Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judging by the amount of denialist propaganda you post, misrepresentation is standard practice for you.
If using it as a literal:
What is a "denialist" and what is it that I deny? Back it up, or shut up.
If using it as the slang:
Calling me a Nazi who denies Auswitch isn't a very credible way to establish a point.
By the way, what you meant is exactly what I pointed out. You want to hear your ideals bounced back at you. If you were actually interested in discussion, you wouldn't resort to using petty name calling words like "denier". I bet I could collect all of your posts and show they are nothing more than regurgitation of talking points commonly used by activists.
You can do the same with mine if you like, you will find (if you are diligent and honest, there are several years of posts on the subject) several where I disagree with those who you would place "on my side" of the position.
Shall we? I know you are relatively new to posting on this topic, I could probably fit them within the character limitations of a single posting. I wonder though, the percentage of them that will contain key words like "denier", "consensus", "paid for by oil companies", etc... I would wager it would be pretty high.
I'm not really concerned about something that might happen 300 years in the future. We have more pressing problems.
The world has changed, India, China and many other countries are competing for finite resources, the end will come sooner than you think. When do you start planning, 50 years ahead, 100 years, we have a society based on cheap energy that will change rapidly in the coming decades. It's better to plan ahead than to ignore the inevitable.
If you copy and pasted in the first place, what makes me think that you could even form a coherent argument against my assertions?
The sun is not causing the recent trend in warming: if it were, the equator would be warming up faster than the poles (its not), and the warming pattern would be following the sunspot cycle (its not). Its not due to the Milank. Cycles because the warming would be happening a lot more slowly. Also, we've been out of the last orbit induced ice age for a good 10,000 years now.
But hey, keep posting pictures from 8th grade Earth Science textbooks and try to convince us that pictures of the solar system "prove" that climate change doesn't exist.
And now I feel ridiculous for wasting time on yet another sponsored thread.
What about the little ice-age, where the AGW scammers love to start their temperature graphs, was that "orbit induced," or the warming before or after it?
Grapes? In England? How bizarre! No, how warm. It was freaking hot back then.
Or, you could read English medical texts.
It got cold, but then it warmed up again, and in the Medieval Period, England was plagued by...
....mosquitoes and malaria.
Actually, you can grow grapes in England now, and mosquitoes have always existed there (they certainly live in England at the moment). Malaria was wiped out in the 1950s when the marshes were drained to make way for crops.
I'd doesn't matter who does or doesn't "believe" humans are contributing to climate change. The data speaks for itself and doesn't depend upon a certain number of people believing it or not. That's not how scientific research works.
I'd doesn't matter who does or doesn't "believe" humans are contributing to climate change. The data speaks for itself and doesn't depend upon a certain number of people believing it or not. That's not how scientific research works.
Observational data speaks for itself, correct (well, within the context of a given claim. ie "There is accelerated warming" when in fact raw observational data conflicts with this) . That is why there are many objections to the conclusions being drawn.
If you are speaking of modeled data... well... it only speaks to the assumptions of those who designed the models.
As for "science", explain to me what the scientific method is? How does it work? What is its process and requirements? How for instance does an "assumption" (hypothesis) designed to explain an observation establish itself properly through this method?
If you say, consensus, models, or anything similar, you aren't talking about science.
The world has changed, India, China and many other countries are competing for finite resources, the end will come sooner than you think. When do you start planning, 50 years ahead, 100 years, we have a society based on cheap energy that will change rapidly in the coming decades. It's better to plan ahead than to ignore the inevitable.
We have 300 years to plan ahead. Maybe we could wait 250 years and give ourselves 50 years to solve the problem rather than panic 250 years too early.
Did you think that Watt's writes all of the posts and articles?
For instance:
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. :
University of Colorado Professor of Environmental Studies
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. :
Senior Research Scientist in CIRES and a Senior Research Associate at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder (November 2005 -present).
Dr. Judith Curry:
Climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Dr. Roy Spencer
Climatologist, former NASA scientist.
The list goes on, there are many who have contributed from the NOAA, NSIDC, DMI, etc...
Not to mention, Watts just submitted a rather large project for publish a while back (still going through the peer review process) that analyzed the condition of the USHCN, which by the was used by Muller/Curry for the BEST project.
Watt's site has been responsible for finding numerous errors in various work by the NOAA, NSIDC, DMI, Met Office, etc... (ie they were retracted and corrected due to the finds).
As you could see from the post you initially quoted, the level of traffic that hits his site makes the pro-CAGW sites look like they are non-existent. The funny thing is that he welcomes all sides of the debate on his website. Dr. Judith Curry has been on the "warmer" side of the debate, but she has made numerous contributions to that site, as have many others who stand on that side of the isle concerning the issue.
Now you can certainly disagree with some of his "personal" positions. You can object and argue the points of his work if you like, but you can't simply dismiss his site as some random blog that has no legitimacy in the field of climate science.
To do so blatantly shows a devotion to activist agenda.
Though I think maybe your knowledge of the issue is akin to another poster who claimed that Geologists and Geophysicists have nothing to do with climate science and so they could be dismissed. /boggle
Lot's of click hits from conspiracy theorists and denialists makes everything Watts says factual? Appealing to Popularity to support your agenda?
Observational data speaks for itself, correct (well, within the context of a given claim. ie "There is accelerated warming" when in fact raw observational data conflicts with this) . That is why there are many objections to the conclusions being drawn.
If you are speaking of modeled data... well... it only speaks to the assumptions of those who designed the models.
As for "science", explain to me what the scientific method is? How does it work? What is its process and requirements? How for instance does an "assumption" (hypothesis) designed to explain an observation establish itself properly through this method?
If you say, consensus, models, or anything similar, you aren't talking about science.
It's really easy to comprehend. Climate change occurs based on changing compositions of the atmosphere. In the past changes have occurred naturally over time. When higher amounts of heat trapping gases accumulated, temperatures increased. Humans are currently artificially adding heat trapping gases to the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.
The fossil fuel industry has invested in changing public opinion by funding their studies and contributing to public officials. They have done a good job of convincing republicans and some democrats to accepting their vision, but that still doesn't change the objective data of how adding heat trapping gases to the atmosphere does indeed trap more heat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
