Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[BCO]

You seem to have mastered many of the techniques below, I might add.

Step three: (Not) Responding to Criticism
All great minds will be criticized by peon scientists who have grown fat and bloated with public grant funds. They've been feeding at the public coffers for so long, they wouldn't know an original idea if it fell out of the ether and struck them on their thick skulls. Here are some simple responses to common criticisms:

Accusation: "You haven't published in a real peer-reviewed journal"
Response: Either say "Peer review is just an old-boys network for peon scientists to pat each other on the back", or accuse journal editors of persecuting you. Compare yourself to Galileo.

Accusation: "You don't have solid proof"
Response: Either restate what you said already, restate it slightly differently, call your accuser a name, or suggest they are part of the conspiracy to hide the truth. Compare yourself to Galileo.

Accusation: "Because of X, Y, and Z, your theory is false and you're an idiot"
Response: Yell "That's Ad Hominem - I win the argument" (and that they've persecuted you).

Accusation: "Because of X, Y and Z, you are wrong"
Response: If they fail to call you an idiot, there are a few ways to respond to this. Either nitpick an aspect of their argument so that you can ignore the rest while diverting the discussion into a meaningless tangent. Or cut and paste large sections of print or references to papers that may or may not agree with you (the exhaustion strategy). Finally, it's always a good idea to just ignore them and restate your original argument. Alternatively demand they provide you with *scientific* evidence that their theory is the correct one. If they do, ignore it and restate your original argument.

Accusation: "No credible scientists or scientific agencies believe this theory"
Response: "That's because they're part of a conspiracy to hide the truth!" In addition assert motives for the conspiracy like maintaining control over the populace, spreading materialistic atheist dogma, acquiring grant money, etc. Don't forget to challenge orthodoxy and compare yourself to Galileo! He was persecuted by the orthodoxy too! Remember, whenever a majority of scientists believe anything, that means it's wrong. Cite Kuhn, compare yourself to Galileo again.

If they show up at your blog and leave comments, remember to delete anything critical at all, dissent must not be tolerated on your home turf. Anything critical might damage the proof of your unassailable intellect, and the absence of critique will make it appear as if your critics are afraid to engage you on your own turf.

You see? It's easy! All you have to do is ignore anything that contradicts your theory, nitpick others' arguments, force them to explain themselves, accuse them of lying, accuse them of conspiring against the truth, exhaust them with dumps of links or citations, repeat yourself, and compare yourself to Galileo, because he had problems convincing the orthodoxy too. Also, don't forget to call yourself a skeptic, or dissident, or iconoclast.

 

[Phronesis]

Who decides what is the accepted science again? Oh yeah wait science is not a democracy. Deal with the evidence.
If one is skeptical of the claims of this so-called "accepted science" are you a skeptic or a denier?
Is it wrong to be a skeptic/denier?
Is it right to label others as deniers without engaging in actual arguments and discussion of data... you know actual evidence?

The only thing you seem to be good at is to use the argument from authority... nothing else. You know what, you don't ever engage in ACTUALLY DISCUSSING evidence.

So BCO, I think now is a good time you at least show you have an inkling of what scientific evidence there is for the magnitude that CO2 has towards climate change. or you can hide behind cute articles demonizing all those who have opinions contrary to your own.

BTW, for each cute article you dig up that does not deal with facts and evidence related to CO2 and warming, there are bound to be at least 1 in reply. Like here.

 

[BCO]

Who decides what is the accepted science again? Oh yeah wait science is not a democracy. Deal with the evidence.
If one is skeptical of the claims of this so-called "accepted science" are you a skeptic or a denier?
Is it wrong to be a skeptic/denier?
Is it right to label others as deniers without engaging in actual arguments and discussion of data... you know actuall evidence?

The only thing you seem to be good at is to use the argument from authority... nothing else. You know what, you don't ever engage in ACTUALLY DISCUSSING evidence.

So BCO, I think now is a good time you at least show you have an inkling of what scientific evidence there is for the magnitude that CO2 has towards climate change. or you can hide behind cute articles demonizing all those who have opinions contrary to your own.

Who decides what the accepted science is? Well, the scientific process itself. It becomes clear when looking at large bodies of work on a particular subject what the accepted principal is. This is verified by meta studies like Oreskes'. It also becomes formalised by scientific bodies like the IPCC or the Royal Academy etc.

