Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Shady

The Global Warming Plateau

Recommended Posts

There's no "denying" the science, apparently we just need to ignore the unexplained and unanticipated. Other than that, everything's cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need a consensus the science is not settled. The truth needs no consensus. If a consensus is necessary it remains simply theoretical.

This has dire implications for our understanding of... everything. I'm awaiting the gravity reversal in 3... 2... 1...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

consensus does not have a "need" attachment; again, in this context, consensus is the prevailing science of the day. It prevails since it hasn't been overturned/replaced/updated by other new-found scientific understanding/findings. Why are you also playing up the "science is settled" meme?

The so called consensus is the main reason (I suspect) why others have been ridiculed and left out. Each time someone comes in to tip the balance, it's immediately tossed to the ground and then they get labeled 'deniers'.

Each time this happens, it damaged the credibility of those supporting the consensus that global warming is man made. Sorry climate change, I can't keep up on which consensus these people want to go with these days.

Science can NOT work by consensus. All major discoveries in science have NOT been done by consensus. The theory was proposed, evidence supporting it, the results tested over and over again to see if the results are the same. IN this consensus, as long as the numbers are close (meaning everyone is doing it different to get different results) then there is some kind of agreement, which I think is still the wrong approach.

With the complexity that is the atmosphere we have barely begun to understand it, and yet these guys think they have it right and agree with what they think is right. However now it seems that most of their predictions were less than perfect and now they need to adjust the models based on new information that is gathered. That is how science is done. So the so called current consensus will change. If they don't change, then even you should be able to see that they are not doing science and simply pulling a fast one on you.

So no the science is NOT settled, and when it's all done on consensus, it stops being science.

And IF you are only looking at climate change due to man (which then I can agree as we have altered the landscape of the planet enough to maybe influence climate change) Look at the floods in Calgary, The way we have urbanized things have left the natural environment unable to cope with these types of things. There are natural systems that can handle the flooding, but we have essentially destroyed some areas ability to cope with these types of events.

The building in India that was swept away by flooding. Live close to a river? Rivers flood now and then. Do we build in a different spot or blame global warming every time things flood? And why would this be used as an example of climate change.

I am familiar with flooding, my grandparents camp was on a flood zone. Happened 3 times over the course of about 25 years.

Your sole view of using CO2 as the primary and ONLY cause of all this stuff. Very very narrow in view and scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your sole view of using CO2 as the primary and ONLY cause of all this stuff. Very very narrow in view and scope.

no - I have never... never... spoken of CO2 as the sole cause of warming - and you know this! I have taken pains to emphasize the multiple forcings that contribute to warming... I have quite literally put up dozens of posts that speak directly to this, always emphasizing there are multiple factors that have radiative forcing affects on warming. I've put up IPCC sourced graphs that fully delineate each and every one of those forcing factors. But yes, most certainly, per the consensus science of the day, CO2 as sourced from anthropogenic sources, is the principal causal tie to global warming/climate change.

please... quit fabricating my position/statements! Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - consensus is the accepted prevailing science of the day. It prevails since it hasn't been overturned/replaced/updated by other new-found scientific understanding/findings. But please, please... explain yourself - for once at least! Explain why you claim that consensus is, as you say, "anti-science"?

providing no (reputable and non-debunked) alternative to the consensus while fostering/projecting fake-skepticism/denial... that simply reinforces, "denial for denial's sake"! Is that you Bryan - is that your position... "denial for denial's sake"? Why not come out from the shadows, hey?

Consensus is not science at all. It's the opposite of science. Science is testing and falsifying the prevailing theories to see if they're correct.

There is no component by which anyone is required to provide an alternative. The issue is testing what's put in front of you to see if it's true. Real science invites as much scrutiny as it can get, the more eyes the better. "Denial for denial's sake" is a critical part of the process. It has to be able to withstand that, or it simply is not true.

