Belief in AGW is religion, not science.

[Ishmael]

The greater number of those that take Anthropogenic Global Warming as fact are engaging in a pseudo-religious belief, not basing their belief on any known science.

Laying a little ground work here, NO scientific theory can ever be proven. Evidence, via experimentation or observation can verify the essential elements of a theorem to the point that it can be accepted as fact. Darwin's theory of evolution is one of these. Adaptation has been observed on such a continuous basis over an extended period to be essentially taken as fact. (Although we are still unclear about how new species come about.) The "Big Bang" theory is another one that falls into this class, but even that is being revised and debated today.

AGW barely falls into the category of theory. It's actually more of a postulate at this point in time and there is NO evidence to support any conclusion of this postulate while there is serious evidence to refute the postulate.

The entire model revolves around CO2 and that model is based on observations of Venus, a planet that has little in common with the Earth beyond a similarity of size. The AGW crowd is of the group that believe that Venus is a hell hole of a planet due to runaway global warming, although they have absolutely zero scientific fact to support that conclusion. Velikovsky's theories concerning Venus are no less credible than those of the AGW crowd. Actually his theories may be closer to the truth as we learn more about the incredible violence our solar system has been subjected to.

Ever since the Chicxulub event the earth has not only cooled dramatically, by became climatically unstable. Wild oscillations between glaciation and warming have been the norm since that impact event. Of course these changes have taken place on geologic time scales, but the record is quite clear.

Geologically speaking we are nearing, or are at, the peak of an inter-glacial period. IF we are on the warming side of the near peak curve then it is to be expected that the earth will continue to warm for some time to come. If the geologic record is to be believed we can expect the sea levels to rise another 50 ft. over some period of time. IF, on the other hand, we are at the peak, then the shit is going to hit the fan. Trust me folks, if you have the choice between warming or cooling you'd be the fool to choose cooling.

The AGW crowd has taken faulty computer models and "postulated" a dire furture indeed. But exactly how dire is that future even if they're right? Historically we know that periods of warming have been bountiful for the human specie. We also know that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase crop yields and overall plant vitality. We know that virtually ALL life on the planet, at least as far as the welfare of animals like ourselves, is based on the welfare of the plants. I'm having a hard time trying to find what's not to like about warmer and more CO2.

Their very models indicate that the the temperature excursions would be most extreme in the higher latitudes and virtually non-existent near the equator. Yet they paint a picture of mass extinctions of those 'brown' people near the equator. Why is that? That alone starts to make the whole 'postulate' to start smelling like political agenda.

Everyone has seen the 'hockey stick' curve. First of all folks that curve is a trick of scaling, compress the X axis and expand the Y. It's the scientific equivalent of a rhetorical twist of the language. Secondly it ends with the implication that it only gets worse and that is a virtual impossibility. The higher the temperature, the greater the evaporated H20, the greater the cloud cover, the greater the albedo, hence---cool down. The system is self-damping in that respect. Back to Venus here. Venus is NOT a water planet. BIG difference there. And the argument that all of the water 'boiled off' the atmosphere is a non-starter. Venus has far too much gravity for that to have happened. If the water boiled, it should still be in the atmosphere, it isn't. Gravity is not discriminatory when it comes to effects on mass.

Bringing us to the crux of the matter. Belief in AGW and being desirous of wanting some state to do something about it is the intellectual equivalent of surrendering all your worldly goods to the church. And about as likely to make a damn bit of difference to anyone but the church.

It is obvious to me that these particular scientists managed to find their way to a pot of grant gold. It's just as obvious that those politicians that realized that this was the route to take to take more power over your life bought in early and deeply. In ages past the great danger to individual freedom was the conjunction of church and state, it appears that the new danger paradigm is the conjunction of 'science' and state.

Ishmael

 

[pete]

interesting

did you see this guys theory on the snow in siberia?

 

[Ishmael]

interesting

did you see this guys theory on the snow in siberia?

Only makes sense if you have a political agenda.

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

That reminds me. I must pick up some more kosher light bulbs.

 

[torchthebitch]

You miss the point that AGW is also a moneymaking opportunity. Carbon trading offers serious profits and the same people who brought about the bank collapses will engage in this. They already have access to all senior levels of politics. Their money finances the climate change research and they present it to the UN and governments to create the carbon trading market. And for no outlay, the useful fools create the voting block that must appeased by further concessions.

Sweet.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

DANGER! Will Robinson...

