Climate Change denial vs History

The mythical global average temperature hasn't increased since 1998, yet CO2 concentrations have increased. Granted, I don't believe that an inhomogeneous system has a characteristic temperature, but then I'm not a hoaxter. Perhaps you can explain why temperature doesn't follow CO2 concentrations.

 

What happened to all the Hurricane Katrina clones that were supposed to hit us every year? Why are the coastal cities still above water? Why is there still ice on the polls?

 

I'll tell you how to do it and you can repeat it. That was years ago ,,, it's easier now. I had to convert from Carbon to CO2 b4. Now this --- (93/7) * 400 ppm is a good start. That's roughly 5300ppm. It's larger since the 7% includes the CO2 in the biosphere. I had 30,000ppm b4 ,,, but the point is that the temperature of the ocean drives the solubility of CO2 in water which drives the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I posted the solubility chart earlier in this thread.

Of the three places where carbon is stored—atmosphere, oceans, and land biosphere—approximately 93 percent of the CO 2 is found in the oceans. The atmosphere, at about 750 petagrams of carbon (a petagram [Pg] is 10 15 grams), has the smallest amount of carbon.

Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html#ixzz4bKohppEX

 

So your claim is that despite what almost all scientists say...there isn't enough CO2 to cause any significant amount of climate change?

And here we have the Climate Denier Dance

1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.[116]
   1. 
      
      • CO2 is not actually increasing.
      • Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
      • Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
      • Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
      • Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
   2. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.
      [116]
      1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
      2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
      3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
      4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
      5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
      6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.[116]
      7. Rinse Wash Repeat

 

So, what's a denier? Is that like an 'Infidel'? If my thoughts don't fall in line with the Climate Koran, oh forgot, it was called the 'Cimate Bible', will you yell Allahu Akbar and kill me? How many virgins would you expect to be granted for killing an 'Infidel'?

And that is why I have a problem believing anything the Climate Religion has to say. Science doesn't blackball students coming out of school whose research doesn't fit the dogma. It doesn't file RICO lawsuits against those with different opinions. Intimidation has nothing to do with science ,,, and I know science. Science doesn't hide data that doesn't fit some narrative.

 

Science does work given the chance. I don't claim there is a conspiracy, I merely point out that unfortunately scientist are still human and tend to follow the research paths where the grant money is which tends to come from people with an agenda.

 

A "Denier" is some who ignores the fact that 97% of the scientific community says that AGW is a fact and instead aligns themselves with the few "scientists" who are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries...

 

Thanks for that groundless opinion. Oh maybe you can give us examples and statistics to back that claim up?

I didn't think so

 

So which of those obvious facts are you disputing? That scientist are human beings? That human beings tend to go where the money is? Or that people doing funding have an agenda?

 

If you did your home work, you would find that the 97% number came from an inventory of abstracts, not a poll. You would find that the abstracts were those allowed to pass through by IPCC warmunista gatekeepers. If they were competent fraudsters, they would have been able to filter out all of the infidel abstracts and the consensus would be 100%.

Can't speak for all the infidels, but the ones I know have 8 years formal education in nuclear physics and 12 years experience in computational fluid dynamics. The warmunista who came up with the hockey stick and was endorsed by the same university that endorsed Jerry Sandusky was a geology major. Explain how a geologist endorsed by a pedophile knows more than an infidel with experience in the technologies underlying Climate Science.

 

This is the one thing that is common to all posts about these themes on the right. Their complete lack of understanding about how Science and the Scientific Method actually work.

 

Oh we understand perfectly well how the scientific method is supposed to work we also understand that we live in a universe that's a little bit odd around the edges and that in some disciplines especially the newer ones like the interrelated fields of meteorology and climatology that there remains a hell of lot more unknowns than knows.

 

And one thing in common to all posts about these themes on the left, a complete lack of understanding of human nature which probable explains their faith in utopian ideology.

 

Wow! Do you even know what an abstract is?

They are summaries of actual Studies. And the ones considered are all those that exist which have been peer-reviewed.

And BTW, it's not 97%. It was all but 3 in 2004 (out of several thousand). However, of those 3, one was proven fake, one was retracted by the authors. The third shows very interesting and well reasoned conclusions that might undermine certain accepted principles in Climate Change Science. It uses it's own experimental data as well as publicly available data. And it is just about always mentioned in comprehensive publications However, it's results have never been replicated..

There have been no real studies after 2004 that would actually derail Global Warming. There have been a handful that question very peripheral questions, especially regarding the effects of Climate Change. Or the methodology in a particular study. But nothing to actually challenge the core consensus position. They're just not there.

 

Please study Science. You might learn that the single driving force behind the development of the modern Scientific Method (which has taken centuries) is precisely to isolate scientific knowledge from human nature.

The reason you see that as time goes by science discovery is constantly being done better, quicker and more effectively; since modern science came to be (philosophically with Descartes, and experimentally with Galileo are mentioned by most as the starting point), is that the method has been made better and better. It's not perfect, but it is very effective in it's core objective (separating the conclusions of science from the faults of human nature)

I can explain to you how this separation works. But not tonight.

 

To separate science from human nature you would have to take humans out of the picture. I know this is difficult for you but papers are written about it. It's called psychology.

 

And because human beings were involved it has largely failed we live in an age dominated by agenda driven science.

 

I hope you will one day remember this post and realize how it makes it evident to anybody with even the most basic understanding of Science that you have no clue about what Science is.

There is a field, called Epistemology, that seeks to explain the scientific quest for knowledge. What works and what doesn't work. How to perfect it. And yes, how to isolate human nature from scientific fact. As you progress in life and actually learn things, pay special attention to Epistemology. If you insist on getting involved in discussions about science, it might save you from future embarrassment.

 

Ok. So you say Science has failed. So according to you no moon landing... medications don't help sick people... planets move because they are pushed by angels...and, I guess, computers don't exist, because they are based on principles discovered by physical science and quantum mechanics...

Got it!

 

Nope I didn't say science has failed only the attempt to divorce science from politics. This is quite different from saying that science has failed.

 

Maybe you would like to read what is going on in science in general to get an idea what I am talking about. If you are not aware of any of the issues, which is apparently the case, then you really should branch further out than your own opinion.

 

Most of the arguments FOR AGW are based on fallacies.. arguments of authority.. bandwagon.. & incredulity. It is reasonable & proper for people of science to be SKEPTICAL about any claims, & demand evidence. Your credentials are not enough. Your sincerity is not enough. For a scientifically minded person, FACTS & reviewable EVIDENCE is what is wanted. There are too many holes. Too much fudging of the data sets. Too many variables. I don't care about the politics, what i care about is the SCIENCE! And the AGW science is pathetic.. it should not even be called science. I am offended that these lame propaganda memes are masked in the blanket of 'science!' by these phony pseudo scientists. IMO, they should lose their 'scientist' card. They are unworthy to call themselves, 'scientists', for promoting their horribly flawed, propaganda based, money grubbing 'theories' with the guise of 'science'. Guillotines would be more fitting for these charlatans. They are enemies of Real Science, & should be tarred, feathered, & run out of town on a rail.

 

Here's my question on this right now:

By what control do they establish a reference value for temperature anomaly?

DISCLAMER: My indulgence in this topic should not be construed to mean that I would approve of using any power of any government to control the environment under any circumstances.

 

And this uneducated opinion comes from where? Right wing BLOGS more interested in politics than science?

I thought so

 

Ah! Adding another fallacy to the mix? Quite right. Ad hominem it is. My points stand, unrefuted.