I'm not a climate scientist and neither are you. I have never made any claims to be able to authoritatively argue this myself. Nor do I feel that I am obliged to. You can't expect every person to be able to have an expert knowledge of every subject in order to be able to discuss that subject. That's the difference between me and you - I admit that I don't know much, while you pretend to know everything about everything.

You are misrepresenting my "argument from authority". There's nothing wrong with arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the problem only arises when it is claimed that the authority is infallible and can be exempted from criticism. Notwithstanding, there has been no major criticism raised yet that has majorly upset the current understanding of AGW - that is a fact, not an appeal to authority. I have never once said that the IPCC is infallible. I have always said that the scientific process would prevail in the end, but that the current AGW theory is the best we have.

Here's my understanding - it is a physical law that CO2 (and other ghg's) traps long wave radiation that is emitted from the earth's warm surface, preventing it from escaping into space and thereby warming the atmosphere. Humans have emitted billions of tons of GHGs into the atmosphere. These emissions cause small amounts of warming which lead to feedbacks that cause further warming. Other proposed climate forcings like solar forcing have not withstood in-depth scrutiny from the greater climate scientific community. Neither have alternate theories like the urban heat island effect etc.

 

[rwenzori]

I'm not a climate scientist and neither are you.

Phroners acts like he is an expert in everything. "This leads to a perverse result where people with less competence will rate their ability more highly than people with relatively more competence" - the Dunning-Kruger effect. Sadly Phroners demonstrates the extremes of the effect.

 

[Phronesis]

You are misrepresenting my "argument from authority". There's nothing wrong with arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the problem only arises when it is claimed that the authority is infallible and can be exempted from criticism.

But those criticizing them are labeled as deniers. Well done Dr logic, you make perfect sense, yet again.

Here's my understanding - it is a physical law that CO2 (and other ghg's) traps long wave radiation that is emitted from the earth's warm surface, preventing it from escaping into space and thereby warming the atmosphere.

How is your understanding of CO2's ability to trap long wave radiation in relation to its concentration?
Directly proportional? (linear or otherwise?)
Does it have an upper limit or not?
Will it increase indefinately if CO2 levels rise indefinately?

Humans have emitted billions of tons of GHGs into the atmosphere. These emissions cause small amounts of warming which lead to feedbacks that cause further warming.

How is your (and the scientific community's for that matter) understanding with regards to positive feedback and negative feedback systems in the climate?

Wonderful opportunity for you to elaborate on your understang and current scientific understanding on these subjects.

Phroners acts like he is an expert in everything. "This leads to a perverse result where people with less competence will rate their ability more highly than people with relatively more competence" - the Dunning-Kruger effect. Sadly Phroners demonstrates the extremes of the effect.

Lol, coming from the guy telling others they don't understand definitions without showing he does either.

 

[BCO]

Got run for an hour or 2 - will reply this evening.

 

[BCO]

But those criticizing them are labeled as deniers. Well done Dr logic, you make perfect sense, yet again.

You, Phronesis, are not qualified to criticise a peer reviewed climate science paper. You continually "latch onto anything that appears to be a weakness or an error in the science, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence in the published literature." Other people *are* qualified to criticise climate science papers and they do. If their critical work gets published it might end up making a difference in the field. I make no claims the original author of XYZ mainstream work is above criticism - anyone qualified to find genuine shortcomings in his work is free to do so. You and I are NOT qualified, so let's put this "argument from authority" nonsense to bed.

How is your understanding of CO2's ability to trap long wave radiation in relation to its concentration?
Directly proportional? (linear or otherwise?)

It's a linear relationship (barring normal variability in weather of course).

Does it have an upper limit or not?
Will it increase indefinately if CO2 levels rise indefinately?

"Upper limit" and "indefinitely" can mean a lot of things. I doubt the global mean temperatures will one day be 897348632654324732646 degress

How is your (and the scientific community's for that matter) understanding with regards to positive feedback and negative feedback systems in the climate?

Albedo change due to melting ice is a positive feedback. Positive feedbacks could occur from methane releases from hitherto frozen peat bogs and the ocean floor. An decrease in rainfall in some areas might result in these drier areas becoming more prone to bigger and more frequent forest fires.

