's hidden in all kinds of taxes, you never actually see how much it actually costs us.

Emissions controls are a powerful way to tap in to our domestic sources of renewable energy and reduce our dependence on the dangerous fossil fuels that imperil our national security every day.

All 'solutions' to this 'problem' involve extra taxes (that will of course, never dissappear).

I'd rather a tax that benefits us and our economy than a tax that benefits Saudi Arabia or Russia.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon and always has been. Those who say otherwise are deniers.

And if all of a sudden many (but nowhere nearly all) start bleating it's not a natural phenomenon, then I notice a scam.

Ah, okay, so it must be a scam. It couldn't, you know, that the weight of evidence is overwhelming.

Again, your argument is not evidence, it's simply skepticism. You've charged the majority of the scientific community with a conspiracy. Where is your evidence? That they all agree? So far that's all you've presented.

Do you know how much in taxes you pay to fund America's addiction to imported oil? It's in the billions of dollars, easily enough if applied to gasoline to push the price to around $10/gallon...those fleets stationed in the Gulf are there only to keep it open and to put pressure on the region's regimes. Our soldiers lives' are at stake to protect cheap gas.

However, since it's hidden in all kinds of taxes, you never actually see how much it actually costs us.

Emissions controls are a powerful way to tap in to our domestic sources of renewable energy and reduce our dependence on the dangerous fossil fuels that imperil our national security every day.



I'd rather a tax that benefits us and our economy than a tax that benefits Saudi Arabia or Russia.

Yes, not to mention the fact that there are already cleaner burning fuels we avoid because of politics, like sugar-based ethanol. Being more responsible doesn't have to be more expensive. Our dependency on oil is an artificial dependency. we have plenty of options that we choose not to take.

The cost of changing over will pay itself back in what it saves us by not having to deal with the problems of the pollution levels as they are now. And that is absent global-warming. That we pollute A LOT is not at all debatable.

Yes, not to mention the fact that there are already cleaner burning fuels we avoid because of politics, like sugar-based ethanol.

Or biodiesel from algae, which could meet all of our diesel fuel needs using marginal or even completely nonarable desert land. Feed the algae CO2 from coal or natural gas plants and you've got sequestration that produces biofuels at the same time.

There are a ton of opportunities out there, and emissions controls would be pretty much the break point that would allow them to really take off, even more than they already are. We would benefit so much that the long-term effects of energy independence are probably incalculably high. I mean, when companies like BP and Duke Energy support emissions controls, you know they've found some serious profits in other sectors.

Or biodiesel from algae, which could meet all of our diesel fuel needs using marginal or even completely nonarable desert land. Feed the algae CO2 from coal or natural gas plants and you've got sequestration that produces biofuels at the same time.

There are a ton of opportunities out there, and emissions controls would be pretty much the break point that would allow them to really take off, even more than they already are. We would benefit so much that the long-term effects of energy independence are probably incalculably high. I mean, when companies like BP and Duke Energy support emissions controls, you know they've found some serious profits in other sectors.

Impossible. Didn't you read the massive evidence from F1 for the conspiracy. You know, he did smell a conspiracy after all.

Impossible. Didn't you read the massive evidence from F1 for the conspiracy. You know, he did smell a conspiracy after all.

The only conspiracy, if there is one, are the people who are willing to put their fellow Americans' lives and national security at stake in order to preserve our dependence on dangerous fossil fuels in the name of profit.

The only conspiracy, if there is one, are the people who are willing to put their fellow Americans' lives and national security at stake in order to preserve our dependence on dangerous fossil fuels in the name of profit.

The funny part is that this requires no conspiracy at all. It only requires that individual oil companies petition politicians using campaign contributions to get what they would like. They don't even have to do so secretly. No conspiracy required.

Let's make up a name for this process. How about lobbying? Yeah, that would be a good term.

I guess everyone just ignores the most logical solution to the problem...

For the millionth time, by regulating emissions we hedge our bets against the possibility of man-affected climate change with little negative impact and quite a bit of positive impact. Not only do we insure against the risk of economic damage from climate change, but we also encourage a shift to a cleaner, more sustainable world overall which will have positive effects on our environment, our economies as well as our collective national security. And if man has nothing to do with it, it's easy to revoke emissions laws and allow industry to develop on its own.

Either way, we win or at the very least minimize potential losses. That is the wisest, most strategic decision we could make at this point in time.
That regulation carries enormous costs, and not just for developed countries. Plus, there's no reason to believe we could make any difference anyway, given the runaway growth in China.

You're honestly willing to spend colossal amounts of money having no impact at all just to assuage your conscience?

The only conspiracy, if there is one, are the people who are willing to put their fellow Americans' lives and national security at stake in order to preserve our dependence on dangerous fossil fuels in the name of profit.

what's stopping you from not buying any (assuming its oil and related products you are referring to?)

if millions of people stop buying it, then they will look elsewhere.

what's stopping you from not buying any (assuming its oil and related products you are referring to?)

if millions of people stop buying it, then they will look elsewhere.

Tons, actually. The biggest purchasers and operators in terms of oil and related products are being funded or aided by the US. We don't have a choice.

We are trying to educate people on the facts so they can make meaningful choices. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping other people will follow suit. Your "evidence" is that the scientific community agrees with my evidence so you "smell" a conspiracy.

In order for millions of people to do that, they need to be educated to what the problem is. You, and people like you who provide no evidence and draw on conclusions on your lack of evidence and rejection of all evidence out of hand, are thwarting that effort simply by being content to be ignorant and proudly shouting to the world that they should be too, because scientific concensus is evidence of a conspiracy (it's also evidence that all available data overwhelmingly leads to one conclusion, but, hey, why let the facts get in your way).

what's stopping you from not buying any (assuming its oil and related products you are referring to?)If you're American, probably the need for food.

I think there are a lot of former communists that have found a new identity in the environmental movement.
I don't think so. Are you thinking about these closet reds? (http://www.conservatives.com) The communists are still communists.

I am NOT paying more in taxes. I pay enough already.

All 'solutions' to this 'problem' involve extra taxes (that will of course, never dissappear).
I am NOT consenting to living in a frozen wasteland. I am NOT going to allow the poor of Asia and the Pacific to be flooded out of their homes. We've had enough of your avarice and tyranny already.

I don't think so. Are you thinking about these closet reds? (http://www.conservatives.com) The communists are still communists.


I am NOT consenting to living in a frozen wasteland. I am NOT going to allow the poor of Asia and the Pacific to be flooded out of their homes. We've had enough of your avarice and tyranny already.

And I have had enough of nitwits who want to take the money of hard working people and make the poor that much poorer because of these taxes that are going to have to be levied.

And I have had enough of nitwits who want to take the money of hard working people and make the poor that much poorer because of these taxes that are going to have to be levied.
Read Vetalia's posts. Opposition to the fight against climate change is not going to hurt the poor of the world (I'm not referring to the "poor" of America), and don't pretend that the policies that you support don't tax hard workers.

EDIT: and I don't think that favouring your ability to buy a new back scratcher/car/whatever over the basic human rights of the people of the world is very Christian of you.

And I have had enough of nitwits who want to take the money of hard working people and make the poor that much poorer because of these taxes that are going to have to be levied.I didn't know you opposed free trade. Good on you! :D

Read Vetalia's posts. Opposition to the fight against climate change is not going to hurt the poor of the world (I'm not referring to the "poor" of America), and don't pretend that the policies that you support don't tax hard workers.

I have and I agree with him. However, one must look out for one's population as well as the world population. However, governments look out for their people's own interests first.

I know that taxes are a must however, raising them to solve economic problems is just going to cause more problems.

EDIT: and I don't think that favouring your ability to buy a new back scratcher/car/whatever over the basic human rights of the people of the world is very Christian of you.

Religion has nothing to do with this debate and I'm not going to rise to it.

I have and I agree with him. However, one must look out for one's population as well as the world population. However, governments look out for their people's own interests first.

I know that taxes are a must however, raising them to solve economic problems is just going to cause more problems.
How can you agree with Vetalia's posts when they directly conflict with your points?

Religion has nothing to do with this debate and I'm not going to rise to it.
'Religion' has everything to do with everything.

How can you agree with Vetalia's posts when they directly conflict with your points?

I guess you forgot about the part that I would love to see us move away from fossile fuels which is what Vetalia was saying.

That regulation carries enormous costs, and not just for developed countries. Plus, there's no reason to believe we could make any difference anyway, given the runaway growth in China.

A ton of emissions cut is another ton that can be accommodated in China until their economy is developed enough to begin its own environmental regulation.

You're honestly willing to spend colossal amounts of money having no impact at all just to assuage your conscience?

There will be an impact. We will no longer be dependent on dangerous imported fossil fuels and energy independence will be an achievable goal. Emissions regulations provide the necessary impetus for alternative energy to overcome the hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollar given out as direct and indirect subsidies to oil companies each year.

I guess you forgot about the part that I would love to see us move away from fossile fuels which is what Vetalia was saying.
You just don't want it enough to use taxes to pay for it, apparently.

what's stopping you from not buying any (assuming its oil and related products you are referring to?)

Perhaps the fact that our government not only destroyed our public transportation infrastructure in the 1950's and ignored it ever since in order to make us almost totally dependent on petroleum-fueled cars for our transportation?

Or the fact that our government gives hundreds of billions of dollars in handouts to oil companies, supporting some of the worst regimes in the world in the process. You don't think we keep those fleets stationed in the Persian Gulf for any other reason than to maintain oil exports through Hormuz, right? Or maybe it's the American auto industry's decades-long resistance to increasing mileage standards, with the result being that not only do we waste far more oil than we have to but our auto industry is being systematically destroyed because it is too obsolete to compete with more efficient imports.

We've been forcibly enslaved to oil due to government-industry collusion over the past five decades.

if millions of people stop buying it, then they will look elsewhere.

That's the idea behind encouraging alternative energy.

I guess you forgot about the part that I would love to see us move away from fossile fuels which is what Vetalia was saying.

Lip service. Alternative fuels deserve the same level of support from our government that oil has gotten over the years. Or are you admitting that the oil subsudies are the result of corrupt administrations?

Lip service. Alternative fuels deserve the same level of support from our government that oil has gotten over the years.

I agree with you 100%. Now tell me where you think I believe something different.

I agree with you 100%. Now tell me where you think I believe something different.

And I have had enough of nitwits who want to take the money of hard working people and make the poor that much poorer because of these taxes that are going to have to be levied.

Hmmmmm... let's just go on what you say. You were replying to someone who said that they are not willing to forego solutions simply because they cost money. You suggested he was a nitwit trying to take money from hard-working people and that you wouldn't accept that. I pointed out to you, as a result of your comment, that we've been doing that for years and that alternative fuel sources deserve at least the same amount of attention. Your suggestion that you are not willing to allow "money of hard working people" to be used in that fashion says you do disagree.

Let me tell you, Corny, pretending to agree with people you can't outdebate is not fooling anyone. Your statements are inconsistent and I'm not the first one to call you on it.

A ton of emissions cut is another ton that can be accommodated in China until their economy is developed enough to begin its own environmental regulation.
The developed economies serve way fewer people than the developing economies do. If you let the developing countries continue to emit, the problem gets far worse than it has ever been.
There will be an impact. We will no longer be dependent on dangerous imported fossil fuels and energy independence will be an achievable goal. Emissions regulations provide the necessary impetus for alternative energy to overcome the hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollar given out as direct and indirect subsidies to oil companies each year.
The subsidies are a problem, but subsidies are always a problem. If you object to the subsidies, then do that. Don't add a bunch of new inefficiency to the market to take its place.

The developed economies serve way fewer people than the developing economies do. If you let the developing countries continue to emit, the problem gets far worse than it has ever been.

Amusing. How does doing nothing mitigate this problem? We can't make enough of an impact so just do nothing altogether? It's fortunate that almost every major forward movement in history occurred because people were smart enough to know better.

We must do something. Suggesting that we ignore the problem because we can't address it everywhere is simply silly.

Nurse: He's got a pretty severe wound on his leg. Let's fix that.
Doctor: Why bother? He's got cancer and we can't fix it. He'll eventually die.
Nurse: Are you kidding? We should do everything we can and possibly he'll last long enough for us to do something about the cancer.
Doctor: Nope. That's too logical. It's far more important to take the solution that requires the least amount of effort from me.

The subsidies are a problem, but subsidies are always a problem. If you object to the subsidies, then do that. Don't add a bunch of new inefficiency to the market to take its place.

He's suggesting the subsidies be recommitted. It's not a new inefficiency. It's removing the old inefficiency and focusing on something that assists both our economy and the world in the long-term.

Amusing. How does doing nothing mitigate this problem?
It doesn't. Both doing nothing and Vetalia's plan produce the same climatic results, but Vetalia's plan makes the west poorer in the process.
We can't make enough of an impact so just do nothing altogether?
No, but if you want to make an impact you should advocate a course of action that actually accomplishes something. That would require severely curtailing development in the developing world. China and Africa need to be held down for the plan to work.
We must do something. Suggesting that we ignore the problem because we can't address it everywhere is simply silly.
You'd rather try and fail than not try? Why? If your failure is guaranteed, why bother? Again, the plan only works if the developing world is held down, too.
He's suggesting the subsidies be recommitted. It's not a new inefficiency. It's removing the old inefficiency and focusing on something that assists both our economy and the world in the long-term.
The subsidies are a problem. If he'd argue simply for their elimination, I'd totally be on his side.

As it happens, I don't buy the science anyway (notice how the global warming movement has mostly stopped using science in its arguments, and won't even address scientific challenges anymore), but since you do you should be adopting a position that actually makes sense, and that position needs to be to hold down the developing world.

If you let Africa develop by pumping its oil and mining its coal, your greenhouse problem will get vastly worse (accepting the global warming models, for the sake of argument). If you really want to fix the problem, you need to limit development globally.

It doesn't. Both doing nothing and Vetalia's plan produce the same climatic results, but Vetalia's plan makes the west poorer in the process.

Evidence, please. If we have any effect then reducing emissions makes a difference even if it doesn't stop it entirely. Even if the west will be a small part of the problem in the near future, they are still part of the problem. Your claim is similar to saying you needn't stop murdering people because you're only responsible for a small portions of murders in the world and there will still be a similar number of murders absent your help.

I find it amusing that you claim global warming isn't contributed to by man while simultaneously claiming that you can predict whether a reduction in emission by everyone we can reasonably get to reduce emissions, even if it's only a large minority of the world will have an effect on the problem you claim doesn't exist.

What's next? Are you going to tell me what the buck-toothed fairy queen you claim doesn't exist looks like? How can you tell me that something doesn't exist and simultaneously follows particular rules?


No, but if you want to make an impact you should advocate a course of action that actually accomplishes something. That would require severely curtailing development in the developing world. China and Africa need to be held down for the plan to work.

Again, amusing. Still arguing that if I can't stop all murders that I should stop you from murdering. Absurd argument that is.


You'd rather try and fail than not try? Why? If your failure is guaranteed, why bother? Again, the plan only works if the developing world is held down, too.

I'd rather try and make some difference than not try at all. You want to make it all or nothing because it's the only argument you have. Almost nothing works that way.

The plan works if ANYONE curtails their emissions. It's only 100% effective when the developing world is in a position to curtail emissions as well. 10% effective is better than 0% effective.


The subsidies are a problem. If he'd argue simply for their elimination, I'd totally be on his side.

You just argued a minute ago that there are always subsidies. So now you'll only agree with him if he tries to accomplish something that can't be accomplished? Amusing.

Meanwhile, I agree there are always subsidies. It would be wonderful if they were put towards something that benefits the US like being energy independent.


