This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Anti-Science: Those Who Wish to Debate Climate Threatened with Death or Jail
Preface: The scientific method requires allowing a free-for-all of hypotheses, which then rise or fall based upon the results of actual experiments. In other words, science means that you throw out theories - no matter how good they look on paper - that are disproven by experimental results, and adopt those confirmed by the results. [Economics is supposed to do that, too ... but hasn't.]
For example, imprisoning Galileo for life because he didn't agree with the "accepted" consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth was not a great example of the scientific method. Instead of conducting experiments to see whether the Earth or Sun were the center of the Solar System, those with the prevailing view simply silenced the dissenter.
Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that many theories that were universally accepted and “known” to be true turned out to be false. See these examples from the Houston Chronicle and the Guardian.
Noam Chomsky said years ago that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.”
In 2006, Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. (The article was later retracted.)
Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”
In 2007, a UN official – Yvo de Boer – warned that ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.”
The same year, another UN official – UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland – said “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific consensus on climate.
In 2008, prominent Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be “thrown into jail.”
The same year, British journalism professor Alex Lockwood said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.
In 2009, a writer at Talking Points Memo advocated that global warming “deniers” be executed or jailed. (He later retracted the threat.)
James Lovelock – environmentalist and creator of the “Gaia hypothesis” – told the Guardian in 2010:
We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
Earlier this month, an assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology said he wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.
And there are many other examples of threats made in regard to the climate debate.
Postscript: If we can’t have free speech and an open scientific debate, then we are no longer living in a democracy or a society which follows the scientific method. Threatening scientific debate is anti-science and anti-liberty.
It is especially troubling given the background of climate discussions. Specifically, in the 1970s, many American scientists were terrified of an imminent ice age. Obama’s top science advisor – John Holdren – was one of them. Holdren and some other scientists proposed pouring soot over the arctic to melt the ice cap and so prevent the dreaded ice age. Holdren warned of dire consequences – including starvation and the largest tidal wave in history – if mankind did not rally on an emergency basis to stop the coming ice age.
Were those who questioned the likelihood of an imminent ice age also threatened with death or imprisonment?
Moreover, it is also concerning that many of the “solutions” proposed to combat a changing climate could do more harm than good (and see this). That’s sort of like invading Iraq after 9/11 because we had to “do” something…
Let’s say that – hypothetically – 100% of all climate scientists reached a consensus that manmade global warming from carbon dioxide was an imminent threat. Shouldn’t we choose approaches that actually work – and which do more good than harm (more) – instead of messing things up even further?
- advertisements -


It had been cooling since ~6000 BCE until we recently started dumping billions of tonnes of C02 into the atmosphere ...
http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/shakun_marcott_had...
So take your science free sophistries and rhetoric elsewhere...
They aint gonna fly here....
You know, the amazing (and very special) thing about the MWP is... written works from that period still exist that describe the weather in various places, including some rather far north. Without any doubt whatsoever the temperatures in the MWP were warmer than today. So no need for 4-billion or 4-million or even 4-thousand year old inferences from various ocean-bed or polar-ice-cap samples to understand that today is NOT terribly warm. And no, "rate-of-change" is not mind-blowing either. In fact, for about the past 12 years the change is roughly zero (no warming or cooling).
Furthermore, if you yokels actually believe the past 100 years have been amazingly warm, then why were so many of your older cohorts screaming bloody murder in the 1970s about how we were entering a massive ice-age, and needed to steal endless wealth from everyone on earth to attempt to prevent that ice-age by techniques such as "cover the polar ice with carbon black to absorb more solar energy".
Wake up and get real.
And if you still believe in AGW, understand the following:
#1: You do not own planet earth.
#2: You have no right to make anyone else pay.
#3: Many of us believe warming is beneficial to man.
#4: Any attempt to force us is predatory abuse.
If you want to persuade people to take various actions, go right ahead. But even if you were 100% correct about AGW, which you most certainly are not, you have no right to force ANYONE to do or pay ANYTHING to implement whatever "solutions" you advocate.
If you stopped being overt predatory authoritarians, you might find people more willing to have sensible science-based conversations with you. But as I said, even if you were 100% correct, you are predators attempting to enslave everyone on earth, and force them to follow your dictates. To which our reply is... up yours.
-----
PS: I have long advocated that de-forestation should stop and in fact be drastically reversed. I've done my small part, and would voluntarily donate to efficient large scale efforts to increase CO2 ===>> O2 generating systems (probably organic, but perhaps inorganic too if efficient techniques are found). Not because I'm afraid of CO2 (plant food) or global warming, but because I love O2, and think man would benefit from higher oxygen concentrations. So if you predatory authoritarians weren't such extreme bullies, you'd have lots of us supporting various efforts that "help us get what we want" and "help you get what you want". But because you advocate planetary wide enslavement and impoverishment, you should expect some of your prey to object to your approach as much or more than your fake science.
+1000, lots and lots of us.
OT: Ann -- check this place out : The Patch, pop. 11
http://bitcoinvista.com/2014/01/15/the-patch-a-new-japanese-micronation-...
don't know why they would need bitcon, seashells would seem to do just fine.
That is very cool. Of course, I have no idea how well established and accepted are the principals upon which is "claim" depends, but in current times I am sure the existing predators-DBA-governments would have no qualms about just grabbing the place and arresting and locking-away anyone who did not comply with their arbitrary demands.
Which means the practical question is... how likely are the predators-that-be to care.
As a matter of personal preference, the place appears much too cold for my bones! Otherwise, very cool. They might be well advised to NOT attempt to gain publicity in public places, because the more often the place comes to the attention of fictitious "officials", the more likely they'll decide to "step on those insects".
very cool. personally, don't mind the cold so much, though if i had a choice, that piece of land in SA that you linked a month ago with the mountains meadow & beach would be much preferable. that place seems like a permaculture paradise.
agree that its key to any "micronation's" long-term survival is its ability to slip through the cracks and hide in plain sight. looks like the founder got busy on reddit in his excitement and then went dark just as quickly:
http://my.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1sfa0d/i_am_hideyuki_yoshida_founde...
http://mw.micronation.org/wiki/Woodland_Patchwork
love their motto : "From the forest, freedom"
Ah, Queen of cherry-picked data returns!
