Global Warming

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Pooeypants No, I don't because you keep moving the goalpost.

That's what he does, Pooey.

"There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza..."


.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GloriousCause Your last reply to me just about sums up what I hear every time I dare question the supposedly indisputable (and yet scientifically unproven) truth that is anthropomorphic global warming. Instead of wading into the facts that Stossel presented, I'm told that all dissenters are in bed with special interests and "the vote is in".

You have absolutely no idea how silly this is, do you, GC?

I've linked you to the most authoritative, legitimate scientific institutions and centers of scientific research in America that are now researching Global Warming, representing thousand upon thousands of American scientists, and every one one which states that without question Global Warming is happening, human beings are causing it, and it's happening faster than predicted.

All without a single comment from you. But you're going to take ME to task for dismissing one John Stossel video that features 5 scientists, one of who DOESN'T DISAGREE THAT MAN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!

Until you respond to the evidence I've presented from the American Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological, the American Geophysical Union, NASA, etc., etc., etc., etc., you pathetic whine is just that... pathetic.

But never say I don't try, so here, JUST FOR YOU...

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

Ok, so, in his video, what is John Stossel arguing? Does he deny that global warming is happening or that we're causing it? No, because that would be a lie, and politicians and pundits all know how to avoid actually lying.

No, he says, "Awww, look, we're scaring little kids" because the media is EXAGGERATING the threat of global warming, and they're not telling us that NOT EVERYONE AGREES that we're causing global warming.

Why is he saying this? I've already told you. He wants Americans to slow down, look at other information and, most importantly, WHATEVER YOU DO, don't go frantically pushing our government to pass regulations on the free market!!!

So he points out how Al Gore exaggerated the threat of global warming on sea levels. Several points...

A. Is Al Gore a scientist? No. Have I ever once used him as an authoritative source? No. Do you see his name on my list of scientific authorities? No.

B. So what? Did Gore lie? No, he simply didn't mention that this was what might happen if ALL the worlds ice melted.

C. John Stossel DID lie, however. Predictions indicate a sea level rise of considerably more than the 7 inches by 2100.

--"If the current warming trends continue, by 2100 the Earth will likely be at least 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present, with the Arctic at least as warm as it was nearly 130,000 years ago. At that time, significant portions of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets melted, resulting in a sea level about 20 feet (six meters) higher than present day.

These studies are the first to link Arctic and Antarctic melting during the Last Interglaciation, 129,000 to 116,000 years ago.

"This is a real eye-opener set of results," said study co-author Jonathan T. Overpeck of The University of Arizona in Tucson. "The last time the Arctic was significantly warmer than present day, the Greenland Ice Sheet melted back the equivalent of two to three meters (about six to ten feet) of sea level."--

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

Then Stossel mentions the poor Polar bears, and then explains that, wait, they're doing just fine. That would be because the process of the loss of Arctic sea ice is only just beginning in the past few years.

--"Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years according to a series of studies released today by the U.S. Geological Survey."-- U.S. Geological Survey

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

And finally Stossel points out that historically, CO2 levels have FOLLOWED temperature changes, not PRECEDED them. To which the response is a big, giant...

SO FRIGGING WHAT!?! It's preceding it NOW!

For ten years we've been telling you that, yes, the climate fluctuates naturally... we understand that. This is NOT one of those fluctuations. It's an ANOMOLY.

So it doesn't matter whether in past fluctuations CO2 has followed temperature, because this is NOT one of those past fluctuations. This is an ANOMOLY, caused by a condition that has never existed in the earth's history, the existence of 9 billion humans pumping out billions of tons of greenhouse pollutants every year.

And it doesn't change the fact that global warming was PREDICTED based on the greenhouse affects of all those greenhouse pollutants and that Global Warming is actually happening FASTER THAN those predictions.

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

Now let's examine Stossel's gang of "Experts". First there's...

John Christy -- A climate scientist, he seems legitimate enough. And what does he say?

"Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."

