What Alarmists Often Don't Understand.....the Burden of Proof is on YOU

According to your graph the GISS numbers were in 2007 slightly below scenaior C.

Do you know what scenario C is?



Now as CO2 emissions reached a net 0 since 2000?

 

Which is barely different from B, the emissions scenario that was closest match to the real world. The Hansen prediction matches very close to both B and C, given that B and C are nearly identical. Your insinuation here that it can't match B because it matched C doesn't make much sense. It matched the real world. It doesn't matter if it also matched a different projection.

It looks like your bizarre lack of logic here is a side effect of the deranged GavinSchmidt-hate that infects a lot of denialists. They want to hate Hansen and Schmidt, so they make up the craziest stories and use the most senseless logic imaginable. Your raving about algebra is particularly incoherent, being that it seems to have nothing to do with anything.

 

It didn't match. The end point of your graph is well chosen because it is the only time since about the mid 90s that it even got close to scenario C. And lets not even start with what has happened since then. Given that NASA argues that the earth has a thermal lag of about a decade the past 5 years was when the warming was supposed to take off.



Couldn't be more flat.

If you find slope intercept incoherent perhaps this isn't the correct discussion.

 

If it is this obvious and clear cut why is it not published? I am sure "Energy and Environment" would gladly publish a paper like this

 

Ah, I see the cherrypicker is being brought back out.

Since some people seem to go berserk if one mentions "Skeptical Science", it's a fine time to repost this.

 

You imply that I have taken a side. I haven't. I just object to some of the silliness involved, the lack of understanding on key issues related to the topic, and the radicalization of the debate. My personal opinion is that the debate is primarily irrelevant, regardless of whether or not humans are the cause of climate change.

Ruddiman matters, and I believe is rarely mentioned, because explicit in his work is the concept that mankind CAN'T stop doing what we are doing, because the problem is our very existence, and doesn't require cars or coal fired power plants or any of the things the parties involved want to stop/start/change. Have you noticed any of the advocates of "fixing" human caused climate change mention that the entire human race might have to be disposed of to achieve the ends they desire?

Evidence supporting massive warming prior to the invention of the coal fired power planet is pretty common as well, some of it sitting right in Central Park in NYC. The planet warms, the planet cools, of course the evidence is pretty common. Unless you have an alien explanation for how glacial till ended up on Manhattan?

 

You imply that I have taken a side. I haven't. I just object to some of the silliness involved, the lack of understanding on key issues related to the topic, and the radicalization of the debate. My personal opinion is that the debate is primarily irrelevant, regardless of whether or not humans are the cause of climate change.

Ruddiman matters, and I believe is rarely mentioned, because explicit in his work is the concept that mankind CAN'T stop doing what we are doing, because the problem is our very existence, and doesn't require cars or coal fired power plants or any of the things the parties involved want to stop/start/change. Have you noticed any of the advocates of "fixing" human caused climate change mention that the entire human race might have to be disposed of to achieve the ends they desire?

Evidence supporting massive warming prior to the invention of the coal fired power planet is pretty common as well, some of it sitting right in Central Park in NYC. The planet warms, the planet cools, of course the evidence is pretty common. Unless you have an alien explanation for how glacial till ended up on Manhattan?

 

I don't get that from at all from Ruddiman. The CO2 and methane changes he postulates are pretty small compared to the modern changes caused by industrialization. He mentions about 340 GtC (gigatons of carbon dioxide) added by early man over those thousands of years, which is about a year's worth of current emissions. Significant when CO2 levels were lower, but not something that would be the current driver of global warming.

A few do, but they're generally regarded as religious fanatics. Almost all of the scientists have calculated-assumed (some of both, being certain technological progress is assumed) that CO2 levels can be stabilized without eliminating humanity, or making everyone live in caves.

I've also seen Ruddiman is quite respected in the AGW community. He's not a household name, but scientists usually know about him.

Not relevent to the current warming, being nobody can identify what natural cycle would be at play now which causes warming. It's like declaring "well, natural forces caused species to go extinct before, therefore it must be some natural thing doing it now, and we shouldn't even think of looking at a human cause."

 

Ruddiman supposes that while climate change due to agriculture are small, the cumulative effect put mankind in charge of the climate thousands of years before the evils of the industrial revolution, and have possibly already stopped the next ice age from happening. So yes, it does matter in terms of being a current driver, because the current driver isn't the particular technology we use at some point in time, but our very EXISTENCE.

Religious fanatics, true believers, zealots, "science is settled" claimers, are you seriously claiming that big chunks of these characteristics aren't sitting in the middle of this debate? The core of Ruddiman's idea is that without handing everyone a spear and sending them off into the prairie and forests to live or die as hunter gatherers, you can't configure the climate in such a way that returns it to its natural cycles.

They certainly do. And yet why don't you find them discussing what it will actually take to restore the planets climate balance, if you believed what he was saying? I believe the reason is obvious. It is okay to be a religious fanatic in scientists clothing, but if you actually spoke the truth more people would have my attitude towards the entire debate, because lets face it, handing a obsidian tipped spear to an American family of four and sending them off into the woods with the clothes on their backs is hardly an alternative our obese, diabetic, rich, long lived and soft culture would ever choose to restore the climate to its natural cycles.

Ruddiman quantifies the human cause. A big chunk of it is growing food, in particular rice. How happy would half the worlds population be if you told them what the cost was going to be for them to contribute to "fixing" climate change? No rice for you!

 

Burden of proof.

In a criminal case the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution.

Prosecutors dread capital cases because the practical (what will fly with a jury) burden of proof required to execute someone goes astronomical.

Because the Warmers demand an economic and technological 'death penalty' they have raised the bar to lofty levels but all they seem to present is at best circumstantial proof. Surrogates parameters that are easily refuted are not much in the way of proof. Anything involving statistics makes many people skeptical.

In order to escape the enormous burden of proof demanded by their 'death penalty' remedies, the Warmers would be wise to drop the taxation and regulation (and particularly any role for the UN), and concentrate on nuclear energy in the electrical power generating sector.

 

I don't see how fitting a linear trend is any less cherry picking than a step function, especially if a step function is a better fit. I've never seen anyone ever argue when curve fitting that a straight linear trend is the best model. Choosing a linear trend when there are better models would be the definition of cherry picking.

 

It is cherry picking when you only show one step at a time and not the whole series - do you want us to show HOW many denialist sites out there do that??

 

You know - in nearly every AGW thread on this board the "war mists" post links to research at a rate of about 3:1 as opposed to the denialists

Burden of proof

 

And the cost of climate change on Agriculture - BTW how is that heat wave affecting the American wheat and corn crop this year?? The Big drought in Texas?? All those floods world wide last year?

Not climate change though..............

 

What deniers don't understand is they aren't in the area, of skepticism, but rather, climate change deniers are in the area of flat earth society ranters, or deniers are like dogs, which chase cars. Some deniers are like the bath-house patrons, which shot meth and engaged in unprotected homosexual acts, to shove HIV, all the way to a deadly AIDS epidemic.

Some politicians are like bath-house owners. Proposing carbon credits for the CO2 problem is like simply raising the price of admission, while advising against using speed, but advising use of condoms.

Other politicians and media mavens are like drug dealers. People who advocate fracking, to get "cleaner" natural gas are like pushers, who claim using their crank won't get a user a big, fat, dose of HIV, when hey, THE BATH-HOUSES ARE CLOSED, really!

If the CIA, DOD, Navy, and whoever else has a much-needed climate change strategy center or if the NOAA, NASA, or IPCC finds it necessary, while some President finally sees sense, we may see a burden, placed on deniers.

But as long as politicians keep putting out ambiguous media, the game of acting gay, while suppressing equal rights, for couples trying to get married will continue. Hey! Even Barney Frank, who is married to a man thinks states get to challenge USCA 4 security and USCA 5/14 equality, to molest sentences and marriage rights, by referendums.

I bet Barney is smart enough, to see how Joe Biden outed his boss, for same-sex marriage, when the White House and everybody else got wind, of the Washington Post's May 10, 2012 outing, of Bullygate. Sorry for outing you, Mr. President . . . yeah, right. The DDD-rats knew candidate Willard Meat was going to hear about his bashing, so the Democrats had to endorse same-sex marriage, when they finally did that. What hypocrites!

Got equality? Good luck with it.

Got global warming? YES, YOU HAVE. You are experiencing warming, despite low solar intensity AND melting ice. The melts should control global temperatures, but average temperatures are rising, and many high temp records were just broken, on the order of many thousands, of high temp records.

It's on you DENIERS, to man up, since you are basically turtles, trying to occasionally pop your heads, out of your shells, to look around and blurt out some illogical rants, from your Heartland agenda list.

If you have to woman up, what is wrong with you, so you are as demented, as the men you are with? Vote for a woman, like Dr.Jill Stein, of the Green Party. If you are a female climate change denier, something is really, REALLY wrong, with you. How could you be as bent, as the guys, who deny warming and climate change?

Look at those dudes! Don't get pregnant, by any of them. You'll be sorry!

 

Weather is weather. The Dust Bowl before you were born was pretty bad as well. And because scientists aren't running around counting droughts going back through the last couple of Ice Ages, and therefore don't understand their frequency or severity throughout the full range of climate change (in both directions), any single anomaly in yours and my lifetime isn't particularly significant. And Britain is having a peachy, drizzly summer. Average the two together and presto, you have normal.

Are climate change advocates now arguing that weather extremes never happened prior to the industrial revolution, because, gee, the US is having a drought, and England is semi submerged in rain this summer?

 

England will get cooler as the Gulf Stream weakens.

 

As everyone knows.....hot air holds more water than cold air....when hot air cools it rains...or snows.

 

Not everyone I don't being pain the neck.

hot air is capable of holding more water than cold air, but the idea is correct, don't forget when air cools it may far away from the place it was how.

 

It may be and it may not.

I live in "The Smokies". The reason it is called the Smokies is because of the condensation from the forests that produce a fog that looks like smoke.

Trees take water out of the ground and it evaporates out of the leaves. A large oak can evaporate 500 gallons of water a day into the air.

When you have no trees the water stays underground and no rain is produced from trees that are not there.

There are other things that effect weather I will admit.

High pressure stuck over an area will usually keep the rain away. If the land is bare more water evaporates out of the ground and you get less condensation.

And if you get condensation it "burns off" very quickly.

 

hot air is capable of holding more water than cold air.

I live in a desert, hot and dry.

But the idea is correct, humidity, as well as tempreture are functions of changes in pressure, volume and motion, turbulence. Scientists with their thermoters and IR and other other T measuring instruments are making a normal person laugh. Nothing stands still in Nature, everything goes in cycles, whether in one second or in one day or in 10 years or in 100 years, everything is a subject of turbulence, nobody knoows too much of, and in each cycle energy (wormth) dissapates. The main task of science is to promote pederasty and atheism, ignorance and hatred of reality. Illeterate and ignorant themself, scientists don't even know that thermometers do not measure cooling or warming. Do you know that thermometers are not to show warming or cooling? The earth system is cooling. It is law of Nature.

 

I know if my thermometer gets to below 32 degrees my tomatoes will die from frost.

and if the thermometer gets to 80 degrees my roses are growing better than they will at any other temperature, all things being the same.

The main focas of science is to explain the world we live in. Biology means "study of life".

Science does not dwell in the spiritual. It is only concerned with reality and nothing else.

When you can not spell illiterate it is a dang shame to call someone that spent years of study ignorant and illiterate.

 

As usual you are avoiding points and questions.
Scientists may never misspell. I never claimed that they were illiterate in English. What did I pointed they were illiterate in?

All scientific explanation are done to promote pederasty and atheissm, ignorance of reality.

In reality you need not to know what thermometers are not showing warming or cooling. You grow food without explanations of the world.
All laws of nature were made up by dwelling in the spirital, by means of free imagination, as Eistein put it.
Man himself is spiritual, unless a mental deviant. Only mental deviants do do not see such reality. Scientists are mental deviants dangerious for society. AWG mind constructions and recoonnstruction are another proof of menatl deviation of scientists.

 

Oh come on...science has advanced mankind out of the stone age into the atomic age.

I can not begin to list the benefits science has brought to mankind.

 

Einstien was one of those evil scientists.