APP - Placeholder for climate FAQs

with regard to the climate war on this board

i have the following comment

do not confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up

this is the attitude of most of the people on this thread

personally, i do not think pouring the amount of co2 into the atmosphere that we are will not effect the climate

but that is my opinion and the opinion of many scientists

so give it a rest - this is almost as bad as the abortion threads that spring up from time to time
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but that does nothing to answer my question....let's say we could agree that human activity was going to add two degrees to the natural course of the earth's temperature over the next twenty years......we still have no knowledge of what that temperature is going to be.....will the natural course of the earth's temperature be three degrees lower than now or three degrees higher
Click to expand...


Hmmm....I guess you didn't look at the graph I gave you. It answered your question. I really don't like repeating myself, and answering the same question over and over, so can you just look at what I gave you before?

It has a baseline estimate (constant CO2), and a range of conditions based on various CO2 loading scenarios. That directly and explicitly answers your question, so can you please stop asking?


http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683519&postcount=11



If you think you can do a better job of data analysis and data synthesis/summary than the world's top climate scientists and the IPCC, the data is pretty much all in the public domain. It's not hard to find. If you want to do your own calculations, computer modeling, scientific analysis, and submit it for peer review and publication in a reputable scientific journal, no one is stopping you.





P.S, Don: Way to go man! Excellent observation, but to be fair I have a very loyal readership and my climate threads are pretty popular on the APP forum. But we really ought to get back to tons of threads about porn, semi-naked chicks, and Obama as the reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin. Also, to be fair, I'm constantly begged by my multitude of readers for answers to "questions" - usually the same questions , over and over - that any simpleton could find themselves if they were remotely aware of where and what the actual reputable science says. As you implied, I don't think they really care about the answers, its all about process and emotion. So, in response to overwhelming demand of my readership, I needed to just needed to compile it all in one place. That said, I think my work here is done! Hasta la vista, and party on!
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Hmmm....I guess you didn't look at the graph I gave you. It answered your question. I really don't like repeating myself, and answering the same question over and over, so can you just look at what I gave you before?

It has a baseline estimate (constant CO2), and a range of conditions based on various CO2 loading scenarios. That directly and explicitly answers your question, so can you please stop asking?


http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683519&postcount=11



If you think you can do a better job of data analysis and data synthesis/summary than the world's top climate scientists and the IPCC, the data is pretty much all in the public domain. It's not hard to find. If you want to do your own calculations, computer modeling, scientific analysis, and submit it for peer review and publication in a reputable scientific journal, no one is stopping you.





P.S, Don: Way to go man! Excellent observation, but to be fair I have a very loyal readership and my climate threads are pretty popular on the APP forum. But we really ought to get back to tons of threads about porn, semi-naked chicks, and Obama as the reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin. Also, to be fair, I'm constantly begged by my multitude of readers for answers to "questions" - usually the same questions , over and over - that any simpleton could find themselves if they were remotely aware of where and what the actual reputable science says. As you implied, I don't think they really care about the answers, its all about process and emotion. So, in response to overwhelming demand of my readership, I needed to just needed to compile it all in one place. That said, I think my work here is done! Hasta la vista, and party on!
Click to expand...
Actually I think with your complete and utter pwnge of the science deniers on this topic we should start a new thread on the psychology of science deniers? What is it in their psychology that permits them to deny certain conclusions of science despite overwhelming evidence?

Keep in mind. It's just not the the right wingnuts who are science deniers. I can remember debating left wingnut science deniers about GMF's (genetically modified foods) and the are equally as ignorant of the science and are basing their views just as much on process and emotion as the right wingnut science deniers do.
 
Cypress said:
so can you please stop asking
Click to expand...

no......because it is all based on one primary assumption.....that the previous course of natural climate change will continue......and that assumption cannot be verified scientifically.....

has the last decade been a temporary slowdown or the beginning of the drop?....
recent_trends_fig2.JPG


http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/17/recent-temperature-trends-in-context/
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually I think with your complete and utter pwnge of the science deniers on this topic we should start a new thread on the psychology of science deniers? What is it in their psychology that permits them to deny certain conclusions of science despite overwhelming evidence?

