Not sure what your point is here. And I lost track of which links you're referring to.
There are no claims in science, just facts in evidence. No this is not new. Reactionary anti-science mania is, though.
The collected data extends back roughly 60 (CO[sub]2[/sub]) to 120 (temp.) years. The substantial concerns leading to the creation of IPCC go back a generation (25 YA). The observable trend (e.g. linear approximation) is monotonic increasing, available in evidence since at least the Truman era, earlier if you consider only warming. We can mark several points on that trend line in which scientists were expressing this, all of which precede this recent reactionary anti-science mania. It's simply an innovation in Republic disinformation campaigning. Science is what it is, and works the same in the way it transports your posts across the web as it does in studying and reporting on the climate. You can no sooner disregard the work of IPCC scientists as you can the work of engineers and physicists who gave you your better-than-Star-Trek communicator. And that's because we're all working out of the same toolbox. And the master craftsmen are sweating away at the lathes, fashioning newer and better tools. You've characterized shared technology as group think. It's a sad commentary on the way ignorance leads to cynicism. Knowledge of the Greenhouse Effect extends back to the era before Anabaptists would grow into ugly little mean illiterate anti-science fundamentalists. Presumably you're not a technophobe, but obviously it takes a little training to recognize what trends are. And that science was baselined when people were still living in log cabins.
No, it was proven about two centuries ago in connection with solving the ultraviolet catastrophe. Sorry to burst your bubble, it's not a long shot at all, just elementary physics. The only long shot is whether the numbskull maniacs will ever comprehend any of the science they're babbling about.
I gave you the charts. They addressed it. This issue is DOA, it's a rehash of the parading of science under the lens of ignorance. They went looking for local maximums and were overjoyed to discover that we recently passed through one. That's your answer, I thought you understood that from the charts. The maniacs evidently never took freshman calculus or physics or they would have some respect for the experts who wield it with ease. If you need a detailed explanation of why your source is rehashing a long dead topic, you might want to go Google the testimony given by NOAA to Congress when this mania was going through one of its most bizarre temper tantrums. Let me know if you need help with that.
OK next, you're going to remind us that IPCC has advanced from its original charter since the UN commissioned it to prepare a world body to address climate change:
That's pretty standard fare. Nothing special there. So you give us the cite.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
And here comes the attack:
You're just recasting aspersions on the work done since the original charter in 1988, which explains the harm from increasing greenhouse gas emissions, with earlier conclusions from studies on anthropogenic emissions. You want us to throw all of that work in the trash because your illiterate buddies have decided that these evil scientists are at the controls their doomsday machine, ready to pull the lever, wringing their hands and cackling like witches? That's about all I can get from what you're telling me. So far you haven't told us what IPCC actually said was the evidence of anthropogenic emissions. Maybe you'll stipulate to that; that it's moot. But you have no actual evidence that IPCC is wrong, that science is broken, that evidence is doctored, that they're playing Machiavellian games and so forth, so you're falling back to the worst perpetrators of pseudoscience and propaganda, folks like Singer and Steele -- because they give the false persona of actually practicing science. It's all a smoke screen, but only designed for the rheumy eyed idiots who think they're smarter than the experts. The rest of the world is just yawning, wondering when these folks will die off, hoping the youngsters haven't been too seriously damaged by the propaganda machine you're defending.
Tell that to your doctor who's reminding you to ditch the cigarettes. Correlation is what it is. This is first order analysis. That's why people go to school to learn science. If all we had in our rucksack to solve all technical problems were tools of the first order, we'd still be living in serfdoms. Fortunately, to save you the trouble of having to enroll yourself in order to figure what basis vectors are, and what singular value decomposition is, technical stuff like that which you might encounter as you drill down into the puzzle, the universities have prepared millions of finely honed minds to do that work for you, many of whom have been writing on subjects like this since before your grandparents were born. And since 1988 the folks specializing in this field have been known as IPCC--but they represent the voice all of professionals and academics, and those folks attest to the science employed by the appointees because it's all drawn from that shared toolbox you're dismissing as group-think. The folks your buddies all calling dullards are no more dull-witted today than they were 25 years ago, or any other era. In fact they're better, smarter, esp. thanks to much better resource and tools, and finer grained-data. Of course you're assuming they are corrupt, so I guess all bets are off in proving to you that they've done the higher order analysis. I guess we could try go there too but I suspect your eyes will just glaze over.
The key is: what does IPCC tell about causation? You haven't elaborated on that, so I suspect this conversation will remain relegated to drawing lines in the sand around science and playing King of the Mountain. It's a highly technical subject like brain surgery. Do you assume to tell a brain surgeon he's doesn't know what he's doing? Most people don't even backseat drive their plumber or car mechanic, and that's hitting you square in the wallet. But anyone with little insight could pick up that level of technology pretty quickly. So what gives with all of the presumptions that climate scientists need help crossing the street?
