Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

My evidence is not secret. I'm just not going to waste an hour or so looking up and referencing this stuff. Deniers of science like you simply cannot be convinced. You faith in the religion of AGW is as strong as Mother Teresa's in Christianity. I cannot compete with such blind faith.

As for you ignorant statements if the "Fox God..."

Like I say, there is no convincing people like you, who make up such assumptions of another.

I don't watch Fox News!

I guess if it wasn't for the good laugh I get from people's ignorance, I would have more on IGNORE than I do.

 

Would evidence that is kept to ones self not be considered "secret" regardless of the reason it is kept?

 

I told you how to find it.

Must I draw a map?

Just take any study that is consensus material, and quantifies CO2 sensitivity. Read and see how they determine that sensitivity, and follow sources to the 70's papers it originates from.

 

Oh...is that all. I can see why you refuse to back up claims when it is so very easy to do.

 

....just for fun.....
[video]https://www.facebook.com/ForecastTheFacts/videos/853320384716032/?fref=nf[/video]

 

And yet you still have not validated your contentions

 

I find it so funny that people like you have such strong faith in the religion of AGW, when you won't even crack open a journal yourself.

 

Tell you what.

Here is Hansen's 1987 paper and 1984 paper he refers to as "paper 2" in the first:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.9&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

The first paper also refers to these studies for sensitivity:

Manabe and Wetheraid, 1975:

http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/group/dave/at745/Manabe_Wetherald.75.pdf


Manabe and Stouffer, 1980:

http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/group/dave/at745/Manabe_Wetherald.75.pdf


Washingtona and Meehl, 1984:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD089iD06p09475/abstract


Wilson and Mitchell, 1987:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49711347517/abstract

These are older studies, and all newer once that aren't using older study numbers have severely revised CO2 sensitivity numbers down.

 

WTF???? Sorry but these papers are older than half the members on this board - do you not think these have been examined since then?

What point are you trying to make because it is far from obvious

 

Yeah...funny how that whole scientific study and advancement of knowledge thingy works. Weird that older knowledge can be revised as more data is discovered.

 

Thus calling into question your faith in current data as the end of debate.

 

....uh....why would I be participating in a debate that has already ended? You quite obviously have no Idea what my position is on this issue.

 

Meanwhile, the two sensitivity studies that you promoted way back on Page 34 -- studies you claimed "had been presented" -- are AWOL. Apparently you "presented" them somewhere else.

The underlying problem here is that wherever-the-hell you're getting your information from is obviously biased, and you don't realize it. Somewhere, on some blog in Denierstan, you read about two new sensitivity studies, and because you don't ever crack a journal, you assumed that those two new studies represented the cutting edge. When the fact is new sensitivity studies come out all the time, but your blogging buddies in Denierstan never tell you that. They just cherry-pick the teeniest tiniest bits they can find, and hide the rest from you. They are lying by omission. They believe they won't get caught because they assume that their readers are uninformed, ignorant dupes. They've taken you for a ride, LP: you're the patsy.

Why you continue to believe those guys is utterly beyond me.

 

Just a quick look, but Manabe & Weatherald show sensitvity of 2.93, right in line with current studies. Manabe and Stoufer's link actually points to Manabe and Weatherald, while the other two are paywalled with incomplete results in the abstract.

Meanwhile, there's still this:



... which indicates a sensitivity of 3.26 (slope of the line x ln(2) ).

 

It would seem I improperly linked a study. Here it is:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf

 

That's my whole point. They decide CO2 is to blame for all the observed changes. Past studies used correlation = causation without accounting for other factors properly.

 

Refresh my memory please. Which blog is this graph from?

 

Not from any blog. The peer-reviewed sources are given at the bottom. Any competent scholar could find them from that. I suspect that you are not part of that group, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

 

Correlation does not prove causation, but correlation should be present if causation is. Therefore correlation is evidence for causation. In the case of CO2 and temperatures, causation is already well known from basic chemistry and physics, and is undisputed by all but the tinfoil-hat crowd. Beyond that, Granger-causality can be shown statistically, and has been in the case of CO2 and temps:

Alessandro Attanasio, Antonello Pasini, Umberto Triacca, "Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution" Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 4, 2013, pp. 515-522. doi: 10.4236/acs.2013.34054. “This review paper focuses on the application of the Granger causality technique to the study of the causes of recent global warming (a case of climatic attribution). A concise but comprehensive review is performed and particular attention is paid to the direct role of anthropogenic and natural forcings, and to the influence of patterns of natural variability. By analyzing both in-sample and out-of-sample results, clear evidences are obtained (e.g., the major role of greenhouse gases radiative forcing in driving temperature, a recent causal decoupling between solar irradiance and temperature itself) together with interesting prospects of further research.”

And look at that, another money quote. Now you don't even have to crack open a journal. That's sure a lot easier than learning stuff you don't want to know.

 

Somebody spliced the data together. You got that from someone.

 

Someone did splice the data together, but I didn't get it from anyone.

Let's see how long it takes him to figure this out ...

 

As for the Granger Effect, try to apply it to this hiatus!

Isn't this one of those vanity sites you complain about?

And, there is this within the paper:

 

I'll bet they didn't use e-folding factors for solar/ocean/atmospheric coupling. After-all, they do specify "the direct role of anthropogenic and natural forcings" before that...

 

Did you bother to read the conclusion of that paper?

 

And why would a statistical study care about the physics? The point is to determine causality from the data alone. Which they do.