Negative feedbacks? Jeez I'm really not sure. Maybe increased cloud cover?

 

[Phronesis]

You, Phronesis, are not qualified to criticise a peer reviewed climate science paper.

Define qualified.

You continually "latch onto anything that appears to be a weakness or an error in the science, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence in the published literature."

You just don't like to read peer-reviewed literature showing the effect of GCRs, PDO and other natural factors on climate change. The word...natural cycle climate denier comes to mind, but as you know, labeling others for the sake of cheap points in a debate is not the best tactic (unless you are dealing with rainman cause that is all he can do).

Other people *are* qualified to criticise climate science papers and they do. If their critical work gets published it might end up making a difference in the field.

They do, you just latch onto any nonsense from realclimate to further support your bias.

I make no claims the original author of XYZ mainstream work is above criticism - anyone qualified to find genuine shortcomings in his work is free to do so. You and I are NOT qualified, so let's put this "argument from authority" nonsense to bed.

Then why don't start discussing actual data.

It's a linear relationship (barring normal variability in weather of course).

Welcome to provide peer-reviewed article.

"Upper limit" and "indefinitely" can mean a lot of things. I doubt the global mean temperatures will one day be 897348632654324732646 degress

So what is the upper limit or where do you think CO2 will be saturated enough not to add to trap long wave radiation? Peer-reviewed literature Do some homework won't you, it is much better that simply referring to outdated IPCC reports.

Albedo change due to melting ice is a positive feedback. Positive feedbacks could occur from methane releases from hitherto frozen peat bogs and the ocean floor. An decrease in rainfall in some areas might result in these drier areas becoming more prone to bigger and more frequent forest fires.

Negative feedbacks? Jeez I'm really not sure. Maybe increased cloud cover?

Could... might...
Peer-reviewed articles will do better.
How about those negative feedback systems... Included in IPCC as part of the "consensus science"? Read up a little there...

 

[BCO]

Define qualified.

You're not a qualified, much less peer reviewed climate scientist.

You just don't like to read peer-reviewed literature showing the effect of GCRs, PDO and other natural factors on climate change. The word...natural cycle climate denier comes to mind, but as you know, labeling others for the sake of cheap points in a debate is not the best tactic (unless you are dealing with rainman cause that is all he can do).

We have discussed this AT LENGTH before. Yes, there are peer reviewed papers about GCR etc but at this time none of them have yet managed to hold their own under scrutiny from the greater climate science community. I was talking about the vast majority of literature on global warming... are you saying that papers about GCR and natural climate cycles form the bulk of the literature? Nope. You are "latching onto" those few papers that are "alternative".

They do, you just latch onto any nonsense from realclimate to further support your bias.

O rly? Which "groundbreaking" research that you have linked in this thread has made a fundamental difference to the mainstream understanding of global warming?

Then why don't start discussing actual data.

I'm not qualified to do so.

Welcome to provide peer-reviewed article.

http://news.concordia.ca/main_story/014941.shtml

So what is the upper limit or where do you think CO2 will be saturated enough not to add to trap long wave radiation? Peer-reviewed literature Do some homework won't you, it is much better that simply referring to outdated IPCC reports.

Why are you wanting me to be a google bot? I don't know this answer. Would it make you feel better if I googled it? The IPCC reports are hardly dated besides. The last one is barely 2 years old.

Could... might...
Peer-reviewed articles will do better.
How about those negative feedback systems... Included in IPCC as part of the "consensus science"? Read up a little there...

These "coulds" and "mights" are based on peer reviewed information. It's the nature of the field to say could and might (albeit with relative degrees of certainty) - our understanding of climate systems is not sufficient to make future predictions with enough certainty to say "will". You just have to deal with that.

 

[rwenzori]

Define qualified.

What you aren't.

 

[Phronesis]

You're not a qualified, much less peer reviewed climate scientist.

You still have not said what you mean by "qualified". Just assert that I am not qualified and stated the obvious that I am not a peer reviewed climate scientist. However, I am sure you did not imply only peer reviewed climate scientists are qualified to read and understand peer-reviewed articles.
So, define "qualified"...

We have discussed this AT LENGTH before. Yes, there are peer reviewed papers about GCR etc but at this time none of them have yet managed to hold their own under scrutiny from the greater climate science community.