As it happens, I don't buy the science anyway (notice how the global warming movement has mostly stopped using science in its arguments, and won't even address scientific challenges anymore), but since you do you should be adopting a position that actually makes sense, and that position needs to be to hold down the developing world.

The global warming movement has stopped arguing science because almost no one with a clue about climate argues against global warming anymore. The scientific concensus among a huge majority of climatologists is that global warming is contributed to by man.

What's happened is that we tend to use science in scientific arguments. Most people arguing against this are making silly arguments about how we can't stop all emissions so we shouldn't even try, so presenting the science has little to do with the issue. If you have an actual legitimate combat to the overwhelming evidence for global warming, present it so we can laugh at you.

What would you have us do? Combat your lack of evidence?


If you let Africa develop by pumping its oil and mining its coal, your greenhouse problem will get vastly worse (accepting the global warming models, for the sake of argument). If you really want to fix the problem, you need to limit development globally.

If I "really" want to fix the problem? Again, you act like there is no wiggle room. Obviously this is because you don't have a better argument. Again, I'm perfectly happy to put forward a policy that reduces murders by 10% in the world. I'd be ecstatic. That doesn't "really" fix the problem, but it's a start. You'd be there arguing "why should we waste our time reducing murders by 10%. If you can't stop EVERY murder, than why bother."

Evidence, please.
You won't accept that adding inefficiency to an economic system makes that system less productive?

That's what inefficiency means.
If we have any effect then reducing emissions makes a difference even if it doesn't stop it entirely. Even if the west will be a small part of the problem in the near future, they are still part of the problem. Your claim is similar to saying you needn't stop murdering people because you're only responsible for a small portions of murders in the world and there will still be a similar number of murders absent your help.
If the goal is to avert a catastrophe (and that's what global warming alarmists claim), then whether that catastrtophe is 10% worse doesn't matter - it's still a catastrophe, and you still failed.
I find it amusing that you claim global warming isn't contributed to by man while simultaneously claiming that you can predict whether a reduction in emission by everyone we can reasonably get to reduce emissions, even if it's only a large minority of the world will have an effect on the problem you claim doesn't exist.
First of all, I didn't claim man doesn't contribute to global warming. You're incorrectly assuming an excluded middle (why do so many people do this?).

But since global warming alarmists are claiming that man contributes, I'm simply enforcing some measure of consistency in their positions.
What's next? Are you going to tell me what the buck-toothed fairy queen you claim doesn't exist looks like? How can you tell me that something doesn't exist and simultaneously follows particular rules?
Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics. But as long as you think it exists, your perception of it needs to be internally consistent in order to be sensical.
Again, amusing. Still arguing that if I can't stop all murders that I should stop you from murdering. Absurd argument that is.
It's a false analogy because you're not comparing it to the system with a catastrophic threshhold.
I'd rather try and make some difference than not try at all.
Even if that difference ultimately doesn't matter? Why? That's absurd.
You want to make it all or nothing because it's the only argument you have.
I'm making it all or nothing because the position of the global warming alarmists requires it be so. You can't have it both ways. Either we're fast approaching a global catastrophe, or you can make incremental progress over centuries in a way that actually makes a relevant difference. You have to pick one.
The plan works if ANYONE curtails their emissions. It's only 100% effective when the developing world is in a position to curtail emissions as well. 10% effective is better than 0% effective.
That only holds if we're not standing on a precipice. Are you arguing that the climate situation is not dire? For you to believe what you just said, it's a position you must hold.
You just argued a minute ago that there are always subsidies. So now you'll only agree with him if he tries to accomplish something that can't be accomplished? Amusing.
No, I said subsidies are always a problem. All subisidies are bad - we should eliminate them.
Meanwhile, I agree there are always subsidies. It would be wonderful if they were put towards something that benefits the US like being energy independent.
Why do there need to be subsidies at all? Why not just let the market go?
The global warming movement has stopped arguing science because almost no one with a clue about climate argues against global warming anymore.
And yet, when global warming alarmists like Al Gore use lousy science, no one is willing to respond when sceptics point out his errors. When there exists contrary data (stratospheric warming, 1997-2004), no one is willing to do anything more than dismiss it. When I ask questions about cloud modelling, no one (not even the folks over at RealClimate) will talk to me other than to dodge the question or point me to very limited cloud models that only consider one input at a time (and only ever heat or radiation - never humidity).
The scientific concensus among a huge majority of climatologists is that global warming is contributed to by man.
Yes, because the consensus is always right.
What's happened is that we tend to use science in scientific arguments. Most people arguing against this are making silly arguments about how we can't stop all emissions so we shouldn't even try, so presenting the science has little to do with the issue.
This discussion deals with the internal consistency of your position (actually, Vetalia's position at the start), not the broader scientific questions.
If you have an actual legitimate combat to the overwhelming evidence for global warming, present it so we can laugh at you.
As I've said, I'm not trying to do that now. I'm trying to ask questions about your plan and point out the inconsistencies in it.

And I've already explained why your silly murder analogy fails.

You won't accept that adding inefficiency to an economic system makes that system less productive?

That's what inefficiency means.

Amusing. If that were the only thing you've claimed, then you'd have a point. You treat half of your argument like they are givens. Although, given you have no logical support for them, probably that's the only way to make that argument.

A. You've not proven it's inefficient in comparison to the current system. Provide evidence.
B. You've not shown that Vetalia's plan will have the same results as doing nothing (regarding global warming). Provide evidence.
C. You've not shown that Vetalia's plan would make the west poorer. Provide evidence.

If the goal is to avert a catastrophe (and that's what global warming alarmists claim), then whether that catastrtophe is 10% worse doesn't matter - it's still a catastrophe, and you still failed.

False. If the 100,000 people die or 110,000 people is quite relevant. You might think it's not worth it to save 10% of the people. I think the 10% we save would disagree. There were things that could have been done to mitigate the NO disaster that would not have stopped it. Does that means that the lives saved by slightly mitigating the disaster were not worth it? I think those lives would have disagreed.



First of all, I didn't claim man doesn't contribute to global warming. You're incorrectly assuming an excluded middle (why do so many people do this?).

Amusing. You claim several things above as givens with no support whatsoever, and then accuse me of being obtuse. This would hilarious if you were joking.

Yes, I made the crazy assumption that you were denying man's contribution global warming. I made the silly assumption that you weren't laugiing in the face of overwhelming evidence of for global warming in general. Man's contribution, particularly man's level of contribution, is something that there is room for debate about.

But, hey, I guess because you notice a short trend for seven years, that it overwhelms the mountains of evidence from every year since we began tracking. Write a paper. You'll make a fortune.


But since global warming alarmists are claiming that man contributes, I'm simply enforcing some measure of consistency in their positions.

No. You aren't. You're claiming that there is no effect of mitigating that contribution. That's the opposite of consistent. If man contributes to an event, limiting the contribution of man to that event, would obviouslly have an effect. However, if you think it won't, again, I'll request that you supply evidence.


Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics. But as long as you think it exists, your perception of it needs to be internally consistent in order to be sensical.

Yes, and internally consistent would mean treating a man-made contribution as if reducing that contribution would, in fact, reduce that contribution. I know, I'm just being silly in thinking that you'd apply at least that level of logic here.


It's a false analogy because you're not comparing it to the system with a catastrophic threshhold.

So you're assumption is that we're so far beyond redemption that there is no point? Based on what? Almost all climatologists argue that our contribution can be mitigated, so your claim that it cannot be needs support.


Even if that difference ultimately doesn't matter? Why? That's absurd.

Again, evidence, please. Prove that the ultimate result of both plans would be so catestrpohic as to be completely the same. I'll wait.


I'm making it all or nothing because the position of the global warming alarmists requires it be so. You can't have it both ways. Either we're fast approaching a global catastrophe, or you can make incremental progress over centuries in a way that actually makes a relevant difference. You have to pick one.

No, it doesn't. If we're fast approaching a global catastrophe based on current trends and we slow down a bit are you actually claiming that would have no effect? Really? Based on what?

That only holds if we're not standing on a precipice. Are you arguing that the climate situation is not dire? For you to believe what you just said, it's a position you must hold.

Nope. If you were accelerating in a car with cars on either side of you matching that acceleration and you notice a wall in front of you that you cannot stop before you hit, you have several options.

A. Just leave it floored.
B. Slow down your acceleration so giving you more time and chaning your position relative to the cars next to you in such a way that your options MAY increase during that time.
C. Stop as hard as you can and hope you stop in time, though a stopping that quickly would be so traumatic that it injures you equally badly.

Your claim is that A or C are the only options. B is obviously the best option as it increases the chances of survival, extends your time to address the problem, and may possible avail more solutions.


No, I said subsidies are always a problem. All subisidies are bad - we should eliminate them.

Oh, that was unclear. However, you're wrong. If your goal is a good economy, which is what you're claiming some subsidies very well could increase economic production as well as potentially avoiding future problems, like dependency on oil.


Why do there need to be subsidies at all? Why not just let the market go?

Because it doesn't always work. Unless you measure what works by only the most successful.

If you need more reasons. Start a thread. I'm sure you'll be educated on the effect of Lassaiz Faire rather quickly. They've been tried. There is a reason they no longer exist.

And yet, when global warming alarmists like Al Gore use lousy science, no one is willing to respond when sceptics point out his errors. When there exists contrary data (stratospheric warming, 1997-2004), no one is willing to do anything more than dismiss it. When I ask questions about cloud modelling, no one (not even the folks over at RealClimate) will talk to me other than to dodge the question or point me to very limited cloud models that only consider one input at a time (and only ever heat or radiation - never humidity).

Amusing. Al Gore is a scientist now? Really? The scientific concensus is that global warming is occurring. In published works, works that survived peer review, what is going unchallenged by any respectable scientist is that global warming occurs.

How many papers have you written? Every scientist touted by those with their head in the sand has not one published paper that has survived peer review. But, hey, instead of telling us about what you don't understand or how Al Gore wasn't defended properly, why don't you present a scientist with a positive contribution to climatology who has published a paper denying global warming that survived peer review. I'll wait.


yes, because the consensus is always right.

No, because if the concensus is wrong, you have to, you know, use SCIENCE to prove them wrong. You can't just say "I don't like it so they must be wrong."

Science is a discipline that rewards destroying fallacious views provided you do so scientifically. If you can disprove global warming, you'll likely never have to worry about grants and you can finally afford that yacht.

Right now, you're claims about global warming hold as much merit as claims about evolution. They are only made by people with a passing understanding of science at best and are never pass scienitific review. You can rant and rave like the creationists about how it's not fair that your non-science is held on the same level as science, but if you'd really like to debunk scientific concensus you have to do the work.


This discussion deals with the internal consistency of your position (actually, Vetalia's position at the start), not the broader scientific questions.

Amusing. Vetalia's position is only inconsistent if you don't understand it. You claim that because left unchecked we are heading toward disaster only drastic change will have an effect and that to claim otherwise is inconsistent. That supposition is so ludicrous as it barely merits a reply. If we have 50 years until disaster, 55 years would be a wonderous advantage to us. Those 5 years could make the difference in our survival. Your argument is if you can't be certain you'll avoid the wall, floor it.


As I've said, I'm not trying to do that now. I'm trying to ask questions about your plan and point out the inconsistencies in it.

And I've already explained why your silly murder analogy fails.

You've not pointed out one inconsistency. You've made up an inconsistency and harped on it. You've not SHOWN anything. Provide evidence that no partial solution will have ANY effect. That it won't delay the catastrophic event or possibly prevent it altogether. Again, you're arguing that if we're speeding toward a wall that even slowing down our acceleration won't make any difference. I challenge to demonstrate this.

The murder analogy works, because you claim that if you can't prevent something altogether there is no point in mitigating it. That doesn't hold up in reality.

Some day you'll learn that in debate, just making claims doesn't make them true. "I've already explained..." is not the same as "As I've shown..." You're argument will get a modicum of respect when it earns it.

Amusing. If that were the only thing you've claimed, then you'd have a point. You treat half of your argument like they are givens. Although, given you have no logical support for them, probably that's the only way to make that argument.

A. You've not proven it's inefficient in comparison to the current system. Provide evidence.
You're adding an incentive that isn't based on wealth creation. If the market isn't working soloely toward wealth creation, it will create less wealth.
B. You've not shown that Vetalia's plan will have the same results as doing nothing (regarding global warming). Provide evidence.
They're the same in that both produce catastrophic warming. The differences are still there; they're just immaterial.
C. You've not shown that Vetalia's plan would make the west poorer. Provide evidence.
Because it reduces production (which you've conceded). The thing that gets produced is wealth.
False. If the 100,000 people die or 110,000 people is quite relevant. You might think it's not worth it to save 10% of the people. I think the 10% we save would disagree. There were things that could have been done to mitigate the NO disaster that would not have stopped it. Does that means that the lives saved by slightly mitigating the disaster were not worth it? I think those lives would have disagreed.
You're ignoring the cost of saving those lives. Lives don't have infinite value.
Amusing. You claim several things above as givens with no support whatsoever, and then accuse me of being obtuse. This would hilarious if you were joking.

Yes, I made the crazy assumption that you were denying man's contribution global warming. I made the silly assumption that you weren't laugiing in the face of overwhelming evidence of for global warming in general. Man's contribution, particularly man's level of contribution, is something that there is room for debate about.

But, hey, I guess because you notice a short trend for seven years, that it overwhelms the mountains of evidence from every year since we began tracking. Write a paper. You'll make a fortune.
At least you see your own error.
No. You aren't. You're claiming that there is no effect of mitigating that contribution. That's the opposite of consistent. If man contributes to an event, limiting the contribution of man to that event, would obviouslly have an effect. However, if you think it won't, again, I'll request that you supply evidence.
I'm denying that the proposed mitigation is significant.
Yes, and internally consistent would mean treating a man-made contribution as if reducing that contribution would, in fact, reduce that contribution. I know, I'm just being silly in thinking that you'd apply at least that level of logic here.
I think you're overstating the extent to which the proposed plan would actually reduce emissions. The plan still allows unfettered growth in developing countries, thus producing dramatically higher emissions than the entire world currently has. If the current emissions are catastrophic, are not even higher emissions still catastrophic?

If the goal is to avoid catastrophy, the proposed plan fails.
So you're assumption is that we're so far beyond redemption that there is no point? Based on what? Almost all climatologists argue that our contribution can be mitigated, so your claim that it cannot be needs support.
My point is that no plan that doesn't severely limit development in poor countries offers any significant mitigation.
Again, evidence, please. Prove that the ultimate result of both plans would be so catestrpohic as to be completely the same. I'll wait.
They'll both still be catastrophic. That's the point. Catastrophy is bad. I'd much more readily embrace a plan that actually had a chance of avoiding that catastrophy. This plan costs me (western guy) a lot, and benefits everyone just a little bit. I'm not willing to pay for that.
No, it doesn't. If we're fast approaching a global catastrophe based on current trends and we slow down a bit are you actually claiming that would have no effect? Really? Based on what?
I'm claiming the effect would not be to avert the catastrophy. And if we're still staring at the catastrophy, why should I be terribly keen to help out?
Nope. If you were accelerating in a car with cars on either side of you matching that acceleration and you notice a wall in front of you that you cannot stop before you hit, you have several options.

A. Just leave it floored.
B. Slow down your acceleration so giving you more time and chaning your position relative to the cars next to you in such a way that your options MAY increase during that time.
C. Stop as hard as you can and hope you stop in time, though a stopping that quickly would be so traumatic that it injures you equally badly.

Your claim is that A or C are the only options. B is obviously the best option as it increases the chances of survival, extends your time to address the problem, and may possible avail more solutions.[/quite]
The "future technology" argument. Nice.
[quote]Oh, that was unclear. However, you're wrong. If your goal is a good economy, which is what you're claiming some subsidies very well could increase economic production as well as potentially avoiding future problems, like dependency on oil.
Subisidies transfer wealth from one sector of the economy to another. No wealth gets created.