That decline had then been interrupted by a uniquely rapid rise in the 20th century
oh really? I suggest you examine fig 4:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/09/is-the-warming-in-the-20th-century...
to temperatures which were already the warmest for at least 4,000 years
4000 years! Gee! How old's the Earth again? 4½ billion years? Lulz. You are so, very very bad at this arguing stuff.
Stupid is as stupid does...
Why is what the earth was doing 4 billion years ago relevant? How about the warmest since the rise of civilization and well on our way to higher temps...
WUWT? Really?
Why don't you simply post there, they would love you....
Why is what the earth was doing 4 billion years ago relevant?
How is 4 billion years relevant? Its relevant, moron, because AGW shills like yourself appear to forget that the degree to which climate change is not anthropogenic is best understood in the context of how long the planet has existed. If higher temperatures existed prior to humankind burning fossil fuels, then chances are pretty good fossil fuel emissions are not the primary driver of climate.
How about the warmest since the rise of civilization and well on our way to higher temps..
See the above.
WUWT? Really?
Ah, the ad-hom. I did wonder when you'd resort to those in your 'refutations'.
Grrrrlfriend, you are seriously unintelligent.
No, calling your reliance upon WUWT as a source of climate science is not an Ad hom..
It is entirely reasonable to question the credentials and quality of Anthony Watts posts on climate science....
Sorry that dog don't hunt...
Go away troll.. play your games elsewhere....
You and all the other skientifik AGW Zealots still haven't proven whatever warming observed is due to atmospheric C02, and even more specifically, human-emitted CO2. You just assume it is, and ignore water vapor, and the far larger amount of naturally-emitted CO2.
AGW is a religion. So no, I'm not dying for your Tavistock-conceived, computer-modeled, UN-promoted, Original Sin. And you're helping them, the enemy.
Very surely this has been proven millions of times.
The heat build-up can't happen without a gas to trap it because nothing else ever has trapped the heat.
It's not newly surface-generated heat, it's reflected heat that's not reaching space. There's no solid barrier, only gases on the way, and infrared is deflected by CO2 and methane from the ground.
This is easily proven with infrared satellites and has been reported every year by NASA and we can also prove with our own infrared lamps & detectors on the ground that CO2 and methane do indeed reflect infrared instead of permitting it to transmit through the gas cloud.
Then YOU need to explain why ALL long term graphs that display "average temperature" AND "atmospheric CO2 concentration" show...
TEMPERATURES RISE LONG BEFORE CO2 LEVELS.
And they have for tens of thousands of years. The average delay seems to be somewhere between 100 and 200 years.
Which means... genius... that...
temperature rises cause increased CO2
and NOT...
increased CO2 causes temperature rises.
This is the most basic and FUNDAMENTAL science. This is CAUSALITY AKA CAUSE and EFFECT. To purposely attempt to reverse cause and effect is FRAUD. This is only one of many frauds promoted by the hoards of predator-loving morons who advocate AGW.
Most of us you attempt to trash HATE pollution, HATE corporations, HATE predators-DBA-government for allowing and promoting destruction of the physical environment of earth. Probably the biggest reason we resist your insane AGW nonsense is... because we refuse to be enslaved by lies, and because all the time, effort, funding and resources wasted on AGW could have been applied to BENEFICIAL endeavors.
BTW, you should spend at least a few moments thinking about what you say before you say it. If CO2 blocks [a certain percentage of] heat/energy/whatever from passing... then it also blocks on the way INTO earth environment (from the sun) as well as on the way out. Plus, you need to account for all wavelengths (and in case you didn't notice, the visible and IR spectrums are only a tiny percentage of the total electromagnetic spectrum).
DISHONEST ANN, CO2 is being released by our machines more than nature, more than even the volcanoes, over a century.
Are you claiming that rising temperatures are inducing machines to spurt out CO2 without our control? Or that nature is making machines on our behalf now, filing them with coal and gas and petroleum distillates?
Do you even comprehend the insanity of what you're claiming?
"then it also blocks on the way INTO earth environment (from the sun) "
incorrect.
The majority of phtons hitting the earth from the sun are not infrared so they are not blocked.
The majority of infrared on the Earth's surface is originating on the surface having been emitted by molecules hit by other non-infrared photons.
This may seem magical to you but various molecules & atoms absorb photons then emit other photons, completely different photons, all different wavelengths that what went in.
You know, like how 'white light' can hit an object which then appears as many colours to your eyes because those object-parts aren't all perfect mirrors.
Obviously you don't realize how completely you reveal your own ignorance! Sigh.
I said... and you utterly ignored of course... that your heros (the AGW "scientists") have measured/estimated (via polar ices and other means) earth temperatures and CO2 levels for thousands if not millions of years. I think even YOU can agree that "machines emissions" play no part in the data before the last 50 to 100 years or so. Right? Well, the entire data set, going back millions of years, shows temperature rises, then later CO2 levels rise.
Also, have you ever bothered to compute how much heat is generated by "machines" compared to how much heat is generated by, say... volcanoes? Or solar radiation? Or various other internal AND external phenomenon that have existed for millions and billions of years? Please do! And do you understand that the earth is not that far from being a freaking 8000 mile diameter ball of magma? Do you really imagine in even your most deluded dreams that these quantities of natural energy are "nothing" compared to "manmade machines"? Seriously?
You also need to learn at least a tiny bit of basic scientific fact. The hotter something becomes, the more energy it radiates (and conducts) to the environment around it. Furthermore, most processes (and any one wavelength) that cannot be radiated or conducted away get absorbed into other physical systems that then radiate at other wavelengths (at least some of which get transmitted or conducted away). Yes, the entirety of cases is enormous, but that's how reality works. And the net result of all that complexity (means of transmission, diffusion, conduction, etc) is that any buildup of energy tends to dissipate. Yes, there are specific examples of specific limited situations in which the feedback doesn't work this way, but in any environment as varied as a planet... sorry, but proponents of any such claimed phenomenon definitely need to prove their claims, because they are incredibly unusual.
When you say "the majority of photos hitting earth from the sun are not infrared so they are not blocked", you reveal your simplistic level of rationalization. Of course the majority of energy is not IR, for precisely the reason I stated --- the ENORMOUS range of wavelengths involved. Which means, NO modest wavelength range contains the majority of energy, so any conversation of this type is inherently meaningless.
