NASA Publishes Report on Link Between Sun and Climate

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 09:50 AM

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

What's absolutely ridiculous is you trying to backpedal and contend you never said things that are written right there in your posts.

Argue the facts, not my position. You CAN'T which is why you keep trying to push this off to specific wording and ME, and not the context of what I'm saying. Anyone can look at my posts and see I'm trying to present information that supports the thread. Your big words don't mean anything when your entire posts is void of facts or science to support your claims, and you use sources that are just regurgitated bits from across AGW proponent sites. Every single mention of a source that is NOT an AGW proponent, you call "delusional", "kook", "fraud", "skeptic". It just smacks of immaturity and a lack of understanding of the science. I don't have to say anything to defend my position, you've done it for me.

And to claim that no one has ever denied humans have an impact on climate...

There you go again taking things out of context and not reading. I was clear in what I said. For years, the media and governments of the world pummeled into peoples' heads that WE humans were responsible for the warming and the CO2 increases. THAT is what most people would not deny, because we ALL heard it at one point. Whether people believe it or not was not what I said, go back and read it again.

That's why this "debate" is absolutely insane and why I really shouldn't have even bothered. Trying to discuss these things with people who just constantly dance around the issue and make it a pissing contest, grasping at anything they can to justify their own bias rather than discussing it open-mindedly and honestly.

You're right, you should not have bothered. Diminishing someone else by casting them into a bucket, such as "skeptics", immediately discounts you as being open-minded and honest. Anyone who posts any facts counter to yours is a "pissing contest", which again, shows how you DON'T approach a discussion with an open mind and honesty. You've already labeled everyone with pre-conceived notions of who is right or wrong.

You act like the latter is what you're all about but your hypocrisy on this thread is astounding. You keep trying to make everything into some pointless google fight, nit-pick irrelevant details to avoid the facts, and immediately defer to the opinions and interpretations of others when all I'm trying to do is get you to look at the content itself.

Again, you are attacking my position and not the subject I presented here. You keep calling what sources I provided "irrelevant" because you can't fight them on their merits, and if you want to argue any of the facts, that isn't nit-picking, it's healthy debate, something that clearly alludes you. While there are some areas I can't claim to be an expert in, I defer to the scientists in their respective areas who ARE, instead of making wild assumptions and misinterpretations of data.

I would have gladly discussed this topic in a polite rational manner if you had shown any intention of doing the same. I have easily managed to do this in the rare threads with those few and far between real skeptics who don't just make arrogant, foolishly authoritative statements on what's "the correct venue" or "destroying" others positions (with really ignorant and long ago debunked memes - I'm still lol'ing about that one).

No you wouldn't have. Again, just looking at any of your other threads, you've done the same things you've done here. I was polite with everyone and always am, until I'm attacked personally, which will not be tolerated. You're basically calling everyone who doesn't agree with you not a "real" skeptic, but some other kind.

Meme?? How old are you, 15???
Your (improper) overuse of that word exemplifies your immaturity.

So you want to judge me on my style then go ahead - but the fact is I rarely shoot first around here, I just have this nagging intolerance for hypocrisy and people showing up on ATS spouting total BS while preaching "deny ignorance" or some phony appeal for critical thinking.

I'm not judging you on style, rather on merit, tact and presentation, all of which you severely lack.

There is plenty of room for a healthy, polite, sane discussion on climate change - but not when people are so clearly arrogant AND insecure about their opinions that they feel the need to explode over every little criticism that comes their way.

Yes, there is plenty of room, but not with an ego as big as yours present. I can take constructive criticism about any subject, but your personal attacks are intolerable.

~Namaste, love+light, nanoo-nanoo, and all that junk

What a douchebag thing to say. No more rope needed, you've hung yourself.

edit on 12-1-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

God this conversation has become so dreadfully annoying to listen to, let alone be a part of...

So yeah let's get back to the facts then that you seem to think I'm the one avoiding. You want to go in to detail - then you asked for it. Recap what's happened here -

1. You tried to imply in your OP that this study on solar forcing somehow supercedes the man-made greenhouse kind by default. (If you seriously try to deny this again you must be absolutely delusional because I've already quoted you on it twice).

