Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[Que]

Maybe someday query will decide to "meanigfully" contribute. Not today, it seems.

Is there a post of yours I should read that gives a viable solution to this problem that will not result in massive impact on our economy in general and the poor most of all?

Fuck you and your meaningless snark.

Is there a post of Spidey's on ANY subject that you felt especially edified by? Something I should re-read because I missed something relevant?

He is just a polite Jenbot.

You are a slightly more clever Jenbot.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

1. Not lately, and not in correlation to CO2 output.

2. To what degree, Climate Scientist Mushroom?

3. A law, not a random 'fact' and you have by no means tied it into, much less explained the problems that poses for all of the Climate Models proposed so far.
If anything #3 is a PROBLEM for the point of view that you don't seem to know enough about to meanigfully contribute.

--------------------------------------------

1. Some cows are brown.

2. Cows consume grass, produce milk, meat and shit.

3. Law of conservation of matter.

-just as meaningful.

Let me save you the trouble of responding by #AccurateAscription of your position on this post.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/decadal-comparison-small.png

 

[Ishmael]

I don't see the point in getting hot under the collar about whether climate change is man made or not. I do think, however, that if at all possible we should minimise pollutants in the atmosphere anyway. The problem with the argument you support Trysail is that it is used as an excuse not to keep our global backyard clean.

One undeniable fact is that the area of sea ice and most glacier lengths have decreased enormously over the last 30 years. That may be an aberation , it may be within the normal range; but in neither event can we merely ignore it.

My training was as a mathematician and what I will assert is that when you get very slow possibly episodic changes, if you wait until the results are in to your scientific satisfaction, it will be far too late to rectify anything - whether you want to or not.

1. The Earth is warming.
2. C02 acts as a greenhouse gas.
3 conservation of energy.

1. Not lately, and not in correlation to CO2 output.

2. To what degree, Climate Scientist Mushroom?

3. A law, not a random 'fact' and you have by no means tied it into, much less explained the problems that poses for all of the Climate Models proposed so far.
If anything #3 is a PROBLEM for the point of view that you don't seem to know enough about to meanigfully contribute.

--------------------------------------------

1. Some cows are brown.

2. Cows consume grass, produce milk, meat and shit.

3. Law of conservation of matter.

-just as meaningful.

Let me save you the trouble of responding by #AccurateAscription of your position on this post.

I'll just concatenate the answer for all these posts.

Yes, there is warming taking place and no one has disputed that. As a matter of fact episodically this is to be expected. We ARE in an interglacial period and temperatures increase during interglacial periods. Climate is 'change', there is NO instance of the climate NOT changing. As the measured warming is part of an episodic, and repeating, climate pattern the notion that we can do anything about is laughable.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is Methane and water vapor. That statement is right up there with "the sky is blue" as far as relevance. The factual data has debunked CO2 as a causative agent. IF it were the causative agent the cultists models would work...................they don't.

You (spidey) keep throwing 'conservation of energy' out there as if you know what in the fuck you are talking about...............you don't. So be specific, just exactly what 'energy' are you referring to?

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Define "lately", because the overall trend since we have been keeping track has been steadily upward.

I do hope you're not going to put forward ala Trysail that there has been "no warming in the past 17 years".

Trysail said there has been warming, but that the warming that occurred wasn't "significant".

 

[Wrong Element]

My training was as a mathematician and what I will assert is that when you get very slow possibly episodic changes, if you wait until the results are in to your scientific satisfaction, it will be far too late to rectify anything - whether you want to or not.

This is a key point. The "evidence isn't in yet" crowd wants to wait until we're able to swim up Broadway before they will concede there might be a problem. And that's the real issue here -- not that the planet is going to warm to the point where life on earth will be threatened, but that human civilization has grown up within a particular range of global temperatures, which is now being tested.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I'll just concatenate the answer for all these posts.

Yes, there is warming taking place and no one has disputed that. As a matter of fact episodically this is to be expected. We ARE in an interglacial period and temperatures increase during interglacial periods. Climate is 'change', there is NO instance of the climate NOT changing. As the measured warming is part of an episodic, and repeating, climate pattern the notion that we can do anything about is laughable.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is Methane and water vapor. That statement is right up there with "the sky is blue" as far as relevance. The factual data has debunked CO2 as a causative agent. IF it were the causative agent the cultists models would work...................they don't.

You (spidey) keep throwing 'conservation of energy' out there as if you know what in the fuck you are talking about...............you don't. So be specific, just exactly what 'energy' are you referring to?

Ishmael

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

 

[Que]

This is a key point. The "evidence isn't in yet" crowd wants to wait until we're able to swim up Broadway before they will concede there might be a problem. And that's the real issue here -- not that the planet is going to warm to the point where life on earth will be threatened, but that human civilization has grown up within a particular range of global temperatures, which is now being tested.

...and the "evidence, be damned" crowd wants to dismantle our energy structure with NOTHING in place to replace it and care not at all about devastating our economy for a PALTRY difference that we MIGHT make in reducing the world's output CO2.

I don't hear anyone calling for balanced, reasoned decision making.

DO your part. Switch off your computer.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

...and the "evidence, be damned" crowd wants to dismantle our energy structure with NOTHING in place to replace it and care not at all about devastating our economy for a PALTRY difference that we MIGHT make in reducing the world's output CO2.