Then there's Roy Spencer. He goes to great lengths on his website to explain that he is NOT being paid by Exxon-Mobile. But, by golly, he IS a member of the Heartland Institute, which is... surprise, surprise ... a conservative, libertarian think tank whose mission is "to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

Next we have Tim Ball. Tim is one of those "Usual Suspects" we talk about, a retired professor and well used global warming skeptic.

energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. [3]

"Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations."

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

Are you seeing a pattern yet, GC?????


SO, now it's YOUR TURN. Please explain how you can cavalierly dismiss every one of the most prestigious, most authoritative institutions of science in the United States currently doing or reviewing research on Global Warming, and their statements that global warming is happeing and that human beings are causing it.

.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Sonart . I've linked you to the most authoritative, legitimate scientific institutions and centers of scientific research in America that are now researching Global Warming, representing thousand upon thousands of American scientists, and every one one which states that without question Global Warming is happening, human beings are causing it, and it's happening faster than predicted. All without a single comment from you. But you're going to take ME to task for dismissing one John Stossel video that features 5 scientists, one of who DOESN'T DISAGREE THAT MAN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!

You're misreading my post. My argument was that there is no debate when there should be debate. There is no science that shows proof of human-caused global warming. There's a lot of opinion by informed people on the matter, but scientists aren't scientists because we trust their opinion - they're scientists because they perform the functions of science, which involves testing, data, and results.

Until you respond to the evidence I've presented from the American Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological, the American Geophysical Union, NASA, etc., etc., etc., etc., you pathetic whine is just that... pathetic.

Once again you're very dismissive, which is sad. You haven't presented me with evidence, you've presented me with names. And the names are just lovely, I could spend time to research a list of names too - but I don't care to - because science isn't about names....it's about DATA. You don't want for names, I'll give you that, but your names rely far too often on their opinion, and not on the scientific process.

But never say I don't try, so here, JUST FOR YOU...

Awww. for me??? You're actually going to engage the issue???? You've already gone further than most of the people on your side.

Ok, so, in his video, what is John Stossel arguing? Does he deny that global warming is happening or that we're causing it? No, because that would be a lie, and politicians and pundits all know how to avoid actually lying.

His "gimme a break" point was that some people have concluded that the debate is over. He doesn't claim we're NOT causing it. He doesn't claim it DOESNT exist. He simply speaks to the fact that it's debatable.

No, he says, "Awww, look, we're scaring little kids" because the media is EXAGGERATING the threat of global warming, and they're not telling us that NOT EVERYONE AGREES that we're causing global warming.

Which is true. Britain was trying to show An Inconvenient Truth in SCIENCE classrooms for a while, despite the numerous scientific problems with that film.

Why is he saying this? I've already told you. He wants Americans to slow down, look at other information and, most importantly, WHATEVER YOU DO, don't go frantically pushing our government to pass regulations on the free market!!!

Government intrusion in free individuals conducting their private business is a very serious matter. If it's going to happen, there had better be no room for doubt. On that Stossel and I sympathize. But I'm not here to talk motives, because there are dubious motives on ALL sides of this issue - which is why I'm no insistent that the scientists hash this out through data and testing.

So he points out how Al Gore exaggerated the threat of global warming on sea levels. Several points... A. Is Al Gore a scientist? No. Have I ever once used him as an authoritative source? No. Do you see his name on my list of scientific authorities? No.

No. I wasn't posting the Stossel link for you. I was posting it because this thread addresses global warming, and his story speaks to a film that has had a HUGE impact on public opinion on the subject.

B. So what? Did Gore lie? No, he simply didn't mention that this was what might happen if ALL the worlds ice melted.

Quite an oversight, one that created a HUGE misperception, considering the flow of the movie.

C. John Stossel DID lie, however. Predictions indicate a sea level rise of considerably more than the 7 inches by 2100. --"If the current warming trends continue, by 2100 the Earth will likely be at[shortened b/c of post length] back the equivalent of two to three meters (about six to ten feet) of sea level."

Stossel wasn't lying - he was quoting the IPCC, which stated that ocean levels would rise 7-24 inches in the next hundred years.

All this and they can't even tell me if its going to rain next week.

