Global Warming Total Fraud

[ciriuslea]

You can repeat yourself as many times as you like - but pulling the natural cycles card without identifying it is not meaningful in any way. Every climatre scientists knows about natural cycles and could identify any number of them which are currently influencing the climate - but they do not account for current warming.

If you really believe what you are saying - name the cycle and identify its cause.

Br Cornelius

Fine if you want to disregard the natural cycle I keep identifying, but just to be clearer the cycles highlighted in the Vostok ice cores going back 400k yrs which show a steady rise and fall in temp or any natural cycle and attribute the current warming solely to man then do so, thats your opinion and if you want me say your right so it makes you feel better then fine but I don't really understand how anyone can ignore a cycle that science says is regular to 100,000yrs and warms the earth to about the same temp and not only that we are in the time frame for the cycle to have effect, I think you may be thinking I'm trying to attribute GW solely to natural events...nope but I choose not to disregard them...we have all kinds of scientific studies saying all sorts of stuff...here's one from 2008 that hints at Methane being the cause.. we now read scientists saying CO2 is not responsible, well just who is right because for a few years CO2 was blamed by scientists for GW.....just focusing blame if you like on man is kind of silly IMO but not when you consider the huge industry that's evolved on the back of this assumption, which I suspect is the reason AGW is being touted so strongly,

[ciriuslea]

The effect of CO2 is well understood in the atmosphere and all the evidence correlates to that effect in the climate at the moment, Br Cornelius

Actually this is wrong CFC's are being blamed, and of course they still attribute their presence in the atmosphere to man but the focus has changed from CO2 to CFC's, Cosmic Rays and there effects on O3 depletion

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

[acidhead]

I think Enlightenment philosophy and the example of the American revolution and the bankruptcy of the French treasury in mercantalist times (when economic management was flatly stupid because of the ideology) and a series of scandals and the movement that had been going on for some time about the special rights of the aristocracy, and a lot of other things played a part. As a general rule starving people don't engage in revolutions; it is when there are large injustices that you get them. I get the feeling people have been watching Hollywood's version, or maybe reading Dickens's version and taking it too much to heart.

when an individual has lost everything and has nothing left to lose - he loses it.

Edited August 21, 2013 by acidhead

[acidhead]

this kind of mentality plays right into the minds of the alarmist crowd.... the sky is falling mentality.... negativity .... let it go.. everything dies.

[MonkeyLove]

this kind of mentality plays right into the minds of the alarmist crowd.... the sky is falling mentality.... negativity .... let it go.. everything dies.

Unfortunately, not all alarmists act in the same way, although that's probably what the elite want. That is, whether or not there's a problem, there's nothing we can do about it, so enjoy, borrow and spend a lot, and in the process be happy while making us rich.

[RavenHawk]

Thinking about it a bit more, perhaps looking at that political card needs to be explored a bit deeper. First of all, I’m going to assume you have no problems with the graphs that Carter uses in this clip. No one should as they represent ice and deep sea cores. We see that long before Man existed, CO2 levels and temperatures ranged up and down, even much higher than today and yet life continued. Life usually went extinct due to catastrophic events and not from gradual increases. Mother Nature does have the ability to absorb and adapt to gradual changes in climate.

So from these charts we see that Man is not the cause of climate change. These are natural cycles that would occur if we were on this planet or not. Just because we don’t fully understand what all these cycles are and how they interact with each other, we need to stop scaring people of these doomsday prophecies. We do see a correlation between Man and CO2 levels but that does not denote a singular or catastrophic cause. Now, this doesn’t mean that we should not worry about what is happening just because it is natural. It’s still our house, our planet.

We have two diametrically opposed ideologies in play here. The world needs to be unified under just one premise for two reasons. Trying to do both will be self defeating and the other reason is that one will have a higher chance to succeed (cut down on waste and self destruction because we misdiagnosed the problem). I wonder which one that is? We need to trust in the power of Mother Nature and learn from her wisdom and not think that we (puny Man) have that kind of power to challenge ‘Gaia’. We are just creatures that live on this enormous planetary system. Only our technology has made her smaller and that is an illusion. We might be able to destroy our existence but we can’t significantly affect the natural cycles that go on. To think so is nothing more than the same arrogance that at one time, not long ago, thought that we were the center of the universe and the Earth flat. AGW is just another one of these. The way some of the political and scientific community goes after AGW opponents is very similar to the way the Catholic Church went after people like Galileo. 400 years later and we know who was right.