It is the perfect opportunity and excuse to raise taxes and engage in some positive interference of government. The beauty is that you control the educational process too, so no one will question state-sponsored Science any more than they will question state-sponsored Medicine (or to complete the circle, state-sponsored Education).

Now class, let us rise and sing our Anthem, "We..."



Furthermore, it puts the veneer of morality in the name of Gaia, on state "regulatory" control of the means of production (as well as consumptive habits).

__________________
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
Frederic Bastiat

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You miss the point that AGW is also a moneymaking opportunity. Carbon trading offers serious profits and the same people who brought about the bank collapses will engage in this. They already have access to all senior levels of politics. Their money finances the climate change research and they present it to the UN and governments to create the carbon trading market. And for no outlay, the useful fools create the voting block that must appeased by further concessions.

Sweet.

What was sweet was when Algore's Chicago carbon trading venture went belly-up waiting for a Democrat controlled Congress to do his heavy lifting...

Oh well, looks like the bureaucracy is going to step in and begin regulating carbon emissions; they don't have to get elected any more than the people in charge of "education" standards.

 

[torchthebitch]

When man ceases to believe in God, he'll believe any old shit. Especially if the new messiah looks good in a sharp suit.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Ah the obligatory "It's cold this winter so Global Warming is a bunch of hokum" thread by Ishmael and Cap'n Sychophant . I love December. It brings out the Inhofe bobble-heads.

Tell us all about how "It's the Sun, stupid." again Grampa, we love that one even though it's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one..

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The Prince should at least pretend to be a man of faith; the people need it.

Take one away and it gets replaced.



What we're seeing is "The Return of the Primitive" a dangerous faux new-age liberal ideal, living on Walden Pond. Back to Shamanism...

We're being guided by "education" into a cult of techno-Luddites.

It's the new "smart-phone" illiteracy.

How many times do you see Listers say, "Our culture has evolved thanks to technology." The obvious fallacy being to equate "change" with evolution and to assume change actually changes personal and political behavior in any meaningful way.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Ah the obligatory "It's cold this winter so Global Warming is a bunch of hokum" thread by Ishmael and Cap'n Sychophant . I love December. It brings out the Inhofe bobble-heads.

Tell us all about how "It's the Sun, stupid." again Grampa, we love that one even though it's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one..

I'm not relying on a really cold winter. I'm relying on the fact that since the inception of the hoax, we've seen no actual global warming.

The Winner of This Year's 'Best Climate Predictor' Award (Clue: It Wasn't Al Gore!)
By Howard Richman & Raymond Richman

Piers Corbyn is the clear winner, yet he still works out of a drab office that the U.K. Daily Telegraph calls "undistinguished":

[T]his is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?

Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.

Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its "mild winter" schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year's mythical "barbecue summer", and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too. [...]

He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people - notably in farming - are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.

Corbyn, like many other astrophysicists, has figured out that climate change is mainly due to extraterrestrial forces, including solar activity and cosmic rays, not carbon dioxide. If you still believe in the theory that carbon dioxide causes climate change, click here to watch an excellent lecture by Jasper Kirkby at the Cern, one of Europe's most highly respected centers for scientific research. Astrophysicists have discovered that changes in the rate of cosmic ray inflow cause climate change and that solar activity shields the earth from cosmic rays. They haven't completely worked out the mechanism yet, but they think it has to do with cosmic rays causing cloud formation and clouds reflecting sunlight back into space.

Who says that climate change will not be catastrophic? Starting January 2, President Obama's EPA will start enforcing its new regulation that American industries use the "best available control technologies" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This could increase American energy costs sufficiently to choke off our economic recovery.

Of course, since this appears in the American Thinker and not the NY Times, you automatically dismiss it because you don't engage in lying or deceit when it comes to actual thinking. You have your sources and they tell you that the world is dying...

So, of course, that means any denier of ACC actually wants the planet to die in the name of profit.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Did this come to you while prostrated before the big picture of Obama in the front room? Just wondering...oh. Happy New Year.

So what if it's been cold three years in a row!!!???

We have 24 models proving global warming and one of them actually includes this cooling in the winter...



I actually saw this posted the other day. Of course the poster sees no problem with each model producing different results, as long as all the results say ACC with the proper interpretation of the data, just as a PROPER reading of the Koran screams religion of peace...