Then Stossel mentions the poor Polar bears, and then explains that, wait, they're doing just fine. That would be because the process of the loss of Arctic sea ice is only just beginning in the past few years. --"Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years according to a series of studies released today by the U.S. Geological Survey."-- USGS

He was responding to Gore's movie, which made it look like polar bears were already dying off. His claim, which is true, was that this is a falsification. As for the future, that's another debate entirely.

And finally Stossel points out that historically, CO2 levels have FOLLOWED temperature changes, not PRECEDED them. To which the response is a big, giant... SO FRIGGING WHAT!?! It's preceding it NOW!

What matters about the relationship between the two is that if a rise in CO2 comes first, it doesn't necessarily mean that temperature will rise. Historically, temperature has risen first - in other words temperature, according to Stossel's report, is the catalyst for the CO2 increase, not vice versa.

This brings up an observation that I had when I saw An Inconvenient Truth (as an aside, I've seen it three times and I'm a huge environmentalist with a completely solar powered home). CO2 and temperature have a relationship, but Gore (and science) have yet to define the true nature of that relationship. We have scant core sample data to use, but that core sample data is incapable of telling us which is causal to which, and whether or not BOTH CO2 and temperature are functions of a third, as yet unseen, catalyst.

For ten years we've been telling you that, yes, the climate fluctuates naturally... we understand that. This is NOT one of those fluctuations. It's an ANOMOLY. So it doesn't matter whether in past fluctuations CO2 has followed temperature, because this is NOT one of those past fluctuations. This is an ANOMOLY, caused by a condition that has never existed in the earth's history, the existence of 9 billion humans pumping out billions of tons of greenhouse pollutants every year.

WHAT is an anomaly? The level of CO2? Yeah, the level of CO2 is higher than ever, but that's not shown to be driving anything related to global temperature. The globe is warming right now, but this is not shown to be an anomaly.

And it doesn't change the fact that global warming was PREDICTED based on the greenhouse affects of all those greenhouse pollutants and that Global Warming is actually happening FASTER THAN those predictions.

You might want to educate yourself about the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Now let's examine Stossel's gang of "Experts". First there's... John Christy -- A climate scientist, he seems legitimate enough. And what does he say? "Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."

Then there's Roy Spencer. He goes to great lengths on his website to explain that he is NOT being paid by Exxon-Mobile. But, by golly, he IS a member of the Heartland Institute, which is... surprise, surprise ... a conservative, libertarian think tank whose mission is "to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems[shortened for post length] privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

And what is wrong with this? The fact that Spencer is a libertarian has nothing to do with affiliations to Exxon Mobil or other groups. People get involved in think-tanks because they feel a certain way. Ideology is driven by perception of truth, not in spite of it. Spencer is still a scientist.

Next we have Tim Ball. Tim is one of those "Usual Suspects" we talk about, a retired professor and well used global warming skeptic.

You're not seeing which is the cart and which is the horse in this relationship. He's used because he has an effective argument.

SO, now it's YOUR TURN. Please explain how you can cavalierly dismiss every one of the most prestigious, most authoritative institutions of science in the United States currently doing or reviewing research on Global Warming, and their statements that global warming is happeing and that human beings are causing it. .

I'm not dismissing them. I'm asking them to present the scientific data that shows anthropomophic global warming, and to discuss that science with people whose scientist contrasts with it.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: GloriousCause You're misreading my post. My argument was that there is no debate when there should be debate. There is no science that shows proof of human-caused global warming. There's a lot of opinion by informed people on the matter, but scientists aren't scientists because we trust their opinion - they're scientists because they perform the functions of science, which involves testing, data, and results.

Sure there is debate. Scientists have been debating the issue for the past two centuries. We're having a debate right now. Your argument is silly.

His "gimme a break" point was that some people have concluded that the debate is over. He doesn't claim we're NOT causing it. He doesn't claim it DOESNT exist. He simply speaks to the fact that it's debatable.

Of course it's debatable. Everything in science is debatable. Stossel's point is hardly remarkable.

All this and they can't even tell me if its going to rain next week.

