Plateau? You mean “island”…
[quote=“Vay”][quote=“tommy525”]Head for the hills, Taiwan is shrinking. Theres no doubt
youtube.com/watch?v=f_EOPP34 … re=related
some places have lost hundreds of feet of land to the ocean.[/quote]
People think I’m such a dumbass for living in hick-ville Linkou. Boy am I gonna be snickering when Taipei is a swamp and I’m up here safe and sound in the middle (IE nowhere near the edges!) of a plateau.[/quote]
Hope you have lots of swamp-creature repellent cause there’s a lot of us that will be coming to be your new neighbors. 
[quote=“Chris”]Major heatwave now; major cold wave last winter. Unusual weather extremes, including extreme cold in winter, is predicted by global warming theory.
(I always roll my eyes when these linear thinkers say “Look, record cold! Where’s your global warming now?” Talk about facepalm.)[/quote]
The problem with global warming is that it predicts everything. It endeavors to account for any and every weather phenomena under heaven known to humankind in all history and incorporate it under this all-encompassing umbrella of global warming. There is nothing that could happen out there to disprove it.
Can someone tell me what factor, what phenomena, what event has to occur in order to trigger legitimate doubts about the veracity of global warming among warmists? The warmists are cleverly tricky; they thought of it all. It could cool for 20 or perhaps 50 years, and they’ve set everything so nicely beforehand and protected their arses that it could still be global warming out there in theory. That isn’t science…or it shouldn’t be. It imperceptibly slips into propaganda, science for the easily led-by-the-nose.
Theories must be falsifiable by definition to be a scientific theory. In other words, we must think of an experiment, the failure of which, disproves the theory being proposed. And the theorist should be quite curious and serious about this aspect, which politics would (and does) hamper on this point (and specifically on this issue).
At this point, I would add that the recent major heatwaves has nothing at all to do with global warming. It is El Nino, a perfectly natural event, as agreed by both warmists and coolists. And extreme warming, (but temporary) would occur in the middle of either global warming or cooling. So the recent warming proves nothing. It certainly doesn’t prove or predict global warming, as you implied — scratch that — stated!
[quote=“tommy525”]Head for the hills, Taiwan is shrinking. Theres no doubt
youtube.com/watch?v=f_EOPP34 … re=related
some places have lost hundreds of feet of land to the ocean.[/quote]
Taiwan is shrinking because it is sinking not because of global warming causing sea-level rises. Taiwan is sinking because ignorant farmers are abusing the land, or water is being overpumped. Subsidence is particularly bad in Yuanlin Country, which has been earlier revealed by research papers. It’s just like Taiwan too – do an execrable job in your area of supposed expertise and then conveniently place the blame on some other peripheral factor for the consequences.
[quote=“jotham”]
The problem with global warming is that it predicts everything. It endeavors to account for any and every weather phenomena under heaven known to humankind in all history and incorporate it under this all-encompassing umbrella of global warming. There is nothing that could happen out there to disprove it. [/quote]
The facts as observed support sound scientific theory. June 2010 was the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record). This was the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. 304 consecutive months above the average, I wish I could go to Vegas and be that lucky.
Untrue, recently the denialists were looking at the past decade and claiming that since when looking at that particular data, there was no increase, therefore global warming had stopped. What was said, was 10 years is not long enough a period to establish a trend, I think one scientists was quoting that while a trend was present, it couldn’t be stated with confidence. This year looks to be set to break all records, but to suggest 50 years of cooling wouldnt have had an impact is just nonsense, a strawman.
Well if jotham says so, it must be true. El Nino of course has an effect, but then again we are at a solar minimum, like to make any guesses what will happen when a solar maximum comes along. I suspect more record breaking hot years, which you may attribute completely to a solar maximum, nothing to do with global warming of course.
[quote=“Mick”]
The facts as observed support sound scientific theory. June 2010 was the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record). This was the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. 304 consecutive months above the average, I wish I could go to Vegas and be that lucky.[/quote]
Can you cite anything other than NASA data? It is always the outlier when comparing all four global temperature monitors. If you could use the two satellite sources, which are less prone to warmist data-tweaking actively biased to the warmist side, I will more readily listen.
Does NASA really mean to say that this heating bump exceeds even the El Nino bump in 1997? I don’t believe the other three sources have shown that. Even so, these bumps are only the El Nino effect, a natureal phenomena that can’t decide either way about global temperature trends. Some Russian scientists and other scientists still believe we are in the middle of a cooling world, El Nino notwithstanding.
Untrue, recently the denialists were looking at the past decade and claiming that since when looking at that particular data, there was no increase, therefore global warming had stopped. What was said, was 10 years is not long enough a period to establish a trend, I think one scientists was quoting that while a trend was present, it couldn’t be stated with confidence. This year looks to be set to break all records, but to suggest 50 years of cooling wouldnt have had an impact is just nonsense, a strawman. [/quote]
No, skeptcs stated that global warming had stopped, and then had even turned around so as to cool. But you didn’t answer my question. Do you think that 50 years of cooling is sufficient to disprove global warming, or would they still cling to their theory until the last of yesteryear’s warmist died. Maybe it takes 50 years for that to happen, and for the political embarassment of being publicly wrong to subside and wipe the egg off their face.
