2011 was the ninth warmest year on record

[DrPizza]

I suppose you think that taking one post out of context is being honest or fair?

That wasn't out of context. While I believe the burden of proof was on Dave to support his claim, you used that post in a manner to dispute Dave's post. Thus your use of that was dishonest and contributed actually nothing to the discussion other than noise.

 

[Paul98]

I am just trying to figure out what you believe, what word would you use to say how much humans vs natural? Before you has said much greater impact. So how about substitute vast majority with much greater into what I said before. like this...

That in the past 50 or 100 years there was a much greater impact on global temperature rise due to natural causes and that humans have or very little impact?

as for percentage I have no clue, I am not a climate scientist. But from what I have read humans have had a large impact on global temperature rise in that time period.

 

[shira]

You just have to add bullshit terms like "vast majority" don't you? I never said "vast majority" and won't. The main impact that humans have on the climate are land use impacts. Those include, but are not limited to agriculture, reservoirs, roads, railroads, the urban heat index, deforestation, reforestation and land changes such as draining swamps. There are other anthropogenic issues that also have an impact, such as greenhouse gases.
Now you can tell me what percent of climate change is anthropogenic and what part is natural.

*edit* Just in case you want peer reviewed, here's a good paper to start with.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...ional-evidence-has-been-officially-published/

Ever heard of the term "cherry picking?"

Now, please explain to us why you give such disproportionate credence to THIS particular paper, yet choose to ignore the thousands of papers that come to a different conclusion?

The answer, I think, is obvious: You're cherry-picking research and ignoring the science that disagrees with the pre-determined conclusions you desire.

 

[monovillage]

That wasn't out of context. While I believe the burden of proof was on Dave to support his claim, you used that post in a manner to dispute Dave's post. Thus your use of that was dishonest and contributed actually nothing to the discussion other than noise.

I was responding to a dmcowen674 post ! and i'm contributing to noise? It was still a cool picture even if you don't say it was.

 

[monovillage]

Ever heard of the term "cherry picking?"

Now, please explain to us why you give such disproportionate credence to THIS particular paper, yet choose to ignore the thousands of papers that come to a different conclusion?

The answer, I think, is obvious: You're cherry-picking research and ignoring the science that disagrees with the per-determined conclusions you desire.

I know what it means, and if you can find even 10 papers that deal with the same subject and disagree with this paper i'll give you a cookie. I'm using the science that points out your catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scare tactics are bullshit and that you're the one cherry picking older articles to support a political agenda.

 

[monovillage]

I am just trying to figure out what you believe, what word would you use to say how much humans vs natural? Before you has said much greater impact. So how about substitute vast majority with much greater into what I said before. like this...

That in the past 50 or 100 years there was a much greater impact on global temperature rise due to natural causes and that humans have or very little impact?

as for percentage I have no clue, I am not a climate scientist. But from what I have read humans have had a large impact on global temperature rise in that time period.

I don't know as i've stated before, there are too many uncertainties. There is too much science that is in dispute or unknown for me to be willing to spend trillions of dollars and ruin the economy of many nations to support making radical changes.

 

[shadow9d9]

I don't know as i've stated before, there are too many uncertainties. There is too much science that is in dispute or unknown for me to be willing to spend trillions of dollars and ruin the economy of many nations to support making radical changes.

Oh no! We might actually JUST clean up the environment and stop corporations from trashing it! The HORROR!

"Too much science in dispute"? Absolute nonsense btw.

 

[monovillage]

Oh no! We might actually JUST clean up the environment and stop corporations from trashing it! The HORROR!

"Too much science in dispute"? Absolute nonsense btw.

I probably should have worded it that there are too many scientific uncertainties. Would that make you happier?

 

[xj0hnx]

Considering that there's a few billion more years that we don't have data to compare to, 2011 being the "warmest on record" doesn't really say much at all.

 

[shira]

I probably should have worded it that there are too many scientific uncertainties. Would that make you happier?

According to whom? Non-scientists?

 

[monovillage]

According to whom? Non-scientists?

