Global Warming Theory cannot be considered to be a science any longer

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
The same "religion" that gave you penicillin, beer, trains and the ability to communicate over the internet. And provides you with clean water and light and food.

No, not the same. Those technologies are testable, repeatable, and can be modeled.

Man-Made Climate Change is none of those things.

a reply to: Teikiatsu
So are you trying to tell us that radiative forcing of CO2 is a bogus concept?

A big piece if th e puzzle for the AGW 'theory' is the concept if radiative forcing of CO2, this has been lab tested and verified. Hence the term greenhouse gas.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Actually Amazing - it is cold that kills, not warm

www.usatoday.com...

But if it makes you feel any better, many scientists are starting to predict that the global temperature is entering a cooling phase.

Given that two heatwaves (2003 Europe & 2010 Russia) contributed 40% of the total deaths attributed to heat from 1985-2012, I'm curious about how they arrived at their totals.

ExxonMobil seems to disagree with you:

With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.

Curiously, they wrote this position paper:

Policymakers around the world currently are considering a variety of legislative and regulatory options to achieve these ends. Among the various proposals, ExxonMobil believes a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be a more effective policy option than cap-and-trade schemes, regulations, mandates, or standards. A properly designed carbon tax can be predictable, transparent, and comparatively simple to understand and implement.

I'm no proponent of a carbon tax, but I thought that was interesting to see coming from the mouth of an oil company.

a reply to: Greven

Wow - you talk big but you got any proof? Pics or it never happened.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Greven

I know how much you like peer-reviewed studies. Will the Lancet do? Apparently, cold kills 20 times more people than heat

www.sciencedaily.com...

This was as of May 2015 so I think that would include both of your big heat waves.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I am still waiting for Kali74 to admit that the Medieval Warming Period was a global event and that the temperatures exceeded todays temperatures.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: amazing

That is for you to decide.

I am just more annoyed that climate change has become the Holy of Holies for a certain political group and questioning any aspect is tantamount to ex-communication or PR-execution.

It isn't, if you have good reason to question and are qualified to do so.

Questioning it without scientific evidence, and denying clearly settled scientific facts is indeed foolish and deserves to be mocked.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: amazing

That is for you to decide.

I am just more annoyed that climate change has become the Holy of Holies for a certain political group and questioning any aspect is tantamount to ex-communication or PR-execution.

It isn't, if you have good reason to question and are qualified to do so.

Questioning it without scientific evidence, and denying clearly settled scientific facts is indeed foolish and deserves to be mocked.

ANytime something is settled in science its no longer scientific. ALso 97 percent of 33 percent is not alot of scientist is it? remember th e smallest wheel can make th e biggest noise at times.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: amazing

That is for you to decide.

I am just more annoyed that climate change has become the Holy of Holies for a certain political group and questioning any aspect is tantamount to ex-communication or PR-execution.

It isn't, if you have good reason to question and are qualified to do so.

Questioning it without scientific evidence, and denying clearly settled scientific facts is indeed foolish and deserves to be mocked.

Like how I mock the fear mongerring of James Hansen and people lash out at me for it?

How people refuse to acknowledge the difference between saying 97% of ALL climate scientists and 97% of climate scientists willing to go on record? One of those sounds better politically than the other, I wonder which one it is?

-FBB

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: amazing

That is for you to decide.

I am just more annoyed that climate change has become the Holy of Holies for a certain political group and questioning any aspect is tantamount to ex-communication or PR-execution.

It isn't, if you have good reason to question and are qualified to do so.

Questioning it without scientific evidence, and denying clearly settled scientific facts is indeed foolish and deserves to be mocked.

ANytime something is settled in science its no longer scientific. ALso 97 percent of 33 percent is not alot of scientist is it? remember th e smallest wheel can make th e biggest noise at times.

It was 98% of 33% AND 54% of 66%.

Of the 66% that did not declare support for or against (or claim they didn't know) the consensus theory in their abstract, 54% of those expressed a degree of support for the consensus when contacted by the researchers.

Almost half of that 66% did not want to make a statement endorsing the consensus or not.