Sure They can. And They can do so with an astounding degree of accuracy given the uncertainties involved.

What matters about the relationship between the two is that if a rise in CO2 comes first, it doesn't necessarily mean that temperature will rise. Historically, temperature has risen first - in other words temperature, according to Stossel's report, is the catalyst for the CO2 increase, not vice versa.

Stossel's logic is screwy. He's trying to argue that CO2 can't act both as a feedback and a forcing mechanism, which is nonsense.

This brings up an observation that I had when I saw An Inconvenient Truth (as an aside, I've seen it three times and I'm a huge environmentalist with a completely solar powered home). CO2 and temperature have a relationship, but Gore (and science) have yet to define the true nature of that relationship. We have scant core sample data to use, but that core sample data is incapable of telling us which is causal to which, and whether or not BOTH CO2 and temperature are functions of a third, as yet unseen, catalyst.

They most certainly have defined the relationship. We know the physical properties of carbon dioxide, and we know how it interacts with radiation. There is little doubt about its relationship with temperature. We don't need to examine statistical relationships when we understand the physics.

You might want to educate yourself about the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

The fallacy has nothing to do with Sonart's argument. Sonart said that we used our knowledge of atmospheric physics to make predictions about global warming. Those predictions turned out to be right.

You're not seeing which is the cart and which is the horse in this relationship. He's used because he has an effective argument.

Effective? May be. Right? I doubt it. I could be biased, of course, since I have a tendency to be extremely skeptical of anything creationists say about science.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GloriousCause You're misreading my post. My argument was that there is no debate when there should be debate.

No, they've been debating for the past 30 years. What you can't seem to comprehend is that, scientifically, the debate pretty much ended 5 years ago.

The only people who think the debate should continue are the people who desperately don't want the government creating regulations and mandates that might cost corporate America profits.

Those people would be the Energy industry, and the conservative free-market, private-property libertarians.... like John Stossel.

Period.

.

[xyzer]

Sonart do you realize the obvious questions raised by the report you posted above.."Ocean levels may rise sooner than expected?" Polar melting may raise sea level sooner than expected
For one thing it is only one hypothesis that has not had peer review and is in effect an opinion? Thats a favorite ploy of your comrade Pooey. Discredit any contra opinions as forgeries or non peer reviewed?

Plus the obvious ...

Co-author Bette Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said, "Although the focus of our work is polar, the implications are global. These ice sheets melted before and sea levels rose. The warmth needed isn't that much above present conditions."

The implications are global says who? Besides the authors mention that the last time the Arctic was warmer was over 100,000 years ago? And it took about 13,000 years for the indicated warmth to occur? Plus there were few if any humans around to accelerate it with their carbon use? Plus, plus the Antarctic usually doesn't have the same climate as the Arctic does it?
Havent we had several ice ages in the interim?

I'v accused Pooey several times(quite correctly) of suggesting that science is static and never advances or improves. Isn't this what you postulate here?...

No, they've been debating for the past 30 years. What you can't seem to comprehend is that, scientifically, the debate pretty much ended 5 years ago.

You, Pooey and Gore, and a few flat earth people keep saying the debate has ended...plus ignoring and condemning any contra evidence? Even more hillarious is theat you ignore current measurement trends which disprove the models you'v previously relied on?What a joke!

[xyzer]

Careful Parrot.

Sure there is debate. Scientists have been debating the issue for the past two centuries. We're having a debate right now. Your argument is silly.

Pooey and Sonart might disagree with you. They both claim the debate is over! Nothing can change the inevitable doom that awaits us.

So locked in his scientific reverie, and poorly informed, is our friend Pooey that he even doubts my mentioning an article about costs? Doesn't this reflect his unchanging view of science?

This article...$45 trillion needed to combat warming - Yahoo! News

This post by Sonart expresses the view that there are no honest scientists except those upon which he and the IPCC rely?

The only people who think the debate should continue are the people who desperately don't want the government creating regulations and mandates that might cost corporate America profits

If one disagrees he is obviously infected with corporate greed, eh Sonart? Only your sicentific references have validity...nonsense!!!

