[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

96% of studies say that humans contrubute to the acelleration of the natural cycle of warming.

And not that long ago many of those same scientists said that human activity was responsible for global cooling.

Funny thing is, their 'solutions' to cooling and their solutions to warming are identical: Ending Western industrial civilization.

Seems to me they have an agenda looking for a justification.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

$1:

96% of studies say that humans contrubute to the acelleration of the natural cycle of warming.

And most if not all the studies only show a small field of data gathered over 10-20 years. They then go back 100 years and go OMG we are hotter then then it's all mans fault. When it can be shown that for the last 200+ years that the increase in temp has been happening. So what gases and particulates were being release 200 years ago? If you can not show that the temp increase was caused by gases and particulates back then what makes science so sure that it is the cause now. I'm probably not making my point very well but I hope you get the drift of it.

I understand where most skeptics come from. They don't think there is enough data to make a decision. And if you have read any accounts from England on air quality conditions during the industrial revolution, you wouldn't ask that.

My position is very clear. We are dumping all kinds of crap into the air and water, and whatever it's affects may or may not be - we need to stop it. Now.

stratos stratos:

If you can not show that the temp increase was caused by gases and particulates back then what makes science so sure that it is the cause now.

Logical fallacy. The temperature increase was recorded. Carbon Dioxide concentrations and particulate matter in the air has been measured in things such as ice cores. My being able to show it or not makes no difference to the data.

[stratos]

$1:

"His refusal to release all data may indicate that more could be wrong with the paper."

If this is a matter of facts then why not release all the facts? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here just really wondering why all the facts are not put out on the table and let people decide for themselfs. When someone demands that we beleave them and they show us their proof and later on we find out that not all the info was given it makes a person very leary of the said proof.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

96% of studies say that humans contrubute to the acelleration of the natural cycle of warming.

And not that long ago many of those same scientists said that human activity was responsible for global cooling.

Funny thing is, their 'solutions' to cooling and their solutions to warming are identical: Ending Western industrial civilization.

Seems to me they have an agenda looking for a justification.

Why isn't the date on the second cover readable, so it can be verified?

In 1977, we also thought it was OK to drive a car without seatbelts. We've learnt some things since then.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Some people really have trouble discerning the difference between climate and weather.

I know. I was trying to illustrate that point with the bet, but...

[Lemmy]

stratos stratos:

If this is a matter of facts then why not release all the facts? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here just really wondering why all the facts are not put out on the table and let people decide for themselfs. When someone demands that we beleave them and they show us their proof and later on we find out that not all the info was given it makes a person very leary of the said proof.

[stratos]

$1:

The temperature increase was recorded. Carbon Dioxide concentrations and particulate matter in the air has been measured in things such as ice cores.

Those same samples and others like them show that nature via valcanos and fires contribute a lot to the Carbon Dioxide. Do they have a way of showing that it was man made and not natural?

$1:

My being able to show it or not makes no difference to the data.

Was not meaning to sound like I was saying for you to present the data I was speaking in general manor. Not demanding that you present all the proof gathered over the years.

[Zipperfish]

stratos stratos:

$1:

We had a story recently that 96% of studies in the last decage conclude that man is indeed contributing to that warming.

The disagreement is with how much of man's releasing of gasses and particulates are causing this. I'm of the oppinon that we are not a very significant factor to the climate change. Global warming theroist seem to be saying that we are 99% of the cause for climate change.

Yes, but it's an uninformed opinion, and that is a critical distinction I'm trying to make.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

$1:

"His refusal to release all data may indicate that more could be wrong with the paper."

If this is a matter of facts then why not release all the facts? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here just really wondering why all the facts are not put out on the table and let people decide for themselfs. When someone demands that we beleave them and they show us their proof and later on we find out that not all the info was given it makes a person very leary of the said proof.

Why should he?

From that same Blog post:

"If, on the other hand, this was a survey of the raters’ beliefs and skills, rather than a survey of the abstracts they rated, then Mr Cook is correct that their identity should remain confidential."

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm not getting angry at all. I should, becasue between you and Bart you know about Jack Squat about what you're talking about, and I have to constantly listen to you call me an idiot and a liar and a fake.

Like I said, the problem isn't that there's stupid people. The problem is that the stupid people don't know they're stupid.

Then howzabout you take me up on my simple wager and prove how stupid I am by taking my money? Hmmm?

What do you mean?--the very fact you offered the wager proves how disingenuous you are about the whole thing. Because you know it was a hot July and you know next July probably won't be that hot. As I do. The difference is that I admit this, whereas you offer teh wager after claiming that the weather can't be predicted more than 7 days in advance.

The fact you offered the wager belied your own argument.

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm not getting angry at all. I should, becasue between you and Bart you know about Jack Squat about what you're talking about, and I have to constantly listen to you call me an idiot and a liar and a fake.

Like I said, the problem isn't that there's stupid people. The problem is that the stupid people don't know they're stupid.

Then howzabout you take me up on my simple wager and prove how stupid I am by taking my money? Hmmm?

What do you mean?--the very fact you offered the wager proves how disingenuous you are about the whole thing. Because you know it was a hot July and you know next July probably won't be that hot. As I do. The difference is that I admit this, whereas you offer teh wager after claiming that the weather can't be predicted more than 7 days in advance.

The fact you offered the wager belied your own argument.

Oh and of course you think you offered a fair wager...

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

96% of studies say that humans contrubute to the acelleration of the natural cycle of warming.

And not that long ago many of those same scientists said that human activity was responsible for global cooling.

Funny thing is, their 'solutions' to cooling and their solutions to warming are identical: Ending Western industrial civilization.

Seems to me they have an agenda looking for a justification.

Why isn't the date on the second cover readable, so it can be verified?

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,1 ... 09,00.html

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No Zip. It's you who doesn't know what he's talking about here, and never has on this issue. (Actually I think you do. You just believe you can BS your way out of it). We three have argued this point for years and although you have sharpened your line of patter with gobbledy gook you've put together over the years you'll always be left trying to explain the same in your face fact that contradicts you. Climate models have failed more spectacularly than they've ever succeeded. They are noticeably limited in predicting weather, just as Bart says, and they have failed in too many of their climate predictions to be taken seriously as prophets. Basic knowledge of the issue and common sense tells us this.

Weather models are far better than they used to be. Noticeably, the ability to predict hurricanes, their severity adn where they will make landfall has increased by about 20%/decade, which has probably saved thousands of lives over the years.

So you're wrong.

Again.

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

Oh and of course you think you offered a fair wager...

If Bart truly believed that nothing about the weather could be determined more than 7 days in adavnce then he would perceive that in fair wager.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

The Gap is large and the models are wrong because in their obsession with radiative change they undervalue natural influences on the climate (which might have caused a little cooling recently if it had not been for greenhouse gases);

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/t ... more-92466

Obsession with radiative change? That's the whole frickin' point. Radiation physics shows that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere--regardless of any of the other mind-boggling array of stuff like albedo and cloud nucleation and transpiration and sea absorption--should raise the temperature of the near surface about 1 deg C.

Again, you're missing the point by so far that it's actually funny.