Human-caused Global Warming is Hogwash

[Mattshark]

from your link)))

We have no direct measure of TSI variations on century time scales,

So? What is you point.

Solar activity declining - Temperature increasing.

Nice to see your are making fallacious arguments. No surprise that Neosavant is, it is the creationists way.

[Mattshark]

Yes he is. But seems nowadays if you get some fancy title that confers you know something it makes your opinion worth more than other scientists with credentials equal to or exceeding them mute. The IPCC is a UN funded organization with a vested interest in controlling world affairs. Also funny this is same guy who told skeptics to "rub their faces with asbestos", what a great scientist and human being. Most of the members of the touted mainstay for human caused climate change (ie IPCC) have less credentials than those that signed posted petition.

No, having a scientific education does though

The IPCC doesn't do science, it produces reports that use science done by a far greater number of scientists who work around scientific institutions who produce overwhelming evidence that we are the primary driving force behind current climate change.

So that is either you completely not understanding this in the slightest or being dishonest.

[danielost]

So? What is you point.

Solar activity declining - Temperature increasing.

Nice to see your are making fallacious arguments. No surprise that Neosavant is, it is the creationists way.

so my point is we dont know if there is an increase in radiation or not. says so in your link. 'nough said

[danielost]

No, having a scientific education does though

The IPCC doesn't do science, it produces reports that use science done by a far greater number of scientists who work around scientific institutions who produce overwhelming evidence that we are the primary driving force behind current climate change.

So that is either you completely not understanding this in the slightest or being dishonest.

so if you don't have a degree you cant understand science. OK then i guess we will have to scratch the Galilean moons since Galileo didn't have a degree. in fact most people of that time period were self taught.

[Guest]

so if you don't have a degree you cant understand science. OK then i guess we will have to scratch the Galilean moons since Galileo didn't have a degree. in fact most people of that time period were self taught.

Unfortunately you don't want to face up to your ignorance of the real issues here. Having a degree is not enough, having a relevant degree is what actually matters, and even then the issues are so fundamentally complex that it doesn't guarantee a good understanding of the issues. Having no actual scientific training and a hurt pride certainly makes you about the least qualified person to make any legitimate contribution to the debate.

As a trained scientist myself and Matt understand that this is no easy subject to get to grips with - but apparently its so simple that anyone with a strong gut feeling and access to dodgy paid skeptic sites can call our bluff.

For those who have followed these debates on UM, they will realise that if you can present a genuinely challenging piece of evidence in support of the skeptics cliams, I for one am open to listen. So far on this thread nothing comes close.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 13, 2010 by Guest

[danielost]

Unfortunately you don't want to face up to your ignorance of the real issues here. Having a degree is not enough, having a relevant degree is what actually matters, and even then the issues are so fundamentally complex that it doesn't guarantee a good understanding of the issues. Having no actual scientific training and a hurt pride certainly makes you about the least qualified person to make any legitimate contribution to the debate.

As a trained scientist myself and Matt understand that this is no easy subject to get to grips with - but apparently its so simple that anyone with a strong gut feeling and access to dodgy paid skeptic sites can call our bluff.

For those who have followed these debates on UM, they will realise that if you can present a genuinely challenging piece of evidence in support of the skeptics cliams, I for one am open to listen. So far on this thread nothing comes close.

Br Cornelius

so when do they start to issue degrees into fields that are ground breaking such as climetalgy is.

i dont need a degree to be able to read the words, we dont have a reading on the amount of radiation coming in to the earth for a hundred years, so we dont know if there is a change in radiation or not.(paraphrased.) and that was matts. link. now get out of that one.

Edited June 13, 2010 by danielost

[Guest]

so when do they start to issue degrees into fields that are ground breaking such as climetalgy is.

i dont need a degree to be able to read the words, we dont have a reading on the amount of radiation coming in to the earth for a hundred years, so we dont know if there is a change in radiation or not.(paraphrased.) and that was matts. link. now get out of that one.