Glorious Cause
Stick to your guns these guys are treading on thin ice? They don't want to accept contra arguments, ignore ones questions with generalities and statments like I've answered you many times....obviously because the can't answer the anomalies which question the IPCC models they believe so implicitly in?

[xyzer]

Parrot I noiced your pathetic answer...

The fallacy has nothing to do with Sonart's argument. Sonart said that we used our knowledge of atmospheric physics to make predictions about global warming. Those predictions turned out to be right.

Those predictions(really models) have not had time to turn out, have they? Have you been keeping up with the last few years of actual satellite global temp measurements? Temps have levelled off and even cooled? It shows up on some ot the graphs that have been posted by Sonart?

If we are to believe the IPCCs doomsday reports the earth can do nothing but get warmer because our increased energy use is constantly increasing. The models show that the two are directly related.(the good old fallacy of correlation equals causation) Even so the models are created from proxy data and past records which are spotty at best(we haven't had the wherewithall to measure global temps until a quarter century ago?
Even that pathetic study referred to above that tried to posit that the Arctic had been 4 degrees warmer some 100,00 years ago stretched credibility? Are we really willing to spend 45 trillion on corrective methods that might prevent the the arctic getting 4 degress warmer in 13,000 years? Surely you jest.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Careful Parrot. Pooey and Sonart might disagree with you. They both claim the debate is over! Nothing can change the inevitable doom that awaits us.

I think what Pooey and Sonart mean is that the science is sufficiently certain to warrant action being taken. And in that respect I agree completely with them.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot I noiced your pathetic answer... Those predictions(really models) have not had time to turn out, have they? Have you been keeping up with the last few years of actual satellite global temp measurements? Temps have levelled off and even cooled? It shows up on some ot the graphs that have been posted by Sonart?

Sure they have. Models don't just have to be used to forecast the future, you know, they can also be used to hindcast past changes.

If we are to believe the IPCCs doomsday reports the earth can do nothing but get warmer because our increased energy use is constantly increasing. The models show that the two are directly related.(the good old fallacy of correlation equals causation) Even so the models are created from proxy data and past records which are spotty at best(we haven't had the wherewithall to measure global temps until a quarter century ago?

Climate models are created using the laws of physics, Xyzer, not historic climate data. Haven't we had this discussion before?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Careful Parrot. Pooey and Sonart might disagree with you. They both claim the debate is over! Nothing can change the inevitable doom that awaits us. So locked in his scientific reverie, and poorly informed, is our friend Pooey that he even doubts my mentioning an article about costs? Doesn't this reflect his unchanging view of science? This article...$45 trillion needed to combat warming - Yahoo! News

You know, I never should go into the numbers game, I always know you have a trick card up your sleeve. Btw, did you know that your source also stated this

Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.

At first I thought 45 trillion dollars was a huge number but then I remembered how much money was being generated. That's right, 1.1% of the world's GDP is needed...1.1%. Tell me how that is catastrophic compared to the damage that could come with climate change?

In fact, this figure looks strangely familiar...hold on

A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%. But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.

Oh, that's right, this report from October 2006 has already mentioned it! Source

Does that mean you also acknowledge about the Economic losses should we fail to tackle climate change a la Global warming?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I'v accused Pooey several times(quite correctly) of suggesting that science is static and never advances or improves. Isn't this what you postulate here?... You, Pooey and Gore, and a few flat earth people keep saying the debate has ended...plus ignoring and condemning any contra evidence? Even more hillarious is theat you ignore current measurement trends which disprove the models you'v previously relied on?What a joke!

Repeating the same old tired arguments does not make your points any stronger. Rather, it just goes to show desperate you've become to score points. Bravo on being able to even show your face here despite so many lashings that I, alone have served you.
But again, may I point out the hypocrisy of your statement about your (false) claim that I think science is static. Do you deny questioning the use of "may" and "likely" et cetera being used in scientific reports? You were asking about the certainties given and I had to explain to you that science is never 100% and therefore, cautious language must always be used.
This is another example of your flip flopping and moving of the goal post.
But carry on, I'm sure your circus has yet still more tricks to perform!

