Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

If my links are junk, then demonstrate so.

Your links, when they exist, are junk, or worse, simply lies. You take all legitimate climate scientists as conspirators, who could take you seriously. You post links, when you remember to post links, from third party denier sites.

The world is warming, everyone knows that, even you. You're clueless when it comes to real climate science. Just wear your witch hat and continue to flail your arms at the IPCC and other real climate science.

The only advocacy on this site is yours. Real science abounds. It's not perfect. It has to be revised and revised again but no one who understands the science and I mean no one, cares about the "data" you toss against the wall. It's complete nonsense. Worthless. Noise.

[WDCRob]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

c1ue... I'm not qualified to prove or disprove any sufficiently complex data - whether it's legitimate or not. Neither are you. That's why for about the last 350(ish) years people like me have relied on the peer review process where people who do have expertise in a field vet each others results.

That process keeps people like you from convincing us that the earth is the center of the universe, tobacco doesn't cause cancer and evolution is a godless heathen trick to kill off your deity of choice.

To believe my position on global warming is to accept science.

To believe yours is to believe that starting roughly 50 years ago scientists across dozens of fields of inquiry who didn't know each other conspired to create fraudulent results that eventually led some especially nefarious person(s) to tie them all together into a unified theory of global warming that fit all those previously forged data, and that those nefarious folks subsequently coopted 99% of their fellow scientists (who were previously recognized as experts in their fields) into creating a consensus document to promulgate those lies - a feat unmatched in history given the crankish, selfish, egotistical nature of many scientists and the fact they typically don't especially like one another very much.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

That's why for about the last 350(ish) years people like me have relied on the peer review process where people who do have expertise in a field vet each others results.

I think you misunderstand the peer review process and history.

Take a look at Three myths about scientific peer review.

The peer review process has not been dominant that long, it is not that reliable, it can be corrupted and it is not how we determine what is right and wrong in science.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Your links, when they exist, are junk, or worse, simply lies. You take all legitimate climate scientists as conspirators, who could take you seriously. You post links, when you remember to post links, from third party denier sites.

Every time I say something - I post a link.

Every time you say something, we are all supposed to take your word for it.

Clearly one of us is bringing a knife to a gun fight.

c1ue... I'm not qualified to prove or disprove any sufficiently complex data - whether it's legitimate or not. Neither are you. That's why for about the last 350(ish) years people like me have relied on the peer review process where people who do have expertise in a field vet each others results.

So to paraphrase, we should leave this to the experts.

Even though they have been caught a number of times exaggerating, modifying, or otherwise presenting extremist conclusions in order to further personal agendas.

Even though they refuse to let anyone check their work - even other climate scientists.

Sorry, but your view is not mine.

That process keeps people like you from convincing us that the earth is the center of the universe, tobacco doesn't cause cancer and evolution is a godless heathen trick to kill off your deity of choice.

As opposed to the process which is to convince everyone that Gaia is suffering and should have those pesky humans cleansed off it?

And again, how exactly does trying to label me a creationist, a tobacco denier, or an oil company shill function scientifically when I am in fact none of the above?

I've refrained mostly from calling the watermelons for what they are, but behavior spells out views better than any condemnation.

To believe my position on global warming is to accept science.

Yes, especially the thousands of NGO and other 'scientific' sources of IPCC information.

Or how one scientist's offhand views becomes a publicly (at least for IPCC) accepted verdict on the state of the Himalayan glaciers.

To believe yours is to believe that starting roughly 50 years ago scientists across dozens of fields of inquiry who didn't know each other conspired to create fraudulent results that eventually led some especially nefarious person(s) to tie them all together into a unified theory of global warming that fit all those previously forged data, and that those nefarious folks subsequently coopted 99% of their fellow scientists (who were previously recognized as experts in their fields) into creating a consensus document to promulgate those lies - a feat unmatched in history given the crankish, selfish, egotistical nature of many scientists and the fact they typically don't especially like one another very much.

To note that billions is being spent and thus is an incentive to 'find' is something which I find amusing that you can say is not an issue.

To note that the same promulgators of alarmism are quietly making millions and billions fostering said believe is somehow irrelevant.

Why is it that oil companies, who made money before climate change alarmism reared it head and will make money afterwards - are somehow evil and corrupt when in fact the ones who profit the most are on the 'right' side?