I see no problem with dependency on oil
How many papers have you written? Every scientist touted by those with their head in the sand has not one published paper that has survived peer review. But, hey, instead of telling us about what you don't understand or how Al Gore wasn't defended properly, why don't you present a scientist with a positive contribution to climatology who has published a paper denying global warming that survived peer review. I'll wait.
When did you last see a scientific paper that advocated the absence of a position?

Journals accept original research. They don't typically accept papers that do nothing other than attack the persuasiveness of earlier papers. Why is that? I suspect there's some sort of legal reason.

But regardless of why it is, the fact remains that these papers don't get published. I'm not arguing that there's no connection between humans and global warming. I'm arguing that the existing evidence is less than compelling, but that's not a positive position so it's never going to be the basis of a peer reviewed paper.
Some day you'll learn that in debate, just making claims doesn't make them true.
"Debate" is about being persuasive. I'd much rather be right than persuasive.

*snip*

If you're right, being persuasive is easy. The reason you're struggling is your claims are based on wild speculation and nothing more.

Two weeks. Not one iota of evidence and by your own claim your laughing in the face of mountains of evidence.

I made the silly assumption that you weren't laugiing in the face of overwhelming evidence of for global warming in general.

At least you see your own error.

Provide evidence for you claims. So far all I see is an admission that all the evidence is on our side.

You've admitted your not interested in debate, just blind faith you're right. I'm not interested in your blind faith. Take another two weeks and this time come back with evidence.

If you're right, being persuasive is easy.
If that were true politicians would never lie to you.
The reason you're struggling is your claims are based on wild speculation and nothing more.
My claims are based on the rejection of wild speculation. I'm holding a rational default position (uncertainty).
Two weeks.
I was ill.

Here's the thing. We regulate emissions and form action plans to contain its effects to be on the safe side, and if global warming we keeps happening then we're safe and ready to deal with it. If it doesn't, we can just rescind the caps and go from there since we'll know for sure that man-made CO2 has a minute effect on the climate..

Either way, we really don't lose. This way, we cover our bases and avoid the fearmongering extremists on all sides of the debate. It's a rational policy that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the risks and losses.

Pascal's Environmental Wager?

If that were true politicians would never lie to you.

Of course, they lie. You're drawing a false conclusion. That being right makes being persuasive easy, doesn't mean that all persuasive people are right.

If X then Y does not mean if Y then X. But, that being basic logic, you knew that right?

You're a perfect example. You are attempting to be persuasive but you're not providing evidence because you're not right. If you were right, providing evidence would be easy. Since you're not, you're just trying to frame your objections in a way that make you think you don't need evidence. An example is provided below.


My claims are based on the rejection of wild speculation. I'm holding a rational default position (uncertainty).

I was ill.

Um, you haven't debunked the evidence, shown the conclusion does not come from the evidence, and you've made claims without support. That's not rational or scientific. If it were, I could reject any and every position.

Rejection requires as much proof as the assertion. You must debunk their evidence, or provide counter-evidence in order to negate a conclusion. That's the basis of rational thought. You've not done any of it. None. You've provided not one iota of evidence.

I'll give you an example, you draw the absurd conclusion that a projection that says what will happen if things continue unchecked, didn't consider what would happen if things continue unchecked, but instead considered what would happen if outputs remain the same. You've not demonstrated that they actually based their projections on this and certainly they have demonstrated they haven't. As such the only rational conclusion is that your claims are faulty.

So if you'd like to be right AND persuasive, how about you evidence your claims and follow the evidence instead of what you'd LIKE to be true. Right now you sound like the evolution denier who claims that don't have to disprove evolution with evidence, but just being skeptical is enough. It's not and they're wrong, just like you are.

But regardless of why it is, the fact remains that these papers don't get published. I'm not arguing that there's no connection between humans and global warming. I'm arguing that the existing evidence is less than compelling, but that's not a positive position so it's never going to be the basis of a peer reviewed paper.

So where did you get your PhD in climate science?

Pascal's Environmental Wager?

Pascal's wager was flawed because it present options that aren't actually the only or even close to the only options. This "wager" actually is grounded.

So where did you get your PhD in climate science?

Honestly, who cares about degrees provided he actually supports his claims. He'd like to able to object to studies and science by making emotional pleas based on ignorance. I don't care if he's in grade school. If he produces a scientific paper that pokes a hole in GW theory then it should be published. If not, then not.

Of course, they lie. You're drawing a false conclusion. That being right makes being persuasive easy, doesn't mean that all persuasive people are right.
But the incentive to lie would be significantly reduced.

People are persuaded by the most attractive story told, regardless of its truth.
If X then Y does not mean if Y then X. But, that being basic logic, you knew that right?
Of course.
You're a perfect example. You are attempting to be persuasive but you're not providing evidence because you're not right. If you were right, providing evidence would be easy. Since you're not, you're just trying to frame your objections in a way that make you think you don't need evidence. An example is provided below.
I'm actually not trying to be persuasive because I'm well aware that I have no idea how other people think.
Um, you haven't debunked the evidence, shown the conclusion does not come from the evidence, and you've made claims without support.
The evidence isn't persuasive. There's nothing to debunk.

What the hell are we actually arguing about? Has this devolved into another generic global warming debate or are we still discussing whether positive action based on catastrophic climate models requires drastic action?
Rejection requires as much proof as the assertion.
That's where you're wrong. The rational default position of complete uncertainty persists against all but conclusive evidence. All it requires is the absence of conclusive evidence. I'm not holding up an opposing position and claiming it's right. I'm not presenting an alternative theory. All I'm doing is pointing to the reasoning and saying "non sequitur".
You must debunk their evidence, or provide counter-evidence in order to negate a conclusion.
This only holds if the reasoning is sound. It is not.
That's the basis of rational thought. You've not done any of it. None. You've provided not one iota of evidence.
Neither have they. That's my point.
I'll give you an example, you draw the absurd conclusion that a projection that says what will happen if things continue unchecked, didn't consider what would happen if things continue unchecked, but instead considered what would happen if outputs remain the same.
I did no such thing.
You've not demonstrated that they actually based their projections on this and certainly they have demonstrated they haven't. As such the only rational conclusion is that your claims are faulty.
Nice straw man. You're exactly right about how the models work. It's also completely irrelevent to the current discussion.

But the incentive to lie would be significantly reduced.

Telling the truth is easier than lying, generally. You don't have to make anything or remember what you made up. People don't lie because it's easy. Take for example lying about there being no evidence for their claims. You know this isn't true, but as you'd rather not evidence your own claims the only possible way for you continue to claim this is to lie.

Now, the reason this lie is more difficult than being right is because if you were right I would be able to point to the many links in this thread and say "um, you recognize this links amount to mountains of evidence, no?" or I wouldn't be able to point to your own claims that I made an error when I assumed you weren't laughing in the face of mountains of evidence (which of course says you ARE laughing in the face of mountians of evidence.

See, now if you were telling the truth I could so easily point out where you're being dishonest.


People are persuaded by the most attractive story told, regardless of its truth.

When you're talking about debate, the most attractive story told is one that has the most support. Yours has none and that's why I'm the only one bothering with you.


Of course.

And if you knew that you wouldn't have reached a conclusion that is not supported by the givens and act as if it is.


I'm actually not trying to be persuasive because I'm well aware that I have no idea how other people think.

You're also not trying to be right. Let me help you be persuasive. If you'd like to persuade me, show that your conclusions are logical by providing a modicum of evidence. So far, I'd say you can't. All evidence supports that you can't. Becuase knowing how people think or not, providing evidence could only help your case.


The evidence isn't persuasive. There's nothing to debunk.

That's false. In science and logic you can't just say I'm not convinced, your conclusion is debunked. You know this, right? You have to show why the evidence does not lead to the conclusion. You have to show what conclusion the evidence does lead to and why. Or you have to show that the evidence is flawed and why. You've done NO work and you want people to act as if your conclusions aren't silly.

I'm sorry, but your conclusions are not based on logic. Logic is work. You've done no work.


What the hell are we actually arguing about? Has this devolved into another generic global warming debate or are we still discussing whether positive action based on catastrophic climate models requires drastic action?

You made a claim that the catastrophic claims are based on current output remaining the same instead of the normal unmolested output we would expect to see over the next period. This is a positive claim that you've not evidenced. Their claim and mine is that the conclusion is based on what we would expect to see if no action is taken.

I'll use a simple example.

Scenario: I'm throwing apples into a barrell. I'm throwing them in one at time and steadily getting faster and faster (assume for practical purposes I can continue this accelleration for the next 2 days).

Conclusion: Scientists examine my practice of putting apples in the barrell and conclude that I will fill the barrell in a day if nothing is done about it.

My response: Well, have Llewdor step up and start taking out some apples, because I can't slow down my accelleration for the next two days and in one the barrell will be filled to a catestrophic level.

Your claim: Since you're accellerating and scientists didn't expect this completely obvious and observable artifact and I can't decrease what's in there and account for your accelleration, taking out apples will have no effect since even with my help you'll still be accellerating.

Response: Prove it.

Which you, of course, can't do because your claim relies on scientists ignoring the obvious, which if it happened, you could evidence.

See, your assertion is that what we would normally do in a projection, which is to look at what would be expected if no attempts to address the situation, is not what is happening here. And that's a positive assertion. Support it.



That's where you're wrong. The rational default position of complete uncertainty persists against all but conclusive evidence. All it requires is the absence of conclusive evidence. I'm not holding up an opposing position and claiming it's right. I'm not presenting an alternative theory. All I'm doing is pointing to the reasoning and saying "non sequitur".

It does not. Scientists gather evidence until their is only one hypothesis available and then test that hypothesis. Nothing is ever proven beyond doubt in science and that you would suggest this is a requirement is ludicrous.

And pointing at the reasoning and saying "non sequitur" is not scientific or logical. You are required to demonstrate how this is true, not just make unsupported assertions.

You're right it's all you're doing. And it's precisely why your assertions are irrational. A rational assertion would have support. Then all you'd be doing is saying "non sequitur" and then demonstrating exactly the flaw that makes that so.



By your claim, if I say that evidence leading to gravitational equations is bunk and I'd be done. Everyone should listen to me, because I'm right. Of course, scientists will laugh you out of the room because if I were ACTUALLY right, I could demonstrate their flaw.

So demonstrate their flaw, or admit you can't. So far, all evidence we have is for the latter, that you can't.


This only holds if the reasoning is sound. It is not.

Prove it. Or admit you cannot.


Neither have they. That's my point.

They have NO evidence? Now you're very simply lying. You've admitted they have evidence, several times. You claim their conclusion is flawed, which you could prove by examining the evidence if you were capable of doing so. All evidence suggests you are not.

I did no such thing.

Again, you're lying. You did exactly that. And I quote -

The plan still allows unfettered growth in developing countries, thus producing dramatically higher emissions than the entire world currently has. If the current emissions are catastrophic, are not even higher emissions still catastrophic?

Your claim is that their catastrophic claims are based on the current levels and not the current trends. If they'd already incorporated the unfettered growth into their projects, which they'd have to, then your statement is doesn't address the subject at all.

So which is it you didn't address the subject at all or you were saying that the catastrophic projections do not incorporate the current growth patterns?

Nice straw man. You're exactly right about how the models work. It's also completely irrelevent to the current discussion.

Irrelevant? It is the discussion. You're claiming that reducing emissions will have no effect, but refusing to demonstrate how or why or offer up any logic or evidence whatsoever. And as is your practice you think you can just throw a word at the problem "strawman" or "non sequitur" and expect that this amounts to a rational argument. If you'd like to make a rational argument, I'm interested. Show how your many, many claims are sound with evidence.

When did you last see a scientific paper that advocated the absence of a position?

You do have a position. That the conclusion of other research is flawed. Of course, as a result you must show exactly how it's flawed. Using available research to debunk a conclusion is a perfectly acceptable scientific pursuit.

Now, if all you want to do is make random claims, well they won't allow that.


Journals accept original research. They don't typically accept papers that do nothing other than attack the persuasiveness of earlier papers. Why is that? I suspect there's some sort of legal reason.

You're wrong. You may present a paper that uses only other research. Papers are published with regularity that simply incorporate what was previously disparate reseach. It's actually pretty common.

Science is about debunking hypotheses. However, in order to do so, you'd actually have to present evidence of why their conclusions don't follow from the research. You've not done so. Simply making an unsupport accusation is not logical or scientific.

You do have a position. That the conclusion of other research is flawed. Of course, as a result you must show exactly how it's flawed. Using available research to debunk a conclusion is a perfectly acceptable scientific pursuit.
I'm not saying they've reached the wrong conclusion. I'm saying they reached a conclusion in error. That's a different thing.

If I could point to a different conclusion and show that they should have reached that one, absolutely they would take my paper. But that's not what I'm doing.
Science is about debunking hypotheses. However, in order to do so, you'd actually have to present evidence of why their conclusions don't follow from the research. You've not done so. Simply making an unsupport accusation is not logical or scientific.
Debunking involves providing contrary evidence. I don't have any. I'm only claiming that their evidence is insufficient to reach their conclusion.

When you're talking about debate, the most attractive story told is one that has the most support. Yours has none and that's why I'm the only one bothering with you.
That it has support is no reason to believe it is right. Just popular, an entirely unrelated characteristic.
That's false. In science and logic you can't just say I'm not convinced, your conclusion is debunked. You know this, right? You have to show why the evidence does not lead to the conclusion. You have to show what conclusion the evidence does lead to and why.
If I made these claims:

If A then B.
B.
Therefore A.

That's lousy reasoning. Can you explain why? It just is. The topic we're discussing is more akin to:

If A then B.
C.
Therefore B.

The reasoning itself is its own disproof.
You made a claim that the catastrophic claims are based on current output remaining the same instead of the normal unmolested output we would expect to see over the next period.
I did no such thing. Where did I do that?

I said that since both current trends and the slightly modified trends involving reduced emissions only from wealthy western nations both produced catastrophic results, there was no reason to favour one over the other for those reasons. I never discussed freezing current emissions. Now you're just making stuff up.
Again, you're lying. You did exactly that. And I quote -
Okay, in hindsight that was poorly phrased, but that's never been my central point. I honestly can't tell you what I was trying to get across there.

If I made these claims:

If A then B.
B.
Therefore A.

That's lousy reasoning. Can you explain why? It just is. The topic we're discussing is more akin to:

If A then B.
C.
Therefore B.


Mathematical logic has no place in the real world.:p

That it has support is no reason to believe it is right. Just popular, an entirely unrelated characteristic.

I'm not talking about popular support, my confused friend. I'm talking about evidence. Your "theory" has NONE. The most attractive theory in a debate is the one with the most presented support, not popular support. If English is a problem, tell me what language you would prefer to debate in.



If I made these claims:

If A then B.
B.
Therefore A.

That's lousy reasoning. Can you explain why? It just is. The topic we're discussing is more akin to:

Again, "that's lousy reasoning" is an unsupported assertion. Do the work. Right now you just appear to be ranting, which holds no probative value. You're methodologies debunk you. If your claims were true the evidence would support them and you could present it. Your lack of evidence is clearly because the evidence doesn't exist. However, you're absolutely welcome to prove me wrong. I'll await the evidence that supports your claims.


If A then B.
C.
Therefore B.

The reasoning itself is its own disproof.

Again, do you really think I don't see through this? That's your argument? Really? This sad little non-argument. YOu can't just make claims. You have to demonstrate them. Trying to twist things in a way that makes it APPEAR that you don't need support isn't going to work with any educated person.

Let me know when you care to support your argument.

I did no such thing. Where did I do that?

