615 replies to this topic

[waldo]

confirmed? In the face of very strong empirical evidence that the understood/accepted rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by mankind... in the face of a fundamental facet of basic physics, greenhouse effect warming... in the face of an irrefutable correlation between the current rise in temperature and the current rise in CO2 level... in the face of no other alternate causal link between the current warming and the current rise in CO2, other than rising CO2 attributed to mankind... just what do you mean by "isn't confirmed" and what would provide you the needed level of confirmation that you interpret as lacking/missing?

care to expound on your most charged comment that, as you say, "politicians are paying dearly to have it confirmed"? To clear up your double-entendre, are you suggesting that, (1) politicians are paying for a preconceived result/outcome... the result/outcome as predetermined by politicians; or, (2) politicians are paying for a result/outcome... one preconceived by "others"... and, if so, who/what are the others?

The science is suggesting carbon is a problem and politicians are devising plans to capitalize on that suggestion, emphaisis on capitalize not find resolutions. Of course, since they have moved ahead with plans it would hurt them dearly to have to reconsider.

which politicians, which plans and capitalize... how? Specificity will help your case here, Pliny... trundling on down the "New World Order" rhetoric path will not.

This latest cold blast from CERN is very disconcerting.

what do you interpret/declare from CERN/CLOUD presents a, as you say, "cold blast"? What do you interpret/declare from CERN/CLOUD is, as you say, "very disconcerting"?

so... what... no Pliny reply to my first paragraph above? No Pliny reply advising on, "just what do you mean by "isn't confirmed" and what would provide you the needed level of confirmation that you interpret as lacking/missing?

but would you support a price on carbon?

this (and your thread title phrasing) showcases your misunderstanding and real intent behind this thread. I won't suggest you're distorting or fabricating... you're simply parroting. You've bought into the false premise propagated by the denialMachine, that CERN/CLOUD and "climate science" reflect upon competing paths/pursuits. You've also bought into the false premise that the initial experiment results are something that either diminish or negate aspects of the AGW theory... however wildly (and falsely) extrapolated upon by the denialMachine towards the next (of many) future CLOUD phases/undertakings. Your suggestion that, as you say, "It's certainly got you screaming"... is silly and baseless... (besides replying to you, I've only posted a basic/minimalistic response to the only other MLW CERN/CLOUD reference to come forward... that, within another concurrently running MLW thread).

waldo, the temperature over the last century has risen 1.5 degrees fahrenheit(.8 degrees centigrade). And it isn't like the temperature is going to remain stable forever. I am not alarmed. I do appreciate your concern for the planet and expecting all of us to be more responsible for the environment. Good idea.

that you would couch your blinding lack of consideration/concern/"alarm" in terms of accepting your vaguely suggested future timeline of de facto temperature instability, is aided and abetted by your blindness to the current compressed period of accelerated and enhanced warming, a/the timeline(s) of projected warming and a comparative review/analysis of current to past warming

No, I would not support a price on carbon. As mentioned, it isn't the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas.

so... no cap&trade for Pliny. No tax&dividend for Pliny. And yet... you say you support reducing 'carbon emissions'. Is there a representative, understood and recognized practical mechanism, market based (or not), that would help assist a Pliny acknowledged support for reducing carbon emissions?

we haven't seen Mr. Wizard Pliny for some time now... perhaps Mr. Wizard should check out the significance of water vapour feedback on temperature, per increased CO2... and the relative short residual time of water vapour as compared to CO2

Slippy slidy politicians will work with you I'm sure. They are always looking for new sources of taxation.

without accepting your premise, just what types of politicians will work with the most selectively applied libertarian bent, anti-science Pliny... the guy who states he supports reducing carbon emissions?

[waldo]

http://tinyurl.com/3meksgc

surprisingly... GH punches forward with a blind link from the... uhhh... European Union Times, a blog masquerading as a newsite... an article that includes a wildly inaccurate title and quotes entirely from noted deniers, "Calder, Motl, Solomon". Even for you GostHacked, this is a low amongst previous style MLW tabloid sourced, run&gun, ta-da, drive-by's!

Edited by waldo, 06 September 2011 - 09:54 AM.

[waldo]

Even if there have been a 'few' papers laterly (How many would you say ? 6? 10?) then that still puts the consensus far on the AGW side.

ah yes, where I was headed... getting TimG to qualify his vaguely sourced/defined declarative is always a challenge... so, we have been able to flush out "attribution", but not yet what constitutes the vaguely offered, "very few" and "few and far between" references. Equally, we don't have a comparative reference point... you know, how many attribution studies, standing with merit attribution studies, have been published offering an alternate linkage... an alternate other than anthropogenic based? How many of those are there, hey?

[TimG]

Even if there have been a 'few' papers laterly (How many would you say ? 6? 10?) then that still puts the consensus far on the AGW side.

I am being generous. The only attribution papers in the last while have been responses to skeptical papers on the same topic. That would put the ratio of pro-CAGW to anti-CAGW at 1:1 which refutes your orginal point that there is a massive imbalance in the literature. When it comes to the specific topic of attribution I would say there is not.