As for science - science is about repeatable, verifiable, and intellectually consistent work.

I've posted literally dozens on links showing climate science has been none of the above.

There are real scientists who actually look to understand what's going on, but unfortunately there are even more grant pilots who seek intellectual and financial profit from shoddy or even fraudulent work.

Since you clearly cannot understand that, carry on.

For my part, I will also carry on.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I think you misunderstand the peer review process and history.

Take a look at Three myths about scientific peer review.

The peer review process has not been dominant that long, it is not that reliable, it can be corrupted and it is not how we determine what is right and wrong in science.

The peer review process accepted. I'm not sure why you see peer review as conspiracy. That's your own issue. If you have a concrete issue with regard to climate science that you wish to expound upon, have at it. But this attack is just silly.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[quote=c1ue;155894]

Every time I say something - I post a link.

You don't.

Every time you say something, we are all supposed to take your word for it.

That you require a link for every reference to accepted science is just dumb. It's your silly ideas that require a link, (which we don't always get), and none of them are accepted by anyone working in climate science.

Clearly one of us is bringing a knife to a gun fight.

If you brought a knife, it was made of rubber.

So to paraphrase, we should leave this to the experts.

We should read and understand the science. We should discuss the science of global warming. The experts are the scientists. You call them theologians in your retrograde view of science. You think science is religion if it does not match your world view.

Even though they have been caught a number of times exaggerating, modifying, or otherwise presenting extremist conclusions in order to further personal agendas.

As usual you prefer to be vague. I suppose one could assume you are referring to the stolen CRU emails. You position has been proven to be complete crap. All parties have been exonerated. Of course you can refer to conspiracy at the highest levels and science as religion if you would care to embarrass yourself further.

Even though they refuse to let anyone check their work - even other climate scientists.

This is a half-assed reference to an annoying non-scientist and his repeated requests for climate scientists to do his work. They gave him the data, they gave him the mathematical models upon which the data was modeled and he was too lazy to do the work so he kept annoying everyone of value to the point that they were finally pissed off and wrote a few pissed off internal emails. And this is a key point in the defense of anti climate science for clueless.

As opposed to the process which is to convince everyone that Gaia is suffering and should have those pesky humans cleansed off it?

This is just a goofy reference. I doubt you want to explain this. Really, I read it a couple of times and I've no idea what you're talking about.

And again, how exactly does trying to label me a creationist, a tobacco denier, or an oil company shill function scientifically when I am in fact none of the above?

You never lead with clear ideas so anyone interested in science is trying to understand where your ideas come from.

I've refrained mostly from calling the watermelons for what they are, but behavior spells out views better than any condemnation.

OK, that's even more goofy.

Yes, especially the thousands of NGO and other 'scientific' sources of IPCC information.

Scientists are conspirators. Scientists are conspirators. Scientists are conspirators. The more you write, the more you creep me out.

Or how one scientist's offhand views becomes a publicly (at least for IPCC) accepted verdict on the state of the Himalayan glaciers.

Scientists have recognized that statement as an over-statement. Science is after all...science. It moves on. You continue to yell in your little corner.

To note that the same promulgators of alarmism are quietly making millions and billions fostering said believe is somehow irrelevant.

Just another conspiracy statement. Love your characterization however. Oh, they must be bad people. Really, billions? Excellent link...oops, I guess that's just another one of your missing links.

As for science - science is about repeatable, verifiable, and intellectually consistent work.

Thanks, you make my point. You never reference science.

I've posted literally dozens on links showing climate science has been none of the above.

You've posted utter crap. Complete nonsense. I think you actually posted something from the US HVAC organization as science. I know, I should post a link but your posts are so off-the-wall I'm not willing to waste my life keeping track of it.

There are real scientists who actually look to understand what's going on, but unfortunately there are even more grant pilots who seek intellectual and financial profit from shoddy or even fraudulent work.

Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. Wow, climate science is like the X-Files? Go get 'um Scully.

Since you clearly cannot understand that, carry on

No one understands that. It was just a baseless rant.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The peer review process accepted. I'm not sure why you see peer review as conspiracy. That's your own issue. If you have a concrete issue with regard to climate science that you wish to expound upon, have at it. But this attack is just silly.

I have enjoyed working in areas more adapted to "peer usage" than "peer review". I know from experience that it is a better model.