That's what we have with AGW: it cannot withstand even a minor amount of scrutiny. That's why the adherents are using the bogus "consensus" argument and trying to shut down conversation: they know their emperor has no clothes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The so called consensus is the main reason (I suspect) why others have been ridiculed and left out. Each time someone comes in to tip the balance, it's immediately tossed to the ground and then they get labeled 'deniers'.

Ridiculed where ? On MLW ? Well, perhaps but insults are against the rules. The term denier may be used to denote someone who denies an accepted fact, such as the greenhouse effect. That's not an insult if they openly deny such a fact.

Science can NOT work by consensus. All major discoveries in science have NOT been done by consensus.

Right, but presumably they were supported by consensus after they were established. Only in Bizarro world does consensus deem something untrue.

With the complexity that is the atmosphere we have barely begun to understand it, and yet these guys think they have it right and agree with what they think is right.

Another red herring is that because something is complex, we can't come to any conclusions about it.

However now it seems that most of their predictions were less than perfect and now they need to adjust the models based on new information that is gathered.

Another red herring is that adjusting the models invalidates the theory.

I am familiar with flooding, my grandparents camp was on a flood zone. Happened 3 times over the course of about 25 years.

If indeed the fact that a flood happened - somewhere - is taken as proof of catastrophes caused by warming, then I am with you on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus is not science at all. It's the opposite of science. Science is testing and falsifying the prevailing theories to see if they're correct.

And yet in the post above yours, someone is postulating that adjusting the models means there's something wrong with the science...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what we have with AGW: it cannot withstand even a minor amount of scrutiny. That's why the adherents are using the bogus "consensus" argument and trying to shut down conversation: they know their emperor has no clothes.

The consensus argument is, in my view, used most often to counter the assertion that many scientists dispute accepted facts about climate. The science itself is the evidence that human caused warming is happening.

To say it doesn't withstand a minor amount of scrutiny is not credible. If not, then why don't we have anything published that refutes the many papers that support the theory ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet in the post above yours, someone is postulating that adjusting the models means there's something wrong with the science...

No, it means there was something wrong with the consensus. Adjusting it is what they should be doing, all the time. What they shouldn't have been doing is screaming bloody murder when people have been telling them for 16 years that their models were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - I have never... never... spoken of CO2 as the sole cause of warming - and you know this!

How do you reconcile that thought with this next one?

But yes, most certainly, per the consensus science of the day, CO2 as sourced from anthropogenic sources, is the principal causal tie to global warming/climate change.

please... quit fabricating my position/statements! Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this regard.

When other factors are introduced, like the sun, they are dismissed. Everything that has been presented as another possible factor is simply ignored, claimed irrelevant and not included in models because the consensus is concentrating on CO2. This is the danger in the consensus and is completely anti-science.

Each time Co2 comes out on top as the sole factor simply because other factors are NOT taken into account or regarded as so minimal that it is non existent.

We talked about the sun, irrelevant.

We talked about toxic pollution, irrelevant.

We talked about weather modification, irrelevant.

We talked about many many things and CO2 always comes out on top leaving all other factors in the dust.

I'll bow out of this thread now. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consensus is not science at all. It's the opposite of science. Science is testing and falsifying the prevailing theories to see if they're correct.

There is no component by which anyone is required to provide an alternative. The issue is testing what's put in front of you to see if it's true. Real science invites as much scrutiny as it can get, the more eyes the better. "Denial for denial's sake" is a critical part of the process. It has to be able to withstand that, or it simply is not true.

That's what we have with AGW: it cannot withstand even a minor amount of scrutiny. That's why the adherents are using the bogus "consensus" argument and trying to shut down conversation: they know their emperor has no clothes.

no - consensus is nothing more than a reflection of the prevailing science. As I have said, many, many times over - skepticism is at the heart of science... genuine, not "fake" skepticism... or denial for nothing more than denial's sake!

when fake skeptics/denialists foster their agenda, in the face of being unable to offer any legitimate/non-debunked alternatives, that... that... is denial for denial's sake!

no - AGW has withstood major/significant amounts of scrutiny... much of it funded directly by fossil-fuel interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To say it doesn't withstand a minor amount of scrutiny is not credible. If not, then why don't we have anything published that refutes the many papers that support the theory ?

