I’m not interested in your personal friction with Blake. Yes, he is abrasive. Intelligent, informed, experienced, and abrasive.
Your cite is totally devoid of information and reason. It basically makes the undeniable claim that humans are affecting the climate, and because we have seen climate changes in the past we can take a giant leap across time and space and say that the human effect on the climate is going to lead to unending global warming. That isn’t science. We know that past events have had an effect on the climate, but we don’t really understand the mechanism, and we have very little accurate data. Correlation is not causation, and coincidence of random events isn’t even meaningful correlation.
The only thing I can derive from looking at all the sources of information is that we have seen a recent short term warming trend that could have been caused by many different things, some of those things produced by humans. Since we have so little accurate data over such a short time span, drawing scientific conclusions about the specific mechanisms is fraught with uncertainty. Making predictions based on such weakly supported conclusions is just plain foolish.
I am as concerned as anyone that the worst case conclusions of some scientists could be right. I’m also concerned about human attempts to correct problems that make things worse.
We might just as well say "Seems to me that if temperature level increases were the result of fuel consumption, you would expect temperature to rise smoothly not in fits and starts. Since temperature hasn’t increased in a steady manner over the last 50 years, it can;t be due to fossil fuel use.
[/quote]
If you insert the word “solely” before “the result” and again before the word “due,” then I would say that statement is probably true.
Consider global temperature between 1900 and 1945. Although the general trend was upwards, there were plenty of years which were colder than the previous year. With CO2 levels, each and every year over the last 40 years has had higher levels than the previous year.
Is there any natural process in the Earth’s climate which is that regular over that kind of time scale?
I highly doubt that there is enough resolution in that data to compare. Are you seriously claiming with a high degree of certainty that CO2 levels in the year 137860 BC were lower than those of 137859 BC?
And yet, he defended what it is the definition of what a denier of the science is, Lord Monckton.
Over here you are dealing nowhere with the science information and links in the cite.
The link of empirical observations is precisely information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.
The very important thing to get from here, is that that is peer reviewed science, giving just platitudes like “That isn’t science”. “or weakly supported conclusions” is something else alright, it is showing all that you are not dealing with or checking the cites.
It is also confirmation of what was found in the recent past BTW.
Are you going to actually offer one of those interpretations? Do they have any more weight than interpretations of light transmissions as the ether?
It’s as plain as day that humans have increased CO2 generation. It’s the product of any combustion reaction. Are you implying that if humans didn’t burn fossil fuels, that carbon would still be entering the atmosphere? The fact that humans generate CO2 isn’t even up for debate among anybody with a reasonable understanding of the subject.
Go ahead and spoon feed me the other possibilities. I’d love to see you balance the carbon mass if you remove the 30GT we’re adding. You’re going to have to do more than simply say “Nuh-uh!” and offer nothing.
Once again you’re trying some misdirection and deciding want I have to like or say.
I personally decide what I like about a person or not, not you. For you, other aspects of Monkton’s life may be more relevant, not for me in this very insignificant comment that you, apparently have taken as meaning I want to torch your house.
I’ll repeat my original, insignificant comment “I’d love to be able to sound like Lord Monkton all pompous and dismissive of fools.” If you think this part is incorrect, I have no problem talking about it.
Johnny the umrderer has a Maserati MC12, I can say “what a cool car” without that meaning I condone the murders. Of course, yet once again, saying “what a cool car” means, in GigOlanD “I’m sorry he’s in prison and can no longer murder”.
I’m not dealing with Hadfield, I wasn’t dealing with Hadfield, I was simply agreeing with **Blake **regarding your debating tactics. you may want to to make it about Hadfield, it ain’t.
I was referring to greeeman3610. You may want to make me say something else, but no.
I never said, nobody has said, that you need to have an opinion which is “…different one from the ones that I choose to cite…”, that is not true.
Can you have at least the decency of defending your very own quotes. He said, per your full quote
Let’s see the claims
“I’m not a climate scientist or a researcher” –> A common tactic of yours and many alarmists is saying “that denier is not a climate scientist”
“I have no qualifications to do anything other than report” –> this means he’s good with ctrl-c ctrl-v
“what real climate scientists have discovered through their research” –> so he’s got nothign of his own to say.