Keep in mind. It's just not the the right wingnuts who are science deniers. I can remember debating left wingnut science deniers about GMF's (genetically modified foods) and the are equally as ignorant of the science and are basing their views just as much on process and emotion as the right wingnut science deniers do.
Click to expand...
IF anyone here had posted actual evidence, instead of repeated references to news releases which contain nothing more than assertions of their conclusions, then there would be actual discussion and/or debatre about what they mean. Instead we get lies which are labeled "FAQs", lies about the references others have posted in other threads, and refusal to discuss basic questions such as heat retention of CO2 at low concentrations and natural climatic cycles which resulted in much higher MGTs, and why those cycles are considered irrelevant.

All I get back is "they are irrelevant because ACC scientists say so." with yet another reference to a IPCC blog about how they concluded man is responsible.

If the evidence is so prevalent, to quote a certain person, why can't you show some links to peer reviewed research articles detailing this evidence? And, no, IPCC consensus reports are NOT peer reviewed RESEARCH no matter what Cypress wants to call them. Nor are articles from a website with the obvious and admitted agenda to promote the ACC scare "Advancing the Science of Climate Change".

He keeps challenging me to produce peer reviewed science which challenges the conclusions of IPCC. I show him research which, on one hand challenges the claim of CO2/temperature correlation, and then expressly states that the idea that current warming trends are natural cannot be dismissed. (http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full) He rejects it out of hand, not because he can find fault with the science behind the conclusion, but because it was published a whole 9 years ago by the wrong scientist. (ie: one not on the IPCC list)

I ask about past natural cycles which result in a warmer Earth, He asks for references proving what is common knowledge. Ridiculous to need to reference common knowledge, but I give him several. (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf, http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/CrowleyBernerScience01.pdf, http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm) He lies about their sources, then posts the same references he continually uses to news articles and "consensus reports" which, again, state conclusions but do not include any supporting data, or even references to studies containing the data. Once more for the slow learner: news releases and consensus studies do NOT meet the definition of peer reviewed scientific studies.

I show him TWO in depth studies which indicate heat retention properties of CO2 at low concentrations are not enough to account for the current MGT increases being observed. One (http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm) he rejects out of hand because the content of the study is directly quoted in a blog. It does not matter that the content is an in depth analysis which includes how the analysis is performed, the math used, multiple graphs, multiple references to peer reviewed studies, etc. IOW, he cannot discuss the science, so he rejects the source (because it isn't a news release from one of his pet ACC foundations)

The second (http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=8a4a00b05a09ac234f95a79051dcaa1a) was dismissed out of hand for no apparent reason,even though it came directly from the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy. The blanket accusation: I do not provide peer reviewed scientific references - a flat out lie.

So on the on hand we have someone posting press releases and "consensus reports" and even referencing his own writings, calling them peer reviewed science, and another person posting links and references to scientific studies published in scientific journals. And, according to you, the one posting press releases is "pwning" the one posting science journal articles?

Are you really that much of a pathetic hack?
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
no......because it is all based on one primary assumption.....that the previous course of natural climate change will continue......and that assumption cannot be verified scientifically.....

has the last decade been a temporary slowdown or the beginning of the drop?....
recent_trends_fig2.JPG


http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/17/recent-temperature-trends-in-context/
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? It's a BLOG! It isn't peer reviewed! It's hopelessly out of date! It's even in the wrong colors!

(just saving Cypress a bit of effort....)
 
Cypress said:
Hmmm....I guess you didn't look at the graph I gave you. It answered your question. I really don't like repeating myself, and answering the same question over and over, so can you just look at what I gave you before?

It has a baseline estimate (constant CO2), and a range of conditions based on various CO2 loading scenarios. That directly and explicitly answers your question, so can you please stop asking?


http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=683519&postcount=11



If you think you can do a better job of data analysis and data synthesis/summary than the world's top climate scientists and the IPCC, the data is pretty much all in the public domain. It's not hard to find. If you want to do your own calculations, computer modeling, scientific analysis, and submit it for peer review and publication in a reputable scientific journal, no one is stopping you.





