Another hole in Global Warming Supporters

Fine, agreement. Is that a political invention too? I know you have to jump through some giant hoops to rationalize your denial, but lets not get into semantics.

 

No hoops to jump through, the models have failed. The CAGW is based on the models. Time to start over.

 

Yeah, then 'they' can start out with a whole new bag of money $$$

 

No you have nothing. Stupidity doesn't have to be a big conspiracy, hanlon's razor. There are plenty of examples of hoaxes and fades taking everyone in while not being some giant conspiracy. The wacky proclamations of your avatar on the safety of the Chevy Covair is a good example. There wasn't some grand conspiracy just one evil nut who was willing to lie his ass off to make a name for himself and a bunch of stupid people who believed him.

 

You have got to be fricking kidding. Just last week a warmmonger testified before congress that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence when it was made perfectly clear that here is no trend in "extreme weather".

 

Well well well. Looks like ol Cluck is at it again. You read the summary and them let it tell you to not believe your eyes. You take training well Cluck.

 

Funny how the government can get worldwide numbers about things like that but can't make a simple website work for two months.
I wonder how much made up bull is in that summary. How many data points have been culled as "anomalous"??? Polly wanna tree ring?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/20/internationaleducationnews.climatechange

http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf

There's the actual memorandum.

Of course they elected them, I never said otherwise. I said that the United States and Exxon-Mobil lobbied for Watson's removal.

 

It's pretty simple. The NOAA computer network is administered by federal employees; the healthcare.gov website was built by consultants. The healthcare.gov site was also underfunded.

 

600 million is underfunded? That is around 2000 man years of labor.

 

And as usual with denialists there is NEVER any proof that the links and research you provide is actually read or even opened - but the goal posts have been shifted regardless

 

And in each and every case the "fraud" was discovered and exposed

Tell me where is the equivalent debunking for what the scientific community researching this is, as a whole, trying to tell you?

What you have as "rebuttal" are a few internet blog sites run by die hard denialists

No research disproving what is happening -

no alternative hypothesis

no evidence of "group think"

No evidence of conspiracy

just some opinions that "it cannot be so"

 

You evidently have not been following this thread. Lots of studies have been posted that prove what many of us are saying and even the direct temperature readings back up what we say about the computer models. I think the problem here is that the true believers never read any of the science that does not support CAGW so are ignorant of them. Sure there are some nuts out there but there are plenty of scientists that are skeptical of the alarm-ism that the IPCC pushes. If you don't understand the limitations to the current computer modeling for a wicked problem then you are apt to fall for whatever it spits out. Since CAGW alarm-ism is based solely on these models and they have failed to predict the current 17 year hiatus, that should give you a clue that a problem exists. If you read many of the studies that are not pro or con, you find that there is so much more to be learned that is unknown about the climate. Don't get me wrong, I think computer models tell us a lot, but at this point in time, they only tell us if the models are right or wrong. So far, wrong. They should only be used to test against themselves and the science instead of being used for political purposes.

 

The UK is questioning the IPCC 5th assessment with questions like the following.


How robust are the conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report? Have the IPCC adequately addresses criticisms of previous reports? How much scope is there to question of the report’s conclusions?

To what extent does AR5 reflect the range of views among climate scientists?

Can any of the areas of the science now be considered settled as a result of AR5’s publication, if so which? What areas need further effort to reduce the levels of uncertainty?

How effective is AR5 and the summary for policymakers in conveying what is meant by uncertainty in scientific terms ? Would a focus on risk rather than uncertainty be useful?

Does the AR5 address the reliability of climate models?

Has AR5 sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record?

Do the AR5 Physical Science Basis report’s conclusions strengthen or weaken the economic case for action to prevent dangerous climate change?

What implications do the IPCC’s conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report have for policy making both nationally and internationally?

Is the IPCC process an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge? Or has it focussed on providing a justification for political commitment?

To what extent did political intervention influence the final conclusions of the AR5 Physical Science Basis summary?

Is the rate at which the UK Government intends to cut CO2 emissions appropriate in light of the findings of the IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis report?

What relevance do the IPCC’s conclusions have in respect of the review of the fourth Carbon Budget?

 

I bet bernie madoff thinks Global Warming is an awesome plan...

 

Oh! I have been following the thread and there are ZERO studies - lots of links to blogs but NO ACADEMIC STUDIES

And Maaaate! The current understanding of the climate and effect is not just based on computer models

- - - Updated - - -

By "The UK" do you mean the government? The scientific community? OR Lord Monckton??

 

I posted a link to about 10 academic studies.

 

I really wonder sometimes what will become of liberalism post-global warming.

 

They will find a new pseudo science to push. They are already floating new ideas like ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is great in their minds as a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) cause because it has the same root cause as AGW so they don't have to pivot much.

One thing is true about the left of the last few centuries. They always have some pseudo science they are pushing to advance their agenda be it eugenics, global starvation, peak oil, global warming. The always have some scientists propping up some bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to push their agenda. We graduate over 32,000 scientists a year. Not to hard to get a few true believers to buy into some pseudo scientific cause.

 

Really, is that so? Wow, I never knew that about the left. Dang, you learn sompin new ever day.

 

You may think its just me opining but its quite true. Since Marx introduced the idea of using science to support the cause the left has always used pseudo science to push the social agenda.

Russia was far worse about it than anything we have here with things like Lysenkoism.

 

Lord have mercy! That is what my ma used to say.

 

Well, since that is not going to happen in our or our foreseeable descendants lifetimes - we will have to continue to wonder won't we?

- - - Updated - - -

Ocean acidification is not a new idea - been around for ages and ages - and it just keeps getting clearer and clearer what is happening. It can be MEASURED - just like the CO2 content of the atmosphere - the rest is simple chemistry

 

According to the Washington Post, a conservative but still bona fide journalistic newspaper, the cost of the healthcare.gov website is more like $318 million.


>>>Quoted post and response removed<<<