Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
Desh is nothing but a pure partisan dyke.
You.Who's triple F?
tell us what your degree says about those little red bricks you keep heaving like man hole covers?
Well I see that you're focusing in on minutae to discredit the whole. That's not really very rational.I am saying that just by declaring something to have a consensus does not, of itself, constitute a scientific argument. The other point, which you seemed to have missed, is that the 97% consensus declared by John Cook et al. was only arrived at by making some wildly invalid assumptions. In fact, 34.6% of papers that should have been rated as neutral were actually rated as non-neutral. Of those mis-rated papers, 99.4% were rated as endorsements.
I think that I have established my view by now, it's not from the want of stating it anyway. I believe that forcing effect due to CO2 has some effect however I do not see any substantive evidence that it is the main driver. I know that the forcing is supposedly governed by the equation below which being logarithmic means that the increased concentrations have a progressively diminishing warming effect. I also know that there hasn't been any statistically significant increase in the last 16 years which is one reason why so many ex-NASA personnel complained bitterly about Hansen bringing the organisation into disrepute. Even Professor Phil Jones, director of the CRU at the East Anglia has been forced to admit that there hasn't been any statistically measurable increase.
![]()
C is the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration in parts per million by volume and C[SUB]0[/SUB] is the reference concentration.
I ascribe to the view of Jasper Kirkby and the CLOUD team at CERN that much of the warming can be explained by an, as yet, unidentified organic aerosol(s) which will be revealed in time after rigorous experimentation.
http://www.livescience.com/15733-mystery-ingredient-influences-cloud-formation.html
Well I see that you're focusing in on minutae to discredit the whole. That's not really very rational.
I've argued with science deniers for years that the impact on climate by human industrial activity is fairly self evident even to the casual observer. It's not rational to expect that the massive increase in industrial air emmisions over the last 70 years couldn't but not impact climate.
Now you do bring up a credible point ACG that most science deniers discount off hand. Which is why I rarely give their arguments credibility. We do not know all the exact mechanisms of climate change. CO2 is just one emmision standard by which to guage, APG...only one and probably the best understood but again...it's only one. No one in the scientific community denies or even argues that there's a vast gap of knowledge as to what the specfic mechanisms behind APG.
However, what the current body of knowledge does show by incontrovertible fact with a very, very low probability of being wrong is that it is an established fact with widely aggreeing consensus among scientist that current industrial air emmisions (pollutants) output in the order of a hundred billion tons annually of CO2, NOX, SOX, Particulates, Methane and other pollutants has impacted climate.
I mean come on Tom, with that sort of scale even a casual observer would even conclude....well no shit man! You would expect climate to change if you're dumping 100 billion tons of pollutants into the air every year. The point that we haven't elucidated exactly what the mechanism is, doesn't change the fact that change has been observed and a causal relationaship established.
Then counter that with the vast majority of opposition to climate science I have seen is coming directly from Industrial concerns with an vested economic interest and not an objective scientific interest. Primarily the Coal and Petroleum industries.
I have been more than willing to discuss the issue of APG with deniers on the board on the basis that they accept that fact that current indistrial air pollution emmision rates impact climate but that we don't yet know enough about the mechanisms of climate change to introduce policies that could have huge ecnomic consequences as we don't know if either the policies would work or if the cost/benefit value is a workable ratio. Now that's an honest argument. What I hear from the illiterati like Super Freak and Tin Hat (Whom as an educated scientist yourself you have an obligation not to encourage their brand of stupidity.) is to attack and undermine non only the science but the scientist who study climate change as well.
As soon as I see these clowns attack science and scientist and not even trying to have an honest discussion on the topic....it's hard for me to give the science deniers on ACG any crediblity.
LMAO... yet you are in the above changing the argument. The AGW fear mongers claims have been that it is CO2 that is driving the change towards higher temperatures. We all acknowledge that industrial pollutants are bad for the air, land and water. But that is not what the fear mongers of AGW are stating. They are saying it is CO2 that is the main driver and that mankind is largely responsible for it.
It is also very common for you fear mongers to trot out the 'it is silly to think we aren't impacting the climate'. We know we impact it. It is the DEGREE that we are impacting it that is in question. It is the fear mongers that trotted out the consensus line of crap and it is the fear mongers that are trying desperately to silence critics. That is why we have people like you continuing to call people 'deniers'... even though it is the fear mongers position that is falling apart.
Yet despite the above, it is the so called 'climatologists' cult that shouted consensus! and 'debate is over'... why is that Mutt?
again with your straw man... saying 'it impacted the climate' is not being debated. What is debated is the degree it is impacting the climate and whether or not mankind is the primary driver of temperature increases.
Yet again it is the fear mongers who have told us repeatedly that CO2 is the primary driver.
This is yet another example of the fear mongers bullshit. Proclaiming that it is the coal and oil industries that are driving the opposition. You know who also has a vested interest? Those 'scientists' that are vying for funding from government sources to continue their 'research'. You know who else does? Those that are heavily invested in alternative energy companies that want free money from the government... see Al Gore.
LMAO... yet here in reality the reverse is actually true. It is people like you that attack the actual science and scientists who disagree with you fear mongers. It is your kind that continue with the chants of 'deniers' while at the same time you proclaiming that there is a lot we don't know. Our position all along is that your claims of consensus are bunk. There cannot be a consensus on an issue that (as you admit) has so many unknowns at this point.
You need to stop trying to change your argument.
First it was 'global warming' is caused primarily by man and CO2.
Then it was 'climate change' is what we really meant so that we can cling to it no matter what the weather conditions.
Now you want to pretend that we do not acknowledge that pollution in general is bad... which is most certainly not the case.
You also wish to pretend that we think we have no impact on the climate at all... which is a very poor straw man creation.
yet again, it is you that does the above.
Tell us again mutt... what 'science' courses do climatologists take for their specialty?
Flaming fucking faggot you moron.I can hazard a guess that it is Fat Floridian Fucker, which is totally factual to my mind.
Do you get paid by the word? I am so sick and fucking tired of your novella posts. Do you really believe anyone reads them? My favorite is the ones that start "dear morons"...I mean, who reads further? Oh dear morons, that must be written to me. You know what, fuck you.
Do you get paid by the word? I am so sick and fucking tired of your novella posts. Do you really believe anyone reads them? My favorite is the ones that start "dear morons"...I mean, who reads further? Oh dear morons, that must be written to me. You know what, fuck you.
super duper your on the minority side of science.
when will you accept that?