freetoken:
Oh, and HRPKathy: if you are so sure the climatologists have erred so greatly in their endeavors, have you presented your concerns to the meetings of the AGU or EGU?
If you have an argument, I suggest you make it. Your comment was a waste of space.
Boris:
I find this very surprising since you don’t seem to know what unforced variability is. You also don’t seem to know that a ten year period beginning with a strong El Nino and ending with a La Nina will not reflect the underlying climate trend. Further, you state that the globe has cooled, but surface temperatures show a positive linear trend over the last ten years. You’re welcome to try again with facts.
You’re welcome to try again with the facts. If entropy as a concept surprises you, then I suggest you avoid the use chemistry as an excuse for your bogus theories. What you call unforced variability I call equilibrating force. It’s interesting that you throw out all controvening data and still want to present this unproven theory as a fact. That’s not good science, but it makes for interesting politics. Frankly I’m not surprised that YOU can’t tell the difference.
In ten more years of “unforced variability” will you boneheads be saying “we did it” we taxed ourselves to coolness. LOL!
First – even if we accept the premise of anthropogenic causation of global warming – the solutions are all wrong. Taxes as environmental policy – what marxist thunk that up? The usurpation of dollars has never been a good substitution for good old capitalist competition to solve the problems of reducing energy usage. The fact that global climate is an excuse to raise taxes is far too convenient for those who accept the theory on faith – and obviously a great deal more inconvenient to us who are forced to pay for it. We have a right you question your motives when you put your hand in our pockets.
Second – legitimate science always tolerates inquiry – in this case the term ‘truthers’ and ‘tin foil wearers’ runs to the fore in any discussion where the religion of global warming is challenged. Faith in God is inversely proportional to AGW. Consider that man is ‘god’ in the AGW scenario, thus the intolerance of heresy.
Third – those out front screaming the climatological sky is falling haven’t altered one iota of their own lifestyles – odd behavior for true believers. They didn’t have enough room at the airport to store all of the private jets that flew in for the last environmental conference. Sad but true.
Fourth – those promoting this ‘theory’ have admitted exaggerations (we call those lies) and misrepresentations, even a court in the UK had sense enough to force classrooms to call the theory in Gore’s movie a political argument rather than a scientific one. Back in the real laboratory, the real facts speak for themselves and do not require embellishments.
Fifth – “CO2 will definitely warm the planet. This is unquestioned in physics” ROTFLMHO. Your planet is a closed system. Ever hear of Newton?
Sixth – You couldn’t find an argument in ‘that screed’? COP OUT.
Seventh – Just one additional point – how do you discern the origination of individual carbon dioxide molecules? I already know… that’s right – you have a model for that one, too. It’s only those CO2 molecules from man’s activities that really have an impact… volcanic emissions which generate far more.. not so much, eh? LOL. I submit that you’ll stop volcanoes from erupting easier than you’ll get this theory to fly past the next five years.
Science isn’t your friend on this one, Boris. The facts on the ground are simply not supporting the draconian perscriptions purported by the AGWers.
(That line about the model being physical not statistical – hilarious) If I had to defend your data, I’d throw out all the statistical evaluations, too.
The reliability of the scientific method can best be determined by accuracy and precision. All data is variable and standard deviations are calculated to determine the linearity of extrapolation. Accuracy is determined by knowns, and precision is a reflection of reproducibility. What I’ve read on the topic is that GW models do not work accurately to reproduce knowns, but the controvening data is routinely worked out to increase precision. What you have is the ability to generate the same error over and over again. Congratulations. You’ve met the definition of insanity.