P.S, Don: Way to go man! Excellent observation, but to be fair I have a very loyal readership and my climate threads are pretty popular on the APP forum. But we really ought to get back to tons of threads about porn, semi-naked chicks, and Obama as the reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin. Also, to be fair, I'm constantly begged by my multitude of readers for answers to "questions" - usually the same questions , over and over - that any simpleton could find themselves if they were remotely aware of where and what the actual reputable science says. As you implied, I don't think they really care about the answers, its all about process and emotion. So, in response to overwhelming demand of my readership, I needed to just needed to compile it all in one place. That said, I think my work here is done! Hasta la vista, and party on!
Click to expand...

then keep answering those questions as they come

just ignore the dedicated know nothings
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually I think with your complete and utter pwnge of the science deniers on this topic we should start a new thread on the psychology of science deniers? What is it in their psychology that permits them to deny certain conclusions of science despite overwhelming evidence?

Keep in mind. It's just not the the right wingnuts who are science deniers. I can remember debating left wingnut science deniers about GMF's (genetically modified foods) and the are equally as ignorant of the science and are basing their views just as much on process and emotion as the right wingnut science deniers do.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.... tell us Mott... how is it that you have come to believe that Cypress has pwned the board on this topic?

Is it his blatant refusal to look at any REAL data?

Is it his blatant refusal to address WHO it is that paid for and performed the 'independent reviews' of his precious masters?

Is it his non-stop nonsense of calling every piece of contrary data 'right wing' or saying 'not enough people have heard of that University or that scientist'?

The only person Cypress has pwned is himself. He has shown over and over again that all he is good for is drinking the kool aid his masters provide.

When a person refuses to even address a comment from one of his own sources that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS his own assertions.... THAT shows that he is nothing more than a partisan parrot.
 
Here's the Hockeystick graph debunking in a peer reviewed journal.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml
This is from 2005
This is the study that caused the climategate people to conspire to delete their records of correspondence so they could conceal their shifty methods. The Muir Russell inquiry did not address this issue. I can only laugh at dorks like cypress. He's a classic useful idiot.

MM2005.gif

Here's the deal for those who can read a graph.

And here's the directory of the data and methods. This is what science looks like.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/
 
Last edited:
You can lead a dork to water....


http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/AGU04.abstract.pdf

Accepted Abstract: American Geophysical Union Meetings,
Paper PP53A-1380,
December 2004, San Francisco.
Multi-proxy studies have been the primary means of transmitting paleoclimatic findings to public policy. For policy use, such studies should be replicable in the sense of King (1995). The best-known and most widely applied multi-proxy study is Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (“MBH98”) and its 1999 extension, which claimed to have exceptional “robustness” and “skill”.
We attempted to replicate MBH98 results and found, among other problems, that MBH98 methodology included two important unreported steps:
(1) Subtraction of the 1902-1980 mean prior to principal components (PC) calculations (rather than, say, the 1400-1980 mean in the AD1400 step);
(2) Extrapolation of a duplicate version of the Gaspé tree ring series.
We show that, due to high early 15th century values, their results are not robust for the following cases:
a) Presence or absence of the extrapolation of 4 years at the beginning of the Gaspé tree ring series;
b) subtraction of the 1400-1980 mean rather than subtraction of the 1902-1980 mean, while using the same number of retained PC series in each step as MBH98;
c) the presence or absence of the North American PC4, while subtracting the 1400-1980 mean and using 5 PCs in the AD1400 step;
d) presence or absence of a small subset of high-altitude tree ring sites, mostly “strip bark” bristlecone pines, mostly collected by one researcher, Donald Graybill.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
A lie.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/




Man, I just LOVE it when some basic research reveals the FACTS that shows resident climate change/global warming deniers to be nothing more than just a bunch of willfully ignorant, knee jerk corporate/industrial apologists.

Excellent work, Cyp! :good4u:
Click to expand...


Thanks man, but I stand on the shoulders of giants. Debunking the assertions and guesses of Climate Gate Clowns is child’s play. I don’t even deserve congratulations for it.

Think of it this way, man. I have the best science in the world, as well as the law on my side. No amount of foot stomping, guessing, assertions, links to blogs, to obscure crackpot websites, or bungled links to scientific papers from a decade ago can withstand that.

Every scientific institution on the planet, and a virtually universal consensus among actual climate researchers says that CO2 emissions is a major problem which does and will continue to cause global warming and climate change.