There are proxies available which allow good estimates of the factors you talk about. They have not been ignored.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

There are proxies available which allow good estimates of the factors you talk about. They have not been ignored.

Br Cornelius

proxies are manipulated data, not real data. for instance 9 out of 10 doctors agree that asperian will get rid of headaches. now does that mean that out of the next 10 doctors that you ask they will all agree to the asperian getting rid of headaches no. and all i had to do to get that info, if i actual did the research, was talk to 10 doctors. the rest is a proxie.

Edited June 13, 2010 by danielost

[Ealdwita]

It's a fabulous excuse to raise taxes though, isn't it? Governments love it - just as they found terrorism a nice excuse to erode our personal liberties. "It's for your own good!" :angry2:

[danielost]

It's a fabulous excuse to raise taxes though, isn't it? Governments love it - just as they found terrorism a nice excuse to erode our personal liberties. "It's for your own good!" :angry2:

your right.

[Guest]

proxies are manipulated data, not real data. for instance 9 out of 10 doctors agree that asperian will get rid of headaches. now does that mean that out of the next 10 doctors that you ask they will all agree to the asperian getting rid of headaches no. and all i had to do to get that info, if i actual did the research, was talk to 10 doctors. the rest is a proxie.

Proxies are empirically derived correlations. Atomic Isotopes are good indicators of origin and quantity of CO2 and Isotopic Oxygen is an excellent indicator of historic temperatures and solar activity. Dendrochronology is a less certain science (and has recently caused controversy), but in tandem with Isotopic indicators provides useful historic trend data.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

It's a fabulous excuse to raise taxes though, isn't it? Governments love it - just as they found terrorism a nice excuse to erode our personal liberties. "It's for your own good!" :angry2:

And that is all you can see, it blinds you to the wealth of scientific research.

I am not an advocate of the tax carbon out of existance solution which governments have decided upon, but it is you and I who elect our representatives and if one of them presents a superior solution then its up to us to elect them. Unfortunately the real lasting solutions are far more radical and I suspect that few would support them - so we are left with ineffectual taxes to try to solve a fundamentally systemic problem.

The first step is to disentangle the science from your opinions about politics.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 13, 2010 by Guest

[Mattshark]

so my point is we dont know if there is an increase in radiation or not. says so in your link. 'nough said

No, it says we can't show that over a century, not over recent periods. Again, you are misrepresenting.

[danielost]

Proxies are empirically derived correlations. Atomic Isotopes are good indicators of origin and quantity of CO2 and Isotopic Oxygen is an excellent indicator of historic temperatures and solar activity. Dendrochronology is a less certain science (and has recently caused controversy), but in tandem with Isotopic indicators provides useful historic trend data.

Br Cornelius

so a wild fire wouldnt leave the same foot print as a camp fire or a stove or a wood fired train. and coal which comes from trees wont leave the same type of foot print. of course oil which comes from animals may have a different footprint

[danielost]

No, it says we can't show that over a century, not over recent periods. Again, you are misrepresenting.

your right we can show that for over 10 years or so. that means nothing.

[Guest]

so a wild fire wouldnt leave the same foot print as a camp fire or a stove or a wood fired train. and coal which comes from trees wont leave the same type of foot print. of course oil which comes from animals may have a different footprint

The carbon from fossil fuels has a different isotopic footprint to burnt cellulose because of the millions of years it has been out of circulation in the deep earth. This is detectable in the CO2 that it produces. So by analysing the composition of current air we can know where the different contribution have come from and this allows us to estimate the % contribution of fossil fuel sourced carbon dioxide.

Its remarkable what science can tell us about the world around us, and its certainly not guesswork.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

The carbon from fossil fuels has a different isotopic footprint to burnt cellulose because of the millions of years it has been out of circulation in the deep earth. This is detectable in the CO2 that it produces. So by analysing the composition of current air we can know where the different contribution have come from and this allows us to estimate the % contribution of fossil fuel sourced carbon dioxide.

Its remarkable what science can tell us about the world around us, and its certainly not guesswork.