I said that since both current trends and the slightly modified trends involving reduced emissions only from wealthy western nations both produced catastrophic results, there was no reason to favour one over the other for those reasons. I never discussed freezing current emissions. Now you're just making stuff up.

I quoted you and now you're lying about it. You state below that you said. I you said that the projections show catastrophy with current emissions and thus don't account for current trends. I just quoted it and you admit below that I did. And you were wrong. It's simply not true. Now you're lying because you are UNABLE to defend your position.


Okay, in hindsight that was poorly phrased, but that's never been my central point. I honestly can't tell you what I was trying to get across there.

I can. You were trying to claim that because this is unaccounted for, that a claim that lowering emissions in the US and thus bucking current trends would have any effect is not based on evidence. Of course, this relies on the current claims being faulty science, which you've not demonstrated and, by fact, NO ONE has demonstrated.

Now you're divorcing yourself from your claims, because *gasp* they are ludicrous. Not working. You're making a terrible argument and this is just evidence of it.

Mathematical logic has no place in the real world.:p

Sure it does. Unfortunately the "logic" he is pretending to cite is just stuff he's making up in order to give the appearance of an argument. He knows that some people won't recognize that his argument has no basis. Unfortunately for him, people like myself exist who know how logic actually works. Pretend arguments aren't going to work unless I suddenly can no longer post.

He's trying to lie to you. He thinks you're that ignorant.

That it has support is no reason to believe it is right. Just popular, an entirely unrelated characteristic.

If I made these claims:

If A then B.
B.
Therefore A.

That's lousy reasoning. Can you explain why? It just is.
That's stupid. If you can't explain it then you don't understand the argument at all an shouldn't be discussing it. The reason why B is not therefore A is that it isn't established that A has to be a part of B but rather that if condition A exists B does, B can exist without A in the proof, but A cannot exist without B. If you can't explain that then you really don't understand logic and shouldn't be bandying it about.

The topic we're discussing is more akin to:

If A then B.
C.
Therefore B.

The reasoning itself is its own disproof.

But to show the proof to be wrong you have to show where the gap is. Saying "Uh uh, not convinced" isn't enough, you have to show where in the proof, to continue this train, you have to show where the break is. The science is there, they argue that all the As and Bs and so on 'then' GW. That's their proof, if you feel it's faulty then it is to you to show the fault. Even if you don't have an opposing theory you need to establish what about this theory makes you reject it.

You brought up logic, presumably you understand this.

Mathematical logic has no place in the real world.:p
Agreed.

EDIT: Yay! 10 posts...again.

Mathematical logic has no place in the real world.:p
That people actually believe this is why I hate democracy.

That people actually believe this is why I hate democracy.

I didn't know that you don't know what a joke is. And besides, mathematical logic can only apply when there are absolute truths and in science this is never applicable.

Do the work. Right now you just appear to be ranting, which holds no probative value. You're methodologies debunk you. If your claims were true the evidence would support them and you could present it. Your lack of evidence is clearly because the evidence doesn't exist. However, you're absolutely welcome to prove me wrong. I'll await the evidence that supports your claims.
I'm not going to do the logic for you. If I put the evidecnce and the conclusions together and the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusions, that should be obvious to any rational observer.

For people who don't understand or accept logic, they can happily respond "Why not?" to any logical refutation, so there's no point talking to them.
I quoted you and now you're lying about it. You state below that you said. I you said that the projections show catastrophy with current emissions and thus don't account for current trends. I just quoted it and you admit below that I did. And you were wrong.
Yes I was. I mispoke. I made an honest mistake. It happens.

My central point here has always been that if plan A and plan B both lead to a catastrophic outcome, then my desire to avoid catasrophe does not cause me to prefer one over the other. I'd rather just choose the easier path and take the catastrophy when it comes.

The broader global warming debate isn't really something we're discussing, here (though if you know of a model that accounts for humidity-forced cloud albedo feedbacks, let me know).

I didn't know that you don't know what a joke is.
Regardless of whether you're joking, some people still think its true.

But to show the proof to be wrong you have to show where the gap is. Saying "Uh uh, not convinced" isn't enough, you have to show where in the proof, to continue this train, you have to show where the break is. The science is there, they argue that all the As and Bs and so on 'then' GW. That's their proof, if you feel it's faulty then it is to you to show the fault. Even if you don't have an opposing theory you need to establish what about this theory makes you reject it.

The gap that I see is the reliance on computer models. I don't think that it will ever be possible to include every variable into a model. I'm sure that the majority of the possible variables are included but we do not have an infinite understanding of our world and therefore we can't create a perfect recreation of it.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15721

Meanwhile, CFP staff is currently collalting the more than 2,000 emails sent to Dr. Ball and will publish the death threats with their email and IPO addresses.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm

I wonder when they are going to get around to publishing the actual e-mails. You know, to prove the death threats occurred. As time goes by and these are not published, i am beginning to wonder if these threats exist at all.

I'm not going to do the logic for you. If I put the evidecnce and the conclusions together and the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusions, that should be obvious to any rational observer.

So, you're not going to prove your claims. Hmmm... I wonder why. Just kidding. I know why.


For people who don't understand or accept logic, they can happily respond "Why not?" to any logical refutation, so there's no point talking to them.

You haven't made a logical refutation. In fact, you've just said that you refuse to. That you're pretending like that's my fault is more than amusing.



Yes I was. I mispoke. I made an honest mistake. It happens.

My central point here has always been that if plan A and plan B both lead to a catastrophic outcome, then my desire to avoid catasrophe does not cause me to prefer one over the other. I'd rather just choose the easier path and take the catastrophy when it comes.

You didn't misspeak. If you change that to accounting for current trends then the entire claim falls apart and you'd have no reason for the entire post. It was the core argument of your post that a slowdown in the west could not overwhelm current trends in other areas and that scientists did not account for this. Now you're just saying "oh, I didn't really mean to say that". If that were the case then the argument would look like "scientists already accounted for the increase in other areas so a slow down in the west will not change the outcome." It doesn't make any sense.

Again, does this EVER work?


The broader global warming debate isn't really something we're discussing, here (though if you know of a model that accounts for humidity-forced cloud albedo feedbacks, let me know).

Again, present your claim and evidence. If you've found a flaw demonstrate instead of making week allusions.

Try debating. It's fun. How it works is you make a claim and then support it with evidence and logic. What you're doing is making claims and REFUSING to present evidence or logic and then acting like you shouldn't have to. That's not debate. That's not being right. That's not being persuasive. It's nonsense and it coats the whole thread.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm

I wonder when they are going to get around to publishing the actual e-mails. You know, to prove the death threats occurred. As time goes by and these are not published, i am beginning to wonder if these threats exist at all.

He's on topic! Get him!

He's on topic! Get him!

That made me laugh. There was such a long break while Llewdor was ill that I forgot that was the original ludicrous point of this topic.

You haven't made a logical refutation. In fact, you've just said that you refuse to. That you're pretending like that's my fault is more than amusing.
Your failure to understand the reasoning you're defending is quite amusing, yes.
You didn't misspeak. If you change that to accounting for current trends then the entire claim falls apart and you'd have no reason for the entire post. It was the core argument of your post that a slowdown in the west could not overwhelm current trends in other areas and that scientists did not account for this. Now you're just saying "oh, I didn't really mean to say that". If that were the case then the argument would look like "scientists already accounted for the increase in other areas so a slow down in the west will not change the outcome." It doesn't make any sense.

Again, does this EVER work?
So now you know my thoughts?

I did misspeak. I was on my way to a much finer point. If there is a significant difference between the outcomes of plan A (western emission reductions while the developing world emits unfettered) and plan B (no action), then I would counter with a call for taking that marginal reduction and spreading it around more equitably.

Either it works or it doesn't. I'm trying to remove this element of wealth redistribution and progressive taxation from climate science.
Again, present your claim and evidence. If you've found a flaw demonstrate instead of making week allusions.
Clouds have a vastly higher albedo than ocean or land. Humidity induces cloud formation. Warming induces humidity. Therefore, warming should tend to increase the earth's average albedo through humidty-forced cloud albedo feedbacks. Current climate models do not account for this. I've searched extensively. I even had PsychoticDan search extensively. No such model exists.

How's that?

I can't actually demonstrate that no such model exists (there is no rhinocerous in the room), but finding such a model is an easy way to refute me.
Try debating. It's fun. How it works is you make a claim and then support it with evidence and logic.
No. I'm always the guy who attacks the evidence and logic of others. I rarely take a positive position.

I do sometimes, but then I'm the guy who started the thread. I've argued extensively in favour of sweatshops. I've denied the existence of implication. I've argued that Christian theology doesn't deny the existence of multiple gods. But I'm not staking out a position here - I'm trying to refine the position of other people so I can better attack it.

Your failure to understand the reasoning you're defending is quite amusing, yes.

Uh-huh. Show my failure. Back up your claims. Stop squirming and start offering some evidence.


So now you know my thoughts?

I did misspeak. I was on my way to a much finer point. If there is a significant difference between the outcomes of plan A (western emission reductions while the developing world emits unfettered) and plan B (no action), then I would counter with a call for taking that marginal reduction and spreading it around more equitably.

Uh-huh. Except nothing you were saying was at all related to this. To try and take your statements and pretend like you said something entirely different or even intended to is just ludicrous.

"Oh, wait, you proved that my argument is idiotic. Um... well then I mispoke. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. I misspoke. What I really meant was something ELSE I can't prove and won't."


Either it works or it doesn't. I'm trying to remove this element of wealth redistribution and progressive taxation from climate science.

Well, at least you admit your motivation has NOTHING to do with being right. It's about money and that you don't think it's fair. So you were lying when you said it wouldn't work. You just don't LIKE the solution. Accepted.


Clouds have a vastly higher albedo than ocean or land. Humidity induces cloud formation. Warming induces humidity. Therefore, warming should tend to increase the earth's average albedo through humidty-forced cloud albedo feedbacks. Current climate models do not account for this. I've searched extensively. I even had PsychoticDan search extensively. No such model exists.

Ha. Amusing. Your claim is that a lack of evidence proves that the models are false. Link to the current models and show precisely where their logic goes awry. You're aware this is how an argument works. You've not made one. You've not specifically stated how your claims fit into the available model nor demonstrated any scientific support for your claims.


How's that?

A pretty good job at sounding like you made an argument without making one. You and PD have been embarrassed on this one before. And every call for actually fitting it into the model and pointing to where the logic goes awry is denied.

If you claims could be substantiated with science then you could publish and you'd make a FORTUNE. Oil companies and energy companies would ecstatic to have you speak and to join their lobbies.

And if they can't be substantiated, then, of course, they are just random and wild claims with no basis.

You're presenting an alternate theory. Let's see you support it. Oh, wait... right... posting evidence is something YOU CANNOT do.


I can't actually demonstrate that no such model exists (there is no rhinocerous in the room), but finding such a model is an easy way to refute me.

Um, the lack of a model wouldn't be the evidence. You'd have to prove it's required and why. You've not done the work. If you had any support for your claim then you could publish. You don't. You can't. It's like the people who claim there are holes in evolutionary theory. They don't publish because they have no scientific basis.



No. I'm always the guy who attacks the evidence and logic of others. I rarely take a positive position.

You are taking a positive position. You're trying to make it sound negative and you've failed.


I do sometimes, but then I'm the guy who started the thread. I've argued extensively in favour of sweatshops. I've denied the existence of implication. I've argued that Christian theology doesn't deny the existence of multiple gods. But I'm not staking out a position here - I'm trying to refine the position of other people so I can better attack it.
You're failing. That's what you're doing. You've made a positive assertion against a mountain of evidence.

Claims:
One: warming should tend to increase the earth's average albedo through humidty-forced cloud albedo feedbacks.
Two: A model that does not handle humidity-forced cloud albedo feedbacks is flawed.
Three: Current climate models handle humidity-forced cloud albedo improperly.

Three positive assertion. Go to town. I'll wait.

And since you don't understand how to make this argument I'll help.

Let's use a mathematical solution as an example

Triangle A has sides a, b and c.
a = 3
b = 4
c = ?

Triangle A has one right angle ab.

Solve for c.

You solve like this:
a2 + b2 = c2
(3)2 + (4)2 = c2
c = 25

I say you didn't account for the hypotenuse being squared. I could prove it to you, but I can't evidence a negative assertion.

Now, the problem is I can in any model. I show that it should look like this
a2 + b2 = c2
(3)2 + (4)2 = c2
c2 = 25
c = sqrt(25)
c = 5

I would insert my claim where it goes and show that the conclusion would be different.

However, you haven't done that. Instead you claim the hole is there and that it would change the conclusion, but you've not actually demonstrated this or supported it in any way. It's not just weak argumentation, but it's faulty logic.

Uh-huh. Show my failure.
I can't. I don't know why you you don't understand it. But you're reaching conclusions for which you have no conclusive evidence.
Uh-huh. Except nothing you were saying was at all related to this. To try and take your statements and pretend like you said something entirely different or even intended to is just ludicrous.
Even ignoring my mistake, your choosing a single exerpt from a complicated line of argument and asserting it doesn't look anything like the entire argument. Why would that even surprise you?
Well, at least you admit your motivation has NOTHING to do with being right. It's about money and that you don't think it's fair. So you were lying when you said it wouldn't work. You just don't LIKE the solution.
The solution is constrained by irrelevant criteria. By claiming that both plans lead to catastrophy (and doing so my highlighting what a minimal emissions reduction was being proposed), either my opponent backs down and concedes the plan does nothing, or insists that the marginal reductions actually amount to some material difference.

Here's why that matters. If we can make a meterial difference with only very marginal emissions reductions, I'm going to keep coming back to that and arguing for marginal emissions reductions. If someone wants more severe reductions by any one party, they'll need to justify that on grounds that aren't related to the need to make a material difference, because we'll have already satisfied that one.

That I didn't lay out my argument in advance is not evidence that it was somehow incomplete. It wasn't going to work if people saw the trap coming.
Ha. Amusing. Your claim is that a lack of evidence proves that the models are false.
Where did I claim the models were false? I'm claiming they're not persuasive. They're possibly false, and that should be all I need to stop the panic.
You and PD have been embarrassed on this one before.
PD wasn't actually on my side. He kept trying to refute me. He failed.
You are taking a positive position. You're trying to make it sound negative and you've failed.
What positive position do you think I'm taking? Oh, I see you identify it (incorrectly) below.
Claims:
One: warming should tend to increase the earth's average albedo through humidty-forced cloud albedo feedbacks.
I'm not claiming that. I'm raising the possibility that its true. The evidence suggests its a strong possibility, but I'd need a study to show me that one way or the other.
Two: A model that does not handle humidity-forced cloud albedo feedbacks is flawed.
Again, I'm not claiming that. The model would be flawed if assertion One were true, but we don't know if it is.
Three: Current climate models handle humidity-forced cloud albedo improperly.
They might. I don't know.
Three positive assertion. Go to town. I'll wait.
I want a study that tells me assertion One is false. That would be fine. Whoever built the models had to have a reason to exclude humidity-forced cloud albedo feedbacks. They included both radiation-forced cloud albedo feedbacks and temperature-forced cloud albedo feedbacks. But not humidity. Either there's a study that says they shouldn't bother (which no one seems to be able to find), or there's a study that says they should and they're just not (this is what you think I'm claiming), or there is no study on this subject at all and someone should do one before we'll have any confidence in the models' outputs.

I'm not saying anyone's wrong. I'm saying they're not convincingly right.

You've been incorrectly assuming an excluded middle throughout this debate.

I can't. I don't know why you you don't understand it. But you're reaching conclusions for which you have no conclusive evidence.

No. I'm not. The evidence is available to you. If the conclusion is flawed, show the flaw.

