brazil84's Global Warming Thread

[aptronym]

@brazil84

You explicitly admitted to “dodging and weaving intentionally.”

Allow me to summarize the first 200 posts of this thread so you understand exactly what I mean.

aptronym: Evidence exists.
brazil84: I don’t see it.
aptronym: I posted it the links. (dodging)
brazil84: It’s not there.
aptronym: Read my links. (weaving)
brazil84: Post them for me.
aptronym: Fine, here you go.
brazil84: I’ll read them and let you know what I think.
(break)
aptronym: Well?
brazil84: Just as I suspected, they’re baloney.

:rolleyes:

Remember, there is a very basic fact here, which is that from post #1 to post #129 (where I break down and posted all the quotes for you), it was your position that the evidence did not exist. In post #140, and then again in post #151, you state that these are quotes you had not read before. You also explicitly stated “I will read the quotes and re-consider.”

How many of your posts between #1 and #140 are you still willing to stand by?

Are you seriously unaware of why someone might hop into a thread and accuse you of using underhanded debate tactics?

@Una Persson

There was not scientific consensus, but some scientists were making the predictions.

I see your point. I should have been more clear - scientists as a group never made those predictions. The NAS report on global cooling in 1977 is, in stark contrast to its 2001 report on global warming, very uncertain.

@tomndebb

The OP set the debate in these terms … Is anyone interested in discussing these topics?

Apparently not. I have no intention of replying any further unless brazil84 posts something related to the OP or ianzin responds.

Or unless anyone else has honest questions about global warming. Someone PM’d me a while back (Dec/Jan) and asked whether I’d be willing to answer some very basic science questions. I forgot who it was but I asked them to post on this thread since many of the topics seemed similar, and I didn’t see any posts to that effect.

[brazil84]

@aptronym

Allow me to summarize the first 200 posts of this thread so you understand exactly what I mean.

aptronym: Evidence exists.
brazil84: I don’t see it.
aptronym: I posted it the links. (dodging)
brazil84: It’s not there.
aptronym: Read my links. (weaving)
brazil84: Post them for me.
aptronym: Fine, here you go.
brazil84: I’ll read them and let you know what I think.
(break)
aptronym: Well?
brazil84: Just as I suspected, they’re baloney.

Per tomndebb’s post, I’m not going to respond to your sniping.

How many of your posts between #1 and #140 are you still willing to stand by?

All of them.

[aptronym]

@brazil84

Per tomndebb’s post, I’m not going to respond to your sniping.

Fair enough. Any comments on the OP?

[jshore]

@aptronym

The NAS report on global cooling in 1977 is, in stark contrast to its 2001 report on global warming, very uncertain.

Just as a point of clarification, are you referring to the 1975 report? (I don’t know of any 1977 report…although it is possible there could have been one.) If so, I would emphasize that even calling it a “report on global cooling” is a misnomer. It was titled “UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action” and was not specifically dedicated to either cooling or warming but instead dealt with both possibilities. And, its “actions” in case someone wonders were apparently along the lines of initiating a more comprehensive research program on climate, specifically:

1. Establish National climatic research program
2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
3. Develop Climatic index monitoring program
4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

[BrainGlutton]

Related Pit thread.

[brazil84]

@aptronym

Fair enough. Any comments on the OP?

Yes, and they can be found earlier in the thread.

[aptronym]

@jshore

are you referring to the 1975 report? …

1. Establish National climatic research program
2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
3. Develop Climatic index monitoring program
4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

Probably. All the action items I’m thinking of are the ones you listed.

@brazil84

Yes, and they can be found earlier in the thread.

Before or after post #140?

[brazil84]

@aptronym

Probably. All the action items I’m thinking of are the ones you listed.

Before or after post #140?

Both. And no, I’m not going to go wading back and identify each and every post of mine that qualifies as a comment on the OP.

If you want to actually respond, feel free. If you want to play games, I will not pay much attention, per tomndebb’s post.