Yet your statement omitted important considerations. For example, your formulation says "non-infrared is not blocked". Talk about a massive over-generalization! First let's get one thing straight. The most energy from most stars (including sun) is in the visible and near-IR portion of the spectrum. This is one part of the reason your eyes are most sensitive at around 5500A --- that's the peak wavelength of solar flux. The near-IR starts about about 7000A (where the sensitivity of your eyes fall below 1% or so), but there is still quite a bit of energy at 7000A, which is not very far from 5500A after all.
However, a LOT less solar energy gets through the atmosphere at wavelength shorter than 3200A. That is what is called "near-UV" territory... and your statement is utterly false to claim "that is transmitted because it isn't IR". You simply have no freaking idea about the electromagnetic spectrum, and you make that very clear.
Your next three paragraphs are almost correct (!amazing!) and repeat what I noted above --- as reasons "it doesn't matter that much whether energy is absorbed in the near-IR, because it gets transmitted and absorbed and conducted and diffused many times, and AS YOU SAY, the next time a bit of energy is spewed away, it might be in a wavelength that the atmosphere transmits! That is what YOU say (one of the few things you are right about). So think about what that means to any claims about planetary heat energy as a "runaway system". You refute yourself.
I'm sitting here scratching my head. If you understand the part you said correctly, how can you fall for their nonsensical claims? Answer: you can't! But you do anyway.
What you call ignorance is in fact deeply researched knowledge.
You know it, I know it. You're not stupid. You're very dishonest on this topic.
Rabid to a point where it looks like your financial well-being depends strongly on convincing everyone AGW isn't real because if people are convinced it's real, using evidence, the biggest banks and oil companies will be bankrupt very quickly.
"earth temperatures and CO2 levels for thousands if not millions of years"
Only some have done that, certainly not all, and that's just to double-check all the other warming trends that are not caused by humans.
This research does in fact confirm the rate of increase of heat has never been as this before: in all history of the entire Earth since life ever first was on it, we did this. Nothing else ever did.
Ever.
" think even YOU can agree that "machines emissions" play no part in the data before the last 50 to 100 years or so. Right?"
Right. Which is why the last 100 years shows a spike up in temperature increase as never shown before in history.
There's not a single conclusion to the opposite. Not one.
"shows temperature rises, then later CO2 levels rise."
Except it doesn't. You say it is but your saying so isn't evidence, isn't science, and the science shows the opposite.
There is no heat source to do as you say. The world itself doesn't work that way. THE SUN is the heat PHOTON SOURCE, the emitted SURFACE-PHOTONS NOT FROM THE SUN are excess in the infrared, as the sun hasn't changed that much in the last BILLION years, and the VOLCANOES do in fact emit heat but aside from a rare super-volcano event, you won't see a massive heat burst and when you do you'll quickly see the ash-coverage in the sky block out a lot of incoming photons.
"Also, have you ever bothered to compute how much heat is generated by "machines" compared to how much heat is generated by, say... volcanoes? "
#1 invalid comparison, the question was not important
and #2 yes, the machines produce constant heat without rest, nation-wide in every nation with electricity, whereas the volcanoes do actually stop (not all, obviously, but most, or we'd be very sorry very fast and not having this conversation).
The heat emitted by machines is not in question or important and to pretend it is will be an act of brutal dishonesty I shall not tolerate.
The heat contained by the gases released by the machines far exceeds the heat of the machines running because the gases contain the solar-sourced (not infrared) re-emitted infrared photons (from the surface of Earth) and that spans a space so enourmous the machines themselves could never emit that much heat.
All around the entire planet this is happening.
"And do you understand that the earth is not that far from being a freaking 8000 mile diameter ball of magma?"
I understand like before this is a lie.
The Earth is covered in water & atmosphere that very much makes your statement a lie.
No matter how hard you lie, no matter how determined you are in lying, I will call you out as a liar.
"You also need to learn at least a tiny bit of basic scientific fact"
Irony. You're not a scientist. I am. Computer scientist, but still a scientist. You flat out aren't any kind of scientist.
"The hotter something becomes, the more energy it radiates (and conducts) to the environment around it."
INVALID.
First: the HOTTER source is the SURFACE from EXTERNAL REFLECTION and RE-TRANSMISSION not the object itself.
The sidewalks & roads for example are NOT HOT OBJECTS.
They are COOL objects with HOT SURFACES when exposed to sunlight.
You keep pretending this is not so.
The sun throws wattage at those surfaces and objects mostly NOT HEAT, NOT INFRARED. The surface molecules then CONVERT photons via electrons, chemical changes & quantum-electric effects, emitting NEW INFRARED photons that didn't exist before.
The OBJECT volume below the surface will heat slightly; the majority of the object may remain the same temperate, unheated, as net-heat is stable with excess heat bleeding to the ATMOSPHERE (global warming) and EARTH around & below the object.
"Furthermore, most processes (and any one wavelength) that cannot be radiated or conducted away get absorbed into other physical systems that then radiate at other wavelengths (at least some of which get transmitted or conducted away). "
#1 transmission
#2 reflection
#3 absorption
That's how it works. Finding out how each molecule acts with each wavelength of light is an exhaustive but not prohibitive process and the results are well documented around the world and easy to re-test any time if you are in doubt.
Incoming photons mostly pass THROUGH CO2 AND METHANE with no absorption: this is transmission which is why the sun itself is not the factor in global warming, as easily proven by the fact we've had many periods of global cooling but the sun didn't shut off or get weaker in those times.
"is that any buildup of energy tends to dissipate."
INCORRECT.
There is no path of dissipation, the CO2 and methane are blocking it. They are ABSORBING, not dissipating, the heat (infrared) and now it's staying where the GAS CLOUD IS.
Since most of the GAS DIFFUSION is happening PRIOR to the heating, the only movement of the hot gases is via CONVECTION. Since convection stops when thermal equilibrium is reached this means the migration of the hotter gases is stopping as the heat is now already saturating the atmosphere at expected equal altitudes before other pressure changes, winds, cause some chaotic turbulence that you ought to know can't be mapped by any math or any machine due to complexity.
"sorry, but proponents of any such claimed phenomenon definitely need to prove their claims, because they are incredibly unusual."
Incorrect. The results are incredibly normal, usual, frequent, common, and have been proven with endless satellite images, gas measurements, temperate measurements.
It's not a debate if you pretend the actual evidence was never collected when we both know it very well was collected and used for proof of the very claim you say has not been proven.
You claim we need to have AGW debate. We aren't debating. You are flat out deleting real historical fact from your narrative after being proven repeatedly that it does exist. Your denial is anti-debate.