Hold on,
1) Below you say you are not qualified to discuss actual data.
2) You haven't actually said anything to show you have even a remote comprehension of GCRs, PDO and other natural cycles. Just "IPCC and others say so" arguments. Do you understand what an argument from authority is? Do you understand what it means to look at the data and evidence and peer-reviewed literature?
3) And now you want to claim there is not a single article that held it's own in the greater climate science community. I am sorry, but when CERN decides to do a study based on these articles that you claim do not hold their own in the greater climate science community, do you still think it is clever to do so....

I was talking about the vast majority of literature on global warming... are you saying that papers about GCR and natural climate cycles form the bulk of the literature? Nope. You are "latching onto" those few papers that are "alternative".

Hold on, aren't you the guy that said "so let's put this "argument from authority" nonsense to bed"... I think you should try harder and let the scientific progress take its course.

O rly? Which "groundbreaking" research that you have linked in this thread has made a fundamental difference to the mainstream understanding of global warming?

Did you not read (with comprehension) the study CERN is going to do BASED on previous articles on GCRs and sun-climate correlations?

I'm not qualified to do so.

but you have discussed at length why articles do not hold up? Ok Bob, if you say do.

http://news.concordia.ca/main_story/014941.shtml

You do understand what a peer-reviewed article means right? P.S., it is the one in nature refered to in this article. Why didn't you give a link to that one? Please do, I want to read it and so should you. Also, you sure it is not logarithmic ?

Why are you wanting me to be a google bot? I don't know this answer. Would it make you feel better if I googled it? The IPCC reports are hardly dated besides. The last one is barely 2 years old.

Uhm, you seem to be the "expert" on what the IPCC says and how they come to their conclusions. Why don't you find out what they actually say?

These "coulds" and "mights" are based on peer reviewed information. It's the nature of the field to say could and might (albeit with relative degrees of certainty) - our understanding of climate systems is not sufficient to make future predictions with enough certainty to say "will". You just have to deal with that.

But there is a "consensus" (based on insufficient understanding of the climate) that the earth WILL heat up and it WILL be catastrophic if we don't do something about it. And that is supposed to make sense...

More about negative feedbacks...
On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data

Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.

But, the earth WILL heat up and WILL cause damage...

 

[BCO]

You still have not said what you mean by "qualified". Just assert that I am not qualified and stated the obvious that I am not a peer reviewed climate scientist. However, I am sure you did not imply only peer reviewed climate scientists are qualified to read and understand peer-reviewed articles.
So, define "qualified"...


Hold on,
1) Below you say you are not qualified to discuss actual data.
2) You haven't actually said anything to show you have even a remote comprehension of GCRs, PDO and other natural cycles. Just "IPCC and others say so" arguments. Do you understand what an argument from authority is? Do you understand what it means to look at the data and evidence and peer-reviewed literature?
3) And now you want to claim there is not a single article that held it's own in the greater climate science community. I am sorry, but when CERN decides to do a study based on these articles that you claim do not hold their own in the greater climate science community, do you still think it is clever to do so....

Hold on, aren't you the guy that said "so let's put this "argument from authority" nonsense to bed"... I think you should try harder and let the scientific progress take its course.



Did you not read (with comprehension) the study CERN is going to do BASED on previous articles on GCRs and sun-climate correlations?





but you have discussed at length why articles do not hold up? Ok Bob, if you say do.


You do understand what a peer-reviewed article means right? P.S., it is the one in nature refered to in this article. Why didn't you give a link to that one? Please do, I want to read it and so should you. Also, you sure it is not logarithmic ?



Uhm, you seem to be the "expert" on what the IPCC says and how they come to their conclusions. Why don't you find out what they actually say?



But there is a "consensus" (based on insufficient understanding of the climate) that the earth WILL heat up and it WILL be catastrophic if we don't do something about it. And that is supposed to make sense...

More about negative feedbacks...
On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data


But, the earth WILL heat up and WILL cause damage...

Phrony, you're just repeating yourself now. I have answered all your questions above I'm not doing it again.

 

[Phronesis]

If you say so and it makes you happy .

 

[BCO]

I actually can't just ignore your snide little comments, so here we go (again).

You still have not said what you mean by "qualified". Just assert that I am not qualified and stated the obvious that I am not a peer reviewed climate scientist. However, I am sure you did not imply only peer reviewed climate scientists are qualified to read and understand peer-reviewed articles.
So, define "qualified"...

