Why there can be no accord

[rushmc 18]

Quote

"It is still not settled"

One last time. Nothing in science is ever settled. Indeed, almost every scientist makes his or her living challenging what others have already agreed upon. There are scientist who carry bias into their work, but when done correctly the scientific method eliminates these bias. Put another way, science doesn't give us absolute truths. The ptolemaic method could (2000 some years ago) produce observations equal to the Copernican model, no one today holds these models as equal because additional information vetted using the scientific method produced evidence that heliocentrism matches reality more closely than geocentrism. This does not imply heliocentrism is an absolute truth of reality. Many scientist engage in pseudo-science on both sides of the issue. That has no bearing on the lines of evidence which support an understanding of warming as anthropomorphic. So while the science isn't settled the evidence points towards a consequence to our actions as opposed to just blaming it on the sun spinning around us.

But that is just it

ALL the evidence does NOT point toward one thing

Unless you are an alamist that is

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Quote

"It is still not settled"

One last time. Nothing in science is ever settled. Indeed, almost every scientist makes his or her living challenging what others have already agreed upon. There are scientist who carry bias into their work, but when done correctly the scientific method eliminates these bias. Put another way, science doesn't give us absolute truths. The ptolemaic method could (2000 some years ago) produce observations equal to the Copernican model, no one today holds these models as equal because additional information vetted using the scientific method produced evidence that heliocentrism matches reality more closely than geocentrism. This does not imply heliocentrism is an absolute truth of reality. Many scientist engage in pseudo-science on both sides of the issue. That has no bearing on the lines of evidence which support an understanding of warming as anthropomorphic. So while the science isn't settled the evidence points towards a consequence to our actions as opposed to just blaming it on the sun spinning around us.

But that is just it

ALL the evidence does NOT point toward one thing

Unless you are an alamist that is

Only the willfully blind would see it that way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"It is still not settled"

One last time. Nothing in science is ever settled. Indeed, almost every scientist makes his or her living challenging what others have already agreed upon. There are scientist who carry bias into their work, but when done correctly the scientific method eliminates these bias. Put another way, science doesn't give us absolute truths. The ptolemaic method could (2000 some years ago) produce observations equal to the Copernican model, no one today holds these models as equal because additional information vetted using the scientific method produced evidence that heliocentrism matches reality more closely than geocentrism. This does not imply heliocentrism is an absolute truth of reality. Many scientist engage in pseudo-science on both sides of the issue. That has no bearing on the lines of evidence which support an understanding of warming as anthropomorphic. So while the science isn't settled the evidence points towards a consequence to our actions as opposed to just blaming it on the sun spinning around us.

But that is just it

ALL the evidence does NOT point toward one thing

Unless you are an alamist that is

Only the willfully blind would see it that way.

Postes as only a true alarmist would post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,380]

>ALL the evidence does NOT point toward one thing

Correct. Only 99% of it does.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Only the willfully blind would see it that way.

Which is why you continue to ignore the dozen years of FLAT temps while CO2 *continues* to rise.

Here's your glasses.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,380]

>Which is why you continue to ignore the dozen years of FLAT temps while
>CO2 *continues* to rise.

And during the 1940's there were 20 years or so when the temperature DECLINED while CO2 levels continued to rise. I am sure there were people back then just like you saying "See? No warming. It's over." They made the same mistake you did.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Which is why you continue to ignore the dozen years of FLAT temps while
>CO2 *continues* to rise.

And during the 1940's there were 20 years or so when the temperature DECLINED while CO2 levels continued to rise. I am sure there were people back then just like you saying "See? No warming. It's over."

Like all the scientists talking about the coming Ice Age in the 70's, you mean?

Quote

They made the same mistake you did.

Sure thing, Bill. Lemme know when they find Trenberth's missing heat, or that 'tropical hot spot'.

Then, they can address why the models not only can't back-cast for previous temps but didn't forecast the last dozen years.

Then after THAT, they can explain why the oceans started warming 150 years ago - more of that 'extra special' CO2, perhaps?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,380]

>Like all the scientists talking about the coming Ice Age in the 70's, you mean?

"All the scientists" = about a dozen. About as many who deny climate change nowadays.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Like all the scientists talking about the coming Ice Age in the 70's, you mean?

"All the scientists" = about a dozen. About as many who deny climate change nowadays.

Which was probably *still* a greater percentage of the whole than the 75 scientists who comprise the oft-mentioned 97% who believe in global warming.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[brenthutch 383]

Forget what may or may not have happened thousands of years ago lets take a look at what the "experts" have predicted for today

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/files/2011/09/hansen-vs-reality.jpg

how does Homer Simpson say it?