" So there’s no point in disagreeing with me" –> true, becuase he isn’t saying anything of his own mind. Also this means there is no point in agrreing with him 8at most agreeing with his choice of links)
“If you dislike their conclusions, take it up with the researchers I cite.” –> This means that he provides no original ideas, so by his own vey words -which you yourself copied without any of us forcing you to do it- he is irrelevant to AGW discussions.
Nuh no. I put your exact, full quote and it was Hadfield’s so, at worst, I’m messing with him. I put what Hadfield means so that if you mention him you cannot change what he said. Each of my points is a fair assessment of a source you quoted. I will use your quote every time you say “he’s not a climate scientist” and go goose-gander. You post it, you have to own to it. If non-climate-scientists are ok to quote for you, you cannot dismiss a quote simply because it comes from a non-climate-scientist.
You, on the other hand, can interpret Hadfield’s quote to be about how long to boil an egg to have soft-boiled ones.
I’m not going to do your work. If there is peer reviewed publishing that supports your claims, point to it. Don’t give me more links to someones science-y blog like you do again here:
Those aren’t platitudes, they are accurate comments about the contents of the opinion piece you pointed to.
Once again you point to useless information. Nobody denies the slight warming trend of recent years. That article did specify any connection between the measurements and the conclusions.
Really, are you just going to go around calling everyone who points out the lack of science in your claims a denier? I’m not denying your science, because you haven’t shown me any.
Good, but the point is that you have to deal with what he reports the science says.
What Hadfield reports is what the science is, what you propose there is just a cop out, ignore what the science says, never deal with it, and just hope others are impressed by your dismissal.
And that only works by ignoring that the videos do come with the science citations.
Everyone else can see the links to the science publications and papers in blue, what everyone can see is once again a demonstration that you can not follow links.
The willfulness to ignore what is there is not my problem or for others that will check the science themselves.
Meh, The case is shown already, and anyone can follow and confirm the information to check if the say so of the articles has support. What you are insisting is that no one can learn form reading the information, a very odd request really.
And we are dealing with what the OP mentions regarding why there seems to be a better effort from contrarians to make their points, many do have to investigate and learn about the basics avoiding misleading information that is clearly out there; however, it is not hard to get more information and funnily enough regarding the title of the thread:
One helpful review is interesting to notice as I do think there is a curious effort here to discourage others from reading the information for themselves.
Indeed, how is it that it is recommendable to discourage others to read the information behind the reports or to declare other cites with what scientists are saying to be alarmist in an attempt to discourage others reading it or to have cites with no links to prevent others from reading the full context?
It means I can ignore Haddy and simply go to the sites, since he’s not a climate scientist. I will never pay attention and simply go to a sciencey site.
No, I didn’t propose a cop out, not even remotely. No one who has actually read what I posted can honestly believe it.
A cop out that is possibly what “generic denier” wants, not me.
You haven’t actually touched any of the points I raised, which is par for the course for you. You propose, you get an answer and then go away complaining that I didn’t get Hadfield’s neighbour’s dog’s vet’s assistant’s boyfriend’s dad’s birthday right and that means BP and Karl Rove have bought my soul.
I’ll go straight to the source. If he says I shouldn’t disagree (and, it follows, agree) with him, I’ll go to place where there is some (dis)agreeing to be had.
That’s your quote??? Anonymous guy on Amazon??? Of a book with 5 reviews??
Can you verify the claim “As a professional ecological restorationist who works with scientific data to predict ecological succession…”? He can claim he is Megan Fox’s left nipple too.
I haven’t read the book and won’t read it (I know enoug so that the dummies version of this is not for me), so I’m not talking about the book itself, it’s the absurdly sycophantic review.
Who in this thread has said “it is recommendable to discourage others to read the information behind the reports or to declare other cites with what scientists are saying to be alarmist in an attempt to discourage others reading it or to have cites with no links to prevent others from reading the full context?”? At most, if some call a place “alarmist” is because you always say “denier”, it’s a balance issue. Do you actually think we can “prevent others” in this thread from doing anything??
The quote is to deal with a non scientific point in this case discouraging others from reading information, but thank you for showing others how adept you are on that regard.
I’m still waiting for you to prove your case instead of linking to vanity sites. Your excuses have the taint of woo.
Listen, your argument has to go like this:
“Here is a peer reviewed scientific paper that explains the mechanism where by the changes in CO2 levels we see cause the earth to continuously warm.”
And then you put a link in there to the paper. You won’t have trouble finding papers that hypothesize that the greenhouse effect is the mechanism, you just have to find one that establishes some proof.