I have defined qualified. Someone who is qualified to critique of peer reviewed literature is someone who has a *drum roll* QUALIFICATION in that field (preferably a doctorate or post-doc) or someone who has undergone peer review themselves in that field. You might *think* that you can understand all the nuts and bolts of these papers, but you simply can't. This was shown convincingly enough by Sylas over at the physics forums. There's a reason that you are not asked to perform peer review on climate science papers - YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED. All you are is a commentator from the peanut gallery.

Hold on,
1) Below you say you are not qualified to discuss actual data.
2) You haven't actually said anything to show you have even a remote comprehension of GCRs, PDO and other natural cycles. Just "IPCC and others say so" arguments. Do you understand what an argument from authority is? Do you understand what it means to look at the data and evidence and peer-reviewed literature?
3) And now you want to claim there is not a single article that held it's own in the greater climate science community. I am sorry, but when CERN decides to do a study based on these articles that you claim do not hold their own in the greater climate science community, do you still think it is clever to do so....

1) Yes, I said I'm not qualified to discuss the actual data. What's the problem here?

2) We have discussed your spurious claims that I am employing the argument from authority. To repeat: I am NOT saying that the IPCC is beyond criticism. I am NOT saying that just because the IPCC says it, it must be true. I AM saying that so far, no criticism levelled against the established science of AGW has proven substantial enough to topple the current AGW theory. (You know how I know? Because the current AGW theory is the same one from 20 years ago, and there's no global conspiracy behind that). This is NOT hard to understand - for someone with such astoundingly high comprehension of all things scientific, you really seem to struggle with the notion that the processes involved in science and the changes that can (and do take place) in the scientific community do not happen overnight.

3) No. I am claiming that up until now none of these studies have had a fundamental impact on the current understanding of AGW. It is still the accepted theory that man made GHGs are the primary driver of current warming. You just don't get it, do you? Yes, CERN is studying GCRs. Yes, GCRs may prove to be a big factor in current warming. Just because CERN scientists see merit in investigating GCRs further does NOT mean that they have suddenly toppled the established GCCR theory. Time will tell what CERN's new research reveals and how it fares under further external scrutiny.

Hold on, aren't you the guy that said "so let's put this "argument from authority" nonsense to bed"... I think you should try harder and let the scientific progress take its course.

I'm not saying that you are employing the argument from authority. I am saying that you continually trumpet one or other new, "groundbreaking" paper as the one that's going to topple the entire establishment. You put massive weight and importance on those rare papers that confirm your ideological standpoint while conveniently downplaying the importance of the thousands of others that don't agree with your ideology. You make a HUGE deal when a paper you like is peer reviewed, but seem to ignore that this same peer review process is employed on all the other "mainstream" papers too.

You do understand what a peer-reviewed article means right? P.S., it is the one in nature refered to in this article. Why didn't you give a link to that one? Please do, I want to read it and so should you. Also, you sure it is not logarithmic ?

No ****ing ****, Sherlock. More pedantic snotty bull**** from you. Why so specific that I provide the actual link to the Nature article? Most journals are not free anyway so at best you can get the abstract from Nature. So why not search for it yourself?

Did you not read (with comprehension) the study CERN is going to do BASED on previous articles on GCRs and sun-climate correlations?

but you have discussed at length why articles do not hold up? Ok Bob, if you say do.

Actually, I have not discussed at length why the articles don't hold up. As I have stated before, I lack the expertise to discuss at length why. See my comments above - you really just don't seem to get it. I'm not sure why.

Uhm, you seem to be the "expert" on what the IPCC says and how they come to their conclusions. Why don't you find out what they actually say?

I have never made any claims about being an expert. You know that.

But there is a "consensus" (based on insufficient understanding of the climate) that the earth WILL heat up and it WILL be catastrophic if we don't do something about it. And that is supposed to make sense...

More about negative feedbacks...
On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data

But, the earth WILL heat up and WILL cause damage...