As I said before it's premature to render any verdict on the findings of paleoclimatology. If you want to develop that some more go ahead. But while you're at it, try estimating the energy in the atmosphere over the last 100 years, and tell us why anyone cares about the pre-historic trends. This reminds me a little of trying to dismiss Big Bang theory for failing to satisfy the religious person's need for causation at the outset of the expansion.
Only if you short circuit all climate science and install yourself as Dean. But why go there?
That's nothing but sour grapes. Control freaks can't stand anyone with skill twiddling with the choke on the engine. They think the guy is showing off, trying to get into his girlfriend's pants or something. It's just ego, pure styrofoam. You lose a lot of that real quick struggling through your freshman exams. Nature really is what it is, and you simply have to let go of all of your beliefs in a Divine Master of the Universe in order to understand what it's telling you. I suggest you learn the story of the Ultraviolet Catastrophe and how it got us to where we are today (at least a few of the salient facts). Just a dash of science will go a long way to explaining why you simply can't bypass the fuel pump to get more mileage out of reactionary mania.
Geez.
Are you sure you're not a Baptist minister?
For starters, go figure out what thermal capacitance is and get back with me. We're not going to conduct classes here but you could use some help with the basics.
Not sure what you mean, but this isn't about me. I'm just here to help debunk the nuts. Ask NOAA. Let's get straight on that. There is no other authority but science. All we have is the data. The rest is either skill or styrofoam. I think you need to take a step back and re-examine the roots of your cynical skepticism of math and science. Did you have a problem in your early schooling that stilted you? Nothing personal, I feel I have to ask this because I'm noticing a lot of dropouts in the anti-science movement.
That's all meaningless to me. Until you get around to telling us how the solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe led to discovery of the greenhouse effect you haven't established a factual predicate for trotting out exhibits from the Republican briefs to the Southern Baptist Convention, or whatever these sources are that you're using.
Based on whose expert judgment? No, you can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand espouse the virtues of science by giving you modern medicine and gadgets and then on the other hand demonize the same hand that helps you. That's ludicrous. And irrationally cynical.
OK next you go back to attempting to discredit an expert your buddies havee singled out. This is in retaliation for the many sorties flown by educated people over nuts like ICR, and as I just did with Singer & Steele. Since your guys have nothing but nuts and windbags driving the car, it's open season on the diligent scientists who actually established themselves in their field by doing dastardy things like actually studying (we can nix all of this pretty quickly with our tutorial on the ultraviolet catastrophe) so here you go, full steam ahead, hoping to trounce one of the scientists that's been singled out:
Is that what you call science? Because if it is, then you're free to publish it as your rebuttal of her work. The reason that no one on Earth has succeeded in doing that ought to ring some bells. But more to the point, go find out the current estimate of how many species have gone into extinction as a percentage of all that ever evolved. Then discuss how many extinction events there were. Come back and tell us your findings on resiliency.
You mean I didn't rehash the response to what Steele is rehashing?
It's called pseudoscience. I thought you understood what I was talking about. Your guys are assuming that what he plotted is evidence of data doctoring, But that's a very bad assumption. And a doctored one at that. Doped up even.
I don't understand you. Steele is propagandizing. It's a pretense, nothing more. He hasn't done any science there, which is why he's giving it to a junk science rag.
Hah hah. That's your reference to my mention of you officer Obie with his twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us In so many words, I mean. That was my first thought when I saw his Exhibit A.
That will require us to enter the deadly realm of actual science. So far you're not demonstrating the chops to go there. You haven’t Googled this one yet to figure out what makes your source a chump? Or are you anticipating this with some other plan to attack as soon as we cross into that discussion. That's part of my problem here. I'm not really sure who the real milkweed is, because he's being kinda sly and crafty.
Do you even know what forcing is? You might want to start there. The problem with reading science is that you need some training to follow the discussion. I presume from this you've never done any modeling. The good news is, it's running in all the systems that provide you your infrastructure (in the form of predictive algorithms) and of course in the simulators used to test ideas before investments are squandered on the ones that won’t work. As I said before, the data speaks for itself. And I'll add to that the remark that modeling is what it is. If your intent is to trounce modeling (another severe weakness in the academic preparation of your average Republican) then we can go there too I suppose. But you have to take down all of academia as soon as you attack this position. Close all the colleges of science and engineering. Because they are dead on the water without modeling. And that includes all of the hospitals all of meteorology, aerospace, transportation, and of course economics which means banking in general . . . pretty soon the whole world implodes, like in the proverbial sci-fi paradox where people go back in time only to disturb something and erase their later existence.
Go back and explain the solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe, relate this to the discovery of the Greenhouse Effect, and come back and tell us what's so funny. :bugeye:
