Global warming?

[Happy Monkey]

Here's a new link to the PDF:

http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio2...8-myth1970.pdf

Those quotes are under the heading "Perpetuating the Myth", and are debunked by the paper.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

Yes, a perfect example of cherry picking. Worse, you cannot even summarize what each paper says.

Just clicking through and pulling some of the 117 papers from 2010.

(The whole list is here. http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html )

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/250912__928051726.pdf

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation
at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is
worse than at the local scale.
However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms.

http://www.bepress.com/spp/vol1/iss1/1/

CONCLUSIONS
Regional patterns of industrialization, land-use change and variations in the quality of temperature monitoring have been shown by several groups of authors to leave significant imprints on climate data, adding up to a widespread net warming bias that may account for as much as half the post-1980 warming over land. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC dismissed this evidence with the claim that “the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant” upon controlling for
atmospheric circulation patterns. This claim was presented without any supporting statistical evidence. The models in this paper implement a reasonable way of augmenting the original regressions with the relevant oscillation data, and the results contradict the IPCC claim. The temperature-industrialization correlations in question are quite robust to the inclusion of standard measures of the effects of atmospheric circulation patterns on temperatures, confirming the
presence of significant extraneous signals in surface climate data on a scale that may account for about half the observed upward trend over land since 1980.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...003.1554v1.pdf

11. Conclusion
The analysis of several records suggests that the IPCC’s claim that humanity is running an imminent danger because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions 22 is based on climate models that are too simplistic. In fact, these models fail to reproduce the temperature patterns and
the temperature oscillations at multiple time scales. (See also Appendixes H, J, X-Z). These models exclude several mechanisms that are likely to aect climate change related to natural temperature oscillations that have nothing to do with man. Indeed, these oscillations, such as a large 60 year cycle, appear to be synchronized with the oscillations of the solar system.
By ignoring these natural mechanisms, the IPCC, also through a questionable choice of data and labels as explained in Section 2, has greatly overestimated the eect of an anthropogenic forcing by a factor between 2 and 3 just to fit the observed global warming in
particular from 1970 to 2000, as the climate model depicted in Figure 11 shows. However, a detailed climatic reconstruction suggests that the phenomenological model depicted in Figures 13 and 15 is more satisfactory and is likely to be more accurate in forecastingclimate change during the next few decades, over which time the global surface temperature will likely remain steady or actually cool.
23

I have to go into a meeting or I would link to the other 10 papers I am continuing to browse through. But click on my link with Cherry Picked papers. Read the references. Read about their submission process. Read their numbers disproving the sources that prove AGW is happening.

[Spexxvet]

Coign, do you believe that the Earth, as a whole, is warming?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Those quotes are under the heading "Perpetuating the Myth", and are debunked by the paper.

well you are no fun...

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Here's a new link to the PDF:

http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio2...8-myth1970.pdf

Those quotes are under the heading "Perpetuating the Myth", and are debunked by the paper.

This pretty much sums it up:

But you can be sure the "global cooling consensus of the 70s" will pop up again.

[classicman]

Yes I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Someone has to ask the questions.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

Just clicking through and pulling some of the 117 papers from 2010.

Computer models that predicted where the moon would be were in error. That proves the Eagle could not have land on the moon - your GCM reasoning.

If any model has an error, then it proves the entire conclusion is wrong? That only the reverse is true? Let's see. It did not predict the increased temperatures in the Andes. That proves global cooling is occurring? Why use that logic? Because your every claim is by denial; not by providing facts.

Arguing by denial says zero facts and lots of opinions. Arguing by denial is how propaganda, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News lie. Since you are an honest person, you have no problem quoting specific number from at least ten of those 117 papers that show climate change is not occurring. After all, an honest person would never cite 117 papers without first reading and grasping every one. You will quote the specific numbers in each of ten papers due to honesty. Obviously it's not difficult. You read all 117 papers before recommending them. Therefore you already know where those numbers are. Only fools and liars would recommend 117 papers because a political agenda ordered them to believe. Clearly you are honest – you would not recommend something without first studying it – would you?