Even ignoring my mistake, your choosing a single exerpt from a complicated line of argument and asserting it doesn't look anything like the entire argument. Why would that even surprise you?

No, I'm pointing out that you have no basis for your argument. You claimed that the solution would have no effect. Now, you're claiming it's not fair. It's not a little change. Without that single exerpt your argument is shown to be invalid and a reduction in our footprint would certainly make a difference if the catastrophe is coming. You claimed the opposite. Notice that feeling in your chest? That's what being wrong feels like.


The solution is constrained by irrelevant criteria. By claiming that both plans lead to catastrophy (and doing so my highlighting what a minimal emissions reduction was being proposed), either my opponent backs down and concedes the plan does nothing, or insists that the marginal reductions actually amount to some material difference.

Ha. I love watching you squirm. You still haven't demonstrated any of your claims. Let's keep looking and see if evidence or support is forthcoming.


Here's why that matters. If we can make a meterial difference with only very marginal emissions reductions, I'm going to keep coming back to that and arguing for marginal emissions reductions. If someone wants more severe reductions by any one party, they'll need to justify that on grounds that aren't related to the need to make a material difference, because we'll have already satisfied that one.

PROVE IT.


That I didn't lay out my argument in advance is not evidence that it was somehow incomplete. It wasn't going to work if people saw the trap coming.

It wasn't a trap. It was flawed. Your original claim changed. Your support for your original claim failed. The only trap here was set by me and you're floundering in it.



Where did I claim the models were false? I'm claiming they're not persuasive. They're possibly false, and that should be all I need to stop the panic.

Except you've not shown this. Again, keep squirming.
PD wasn't actually on my side. He kept trying to refute me. He failed.

PD was bad at debate. You've got nothing to refute. Your claims are based on ignorance.


What positive position do you think I'm taking? Oh, I see you identify it (incorrectly) below.

I'm not claiming that. I'm raising the possibility that its true. The evidence suggests its a strong possibility, but I'd need a study to show me that one way or the other.

Oh, riiiight. Just like the creation scientists. They can't prove it because they are just raising the possibility. If it's a possible conclusion, particularly if it's an at all likely conclusion, you must demonstrate using the available evidence that it's possible and at all likely. You've not done so. You've refused. What you're claiming is just so much Creation science, and by that I mean it doesn't resemble science in any way.


Again, I'm not claiming that. The model would be flawed if assertion One were true, but we don't know if it is.

And haven't offered any support that it even could be or might or is likely. You've not show how it demonstrates a flaw in the model or why it matters or done any work at all. It's exactly equal to "it's complicated so I think it's designed. What? What do you mean I have to prove it. I'm just saying it's possible that it's designed and, thus, evolution has not been persuasively supported."


They might. I don't know.

So you admit your claims are based on ignorance. Good to know.


I want a study that tells me assertion One is false.

The burden of proof is on you. You have to support it. That's how science works.

That would be fine. Whoever built the models had to have a reason to exclude humidity-forced cloud albedo feedbacks.

Um? Wow. Your entire claim is that you don't know why they built the model the way they did, so it's not conclusive. And worse, you've not offered an alternate model that would be equally likely.

This is isn't a debate. It's a massacre. You're not even trying.


They included both radiation-forced cloud albedo feedbacks and temperature-forced cloud albedo feedbacks. But not humidity. Either there's a study that says they shouldn't bother (which no one seems to be able to find), or there's a study that says they should and they're just not (this is what you think I'm claiming), or there is no study on this subject at all and someone should do one before we'll have any confidence in the models' outputs.

Again. Wow. Phew. This is some trap you've set for me. Let's see "I don't know.... I don't know... I don't know..." That seems to be your entire argument. If I don't know then it must be false. Make an argument or admit you can't.


I'm not saying anyone's wrong. I'm saying they're not convincingly right.

You're not showing what they are missing. You're suggesting there might be a hole, but you can't actually point to the hole or show that it's hole, or define the hole, or examine the hole. You've tried to claim that because you don't understant the hole that the burden is on them to satisfy your ignorance.

Hold on. I have to cover my mouth so I don't spit on my computer from laughing.


You've been incorrectly assuming an excluded middle throughout this debate.

No, I haven't. I'm pointing out that the way that this works is that you have to make claims and support them. They did. Now you're claiming they haven't met the burden but you're not actually pinpointing how. As such you are making claims and refusing to support them. At all. If you claim that evidence doesn't reach a conclusion, you must show how.

What you're doing isn't debate. It's shell of an argument without all of the core sucked out. Bring some meat. A little bit of evidence. Not "well, they may have proven this and I'm not even certain they need to but since I haven't seen it, then I think they haven't, even though I haven't actually showed where in their model it should be and that it's not there or any positive flaw in their model at all." I know this works sitting at a table with your friends because it sounds like an argument, but here, that's gonna get stuffed.

PROVE IT.
Now you're not even listening. I wouldn't have to prove it because my opponent would have conceded it.

Is this too complicated for you?
It wasn't a trap. It was flawed. Your original claim changed. Your support for your original claim failed. The only trap here was set by me and you're floundering in it.
I hadn't even made a claim, yet (except for that one by accident I've already abandoned). You're still assuming an excluded middle.

We're actually having two arguments, here. The one above deals with a subtle point I was trying to make that you've missed completely. The one below is a broader debate about the veracity of global warming theory.
You've not done so. You've refused.
I've already sketched out the plausibility of humidity-forced cloud albedo feedbacks. I can track down those studies if you'd like.
The burden of proof is on you. You have to support it. That's how science works.
If there exists no study, I win. But I can't prove there is no study.
Again. Wow. Phew. This is some trap you've set for me. Let's see "I don't know.... I don't know... I don't know..." That seems to be your entire argument.
Not just "I don't know", but also "No one has any reason to believe".
If I don't know then it must be false.
See? There. You just assumed an excluded middle. Do you not see that?
You're not showing what they are missing. You're suggesting there might be a hole, but you can't actually point to the hole or show that it's hole, or define the hole, or examine the hole.
Okay, I'm going to find those cloud studies again. I've already done this once.
You've tried to claim that because you don't understant the hole that the burden is on them to satisfy your ignorance.
No, but it would be an easy way to shut me up. If someone (and I've asked several climate scientists to help me with this) would explain to me why the models ignore humidity-forced cloud albedo feedbacks (and they do - they often admit it), then I'd be fine (unless they said they didn't do it because they lacked the technical ability).

*snip*

Okay, here's where we'll leave it. PROVE IT. I'm tired of the squirming and all the explanations how you can debunk an evidenced conclusion without doing ANY work. However, that's simply not how science works. If you can prove this, I'd be ecstatic. For 10%, I'll get you a nice cushy gig with an oil company within a week.

Okay, here's where we'll leave it. PROVE IT. I'm tired of the squirming and all the explanations how you can debunk an evidenced conclusion without doing ANY work. However, that's simply not how science works. If you can prove this, I'd be ecstatic.
You did ask.

"There is practically no theory for explaining how the cloudy sky albedos are regulated."

From: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/09/20/354/

And then, note the tremendous uncertainty surrounding the Indirect Aerosol Effect - page 9 of:

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/aerosols/annex7/Geneva_200505_Annex7-2.pdf

Here's a newer version of that same chart - still using IPCC data here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg

But, if you'll note here (page 376):

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/syrgloss.pdf

The IPCC's calculations for radiative forcing of the indirect aerosol effect all assume a fixed water content, and that's simply untrue. Even with this gross oversimplification, the uncertainty of the prediction is enormous.

There is tremendous uncertainty built into these admittedly oversimplified figures, and yet people are willing to drastically overhaul society in order to accommodate them. I don't get it.
For 10%, I'll get you a nice cushy gig with an oil company within a week
American oil companies don't care. The US government will allot them carbon credits which they will then sell to energy producers in other countries to allow those other countries to export energy (oil) to the US. As a result, those oil exporting nations will end up paying the US to overhaul its energy industry.

This is exactly the same tactic the US used when it phased out unleaded gas (100% of the retooling costs were funded by foreign refiners) and when eliminating CFCs. It is presently doing exactly the same thing the the short-term CFC replacement. Every time they have managed to absorb huge market share by creating these indirect trade barriers, and they'll do it again with carbon. US refiners and oil producers are on-side with climate change for a reason - because it benefits them to be so.

I could personally care less about this topic, however, as I am one who loves to practice his own arguement, and thus argues for the sake of fun, I shall get in this :)

It is a fact that the Earth is rising in tempetures around the world (around 1 degree a century). It is also a fact that the polar ice caps are melting. There is one thing I think though. Man can not be responsible completely for this, and even if we are, we are doomed.

Did you know that you yourself produce the green house gases just by exhaling? You better stip breathing or we will ruin nature.

I have to find out where I got this from, but I know it is from some science website. I am pretty sure that at night trees produce a hell of a lot more green house-type gases than we could.

Man ourselves produces about 3% of the gases needed for global warming... 3% is not all that much to me... I think.

I am, like I said, not so savvy when it comes to this tpic, so please do not go so harsh on me.

That made me laugh. There was such a long break while Llewdor was ill that I forgot that was the original ludicrous point of this topic.

Yes, receiving death threats is funny. Well, only when it happens to someone else I suppose.

I do agree with the actual topic on this thread, though. Even as a christian I do not force my beliefs.

Uh-huh. Show my failure. Back up your claims. Stop squirming and start offering some evidence.




Uh-huh. Except nothing you were saying was at all related to this. To try and take your statements and pretend like you said something entirely different or even intended to is just ludicrous.

"Oh, wait, you proved that my argument is idiotic. Um... well then I mispoke. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. I misspoke. What I really meant was something ELSE I can't prove and won't."




Well, at least you admit your motivation has NOTHING to do with being right. It's about money and that you don't think it's fair. So you were lying when you said it wouldn't work. You just don't LIKE the solution. Accepted.




Ha. Amusing. Your claim is that a lack of evidence proves that the models are false. Link to the current models and show precisely where their logic goes awry. You're aware this is how an argument works. You've not made one. You've not specifically stated how your claims fit into the available model nor demonstrated any scientific support for your claims.




A pretty good job at sounding like you made an argument without making one. You and PD have been embarrassed on this one before. And every call for actually fitting it into the model and pointing to where the logic goes awry is denied.

If you claims could be substantiated with science then you could publish and you'd make a FORTUNE. Oil companies and energy companies would ecstatic to have you speak and to join their lobbies.

And if they can't be substantiated, then, of course, they are just random and wild claims with no basis.

You're presenting an alternate theory. Let's see you support it. Oh, wait... right... posting evidence is something YOU CANNOT do.




Um, the lack of a model wouldn't be the evidence. You'd have to prove it's required and why. You've not done the work. If you had any support for your claim then you could publish. You don't. You can't. It's like the people who claim there are holes in evolutionary theory. They don't publish because they have no scientific basis.





You are taking a positive position. You're trying to make it sound negative and you've failed.



You're failing. That's what you're doing. You've made a positive assertion against a mountain of evidence.

Claims:
One: warming should tend to increase the earth's average albedo through humidty-forced cloud albedo feedbacks.
Two: A model that does not handle humidity-forced cloud albedo feedbacks is flawed.
Three: Current climate models handle humidity-forced cloud albedo improperly.

Three positive assertion. Go to town. I'll wait.

And since you don't understand how to make this argument I'll help.

Let's use a mathematical solution as an example

Triangle A has sides a, b and c.
a = 3
b = 4
c = ?

Triangle A has one right angle ab.

Solve for c.

You solve like this:
a2 + b2 = c2
(3)2 + (4)2 = c2
c = 25

I say you didn't account for the hypotenuse being squared. I could prove it to you, but I can't evidence a negative assertion.

Now, the problem is I can in any model. I show that it should look like this
a2 + b2 = c2
(3)2 + (4)2 = c2
c2 = 25
c = sqrt(25)
c = 5

I would insert my claim where it goes and show that the conclusion would be different.

However, you haven't done that. Instead you claim the hole is there and that it would change the conclusion, but you've not actually demonstrated this or supported it in any way. It's not just weak argumentation, but it's faulty logic.

Where does the pethagorean therum come in? Lol, i think I might have missed something.

Yes, receiving death threats is funny. Well, only when it happens to someone else I suppose.

Amusing. If only I said that. What made me laugh is that first they made a claim with no proof. Then you used a completely unsubstatiated claim to suggest something that doesn't follow from that claim. Yes, that's what's funny. But, hey, rather than addressing the point let's pretend like everyone who disagrees with the you supports death threats. Yeah, that's much easier than actually making an argument.

Where does the pethagorean therum come in? Lol, i think I might have missed something.

Was the example that showed the flaw in the lack of evidence for your side of the argument too complicated for you? Or perhaps you've not got a good argument so instead you make a joke and avoid the whole thing? I'll accept your white flag.

I could personally care less about this topic, however, as I am one who loves to practice his own arguement, and thus argues for the sake of fun, I shall get in this :)

It is a fact that the Earth is rising in tempetures around the world (around 1 degree a century). It is also a fact that the polar ice caps are melting. There is one thing I think though. Man can not be responsible completely for this, and even if we are, we are doomed.

Did you know that you yourself produce the green house gases just by exhaling? You better stip breathing or we will ruin nature.

I have to find out where I got this from, but I know it is from some science website. I am pretty sure that at night trees produce a hell of a lot more green house-type gases than we could.

Man ourselves produces about 3% of the gases needed for global warming... 3% is not all that much to me... I think.

I am, like I said, not so savvy when it comes to this tpic, so please do not go so harsh on me.

Well, if you'd like to improve your skills, then becoming savvy to a topic BEFORE you make an argument would be the first step.

Plants produce do respire but they overall effect is that they make oxygen out of carbon dioxide.

So basically man has greatly reduced the sources that process carbon dioxide while steadily increasing their carbon dioxide contribution. The math on that is fairly basic.

Okay, the second thing you'd probably want to improve on is "I don't know where I heard this but I hope you accept this as evidence anyway." Think of debate like a courtroom. Do you think that would hold up in court?

Honestly: sending death threats to someone because they disagree.

Well done zealots. You are now officially no better than the people you despise.

There's nothing to believe or not believe in. If someone just care to look at the facts he will "believe" in it. The only reason why so many people are yet doubting the fact that humans cause global warming is because really powerful economic forces have had the mission to make us not believe in it and they have succeeded fairly well but now people are starting to get it. Anyway, the ones who don't "agree" will agree in 50 years if we don't do something.

There's nothing to believe or not believe in. If someone just care to look at the facts he will "believe" in it. The only reason why so many people are yet doubting the fact that humans cause global warming is because really powerful economic forces have had the mission to make us not believe in it and they have succeeded fairly well but now people are starting to get it. Anyway, the ones who don't "agree" will agree in 50 years if we don't do something.

Unsurpisingly, not too long ago the same types of forces were trying to convince us that there was no evidence for a link between smoking and a plethora of diseases and problems. They're counting on people being too ignorant to recognize that the only ones claiming the jury is still out aren't actually presenting evidence or attempting to present papers to peer-reviewed journals. They've taken their fight to the media because they can't win this argument with anyone who actually educates themselves on the issue.

They've taken their fight to the media because they can't win this argument with anyone who actually educates themselves on the issue.
No, we've taken the fight to the media because the other side did first (Margaret Thatcher, actually). When it was just a scientific debate, scientists understood the level of uncertainty in the data. The problems caused by contrary evidence. But the public doesn't get that, so the public just jumps to conclusions without having examined the evidence. I'm trying to tell them that they haven't examined the evidence.

No, we've taken the fight to the media because the other side did first (Margaret Thatcher, actually). When it was just a scientific debate, scientists understood the level of uncertainty in the data. The problems caused by contrary evidence. But the public doesn't get that, so the public just jumps to conclusions without having examined the evidence. I'm trying to tell them that they haven't examined the evidence.