[brenthutch 383]

Me thinks it is the climate scientists who are in denial. I went to a presentation by M. Mann, (Mr, Global Warming) and he used the same chart I referenced for his talk, (he did do away with the pesky scenario A, and he did lop off the last 5 years of data, but everything else was the same.

I think Upton Sinclair had climate scientists in mind when he said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

[billvon 2,380]

>I think Upton Sinclair had climate scientists in mind when he said "It is
>difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
>upon his not understanding it!"

Was actually written for oil/coal/gas company executives, engineers, workers and scientists. There's a lot of them and they have a lot of clout - and have amassed an almost religious following among deniers.

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Forget what may or may not have happened thousands of years ago

So you've changed your tune now that your previous position no longer works for you. The "Etch a Sketch" policy.

Does your salary depend on being a denier?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

>I think Upton Sinclair had climate scientists in mind when he said "It is
>difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
>upon his not understanding it!"

Was actually written for oil/coal/gas company executives, engineers, workers and scientists. There's a lot of them and they have a lot of clout - and have amassed an almost religious following among deniers.

When you say "deniers" do you mean like holocaust deniers, that's a bit hyperbolic don't you think my friend

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Quote

Forget what may or may not have happened thousands of years ago

So you've changed your tune now that your previous position no longer works for you. The "Etch a Sketch" policy.

Does your salary depend on being a denier?

Ah yes a nice Nazi reference. You know you have won the argument when your opponent resorts to Nazi card.

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Forget what may or may not have happened thousands of years ago

So you've changed your tune now that your previous position no longer works for you. The "Etch a Sketch" policy.

Does your salary depend on being a denier?

Ah yes a nice Nazi reference. You know you have won the argument when your opponent resorts to Nazi card.

I didn't mention Nazis, but if that's who you wish to associate yourself with, that's your business.

From your response it seems that you have lost already and are now just thrashing around trying to denigrate those who disagree with you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,380]

>When you say "deniers" do you mean like holocaust deniers

Nope. Climate change deniers are a political group, characterized by their denial of any climate change science that indicates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we are emitting more of it or that the planet is warming. Some deny only one of those three and switch which one it is depending on the political climate. Some deny all three as a matter of course.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Me thinks it is the climate scientists who are in denial. I went to a presentation by M. Mann, (Mr, Global Warming) and he used the same chart I referenced for his talk, (he did do away with the pesky scenario A, and he did lop off the last 5 years of data, but everything else was the same.

I think Upton Sinclair had climate scientists in mind when he said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Right...

"“The proxy database provides an opportunity to explore what triggers
deglacial warming. Substantial temperature change at all latitudes
(Fig. 5b), as well as a net global warming of about 0.3 uC (Fig. 2a),
precedes the initial increase in CO2 concentration at 17.5 kyr ago,
suggesting that CO2 did not initiate deglacial warming.

“The identification of orbital frequencies
in the marine 18O/16O record, a proxy for global ice volume, in the
1970s demonstrated that glacial cycles are ultimately paced by astronomical
forcing.”

Source: Shakun et al., Nature 2012

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I think Upton Sinclair had climate scientists in mind when he said "It is
>difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
>upon his not understanding it!"

Was actually written for oil/coal/gas company executives, engineers, workers and scientists. There's a lot of them and they have a lot of clout - and have amassed an almost religious following among deniers.

Given the spectacular failures of the 'models' in both back-casting and forecasting, looks like that's MUCH more applicable to the alarmists.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,380]

>Given the spectacular failures of the 'models' in both back-casting and
>forecasting, looks like that's MUCH more applicable to the alarmists.

Yep. Look at how horribly off this 1981 prediction was. No wonder no one listens to Hansen any more.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>I think Upton Sinclair had climate scientists in mind when he said "It is
>difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
>upon his not understanding it!"

Was actually written for oil/coal/gas company executives, engineers, workers and scientists. There's a lot of them and they have a lot of clout - and have amassed an almost religious following among deniers.

Is there any more proof necessary regarding the double-edged sword of these argument? Both sides have equal "I'm rubber and you're glue" arguments. Both sides have the same "look in the mirror" arguments against each other. They are the political manifestations of matter/antimatter who, despite whatever stroking, are nothing more than opposites of the exact same thing who can't come together without mutual obliteration.

It's because it's politics. It's not about science. It's about politics and has been. Since the real foundation of the movement is pointed to by both sides as Hansen's 1998 testimony in Congress, nobody can argue with a straight face that "Congressional testimony" and "politics" are not intertwined.

