What Do We Think About Climate Change

****
Im still wondering what the hell he means when he says AGPLU alarmists or what ever that acronym is

and please
you really think I read every post
Ive been limmiting it to one question a day in this thread if that
although I just lost my job
so today Im just sorta goofing off
B

 

Anthropogenic
Global
Warming

Or AGW, you *******

Read it

Learn it

Live it

Love it



Jimbo

Tonge completely in cheek

 

I naively thought you were carefully reading what others posted and also reading the cites and documents so hardly search for in the internet and brought here for the sake of this thread, to be able to properly rebate your oponents opinions. Now I regret to learn it is not like that. What you're now saying means to me you are only listening to your own pre-conceived ideas and posting them here once and again till boringness, bringing nothing new into discussion for the rest of us to learn. A pity.

Cheers.

 

Like this?

 

Or like this?

 

This explains a lot of the past couple of weeks of discussion, huh?


Boston,
Seriously, setting aside the Almighty Consensus, the case for AGW is surprisingly weak. And instead of getting stronger as time passes and with our more advanced data gathering capabilities via satellites and other means, it's getting weaker and weaker.

The proponents of the idea that we must do something about it "right now!" (translation: elect me!!, elect me!!) have stooped to some pretty low lows to try and trump up their case, as I've pointed out during this thread. These tactics are not those we'd expect be employed by those with the more scientifically meritorious argument, but usually reserved for those with ulterior motives.

Jimbo

 

Gentle humour

I reckon Boston hails from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumpkin_Island

It was this that prompted me. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_bumpkin

 

OK, You win??? . . . It is toooooo bloody hot to argue and the second day of Summer! What next?

 

well that makes a strong case for you not reading or understanding the posts, doesnt it
the Gallup pole presented earlier clearly indicates the opposite of your claim

what was it someone said a while back about my not posting recent studies
cause that looks like a pole from just a few months ago to me

or is this tripe really asking us to set aside the agreeing ( consensus ) view and consider only the detracting view
in which case, yes
there would a surprisingly week argument for rapid global climate change
brilliant argument guys
and you wonder why I find this hole discussion fruitless

unbelievable
B

 

As you have argued for the importance of consensus on your side of the issue, and argued that the pro-AGW consensus does not in fact exist, it seems a bit unfair to discard the importance of consensus at this juncture.

A summary statement that the AGW theory is weak is your viewpoint and not the substance of the science or a summation of the points as argued in this thread. The evidence continue to build- particularly as "more advanced data gathering capabilities" come into play. Once again- as documented in this thread.

 

I'm trying to figure out when it was that I argued for consensus

My posts consistently showed that the so-called consensus is a bit 'trumped-up' and over-hyped, and that it does not really exist. My statement that the AGW case is weak is based on what we can observe; the measured temperature. It's not doing what the AGW crowd predicted it would. My statement is based on the lack of causality observed in the paleoclimate. This is, again, not what the AGW alarmists predicted.

Ten or 20 years ago you could have argued with some authority that when we get better ice and dirt cores, they will show a CLEAR cause and effect relationship 'tween rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures. That's EXACTLY what the alarmists were saying 20 years ago. I remember it well; that's when I was still a believer. But we both know that's not how it's worked out.

20 years ago you could have predicted with some degree of authority that by the first decade of the 21st century, the climate will be 3 or 4 degrees warmer than it is now, in 1988. It seemed plausible back then. I remember Hansen's predictions from that period and what a stir they created. But now that we are there, and the observed temperatures are NOWHERE CLOSE to Hansen's predictions, such predictions have lost plausibility.

Since the logical paradigm hasn't really changed much since then, and the empirical reality shows a great disparity with the predictions made previously using that paradigm, it certainly seems profoundly illogical to continue to put faith in predictions of dangerous warming in the near or far future based on that obviously flawed paradigm. It's clear to anyone not biased one way or the other, that the paradigm used has not successfully predicted a future state of the climate; it has failed.

It is therefore logical to conclude that this paradigm (anthropogenic CO2 raises atmospheric CO2 which causes dangerous warming) has not accurately described the present, therefore it cannot be trusted to predict the future.

Had Hansen's prediction come anywhere close to accuracy, you could rightly argue that the case for the reality of AGW had strengthened. If better ice and dirt core analysis had showed that whenever CO2 levels rose in the past, then temperatures were sure to increase afterwards, then you could rightly argue that the present-day case for AGW had strengthened.

Tell me Thomas; What possible finding in ice and dirt cores could have dissuaded you from your faith that increased CO2 levels cause atmospheric warming? Is there a possible finding that could do that? If you answer 'No', then how can you say you are open-minded:?:

Similarly, what empirical finding WRT measured temperature would dissuade you?

Jimbo

 

are you high
what does this drunken logic mean

let me reiterate for the record
I believe there is a substantial body of evidence supporting rapid global climate change
I believe there is a extremely high probability that change is due to human interaction within the system
I believe the majority of scientists in this field of study agree
thus forming a consensus
I believe there is some anomalous data that while preserved for consideration exists outside the data stream
I believe you must have bean high when you wrote that last
cause it made no sense whatsoever

take the night off friend
enjoy the stars and a moment with your girl
drink lots of water later tonight and take a few vitamins
it will help the hangover in the morning

have a great time

then try the hole writing thing again some time tomorrow night
k

down the hatch and cheers B
I hope some day we can all shake hands and hoist a few
B

 

Jimmy I think he meant that for me
but Im pretty sure he would be cut off
at least in the bars I hang out in
best
B

 

I was wondering how long it would take you to figure that one out You can save yourself the embarrassment and go ahead and delete it. I do agree with you though that he makes no sense

Doh! there we go agreeing again

Jimbo

 

no worries
Ill leave all as is
B