Edited by TimG, 06 September 2011 - 10:12 AM.

[GostHacked]

surprisingly... GH punches forward with a blind link from the... uhhh... European Union Times, a blog masquerading as a newsite... an article that includes a wildly inaccurate title and quotes entirely from noted deniers, "Calder, Motl, Solomon". Even for you GostHacked, this is a low amongst previous style MLW tabloid sourced, run&gun, ta-da, drive-by's!

No matter what people link here, you will find some flaw with it. So because you don't like the messenger, you by default won't like the message.

Al Gore says we need to win the conversation. But that does not mean he is right about his message.

[waldo]

I am being generous. The only attribution papers in the last while have been responses to skeptical papers on the same topic. That would put the ratio of pro-CAGW to anti-CAGW at 1:1 which refutes your orginal point that there is a massive imbalance in the literature. When it comes to the specific topic of attribution I would say there is not.

put them up... the ones that, as I said, have standing and merit. Put them up.

[waldo]

No matter what people link here, you will find some flaw with it. So because you don't like the messenger, you by default won't like the message.

Al Gore says we need to win the conversation. But that does not mean he is right about his message.

that you would throw-up a POS from that source, one that has no foundations to anything CERN/CLOUD has brought forward, one that quotes from specious out&out deniers extraordinaire, is not, as you say, "a message"... of credibility. That you did it blindly without even bothering to offer a single word of your interpretation of CERN/CLOUD, let alone not offering anything about the POS article itself, says everything one needs to know about you and this, your latest drive-by.

[GostHacked]

that you would throw-up a POS from that source, one that has no foundations to anything CERN/CLOUD has brought forward, one that quotes from specious out&out deniers extraordinaire, is not, as you say, "a message"... of credibility. That you did it blindly without even bothering to offer a single word of your interpretation of CERN/CLOUD, let alone not offering anything about the POS article itself, says everything one needs to know about you and this, your latest drive-by.

Damn you sound like a pompous spoiled child at times. The thread is yours.

[TimG]

put them up... the ones that, as I said, have standing and merit. Put them up.

The CERN and Spencer papers are two. Then your have the Linzden papers. Your opinion of these papers is irrelevant. Micheal was engaging in the rediculous exercise of judging science by counting the number of papers.

[Michael Hardner]

I am being generous. The only attribution papers in the last while have been responses to skeptical papers on the same topic. That would put the ratio of pro-CAGW to anti-CAGW at 1:1 which refutes your orginal point that there is a massive imbalance in the literature. When it comes to the specific topic of attribution I would say there is not.

Here's the latest study I can find, from 2010

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[106]

Why do papers like the Financial Post give MORE coverage to view that represent a fringe minority ?

[Michael Hardner]

The CERN and Spencer papers are two. Then your have the Linzden papers. Your opinion of these papers is irrelevant. Micheal was engaging in the rediculous exercise of judging science by counting the number of papers.

How ridiculous is it ? We use consensus in all aspects of science, and generally of knowledge. This is why we don't have UFO studies in the news every day. Yes, you can have a Gallileo or an Einstein every 100 years or so, but we don't hold back other fields because of the possibility that everyone is wrong.

For the record, the study I just posted indicated that the fringe viewpoints are also held more by researchers with less experience in the field.

[Keepitsimple]

The court of public opinion is what usually decides matters. Slowly but surely, the ship has been turning around and poll after poll has the public's belief in APGW on the wane. The average Joe (an important fellow) can put a lot more faith in the Sun and clouds than they can in the 4/10ths of one per-cent CO2 in our atmosphere that has civilization supposedly hurtling towards Armageddon. Let the debate continue.

Edited by Keepitsimple, 06 September 2011 - 03:53 PM.

[Michael Hardner]

The court of public opinion is what usually decides matters. Slowly but surely, the ship has been turning around and poll after poll has the public's belief in APGW on the wane. The average Joe (an important fellow) can put a lot more faith in the Sun and clouds than they can in the 4/10ths of one per-cent CO2 in our atmosphere that has civilization supposedly hurtling towards Armageddon. Let the debate continue.

There was a time when the average Joe realized his limitations and relied on science to do its work, and on the media to report it.

[TimG]

There was a time when the average Joe realized his limitations and relied on science to do its work, and on the media to report it.

I case you hadn't noticed the 'average joe' is getting extremely sick of elites telling him to shut up and listen to his betters. The same zeitgeist that led to the rejection of the HST are behind the rejection of CAGW and behind the incoherent rise of the tea party.

The "elites" need to start respecting the average joe a lot more than they do.

[Michael Hardner]

I case you hadn't noticed the 'average joe' is getting extremely sick of elites telling him to shut up and listen to his betters. The same zeitgeist that led to the rejection of the HST are behind the rejection of CAGW and behind the incoherent rise of the tea party.

The "elites" need to start respecting the average joe a lot more than they do.

This is exactly the problem - people telling average Joe that his opinion on climate is as valid as someone who worked on it their whole life.

Average Joe has a lot of power, and a lot of responsibility but not a lot of interest in what's really going on.