Reality refutes it. No statistical warming for over 16 years. They weren't just a little off, they were completely wrong, and they were told they were wrong a long time ago. The same people who claimed consensus also controlled the publishing. Papers that disagreed with them were denied on the very principle that it didn't line up with the story they decided to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it means there was something wrong with the consensus. Adjusting it is what they should be doing, all the time. What they shouldn't have been doing is screaming bloody murder when people have been telling them for 16 years that their models were wrong.

What was wrong with the consensus then ? Let's be precise. Is it that the temperature coefficients needed to be constantly adjusted, as climate scientists would agree ?

What does 'screaming bloody murder' mean, exactly ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When other factors are introduced, like the sun, they are dismissed.

No one would deny that the sun affects temperature but unless someone can show a graph illustrating an increase in some kind of solar output correlating with temperature increase - then why should we think that the sun is a factor in the increase in temperatures ?

To say it's ignored is really preposterous. Respected scientists have tried submitting correlations. I think Friis-Christenson was one. But I think that thread dropped out because there's no correlation. Calling that 'ignoring factors' is a falsehood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculed where ? On MLW ? Well, perhaps but insults are against the rules. The term denier may be used to denote someone who denies an accepted fact, such as the greenhouse effect. That's not an insult if they openly deny such a fact.

One can present information and a position as long as one acts like an adult when doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can present information and a position as long as one acts like an adult when doing it.

I agree completely. There's no reason for public ridicule on MLW, when you can simply refute the arguments. However, we do have a problem of persistent misinformation and hyperbole. This was called (by LBJ among others) 'the big lie'. Simply restating the same point despite an established record of refutation. It's enabled by memoryless media such as television, and facilitated by elements that do not prioritize getting to the heart of the matter.

For example, the hoary "70s ice age" myth which still persists. Those who argue these questions for purposes other than trying to get to the heart of the matter are more likely to be caught in those traps, in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you reconcile that thought with this next one?

reconcile??? Primary implies principal, fundamental... of chief importance. You wouldn't by chance be the same guy who played "sole versus primary" word games in another MLW thread, would you?

When other factors are introduced, like the sun, they are dismissed. Everything that has been presented as another possible factor is simply ignored, claimed irrelevant and not included in models because the consensus is concentrating on CO2. This is the danger in the consensus and is completely anti-science.

Each time Co2 comes out on top as the sole factor simply because other factors are NOT taken into account or regarded as so minimal that it is non existent.

We talked about the sun, irrelevant.

We talked about toxic pollution, irrelevant.

We talked about weather modification, irrelevant.

We talked about many many things and CO2 always comes out on top leaving all other factors in the dust.

you have, quite literally, replied with this same theme... same wordings, previously. I replied to you then - as you always do, you just ignored that. Yes, as you say, you are a waste of time... in that regard!

but again! The sun, most certainly, is not irrelevant. The sun is factored. However, how many times do you need to be shown that there is no correlation between the increased warming of (relatively) recent years and solar irradiance/solar cycles? You have been shown this... over and over, again! You just ignore it!

again, in regards the others items you mention, you clearly do not understand the concept of 'radiative forcing' no matter how many times it's mentioned, no matter how many times it's described, no matter how many times it's defined. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of your time on weather/localized/regional items, none of which have global impact... perhaps you might be better served to broaden your narrowly skewed perspective - yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No statistical warming for over 16 years.

citation request.

They weren't just a little off, they were completely wrong, and they were told they were wrong a long time ago.

what was "off"?... who are "they"?... "who told them"?... "what was told"? - citation request.