I don't hear anyone calling for balanced, reasoned decision making.

DO your part. Switch off your computer.

You're too busy ascribing people positions to hear anything.

 

[Ishmael]

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

Use satellite data and I might bother to have a discussion with you. When you post worthless and discredited shit you deserve NO attention at all.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

It's CRAP like that that shows that "scientists" are not serious about accurately displaying anything...

This will go over Spideys head, but the degrees side shows INFINITESIMAL change. The CO2 side show DRAMATIC change. By selectively editing the scales it appears (falsely) to show some kind of coinciding correlation.

It is displayed for people of complete mathematical ignorance to believe that there is a near one-to-one correlation.

There is a concept in mathematics called "significant figures." This chart ignores that completely.

ALL it shows is that both are rising. One dramatically, one hardly at all.

SPidey will say..you see, you see..BOTH are rising...COMPLETELY missing the point that his graph when looked at for what it is... does as much to DE-LINK CO2 from causation as it could ever potential correlate the two.

WHY can I not take The Bunny's advice? This will only encourage him.

 

[Que]

The bottom line is that it is a cult. Dissent is not allowed, facts are irrelevant.

Cost/benefit analysis goes out the window.

Dispositive findings are discarded, anecdotal "miracles' are worshiped. It is MEANINGLESS that 17 years have defied all the models, but one hot summer day or even an shifting tectonic plates is seen as a 'sign from the heavens.'

I might as well engage Catholics on the sincere questions of faith that Protestants might have, Or convince a Protestant of the wisdom of Eastern Meditation.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Use satellite data and I might bother to have a discussion with you. When you post worthless and discredited shit you deserve NO attention at all.

Ishmael

It's pretty amazing that you were able to look at the graph and somehow know that the data after 1979 isn't based on satellites.

Here's an idea, how about you do your own homework, back up your own claims and you post some data. I'll be here looking forward to it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/decadal-comparison-small.png

The bottom line is that it is a cult. Dissent is not allowed, facts are irrelevant.

Cost/benefit analysis goes out the window.

Dispositive findings are discarded, anecdotal "miracles' are worshiped. It is MEANINGLESS that 17 years have defied all the models, but one hot summer day or even an shifting tectonic plates is seen as a 'sign from the heavens.'

I might as well engage Catholics on the sincere questions of faith that Protestants might have, Or convince a Protestant of the wisdom of Eastern Meditation.

Simply not true.

 

[Que]

You're too busy ascribing people positions to hear anything.

SHUT the fuck up about ascription. You don't even know what the word means...Its been a week the semantically challenged have not picked a new word to abuse this week...I'll let you know what word to pretend you can use this week.

When and IF I happen to employ the rhetorical device of ascription the defense is to accurately state in clear, understandable way what your more accurate position is...screaming "ascription!" is NOT an argument, so STFU you tiresome twit.

 

[Que]

Simply not true.

Is so!

 

[Ishmael]

It's pretty amazing that you were able to look at the graph and somehow know that the data after 1979 isn't based on satellites.

Here's an idea, how about you do your own homework, back up your own claims and you post some data. I'll be here looking forward to it.

It isn't based on satellites. If it were the temp. rise on that graph would be 0.33 deg. not 1.0. That graph is based on ground station data that has become as thoroughly discredited as the XBT oceanic data.

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It isn't based on satellites. If it were the temp. rise on that graph would be 0.33 deg. not 1.0. That graph is based on ground station data that has become as thoroughly discredited as the XBT oceanic data.

Ishmael

So it would look like this?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/RFC12_Fig1.jpg

 

[Ishmael]

So it would look like this?

Let's go with this one.

http://images.mises.org/5892/Figure3.png

Ishmael

 

[thør]

Let's go with this one.

http://images.mises.org/5892/Figure3.png

Ishmael

That's inconvenient.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Let's go with this one.

http://images.mises.org/5892/Figure3.png

Ishmael

That's perfect.

Just want to clarify before moving forward, you're saying the difference should only be .33 Celsius, correct?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let's go with this one.

http://images.mises.org/5892/Figure3.png

Ishmael

Refudiating the denier "but...but...the 1988 Hansen Chart!" lies

Keep 'em coming, Grampa Cancer Nugget

 

[miles]

The bottom line is that it is a cult. Dissent is not allowed, facts are irrelevant.

They're far worse than the "bible thumpers" they hate so much.

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

Is there a post of yours I should read that gives a viable solution to this problem that will not result in massive impact on our economy in general and the poor most of all?

Fuck you and your meaningless snark.

Is there a post of Spidey's on ANY subject that you felt especially edified by? Something I should re-read because I missed something relevant?

He is just a polite Jenbot.

You are a slightly more clever Jenbot.

Has anybody ever mistaken you for a scientist?

 

[Que]

Has anybody ever mistaken you for a scientist?

So, that would be "No'. All you have to offer is blind loyalty to the cult that demands you vilify any one with questions.

One of the whines today is that a PhD of mathematics is looking at modeling this stuff. As if knowing MORE is going to somehow hurt the environment.

This stuff is more about economics than anything else and you have demonstrated you care nothing about that, and probably less about the actual "settled science" you support.

Your snarky little one liners don't impress me. I doubt they impress anyone other than your fellow worshipers.