I think more than 10 years is sufficient to trigger doubts about global warming being caused by humans, since human debris in the air and carbon dioxide continued to increase all at the same time as temperatures had plateaued for a good ten years and even began decreasing after that.
Well if jotham says so, it must be true. El Nino of course has an effect, but then again we are at a solar minimum, like to make any guesses what will happen when a solar maximum comes along. I suspect more record breaking hot years, which you may attribute completely to a solar maximum, nothing to do with global warming of course.[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about solar minimum? Whether we are presently in a maximum or minimum solar cycle doesn’t affect climate at all. It’s the aggregate of the cycles, the trend of the cycles that has a more enduring and predictable effect on climate. This was a truly ignorant comment.
The reason nearly all climate scientists and all the world’s major scientific organizations affirm that humans are driving warming is because of the overwhelming evidence that (1) the earth is warming (2) the warming is caused by an excess of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 (3) the CO2 in the atmosphere is (3a) a greenhouse gas and (3b) the result of human activities.
It’s been known since 1824 that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s been known since the 1880s that industrial civilization will inevitably warm the earth. The first prediction of end of the century warming was made by Glass (1956). The first CO2 measurements of the current atmosphere were made in 1958. Presidential commissions were warning in the 1960s that industrial emissions must inevitably destroy the world.
So the real question is: if 97% of all climate scientists, and all the world’s major scientific organizations, and all the evidence, from numerous countries, across paleobotany, paleontology, archaeology, biology, meteorology, climate science, atmospheric science,geology, and geophysics, says the same thing, and yet denialism continues, what is necessary to convince denialists? Because obviously neither evidence nor expertise can do it.
No it doesn’t.
Yes there is. Clearly you know nothing about the subject. [url=Nicotine and AGW: 'teach the controversy' - #2 by Fortigurn and learn[/url].
Fabulous posts, Fortigurn.
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
Vorkosigan
Well I just don’t see how meaningful discussion can take place while he’s clueless about the subject under discussion. 
[quote=“Vorkosigan”]Fabulous posts, Fortigurn.
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
Vorkosigan[/quote]
You gotta be kidding me – that’s a joke, just to show opposition, and this without making any point whatsoever. Your posts are more substantive, which I appreciate. My computer is out for a week, but when I get back, I’ll respond to your post.
this sweeping statement is so overbroad as to be meaningless. Can someone also explain jotham’s inexplicable statement about Taiwan sinking because of farmers, etc.? that also is a puzzling statement… english please?
[quote=“jotham”][quote=“Vorkosigan”]Fabulous posts, Fortigurn.
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
Vorkosigan[/quote]
You gotta be kidding me – that’s a joke, just to show opposition, and this without making any point whatsoever. Your posts are more substantive, which I appreciate. My computer is out for a week, but when I get back, I’ll respond to your post.[/quote]
The posts he linked back to, Jotham, are excellent.
[quote=“jotham”][quote=“Vorkosigan”]Fabulous posts, Fortigurn.
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
Vorkosigan[/quote]
You gotta be kidding me – that’s a joke, just to show opposition, and this without making any point whatsoever. Your posts are more substantive, which I appreciate. My computer is out for a week, but when I get back, I’ll respond to your post.[/quote]
Did you read the posts to which I linked?
The reason nearly all climate scientists and all the world’s major scientific organizations affirm that humans are driving warming is because of the overwhelming evidence that (1) the earth is warming (2) the warming is caused by an excess of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 (3) the CO2 in the atmosphere is (3a) a greenhouse gas and (3b) the result of human activities.[/quote]
Why can no one answer my question. What event has to occur in science to disprove the global-warming theory in the eyes of warmists? Every scientific theory has to be falsifiable. Is it possible that this very basic scientific premise has never been entertained or allowed in the minds of warmist? Is it so hermetic, so foolproof in the minds of some so as not to allow any resasonable thoughts whatsoever to the contrary? Is that so open-minded? Is it too difficult a question to ponder – What has to happen to cast doubt on a theory that hasn’t by any means reached the stage of proven fact?
At any rate, to answer your non-sequitur response, (1) there is no controversy, by warmists or current coolists, that the earth has warmed in the last 100 years.
But (2), there is controversy about how much carbon dioxide is responsible for the actual warming that did occur. Many theorists believe the sun is the main driver of temperature fluctuations and cycles, and that carbon dioxide have a much lesser role. And that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually follows temperatures, and not vice versa. (After all, we all know this basic scientific premise – or atleast we all ought to know – correlation is not causation.)
(3a) Yes we know carbon dioxide is a warming gas for a long time, but still not sure that it really has that much effect on temperature changes we have observed. It’s only an educated guess at this point, and scientific curioisity should have us open-minded to the real scientific possibility of other factors.
(3b) That human activity is primarily resopnsible for the most part of the carbon dioxide presently in the air is not proven. Again, there are many that point out that carbon dioxide follows temperature increases and not the other way around.
