posted November 20, 2010 01:52 PM            

Since everything I said is true...and proved true, neither you or the crackpot so called scientists can escape the clear cut finality or futility of arguing for CO2 causing global warming.

Rising CO2 levels do not cause global warming...but rising temperatures cause rising levels of CO2.

Now acoustic, just how do you think the 3rd rate hacks which you are prone to quote got the process backwards...if not by utter quackery?

posted November 20, 2010 05:01 PM            

quote:

---

Since everything I said is true...and proved true, neither you or the crackpot so called scientists can escape the clear cut finality or futility of arguing for CO2 causing global warming.

---

You've not proven a thing about CO2 that hasn't been properly dealt with by actual climate scientists.

quote:

---

Rising CO2 levels do not cause global warming..

---

You've never proven this.

quote:

---

Now acoustic, just how do you think the 3rd rate hacks which you are prone to quote got the process backwards...if not by utter quackery?

---

I'm not prone to quote third rate hacks. That's precisely what you do. The people I cite are trained professionals that actually work in the field.

quote:

---

I thought everyone was aware of that by now. It's called "junk science."

---

posted November 21, 2010 12:46 PM            

i'm not saying this is right or wrong. we have leaders because frankly not everyone is in a position to collate the facts and act on them...i generally suspect from what i have seen in the past that every IMPROVEMENT humans make on the earth seems to come with more and more "side effects" that create more and more problems to deal with.

i am NOT in a position to judge the scientists on either side. i haven't the attention span or vocabulary for a start. but science is largely theory until proven otherwise. and the records we rely on go back a VERY SMALL span of time considering the life of earth in total.

posted November 22, 2010 11:29 PM            

One must wonder...since you persist...if you have the intellectual capacity to understand the facts.

posted November 23, 2010 01:15 AM            

You wish you could rub my nose in anything, but you haven't and can't, especially where this issue is concerned. The record in this very thread proves otherwise. Anyone reading already knows you can't prove a lick of your anti-global warming theory.

quote:

---

that carbon dioxide does not drive temperature BUT, temperatures drive carbon dioxide levels. They have it backwards as ice core samples showing temperatures and carbon dioxide levels going back 650,000 years prove.

---

posted November 23, 2010 08:37 AM            

The one fact anyone needs to know to obliterate the crackpot argument for man made global warming is:

When the earth warms through cyclical changes in the sun's radiational output, the oceans also gradually warm and release stored CO2 into the atmosphere causing rising CO2 levels in earth's atmosphere...about 800 years later.

Another useful fact:

About 97% of the greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere is WATER VAPOR not CO2...and, water vapor is approximately 25 times more efficient in trapping and holding heat than CO2. Methane is less than 1% of earth's atmosphere and Methane is about 30 times more efficient at trapping and holding heat than CO2.

Water vapor overwhelms all other natural and man-made greenhouse contributions.

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor ----- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 0.360%

Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations
of greenhouse gases

Total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect. Notice, that's 28 one hundredths of one percent human contribution to the "greenhouse effect".

See if you can come up with the reason the man made global warming crackpots picked on carbon dioxide to regulate. Not you acoustic. I already know you can't.

posted November 23, 2010 09:52 AM            

Recycling positions that have already been refuted is useless. Do I need to refer back a few pages to show this?

posted November 24, 2010 10:41 AM            

This isn't the thread where we put most of what I'll nicely deem "your skeptical science" to rest. No, in this thread you spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to get me to drop the fact checking, and go off our unexpert opinions alone. It was funny. Trying to remove the science from science.

We have addressed virtually all of the skepticism you've lifted from Conservative sites, however.

We have addressed your lack of scientific data as resourced by an actual scientific entity.

We have addressed your lack of scientists credible or otherwise.

We have addressed the fact that virtually any place one would reasonably look for climate science maintains a position opposite yours.

You've never had a leg to stand on in this debate, and nothing has changed...including, apparently, your willingness to look foolish.

posted November 24, 2010 01:44 PM            

Your problem acoustic is that you think an organization which uses "fact" in the name of their site...like factcheck or politifact puts out reliable, credible, factual information.

As I've shown you over and over, that's not in any way true.

Worse, you've relied on the fraud, scam and hoax artists like the UN, like CRU and the lying Phil Jones and Michael Mann of the fraudulent "Hockey Stick Graph"...to investigate themselves...and publish a "cover their ass" report clearing themselves of any wrongdoing.

You are prone to read right by statements like this from IPCC members because it doesn't fit your ill advised crackpot theory of catastrophe.

Now, a high-ranking member of the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has admitted that climate policy has little to do with environmental protection.

On Sunday, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated) that “climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth” and that “it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

AND...of course you totally discounted the statement by Phil Jones of CRU that...."there has been no significant warming since 1995"....but, Phil Jones is one of the leading crackpots in the man made global warming religion.

I have you down as the perfect little mushroom. Happy to sit in the dark and eat all the horseshiiit crackpot so called scientists are willing to shovel your way.

posted November 24, 2010 02:00 PM            

quote:

---

Your problem acoustic is that you think an organization which uses "fact" in the name of their site...like factcheck or politifact puts out reliable, credible, factual information.