I hoped to share some insight with you on that, since the matter of peer review comes up frequently on global warming threads.

But then again resistance to understanding comes up frequently on such threads as well. I should not be surprised.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Quote:

Every time I say something - I post a link.

You don't.

Wow, what scintillating repartee. Are you going to yell: "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, nyah" next?

Quote:

Every time you say something, we are all supposed to take your word for it.

That you require a link for every reference to accepted science is just dumb. It's your silly ideas that require a link, (which we don't always get), and none of them are accepted by anyone working in climate science.

It is amusing how the accepted science can't even provide a public refutation of simple questions.

This is the real reason you don't provide links - you can't.

I've asked many times for you to show some evidence for your views, and again you return back to the well: the 'science is settled'. 'Everybody knows'. blah blah blah

Your inability to back up your views merely shows the lack of intellectual rigor behind your position.

Quote:

Clearly one of us is bringing a knife to a gun fight.

If you brought a knife, it was made of rubber.

Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, nyah!

And my daddy can beat up your daddy!

Quote:

So to paraphrase, we should leave this to the experts.

We should read and understand the science. We should discuss the science of global warming. The experts are the scientists. You call them theologians in your retrograde view of science. You think science is religion if it does not match your world view.

Actually, I read all the scientists' views, even the ones who only pretend to be scientists.

The real scientists have theories and studies which are reproducible.

The hacks are the ones who clearly are trying to make something from nothing.

Of course, in your world - anyone disagreeing with your view isn't a real scientist: not MIT professors, not UCol professors, not Harvard professors, etc etc.

Then again, your view continues to be a mystery as you've refused to actually lay it out.

Really:

Do you believe human generated CO2 is the primary driver of climate change?

This isn't the same as asking "Do you beat your wife?".

Quote:

Even though they have been caught a number of times exaggerating, modifying, or otherwise presenting extremist conclusions in order to further personal agendas.

As usual you prefer to be vague. I suppose one could assume you are referring to the stolen CRU emails. You position has been proven to be complete crap. All parties have been exonerated. Of course you can refer to conspiracy at the highest levels and science as religion if you would care to embarrass yourself further.

This is amusing - I've posted literally dozens of links where science has clearly been subsumed by agenda.

The use by IPCC of:

1) NGO papers, newspaper articles, student dissertations, magazine articles, etc to comprise the 'state of climate science' is a clear indicator that IPCC and science are not equivalent.

Do you deny this is fact?

2) The fact that IPCC declared scientists' views in direct opposition to actual written conclusions - as well as said scientists' own words as documented by Roger Pielke Jr., Robert Muir-Wood, Richard Tol, and others.

Do you also deny this fact?

3) That leading lights of the climate science 'movement' such as Phil Jones have both denied access to basic data, as well as kept said data in such a sloppy state that no one will ever know what really is going on.

Do you deny this fact?

4) That the IPCC projections have been consistently wrong: predicting a monotonic increase in temperatures for the past 15 years which has not happened. That the Hansen projections have also been consistently wrong. That the projections of Arctic ice disappearing, etc etc have been wrong. That the hurricane frequency and energy statements have been wrong. The list goes on and on.

Do you deny these facts as well?

Quote:

Even though they refuse to let anyone check their work - even other climate scientists.

This is a half-assed reference to an annoying non-scientist and his repeated requests for climate scientists to do his work. They gave him the data, they gave him the mathematical models upon which the data was modeled and he was too lazy to do the work so he kept annoying everyone of value to the point that they were finally pissed off and wrote a few pissed off internal emails. And this is a key point in the defense of anti climate science for clueless.

Right, and how many requests precisely were there? In fact there were less than a half dozen.

And equally in fact, there was no data to give.

And this is a key point in the prosecution of the climate scientists for the clueless.

Quote:

As opposed to the process which is to convince everyone that Gaia is suffering and should have those pesky humans cleansed off it?

This is just a goofy reference. I doubt you want to explain this. Really, I read it a couple of times and I've no idea what you're talking about.

No problem. You don't have any ideas of your own anyway.

Quote:

And again, how exactly does trying to label me a creationist, a tobacco denier, or an oil company shill function scientifically when I am in fact none of the above?

You never lead with clear ideas so anyone interested in science is trying to understand where your ideas come from.

Um ok. I've posted my view clearly.

I've posted a very clear set of questions.