The same people who claimed consensus also controlled the publishing. Papers that disagreed with them were denied on the very principle that it didn't line up with the story they decided to tell.

more broad-based BS! There is one high-profiled case that consistently is the denier go-to... that case can be... has been... easily disputed. Citation request, one that particularly allows you such liberties to apply your statement as a summary account - waiting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, we do have a problem of persistent misinformation and hyperbole. This was called (by LBJ among others) 'the big lie'. Simply restating the same point despite an established record of refutation. It's enabled by memoryless media such as television, and facilitated by elements that do not prioritize getting to the heart of the matter.

the problem is amplified on MLW because, as you know, it is the same persons... the very same persons, who regularly recycle their same nonsense that has, also repeatedly, been refuted on MLW. Same persons/same "arguments"/same refutations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely. There's no reason for public ridicule on MLW, when you can simply refute the arguments. However, we do have a problem of persistent misinformation and hyperbole. This was called (by LBJ among others) 'the big lie'. Simply restating the same point despite an established record of refutation. It's enabled by memoryless media such as television, and facilitated by elements that do not prioritize getting to the heart of the matter.

The "big lie" has been exposed by the very things that helped to create it....data and time. Now gone are the nefarious secondary schemes of wealth transfer to "developing" nations. Kyoto is dead. Sacred prediction models for average temperature increases are now laughable monuments to alarmist hysteria.

But the good news is that it is now expected that these so called "climate change" scientists be held accountable for their fairy tales. A large and growing "community" has now sprung up to aggregate and challenge the AGW myths. Others with far better understanding of modeling and data analysis have punched holes in AGW "theory", and have been rewarded for their efforts.

Here is only one example (financed by the fossil fuel lobby for sure, right?):

I am an engineer with 30 years experience including extensive scientific training, data analysis, modeling and statistics. I have several published papers dealing with data modeling. Although I am not a "climate scientist" by trade, my knowledge and training enables me to scientifically evaluate the data and the scientific studies.

When I began to look into the science behind the global warming issue, I started to realize that the scientific debate is not over (the political debate may be over, but it shouldn't be) -- because the science doesn't match the scary scenarios portrayed by the media. So I started documenting my findings on this web site.

Unfortunately, the media do not provide a balanced portrayal of the issue -- the media are in the business of selling fear, and if global warming is not the end of the world, there is no story.

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm

This is most disturbing - the science is irrelevant. The IPCC was set up as a political process. The political purpose of the IPCC can be summed up as the former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart put it in referring to the IPCC: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." [Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998].

image013.jpg

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is, we're in a 20 year warming plateau, and the so-called experts are at a loss to explain it. Hence, there's a lot more to the story than just CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "big lie" has been exposed by the very things that helped to create it....data and time.

Yes, this is a good point. Hopefully these forums will still be around so we can look back at those who thew hyperbole and hysteria at the facts...

The Free Silver issue was another one of these - which looks pretty ridiculous in retrospect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is, we're in a 20 year warming plateau, and the so-called experts are at a loss to explain it. Hence, there's a lot more to the story than just CO2.

your timing reference is incorrect and disputable... your isolating on surface-temperatures only is purposely biased and skewed. There is no "at loss to explain it"... see continued heat transfer into respective ocean layers. Please elaborate on your "more to the story" - waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is only one example

yes! Your post is an example... a case-in-point example of just what was highlighted only a few posts back:

the problem is amplified on MLW because, as you know, it is the same persons... the very same persons, who regularly recycle their same nonsense that has, also repeatedly, been refuted on MLW. Same persons/same "arguments"/same refutations.

the multi-decades old Hansen multi-scenario projections have been spoken of on MLW, many times over. As has been shown, many times over, one scenario of the projections, the scenario Hansen stated as 'most likely, most probable'... as explained via an assortment of MLW posts, that scenario has stood the test of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We talked about the sun, irrelevant.

We talked about toxic pollution, irrelevant.

We talked about weather modification, irrelevant.

We talked about many many things and CO2 always comes out on top leaving all other factors in the dust.

Exactly. I don't understand the close-mindedness. It's like they think we've learned everything we'll ever know about the climate. It's such a neanderthal mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...