The science has only gotten stronger since the 2007 International assessment that human GHG emissions are a clear and present danger to the planet and to global economies. I guarantee you that the upcoming 2012 IPCC assessment is going to conclude that the science of global warming is not only affirmed, but stronger than the 2007 assessment. I don't know how much longer the climate gate clowns can continue to hide in their caves; maybe forever, who knows? The Climate Gate “controversy” was a comical side show that showed the cards the science-deniers were holding – they ain’t got nothing. They were reduced to a fantastical conspiracy theory of a worldwide cabal of lying scientists who were and are allegedly being provided cover by dozens of the most prestigious scientific institutions on the planet.

When one is reduced to conspiracy theories, its pretty much game over. It’s beyond reason and rational logic. Sadly, the Climate Gate Clowns overplayed their hand. It’s obvious that they don’t want climate change to be real, for presumably emotional or political reasons, and they are left grasping at laughable and implausible conspiracy theories.

With regard to the law, the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the authority of USEPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. Courts – especially the highest court in the land – doesn’t give an executive agency that authority if there is any plausible doubt about a compound being a pollutant under the definition of the Clean Air Act. I think it’s actually a silver lining that the Senate punted climate legislation. That Cap and Trade crap was just a scheme to protect corporate interests.

The proper way to mitigate a pollutant – any pollutant – is through regulation via the clearly established authorities of the Clean Air Act. This is something USEPA is usually pretty good at, if they have the proper management, and funding in place. The Supreme Court has validated USPEA’s authority, and unless we get a Tom Tancredo or Sarah Palin as president, I am cautiously optimistic that regulation of CO2 emissions combined with incentives for green energy development might be the way to mitigate the worst case scenario of climate change.
 
Last edited:
ONCE AGAIN.... THE QUESTIONS CYPRESS IS SCARED TO ANSWER.....

As for your independent reviews Cypress...

1) who ran those 'independent reviews? (ie... was it Penn State, East Anglia etc...)

2) who made up the panels doing the reviews? (ie... did it include skeptics as well as proponents of global warming? Or did they just include those who already agreed with global warming?)

3) Do you contend that all of the questions/complaints were answered by the 'independent' reviews?

As for your chart showing the temperatures Cypress:

1) No one is arguing with the fact that the earth warmed during the 1970-1995 time frame. Nor is anyone arguing that it has stayed warm since. But do tell us... if MAN is causing global warming... then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years? A FACT stated directly by your unimpeachable Jones.

2) Does your chart demonstrate how the changes in temperature are a result of man?

3) Do you think it is scientifically valid that Jones states the reason he thinks man is responsible is due to: "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing"? Because it would seem that he is saying it has to be man because he can't figure out another reason. That hardly seems sound scientifically.
 
hahah I see that warmers totally ignored the peer reviewed link I posted. I've been posting the link for three years or more. It's like I said, the warmers can not cite the science, they only make appeals to authority.

Cypress and mott obviously do not want to confront their ignorance.

Getting called a denier is about as hurtful as being called a sinner by some religious fundie who refuses to check on what the book tells him.

Warmers: how do they work?
 
Superfreak said:
ONCE AGAIN.... THE QUESTIONS CYPRESS IS SCARED TO ANSWER.....

As for your independent reviews Cypress...

1) who ran those 'independent reviews? (ie... was it Penn State, East Anglia etc...)

2) who made up the panels doing the reviews? (ie... did it include skeptics as well as proponents of global warming? Or did they just include those who already agreed with global warming?)

3) Do you contend that all of the questions/complaints were answered by the 'independent' reviews?

As for your chart showing the temperatures Cypress:

1) No one is arguing with the fact that the earth warmed during the 1970-1995 time frame. Nor is anyone arguing that it has stayed warm since. But do tell us... if MAN is causing global warming... then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years? A FACT stated directly by your unimpeachable Jones.

2) Does your chart demonstrate how the changes in temperature are a result of man?

3) Do you think it is scientifically valid that Jones states the reason he thinks man is responsible is due to: "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing"? Because it would seem that he is saying it has to be man because he can't figure out another reason. That hardly seems sound scientifically.
Click to expand...
Good thing he put in a place-marker, now that you've put these questions here he'll have to start a whole new one next time he comes on the board...
 