I've posted evidence for said views, as well as background for said questions.

You on the other hand, have posted almost nothing: not the details of your view. Not direct answers to my questions. Just a bunch of ad hominem diatribes with a sprinkling of simplistic If A therefore Z.

Quote:

I've refrained mostly from calling the watermelons for what they are, but behavior spells out views better than any condemnation.

OK, that's even more goofy.

No more goofy than calling me an oil industry propagandist, a creationist, or any of the other ridiculous ad hominem crap you manage to dig up.

Quote:

Yes, especially the thousands of NGO and other 'scientific' sources of IPCC information.

Scientists are conspirators. Scientists are conspirators. Scientists are conspirators. The more you write, the more you creep me out.

Once again, you discover the word conspiracy where none exists.

The references are documented in the IPCC's report.

Your unwillingness to recognize that is exactly what denial truly is.

Quote:

Or how one scientist's offhand views becomes a publicly (at least for IPCC) accepted verdict on the state of the Himalayan glaciers.

Scientists have recognized that statement as an over-statement. Science is after all...science. It moves on. You continue to yell in your little corner.

Scientists only admitted that this was not only an over-statement, but COMPLETELY wrong.

As this was one of the key points for urging action on climate change and for underlining the importance of the IPCC endeavor, I think it is much more important than what you say: it is a failure of the entire IPCC scientific scrutiny process and is evidence of clear IPCC bias

Quote:

To note that the same promulgators of alarmism are quietly making millions and billions fostering said believe is somehow irrelevant.

Just another conspiracy statement. Love your characterization however. Oh, they must be bad people. Really, billions? Excellent link...oops, I guess that's just another one of your missing links.

I've posted the links many times before. Go read them in the Climate Change section. Oh, you don't read what I've posted?

Quote:

As for science - science is about repeatable, verifiable, and intellectually consistent work.

Thanks, you make my point. You never reference science.

Right. Like your many (nonexistent) references.

You won't even define what your views and the science behind them are.

Quote:

I've posted literally dozens on links showing climate science has been none of the above.

You've posted utter crap. Complete nonsense. I think you actually posted something from the US HVAC organization as science. I know, I should post a link but your posts are so off-the-wall I'm not willing to waste my life keeping track of it.

CO2 levels as defined as harmful to the US - that is very relevant to HVAC. Or perhaps in your mind only climate scientists can be involved with CO2?

Quote:

There are real scientists who actually look to understand what's going on, but unfortunately there are even more grant pilots who seek intellectual and financial profit from shoddy or even fraudulent work.

Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. Wow, climate science is like the X-Files? Go get 'um Scully.

Again, finding the conspiracy word where none exists.

I have NEVER said there is some conspiracy. What I HAVE said is that there is a gigantic gravy train, and there are plenty of good reasons to get on it and stay on it.

But I've never focused on the money side as the primary issue. The primary issues I've raised are (update):

1) If CO2 is a primary driver of climate change, why have temperatures NOT gone up in the past decade despite a measurable and significant increase on CO2 ppm levels?

Subquestions to 1):

a) Why is CO2 able to affect the climate more than water vapor?
b) Why is man-made CO2 different than 'natural' CO2? When over 95% of CO2 in the atmosphere is not human derived?
c) Is the incremental heating capability of additional CO2 arithmetic, logarithmic, or exponential?

2) Where is the evidence for net positive feedback in the climate given there is no historical record of such behavior? For runaway/tipping points?

Subquestions to 2):

a) If there is positive feedback such that man-made-CO2 derived temperature increases will scale from the 0.5 degree C to 1 degree C (pure greenhouse effect) to the (IPCC projected) 3 to 5 degrees C by 2100, why is it that there is no evidence of positive feedback in the annual seasonal temperature variations of about 10 degrees C from winter to summer? Or for that matter in the El Nino year of 1999 when global temperatures spiked?

Previous questions:

3) If CO2 is a primary driver of climate, why were past temperatures lower with CO2 levels orders of magnitude higher?

4) Why do detailed historical records such as ice cores show CO2 levels lagging temperature increases - implying a reverse causal relationship directly at odds with AGW-CO2-Catastrophe theory?

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Wow, what scintillating repartee. Are you going to yell: "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, nyah" next?

Are you still posting links from the HVAC working group? Good stuff, keep it up.