Nope. The whole fight is over "what do we do about it?" One side says, "Everything no matter what the cost." The other says "Nothing no matter what the potential cost."

Climate science IS an adjunct for science. Religion interposing itself on science is considered bad, and there are loads of scientists out there who understand and explain that science and religion answer different questions (i.e., astrophysics seeks to answer "what" and "how" but should not be in the business of answering "why was the universe created" because that's a subject for theology/philosophy).

But mixing politics with science? That's fine, I guess. Never mind that "what should we do" and "how should we do it" are not scientific questions but are political ones. Hell, engineers are more used to trying to solve problems within external constraints than are pure scientists.

There can only be progress in these things when people admit that it is what it is - a political discussion. This is no different, in a sense, from going to Mars. We could probably do it by 2025 so long as there was the money and the national will to do so. But we didn't even have the national will to keep going to the moon once we got there because the American public (and the politicians) didn't view the fantastic science being performed as worth the money being spent. "Why are we spending money on the moon when there are problems on earth?"

It's all about political and economic cost/benefit. So we'll keep hearing stories about how bad it'll be and how bad it won't be.

And politically, it is known that there can be no agreement when zealots dominate both sides.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Given the spectacular failures of the 'models' in both back-casting and
>forecasting, looks like that's MUCH more applicable to the alarmists.

Yep. Look at how horribly off this 1981 prediction was. No wonder no one listens to Hansen any more.

Was that *before* or *after* they had to revise GISS due to the problems that the "deniers" found in the database?

Regardless, here's the 1988 prediction from Hansen - looks like 1981 was all wet, doesn't it Bill?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>When you say "deniers" do you mean like holocaust deniers

Nope. Climate change deniers are a political group, characterized by their denial of any climate change science that indicates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we are emitting more of it or that the planet is warming. Some deny only one of those three and switch which one it is depending on the political climate. Some deny all three as a matter of course.

And climate change alarmists are the equal and opposite political group, who argue that anyone who does NOT believe that the oceans will rise by 30 feet by 2100, that there will be billions dead from climate change by that time, and that petroleum companies will kill us all are shills paid for by evil corporations. Furthermore, anybody who points out issues with the current dogma are not real scientists nor are they legitimate or qualified because, well, any qualified or legitimate climate scientist would agree.

For every Anthony Watts there is a Joe Romm. For every person talking about the US temperature records being shattered for this winter there are people saying, "Yeah, but check out Alaska, Europe, Alaska and Asia." One side seems to get the headlines, though.

Thus, today we see reports about the record warmth in March across the US. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/09/usa-weather-warmth-idUSL2E8F97Y320120409

Then in the article it was noted to be the contiguous 48 states (what's the effect is Alaska and Hawaii are figured in?) And it's .5 degrees warmer than the previous record of March, 1910 - 102 years ago (seriously - 1910). And this is after adjustments have been made to the temperature record. And the global temperature for March was below the 30 year mean. Arctic ice just started melting last week (first ever April melt).

So both sides have arguments. Both sides can point to data to prove and disprove. And why prove it or disprove it? Because it affects policy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

>I think Upton Sinclair had climate scientists in mind when he said "It is
>difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
>upon his not understanding it!"

Was actually written for oil/coal/gas company executives, engineers, workers and scientists. There's a lot of them and they have a lot of clout - and have amassed an almost religious following among deniers.

When you say "deniers" do you mean like holocaust deniers, that's a bit hyperbolic don't you think my friend

No, denier means denier. Holocaust denier means Holocaust deniers. Quite the wet strawman you tried to create with the Nazis....btw, I don't believe most Holocaust deniers are Nazis. (See Iran).

In this particular subject, we have deniers on both sides, eyes totally closed to anything that doesn't fit.

[brenthutch 383]

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers and the ice
is expanding, the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007, polar bears
are thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping, Cholera and Malaria
are failing to follow global warming predictions, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a
mockery by gains in snow cover, global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or
more and many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead, deaths due to extreme weather
are radically declining, global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows, the frequency of
major U.S. hurricanes has declined, the oceans are missing their predicted heat content, big
tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s, droughts are not historically unusual nor
caused by mankind, there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather, scandals
continue to rock the climate fear movement, the UN IPCC has been exposed as being a hotbed of
environmental activists, former Vice President Al Gore is now under siege by his fellow global
warming activists for attempting to link every bad weather event to man-made global warming
and scientists from around the world continue to dissent from man-made climate fears at a rapid
pace.