Edit; I'd like to add this as evidence of your hypocrisy. See, how you're questioning why the IPCC didn't use absolute statements (erm, because science is rarely unchanged as time goes by?). Now you have the balls to say that I think that way when it has clearly been you who believed so until it was convenient for you to accuse me of it.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer For one thing it is only one hypothesis that has not had peer review and is in effect an opinion?

Xyzer, you're so fulla pathetic crap it's laughable

--"Overpeck, a professor of geosciences and director of Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at The University of Arizona, Otto-Bliesner and their colleagues report their new findings in a pair of papers. A complete list of authors is at the end of this release. The National Science Foundation funded the research."--

Titles and list of authors for the two papers:

Overpeck's co-authors on "Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea Level Rise" are Bette L. Otto-Bliesner of NCAR; Gifford H. Miller of the University of Colorado in Boulder; Daniel R. Muhs of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, Colo.; Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University in University Park; and Jeffrey T. Kiehl of NCAR.

Otto-Bliesner's co-authors on "Simulating Arctic Climate Warmth and Icefield Retreat in the Last Interglaciation" are Shawn J. Marshall of the University of Calgary in Canada; Jonathan T. Overpeck of the University of Arizona; Gifford H. Miller of the University of Colorado in Boulder; Aixue Hu of NCAR; and CAPE Last Interglacial Project Members.

The sponsor, the National Science Foundation.

.

[xyzer]

Careful Parrot, your slip is showing?

Climate models are created using the laws of physics, Xyzer, not historic climate data. Haven't we had this discussion before?

If you are serious let us know what immutable law of physics influenced the warming trend of the early 20th century?the ice age? Etc.
Isn't such change some function of a number of known(even unknown ) variables? Is the suns brilliance and sunspot activity constant and predictable?

[xyzer]

Pooeys latest diversion which is supposed to lend credence to his REFUSAL(or is it inability? to answer my question...

Repeating the same old tired arguments does not make your points any stronger. Rather, it just goes to show desperate you've become to score points. Bravo on being able to even show your face here despite so many lashings that I, alone have served you. But again, may I point out the hypocrisy of your statement about your (false) claim that I think science is static. Do you deny questioning the use of "may" and "likely" et cetera being used in scientific reports? You were asking about the certainties given and I had to explain to you that science is never 100% and therefore, cautious language must always be used. This is another example of your flip flopping and moving of the goal post. But carry on, I'm sure your circus has yet still more tricks to perform!

I fear on this point Pooey you are the one who keeps moving the goal posts? Is asking a question a continuation of an argument?I think I remember asking you in the past if "likely" or "very likely" indicated certitude, or is not to be challenged. Was conclusive?. As your and Sonarts(plus Al Gore) recent posts indicate we HAVE to reduce CO2 emissions if warming is to stop? It is the catalyst in the warming scenario and nothing else will change it but humanity? i.e the science on the subject is fixed and cannot be challenged?

I notice you are finally admitting(and even falsely claiming) you brought up the Natural factors of La Nina and El Nino as overcoming the influence of CO2? It's puzzling to an informed person how you can,almost in the same breath, say that these natural factors can influence climate change as you deny anything else but CO2 reduction will change climate??Tip..if your answer is going to be climate varies, that wont cut it. What makes it vary? Only the amount of CO2 forcing, or possibly natural influences?. Now I've given you the obvious tip, you should be able to stumble into an answer to my? question.

Answer my question and stop the inane, ad hominem ramblings! I think it reveals an immaturity and lack of knowledge. e.g.

despite so many lashings that I, alone have served you.

Are you, a so called monitor, aware of your admitted, childish transgressions of the rules of this site? I think they are an indication of your relative immaturity and lack of any appreciation of scienctific progress and dynamics. The "Flat Earth" orthodoxy

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooeys latest diversion which is supposed to lend credence to his REFUSAL(or is it inability? to answer my question... I fear on this point Pooey you are the one who keeps moving the goal posts? Is asking a question a continuation of an argument?I think I remember asking you in the past if "likely" or "very likely" indicated certitude, or is not to be challenged. Was conclusive?. As your and Sonarts(plus Al Gore) recent posts indicate we HAVE to reduce CO2 emissions if warming is to stop? It is the catalyst in the warming scenario and nothing else will change it but humanity? i.e the science on the subject is fixed and cannot be challenged?