It is amusing how the accepted science can't even provide a public refutation of simple questions.

This is not public, it's the dark corner of iTulip. Take your nonsense to an open public forum. If you think I ridicule your ideas, you'll find out quickly what working scientists think of your hyperbole.

This is the real reason you don't provide links - you can't.

Happy to post links if you want to talk about something of substance. But of course, when we do, you realize you're getting cornered and smack the chess pieces off the table. Enjoy your dark corner.

I've asked many times for you to show some evidence for your views, and again you return back to the well: the 'science is settled'. 'Everybody knows'. blah blah blah

Your words of course. Your straw man, you have nothing else. Some of the science is settled and some is not. The science of CO2 forcing is settled. The science regarding where that force is landing is largely settled. The science regarding how this force will be released and when it will be released is not yet settled.

Your inability to back up your views merely shows the lack of intellectual rigor behind your position.

My position is backed by almost all respected science in this field. I had attempted to have a discussion with you regarding one aspect of the issue of AGM and you followed your usual pattern of abuse when you sensed you were losing the argument.

Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, nyah!

And my daddy can beat up your daddy!

I'm embarrassed that I attempt to communicate with you.

Actually, I read all the scientists' views, even the ones who only pretend to be scientists.

Maybe you could explain who are the scientists and who are the pretenders since you read 'all' of them.

The real scientists have theories and studies which are reproducible.

Clue explains science but at a very, very low level.

The hacks are the ones who clearly are trying to make something from nothing.

I suppose we should have a list of the 'hacks'.

Of course, in your world - anyone disagreeing with your view isn't a real scientist: not MIT professors, not UCol professors, not Harvard professors, etc etc.

Clue makes a vague reference to authority. Since clue is in love with Lindzen at MIT maybe he should first offer support for Lindzen's first big lie, tobacco is not harmful.

Then again, your view continues to be a mystery as you've refused to actually lay it out.

Really:

Do you believe human generated CO2 is the primary driver of climate change?

Of course it is. I suppose this is one of your important 'questions'. Any first year student of physics would understand that the CO2 we're emitting into the atmosphere is a greater force than the natural forcing over the human period on earth. That you ask such completely dumb questions is aggravating.

This isn't the same as asking "Do you beat your wife?".

No, this is science. Too bad you don't get it.

This is amusing - I've posted literally dozens of links where science has clearly been subsumed by agenda.

You think links are science. When you take the time to post links they are mostly useless noise.

The use by IPCC of:

1) NGO papers, newspaper articles, student dissertations, magazine articles, etc to comprise the 'state of climate science' is a clear indicator that IPCC and science are not equivalent.

Do you deny this is fact?

You hate the IPCC, everyone knows that. I'm not sure what this diatribe has to do with the science of global warming.

2) The fact that IPCC declared scientists' views in direct opposition to actual written conclusions - as well as said scientists' own words as documented by Roger Pielke Jr., Robert Muir-Wood, Richard Tol, and others.

Do you also deny this fact?

We've established that you hate the IPCC but this has nothing to do with the science of global warming.

3) That leading lights of the climate science 'movement' such as Phil Jones have both denied access to basic data, as well as kept said data in such a sloppy state that no one will ever know what really is going on.

Do you deny this fact?

I suppose you could make this case if it's your core thesis. You're the king of the dumb issue. You would love to take global warming down to "Was Phil Jones right"? Go for it but I'll be yawning and probably laughing at your efforts.

4) That the IPCC projections have been consistently wrong: predicting a monotonic increase in temperatures for the past 15 years which has not happened. That the Hansen projections have also been consistently wrong. That the projections of Arctic ice disappearing, etc etc have been wrong. That the hurricane frequency and energy statements have been wrong. The list goes on and on.

Do you deny these facts as well?

The IPCC has apparently under estimated sea level rise by a factor of 3X according to several papers over the last two years so I guess you're right, they got it wrong again.

Right, and how many requests precisely were there? In fact there were less than a half dozen.

And equally in fact, there was no data to give.

And this is a key point in the prosecution of the climate scientists for the clueless.


No problem. You don't have any ideas of your own anyway.

Your anger is all you have. I hope your satisfied with it. I tried to read the rest but it was complete nonsense.

Once again, you discover the word conspiracy where none exists.

Would you like me to find your posts where you declare climate scientists to be conspirators? It would bore me to do it, but I will if you'd like to read it over and over again.