Damocles said:
Good thing he put in a place-marker, now that you've put these questions here he'll have to start a whole new one next time he comes on the board...
Click to expand...

well we did need a 432nd thread on the same topic.... he couldn't quite go to one of the others given he continues to duck these questions on them. I am guessing he will stop embarrassing himself somewhere around thread 4,732,091.
 
Cypress said:
Thanks man, but I stand on the shoulders of giants. Debunking the assertions and guesses of Climate Gate Clowns is child’s play. I don’t even deserve congratulations for it.

Think of it this way, man. I have the best science in the world, as well as the law on my side. No amount of foot stomping, guessing, assertions, links to blogs, to obscure crackpot websites, or bungled links to scientific papers from a decade ago can withstand that.

Every scientific institution on the planet, and a virtually universal consensus among actual climate researchers says that CO2 emissions is a major problem which does and will continue to cause global warming and climate change.

The science has only gotten stronger since the 2007 International assessment that human GHG emissions are a clear and present danger to the planet and to global economies. I guarantee you that the upcoming 2012 IPCC assessment is going to conclude that the science of global warming is not only affirmed, but stronger than the 2007 assessment. I don't know how much longer the climate gate clowns can continue to hide in their caves; maybe forever, who knows? The Climate Gate “controversy” was a comical side show that showed the cards the science-deniers were holding – they ain’t got nothing. They were reduced to a fantastical conspiracy theory of a worldwide cabal of lying scientists who were and are allegedly being provided cover by dozens of the most prestigious scientific institutions on the planet.

When one is reduced to conspiracy theories, its pretty much game over. It’s beyond reason and rational logic. Sadly, the Climate Gate Clowns overplayed their hand. It’s obvious that they don’t want climate change to be real, for presumably emotional or political reasons, and they are left grasping at laughable and implausible conspiracy theories.

With regard to the law, the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the authority of USEPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. Courts – especially the highest court in the land – doesn’t give an executive agency that authority if there is any plausible doubt about a compound being a pollutant under the definition of the Clean Air Act. I think it’s actually a silver lining that the Senate punted climate legislation. That Cap and Trade crap was just a scheme to protect corporate interests.

The proper way to mitigate a pollutant – any pollutant – is through regulation via the clearly established authorities of the Clean Air Act. This is something USEPA is usually pretty good at, if they have the proper management, and funding in place. The Supreme Court has validated USPEA’s authority, and unless we get a Tom Tancredo or Sarah Palin as president, I am cautiously optimistic that regulation of CO2 emissions combined with incentives for green energy development might be the way to mitigate the worst case scenario of climate change.
Click to expand...


What you're going to get now is just a rehash of all the material you previously covered and all the challenges/questions you previously answered and met. That's all the neocon numbskulls and corporate dupes have...continual repeating of the climate denying talking points and lies. Hell, the jokers on these boards STILL won't fully admit that the Climate Gate bullhornings ADMITTED PUBLICALLY THAT THEY WERE WRONG. Once you've reduced them to this, just walk away and watch the maudlin exchanges where you are personally attacked and the SOS is regurgitated over and over.
 
Taichiliberal said:
What you're going to get now is just a rehash of all the material you previously covered and all the challenges/questions you previously answered and met. That's all the neocon numbskulls and corporate dupes have...continual repeating of the climate denying talking points and lies. Hell, the jokers on these boards STILL won't fully admit that the Climate Gate bullhornings ADMITTED PUBLICALLY THAT THEY WERE WRONG. Once you've reduced them to this, just walk away and watch the maudlin exchanges where you are personally attacked and the SOS is regurgitated over and over.
Click to expand...

Like Cypress, you are a brain dead twit.... he has NOT answered the questions posed to him. THAT is why people continue to ask them. He did not address Good Luck's questions, except to say 'ur links are not acceptable to me'... which is what he states any time someone posts contradictory information. he has NOT answered some very simple questions that I asked.... He has started numerous threads on this topic, each time so that he can ignore the previous thread in a pathetic attempt to avoid the questions. For some reason he either thinks that starting a new thread somehow makes the old one disappear or that the new thread will make other people forget the questions they asked.

Either way... he is a moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top