Yes, the earth WILL and HAS BEEN warming. I don't think that anyone has said anything about WILLs when it comes to predictions about feedbacks and environmental consequences. The IPCC uses "coulds" and "mights" and then attaches degrees of certainty to these. They are not making any 100% claims except that warming will continue as CO2 increases.
_____________________________________________________

You know, I've tried very hard to treat you with respect and to actually read your posts and get where you're coming from. Most other rational posters on this forum think you're an absolute joke and are unwilling to even give you a chance. For a long time I thought that this was unfair of them. But I've honestly had enough of you holier-than-thou, smarter-than-you-are, know it all attitude. Welcome to my banlist.

 

[rwenzori]

You know, I've tried very hard to treat you with respect and to actually read your posts and get where you're coming from. Most other rational posters on this forum think you're an absolute joke and are unwilling to even give you a chance. For a ling time I thought that this was unfair of them. But I've honestly had enough of you holier-than-thou, smarter-than-you-are, know it all attitude. Welcome to my banlist.

Great post BCO. Welcome to the club. The good folk over at forum.skeptic.za.org arrived at much the same conclusion as you.

 

[BCO]

Great post BCO. Welcome to the club. The good folk over at forum.skeptic.za.org arrived at much the same conclusion as you.

Sad but true.

 

[Phronesis]

I have defined qualified. Someone who is qualified to critique of peer reviewed literature is someone who has a *drum roll* QUALIFICATION in that field (preferably a doctorate or post-doc) or someone who has undergone peer review themselves in that field.

Wow, so in effect, you are saying that those with PhD's and DSc's in unrelated fields such as mechanical engineering, molecular biology, medicine, chemistry, biochemistry etc are not qualified to critique peer-reviewed literature related to climate science? Fair enough. And what about just posting about them, you giving information about articles related to the subject?
How about you posting an article that runs a little contra to your preconceived notions of climate change?

You might *think* that you can understand all the nuts and bolts of these papers, but you simply can't.

Nice argument from ignorance there chap.

This was shown convincingly enough by Sylas over at the physics forums.

You mean the guy that said he is not an expert on this and just an amateur who has fun reading the experts? Ok, if you say so...

There's a reason that you are not asked to perform peer review on climate science papers - YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED. All you are is a commentator from the peanut gallery.

And you? Another peanut?

1) Yes, I said I'm not qualified to discuss the actual data. What's the problem here?

You said you are not qualified, yet you also said:

We have discussed this AT LENGTH before. Yes, there are peer reviewed papers about GCR etc but at this time none of them have yet managed to hold their own under scrutiny from the greater climate science community.

How about some friggin consistency and coherence from your side?

2) We have discussed your spurious claims that I am employing the argument from authority. To repeat: I am NOT saying that the IPCC is beyond criticism....

Enough said. Now let's post interesting articles not?

3) No. I am claiming that up until now none of these studies have had a fundamental impact on the current understanding of AGW. It is still the accepted theory that man made GHGs are the primary driver of current warming. You just don't get it, do you? Yes, CERN is studying GCRs. Yes, GCRs may prove to be a big factor in current warming. Just because CERN scientists see merit in investigating GCRs further does NOT mean that they have suddenly toppled the established GCCR theory. Time will tell what CERN's new research reveals and how it fares under further external scrutiny.

Time will tell I guess.
Let me give you an example of settled science...
It is accepted and settled that mRNA is transcribed from DNA. It is accepted and settled that mRNA is needed for the formation of proteins. All these observations have lead to the development of techniques that are very useful in our everyday living. All because the science is settled and understood.

Now, what we have with climate science is the FACT that we do not know the true impact of all the variables that play a role in climate change. This INCLUDE cloud cover, GCRs, the PDO, etc. You can carry on saying that CO2 is the major driver in climate change today because it is believed to be the consensus opinion. However, claiming it while simultaneously claimimg that the impact of all the variables on climate change is unknown seems a little bit of a stretch. Like you say time will tell.

I'm not saying that you are employing the argument from authority.

You are the one saying.... "I was talking about the vast majority of literature on global warming"

I am saying that you continually trumpet one or other new, "groundbreaking" paper as the one that's going to topple the entire establishment.

Topple the entire establishment? Oh dear, and here I thought these papers will increase our knowledge on climate change . You know, that phenomenon that has happened for billions of years...

You put massive weight and importance on those rare papers that confirm your ideological standpoint while conveniently downplaying the importance of the thousands of others that don't agree with your ideology. You make a HUGE deal when a paper you like is peer reviewed, but seem to ignore that this same peer review process is employed on all the other "mainstream" papers too.