The near future goal that Man will achieve is on the horizon and that goal is reaching a Type I Civilization. That is what we need to endeavor to accomplish. Our focus needs to be on this rather than trying to reverse AGW. When we become a Type I Civilization, we will no longer be dependent on fossil fuels or even fission for our energy needs. Why compound the problem by putting more hardship on business during a period when the current major source of energy is on its last legs? One should be promoting a fertile environment for change and not penalize that change by imposing a carbon tax.

We are probably within 200 years of achieving this goal. There is probably about another 50 years of sweet crude left unless new reserves are found. What will be left are shale oil and coal as well as natural gas. Extraction of the shale oils and coal is problematic but would only be necessary for about 150 years. Our concern should be how clean our environment is rather than climate. But by that time, I would think we would have an efficient form of clean, safe fusion energy. Then we would have the energy we need to more easily adapt to the changes in climate.

Climate change is not the main obstacle of getting there. The main issue is Capitalism or its slow degradation of attrition by Socialism. The basic premise of Capitalism is that producers will try to sell their product for as much as they can get and the consumer will try to buy for as little as possible. Somewhere in the middle, a sale will be made. And this process is what keeps us strong, growing, and free. Everyone is capable of taking care of themselves. Government is not needed to nanny the people. In fact, we need to assure that we are defended from government.

Right now, there are two problems plaguing Capitalism and it is not simple greed. Greed is an important part of life (Smith’s Invisible Hand). The two issues are tied together. The first part is corporate greed gone amok. This is where business gains too much power and fails to meet the needs of the consumer. How do you control this or break this power? Government regulation is not the answer. It just makes things worse as it then becomes a game between business and government and the consumer takes a back seat.

Business is very good at getting around government regulation. When you threaten the bottom line, business will defend that bottom line at all costs. Business can’t get around a well informed, educated, and aware consumer. And that is the main issue. It is the consumer that is reneging on their responsibility. People are not playing their role, because of the Socialist mindset brainwashing the common person that they don’t have to do anything for themselves and that they’ve earned the right for business to provide a cheap product or service (equal outcome), because it is the *fair* thing to do. Equal outcome robs people of their individuality. That doesn’t sound fair to me. This is probably far worse to Man’s health that a dirty environment or increasing CO2 levels.

And that violates the basic premise of Capitalism. Equal outcome is far worse for the free market than fresh water shutting down the Gulf Stream Conveyor. This enables unrestricted actions by business and the ruling elite. It’s the consumer that drives the market, not the other way around. Socialism forgets that. If the consumer wants a cheaper product, they will go to someone that provides it cheaper. If they want better quality, they will go to the one that provides quality for the cheapest cost. In a true free market, business can’t get away with saying “This is what we provide so you must accept it”. If the business can’t provide what the consumer wants, it goes out of business. But this is where the consumer is failing the process because more and more of them are willing to accept anything business provides without question. What we need are more entrepreneurs and fewer community organizers.

So, what does Anthropomorphic Climate Change have to do with Capitalism? If you’ve been paying attention, you’d know it has everything to do with it. There are two possible mindsets or solutions to climate change and it’s not really a solution as it is a philosophy or a path to follow. The AGW solution is to scare everyone that we have to return to “simpler” times or Man will disappear and to heavily tax corporations a carbon tax and destroy the main principle of ‘evil’ Capitalism. Truly a Socialist’s wet dream. It’s all about narcissistic control. OR we can take a more realistic and level approach. We need to be better custodians of our planet. Endeavor to clean our environment, again driven by the consumer. Not with the intent to prevent something that we can’t stop (AGW) but to just have a better living environment.