You'd pretend the moon was made of green cheese with this tactic and then when shown moon rocks demand more "debate".
You're not fooling anyone here dishonest-ann.
"When you say "the majority of photos hitting earth from the sun are not infrared so they are not blocked", you reveal your simplistic level of rationalization. Of course the majority of energy is not IR, for precisely the reason I stated --- the ENORMOUS range of wavelengths involved. Which means, NO modest wavelength range contains the majority of energy, so any conversation of this type is inherently meaningless."
And again that's a lie.
The majority of non-infrared photons easily transmit through the excess CO2 and methane we put into the air from our machines and the same gases definitely absorb, not transmit, the newly emitted infrared.
Your lying will not be tolerated.
"For example, your formulation says "non-infrared is not blocked". Talk about a massive over-generalization!"
IT'S A FUCKING COMMENT ON A BLOG.
You want me to PDF attach every text book available, even torrents for them, to prove what we both already know?
DO you think Zerohedge comments are FTP SERVERS?
I think the Tylers might get pissed at the level of demand you're making but I can fucking do it if that's what you want.
"hat's the peak wavelength of solar flux. The near-IR starts about about 7000A (where the sensitivity of your eyes fall below 1% or so), but there is still quite a bit of energy at 7000A, which is not very far from 5500A after all."
And is NOT heating the atmosphere. You know it, I know it. It's the CO2 and earth-emitted infrared. We can measure it, we do measure it, we can see it in the CO2 clouds of gas and you can't deny it credibly. You can deny it but the denial will lack any credibility.
"That is what is called "near-UV" territory... and your statement is utterly false to claim "
And you lie again about what I say. I will re-state: UV is NOT HEAT, it is NOT INFRARED.
The bottom line is for AGW not to be real these conditions are mandatory:
#1 there is no excess CO2 or methane emitted by human machines; OR
#2 there is excess CO2 and/or methane but there are so few earth-emitted infrared photons there is not heat increase; OR
#3 there is excess co2 and/or methane and absorption creating hotter gas clouds of co2 and/or methane BUT the excess heat due to convection is still being bled off into space beyond the atmosphere leaving the Earth NOT being heated.
All of these conditions are provably false by any measurement any time and you know it as I know it. Fact.
AGW is real.
The only reason you attack this is because you have a definitely financial incentive from convincing others.
You've come too far to be written off as ignorant or stupid. You are clearly neither which leaves only honesty in question. I think I have the answer to that question.
Wow... so many errors. I don't have time for all of them, but here is a sampling.
And though the following observation means [almost] nothing in the modern world of so-called "government [funded] science" and "corporate [funded] science" and "bought-and-paid-for scientists", but I am a scientist, and have been my whole life. But I'm also an engineer, inventor and product-developer, so I have an [additional] more practical bent than many scientists. If my ideas are wrong, I go broke, because most of my life has been self-employment inventing then developing then selling scientific and technical products. However, a few times I have taken specific-purpose contracts from the likes of NASA, Boeing, AirForceResearchLabs and various major astronomical observatories on non-military projects (all astronomy or space sciences in one way or other).
So your claim that you know I am not a scientist is a great example of how your mind works --- you simply assert what you wish to be true, but have no freaking idea or evidence to back up. And by the way, they call me in to solve problems their PhDs can't figure out how to solve. Having said that, their PhDs can run circles around me in math and already-known science, but I've always had a knack for identifying fundamentals, and then finding ways to apply and leverage those fundamentals to do what they consider "impossible" (and what usually is impossible via conventional approaches). However, given that most scientists today are utterly corrupt, I hereby state for the record that the mere fact of me [or you] being a scientist is irrelevant.
Yes, the hot bulk of the earth is covered by cooler surface layers of ocean and rock. Of course that's true. Do you know why that's true? Because the boundary between rock or water and atmosphere is able to throw off the heat into space. Otherwise we would all cook, which apparently we agree upon. If you want proof, go ahead and post the temperature of earth at surface and then about 4000 more temperatures at 1 mile intervals, ending with the core temperature. All hotter. Quite a bit hotter.
Now, I know you accept that the phenomenon of "conduction" exists, which means you know that while there are "insulation effects" in all the material that is the bulk of earth, but also "conduction effects". But to ignore this is silly.
No radiation is heat. UV radiation is not heat. IR radiation is not heat. No other radiation is heat (assuming we're talking about "electromagnetic radiation" here). All wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are [for practical purposes], different colors of "light"... waves. HEAT is atoms and molecules jiggling around --- essentially the AC component of motion. So a meteor traveling at 100km per second relative to earth IS NOT "heat", because that motion (potential kinetic energy) is DC (relative motion in one direction), while the AC jiggling of the atoms in that meteor IS heat. And the light/energy bouncing off the meteor (reflecting, diffusing), or light/energy being emitted from the meteor (let's assume it is hot and glowing cherry red) IS NOT heat.
Energy is mostly transmitted by conduction (atom-jiggle impacts another atom and transfers the jiggle, or in rare (surface-layer) cases the atom being impacted may be kicked away from the surface in a DC fashion (no longer heat energy, but kinetic). Energy is also transmitted by radiation, which is electromagnetic energy wavefront (light) that heads away at the speed of light... until absorbed.
What probably makes you equate IR radiation with heat is the following. If you heat up a piece of [almost any] material until it is considered "hot" on a human scale of cold and hot, that material will emit electromagnetic radiation with a peak intensity in the IR. But you can also see some of the energy spew off in the red too, which is why the heating coils in your oven glow red (you can't see the brighter IR), and where the expression "glow cherry red" comes from.
But IR is NOT heat. Sorry. IR is a certain range of wavelengths of light (electromagnetic radiation). And UV is not heat, and none of the other wavelengths are heat. Whether ANY wavelength CAUSES heat depends upon whether the material that radiation strikes REFLECTS, DIFFUSES or ABSORBS that wavelength. For example, if you shine IR radiation onto a polished surface or film of gold (or aluminum, or silver, or a great many substances)... almost ALL the IR radiation will simply reflect off in other directions. However, if you shine that same IR radiation onto many surfaces that you and I would call "black", most of the IR radiation will be absorbed by the material and cause the atoms to jiggle around, and thereby cause HEAT (the AC jiggle in the atoms). You really should learn this stuff. Check out "black body radiation"... you'll love that topic, and it will help you justify whatever position you end up taking (either honestly or dishonestly).