Interesting you should ask. Here's a paper by a very well respected climate scientist and about half a dozen response articles along with peer reviewed papers. I included the ones on advocacy science and real holes in climate science just for you.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/10/uncertainty-monster-paper-in-press/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/28/uncertainty-monster-visits-mit/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/13/advocacy-science-and-decision-making/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/defending-the-uncertainty-monster-paper/

http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/03/the-real-holes-in-climate-science/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...nties-in-our-understanding-of-climate-change/

There are lots and lots more from different climatologists, but you can get a start.

 

[Darwin333]

So far the evidence isn't pointing to catastrophe.

That is not what you stated.

Frankly, you guys that are completely against global warming (for whatever the hell reason) are taking the way wrong tact. You are trying to argue science from basically an illiterate standpoint (the science part). I doubt that any of you have even a basic understanding of the various different sciences that you are arguing. What you should be arguing is that even if true there is no reasonable or viable global solution. Offshoring our emissions at great harm to our economy does not solve the problem and even if we don't offshore it (still harming our economy, potentially more) it will still be replaced by some other country in virtually no time. You aren't going to convince a man living in a hut that he has to forgo electricity and running water because of global warming and we can't subsidize their "green" standard of living.

 

[Darwin333]

My thoughts exactly, there is a lot more to it. All global warming, climate change hype needs to go die in a fire.

On the other hand, lets clean up this place it is a damn mess and it certainly didn't look like this when we got here.

What needs to die in a fire is all of you assholes, along with the asshole politicians, trying to fuck with science. Let the actual scientists figure shit out and once they have they will explain it to us with little words that we can understand. Between now and then, unless you have a PHD in a relevant subject, your input is less than meaningless as is mine.

 

[Darwin333]

I know what it means, and if you can find even 10 papers that deal with the same subject and disagree with this paper i'll give you a cookie. I'm using the science that points out your catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scare tactics are bullshit and that you're the one cherry picking older articles to support a political agenda.

Might I ask what your scientific education is? Specifically, what is your degree in and what science discipline did you specialize in? Bonus points if you can link any of your scientific papers that have been published.

 

[monovillage]

That is not what you stated.

Frankly, you guys that are completely against global warming (for whatever the hell reason) are taking the way wrong tact. You are trying to argue science from basically an illiterate standpoint (the science part). I doubt that any of you have even a basic understanding of the various different sciences that you are arguing. What you should be arguing is that even if true there is no reasonable or viable global solution. Offshoring our emissions at great harm to our economy does not solve the problem and even if we don't offshore it (still harming our economy, potentially more) it will still be replaced by some other country in virtually no time. You aren't going to convince a man living in a hut that he has to forgo electricity and running water because of global warming and we can't subsidize their "green" standard of living.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Darwin333]

Oh no! We might actually JUST clean up the environment and stop corporations from trashing it! The HORROR!

"Too much science in dispute"? Absolute nonsense btw.

He does sort of have a point. Some of the proposals I have seen would amount to economic doom for the US. Just like the guy in the mud hut isn't willing to wait until he can afford to go green before he gets electricity, I am not willing to substantially reduce my lifestyle either. I am all for the reasonable measures, even if they cost a bit, but any sort of serious reduction in our emissions would be economic suicide.

 

[Darwin333]

WTF are you talking about?

You stated a definitive and when I called you on it you said "the evidence isn't pointing that way" which is very different from your original statement.

Then I stated that regardless of the actual causes there is no reasonable global solution so if you are in the "no global warming" camp that it might be a better approach than trying to argue science that you likely don't have a solid grasp on.

In a later post I questioned your scientific credentials, specifically your degree and published work.

Let me know if I need to further clear any of that up for you.

 

[monovillage]

You stated a definitive and when I called you on it you said "the evidence isn't pointing that way" which is very different from your original statement.

Then I stated that regardless of the actual causes there is no reasonable global solution so if you are in the "no global warming" camp that it might be a better approach than trying to argue science that you likely don't have a solid grasp on.

In a later post I questioned your scientific credentials, specifically your degree and published work.

Let me know if I need to further clear any of that up for you.

You lied about what camp i'm in, I said in several different posts in this thread that I agree there is global warming going on and that humans contribute to it.

 

[Darwin333]

You lied about what camp i'm in, I said in several different posts in this thread that I agree there is global warming going on and that humans contribute to it.