If CO2 levels and temperature are going up, then we need to learn how to adapt to that. Climate change probably affects our dirty environment more than our dirty environment affects the climate. What’s the best way to be better custodians? Become more aware of environmental issues. When the consumer becomes aware and then demands alternative products and services, business must react or go out of business. The consumer can demand and get GMO labeling. The consumer can demand to defund Obamacare. The consumer can demand cleaner sources of energy, etc. The power is with the consumer, not business and definitely not government. If government wants to help, then let them provide awareness to the consumer instead of forcing business or the consumer to pay more in tax or follow some artificial, ridged requirements. It is after all the consumer that ultimately pays the taxes imposed on business and business passes that overhead along. Capitalism insures that business will remain responsive to the consumer and that the consumer will remain free from government infringement. And it unleashes the full power of the free market. The bottom line will be that we will be more in tune with our environment and the climate.

[MonkeyLove]

FWIW, we face not one but three predicaments: a debt-ridden global capitalist system that is dependent on continuous growth, peak oil and generally a resource crunch, and environmental damage coupled with global warming. They work with each other and amplify the effects of each. There is no solution to these, which is why they are predicaments. The only thing that can be done is to cut down on resource consumption through localization, etc. And because these predicaments lead to economic crises, lack of oil and other resources, and the effects of floods, droughts, heat waves, etc., then people will have no choice but to do so.

Those who oppose such a view are pollyannas who have strong faith in big business, big government, or free market capitalism. Together with capitalists, they argue that these predicaments are "hoaxes," and if they aren't, the elite using technology will save everyone. That is why AGW denialism is funded by big business, including oil companies. That is also why governments and businesses worldwide have instead called for increased oil consumption, all to ensure more profits and tax revenues. And anyone who thinks otherwise is labeled a doomsayer, conspiracy theorist, or socialist.

[Guest]

Ravenhawk I have seen you evade discussion like this before. Your a man of rhetoric who obviously has little understanding of science.

You refuse to discuss the detail of Carters claims because you cannot and you know that when we do a forensic analysis of each of his claims they are just cherry picking and pure fraud.

I will not engage with you flowery rhetoric and I think it is more than obvious that you don't have a clue what ytou are talking about when it comes to the science os Global warming.

I am done with you - again.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 26, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

Fine if you want to disregard the natural cycle I keep identifying, but just to be clearer the cycles highlighted in the Vostok ice cores going back 400k yrs which show a steady rise and fall in temp or any natural cycle and attribute the current warming solely to man then do so, thats your opinion and if you want me say your right so it makes you feel better then fine but I don't really understand how anyone can ignore a cycle that science says is regular to 100,000yrs and warms the earth to about the same temp and not only that we are in the time frame for the cycle to have effect, I think you may be thinking I'm trying to attribute GW solely to natural events...nope but I choose not to disregard them...we have all kinds of scientific studies saying all sorts of stuff...here's one from 2008 that hints at Methane being the cause.. we now read scientists saying CO2 is not responsible, well just who is right because for a few years CO2 was blamed by scientists for GW.....just focusing blame if you like on man is kind of silly IMO but not when you consider the huge industry that's evolved on the back of this assumption, which I suspect is the reason AGW is being touted so strongly,

How does the current rise in temperature relate the the Milankovich cycles (the 400K cycle plus others). i fully acknowledge the natural cycles - but current temperature trends do not relate to them and they do not explain it. Can you demonstrate how the 400K cycle predicts the current temperature trend ? If natural cycles is your position then please show the statistical correlation between your prediction and what is happening. You will fail because far better men than yourself (real scientists) have failed and concluded that the cyclic nature of natural climate cannot account for the current pattern. Only atmospheric greenhouse gases account for all of the observed changes in the current climate system - and that covers isotopic profiles of atmospheric gases, stratospheric cooling and other observed changes.

The thing about cycles is that they are predictable and predictive. Its when we see a divergence from their predictions that we know something has changed.

Do not foolishly assume that the natural cyclic nature of climate has not been studied in detail and included in the modelling of future climate - but found to be inadequate to account for reality. Do not assume that scientists do not understand far more than either you or I.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 26, 2013 by Guest

[Frank Merton]

Yea -- I think that is it exactly; the cycles of nature would have us going back toward an ice age; what we are seeing is counter-cyclic and therefore it is reasonable to think that we need to look elsewhere than natural cycles to explain current warming.

[RavenHawk]

Ravenhawk I have seen you evade discussion like this before.