Science is not about what people opine and how many; it’s about what is demonstrably proven. It’s objective. Why must you always refer to authorities to feel safe in science? Why must you be in the science social club?
At one time, it may have been 97% of climatists, but a lot has happened in even 3 years to cast considerable doubt on global warming. There has been a lot of rethinking on this issue recently. Maybe 97% may be the correct figure of proponents in a certain political party you belong oto or admire. But you couldn’t possibly be speaking about real scientists. They are more open-minded abouit this than you give credit.
But I should add, that climate science is a field that seems only to be interested in the global-warming phenomena as though it were the first tenet as of a religious order. Climate scientists would therefore have believed this and anxious to further such agenda before they had knowlingly chosen this field, and likely because they chose this field. But even in this field, there is different way s of thinking about this recently.
Your question has been answered. If you understood the answer, please explain the content of the posts to which I linked, in your own words. If you didn’t understand the answer, please say ‘I didn’t understand the answer’, and it will be reworded for you.
Who are these ‘many theorists’?
This is not under dispute. All you are doing is demonstrating you do not understand the explanation you are criticizing.
Evidence please that ew are ‘still not sure that it really has that much effect on temperature changes we have observed’, and that it is ‘only an educated guess at this point’.
Evidence please. Your reply must provide an explanation for the 100 years of data and the accurate predictions contained in the posts to which I linked.
If you understood how scientific consensus is reached, you would understand taht no appeal to authority of opinion was made, but to what has been observed objectively by the overwhelming majority of interdisciplinary scientific studies on this subject, represented by the overwhelming majority of scientists who have affirmed AGW.
Really? Evidence please.
This is raving lunacy.
Um, do you honestly think that the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific institutions know so little about the scientific method that they don’t realize science needs to be falsifiable? This is a prime example of a denialist obfuscational tactic. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this same bogus line from young earth creationists.
As for the ‘It’s the sun’ argument:
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
You can also see the whole progression of denialist tactics here:
Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
Thing is, this thread has been through all this stuff countless times. When heavier, more serious consequences begin to accumulate, denialist will do their usual bend-and-weave. ‘There is no global warming’ will become ‘we can’t be sure humans are causing it’ or ‘it’s actually good’ or ‘there’s nothing we can do about it’. It all comes down to defects in human cognition, really. It’s the same reason we could never pass a drowning child, but we’re ok with millions of children starving. Our brains aren’t able to posit the same level of reality to empirical evidence that we do to anecdotal evidence. In fact, we do quite the opposite. Greater abstraction equivocates to non-reality. For this, I’m guessing our species will pay a HEAVY price down the road, but in the meantime, we’ll sure have some fun, won’t we?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
the report: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/
I haven’t read the report yet, just posting the link.
Of course they know it needs to be falsifiable. So it should be simple: show me how global warming is.
[quote]As for the ‘It’s the sun’ argument:
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?[/quote]
Oh no, don’t tell me you’re becoming a Fortigurn. Is this your argument? A link? Am I supposed to argue with a link? Come on, you can do better than that. I’ve seen you do it.
Yes, there seemed to be a little dipper in solar activity around 1975, the size of a pimple on an ant’s rear end. It really doesn’t count for much when you look at the whole picture. now does it? The observed warming could easily be sustained on previous precipitous increases in solar activity. After all, the dip was not so precipitous as the previous increases, (or the current solar dip), to make any appreciable dent on global temperatures, since solar activity revved right back up shortly after.
NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
The posted title of this thread was
Climate Change III - The Farce Continues
But, for some strange reason, it keeps getting changed by…somone…go figure.
More peace, love and fuzzy warmth from the Warmists. From that sick pit of the koskidz…Death to Non-Believers!
[quote]Daily Kos: Climate Skeptics Should Be Euthanized
"A Daily Kos contributing editor has suggested that “Steve Milloy and his buddies” commit suicide or be euthanized apparently for the crime of opposing global warming alarmism.
Amid a rant on his Examiner.com blog about skeptics “carpet-bomb[ing] newspaper editorial pages with climate change disinformation…, Steven Alexander, who writes for Daily Kos under the nom-de-plume “Darksyde,” wrote that:
… if only Milloy and his buddies could check into one of the [Soylent Corporation’s] lovely medical suites for a short nature movie and a glass of wine…
The reference is to the assisted suicide scene in the 1973 movie Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston.
The Clarity Digital Group, which owns Examiner.com, removed the offensive posting immediately upon notification.
Former Washington Post reporter David Weigel was recently fired from the paper for privately writing on the Journolist listserv that Matt Drudge should “… set himself on fire.”
Now Alexander has publicly wished a similar fate for climate skeptics…b[/b][/quote]
What a sick puppy.
Still believing?..
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to ‘take back climate science’
It Is Impossible For A 100 ppm Increase In Atmospheric CO2 Concentration To Cause Global Warming
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
And of course, for a balanced discussion of the facts, and where appropriate the lack of them, visit Watts Up with That
Have a nice week-end!..