Man Based Global Warming....

... says the person who's been trying to bait me the last few days in every thread I post in

I'll ignore your attempt to speak condescendingly to me, which is funny, a high school drop out attempting to speak down to a doctor, it's like a rat telling a snake it's weak as the snake eats him.

Again, I'll happily destroy your argument that being a "denialist" is a faith based belief system. I'll write in simple terms so you don't get lost.

Faith, by definition, is the belief in something without logical reasoning. This is why it is said you have faith in a god. There is no logical reason to believe in a god. There is no proof. But some people choose to believe it anyway. That is faith. If there was undeniable absolute proof of god, then faith would be meaningless, and there would be nothing beautiful about believing in a god.

Anthropogenic global warming is the idea that humans are causing an accelerated rate of temperature change on the earth. That means they think that humans are contributing negatively to the planet in such a manner that results in temperatures changing at a rate greater than that of normal. This is the central thesis. For AGW to be a "fact", this needs to be conclusively proved. All the stuff about CO2, other greenhouse gases, oceans, aerosols, etc, are mechanisms put forth by AGWers in an attempt to defend the idea that humans are contributing to global temperature change at a rate greater than that of normal.

I looked at all the data I could find that supported the idea that humans are making global temperatures change occur faster than normal and I found them wholly unconvincing. That means I failed to accept the AGWers claim. This means I found the AGWers to be without sufficient evidence to support their claim.

On the other hand, by the AGWers own admission, AGWers accept a belief in AGW without there being conclusive proof of it. This means they believe in it without logical reasoning. That means they have faith in AGW. This means that having a belief in AGW is faith, and rejecting AGW is a lack of faith.

Therefore my rejection of AGW is not faith based. It is based in logic. My logic is sound. If you have any argument with the above, feel free to print this out and bring it to your local university and find a professor of logic and ask him if I'm correct.

This is a really bad thought question. Embarrassingly bad. I guess you live in a world where the seasons don't change? Where you don't have global weather systems interacting with each other? Your world does have complex climate change? Wow sell me a ticket!

 

Clearify this statement for me, is it fact because AL Gore says so, th UNIPCC says so, the fact the white house says most people and most scientists "believe" in it, or because the science is sound and is easily duplicated by any scientist using just the raw data?

 

OOOOOoops no more raw data! The dog ate the data!

 

That fact combined with the "lets make sure no opposing scientific views are published" tells me all I need to know, it is a scam about money and power.

If it was a real crisis, nobody would be talking about cap and trade anyway, what the hell would that solve, just destroy what is left of US manufacturing, and give more money and power to the governments at every level.

I think James Hansen is wrong but at least he is honest about cap-and-trade and what effect it would have.

Is this a bad dream? How can this great country get so far off the track?

 

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. False logic.

 

Is there any work published in a peer reviewed journal that contradicts anthropogenic climate change.

If you do attempt to find one also discuss why you think it is so. Do not post a link to a blog that has links to a list that may or may not argue against AGW. Just show one examples and argue why.

 

In a peer reviewed journal Alric? Are you dense or is reading comprehension an issue for you?

Many of the emails stated that CRU and IPCC were taking steps as much as changing peer review processes so that papers that negated AGW would not be accepted.

That is why you dont see "peer reviewed" papers that negate AGW. The reviewers IPCC and CRU are a bunch of crooked lying Mother F$&#&*#$

 

Nothing of the sort happened. You saw ufourya's best example and it was at worst a peer reviewer expressing his opinion of a paper too strongly.

 

Oh my god you are a broken record of FAIL!

 

I think Alric is actually a robot. He's been programmed with the intellect of a gibbon and is on an automated cycle that repeats the same posts every 36 hours. I can't think of any other possible explanation, because I know that it would be impossible for a human to be that dense and incapable of reading.

 

For the thousandth time (this is not an exaggeration, because I am using Alricain logic) there is not one paper with verifiable, repeatable, empirical data that demonstrates CO2 emitted by humans causes catastrophic or even significant temperature increase. PERIOD. NOT ONE.

What the IPCC and ALL their AGWers point to is computer modeling. THAT's IT! These models forecast a rise in temperature as CO2 increases. Well, the CO2 levels have increased (measured) and temperatures have not (measured) for a decade or so. The hypothesis is NOT, I REPEAT FOR THE CHALLENGED AMONG US - NOT proved.

There is no proof that human emissions cause catastrophic warming. There is not one paper that demonstrates this. Now, Alric can point to 'peer-reviewed' articles and stories that make this claim, but the claim is not backed up by empirical science.

Alric claims that the peer review process has not been sullied. A fair reading of the E-mails, the gatekeeping of the IPCC chapter authors and plenty of reports from scientists who have not been published because their results did not comport with the AGW claims indicate otherwise.

There is also more concrete evidence in the Wegman report of how Mann's reviewers consisted in many cases of colleagues and even his own students.

 

Better tell that to your hero Algore who showed the CO2-temperature linkage charts in his movie. Only he forgot to mention that in the Vostok ice core CO2 increases followed temperature increases, not the other way around.

In any case - it was YOUR CRITERIA - 40 years without any warming that would falsify anthropogenic global warming. You wrote those words yourself. Are you now disagreeing with yourself?

 

Alric you have two great posts to reply to here!

 

Richard S. Lindzen: The Climate Science Isn't Settled - WSJ.com

Read it, Alric, and then tell us why this MIT professor is a right-wing crazy. Then tell us, in layman's terms why he is mistaken.

 

Phil jones has stepped down @ CRU pending an investigation, who will be next?

Falsified data @ CRU, in New Zealand, in Australia, will this go down as the largest con in world history?

 

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down

• ShareThis
• Print
• E-mail

By RAPHAEL G. SATTER

The Associated Press
LONDON — The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said Tuesday.

Enlarge photo



Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, listens to a reporter's question during a news conference in central London, Tuesday Dec. 1, 2009. The leading British climate change economist says the science of climate change is based on sound scientific methods and those who doubt the science of global warming are 'muddled and confused.' Hackers broke into the computer systems of the University of East Anglia climate research unit last month and posted documents online. Some bloggers claim the document shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming and have attempted to manipulate data. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

The university said in a statement that Phil Jones, whose e-mails were among the thousands of pieces of correspondence leaked to the Internet late last month, would relinquish his position as director of Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent review.


If sleptics are muddled and confused, why is Jones 'temporarily stepping down'?

Shouldn't we be shutting up and letting the real scientists ply their trade unmolested?

 

It is looking more and more like it was not a skeptical hacker but a bothered member of the CRU staff. Emails were sent to MSM earlier but were ignored.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...atherman-was-sent--climate-change-emails.html

 

When the New York Times starts to seriouly look at the E-mails, you know they can no longer be ignored.

The New York Times > Log In

 

Wow - the NY Times? After downplaying and ignoring it for a week or more?

 

This will really start the crickets chirping.

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!


Download the pdf and follow along as Al Gore's favorite Lord demolishes what is left of AGW.