I wonder why they would rather stay quiet? Maybe there are aspects they are uncomfortable with, but fear of reprisal from vicious climate psychologists holds their tongue? Who knows other then they do, my speculating is only meant in a mocking fashion because an honest conversation on that probably cant occur.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

You guys are high fiveing each other's ignorance.

We have posted several links explaining how the 97% figure was derived, yet you all ignore that, pull some mental gymnastics with numbers and pretend your are so smart....

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I am still waiting for Kali74 to admit that the Medieval Warming Period was a global event and that the temperatures exceeded todays temperatures.

Tired of Control Freaks

en.wikipedia.org...

A 2009 study by Michael Mann et al. examining spatial patterns of surface temperatures shown in multi-proxy reconstructions finds that the MWP shows "warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally."[4] Their reconstruction of MWP pattern is characterised by warmth over large part of North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America which appears to substantially exceed that of the late 20th century (1961–1990) baseline and is comparable or exceeds that of the past one-to-two decades in some regions. Certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and (with less confidence) parts of the South Atlantic, exhibit anomalous coolness.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

a reply to: cuckooold

Thank you Cuckooold but you are merely repeating the errors of Micheal Man from the 1990s

It was Micheal Mann and his very famous Hockey Stick Graph that first proposed the the MWP was not as warm as current temperatures. He constructed his graph using tree rings as proxies. But there was a big problem with the tree ring proxy. As he was constructing graph and he approached the time period when there was instrumentental temperature readings, the tree ring proxy diverged from known and measured temperatures. This is what the famous "hide the decline" email was all about.

If the tree ring proxy could not approximate modern temperatures, we have to have serious doubts as to its accuracy for a time period 1200 years ago.

Micheal Mann used a "trick" (he called it that, not me) by constructing the Hockey Stick Graph is such a way that when the predicted temperatures from the tree ring proxy began to diverge from the known measured temperature, he completed the graph to current years by merely grafting the instrument measures onto the graph instead of using the tree ring proxy to finish the graph.

Since it was Steve McIntyre who was instrumental is completely debunking the famous Hockey Stick Graph, I think it is only fitting that I should provide a link to his site to explain "hide the decline"

climateaudit.org...

Now the Medieval Warming Period was always believed to be warmer than the current climate bu the appearance of the Hockey Stick Graph called that knowledge into question and the issue needed to be examined again.

Was the MWP merely a regional event affecting only those parts of the Northern Hemisphere that border onto the Atlantic Ocean was it a global event?

here is a link to a list of published peer-reviewed papers, all of which re-examine the issue of extent of the MWP

www.climatedepot.com... vidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

I will leave you to look up each actual study by yourself. However, the paper I presented to Kali74, the one to which he has not yet responded, was a recent study that examined ocean sediments in the pacific and antarctic oceans. Obviously, if the sediments contained evidence of warming during the MWP, then it can be established that the MWP was a global event and that it was warmer than current global temperatures.

Obviously, with no burning of fossil fuels and a much smaller population, the warming of the MWP must be accepted as a natural event and provides proof that current global temperatures are within the natural variability of the planet's climate.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And this just for Amazing.

scientiest studied tree rings from the Siara Nevada mountains. The study resulted in proving not only that the MWP was a global event, it indicated that the temperatures in California were 3 degrees higher than current temperatures.

www.climateaudit.info...

The Theory of Anthropogenically Sourced Global Warming is crumbling as we speak, and when it falls, it will take the reputation of many respected institutions, scientists and government with it, including the UN itself.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

You guys are high fiveing each other's ignorance.

We have posted several links explaining how the 97% figure was derived, yet you all ignore that, pull some mental gymnastics with numbers and pretend your are so smart....

YEs and we have shown you how they actually got to 97 percent. I bet you th e people you cited have had mark increases in their lifestyles and bank accounts.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I am still waiting for Kali74 to admit that the Medieval Warming Period was a global event and that the temperatures exceeded todays temperatures.

Tired of Control Freaks

Let's have a few confirmed peer reviewed studies saying so, that the Medieval Warm (not warming) Period had global average temperature higher than today.