You haven’t seen me evade discussions before. I may get in your face, but I don’t evade. I leave that to the other guy. You just don’t like the answers I provide. And they don’t fit nicely into your world view. I’ve seen you on numerous occasions not answer questions put to you. Simple questions and you fear to answer.

Your a man of rhetoric who obviously has little understanding of science.

If you mean that I use words to express myself, then yes, I am a man of rhetoric. I am hardly *flowery*, many times I’m very terse. On a text based forum it can’t be anything else. Like I said before, I am not a trained scientist but that doesn’t mean I have little understanding of science. My field is computer science. It’s been said that in this field, you use more physics than physicists use. I deal with observation and problem solving every day. I see things that many don’t. That’s why I’m good at what I do. And perhaps because I am not so close to the problem of climate change like many scientists, I can see the shortcomings. At least enough to bring up doubt to disprove the premise.

You refuse to discuss the detail of Carters claims because you cannot and you know that when we do a forensic analysis of each of his claims they are just cherry picking and pure fraud.

Who’s refusing? You’re the one that brought up Ward. And you are the one that wanted to do this one aspect at a time. The first thing Ward brings up is the political legitimacy of the IPCC. As far as I am aware, we haven’t gotten to the forensics of Carter yet. I am currently working on a reply using Carter, Ward, Gore, and Brohan. But we should be thorough and get through the political ramifications. We’ll see that they are more important than the actual science, which has never been in question, only the interpretation of it. What drives AGW is politics not the science.

Climate change as a science is just too young. This is not a high school science project in which you spend a few weeks on a subject and at the end of it, you somehow know everything there is to know.

It’s very much like Evolution. The science is solid, however, there is no absolute proof of evolution. In my mind, evolution is a fact. We have the fossil record and we know about variation, but that is not proof. And I know that Man did not cause evolution. The closest thing we have as proof of evolution is a non scientific source.

I recall something that Tony Campolo said one time. He was at a symposium in Moscow discussing the relationship between science and religion. When he had a Soviet student approach him and asked him what he thought about the two theories of evolution? Tony was confused because he was just aware of Darwin and asked the student to explain. The student replied that Lenin had established his own version of evolution in which nature evolved by cooperation and not competition. Now, there is much more to this story but the point is that the science can be manipulated to drive a political agenda. And again that is AGW. And misdiagnosing the problem can ultimately cost us in lives and treasure.

I will not engage with you flowery rhetoric and I think it is more than obvious that you don't have a clue what ytou are talking about when it comes to the science os Global warming.

Sounds like someone has you in their back pocket. You just can’t get enough of the AGW koolaid can you? It is more than obvious that you are either hiding something or don’t want to be shown up. If you stop trying to show that people that don’t think like you don’t have a clue, you’d find out that it is you that is clueless, Mr Douglas.

[Guest]

You haven't seen me evade discussions before. I may get in your face, but I don't evade. I leave that to the other guy. You just don't like the answers I provide. And they don't fit nicely into your world view. I've seen you on numerous occasions not answer questions put to you. Simple questions and you fear to answer.

If you mean that I use words to express myself, then yes, I am a man of rhetoric. I am hardly *flowery*, many times I'm very terse. On a text based forum it can't be anything else. Like I said before, I am not a trained scientist but that doesn't mean I have little understanding of science. My field is computer science. It's been said that in this field, you use more physics than physicists use. I deal with observation and problem solving every day. I see things that many don't. That's why I'm good at what I do. And perhaps because I am not so close to the problem of climate change like many scientists, I can see the shortcomings. At least enough to bring up doubt to disprove the premise.

Who's refusing? You're the one that brought up Ward. And you are the one that wanted to do this one aspect at a time. The first thing Ward brings up is the political legitimacy of the IPCC. As far as I am aware, we haven't gotten to the forensics of Carter yet. I am currently working on a reply using Carter, Ward, Gore, and Brohan. But we should be thorough and get through the political ramifications. We'll see that they are more important than the actual science, which has never been in question, only the interpretation of it. What drives AGW is politics not the science.

Climate change as a science is just too young. This is not a high school science project in which you spend a few weeks on a subject and at the end of it, you somehow know everything there is to know.