It's about taking precautions, just like how you'd remove a possible danger if a risk assessment deemed it necessary. You were clearly hammering at the lack of absolute certainty in the IPCC's report, hence you were expecting the science to give an absolute result (as the IPCC merely reviews what's published and does not generate its own raw data). You're not going to worm your way out of this one.

Quote by: xyzer I notice you are finally admitting(and even falsely claiming) you brought up the Natural factors of La Nina and El Nino as overcoming the influence of CO2? It's puzzling to an informed person how you can,almost in the same breath, say that these natural factors can influence climate change as you deny anything else but CO2 reduction will change climate??Tip..if your answer is going to be climate varies, that wont cut it. What makes it vary? Only the amount of CO2 forcing, or possibly natural influences?. Now I've given you the obvious tip, you should be able to stumble into an answer to my? question.

You seem to have some form of brain impairment as I have explained this several times in the past few weeks ago. The PDO affects the warming trend positively and negatively, hence we see the record breakers such as 1998 and slumps in warming such as the current few years. This has been acknowledged and well known climatic event that scientists have charted for over 50 years. It is not some revelatory piece of global climate, and I'll point out again that the PDOs will and do temporarily overwhelm CO2 forcing. So what is your point in this chain of argument, that the PDO is causing the warming seen in the past century? On what basis?
You're also turning this into a strawman game, and I won't fall for your red herrings, you've really got to try harder.
Btw, you have still not acknowledged that the OISM petition is a farce, even though you've used it at least twice in the last few weeks.

Quote by: xyzer Answer my question and stop the inane, ad hominem ramblings! I think it reveals an immaturity and lack of knowledge. e.g.

I have answered it but you keep moving the goal post so that I may never reach a satisfactory point for you. It is just an endless cycle of questions and points, no matter how many times we go through it you will ignore the real points and just move on until you can repeat it again a week or so later.

Quote by: xyzer Are you, a so called monitor, aware of your admitted, childish transgressions of the rules of this site? I think they are an indication of your relative immaturity and lack of any appreciation of scienctific progress and dynamics. The "Flat Earth" orthodoxy

You are the finest example of a hypocrite I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Careful Parrot, your slip is showing? If you are serious let us know what immutable law of physics influenced the warming trend of the early 20th century?the ice age? Etc. Isn't such change some function of a number of known(even unknown ) variables? Is the suns brilliance and sunspot activity constant and predictable?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Xyzer. The warming trend of the early 20th century didn't break the laws of physics. And no, solar output isn't constant.

I'm not sure how this addresses anything in my post you quoted. Maybe you were too busy checking out my slip to communicate your thoughts clearly.

[Matt W]

I think everyone should drop the personal sniping from now on.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[xyzer]

Parrot, I'm puzzled?

Climate models are created using the laws of physics, Xyzer, not historic climate data. Haven't we had this discussion before

Give me an example of a climate model that consists of laws of physics and doesn't have some data(even proxy data and assumptions) in the mix? One can't make computer iterations without some data? e.g.
We know its a law that when temperature equals the dew point moisture will form? How can we apply that to the vagaries of weather?

We are discussing what variable natural and humanmade influences drive climate change. I'm not denying laws of physics. I am denying that the variable of anthropogenic created CO2 is the important driver of climate change! I'm trying to demonstrate that the climate doom demagogues are not infected with logic. And are distorting facts. plus ignoring recent measurements?

[xyzer]

By the way Pooey in response to your assertion that you had first brought up the influences of the IPO and La Nina and El Nino, here it is is my post on it #1402....May 26th...Ocean Surface Topography from Space-Science

Evidence that natural influences can and do influence climate and overwhelm the human generated CO2 influences. Now I notice you have admitted that such natural influences do exert an overwhelming influence. Can this just indicate progress?