Scientists only admitted that this was not only an over-statement, but COMPLETELY wrong.

As this was one of the key points for urging action on climate change and for underlining the importance of the IPCC endeavor, I think it is much more important than what you say: it is a failure of the entire IPCC scientific scrutiny process and is evidence of clear IPCC bias

OK, you've toned it down here and only called it bias.

I've posted the links many times before. Go read them in the Climate Change section. Oh, you don't read what I've posted?

Right. Like your many (nonexistent) references.

You won't even define what your views and the science behind them are.

The IPCC is a good starting place for my references.

CO2 levels as defined as harmful to the US - that is very relevant to HVAC. Or perhaps in your mind only climate scientists can be involved with CO2?

You have HVAC as your source I have IPCC. I'm good with my sources.

Again, finding the conspiracy word where none exists.

I have NEVER said there is some conspiracy. What I HAVE said is that there is a gigantic gravy train, and there are plenty of good reasons to get on it and stay on it.

So everyone is in on the fix but it's not a conspiracy, just a 'gravy train'. Nice side step.

But I've never focused on the money side as the primary issue. The primary issues I've raised are (update):

1) If CO2 is a primary driver of climate change, why have temperatures NOT gone up in the past decade despite a measurable and significant increase on CO2 ppm levels?

Most scientists know why and are learning more every day. You haven't either the knowledge or the common sense to ask where this heat might be going if it hasn't gone into the atmosphere. There are only three possible answers and one of them is fairly obvious.

Subquestions to 1):

a) Why is CO2 able to affect the climate more than water vapor?

CO2 is an AGM force. Water vapor may feedback and cause further warming but for now, that is open to speculation. Your question, as are most of your questions, is just dumb.

b) Why is man-made CO2 different than 'natural' CO2? When over 95% of CO2 in the atmosphere is not human derived?
c) Is the incremental heating capability of additional CO2 arithmetic, logarithmic, or exponential?

CO2 is CO2, it's sad that you don't know that. Please prove that 95% of CO2 is 'natural'. Pre-industrial CO2 - 280. Current CO2 PPM 390. Offer your proof that 95% of the 390 PPM is natural. That should be a hoot. Your mathematics question is easy but the answer is complex. If you ever get serious, we could talk about it.

2) Where is the evidence for net positive feedback in the climate given there is no historical record of such behavior? For runaway/tipping points?

Defend the 250-350 foot rise in sea level between 18,000-7,000 years ago without considering net positive feedback since you deny it in the 'historical record'.

Subquestions to 2):

a) If there is positive feedback such that man-made-CO2 derived temperature increases will scale from the 0.5 degree C to 1 degree C (pure greenhouse effect) to the (IPCC projected) 3 to 5 degrees C by 2100, why is it that there is no evidence of positive feedback in the annual seasonal temperature variations of about 10 degrees C from winter to summer? Or for that matter in the El Nino year of 1999 when global temperatures spiked?

As I've said before, you want instant gratification for your POV. The new El Nino and the apparent rise from the solar minimum will unfortunately add to our AGM issues. You'll get your atmospheric temperature spike in the next 1-3 years but you'll find a new way to deny it.

Previous questions:

3) If CO2 is a primary driver of climate, why were past temperatures lower with CO2 levels orders of magnitude higher?

Are you asking questions about ancient paleo-climate? Our issue is AGM. Unless you're prepared to prove your case for climate a billion or two or three years ago as important to today's climate, you might want to drop this 'question'. Another one of your truly useless questions.

4) Why do detailed historical records such as ice cores show CO2 levels lagging temperature increases - implying a reverse causal relationship directly at odds with AGW-CO2-Catastrophe theory?

Because CO2 was a feedback not a force until the last few hundred years. Is this another one of your important 'questions'? Really, are we supposed to take you seriously?

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Are you still posting links from the HVAC working group? Good stuff, keep it up.

...

Because CO2 was a feedback not a force until the last few hundred years. Is this another one of your important 'questions'? Really, are we supposed to take you seriously?

874 words.

30 paragraphs.

Not one single link.

A typical santafe2 posting.

My position has been stated. My questions are laid out.

You are welcome to answer them any time, as you have been for dozens of threads and hundreds of posts.