[aptronym]

@brazil84

If you want to play games, I will not pay much attention, per tomndebb’s post.

The only one playing games here is you.

Given that you admit to not having read what I referenced in the OP in post #140, and that you defend your pre-#140 posts now, the inevitable conclusion is that your opinion is independent of the facts.

As a matter of fact, I will challenge you thusly:

If you believe your opposition to AGW theory to be factually justified, then a necessary precondition is that you can correctly describe AGW theory. To that effect, I challenge you to explain AGW theory in the framework of the questions I posted in the OP.

(1) Is global warming real?
a. Is the Earth heating up at all?
b. Can it be attributed to natural variability?
(2) Is global warming anthropogenic?
a. Are greenhouse gases sufficient to explain observed warming?
b. How much of current warming is anthropogenic?
(3) What are the effects of global warming?

Do not answer as you think the truth is - answer as you think the IPCC says.

[brazil84]

@aptronym

The only one playing games here is you.

That’s nonsense, and I explained my understanding of the essence of catastrophic AGW theory a few posts back. It’s not clear what the IPCC is saying, and you can feel free to explain it.

[aptronym]

@brazil84

I explained my understanding of the essence of catastrophic AGW theory a few posts back.

So you believe that all AGW theory is catastrophic?

@brazil84

It’s not clear what the IPCC is saying

But when I posted the quote, you said it didn’t stand up to scrutiny. So if you’re unclear what the IPCC is saying, why do you have such strong condemnation of it?

If you believe your opposition to AGW theory to be factually justified, then a necessary precondition is that you can correctly describe AGW theory. To that effect, I challenge you to explain AGW theory in the framework of the questions I posted in the OP.

(1) Is global warming real?
a. Is the Earth heating up at all?
b. Can it be attributed to natural variability?
(2) Is global warming anthropogenic?
a. Are greenhouse gases sufficient to explain observed warming?
b. How much of current warming is anthropogenic?
(3) What are the effects of global warming?

Do not answer as you think the truth is - answer as you think the majority of scientists would say.

[brazil84]

@aptronym

So you believe that all AGW theory is catastrophic?

It depends on how you define the phrase “AGW theory.” Obviously I used the word “catastrophic” for a reason.

But when I posted the quote, you said it didn’t stand up to scrutiny. So if you’re unclear what the IPCC is saying, why do you have such strong condemnation of it?

Again you are playing games. Here’s what I actually said:

@brazil84

I picked one selection of yours from the IPCC and it did not stand up to scrutiny.

[brazil84]

@aptronym

If you believe your opposition to AGW theory to be factually justified, then a necessary precondition is that you can correctly describe AGW theory.

That’s a slightly bigger question than we’ve been discussing. But anyway, I’ve summarized my understanding of the essence of the “pro-agw” position – a few posts back:

It’s my understanding that, according to people on your side of the debate, some large percentage of scientists is predicting with a high degree of confidence that if CO2 emissions continue unabated, there will be substantial negative effects on human well being in terms of climate change by the end of this century.

More details can of course be added, but that about sums it up.

Do I have the pro-AGW position correct?

[aptronym]

@brazil84

It depends on how you define the phrase “AGW theory.”

I defined it in post #1.

@brazil84

Here’s what I actually said:

No, here’s what you actually said. In post #15, which, in case you can’t keep track, comes before post #140.

@brazil84

@aptronym

(1) Do you accept, without my invoking any sort of “hockey stick” or even any temperature proxies, that global temperatures have risen since the Industrial Revolution (IPCC 3AR, NAS CCR, IPCC 4AR)?

I think that’s probably true but I think it’s likely that global temperatures haven’t risen as much as some claim.

@aptronym

(2) Do you accept that humans are the primary cause of increases in greenhouse gases (IPCC 3AR, NAS CCR, IPCC 4AR)?

I don’t know.

@aptronym

(3) Do you accept that increases in greenhouse gases are both competent (i.e. they can explain) and necessary (i.e. they must be invoked) to explaining the observed global temperature record (IPCC 3AR, NAS CCR, IPCC 4AR)?