Your word "seem" needs a little work. Don't you just love articles that increase our understanding of climate change?

No ****ing ****, Sherlock. More pedantic snotty bull**** from you. Why so specific that I provide the actual link to the Nature article? Most journals are not free anyway so at best you can get the abstract from Nature. So why not search for it yourself?

Wot is the matter, can't even find a link to the abstract? You give the story, you provide the link to at least the abstract mmmk. Waiting.

Actually, I have not discussed at length why the articles don't hold up. As I have stated before, I lack the expertise to discuss at length why. See my comments above - you really just don't seem to get it. I'm not sure why.

Hold on, you said:

We have discussed this AT LENGTH before. Yes, there are peer reviewed papers about GCR etc but at this time none of them have yet managed to hold their own under scrutiny from the greater climate science community.

How about you try harder to be consistent and coherent .

I have never made any claims about being an expert. You know that.

Of course, but you "have discussed this AT LENGTH before"...

Yes, the earth WILL and HAS BEEN warming. I don't think that anyone has said anything about WILLs when it comes to predictions about feedbacks and environmental consequences. The IPCC uses "coulds" and "mights" and then attaches degrees of certainty to these. They are not making any 100% claims except that warming will continue as CO2 increases.

Funny thing is, people have made quite accurate predictions without factoring in AGW. See below.

_____________________________________________________

You know, I've tried very hard to treat you with respect and to actually read your posts and get where you're coming from. Most other rational posters on this forum think you're an absolute joke and are unwilling to even give you a chance.

Then what are you and rainman doing?

 

[Phronesis]

Now for a little news closer to home:
By Professor Will Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria

Contact him if you like: alexwjr@iafrica.com

He rights the following:
Beyond Copenhagen by Will Alexander

My colleagues and I have developed and verified a multi-year, regional, hydrometeorological prediction model. Last year my article titled Likelihood of a Global Drought in 2009—2016 was published in the South African Civil Engineer, circulation 8,000. The drought has just started in parts of South Africa.

On 12 August our Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs announced that parts of the lower Limpopo River catchment have been declared a water supply disaster area. This is in the far northern region of South Africa. The Albasini Dam that supplies the Louis Trichardt area is only 26 percent full. The Middle Letaba Dam is only 6 percent full.

On Sunday 16 August, prayers for rain were held in George, which is in the southern coastal area of South Africa. The dams in this region are also at a very low level. These two events not only confirm my prediction but also the views of others that global climatic disturbances are on the way. How will they affect the Copenhagen discussions and beyond?...

Read on...

Also, here he is having a debate:
Climate change – the clash of theories, by Professor Will Alexander
Interesting read.

Unfortunately Prof Alexander will be labeled as a “denier” by those who do not share his opinion, and thereby stifling any meaningful debate.

 

[Phronesis]

North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008

Well that was just wrong.
Here and here

Even though the greenpeace leader admitted (on HardTalk) this was an exaggeration, he still thinks scare tactics/alarmism is ok...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE[/ame]​

 

[Phronesis]

In hot water: World's ocean temps warmest recorded

WASHINGTON — The world's oceans this summer are the warmest on record.

The National Climatic Data Center, the government agency that keeps weather records, says the average global ocean temperature in July was 62.6 degrees. That's the hottest since record-keeping began in 1880. The previous record was set in 1998.

Meteorologists blame a combination of a natural El Nino weather pattern on top of worsening manmade global warming. The warmer water could add to the melting of sea ice and possibly strengthen some hurricanes.

The result has meant lots of swimming at beaches in Maine with pleasant 72-degree water. Ocean temperatures reached 88 degrees as far north as Ocean City, Md., this week.

The Gulf of Mexico, where warm water fuels hurricanes, has temperatures dancing around 90. Most of the water in the Northern Hemisphere has been considerably warmer than normal. The Mediterranean is about three degrees warmer than normal. Higher temperatures rule in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

It's most noticeable near the Arctic, where water temperatures are as much as 10 degrees above average.

Breaking heat records in water is more ominous as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land. That's because water takes longer to heat up and doesn't cool off as easily, said climate scientist Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in British Columbia.

"This is another yet really important indicator of the change that's occurring," Weaver said.

Oh no ...