You accuse me of wanting to support huge energy corporations. That is yet another complete invention in your mind. I wish they'd all go broke. They are responsible for bribing governments to allow them to pollute and get away with all sorts of atrocities. However, that does NOT mean that humans cannot generate energy in honest, ethical, clean, prudent, affordable, sustainable ways. So I have NO problem with the general notion of "producing energy", I just have problems with any individual who lies, cheats, steals, bribes, lobbies, and gets governments to tolerate their atrocities. Which happens to apply to [probably] ALL major, mid and minor energy producers today.
Which just goes to show how you just make up pure BS with ZERO basis whatsoever. My opinion is, all those companies should be shut down, and all their executives executed for crimes against humanity. And that makes me an apologist for the energy companies in your mind. What brilliant thought processes you perform!
Another blatant lie from you. I have zero stocks. I have zero ownership of any corporation. The ONLY thing you could claim that I gain from energy companies is... availability of fuel for my little airplane (which gets 75 miles per gallon, by the way). I own no ground vehicles, because my home cannot be reached by land vehicle.
And if you've followed my posts on ZH, you would know that I live in the extreme boonies, 125km from the nearest human beings, and don't even go ANYWHERE for 30 to 90 days at a time. I spent my life savings building out my self-sufficient place to live (which I've described here in ZH many times). It is completely powered by solar panels, and self-sufficient in every necessary way. However, I do not consider myself self-sufficient because... I don't grow every food item I eat, but more importantly, I don't create the fuel for my airplane (the only fuel I consume), and even more importantly, I don't have the ability to make my own integrated circuits.
In other words, I have a smaller energy footprint than 99.99999% of the humans in the developed countries. And I'm willing to bet, VASTLY more self-sufficient and low-impact on the environment than you'll ever dream of being. The only way that could not be true is if you too are an extreme, extreme, extreme outlier like I am. And if you think I'm blowing smoke, go read the past 2 years of my posts on ZH. I didn't make ANY of this up to win a stupid debate with you (or anyone). However, what it DOES prove is... you don't bother to get data to back up your assertions, even when the data is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
The increase in temperatures the past 100 years is not a "faster spike" than ever before in history. You obviously don't bother to check out long term charts, not even the ones your fearless liar heroes produce. And in fact, the temperature stopped rising at all about 10 or 15 years ago. It may continue to rise soon, or it may start to fall. I dunno, but neither is cause for panic. Been there, done that.
As for statement "the sun hasn't changed much in the last billion years", that is grossly false and misleading. However, the similar sentence "the sun has been changing dramatically over the last billion years... but is not currently outside the range of changes it has experienced in those billion years". This might sound like a quibble, but this distinction is very important. It means that the sun (and therefore earth weather) goes through all sorts of gyrations across long term history, and therefore any gyrations within the same ranges is likely just "more of the same".
Good that you at least know about the dual effects of volcanoes. In fact, the more "serious" volcanoes (in conventional opinion) probably COOL the earth, for the reason you stated (solar-energy reflecting dust/haze/clouds). But in the larger sense, volcanoes that do not emit [much of] anything visible into the atmosphere do heat the air (via vents and such). They also spew some pretty awful chemicals into the air. This whole topic is huge... and NOT well known enough to confidently predict consequences. One point of what I'm saying here is... volcanoes do NOT stop. Any GIVEN volcano will certainly stop MAJOR EVENTS that it goes through. Yes. But the total aggregate of NOT OBVIOUS, NOT EASILY VISIBLE effects from volcanoes is always happening, albeit not always constant in magnitude (but we don't know enough to detect or measure accurately).
So let me get this straight. A piece of white snow, or white sand or light-color concrete is a HOT object, and a similar size piece of black asphalt is a COLD object. Which means, you don't even understand that white/light objects reflect and diffuse solar energy AWAY from earth, while black/dark objects absorb solar energy and cause heat? !!!WOW!!! And hot objects (or hot surfaces even more so) generate IR radiation that transmits into outer space.
You REALLY, REALLY, REALLY need to go find a chart of the transmission of the atmosphere as a function of wavelength. Why? Because you will find that the atmosphere of earth transmits a HUGE percentage of IR. And then go look at that "black body curve". Those two pieces of FACT should convince you that your fearless heroes have been screwing your brain into insanity. For you to imagine all the energy is getting "stuck" down here is... well... utterly contrary to MEASURED fact.
No, we do NOT need the current AGW debate to continue. Why? Because it is not a debate at all. ALL the powers funded by stealing unlimited funds via taxation, and the ability to borrow unlimited additional funds from NWO banksters who create those FIAT funds out of thin air... are PRO-AGW. They DO NOT argue from facts OR from science (though they love to wrap their lies and propaganda in scientific-sounding soundbites).
On the other side are the abused, enslaved productive people of earth, who the predators-that-be want to ENSLAVE and RAPE TO DEATH. There IS no debate. And there CAN BE no debate while government is funding the current RATIONALIZATION for enslaving all productive human beings.
Neither YOU or THEY would STAND for a debate. More importantly, neither you nor they would tolerate carefully considered REAL unbiased science (that only cares to understand what is happening, not justify what they want to do). 50 years ago they wanted to cover the poles with carbon black to prevent the ICE-AGE we were supposedly entering. This is NOT A JOKE. This is NOT me making stuff up. They published their freaking books, including the current "science advisor" to el presidente, and they wanted HUGE FUNDING TO PREVENT GLOBAL ICE AGE.
If nothing else, this FACT should make you wonder WTF... and look into it carefully.
FURTHERMORE.
If by some miracle of miracle YOU are exactly 100% correct ABOUT EVERYTHING...
My life does not belong to you. I refuse to give you ONE CENT to prevent AGW. Screw you. As far as I can see, global warming will be beneficial to mankind (in the aggregate). Besides, anything LIKE the actions the predators-that-be are taking and want to take to "combat" global warming is 100 times more harmful than global warming.
The bottom line is this. There are ALWAYS supposed disasters to deal with, but you have NO RIGHT to impact my life one tiny bit to take whatever actions you want to take. Got that.
I REFUSE TO BE GOVERNED.
Not by you. Not by them. Not by predators-DBA-government. Not by predators-DBA-corporations. Not by predators-DBA-NGOs. Not by predators-named-AlGore. Not by ANYONE.
If you have a problem, YOU PAY TO FIX IT.