Amusing. Again, prove it. I'll wait. You keep making assertions but you cannot produce ONE peer-reviewed source that shows this to be true. Not one. Show the gap in their evidence or their calculations that makes them incorrect. Don't just suggest one exists. Prove it. I promise if you can scientifically and logically support your skepticism, I can find you grants that will let you live a very comfortable life. See, your fight is ONLY in the media. Global warming scientists are producing papers every day, putting them in peer-reviewed journals and scientifically supporting their assertions. Your side refuses to do so. There is really only a substantial debate in the media. In science, your side has not one lick of evidence.

Or keep sounding like the tobacco lobby did when they used to try and convince everyone the jury was still out on the links between cigarettes and various diseases and health problesm. Your choice, but you're not going to convince anyone in debate with "but I really, really want to say it's not true without evidence. Please, believe. Oh, won't you please believe me."

It doesn't work for Creation anymore. It doesn't work for Big Tobacco anymore. And it won't work for head-in-the-sanders anymore.

From a Creation debate, but unsuprisingly it applies just as well here.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12609143&postcount=706

I would also provide a different example for their Generalizing from Self item.
My Example: I don't understand X. Therefore, nobody understands X.

I can't count the number of times that some ignorant twit has informed me that "science can't explain" something, when in fact science can and does explain that something, it's just that the twit doesn't understand the science.

Your primary argument is "I think X is required to substantiate GW. I won't tell you where it belongs in the model or why or what the model would look like X was included in GW. I'm not even sure if it is already accounted for and admit as much, but unless you can supply me with my ever-changing requirements for substantiating GW then I say it's a flawed conclusion. Granted all the proof is on your side, but I'm going to claim something is missing even if I"m not sure it is. Prove me wrong."

The problem is that it sends us on a wild goose chase for something you've not shown to be necessary and haven't shown is missing. And then we finally present enough information to show it's not necessary, you know, that no one is listening anymore becuase it's way over their head. Rinse. Repeat. We do all the work. You cast doubt without any evidence, showing any flaw or doing any work. Not at all unlike Creation "science". You guys should start a club for people who think science should be completely opinion.

Amusing. Again, prove it. I'll wait. You keep making assertions but you cannot produce ONE peer-reviewed source that shows this to be true. Not one. Show the gap in their evidence or their calculations that makes them incorrect. Don't just suggest one exists. Prove it. I promise if you can scientifically and logically support your skepticism, I can find you grants that will let you live a very comfortable life.
Didn't I already respond to this? Yes I did. Yesterday. You seem to have missed it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12607266&postcount=194

Or was that intentional? As soon as I actually do point to evidence, you ignore me.

Since you do still insist I need to cite something...

Here's the need to deal with the relationship between cloud cover and water content:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1396651

Here's another one:

http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf03/extended_abs/walcek_cj.pdf

Since you do still insist I need to cite something...

Here's the need to deal with the relationship between cloud cover and water content:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1396651

Here's another one:

http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf03/extended_abs/walcek_cj.pdf

Yes, that would be quite useful if the models being used were twenty years old. Are you really suggesting that two papers claiming an insufficiency in the models of 20 years ago would still be applicable in more than a passing way? Both authors are still active in their fields today. Why aren't they still demonstrating this insufficiency?

Oh, wait, that's because they don't agree with you. Here is Raymond Bradley - “It is only imprecise if you choose to consider what I would describe as fringe science,” Bradley told AP. “Politicians are always faced with making decisions in the face of uncertainty, but I think the uncertainty over this issue is relatively low.” http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0726-03.htm

Hmmm... you're own cited expert says that the uncertainty in this area is relatively low and suggests pretending the jury is still out is ludicrous. In fact, he says that only way one could doubt current models is if you believe Llewdor, oh, I mean fringe science, meaning science like tobacco companies used to claim that the jury was out on that issue.

So even your sources don't agree with you and you are citing references from 20 years ago. A quick search on the authors has every one of them publishing papers on the threat of climate change and on our impact. Every one of them. Next.

Amusing. If only I said that. What made me laugh is that first they made a claim with no proof. Then you used a completely unsubstatiated claim to suggest something that doesn't follow from that claim. Yes, that's what's funny. But, hey, rather than addressing the point let's pretend like everyone who disagrees with the you supports death threats. Yeah, that's much easier than actually making an argument.

That's not at all what this was about. But thank you for playing.

Didn't I already respond to this? Yes I did. Yesterday. You seem to have missed it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12607266&postcount=194

Or was that intentional? As soon as I actually do point to evidence, you ignore me.

I didn't ignore you. I genuinely missed it. You're correct. It was a good response too, in all fairness. I'll address it now.

That's not at all what this was about. But thank you for playing.

Uh-huh. I know your addled way of arguing is to pretend like we can't disagree with you without supporting death threats but I'm going to laugh at your argument anyway. I'm sorry if your only reply is to accuse me of laughing at death threats instead of your argument. How's that? Did I capture that one correctly? Considering you actually blatantly made that claim?

You did ask.

"There is practically no theory for explaining how the cloudy sky albedos are regulated."

From: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/09/20/354/

And then, note the tremendous uncertainty surrounding the Indirect Aerosol Effect - page 9 of:

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/aerosols/annex7/Geneva_200505_Annex7-2.pdf

Here's a newer version of that same chart - still using IPCC data here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg

But, if you'll note here (page 376):

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/syrgloss.pdf

The IPCC's calculations for radiative forcing of the indirect aerosol effect all assume a fixed water content, and that's simply untrue. Even with this gross oversimplification, the uncertainty of the prediction is enormous.

There is tremendous uncertainty built into these admittedly oversimplified figures, and yet people are willing to drastically overhaul society in order to accommodate them. I don't get it.

Tremendous? Again, you've not demonstrated that your conclusion follows the evidence. You've shown A) that they are modeling in exactly what you claimed they weren't addressing. Odd style of argumentation there. And B) you've shown that there is some uncertainty. So? Again, this is science. There is always uncertainty. New earthers claim that there is "tremendous uncertainty" in our dating methods and that as such we should just throw the conclusions out. In fact, it's simply not true. There is uncertainty in science. Breaking news, that is. However, there is not so much uncertainty that we should keep our hands in our pockets. Even your own source says so plainly.


American oil companies don't care. The US government will allot them carbon credits which they will then sell to energy producers in other countries to allow those other countries to export energy (oil) to the US. As a result, those oil exporting nations will end up paying the US to overhaul its energy industry.

This is exactly the same tactic the US used when it phased out unleaded gas (100% of the retooling costs were funded by foreign refiners) and when eliminating CFCs. It is presently doing exactly the same thing the the short-term CFC replacement. Every time they have managed to absorb huge market share by creating these indirect trade barriers, and they'll do it again with carbon. US refiners and oil producers are on-side with climate change for a reason - because it benefits them to be so.

They don't care? Do you realize that energy companies have famously funding the anti-Global warming fringe scientists? They funded keeping us away from the Kyoto Protocol. Exxon Mobile put out $8 Million from 2000 to 2003 in support of challenging the evidence and research. The money is out there and they'll give it to you if you can show something legitimate instead of a bunch of data that doesn't demonstrate your conclusion.

The recent change in energy company's funding actually shows you to be wrong. If they had no issue with Global Warming, why not jump on the band wagon up front? Why waste money fighting for something you claim don't care about? Their change was in the face of overwhelming evidence. It pretty says the exact opposite of what you claim. But, hey, keep beating that drum. Your credibility soars when you claim that energy companies won't fund demonstrable research showing the flaws in Global Warming. Especially since they've already tried.

Tremendous? Again, you've not demonstrated that your conclusion follows the evidence. You've shown A) that they are modeling in exactly what you claimed they weren't addressing. Odd style of argumentation there. And B) you've shown that there is some uncertainty. So? Again, this is science. There is always uncertainty. New earthers claim that there is "tremendous uncertainty" in our dating methods and that as such we should just throw the conclusions out. In fact, it's simply not true. There is uncertainty in science. Breaking news, that is. However, there is not so much uncertainty that we should keep our hands in our pockets. Even your own source says so plainly.
DId you miss the bit where the models assume a fixed water content? And yet the rest of the model creates humidity from warming as a warming feedback? It's self-contradictory.

The error bars on the IPCCs opwn charts show that the cooling from clouds could be sufficient to off-set almost all the warming, and that's assuming fixed water content (which even they deny elsewhere in their other models).
They don't care? Do you realize that energy companies have famously funding the anti-Global warming fringe scientists? They funded keeping us away from the Kyoto Protocol. Exxon Mobile put out $8 Million from 2000 to 2003 in support of challenging the evidence and research. The money is out there and they'll give it to you if you can show something legitimate instead of a bunch of data that doesn't demonstrate your conclusion.

The recent change in energy company's funding actually shows you to be wrong. If they had no issue with Global Warming, why not jump on the band wagon up front? Why waste money fighting for something you claim don't care about? Their change was in the face of overwhelming evidence. It pretty says the exact opposite of what you claim. But, hey, keep beating that drum. Your credibility soars when you claim that energy companies won't fund demonstrable research showing the flaws in Global Warming. Especially since they've already tried.
Your reasoning makes perfect sense if you assume US government policy is a steady state that never changes. Guess what?

DId you miss the bit where the models assume a fixed water content? And yet the rest of the model creates humidity from warming as a warming feedback? It's self-contradictory.

*Gasp* you mean science doesn't one hundred percent agree all the time? Shut up. How dare you?

And? You've not shown this makes the conclusion different.


The error bars on the IPCCs opwn charts show that the cooling from clouds could be sufficient to off-set almost all the warming, and that's assuming fixed water content (which even they deny elsewhere in their other models).

Again, you keep claiming this, but you've not actually demonstrated it. Every scientist you've given as a source interprets the evidence you present differently. You're own sources said that people making your claims aren't performing science and demonstrated exactly why.

See, this argumentation works sometimes with people who don't know better, but it's really no different than people claiming that radioactive dating methods have enough error that we should throw out conclusions.

As your own source said, there is always error. The question is whether or not it's enough to alter the conclusion. According to YOUR source, it's not. But, hey, go ahead and prove your own sources wrong. That should likely help your argument. ;-)

Your reasoning makes perfect sense if you assume US government policy is a steady state that never changes. Guess what?

It's not my reasoning. It's theirs. Meanwhile, you again fail to support your assertions that there is no money available for such research. All evidence suggests the opposite and thus the burden falls, yep, you guessed it, right on your shoulders. But hey just because there has been money available for the research you tout for decades doesn't mean it's available today. Yes, just today, the entire world changed. Look at my stuff floating.

STOP BREATHING! We cuase more green house gases just by breathing than we do by using motor vehicles.

Another thing, why is it that in one century the average temperature has risen 1 whole degree, and yet everyone is going crazy. Just a few years ago everyone was all hyped up about another ice age...

'If we want to stop global warming, then we should use nukes to cuase nuclear winter."

It's not my reasoning. It's theirs. Meanwhile, you again fail to support your assertions that there is no money available for such research.Well actually...

The transnationals of the energy sector are rapidly and universally abandoning their anti-AGW organisations. Not surprisingly, as growth prospects for the sector seem far better in a low carbon economy.

So it's true the money that used to flow so freely to anti-AGWers, is drying up fast. Then again, it doesn't mean such research can't be performed anymore. It just means you'll have to settle for a normal paycheck, and have to actually produce results, and not just op-ed pieces for the local paper.

So... If the anti-AGW camp really is on to something, I predict their golden age is right around the corner. At least if they start doing science. We'll finally get to see all their great research. Personally I can't wait.

Of course, I don't actually expect them to do anything of the sort. Rather, I expect they'll start harassing policy makers and talkshow hosts, hoping to convince someone they deserve 5 times the pay of any practicing climate scientists, in return for doing what amounts to looking pretty. Hell, I just might join them if it works. More money for no work sounds like a fucking great deal to me. And not constantly being on deadlines and having your job depend on them, sounds like great fun too.

He's on topic! Get him!

Please do not assume that I am male.

By the by, have those e-mails been published yet, or are we still taking the word of the skeptic who apparently received them?

Well actually...

The transnationals of the energy sector are rapidly and universally abandoning their anti-AGW organisations. Not surprisingly, as growth prospects for the sector seem far better in a low carbon economy.

So it's true the money that used to flow so freely to anti-AGWers, is drying up fast. Then again, it doesn't mean such research can't be performed anymore. It just means you'll have to settle for a normal paycheck, and have to actually produce results, and not just op-ed pieces for the local paper.

Yes, that's the actual point. I've said repeatedly if he could actually produce the science...

The reason the money's not there isn't because no one is willing to pay for the science, but because so far no one has produced any science in that area. If Llew could actually show scientifically that there is a more reasonable conclusion, he would not be aching for money nor would any scientist who could do the same.

It should be pointed out that one of the major reasons they are abandoning those organizations is that they recognize the folly of maintaining a position that has no basis after public opinion has shifted. For example, the tobacco industry has no longer tries to claim that cigarettes are good for you.



So... If the anti-AGW camp really is on to something, I predict their golden age is right around the corner. At least if they start doing science. We'll finally get to see all their great research. Personally I can't wait.

Of course, I don't actually expect them to do anything of the sort. Rather, I expect they'll start harassing policy makers and talkshow hosts, hoping to convince someone they deserve 5 times the pay of any practicing climate scientists, in return for doing what amounts to looking pretty. Hell, I just might join them if it works. More money for no work sounds like a fucking great deal to me. And not constantly being on deadlines and having your job depend on them, sounds like great fun too.

Yes, it's precisely comparable to the anti-evolutionists or new-earthers or any number of anti-scientists. They want to given money for no product. They want money for simply complaining that they don't like the products of the scientist who are actually willing to do the work.

Unsurprisingly Llewdor dropped any mention of his scientist that he used as a source as soon as I showed he's actually on the front lines and pointing out that there is no scientific evidence for considering the current predictions to be invalid.

STOP BREATHING! We cuase more green house gases just by breathing than we do by using motor vehicles.

Another thing, why is it that in one century the average temperature has risen 1 whole degree, and yet everyone is going crazy. Just a few years ago everyone was all hyped up about another ice age...

'If we want to stop global warming, then we should use nukes to cuase nuclear winter."

Does this pass for an argument where you're from? It doesn't here.

So let's start with

1. Sourcing your claims.

2. Actually addressing the true models for Global Warming

3. Recognizing that Global Warming is simply a catchy name. Global Warming could very well cause an ice age. It's more about destabilizing our weather system than it is about only experiencing warm weather as most people who don't pay attention to the actual issue often thing.

*Gasp* you mean science doesn't one hundred percent agree all the time? Shut up. How dare you?

And? You've not shown this makes the conclusion different.
That the position held by the models cannot logically be true isn't sufficient for you? If I make a claim that, at its heart, is nonsensical, you don't need to demonstrate I'm wrong to discount me. You just need to point out that my argument isn't persuasive.

As always, the rational default position is one of total uncertainty. A powerful argument is needed to move one away from that uncertainty, and an argument containing internal contradictions necessarily fails.

The cloud models assume fixed water content, but the the GHG feedbacks assert that warming produces more water vapour (a greenhouse gas). A direct contradiction.
Again, you keep claiming this, but you've not actually demonstrated it. Every scientist you've given as a source interprets the evidence you present differently. You're own sources said that people making your claims aren't performing science and demonstrated exactly why.
My claim here is that their cloud models are insufficiently detailed. I can't model clouds any better than they can, but their cloud models shouldn't convince anyone of anything.
See, this argumentation works sometimes with people who don't know better, but it's really no different than people claiming that radioactive dating methods have enough error that we should throw out conclusions.
Except that radioactive dating allows us to grab a bunch of data points and compare them. The error isn't all going to be wrong in the same way over and over again. Radioactive dataing provides far more certainty.

