This is for my buddy Brian.
I fell off my chair laughing but, be warned, the language is foul!!!!
+1 Carefree. It is entertaining to see them try though isn't it? ;-)
ROTFLMAO @ lola. Well played sir!
As long as Brian continues his false and destructive postings then, unfortunately, someone has to respond to them. It is a waste of time trying to convince Brian since he is not interested in what is true or false. But other people will read his posts, and unless they are challenged, those readers may think that there is some substance to them. I wish Brian would just stop posting on this topic, but it looks like he won't. This assumes that other readers, on balance, find Brian's posts as demonstrably ludicrous as I do.
One question keeps haunting me.....
How can someone that is articulate and reasonably intelligent believe the things Brian is posting? My answer is that he does not which brings about the question - Why is he following this path?
Sorry Brian, I simply do not believe you. Perhaps you are doing this for the entertainment value.
@bb0tin. Thanks for the great link to fingerprint article.
Learning new acronyms is fun: "ABC" stands also for "All But Carbon".
The below article in The Guardian from last Friday may be a longer read, but I multiple times thought to myself "Yup, that's it!".
The description of "concern trolls" puts this thread (and similar ones) into perspective (I can already guess what B. would write):
It's climate scientists, not concern trolls who champion the scientific method
I have had this type of discussion with other AGW deniers. The ultimate question to pose to them is as a thought experiment "If AGW is in fact true, what data would convince you that it is true'. If the person cannot describe what any such data would be, then they are a denialist who can never be convinced.
You are welcome :-)
Easy. Predicted temperature rise in proportion to CO2 rise. The test has been run, and has failed spectacularly. The hypothesis is false.
Are you saying that you would accept that there could be:
a) A non-noise measured temperature rise
b) A model which predicts and fits this rise
I can produce both a) and b) already.
Will you accept them is the issue.
I expect that you will never accept any a) or b).
Only counts if you knew which model, in advance. Now you need to use the same model to make correct predictions, and wait for verification (not switch to some other model that happens to guess right this time). There are dozens of models; one will always be less wrong than the others for a little while, but won't sustain its success.
If you were really qualifying individual models, you'd dump all those that were wrongest at each step. You'd be left with zero, very quickly.
A meteorologist gives the Conn. Ag. Dept. a weather history lesson
As a percentage of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide has increased a total of 0.01% since 1850. History is full of terrible storms when carbon dioxide levels were much lower than today. