[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

What it's really about is creating a crisis, then turning up to require more political power to stop it.

As I mentioned, this is a flawed theroy:

I don't know about that, but I do know I want to nominate you for the most erroneous use of an out of context clip for 2015...and it's only february.

I was not pushing that theory. I presented it along with the conspiracy theory it counter-balanced from the alarmist side just to show how they both spun out of the actual priority issue of Climate sensitivity.

Climate sensitivity is the primary issue of the climate debate.

Your claim it is something else was incorrect. Without an exaggerated claim of climate sensitivity nothing else is possible. That was my point. Your attempt to make it about something else, and something I didn't even say when you take it in context, was a desperate attempt at a strawman.

Although...ya know...you almost had me. I must admit. I almost bit. It is juicy. I would like to debate which conspiracy theory - your side's or ours - makes more sense. Try me again in a couple pages when we're sure nobody's going to get back on topic and discuss data.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The skeptic argument is fundamentally based on the idea of "Climate Sensitivity".

That is - how much effect does human emitted CO2 have on climate? It is not debated that there is some effect. The debate centers on how much.

If only this were true. As I've said previously, many prominent sceptics readily admit there "is some effect." But every time there is any sign of that effect, they deny it. Look at the temperature record for 2014. The highest temperature readings on record for the surface temperatures. "Some effect." No, it's scientists fidgeting the numbers, or hiding the truth, or running some big conspiracy.

They are simply hedging their bets so later they can say they were right either way.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's the problem:

The predictions are not happening.



http://climatechangepredictions.org/

The models were wrong.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95- ... -be-wrong/

The tiny 2 one hundredths of a degree that the data manipulators were able to push surface temps over the last inflated year on the temperature plateau affects nothing. The climate pause continues.

It's like a fat lady trying squeeze into a tiny dress. No matter how much she believes she can fit it, and no matter how much she wiggles and squirms, and stretches the fabric, reality is not her friend. The dress will never fit.

In climate terms what that means is you can uncross your fingers. Your global warming catastrophe is not coming.

BTW, is there a skeptic somewhere you know of who doesn't think there is at least some human effect on climate? You seem to be saying you know of one. I don't. Who are you thinking of?

The argument is not about whether or not there is an effect. It's about how much. And don't lie. You've heard that before.

[Regina]

I always prove scientists wrong by posting cartoons..............

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

The tiny 2 one hundredths of a degree that the data manipulators were able to push surface temps over the last inflated year on the temperature plateau affects nothing. The climate pause continues.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You say there is "some effect" from adding CO2 to the atmosphere, yet when potetnial evidence of that effect manifests itself you--and the rest of the so-called skeptics--go into denial overdrive. The logical conclusion would be that it makes sense that the average temperature would increse given the additional greenhouse effect heat in the troposphere.

$1:

BTW, is there a skeptic somewhere you know of who doesn't think there is at least some human effect on climate? You seem to be saying you know of one. I don't. Who are you thinking of?

What effect would that be, precisely?

[Thanos]

Regina Regina:

I always prove scientists wrong by posting cartoons..............

Quite similar to "Jenny McCarthy has much nicer tits than my doctor does so I think I'll take her advice on vaccinations".

[BartSimpson]

Regina Regina:

I always prove scientists wrong by posting cartoons..............

Why not? Editorial cartoons are often a more effective means of communication to a mass audience than are academic papers that are clouded in data manipulations and hidden agendas.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What effect would that be, precisely?

Different guys have different theories. Lindzen doesn't sound like he has a problem with the greenhouse effect if it's the accepted sensitivity of 1 degree warming per doubling of CO2. It's modelers insistence on exaggerated warming from proposed positive feedbacks he has a problem with.

I can't think of any well known skeptic coming out saying the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, but I bet one or two might exist somewhere.

Spencer sounds like he's on board with the greenhouse effect, but he thinks negative feedbacks from things such as clouds might balance things out.


I think I heard Pielke Sr. has some sort of theory as to how human activity might affect air currents. I didn't get into it, so I don't know if that's positive or negative.

I've heard skeptic scientists talk about how the effect of certain particulates in actual pollution can be either positive or negative in reference to warming. Meaning the effect can be warming or cooling.

There's a lecture from Christie where he talks about how he's done commissioned studies showing how localized weather and possibly climate can be affected by local human activity.

Watt's is into the Urban heat island effect.

Then there's luke warmers like Bjorn Lomberg who have no problem with what for now we'll call the consensus thinking on warming, but he says adaptation over mitigation in response.

That's just off the top of my head, but basically my feeling is there's lots of different angles where they're saying "yeah, human activity influences climate but..."

[Regina]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Regina Regina:

I always prove scientists wrong by posting cartoons..............

Why not? Editorial cartoons are often a more effective means of communication to a mass audience than are academic papers that are clouded in data manipulations and hidden agendas.

Clouded always refers to a lack of understanding to what is important. Although I find all this "science" talk entertaining.

[BartSimpson]

Regina Regina:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Regina Regina:

I always prove scientists wrong by posting cartoons..............

Why not? Editorial cartoons are often a more effective means of communication to a mass audience than are academic papers that are clouded in data manipulations and hidden agendas.

Clouded always refers to a lack of understanding to what is important. Although I find all this "science" talk entertaining.

Anymore I find most science to be more sciency.

It looks and poses like science but acts more like religion.

[Regina]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It looks and poses like science but acts more like religion.

I rest my case.

[Gunnair]

Thanos Thanos:

Dr. Oz should be in prison for the nonsense he peddles.

I see what you did there...