In the meantime, since you are such a busy guy, I'll save you some effort by just printing your debating Al-Gore-ithm:

santafe2 diagram.bmp

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

874 words.

30 paragraphs.

Not one single link.

A typical santafe2 posting.

My position has been stated. My questions are laid out.

You are welcome to answer them any time, as you have been for dozens of threads and hundreds of posts.

In the meantime, since you are such a busy guy, I'll save you some effort by just printing your debating Al-Gore-ithm:

[ATTACH]3028[/ATTACH]

Good to see you're now going straight for the personal attack. You have nothing else, revel in it.

I was really touched that you now know how to count words. Excellent! I've been talking about mathematics with regard to CO2. Are you working up to that or do we have to continue to be sidetracked with your word counts? We're all holding out some hope you'll settle down and start talking about AGM issues, but counting words is a good start, don't let me discourage you.

I've answered your questions. It was tedious because your questions are based on complete nonsense but maybe you could humor us with a new set of questions....um, like the set I answered from your last post and you didn't answer in this post. Laziness one supposes.

But don't worry, many iTulipers are behind you. You can count! Excellent that! Really, soon you might understand why your 500-1000 PPM CO2 is complete bullshit.

Please don't post a bunch of random nonsense. Twenty graphs with your cut and paste arguments. Prove this is wrong! Prove this is wrong! Your ideas on this subject are without merit.

All that said, if you ever decide you'd rather have a conversation on global warming, let me know. If not, I've no intention of letting you spread your lies here. As I have time, I'll rebut all the crap you post.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Good to see you're now going straight for the personal attack. You have nothing else, revel in it.

Grimy arse, cried the kettle to the pot

I've answered your questions.

You've answered no questions. You've posted no links.

You seem to think your word is good enough. It isn't and it hasn't been.

All that said, if you ever decide you'd rather have a conversation on global warming, let me know. If not, I've no intention of letting you spread your lies here. As I have time, I'll rebut all the crap you post.

You keep saying you want to have a conversation, but you keep failing to keep up your end.

No links.

No position.

Nothing but 'Two Legs Bad'; CO2 = Two Legs

And embarrassment to yourself and your belief.

[aaron]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Right now it is quite cold. There is snow in the mountains outside Seattle.

I remember scientists saying we were going to be in an ice age. Were they right? Did CO2 save us?

I have not witnessed any notable climate change over the past 30 years. The beaches are still in their same locations. It still seems to rain every year. The U.S. is pumping out record food crops.

I have read every one of the posts in this thread. santafe2, can you please post some links & evidence and just answer c1ue's questions? I really want to know and I suspect I am not the only one.

These are really life and death questions. Imposing carbon taxes will cause deaths. 9 degree Celsius increases in temp will likely cause deaths. So far, I have seen no compelling evidence that we should do anything at this point. If CO2 is such a large force for temperature change, why is it colder now than 10 years ago? The point of this question is more to say, isn't something else STRONGER happening ? Otherwise, it is only logical to assume it should be much warmer because CO2 is so much higher now.

This is not to say there are not really good reasons to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. They WILL get more expensive and they WILL run out. We should use the last of our oil to keep ourselves fed and build out an alternative infrastructure. But, so far, the CO2 is not wrecking our lives. I would like it to warm up. It's April and there is snow!

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Grimy arse, cried the kettle to the pot



You've answered no questions. You've posted no links.

You seem to think your word is good enough. It isn't and it hasn't been.



You keep saying you want to have a conversation, but you keep failing to keep up your end.

No links.

No position.

Nothing but 'Two Legs Bad'; CO2 = Two Legs

And embarrassment to yourself and your belief.

Explain to us how 500 PPM CO2 will not cause sea ice to melt and then glaciers to roll into the sea. Since you've offered 500 as your low number, I assume you can support it. Don't forget to explain how 500PPM will not raise sea level a few meters. As I've said before, you have nothing but your silly retort. Prove me wrong, offer some substance.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Explain to us how 500 PPM CO2 will not cause sea ice to melt and then glaciers to roll into the sea. Since you've offered 500 as your low number, I assume you can support it. Don't forget to explain how 500PPM will not raise sea level a few meters. As I've said before, you have nothing but your silly retort. Prove me wrong, offer some substance.

I'm not the one pushing societal changes due to CO2.

You get to first prove your case, before I need to prove mine.

All the open questions remain unanswered...