And vetteman, quit trying to offend. If you can't bring yourself to celebrate Kwanzaa, then stick to Happy Holidays. It's not LUNAR NEW YEAR you big dummy and the Chinese are Holdering our debt!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The evil vetteman still sees a problem with it being man made as well.

Made in China!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

In support of something I posted above... #6

The opening shot of the War Between the Red and Blue States may have been fired last Friday when the Environmental Protection Administration announced its intention to take over Texas's authority on issuing clean air permits to new industrial facilities as of January 2.

It is hard to imagine a more stark confrontation between public and private sector-oriented economies. Texas has the strongest economy in the nation, based on its philosophy of limited government. The Texas Legislature convenes only in odd-numbered years is constitutionally limited to meeting only 140 days. Until this year, Texas has had a budget surplus and still has $7.5 billion in a rainy-day fund created by voters in 1988. During 2006 and 2007, Texas created 52 percent of all new jobs in the nation, according to a study done by the Southern Methodist University's Cox School of Business. People are flocking to the state so fast that Texas will gain four seats in the House of Representatives in the new decade.

Washington, on the other hand, has run up a trillion-dollar budget deficit and destroyed private-sector jobs all over the country while expanding the government and presiding over 10 percent unemployment. The states on the East and West Coast that adhere most closely to Washington's philosophy are approaching insolvency. Yet they continue to pursue dreamy energy agendas, trying to close down existing power plants and refusing to build new ones while planning for a world running on windmills and solar collectors.

...

Last Thursday, EPA Administrator's Lisa Jackson announced that, in response to the threat of lawsuits from environmental groups, she will impose "new source performance standards" for carbon emissions on utilities and oil refineries across the country during the coming year. Despite the name, "new source" standards apply to old sources as well. Their inevitable impact is to freeze all current technologies while preventing anything new from being built. It was this gridlock that cap-and-trade was supposed to overcome. The next day, Jackson announced that, due to Texas's stubborn resistance in cooperating with the federal effort, the EPA would take over all authority to issue permits for new facilities beginning January 2.

The stakes could not be higher. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) estimates there are 167 major projects that are shovel-ready and about to begin construction next year. Most are oil refineries and power plants but many are also major industrial facilities. EPA's permitting process for other traditional air pollutants -- sulfur and nitrous oxides, etc. -- has already slowed to a crawl. Adding carbon dioxide -- an unavoidable by-product of all forms of combustion -- will bring permitting to a dead halt. The future of the Texas economy -- and the nation as a whole -- may be at stake. If Texas stumbles, we could easily slip into a double-dip recession.

When the EPA issues new standards, it has always given the states three years to draw up "implementation programs" to meet them. In the case of carbon emissions, however, Administrator Jackson has concluded that the global warming crisis leaves no room for the traditional development period. Action would have to begin January 2. When Texas responded by going to court to challenge the accelerated schedule, Jackson responded with last week's federal takeover.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/28/the-red-and-blue-states-fort-s

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I'm not relying on a really cold winter. I'm relying on the fact that since the inception of the hoax, we've seen no actual global warming.

The Winner of This Year's 'Best Climate Predictor' Award (Clue: It Wasn't Al Gore!)
By Howard Richman & Raymond Richman



Of course, since this appears in the American Thinker and not the NY Times, you automatically dismiss it because you don't engage in lying or deceit when it comes to actual thinking. You have your sources and they tell you that the world is dying...

So, of course, that means any denier of ACC actually wants the planet to die in the name of profit.

It's got nothing to do with the Thinker or the NYT..

It has to do with a long list of scientists who have all reached the same conclusions.. Funny that you only believe those which tell you what you want to believe.. It's a running theme with you it seems.

•Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."

•Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."

•Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

•Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."

•Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."

•Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."

•Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

•Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

•Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

•Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

•Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

•Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."

•Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

•Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."

•Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun-climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."

•Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."

•Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I'm sorry, but your data lacks appropriate sourcing.





Is there a reason for that?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Did this come to you while prostrated before the big picture of Obama in the front room? Just wondering...oh. Happy New Year.

You should stick to polishing your fiberglass unless you actually have something pertinent to add.

Not much chance of that eh?

 

[unregistered]

 

[off2bed]

The Prince should at least pretend to be a man of faith...

He pretended for 20 years in Rev. Left's church.

 

[unregistered]

 

[off2bed]

He pretended to be deaf.

He also pretended to write two books.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I was in the Wright church,
But it musta been the wrong pew...





It was acoustically challenged.

 

[Saint Peter]

He has ears
but does not hear.

He has pew
but does not smell.