No.

@aptronym

(4) Do you accept that increasing temperatures will cause net harm (IPCC 4AR)?

No.

Do you believe any of these answers would change now that you are aware of what the IPCC states on this issue?

@brazil84

That’s a slightly bigger question than we’ve been discussing.

These questions are copied verbatim from post #1. If you’ve been discussing other issues, it’s not my fault.

@brazil84

It’s my understanding that, according to people on your side of the debate, some large percentage of scientists is predicting with a high degree of confidence that if CO2 emissions continue unabated, there will be substantial negative effects on human well being in terms of climate change by the end of this century … Do I have the pro-AGW position correct?

Part of it, yes. However, you have sidestepped every major debated point with your explanation.

Allow me to clarify my questions.

(1) Is global warming real?
a. Is the Earth heating up at all?
b. Can it be attributed to natural variability?
(2) Is global warming anthropogenic?
a. Are greenhouse gases sufficient to explain observed warming?
b. How much of current warming is anthropogenic?
s What are the effects of global warming?[/s] (answered)

[brazil84]

@aptronym

No, here’s what you actually said. In post #15, which, in case you can’t keep track, comes before post #140.

:shrug: That’s still not consistent with the strawman you erected.

Part of it, yes.

What details are missing?

a. Is the Earth heating up at all?

Since the start of the industrial revolution? I would say probably yes.

b. Can it be attributed to natural variability?

Of course. Current temperatures are not unprecedented at all. And according to your cherry-picked proxy, there is nothing unprecedented about the rate of change.

Are greenhouse gases sufficient to explain observed warming?

Sure, if you accept the explanations offered by folks on your side of the debate.

How much of current warming is anthropogenic?

I don’t know.

What are the effects of [anthropogenic] global warming

Nothing to lose sleep over, even if one assumes that most of warming since industrialization is due to human CO2 emissions.

Oh, and one other question (that you didn’t ask)

Do computer models prove that temperature increases this century must have been caused by CO2 emissions?

No.

[aptronym]

@brazil84

[re: 1a] Since the start of the industrial revolution? I would say probably yes.

I forgot to include my disclaimer about you answering as you think the majority of scientists would answer. For the time being, I am unconcerned with your opinion, only your ability to know what you are opposing.

@brazil84

[re:1b] Of course.

What would the majority of scientists say?

And assuming you agree that the majority of scientists say no, I’ll queue up (1b) as the first point of contention.

@brazil84

[re: 2a] Sure, if you accept the explanations offered by folks on your side of the debate.

The explanation offered by folks on “my” side of the debate is all I care about right now.

Assuming you disagree with the majority of scientists, I’ll queue up (2a) as the second point of contention.

@brazil84

[re: 2b] I don’t know.

What would the majority of scientists say?

@brazil84

[re: 3] Nothing to lose sleep over, even if one assumes that most of warming since industrialization is due to human CO2 emissions.

Rephrase this in an objective manner. I don’t lose sleep over the national debt, but someone else might. What are some (alleged) negative effects, and at what temperatures do these effects show up?

@brazil84

one other question (that you didn’t ask)

The question you brought up is a subset of question #1b and will be addressed in due time.

[brazil84]

@aptronym

I forgot to include my disclaimer about you answering as you think the majority of scientists would answer.

I don’t know what the majority of scientists would say. Any other questions?

[brazil84]

@aptronym

Part of it, yes.

What details are missing?

[aptronym]

@brazil84

I don’t know what the majority of scientists would say. Any other questions?

So, is it fair to say that you don’t know what scientists have to say on question 2b, but you’re convinced they’re wrong?

@brazil84

What details are missing?

@aptronym

What are some (alleged) negative effects, and at what temperatures do these effects show up?

[brazil84]

@aptronym

So, is it fair to say that you don’t know what scientists have to say on question 2b, but you’re convinced they’re wrong?

No, it’s not fair to say that.

Part of it, yes.

What details are missing?