Oh, I almost forgot. For different purposes... about 20 years ago... I was involved in a small collaborative research project to see how much it would cost to put huge sheets of aluminized mylar in earth orbit to reflect sunlight. Well, I've got news for you. To lower the input of energy this way is VASTLY cheaper than ANY of the proposals floated by the predators-that-be. Why? Because they want a justification to RAPE US. To steal us blind. To utterly enslave mankind... even more than they already do.
EVEN IF you were right... relatively easy and cheap solutions exist. Okay, yeah, they are not "cheap" in the sense that you or I could pay for them. But compared to the financial carnage they plan... they cost chicken feed. And I've heard of other (possibly practical, or possibly not) approaches that are even cheaper.
THESE WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REQUIRE THEFT.
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY.
-----
You are a liar. I am ALREADY set up for life as far as energy goes. And since I absolutely REFUSE to help pay for the mass enslavement you have in mind, and I never need to earn one more penny to live out my life... YOU LIE. I am one of the very few people who will NOT win or lose financially depending on what you do. And once I solve my airplane fuel issue (convert my airplane run on my own homemade fuel)... the last 1% of my dependence on the outside world is DONE.
Since most people who read ZH already know all this about my situation, they can see that you are just a baldfaced liar who simply PRETENDS to know things about people and their situations, just like you pretend to understand they dynamics of AGW.
And your attempt to stick the knife in where it hurts is laughable and has zero effect. I am the most honest human being I've ever known. Your effort to besmirch me is nothing more than an obvious attempt to find something I care about to hurt me with. Your mistake is to imagine I care what you think, or believe in my wildest dreams that what you say indicates anything whatsoever about reality, including me.
BTW, if you ever want to fake anyone into believing you are honest or sincere, you really should stop saying things that are directly, exactly and instantly refuted in the very same source you express yourself. Not that I want to help you fake people out, but... so lame, so infantile.
Not one error. You have time for everything, paid obviously to defend city traffic instead of using trains and buses, to defend coal-fired plants when we don't need them for electricity generation, defending massive dumping of pollution into the air, with no need to do so.
Contain your shit.
You are in and allied to the predator-class. It is the personal obligation and moral duty of every person on Earth to use all force necessary to stop your allies and if you're polluting, to stop you.
The machines should be MELTED, scrapped. Any resistance should be met with FORCE, as much as necessary.
Your predator class is about to face almost the entirety of the 7 billion people on Earth as an army. You're on the predator side, the losing side.
I don't want to govern you or enslave you.
The polluting machines sending excess CO2 and methane up and poisoning my property will be scrapped, melted, shot at.
If you are standing with those machines yelling that global warming is a hoax then you are the enslaver, you are the predator and predators will be as you wrote: SHOT ON SIGHT.
You are so extremely insane, one can only marvel at the awesome degree of your brazen absurdity. Where to start.
Well, how about this. Virtually ALL evidence from those 7-billion human beings is... they want more comfort and more goodies. Which means, you will NEVER get even 1% of those 7-billion people to "come after us". They ARE us.
You continue to outright LIE. In fact, I do not support most coal-fired plants, because they are not fitted with effective pollution controls. BUT... and this is a huge BUT... the reason has NOTHING to do with CO2, but everything to do with other pollutants (many substances, including heavy metals, including even some radioactive materials). However, devices DO exist to make coal-fired power plants responsibly clean, the problem being the predators-DBA-corporations who rather spew needless poisons into the air than pay for those devices.
So you don't have even the faintest clue of my position on these issues. Not the faintest.
The ONLY thing you are correct about is... I don't care about CO2.
Otherwise, your characterization of my position is approximately 100% OPPOSITE of the reality. Which shows how liars like you operate your brains and communications (zero evidence, endless false assertions).
If you scrap all machines, you will also scrap all the machines you intend to force us with. Oh, you have to KEEP those machines active, so you can enslave us. Understood.
You are a religious zealot. EVERY message you post embodies the style of religious zealots throughout the millennia. You take ON FAITH that your side is 100% correct, that you have some inherent right to impose your favored solutions on every organism on the planet, and no alternatives can even be considered.
Too bad you don't realize how obvious you are.
"Well, how about this. Virtually ALL evidence from those 7-billion human beings is... they want more comfort and more goodies. Which means, you will NEVER get even 1% of those 7-billion people to "come after us". They ARE us"
#1 Blatantly false. Most people are satisfied to get along and live without having 'goodies' at the expense of others. You speak from a position of spoiled privilege & you can not speak on everyone else's behalf. Most of us are sane, healthy, ungreedy people opposite to every facet of your nature.
"The ONLY thing you are correct about is... I don't care about CO2."
Then you're an idiot. That CO2 + methane will murder the entire human species. If we cut it back from hitting the atmosphere, do anything the fuck you want with it, we'll be fine (except now we have Fukushima).
"If you scrap all machines, you will also scrap all the machines you intend to force us with"
Incorrect. Those who are causing the damage will be stopped using machines that do not require fuel: explosives, machine guns, poisons. If you take our food we'll take the food of the enemy. It need not be confiscated: merely destroyed so we starve out the enemy that will see us all murdered.
My advice to you: don't be among the enemy, don't defend them, because once shit goes down you very well better be far away from any alliance with them.
"Oh, you have to KEEP those machines active, so you can enslave us. Understood"
LIES. Slavery is evil & forbidden.
Those who transgress upon my survival shall be put to death, never slavery. You have an easy out: do not ally yourself to those who do harm to me and you're fine. Those who do harm to me shall without mercy or hesitation be put to death.
I am without faith. My brain is such that no concept of faith can exist. I don't understand it, I don't live it, I don't feel it, I merely comprehend a complex of actions, words & historical record of others that contradicts reality in particular making claims of fact which are disproven: this is all I know of faith or belief. I can not experience it. It's impossible.
Ann, Don't let these guys bother you. They are not interested in truth, peace or advancement of mankind.
They have vested interests in the establishment of an ecofascist government. Which only differs from the current fascist government by the fact that they believe they will have a seat at the power table.
It is the same thought process of the neocon warmongers. They believe they will benefit from it.
man-made global warming is a global barrier to truth and peace, so those pretending the real warming is a hoax are out to kill the rest of us. It's that simple.You're the bad guys and you know it because we all have thermometers so we can all measure the proven warming.
What perverted version of truth and peace do you ecofascists believe in which involved silence dissenters by imprisoning or kilin them?