It's very much like Evolution. The science is solid, however, there is no absolute proof of evolution. In my mind, evolution is a fact. We have the fossil record and we know about variation, but that is not proof. And I know that Man did not cause evolution. The closest thing we have as proof of evolution is a non scientific source.

I recall something that Tony Campolo said one time. He was at a symposium in Moscow discussing the relationship between science and religion. When he had a Soviet student approach him and asked him what he thought about the two theories of evolution? Tony was confused because he was just aware of Darwin and asked the student to explain. The student replied that Lenin had established his own version of evolution in which nature evolved by cooperation and not competition. Now, there is much more to this story but the point is that the science can be manipulated to drive a political agenda. And again that is AGW. And misdiagnosing the problem can ultimately cost us in lives and treasure.

Sounds like someone has you in their back pocket. You just can't get enough of the AGW koolaid can you? It is more than obvious that you are either hiding something or don't want to be shown up. If you stop trying to show that people that don't think like you don't have a clue, you'd find out that it is you that is clueless, Mr Douglas.

The point is, and as a scientist you should understand this, a scientific subject can only be analysied through it details - not in sweeping statements as carter has made. i have asked you to pick a single detail of what Carter claims to discuss and see its varacity. Only by doing this, point by point can we discover whether carter is telling the truth.

You have chosen to fixate on Carter and Wards political analysis - but that will not tell us anything about the varacity of the scientific claims been made by Carter.

Pick your point from Carters presentation, outline your understanding of it, and leave the politics to the politicians where it belongs.

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

The point is, and as a scientist you should understand this, a scientific subject can only be analysied through it details

Maybe that is your problem. This is not *JUST ONLY* a scientific subject. You have to look at the big picture.

i have asked you to pick a single detail of what Carter claims to discuss and see its varacity. Only by doing this, point by point can we discover whether carter is telling the truth.

And as I’ve reminded you several times already, you are the one that brought up Ward. You also are the one that stated that you were going to look at each aspect. Since you are using Ward to challenge Carter, it only makes sense to begin where Ward begins. I am trying to be careful in reading Ward, Brohan, etc. I think Ward over does it with references. At some point you begin duplicating work, not supporting it.

You have chosen to fixate on Carter and Wards political analysis - but that will not tell us anything about the varacity of the scientific claims been made by Carter.

I’m not fixated. This is just part one. I’m currently putting together a second part. I’ve got like three different trains of thought going. I’m not sure how I’m approaching this second part yet. But as it is, I haven’t seen you refute anything so far.

Pick your point from Carters presentation, outline your understanding of it, and leave the politics to the politicians where it belongs.

That *IS* what I’ve been doing. And politics belongs right in the middle of AGW, because that is what it is.

[Guest]

Maybe that is your problem. This is not *JUST ONLY* a scientific subject. You have to look at the big picture.

And as I've reminded you several times already, you are the one that brought up Ward. You also are the one that stated that you were going to look at each aspect. Since you are using Ward to challenge Carter, it only makes sense to begin where Ward begins. I am trying to be careful in reading Ward, Brohan, etc. I think Ward over does it with references. At some point you begin duplicating work, not supporting it.

I'm not fixated. This is just part one. I'm currently putting together a second part. I've got like three different trains of thought going. I'm not sure how I'm approaching this second part yet. But as it is, I haven't seen you refute anything so far.

That *IS* what I've been doing. And politics belongs right in the middle of AGW, because that is what it is.

Politics will tell us nothing about the science which either supports or disproves the existence of AGW. Po0litics is about the response to the science. We have to establish if the science is real first before we can assess the validity of the responses. Lets not put the cart(er) before the horse here.

Science is about setting out a series of verifiable facts and challenging them. I am asking you to choose a fact which Carter claims to be true and then we can analyse whether it is in fact true. Now thats not hard is it. I understand climate science, but I have my doubts that you do and I can only engage with you on the subject through your understanding of the fundamental facts of climate science. So far you have not enunciated any single scientific fact. I can point you to dozens of places where you can see my understanding - but to my certain knowledge you have only ever expressed your opinion and avoided talking about the science.

You gave me a general gish gallop of a refutation of AGW and I returned with like, I really want to get down to the details - where you and Carters explanation fall hopelessly apart.