I have not, nor do I intend to, lie about any subject I debate on these forums. If I have made a mistake than I apologize but an intentional lie it was not. I bet I even used the word IF in my post but I would have to go back and check before you accuse me of another lie.

I don't care about your opinion enough to intentionally make up a lie to "win" this, or any other, debate. I am truly sorry if that hurts your ego but that's just the way it is.

 

[monovillage]

I have not, nor do I intend to, lie about any subject I debate on these forums. If I have made a mistake than I apologize but an intentional lie it was not. I bet I even used the word IF in my post but I would have to go back and check before you accuse me of another lie.

I don't care about your opinion enough to intentionally make up a lie to "win" this, or any other, debate. I am truly sorry if that hurts your ego but that's just the way it is.

That's why I asked "WTF" because you had completely missed my position on global warming, including my position on 2nd and 3rd world people finally getting a chance to live a better life.
It's catastrophic climate change and the huge political steps that some are asking for that I have a problem with. I do have a degree, my major was Geology and I'm not a peer reviewed scientist.

 

[Darwin333]

That's why I asked "WTF" because you had completely missed my position on global warming, including my position on 2nd and 3rd world people finally getting a chance to live a better life.
It's catastrophic climate change and the huge political steps that some are asking for that I have a problem with. I do have a degree, my major was Geology and I'm not a peer reviewed scientist.

I didn't really miss your position because I had never read it. What I did read was a definitive statement that natural forces dwarf any man made sources of global warming and that is what I based my opinion of your position on.

I would think that someone with a degree in Geology would know better than to make such statements that can not possibly be backed up and can be, and have been, called out by someone with very little higher education in the sciences. That was really the biggest point I was trying to make and considering your redaction, I was spot on.


Edit: I am sorry I left it out, but I do agree with your last statement. I know fuckall about the science but I do understand the "cures" they are trying to pass and even my dumbass can figure out that it will do nothing but make us poorer without fixing the issue (if it actually exists which again I know fuckall about).

 

[shira]

Interesting you should ask. Here's a paper by a very well respected climate scientist and about half a dozen response articles along with peer reviewed papers. I included the ones on advocacy science and real holes in climate science just for you.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/10/uncertainty-monster-paper-in-press/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/28/uncertainty-monster-visits-mit/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/13/advocacy-science-and-decision-making/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/defending-the-uncertainty-monster-paper/

http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/03/the-real-holes-in-climate-science/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...nties-in-our-understanding-of-climate-change/

There are lots and lots more from different climatologists, but you can get a start.

Ha ha ha, I picked one link at random, and the introductory paragraph starts:

Like any other field, research on climate change has some fundamental gaps

Somehow, I don't think climate-change deniers have much of a problem with all of the other fields of scientific research, ALL of which have "fundamental gaps." Want an example?

Hmm, well how about the fact that modern physics can't explain the movements of large, distant objects, and has come up with the concept of "dark energy" as a kind of placeholder. Does anyone think that cosmologists are all frauds? Does anyone think that dark energy means that quantum mechanics or general relativity are bogus?

Yet if climatology has the same size gaps as other fields, it's fundamental theories are just overblown scare tactics.

 

[BladeVenom]

 

[monovillage]

Ha ha ha, I picked one link at random, and the introductory paragraph starts:



Somehow, I don't think climate-change deniers have much of a problem with all of the other fields of scientific research, ALL of which have "fundamental gaps." Want an example?

Hmm, well how about the fact that modern physics can't explain the movements of large, distant objects, and has come up with the concept of "dark energy" as a kind of placeholder. Does anyone think that cosmologists are all frauds? Does anyone think that dark energy means that quantum mechanics or general relativity are bogus?

Yet if climatology has the same size gaps as other fields, it's fundamental theories are just overblown scare tactics.

Glad to see that you now agree with me shira and there's uncertainties in climate science as i've told you many times before. Keep reading, the learning will do you good.

 

[cybrsage]

What needs to die in a fire is all of you assholes, along with the asshole politicians, trying to fuck with science. Let the actual scientists figure shit out and once they have they will explain it to us with little words that we can understand. Between now and then, unless you have a PHD in a relevant subject, your input is less than meaningless as is mine.

This would include those who wrote the last IPCC report, right? You want them to die horribly and painfully, right?