Br Cornelius

then the carbin burps from the other thread would have simular footieprints to the fossil fuel. depending on length of time it has been buried in the ground too.

dont try to play me for an idiot. i can manipulate info too, i usually dont but i can.

Edited June 13, 2010 by danielost

[Astute One]

your right we can show that for over 10 years or so. that means nothing.

Hey Daniel,

I see the AGW ministers are at it again. They continue in violation of 2j. They keep preaching their AGW agenda to no avail. They refuse to acknowledge any data that does not support their religious belief. They, Matt and Corne, say they are scientists but refuse to accept scientific data that shows they are wrong. They say they use the scientific method but have shown on many threads that they use the S.M. selectively, and only when it suits them. They will call others names and attempt to discredit rather than focus on the science just like a minister trying to say evolution isn't real.

Maybe one day, these guys will become scientists and recognize all the data and draw conclusions that are not preconceived. Once they decide to go in the direction that the data takes them and not the direction the AGW church directs them, then they may stand the chance of really becoming scientists one day. I won't hold my breath. I think they will never get it. Just like some alcoholics never realize they can't take that first drink.

I am afraid there is a lot of pain coming, and AGW has nothing to do with it.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Astute One

[danielost]

Hey Daniel,

I see the AGW ministers are at it again. They continue in violation of 2j. They keep preaching their AGW agenda to no avail. They refuse to acknowledge any data that does not support their religious belief. They, Matt and Corne, say they are scientists but refuse to accept scientific data that shows they are wrong. They say they use the scientific method but have shown on many threads that they use the S.M. selectively, and only when it suits them. They will call others names and attempt to discredit rather than focus on the science just like a minister trying to say evolution isn't real.

Maybe one day, these guys will become scientists and recognize all the data and draw conclusions that are not preconceived. Once they decide to go in the direction that the data takes them and not the direction the AGW church directs them, then they may stand the chance of really becoming scientists one day. I won't hold my breath. I think they will never get it. Just like some alcoholics never realize they can't take that first drink.

thats because those scientists that show them to be wrong arent really scientists just ask them.

[Astute One]

thats because those scientists that show them to be wrong arent really scientists just ask them.

I know. The ones who really know how to work the scientific method and who do not let preconceived ideas interfere with scientific interpretation are not scientist to them. These AGW guys are so good that they can steer any data and skew it and make it fit their agenda no matter what; and if they can't for some reason, the data is considered bad data. It's either the datas fault or the scientists who collected it. I guess their AGW God has told them that they can never be wrong. Sometimes I wish Al would just shut up because these AGW ministers in training are nauseating.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Astute One

[Guest]

then the carbin burps from the other thread would have simular footieprints to the fossil fuel. depending on length of time it has been buried in the ground too.

dont try to play me for an idiot. i can manipulate info too, i usually dont but i can.

The time scales involved are orders of magnitude different, so not at all comparable.

Fossil fuels - millions of years

Deep ocean conveyers - thousands of years.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

The time scales involved are orders of magnitude different, so not at all comparable.

Fossil fuels - millions of years

Deep ocean conveyers - thousands of years.

Br Cornelius

so there is no way the deep ocean conveyers could be more than thousands of years.

[Guest]

so there is no way the deep ocean conveyers could be more than thousands of years.

Not to my knowledge.

Br Cornelius

[lp21why]

so there is no way the deep ocean conveyers could be more than thousands of years.

The 'slowest' deep ocean current takes around 1.5kyrs for each cycle. Any current older than 10-15kyrs would be affected by the last glacial period.

It is very unlikely that any ocean current would have a life span anywhere near the same scale as fossil fuels, due to changing sea levels and the effect of plate tectonics.

[Astute One]

Not to my knowledge.

Br Cornelius

So the carbon that was once a fish becomes a hydrocarbon, then the hydrocarbon is respirated by anaerobic bacteria and releases CO2.

Show me how your isotope study tells the difference?

Show me how your isotope study can tell the CO2 from the bacteria came from a hydrocarbon?