It get tedious repeatedly asking you to engage with the science. Climate change rests or falls on the basic science - not on politics.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 27, 2013 by Guest

[+DieChecker]

FWIW, we face not one but three predicaments: a debt-ridden global capitalist system that is dependent on continuous growth, peak oil and generally a resource crunch, and environmental damage coupled with global warming. They work with each other and amplify the effects of each. There is no solution to these, which is why they are predicaments.

I believe usually in human history when we reach such a point, there is several large wars. Wars, depending on thier deadlyness, generally decrease the symptoms of these problems for a while. But, generally things recover fairly quick, especially for the winners. And so I'd expect a lot of resource aimed wars to break out when things get really bad with oil.

I don' think there is going to be much done about global warming once the fighting starts.

Partly we're in a debt ridden capitalist system due to the "Socialists", who will not balance a budget or stop spending billions/trillions of dollars we don't have. Many of the "socialist" systems of Europe are not doing in better... Maybe you should still with simply "Debt Ridden"? and leave the "Capitalist" out of it. It really seems no one system.... Communists, Socialist, Capitalist... seems to work any better then the others. Eventually everyone but a minority end up in poverty and/or under government control.

[Guest]

I believe usually in human history when we reach such a point, there is several large wars. Wars, depending on thier deadlyness, generally decrease the symptoms of these problems for a while. But, generally things recover fairly quick, especially for the winners. And so I'd expect a lot of resource aimed wars to break out when things get really bad with oil.

I don' think there is going to be much done about global warming once the fighting starts.

Partly we're in a debt ridden capitalist system due to the "Socialists", who will not balance a budget or stop spending billions/trillions of dollars we don't have. Many of the "socialist" systems of Europe are not doing in better... Maybe you should still with simply "Debt Ridden"? and leave the "Capitalist" out of it. It really seems no one system.... Communists, Socialist, Capitalist... seems to work any better then the others. Eventually everyone but a minority end up in poverty and/or under government control.

Growth is the cause of the ecological crisis. Both socialism and capitalism relies on growth to work so both are direct causes of the climate crisis. Until we develop a steady state economic system we cannot solve the economic crisis - and almost no one is asking the right questions to change the economy away from the growth paradigm.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

the right questions to change the economy away from the growth paradigm.

What do you mean?

[Guest]

What do you mean?

To live within the productive means of the ecosystem, ie not to expect to be able to draw off an endless supply of resources in a finite resource base.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

To live within the productive means of the ecosystem, ie not to expect to be able to draw off an endless supply of resources in a finite resource base.

Br Cornelius

If we didn't expect an endless supply I don't think our behavior would change. Nothing is endless and when a resource runs out we will surely do without it. Seeing people sacrifice for posterity is a tough sell.

[RavenHawk]

Politics will tell us nothing about the science which either supports or disproves the existence of AGW. Po0litics is about the response to the science. We have to establish if the science is real first before we can assess the validity of the responses. Lets not put the cart(er) before the horse here.

AGW is not about whether the science is real or not. AGW is used as a weapon to drive a political agenda. The science is solid, it always has been. It has been the interpretation of the science that has been twisted to support AGW and that is what Carter presented.

Science is about setting out a series of verifiable facts and challenging them.

And that is what Carter has done with his torpedoes.

I am asking you to choose a fact which Carter claims to be true and then we can analyse whether it is in fact true.

There is nothing wrong with the truth of his facts. He’s not challenging the science. He is challenging the interpretation. That is what needs to be analyzed.

As I’ve said. I’m working on a response but right now, I’ve got three different trains of thought going on and I haven’t decided which way to go with it.

Now thats not hard is it.

No, it’s not but you are going to do everything you can to make it difficult. You haven’t responded to anything I’ve said so far, so why should I think that you will respond to anything else? Nothing I say will register with you as countering AGW, but I will try. Not for your sake but to get things clear in my head. The deeper one looks, the more obvious the folly of AGW becomes.

I understand climate science, but I have my doubts that you do and I can only engage with you on the subject through your understanding of the fundamental facts of climate science. So far you have not enunciated any single scientific fact. I can point you to dozens of places where you can see my understanding - but to my certain knowledge you have only ever expressed your opinion and avoided talking about the science.