The cloud modelling doesn't have any datapoints. It's making a prediction we haven't tested, and the nature of the model creates obvious uncertainty (their assuming a fixed value for the material from which clouds are made, and yet they elsewhere insist this value is rising siginificantly).
As your own source said, there is always error. The question is whether or not it's enough to alter the conclusion. According to YOUR source, it's not. But, hey, go ahead and prove your own sources wrong. That should likely help your argument. ;-)
The source is wrong. I'm citing not him, but his data. His own charts. Not his conclusions.

The point here is that the data being used by these scientists doesn't support the conclusions of these same scientists. By citing the very conclusions I'm trying to refute, you're making a circular argument.
It's not my reasoning. It's theirs. Meanwhile, you again fail to support your assertions that there is no money available for such research. All evidence suggests the opposite and thus the burden falls, yep, you guessed it, right on your shoulders. But hey just because there has been money available for the research you tout for decades doesn't mean it's available today. Yes, just today, the entire world changed. Look at my stuff floating.
The US government has, just recently (this is the work of Stuart Eizenstat) has begun with carbon exactly the same process it used with unleaded gas and CFCs, to form trade agreements with other countries, portaying them as environmental agreements, which will fund US industry as they convert to low-carbon alternatives.

Naturally, US industry is a big fan of these indirect trade barriers that act as de facto subsidies.

This is why the big global warming opponents, have, in just the last year, all simultaneously backed down.

3. Recognizing that Global Warming is simply a catchy name. Global Warming could very well cause an ice age. It's more about destabilizing our weather system than it is about only experiencing warm weather as most people who don't pay attention to the actual issue often thing.
This is another one of my complaints about the global warming movement. Apparently change is bad.

This is another one of my complaints about the global warming movement. Apparently change is bad.

Now there is a scientific argument. Ridiculous. It's exactly the problem of your entire argument, you reject anything that shows you're wrong and will accept anything that goes against Global Warming. Just another way your argument resembles the Creationists. Who cares if we're discussing science and this argument has nothing to do with science. It fits what you want to happen so why not throw it out there and see if it sticks.

They didn't say change was necessarily bad. They said this change is. I know you know the difference, but it's much easier to create strawmen rather than practice science.

That the position held by the models cannot logically be true isn't sufficient for you?

They can. See that's the problem here. Either one could be true. Again, you've not shown that the difference would affect the outcome. That a part of them disagree is only significant if you prove the significance. You've not. Both of those models reach the same conclusion.

Amusingly, you point out differences but you've not offered your own model. Like I said, it's an attempt to avoid the work. But, hey, that's all your side has left. "Scientists" have been attacking this premise for decades with all sorts of funding and have repeatedly and utterly failed. Much like with evolution. And much like with evolution, the complaints are down to "but, they aren't 100% sure." or "but they don't 100% agree on every tiny aspect".


If I make a claim that, at its heart, is nonsensical, you don't need to demonstrate I'm wrong to discount me. You just need to point out that my argument isn't persuasive.

You are and that's exactly the position I've taken. You wish to have us throw out the weight of scientific evidence and theory because you think it should have more scientific evidence and theory without showing why or that with the current evidence that another conclusion is possible.

[QUOTE=Llewdor;12624463]As always, the rational default position is one of total uncertainty. A powerful argument is needed to move one away from that uncertainty, and an argument containing internal contradictions necessarily fails.

The problem is that your entire argument is that if we don't have total certainty then we have to pretend total uncertainty. That's not science. It's not logic. It's absurd and doesn't deal in reality.


The cloud models assume fixed water content, but the the GHG feedbacks assert that warming produces more water vapour (a greenhouse gas). A direct contradiction.

Amusing. So let's say I show an evolution model that has dinosaurs evolving into lizards and then into birds. Then I show another evolution model from another group that shows dinosaurs following another path to birds. Should I discount both because they take different paths even if the connection between dinosaurs and birds is overwhelming? Not if I'm interested in science. Now if you're not...


My claim here is that their cloud models are insufficiently detailed. I can't model clouds any better than they can, but their cloud models shouldn't convince anyone of anything.

Again, absolute uncertainty is a position without evidence. Once evidence begins to develope we move toward certainty. As such, science is rarely at either absolute uncertainty or absolute certainty. In this case, you find one things you CLAIM is wrong with the evidence and want to throw out the entire model even though you've not shown it matters or offered a better model. The idea isn't remotely close to science. And it only stands in the media which is why that's the only place your side is given any credence.

You've gave credibility to sources that claim there is no scientific way to arrive at your conclusion. You claimed as an expert in the area in which he disagrees with you.


Except that radioactive dating allows us to grab a bunch of data points and compare them. The error isn't all going to be wrong in the same way over and over again. Radioactive dataing provides far more certainty.

You've not actually shown a difference. We are using tons of data points from all over and comparing them and have been for a century. They lead to one conclusion. You've not scientifically demonstrated a problem with that conclusion. Instead, you've complained that since we can't be 100% certain of every detail we should put our hands in our pockets and whistle.

Thank God they don't do that with geology or medicine.


The cloud modelling doesn't have any datapoints. It's making a prediction we haven't tested, and the nature of the model creates obvious uncertainty (their assuming a fixed value for the material from which clouds are made, and yet they elsewhere insist this value is rising siginificantly).

Amusing. They are a bunch of different scientists conducting science. There is not 100% agreement on modeling the atom, modeling evolution, modeling the origin of our species or any species, modeling global warming, modeling gravity, etc. If we waited for 100% agreement we'd never do anything, ever. Again, your claims have nothing to do with logic or science. In fact, they want us to discard both and hold total uncertainty until we have every possible detail.

See, here's how science works. You have to actually demonstrate that using the same data you could get a different conclusion. You've not done so. No one has even after a century.



The source is wrong. I'm citing not him, but his data. His own charts. Not his conclusions.

So YOUR source doesn't understand the model enough to make scientific conclusions about climate change? Hmmm... interesting that you'd cite him then. Of course, the community disagrees which is why he was invited to influence policy, but, hey, why let that little tidbit or any other evidence stand in your way?

You must be right. I mean, hey, you can't show how any other way of modeling would come up with a different conclusion, but why should you have to do any work? You're only arguing contrary to the weight of scientific evidence and the concensus of the community. That shouldn't bother you. Just because not ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed article has reached a different conclusion really has no bearing. You should be able to, without any work at all, complain about the conclusion and expect everyone to stop trying to address the problem and do nothing.

Yep, that's not just scientific, but rational as well. Look, I'm not laughing at all.


The point here is that the data being used by these scientists doesn't support the conclusions of these same scientists. By citing the very conclusions I'm trying to refute, you're making a circular argument.

However, you've still not shown this to be true. If anything the fact that both models can contradict and still reach the same conclusion is evidence that that particularly bit doesn't matter nearly as much as you claim.


The US government has, just recently (this is the work of Stuart Eizenstat) has begun with carbon exactly the same process it used with unleaded gas and CFCs, to form trade agreements with other countries, portaying them as environmental agreements, which will fund US industry as they convert to low-carbon alternatives.

Naturally, US industry is a big fan of these indirect trade barriers that act as de facto subsidies.

This is why the big global warming opponents, have, in just the last year, all simultaneously backed down.

Except they didn't all do it simultaneously. Exxon is a pretty famous hold-out. And of course, there is the fact that they would still do well to demonstrate that Global Warming isn't their fault. And there's the fact thaty tried right up until now and couldn't but hey, maybe you've discovered the key. It really is unfortunate that you managed to find that key to unraveling the whole conspiracy and you're not willing to do the work to prove it. But hey keep claiming the moon is hotter than the sun. What does the truth have to do with this?

Meanwhile, I wasn't aware that the US was the only country that funds science. Thanks for setting me straight.

Now there is a scientific argument.
In your own words, "glob al warming could wel lcause an ice age." Could. Because you don't know. The models don't actualluy tell us with any degree of certainty what's going to happen, so we don't have any reason to react to that possible future since we don't know what it will be.

In your own words, "glob al warming could wel lcause an ice age." Could. Because you don't know.

Ha. Because what I know has anything to do with whether it's valid. As I said, you're all over anything that you think agrees with you, because this isn't about science. This is about you not liking the idea and just clinging to anything you can pretend is evidence. Try science. I know you don't like having to stick to logic, but try it. It's fun and it will make you'll get to be right more often and when you're wrong it will be more exciting instead of just trotting out the same disproven points over and over again.

The models don't actualluy tell us with any degree of certainty what's going to happen, so we don't have any reason to react to that possible future since we don't know what it will be.

Amusing. They tell us lots of things. You don't like what they have to say. This is just another attempt to cry about how a lack of 100% certainty is 100% uncertainty. There is nothing scientific or logical about such a claim. Again, don't let me stop you though. Keep acting like any degree of uncertainty means we shouldn't treat it like it's true. Of course, we'd have to throw out EVERYTHING we know, but hey who needs medicine or working clocks.

3. Recognizing that Global Warming is simply a catchy name. Global Warming could very well cause an ice age. It's more about destabilizing our weather system than it is about only experiencing warm weather as most people who don't pay attention to the actual issue often thing.

Ice ages don't destabilize our weather system, they actually stabilize it. They're the reason we're not like the planet Venus. What happens is that temperature, like everything else on the planet, works in cycles. It increases to a point, and then an ice age happens to normalize it. So yes, if global warming were true (and I'm not arguing either way), it would probably trigger an ice age, which would just bring it back down, all to happen again.

Nature is amazingly resilient, and if it weren't we wouldn't be here. The planet has survived, and in some cases been improved, by catastrophic events like meteor impacts or glacier movement. An impact is theorized to have created the moon, which has stabilized our orbit and produced tidal effects. Glaciers helped clear the land of debris.

The world has been warming gradually since the end of the little ice age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age#End_of_Little_Ice_Age). Scientists talk about man causing the warming for the past 50years or so, what about before that?

They can. See that's the problem here. Either one could be true. Again, you've not shown that the difference would affect the outcome. That a part of them disagree is only significant if you prove the significance. You've not. Both of those models reach the same conclusion.
They're part of the same model. That's the problem.

One part models the greenhouse gasses and their concentrations grow, while the other models the behaviour of clouds. But the two are based on incompatbile assumptions, so they cannot both be true at the same time. One of them must be incorrect. Either the warming will not create more water vapour (only really possible if there's no warming), or the increased water content invalidates the cloud models. The conclusion drawn by the overall climate model requires both that water content is fixed and that it is not.
Amusingly, you point out differences but you've not offered your own model.
I don't have a model. As one of my cited scientists points out, no one knows how to model clouds. So the scientists simplify the problem to such an extent that it's no longer compatible with the other aspects of the climate model.
Like I said, it's an attempt to avoid the work. But, hey, that's all your side has left. "Scientists" have been attacking this premise for decades with all sorts of funding and have repeatedly and utterly failed.
How do you know they've failed? Public opinion is a lousy measure of scietific accuracy.
And much like with evolution, the complaints are down to "but, they aren't 100% sure." or "but they don't 100% agree on every tiny aspect".
The overall global model being used here is demonstrably nonsensical. This isn't about how sure we are - we can be absolutely sure that nonsensical climate models don't tell us anything useful.
You are and that's exactly the position I've taken. You wish to have us throw out the weight of scientific evidence and theory because you think it should have more scientific evidence and theory without showing why or that with the current evidence that another conclusion is possible.
There is no possible conclusion at this time. The best available model makes no sense. As I've shown.
The problem is that your entire argument is that if we don't have total certainty then we have to pretend total uncertainty. That's not science. It's not logic. It's absurd and doesn't deal in reality.
That's not my position here at all. Nice strawman.
Amusing. So let's say I show an evolution model that has dinosaurs evolving into lizards and then into birds. Then I show another evolution model from another group that shows dinosaurs following another path to birds. Should I discount both because they take different paths even if the connection between dinosaurs and birds is overwhelming?
No, but you can't simultaneously hold both to be true, and that's what the global climate model is doing.

Neither one of the pieces we're discussing models the entire climate, and thus neither one predicts global warming. Only taken together are they a global model, but they're an internally inconsistent one.
Again, absolute uncertainty is a position without evidence. Once evidence begins to develope we move toward certainty. As such, science is rarely at either absolute uncertainty or absolute certainty.
Science can only ever be absolutely certain about things that aren't true. Science can dosprove - it cannot prove. And, as it happens, disproof is exactly what we're looking at, here. By contradicting itself, the global climate model is, as I've said, demonstrably nonsensical.

It has no literal meaning, and leads to no conclusions.
In this case, you find one things you CLAIM is wrong with the evidence and want to throw out the entire model even though you've not shown it matters or offered a better model.
So, again I ask, if I make a claim are you compelled to believe it until its been refuted? That's what youre arguing, here.
You've gave credibility to sources that claim there is no scientific way to arrive at your conclusion. You claimed as an expert in the area in which he disagrees with you.
You're appealing to his conclusions again. I'm only using his data.
You've not actually shown a difference. We are using tons of data points from all over and comparing them and have been for a century. They lead to one conclusion. You've not scientifically demonstrated a problem with that conclusion. Instead, you've complained that since we can't be 100% certain of every detail we should put our hands in our pockets and whistle.
You have a data point that says that the water content both rises and stays the same? I await that.
Amusing. They are a bunch of different scientists conducting science. There is not 100% agreement on modeling the atom, modeling evolution, modeling the origin of our species or any species, modeling global warming, modeling gravity, etc. If we waited for 100% agreement we'd never do anything, ever. Again, your claims have nothing to do with logic or science. In fact, they want us to discard both and hold total uncertainty until we have every possible detail.
What you're doing is akin to believing both Ptolemy and Copernicus at the same time.
See, here's how science works. You have to actually demonstrate that using the same data you could get a different conclusion. You've not done so. No one has even after a century.
How many times do we have to go over this? It is not presently possible to model indirect cloud albedo feedbacks without assuming fixed water content. We lack the theoretical basis to do so. And yet, somehow we're willing to combine the findings of those crude fixed-water models with the findings of greenhouse gas models that directly contradict the premises of the cloud models. They can't both be right. And yet, we're faithfully following this combined prediction, even though we KNOW the process is wrong.

I can't model the clouds any better than the IPCC does. No one can. So it's not possible to model the existing data and produce different outcomes. But we know the current models are wrong. And since they're wrong, we have no reason to trust their outcomes.

Ptolmey's model of planetary motion was wrong, but it still found the right answer some of the time. The point here is that at some point the model will probably reach the wrong answer, and we have no idea where that happens. It may have already. We need to track that down.
So YOUR source doesn't understand the model enough to make scientific conclusions about climate change?
No one does. I provided a citation for that.
You must be right. I mean, hey, you can't show how any other way of modeling would come up with a different conclusion, but why should you have to do any work? You're only arguing contrary to the weight of scientific evidence and the concensus of the community. That shouldn't bother you. Just because not ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed article has reached a different conclusion really has no bearing. You should be able to, without any work at all, complain about the conclusion and expect everyone to stop trying to address the problem and do nothing.
Are you completely blind to the internal contradiction in the model?
However, you've still not shown this to be true. If anything the fact that both models can contradict and still reach the same conclusion is evidence that that particularly bit doesn't matter nearly as much as you claim.
Neither on its own does anything of the sort. Together they purport to offer a complete picture of the global climate, but it's an incoherent picture.
And of course, there is the fact that they would still do well to demonstrate that Global Warming isn't their fault. And there's the fact thaty tried right up until now and couldn't but hey, maybe you've discovered the key. It really is unfortunate that you managed to find that key to unraveling the whole conspiracy and you're not willing to do the work to prove it. But hey keep claiming the moon is hotter than the sun. What does the truth have to do with this?
Look it up. Eizenstat (Jimmy Carter's domestic policy advisor) has done this at least twice before, and he has advised all of the last five Presidents. US carbon producers stand to make a killing on these global warming deals.