2. I interjected to simply point out that no it doesn't - that the two are seperate things, and greenhouse forcing has its own mechanisms that are backed by some very fundamental independent physics. You can't simply make some authoritative judgment on which one is more "fundamental" here (especially when one is still so ambiguous) because that does nothing to undermine the well-understood science on the other. Even if it turned out that minor changes in solar forcing were somehow much more influential than we first realized - that doesn't just make greenhouse warming magically go away all of a sudden.

That's where you are simply strawman-ing what the OP is actually about, and trying to piggyback your own irrelevant personal opinions onto its coat tails. You are entitled to those opinions but the way in which you are trying to append them to the actual purpose of the study is shady and intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile I NEVER once claimed I had a problem with anything in the study itself. I think it's important and very good work - I just don't appreciate the way you are hijacking it and misrepresenting it's implications to advertise your own personal biases.

...The rest is so good it deserves it's own post. (will continue below)

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:38 PM
reply to post by mc_squared

3. So this is where it gets fun - because you decided to "destroy" my objections by instead pointing me to a link that implies the greenhouse effect is physically impossible, which *is* TOTAL quack science. I don't even need to cite sources on this nonsense - my source is my 2nd year thermodynamics textbook. There are numerous other ATS members here who can back me up on it, and I explained the gist to you anyway + linked you to some basic calculations from the University of Wisconsin that show why it must be wrong (which you have conveniently ignored throughout every one of your various diatribes since).

Furthermore you referenced a bunch of foolish memes - and yes, that's exactly what they are - because they are deliberately not telling the whole story (there's that intellectual dishonesty thing again) and they have been debunked many times already. This only shows at best how inexperienced and unaware you are of all the propaganda and BS the "skeptic" side of this debate is laced with.

I used skepticalscience to debunk them b/c it's a very nice, clean, easy to understand source, but I certainly didn't have to. These denier myths are well known and ubiquitous across the internet, and thus so are their debunkings. Here they are "destroyed" by New Scientist for example:

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

If I wanted to, I could have referenced one of my own debunkings that I've posted on ATS numerous times, like this one on the carbon lag where I link to the raw data and original papers myself - so whooops, there goes your theory that I only defer everything to

(Incidentally that thread is also a perfect example of why I'm so cynical about playing nice with global warming skeptics deniers. If you read through, you'll see what happens when I approach someone who starts the conversation under false pretenses of polite skepticism - that dude eventually goes sociopathic on me after getting cornered by the facts, he even followed me around other threads for a while warning people I was trying to "trick" them with voodoo or something lol)

Meanwhile you couldn't come up with anything to contest the SkS debunkings anyway, other than complaining that the source must be biased, and then hypocritically pointing to some other totally biased blog run by an ATS member whining about how alarmist SkS is and how the site was founded by a guy who draws cartoons for a living.

As for the specific CO2 forcing itself - you once more tried to refute that with total kook science. What's my justification on this? Well, I could point out that Nahle's "calculations" contain gross mathemtical errors that make the whole thing bunk, but based on the way you ignored my previous math-link you seem to have a distinct aversion to that stuff - so how about just the consensus of the entire climate science community, including other skeptics.

Like David Evans for example:

The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.

The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2.

Or Patrick Michaels:

It's hardly news that human beings have had a hand in the planetary warming that began more than 30 years ago. For nearly a century, scientists have known that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would eventually result in warming that was most pronounced in winter, especially on winter's coldest days, and a cooling of the stratosphere. All of these have been observed.

Or William Kininmonth:

The greenhouse effect is real, as is the enhancement due to increasing carbon dioxide concentration.

Or many more, but ATS character limit forces me to really save the best for last (cont'd again)...

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:51 PM
reply to post by mc_squared

So all that not good enough?

Then how about the simple fact that atmospheric CO2 forcing is calculated, modelled, tested and OBSERVED under actual atmospheric conditions. That's right - observed:

In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

So you mean to tell me some previously unknown, self-publishing blog-scientist, who's total outlier, fringe theories are not peer-reviewed and even contradicted by other skeptics - isn't just some random internet kook - considering his flawed amateur models go completely against basic theory AND actual physical observations?? He obviously is just some pseudo-scientific blowhard here, and YOU are a fraud for trying to pass him off as a "reputable chemist" in this debate, when he's nobody but a self-promoting sheister. Go ahead and tell me what an a-hole I am for saying that, it doesn't make it any less true.