I have my doubts that you understand the big picture. Somehow you think that science is some magical shield that will defend yourself from reality. I see, when I present something, it is only an opinion. When you present something then it is proven fact. Somehow, I don’t think this is how it works. I am trying to engage you but I feel like all I’m doing is trying to state that 1 + 1 = 2 and it’s not registering with you. You don’t show any inkling of understanding.

You gave me a general gish gallop of a refutation of AGW and I returned with like, I really want to get down to the details - where you and Carters explanation fall hopelessly apart.

Except Carter doesn’t fall hopelessly apart. His presentation is pretty much self sustaining. I don’t know how much more simple I can make it, but I am trying. And if I would stop replying to your attempts to distract here and work on my reply, I would get it out sooner.

It get tedious repeatedly asking you to engage with the science. Climate change rests or falls on the basic science - not on politics.

Now you know how I feel, because we are not just talking about the science. We are talking about the politics of AGW. That’s two different things. If you didn’t want to discuss the politics then you shouldn’t have brought up Ward to attack Carter. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to go work on my reply until work picks up.

[Amalthe]

By all things we can measure, it is a fact that world is getting hotter and hotter. This summer i had a chance to visit some glaciers in Alpes, and the level of their melting speed is astounding. They are receding at enormous pace, which can be seen by measuring marks with year number staring from 1990 placed on the rocky walls of the canyon hundreds of meters above the glacier today. And fact is also that this warming started some decades ago, because for hundreds of years glacier line didn't actually move much. Now the cause of warming is debatable, may it be human influence, some solar cycles (although they should be looong cycles too) or something third is IMO irrelevant, warming is here and now and we have to find a way to deal with it.

[Guest]

AGW is not about whether the science is real or not. AGW is used as a weapon to drive a political agenda. The science is solid, it always has been. It has been the interpretation of the science that has been twisted to support AGW and that is what Carter presented.

And that is what Carter has done with his torpedoes.

There is nothing wrong with the truth of his facts. He's not challenging the science. He is challenging the interpretation. That is what needs to be analyzed.

As I've said. I'm working on a response but right now, I've got three different trains of thought going on and I haven't decided which way to go with it.

No, it's not but you are going to do everything you can to make it difficult. You haven't responded to anything I've said so far, so why should I think that you will respond to anything else? Nothing I say will register with you as countering AGW, but I will try. Not for your sake but to get things clear in my head. The deeper one looks, the more obvious the folly of AGW becomes.

I have my doubts that you understand the big picture. Somehow you think that science is some magical shield that will defend yourself from reality. I see, when I present something, it is only an opinion. When you present something then it is proven fact. Somehow, I don't think this is how it works. I am trying to engage you but I feel like all I'm doing is trying to state that 1 + 1 = 2 and it's not registering with you. You don't show any inkling of understanding.

Except Carter doesn't fall hopelessly apart. His presentation is pretty much self sustaining. I don't know how much more simple I can make it, but I am trying. And if I would stop replying to your attempts to distract here and work on my reply, I would get it out sooner.

Now you know how I feel, because we are not just talking about the science. We are talking about the politics of AGW. That's two different things. If you didn't want to discuss the politics then you shouldn't have brought up Ward to attack Carter. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to go work on my reply until work picks up.

Not really worth a reply to, but just to note more of the same avoidance.

Pick that point on which Carter rests his case and we can begin.

Leave the politics out of it since I wont engage with anything other than the science which Carter claims to understand.

I am waiting.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 28, 2013 by Guest

[aztek]

warming is here and now and we have to find a way to deal with it.

we can't deal with it. just like wild animals can't deal with deforestation. the only thing we can do is prepare ourselves to a different world.

[Guest]

we can't deal with it. just like wild animals can't deal with deforestation. the only thing we can do is prepare ourselves to a different world.

not true in any sense. We can deal with it if we choose to. We can prevent it if we choose to.

We are not innocent victims here, we are active players ignoring our duty of care to the planet.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 28, 2013 by Guest

[aztek]

b.s. we can't. whatever reason is. we wont fix anything, look around, we never have.