You are blood-thirsty-power-hungry sociopaths. Which does put you in very similar terms with a certain nationalist racial-supremacist movement that endorses genocide and apartheid. I wonder if that's where your tactics are coming from?
The fact that you're killing me, killing us, necessitates any action I take.
It's up to my personal sense of mercy to use non-lethal force but since my survival is on the line and it's your fault that leaves me the option to use lethal force.
You stop and the threat is gone.
I don't give a flying fuck what you do to pollute or poison the food, water, air, land that you use so long as you contain your shit and then it isn't my problem.
Don't tread on me.
Because rattlers will bite your balls and put nasty poison in them.
You've been warned.
You are dangerously deranged. The fact that you are not the first one I come accross who things down those lines is the worrying bit.
That is the most perverted application of the golden rule I have ever seen. So according to your deranged mind, by my mere fact I breathe and I disagree with you, I am therefore harming your existence and that justifies you to kill me?
You know nothing about me or my personal circumstances. And however you come here and pledge to kill me and try and rationalise that through your own faux-libertarian paradigm.
Why don't you just come out and say that you are ok with exterminating 7 billion people, as long as you are the one in charge, everything will be fine then. They had it coming...they threaded on you.
Previously I considered you a malinformed deluded prick, but now I realise you are plain evil.
You don't even know what the golden rule is.
Those who have the gold make the rules.
Addendum: those who have bullets have the gold, one way or another.
You're a threat and you've been told you're a threat. You've been asked nicely to stop. You've been warned lethal consequences will follow.
I've told you the crazy anti-AGW people can do whatever the fuck they want so long as they aren't ruining my food, water, air & shelter.
When you threaten those things you authorize your own termination. You go fuck up your own property - it's not my problem or care - you touch my stuff or me for your profit and I'll fuck your shit up.
I'd expect you to act in the same way which is why I have no intention of messing with you or your stuff, merely preventing the on-going harm to myself by the anti-AGW fucktards who are burning fuel needlessly for fun at MY PERSONAL EXPENSE.
I don't give a flying fuck what you believe. If you believe AGW is a hoax but you aren't contributing to the damage, you'll be ignored as merely a retard.
PREDATOR ALERT.
SHOOT ON SIGHT.
armed and ready.
I will defend against all predators.
Those who pollute my air, water, food, shelter, with poison, with heat, with bullets, will be terminated without question.
You've been warned, just don't be one of those offending and as-yet-unnamed parties. Lethal force is proper and will be used.
Believe anything you want. I don't care.
Do anything you want to damage yourself, your property, I don't care.
You damage me or my property and I care and I'll fuck someone's shit up proper.
So let's see if you lot happen to be the few select group of fucktards who claim AGW is a hoax, know it's not a hoax, and magically happen to refuse to cause any of the heat or chemical pollution that is causing AGW. So long as you're not doing it you're not the real problem. You're allies with those who are the predators but an ally who isn't doing the act can get a pass.
An act of defense against a self-proclaimed predator is self-defense, NOT a predatory act. And you explicitly labeled yourself a predator, several times already in this very thread. Fortunately, I will not need to defend myself against you, because you will never find me. I've taken steps to assure that, which you would know if you bothered to read ZH.
You're allied to the predators, I'm the anti-predator.
I defend myself and my property.
You ally yourself with those who destroy my property and survival for profit.
The highest moral position you have is to say you ally yourself to the predators without doing their pollution.
It's like you're being an advocate for child molesting while claiming you don't actually do it yourself so as not to be in the gunsights.
I am the anti-predator and I will stop all the predators that threaten my survival.
AGW is real, global warming is real & those who are causing it are mass-murderers and should be stopped with lethal force.
those who ally with them but claim not to be responsible are mentally and morally deficient (that's you)
Your allies are self-proclaimed predators.
My position is proven anti-predator, non-predator, as I defend myself while you demand my loss and the loss of every person on this planet for the benefit of those burning fuels into the atmosphere.
You're perfectly clearly able to do something else with the fuel and do no harm to me but you demand my harm.
The earth is not your property.
Talk about amazing delusions!
AGW is a fraud. Therefore, being honest means pointing out AGW is a fraud. Furthermore, you should be smart enough to realize that even when someone has an opinion that turns out to be wrong... as long as that was their real opinion, they were being honest. Being honest and being correct are different, though one can certainly judge the intellect of a sentient being by how often their honest opinions are correct versus wrong.
YOU are the one who claims the entire population of earth (or at least anyone with a few bucks in their pockets) must be enslaved and their property stolen to fund the astronomically expensive carbon-reduction schemes.
Our conclusion about you would have to be different if you believed AGW was true, but admitted that nobody has a right to force others to obey your dictates, and finance your plans. In that case, you'd be wrong, but NOT a predator. However, you are exactly and specifically wrong AND a predator.
Note that you are a predator even if AGW is flat-out correct. Those of us who believe the consequences of AGW are less harmful than the cost to maybe offset it with your plans... cannot be forced to change our behavior or fund your plans unless you ARE a predator.
ALL THE ABOVE IS TRIVIAL.
Also note that I told you... 100% of my power comes from solar-panel electricity, except perhaps the 1% which is fuel for my little 75mpg airplane (my only means of transportation, outside walking, and being 125km from the nearest small settlement, walking is only practical for fun). Which means... I have done more to fight AGW (according to your theories) than you ever will (though AGW was NOT my motivation). You may blush now.
The part I live in is my property. As will be many more parts that I can only buy if they are not destroyed or if I am not killed. That's the problem: you're defending actions which destroy property before I can buy it (food, land, etc.) and my own survival can be shortened by those same actions directly and immediately.
Your words, actions & motivations are deceptive and disgraceful.
"YOU are the one who claims the entire population of earth (or at least anyone with a few bucks in their pockets) must be enslaved and their property stolen to fund the astronomically expensive carbon-reduction schemes"
Given that I am 100% anti-state, anti-statist, this is impossible. The only means to accomplish what you accuse me of - and I deny the accusation 100% - is to support the state and I am against all nation states.
"AGW is a fraud. Therefore, being honest means pointing out AGW is a fraud."
AGW is a fact therefore every statement against it is a fraud and that fraud requires investigation.
Opinions don't cut it, faith is not acceptable, no beliefs allowed. This is strictly science & evidence and you have none to support your accusations, defense of those who are causing AGW or denial of AGW whatsoever.