The only people who give Nasif Nahle any sort of audience are the full-of-it and full-of-themselves denier blogs, so it's quite obvious you get all your info spoonfed directly from them. Considering how many foolish statements and mistakes you've made in this thread alone - I really suggest you stop mindlessly parroting their nonsense and start applying some real skepticism and some real critical thinking if you don't want to look anymore like a kook and a fraud yourself.

Anyway, I could have went into detail about all this before, and I could go much deeper now - but I haven't bothered, mostly because you've clearly shown yourself to be not worth it.

Every one of your rebuttals have been obnoxiously long-winded, deflecting and pointless. You have spent zero time trying to understand anything or further the conversation and just focused instead on breaking down my posts sentence by sentence in an effort to one up everything I say.

That's how all the ugly banter happens.

Put your ego back in your holster and maybe you'd get somewhere, because quite frankly your attitude screams of the type of insecurity and desperation I have become very familiar with from typical full-blown climate deniers, posing as some kind of White Knight skeptics in their mind's eye. The type who are usually so arrogantly cock-sure of themselves like you because they think they found some magic beans on the internet. Until someone points out key inconsistencies in their logic, at which point their ego starts to shatter, the cognitive dissonance mindf--k begins, and the violently defensive bickering goes off.

So I have no interest in participating in this charade. I have laid out numerous objective plain facts for you which you have completely failed to effectively address, and instead just shown yourself to be completely incapable as a true constructive, critical thinking skeptic would be. So go start doing some real research instead of just demanding I spoonfeed everything back to you now, or otherwise good luck slipping away into the world of obtuse, sheltered, delusional denial that follows from ignoring everything that doesn't fit your already pre-conceived conclusions.

And as for this -

~Namaste, love+light, nanoo-nanoo, and all that junk

What a douchebag thing to say. No more rope needed, you've hung yourself.


Yeah because putting up post after post of vitriol and personal insults my way followed by totally disingenuous "namaste" sign-offs isn't douchey at all, right? How many more petulant comments do you want to make that only show what a complete hypocrite you've been throughout this entire thread?

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:19 AM
reply to post by mc_squared

Again squared quoting from skepticalscience?... Seriously?... How many times does it have to be shown that that site is full of lies, and exagerations?... Not to mention that skepticalscience is a BLOG...

Not to mention the fact that if there was any truth to the whole anthropogenic global warming HOAX, then the IPCC policymakers and sell out scientists wouldn't have a need to lie, post false data, and be caught a a web of LIES surrounding their religious BELIEFS... There wouldn't have been/be scientists leaving the IPCC, and warning about how politicized it is regarding Climate Science...

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea.

Dear Colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date wasgrey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.

Not to mention that there wouldn't be tens of thousands of scientists and peer-reviewed papers that compeltely debunked the anthropogenic global warming HOAX... Such as...

JSC Human Space Flight Vets Complain About NASA's Climate Change Position
By Keith Cowing on April 11, 2012 1:42 PM

"49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change."

Yes, these are only a few samples of the myriad of information that has been posted over the years which shows people like squared, and scientists like Hansen, Mann, Jones, et al are all LYING and trying to impose their RELIGOUS beliefs on people...

edit on 14-1-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:49 AM
reply to post by CranialSponge

I think that these 'Scientists" Cheated in school to get their degrees.

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:40 AM
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

I find it amusing that you twist and distort a report on a work shop.

Here is what NASA thinks. Just incase you are unsure of the "venue".


IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5

B.D. Santer, “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy, “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer, “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.

5 anomalies/index.html

T.C. Peterson, "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

I. Allison, The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

L. Polyak,, “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

National Snow and Ice Data Center

World Glacier Monitoring Service




C. L. Sabine, “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371

Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.

I am guesing all these will be "biased", "wrong" "Al Gore" supporters, "in on the conspiracy", etc etc. Yada yada. Blah Blah.

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in