---

I do, and you still have yet to disprove them. They weren't even who I was referring to in this case. I was referring to fact-checking your skepticism in general.

quote:

---

As I've shown you over and over, that's not in any way true

---

You've not even done that a single time. Would you like to illustrate where you believe you did?

quote:

---

You are prone to read right by statements like this from IPCC members because it doesn't fit your ill advised crackpot theory of catastrophe.

---

No, I'm prone to read right past them, because they don't address the science. That is your mission.

quote:

---

AND...of course you totally discounted the statement by Phil Jones of CRU that...."there has been no significant warming since 1995"....but, Phil Jones is one of the leading crackpots in the man made global warming religion.

---

No, you discounted Phil Jones own clarification, which I HAVE posted. You must have forgotten.

quote:

---

I have you down as the perfect little mushroom. Happy to sit in the dark and eat all the horseshiiit crackpot so called scientists are willing to shovel your way.

---

posted November 24, 2010 04:52 PM            

Others caught your crackpot so called scientists lying through their teeth, falfifying data, hiding data, covering up input errors and a string of very unscientific behavior...including refusing FOIA requests...in violation of both British and American law.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre

*Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

*There has been no global warming since 1995

*Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Yes, you read right past all the information which shows man made global warming is a hoax, a scam and a fraud.

That's what makes you the perfect little mushroom.

posted November 24, 2010 05:39 PM            

quote:

---

Caught factcheck and politifact in too many lies to count.

---

No you haven't. You haven't caught them in one, much "too many to count."

quote:

---

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre

*Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

*There has been no global warming since 1995

*Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes http://www.dailymail.co.uk /news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

---

Jwhop! I JUST TOLD YOU WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS ALREADY! Good Lord! Let me go back a few pages, and quote myself.

From Page 2:
Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995."

The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC. What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn't quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years, a point we have made countless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record.

The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former "has been used to produce the 'hockey stick graph'."

Finally, the article intentionally distorts comments that Jones made about the so-called 'Medieval Warm Period'. Jones stated in his BBC interview that, "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia," and that, "For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions."

These are statements with which we entirely agree, and they are moreover fully consistent with the conclusions of the most recent IPCC report, and the numerous peer-reviewed publications on this issue since. Those conclusions are that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least a millennium (at least 1300 years, in fact), and that evidence in the Southern Hemisphere is currently too sparse for confident conclusions. Mann et al in fact drew those same conclusions in their most recent work on this problem (PNAS, 2008).

Unfortunately, these kinds of distortions are all too common in the press nowadays and so we must all be prepared to respond to those journalists and editors who confuse the public with such inaccuracies.

Update 2/16/10. Phil Jones has confirmed to us that our interpretations of his comments in the BBC interview are indeed the correct ones, and that he agrees with the statements in our piece above. He and his CRU colleagues have also put up an response to some of the false allegations in a previous piece in the UK Guardian. We'll report further such developments as they happen. http://www.realclimate.org/

Remember now?

...Oh, and incidentally, this doesn't constitute scientific proof. This constitutes the opinion of one scientist that happens to be on MY side of the debate, not yours.

posted November 24, 2010 11:12 PM            

Man made global warming is a hoax, a scam and a fraud. The hoaxers are the crackpot so called scientists on whose every word you hang.

Enjoy your mushroom status.

Btw acoustic; can you tell me what kinds of cars, jets and SUVs humans were using 25,000 years ago when the earth suddenly started warming and the ice age ended?

Can you tell me about the industries, cars, jets, smokestacks and utilities humans were employing 1000 years ago...when earth was warmer than it is now?

Oh, can you tell me why Mars which has a 95% carbon dioxide atmosphere has an average surface temperature of
-81*F....since carbon dioxide...to hear the crackpot scientists tell the story...is such a powerful trapper of HEAT.

Oh, and can you tell me why every planet in the solar system suddenly started to warm about 15 years ago? No doubt inhabitants of those planets suddenly had their industrial revolutions with cars, jets, coal fired electric plants and smoke belching industrial smoke stacks. Yeah.

posted November 25, 2010 12:37 AM            

Posing questions as if that gets you out of proving global warming doesn't work.

22000 years ago, the climate was 14 degrees cooler than it is now.

It wasn't warmer 1,000 years ago.

Mars has an altogether different climate than the Earth. First, it's twice as far from the Sun as the Earth. Second, it's lower surface pressure has a rather dramatic effect on it's climate. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Third, with regard to talking about CO2 in Earth's atmosphere, while water vapor molecules pass through the atmosphere in 10 days, CO2 takes decades. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased 36% since 1750, and is now higher than any time in the last 650,000 years. Worth paying attention to? Yes.

The Sun's output has decreased over the last 50 years, and not all the planets are warming. Are you sure you want to tackle global warming on other planets when you can't even tackle global warming on ours?

So now, about that blither, blather BS... isn't that YOUR stock and trade?

posted November 28, 2010 04:11 AM            

Referring to the climate as simply the weather is understating things as well. The climate is the entirety of the weather for the world over time. What they've studied isn't in the future tense. It's what's been observed. What's been observed is a rising of the atmospheric temperature over time, and that's been coupled with observations of components that would likely account for that rise. They're not randomly picking a possible cause. They have already whittled down to a probably cause.