Citing 117 papers recommended by extremists without reading them is only what brainwashed people do. People easily told how to think only recite rhetoric. An honest person will cite from at least ten papers, number by number, that shows no temperature increases. Honest science says you will not use arguments based in denial. Honest science says you have and will quote real data. Good. Otherwise you would have only been insulting people.

[TheMercenary]

Well, Gore's not happy with Obamy....


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=13900390

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

Because your every claim is by denial; not by providing facts.

OK, let's flip your constant argument against you. You say global warming is occurring. And from your point of view it is caused by humans. (And I am not saying the Earth is not warming, I AM saying that carbon emissions are not causing it.)

Where is your proof? From University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU)? From World Meteorological Organization? From Al Gore?

My "denial" argument is showing that the proof is wrong. Your proof is costing us money and creating legislation to control our access to energy. My "denial" is to free us from an over powering government trying to control our life.

Show me your argument and I will show you the paper that says it's wrong.

As for the comment, "Did you read all 117 papers?" Where are your papers. Show me the ones you read to prove that mankind is heating up the Earth leading to natural disasters so you pass legislation that says I can't enjoy a clearly lit room, or buy an SUV, or must tax me and spend 90 Billion of my dollars on "clean" energy.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,...83,00.html?dbk

Your proof is costing us and your proof is based on faulty science. I HAVE to take the denial proof because the science I read says, "You can't prove your results with a cause and here is why." Yet you act like you know exactly what is happening, why it is happening and what we need to do to fix it and you are flat out wrong.

[TheMercenary]

Cogin, don't waste your time. Think Ted Kaczynski in a cabin in the woods.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Coign

... Your proof is costing us money and creating legislation to control our access to energy. My "denial" is to free us from an over powering government trying to control our life.

The money you keep referencing, $50 billion over 20 years or an average of $2.5 billion/year, amounts to less than one half of one percent of the budget annually. And not just for climate research but also for clean energy research, subsidies for regulatory compliance, etc.

I would also suggest that regulating offshore drilling or drilling in environmentally sensitive areas or regulating emissions is hardly controlling your life and has a positive economic impact, as does investing in clean energy technology.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

OK, let's flip your constant argument against you.

So you were lying all along. To avoid being labeled a liar, you want to flip the argument. You will post anything to avoid reality: you never read nor understood any of 117 papers that you recommended. You recommended 117 papers because extremist political types tell you how to think. How curious. Hitler also needed people just like that to gain power.

So easy, if you were posting honestly. Post numbers that prove no global warming. You cannot? You were lying? Your 117 papers do not say what you posted? Then why were you insulting everyone while wasting bandwidth?

An honest Coign easily posted numbers from ten papers ... if those papers prove that global warming does not exist. If you made a recommendation without reading them, then you lied. Are you despicable? Avoiding the label is easy. Just post numbers from ten papers that prove your claims?

It is called integrity. Only an honest Coign would immediately quote numbers from ten of those 117 papers that prove global warming does not exist. Because an honest Coign worries about his integrity. Liars never do.

Will Coign insult everyone in the Cellar by avoiding a simple challenge? You read and understood 117 papers before you recommended them – as any honest person would do. So an ethical Coign easily posts numbers from ten papers. An extremist Coign cannot. Will post argumentatively to avoid the challenge. Are you a liar? Or do you post numbers from ten papers. Time to find out who you really are. Honest or ‘brainwashed by soundbytes’? Which is you?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Coign

OK, let's flip your constant argument against you.

Where is your proof?

Show me your argument and I will show you the paper that says it's wrong.
I HAVE to take the denial proof because the science I read says, "You can't prove your results with a cause and here is why." Yet you act like you know exactly what is happening, why it is happening and what we need to do to fix it and you are flat out wrong.

Originally Posted by tw

So you were lying all along. To avoid being labeled a liar, you want to flip the argument.

Just prove global warming tommy, and all should be fine. Whats the problem?
No need to insult the poor chap just because he disagrees with you. I thought you reserved that treatment just for me.
Now I feel slighted.

[Spexxvet]

Here we go again.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I would also suggest that regulating offshore drilling or drilling in environmentally sensitive areas or regulating emissions is hardly controlling your life and has a positive economic impact, as does investing in clean energy technology.

Well you are right about that! Look at how well the millions invested in clean energy technology has benefited the Pacific Northwest!

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...-energy-sector