You are absolutely correct.
Which is why the only purpose for us to reply to these disingenuous morons is because others who have not made up their minds about AGW will read messages like these. The more they see how intentionally disingenuous the advocates of AGW are, the more likely they are to understand they must reject AGW, or at least go look at real data themselves with an active mindset.
spend some serious time researching and questioning... I started by looking into why people were not being 'green' enough and climate change receptive.... after following the research, boards, foundations and infringements on basic legal entitlements of average joe mixed in with global law changes using maritime law etc.... I realised why we have enviro problems - a very high leve team is playing both sides with a transnational agenda; that is not what any of us who care about the environment signed up for nor expected to keep paying and paying for with no end solution or resolution in sight... its intended to be a never ending milk machine of the 'guilty' middle class of the west while never rectifying the behaviour of those who profit from bad enviro practices; hence the poor souls in Africa will continue to be denied the ability to farm productively through duplicticous means and the blame will be on the west etc etc.... always research the counter arguement and attempt discernment - its the best we can each do.
Notice what direction schooling, research grants and media info is taking us - consider the role of the Tavistock Institute among others. If you think schooling is being dumbed down and overt propogation for 'alternative' lifestyle choices is being over exemplified then research the common financial links and bodies financing the think-tanks.......its demoralising in some ways to keep seeing the same PTB involved in shaping our fiat world, emotional and intellectual world and then- unsurprising- to find they infect our green world view.
Follow the science and the money from inception of the govt and corp poplicy behind the grants.......
<duplicate>
The near unanamous views of climate scientists 15 years ago in support of AGW largely predated any green energy industry whose interests might otherwise be driving the science. Now it's getting murky, but back 15 years ago I had no doubt the science was data driven. Which didn't necessarily make it right, but it was the best game in tow.
There was a great and apparently now-forgotten battle over Carbon Credits back then. Most serious AGW activists argued against it as a setup for a carbon scam and a carbon bubble. Far too many Greens have forgotten that, or for example have come to see windmills as good without looking at who's running the back-room scam machine.
Chomsky's statement about fascism, if true, betrays a deep misunderstanding of what it is. Fascism, as Mussolini defined it, is the complete takeover of the state, including the military, police, courts, schools - and science - by the great banks and corporations. As such, fascism represents the complete triumph of corruption.
Fighting global warming by installing a fascist dictatorship is one of the stupidist ideas I've heard all day.
After fifteen years the models are on very shaky ground.
"After fifteen years the models are on very shaky ground"
average of 102 model runs vs. the real world:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/models-vs-datasets.jpg
You would be on to something if you could explain to us how they controlled for the known stratospheric cooling in the satellite data....
Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trendshttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6987/abs/nature02524.html
Are you aware about how a satellite measures the temperature and the isssues? From Wiki:
Not as cut and dried as you would hope, eh?
Queen of the non-sequitor returns! You're given proof of the uselessness of the models, and your best shot is to throw in some tangential crap without making any attempt to explain why you believe it bears any relevance. Presumably because... you can't.
You are a fraud.
And you either are deliberately lying or too stupid to understand...
Your choice....
good link, eh,
right?
SO you say yet none appear to actually be wrong. The models predict warming, we get warming, and then the real warming is even hotter than predicted. That's not a failure of the model, that's us doubling-down on stupid and burning more fuel for no good reason but to run leaf-blowers and have 3 TV's and 5 x-boxes in a single room, just to be fuckmonkeys.
Er, no, the 'accredited', IPCC 'science is settled' models predicted a range of increases of temperature, and completely failed to foresee the current hiatus in warming. Ergo, the models are (at least at this stage) completely worthless.
There is no hiatus in warming.
You say hiatus but I see warming.
How is it you're blind to the warming?
I have a thermometer. I can feel how warm it is. It's not cooling, how can you say there is cooling?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate.html
No cooling at all
Because the models don't "see" volcanos, increased aerosols, weaker than expected solar cycles and predominantly La Nina conditions...
Ergo, you are full of shit....
Because the models don't "see" volcanos, increased aerosols, weaker than expected solar cycles and predominantly La Nina conditions...
Ergo, you are full of shit....
I see! So you agree that the models AGW proponents rely on for their scaremongering don't take into account all the stuff that influences global temperature? And yet you continue to flog the AGW horse?
You really are one of the least intellectually honest people on ZH, grrrrlfriend.
No, that is not what I said...
Quit deliberately being so fucking thick...
They certainly do take into account this things, but why should I waste time explaining to you something that you really have no interest in learning about...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html
Here is the main figure from the paper free of charge
Ah, the Queen of the non-sequitor returns.
MeelionD0llerBogus: SO you say yet none appear to actually be wrong. The models predict warming, we get warming, and then the real warming is even hotter than predicted.
BigJim: Er, no, the 'accredited', IPCC 'science is settled' models predicted a range of increases of temperature, and completely failed to foresee the current hiatus in warming. Ergo, the models are (at least at this stage) completely worthless.
FlakMeister: Because the models don't "see" volcanos, increased aerosols, weaker than expected solar cycles and predominantly La Nina conditions...
BigJim: I see! So you agree that the models AGW proponents rely on for their scaremongering don't take into account all the stuff that influences global temperature?
FlakMeister: No, that is not what I said...
Yes, Grrrrlfriend, that is EXACTLY what you said. You are either completely dishonest or simply cannot follow a train of thought.
As I've already proven you a liar several times now your claim of 'non sequitor' stands no ground either.
You claim a hiatus in warming and I show links many times over that prove there is no hiatus, only warming.
When you start to understand that is being compared are temperature projections into the future that have not been corrected for the known (not assumed) values for aerosols, volcanoes, solar variation and actual GHG emissions...
Those are required inputs to the climate model...
Another major effect that is not modeled is the ENSO, i.e. El Ninos and La Ninas. It is very true that we cannot model weather 6 months out with any degree of accuracy. We also don't need to for long term climate predictions. The reason being is that over ~30 years, the ENSO cycles average out, but there is no guarentee that it does over 10 years...
When you correct for the measured and not assumed values of the above you get a very different story...
So open your eyes and quit being thick...
And if you really want to understand what is going on I suggest you read this and links therein...
This is a simple 2 parameter heat exchange model that describes the past 120 years perfectly:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/once-is-not-enough/
http://web.archive.org/web/20091124213247/http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...
After that, don't ever insinuate that models cannot do the job....