The recent deal between California and British Columbia is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about.
Meanwhile, I wasn't aware that the US was the only country that funds science. Thanks for setting me straight.
It was the last large science funder where opposition was a politically tenable position.

They're part of the same model. That's the problem.

One part models the greenhouse gasses and their concentrations grow, while the other models the behaviour of clouds. But the two are based on incompatbile assumptions, so they cannot both be true at the same time. One of them must be incorrect. Either the warming will not create more water vapour (only really possible if there's no warming), or the increased water content invalidates the cloud models. The conclusion drawn by the overall climate model requires both that water content is fixed and that it is not.

Again, you've not demonstrated this. You've shown a simplification for the purposes of exploration. That's not the same thing. You keep claiming it is because you really need for it to be true, but saying something is true, and actually showing evidence for it being true are not the same thing. You're saying it, but have repeatedly claimed that you cannot prove or demonstrate and as such it's just unfair that you have to treat science like science. It really is unfair. How dare we expect you to be all reasonable like that?

If you can't show that this bit of information would lead to a different conclusion by offering an equally viable alternative, then you've not demonstrated what you keep claiming. But, hey, I'm sure if I just wait a minute you'll admit you can't do that.


I don't have a model. As one of my cited scientists points out, no one knows how to model clouds. So the scientists simplify the problem to such an extent that it's no longer compatible with the other aspects of the climate model.

That's not the conclusion he reached. You're putting words in his mouth. His conclusion was that it didn't matter. His opinion as expert in his field is that there is not any scientific way to reach the conclusion you're claiming. You claimed he was saying the opposite, but even his 20-year-old paper doesn't make that claim.



How do you know they've failed? Public opinion is a lousy measure of scietific accuracy.

None of their attempts have stood up to scientific peer-review. Unlike you're side, I'm not only interested in debating this in media and on forums. I've actually done the research. There is not one anti-GW paper that has stood up to peer review. In science, that's failure.



The overall global model being used here is demonstrably nonsensical. This isn't about how sure we are - we can be absolutely sure that nonsensical climate models don't tell us anything useful.

But it isn't. Again, you're looking for one little aspect and refusing to demonstrate why it matters. You've not shown that it would change the outcome. And if it would, you could certainly show it.



There is no possible conclusion at this time. The best available model makes no sense. As I've shown.

No, you haven't. Here's how science works. If we have data we could collect either now or in the future we show what predictions we could make based on that data. You are claiming that the outcome would be different based on the moisture, but if that were true you could choose different trends and show that difference. You've not done so. You took to disparate models that are related in tacitly and claimed that because they don't agree 100% that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Again, I'm calling for you to show it. "I can't" in this instance is equivalent to "I have no credibility so just laugh at my antics". Either you can show that the differences you claim are important are important or you fail. I've not seen anything but failure so far. Unsurprisingly this is consistent with the science of all the anti-GW crowd.


That's not my position here at all. Nice strawman.

Amusing. However, you have continually claimed no conclusion is possible, even though you've only demonstrated a modicum of uncertainty. No conclusion is different form total uncertainty how?



No, but you can't simultaneously hold both to be true, and that's what the global climate model is doing.

There isn't one global climate model, chief. And yes, you can have contradictions in a model all the time. I used to do it repeatedly to show that data didn't matter. It's a pretty common tactic. You've not shown that the difference creates a different conclusion.



Neither one of the pieces we're discussing models the entire climate, and thus neither one predicts global warming. Only taken together are they a global model, but they're an internally inconsistent one.

Except there aren't one simple sets of models. Scientists don't 100% agree. You're trying to use that slight disagreement to claim that we can't trust the outcome, but, again, you've not shown it matters. Show it matters. Nevermind, you keep admitting you can't. And we already know that no one else can since they repeatedly fail at doing so. So remind why your argument carries any water at all? Oh, right, it doesn't.


Science can only ever be absolutely certain about things that aren't true. Science can dosprove - it cannot prove. And, as it happens, disproof is exactly what we're looking at, here. By contradicting itself, the global climate model is, as I've said, demonstrably nonsensical.

You have not disproved anything. If you could, you could produce a paper and you'd be lauded across the world. I've asked you to disprove. People have been paid enormous sums to disprove. This isn't even remotely resembling disproof. The attempt is laughable.



It has no literal meaning, and leads to no conclusions.

So, again I ask, if I make a claim are you compelled to believe it until its been refuted? That's what youre arguing, here.

In science, you are required to disprove. You've already claimed this yourself. The weight of the evidence leans against you. Yet, you wish for us to accept your "disproof" without any evidence. You are REQUIRED to show that this theory is not viable. You've not done so. You've admitted you can't. You are required to show the results that would occur if we used different and equally viable assumptions. You've not done so. No predictions. No science. That's how it works. Thanks for playing. Pay on your way out.



You're appealing to his conclusions again. I'm only using his data.

Amusing. Now you're just plain lying. You claimed that his paper and the information summarized about the paper was valuable. The paper is his conclusion. That's the point. If he's a reliable scientist then his paper is valuable. If he's not, then we can leave it in the can for proper use.

Which specific part of his data did you cite, exactly?


You have a data point that says that the water content both rises and stays the same? I await that.

Again, you are pointing at one small area and claiming that if we don't know that we don't know anything. That's not how science works. This is where you're confused. Come on, Llewdor, I know you're better than this.

That science doesn't always universally agree is only proof that it involves humans and has limitations. If you want to prove that this particular theory is invalid then you have to actually demonstrate why not having this information would necessarily invalidate the conclusion, which requires an alternate model. You haven't provided one. You can't keep harping on one missing part of the data until you've shown that it matters to the conclusion, but you've already admitting you can't give an equally viable alternative.

No logic. No science. And quite frankly, you're not even providing much of a debate anymore. A little further down this post you're going to claim the only reason we don't find out the truth is because of a global conspiracy.



What you're doing is akin to believing both Ptolemy and Copernicus at the same time.

Hilarious. It is not. See the problem is that their conclusions disagreed. Here you're not demonstrating that anyone's conclusions disagree. You're demonstrating that some of their assumptions disagree which isn't unusual in science. In fact, you've not even demonstrated that, because you are taking those assumptions out of context and you still haven't shown they matter. In fact, no one ever has. Ever.


How many times do we have to go over this? It is not presently possible to model indirect cloud albedo feedbacks without assuming fixed water content. We lack the theoretical basis to do so. And yet, somehow we're willing to combine the findings of those crude fixed-water models with the findings of greenhouse gas models that directly contradict the premises of the cloud models. They can't both be right. And yet, we're faithfully following this combined prediction, even though we KNOW the process is wrong.

You keep going over this because apparently, you don't understand the scientific method.

Knowing that we are missing some data is, well, always true. We are always missing data. You have to show why this data is necessary to the conclusion, but you've not done so. Doing so would require an alternate model. And know, not the cloud model, the overall model. You're equivocating and it's a fallacy for a reason.


I can't model the clouds any better than the IPCC does. No one can. So it's not possible to model the existing data and produce different outcomes. But we know the current models are wrong. And since they're wrong, we have no reason to trust their outcomes.

You keep claiming this but it's patently ridiculous. We have a mountain of data. You say what we are missing is critical. Fine, I can accept that as a possibility. However, you have to actually demonstrate it as true. This requires that you show that an alternate model is equally viable. So far the ONLY viable models have demonstrated the same conclusion. It's the same reason I can make a mathematic model and ignore a variable. If the variable makes not critical difference in the outcome of my model then it's not significant and I can ignore it. If you can show an alternate conclusion then you aren't conducting science. Science is about skepticism, but not all skepticism is science.

Science REQUIRES that you do work. You want us to overlook this and give you a gold star with no effort whatsoever and that's not going to happen.


Ptolmey's model of planetary motion was wrong, but it still found the right answer some of the time. The point here is that at some point the model will probably reach the wrong answer, and we have no idea where that happens. It may have already. We need to track that down.

But until you have tracked "that" down, you haven't disproven the theory. As you mentioned earlier science requires that you disprove.

Newton's laws are wrong some of the time as well, but if we hadn't used them as if they were true (since at that time we couldn't find anything disproving them), we'd have entire areas of science that would be demonstrably less evolved. Science often just goes with the best model available for the evidence. There are only two reasons not to do so, if we can demonstrate that another equally viable model is available to the evidence (you haven't and can't) or if someone disproves the model. Your claims here quite simply demonstrate that they are practicing science and doing it well.

If it's true that the science doesn't support the current model, then there would be plenty of EQUALLY viable alternative models. I know you keep misunderstanding this point, but an alternate model need only be as reliable as the model it seeks to disprove. No more. No less. Keep saying "but we can't" all you like. If you can't then you admit that their conclusion is scientific and the most reliable conclusion available based on the evidence.



No one does. I provided a citation for that.

No, you didn't. The citation you provided disagreed with you. You are making wild claims and admitting you don't have the science to back it up. Honestly, I keep hoping you'll smack your head and recognize the flaw in your argument, but I'm losing faith. Now you're just claiming things that are blatantly false. No source you've provided has scientifically shown that the conclusions are flawed. None. And you've certainly not demonstrated it yourself.


I'll give you an example. Let's take the model of the atom when it was first discovered. Let's assume that a scientist discovers the atom and says each atom has four parts. He says it's the baton, the carter, the delaware and the elephant. We'll call this the alphabet theory of the atom. Now if his conclusion results from evidence, then any other model of the atom that I could provide that has more or less than four parts could be proven wrong. If his conclusion was valid, then no other model could be provided for the current evidence.

You can't provide an alternate model. Many have tried claiming they were equally viable with the available evidence and each time they were debunked. This supports the idea that the conclusion is valid. The only way you are going to falsify the conclusion is to A show data that proves it wrong, or B show an alternate model that also cannot be dismissed and has a different conclusion. The alternate model has to critically different in a way that makes using either one unworkable. If both models result in the same predictions, then the part that is different is clearly not critical and doesn't matter. (This is an important distinction or your alternate model to the alphabet atom could be that the baton part is really the foxtrot part.)


Are you completely blind to the internal contradiction in the model?

No, I just recognize how science works. Want me to teach you? Tell me where you'd like me to start.


Neither on its own does anything of the sort. Together they purport to offer a complete picture of the global climate, but it's an incoherent picture.

Again, this is your flawed logic. I know you really, really want to think that you've found the one thing that proves global warming wrong, but the fact that these disagree isn't remotely unusual in science. You've not shown that the difference matters. Again, if their conclusion does not agree with the avaiable evidence you could take the same evidence and present a different conclusion and it would hold up to the same scrutiny. So far no one has done that and you've admitted you can't.




Look it up. Eizenstat (Jimmy Carter's domestic policy advisor) has done this at least twice before, and he has advised all of the last five Presidents. US carbon producers stand to make a killing on these global warming deals.

The recent deal between California and British Columbia is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about.

It was the last large science funder where opposition was a politically tenable position.

Ha. I love this. Another of the Creationist arguments. It's a big world-wide conspiracy against you. That's why you can't scientifically support your position. It's not that you're wrong. It's that the whole world is against you. Again, do you think this helps the credibility of your position?

I'll just focus on a few points, here.
Either you can show that the differences you claim are important are important or you fail.

You have not disproved anything. If you could, you could produce a paper and you'd be lauded across the world. I've asked you to disprove. People have been paid enormous sums to disprove. This isn't even remotely resembling disproof. The attempt is laughable.
I'm not trying to disprove anything. I'm asserting that the pro-GW arguments aren't persuasive.

The differences I'm pointing to exist within the set of premises, and that set is incoherent. For the argument to be persuasive it needs a coherent set of premises. And I don't see a pro-GW argument featuring such a set of premises.
No conclusion is different form total uncertainty how?
You're the one who described the continuum of certainty. No conclusion means you lack sufficient evidence to hold a position to be true. That doesn't require you be completely uncertain about it.
Again, do you think this helps the credibility of your position?
I don't think it harms the credibility of my position. If you think it does, you'll have to explain why.

I only learned about Eizenstat's plan (and previous work) on Thursday.

I'll just focus on a few points, here.

I'm not trying to disprove anything. I'm asserting that the pro-GW arguments aren't persuasive.

Again, that's disproof. You don't get it and I don't know how to make it clearer but they've shown evidence for their conclusions. They've made a scientifically valid conclusion in that it's falsifiable and is supported by evidence. The only rebuttal you can give to such a conclusion is to either show their conclusion is false (not unpersuasive but provably false) or to show there is an equally valid and critically different alternate conclusion. You've done neither and admitted you can do neither. As such, their conclusion is the ONLY conclusion that one can reach scientifically.

Saying, "but, but, I'm not conviced" doesn't matter, because science necessarily doesn't care about individuals. It's a discipline. You must follow the rules. You've admitted not only that you have no interest in doing so, but that you're incapable of doing so.


The differences I'm pointing to exist within the set of premises, and that set is incoherent. For the argument to be persuasive it needs a coherent set of premises. And I don't see a pro-GW argument featuring such a set of premises.

And this is patently false. Unless you can show that those differences matter then you've got no case. The only way they matter is if choosing one or the other would result in a different model. You've not shown this to be the case. Science guesses all the time. The only time those guesses are invalid is when it can be shown that without that guess the entire conclusion falls apart. I've told you how to do this. You admit repeatedly that you're incapable. Unsurprisingly, no one has ever accomplished it. Yet, you'd like us to reject the scientific conclusions for your unscientific conclusions. Again, you've got to do the work, bub. Good luck with that.



You're the one who described the continuum of certainty. No conclusion means you lack sufficient evidence to hold a position to be true. That doesn't require you be completely uncertain about it.

No conclusion means a complete lack of certainty. In science a conclusion isn't certainty. It's following the evidence. The more times you test that conclusion, the more certain it becomes, but it never becomes absolutely certain. No conclusion is the complete uncertainty. It requires a conclusion to move on the spectrum at all. That's science. Without a conclusion there is no hypothesis to test against, and no science to do. I can't believe you're arguing about science and don't understand this. So are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand the fundamentals of science? Either way, I don't see how that helps your argument.


I don't think it harms the credibility of my position. If you think it does, you'll have to explain why.

I only learned about Eizenstat's plan (and previous work) on Thursday.

You're talking about a small effect in a small period in the history of the study of global climate, yet using it to claim a world-wide conspiracy to prevent your science from coming out. Absent this, your claim is, exactly as Creationists and various other anti-scientists, the "truth" would come out. If you can't see the flaw in a claim that relies on a global conspiracy to surpress the science, then I'm not sure I can help you.

Meanwhile, isn't it convenient that you claimed that the world refuses to fund this science for weeks and you just HAPPENED to discover your argument for why after the fact? It's not surprising you landed on a Creationist argument when you used the same methods, starting with a conclusion you absolutely need to be true and searching until you find ANYTHING to support it.

So now we're relying on a recent even in American politics to somehow deny people funding world-wide, even though the funding is still there. And we're complaining about the name of the science because that matters somehow. What's next? Climate change science is icky? That's usually the next argument I run into in debates about the other anti-science positions.


By the way, I appreciate you cutting down the argument to the core. I was thinking of doing the same thing. It's good argumentation. The points you selected are really where the weight of the argument lies.

EDIT: I'd like to add that the last bit is not sarcastic. Obviously, I disagree with you, but I've invested the time to debate this with you because I do find you to be intelligent and interesting. There have been a couple of things you've done in this debate I've really liked. I hope you recognize that my suggestions about your argument only pertain to the argument at hand and not some larger statement about you.