The one presented previously showed 'global influences' but that doesn't mean it was as much as one thinks.

For instance, here is a brand new one in "Science Advances" (sister publication to the top level Science journal), with evidence otherwise:

advances.sciencemag.org...

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

The substantial majority of evidence on MWP does not show that it was globally warmer.

“It’s becoming clearer that the Medieval Warm Period was patchy, not global,” said lead author Nicolás Young, a glacial geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “The concept is Eurocentric—that’s where the best-known observations were made. Elsewhere, the climate might not have been the same.” Climate scientists have cited the Medieval Warm Period to explain anomalies in rainfall and temperature in far-flung regions, from the U.S. Southwest to China. The study appears today in the journal Science Advances.

And in fact, this is consistent with the physics. If the MWP were warmer globally then why was it so? What's the physics?

Since we can discern none obvious, then it's more likely it's a rearrangement of the heat---there are conservation laws in physics after all probably due to long-term ocean currents (transport is on the order of decades to centuries timescales).

And what does that have to do with today's climate, when we have far better global data?

Just because something got warmer (and then cooler) once does nothing to invalidate the known physics of why things are getting warmer now. It's like an ER doctor seeing a patient with a heart attack a year ago, and then when a new patient comes in with a bullet hole in his chest, and an X-ray of the bullet and powder residue, the "skeptical" doc saying "hey we don't know enough to diagnose this as anthropogenic cardiac trauma, because after all back in the day we had a guy with a heart attack from atherosclerosis".

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

You guys are high fiveing each other's ignorance.

We have posted several links explaining how the 97% figure was derived, yet you all ignore that, pull some mental gymnastics with numbers and pretend your are so smart....

YEs and we have shown you how they actually got to 97 percent.

Yes, and it's legitimate.

I bet you th e people you cited have had mark increases in their lifestyles and bank accounts.

Do you actually know any professional scientists who work in academics?

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: amazing

Of the 66% that did not declare support for or against (or claim they didn't know) the consensus theory in their abstract, 54% of those expressed a degree of support for the consensus when contacted by the researchers.

Almost half of that 66% did not want to make a statement endorsing the consensus or not.

Because they were asked to rate their paper. Many papers don't directly deal with the issue. The real point is that a HIGHER fraction of authors said that their papers supported consensus than the independent reviewers of the abstract scored them.

Here's an exercise, go score last year's abstracts in Physical Review Letters about support for or against conservation of momentum. Apply the same methodology. By the denialist critics here, you'd come up with "The 'consensus' is a lie, only 0.1% support it! Are 99.9% of physicists too cowardly to take a position on momentum conservation theory---are they being suppressed by the tax-hungry global elitists? " And that would seriously take up traction if this momentum conservation meant that some wealthy people might be inconvenienced financially.

I wonder why they would rather stay quiet? Maybe there are aspects they are uncomfortable with, but fear of reprisal from vicious climate psychologists holds their tongue? Who knows other then they do, my speculating is only meant in a mocking fashion because an honest conversation on that probably cant occur.

You have donald trump spouting bigotry on TV without shame, and you think this overwhelming silent majority of climatologists, many with tenure, all over the world, would somehow be silent about the supposed flood of major results coming out of the data and being published against AGW and yet EVERYBODY shuts up about it?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: amazing

That is for you to decide.

I am just more annoyed that climate change has become the Holy of Holies for a certain political group and questioning any aspect is tantamount to ex-communication or PR-execution.

It isn't, if you have good reason to question and are qualified to do so.

Questioning it without scientific evidence, and denying clearly settled scientific facts is indeed foolish and deserves to be mocked.

ANytime something is settled in science its no longer scientific.

Truly? Still looking for that phlostigon? Maybe it's out there, but leftists are hiding the decline?

a reply to: Greven

Why aren't you a proponent of the carbon tax?

(I believe more emissions and actions should be taxed proportional to their long-term climate hazards---there's more than CO2).

Exxon is correct---it is the least likely to be gamed, and the information is transmitted through the price structure directly and not through trading of credits which has more opportunity for cheating and manipulation.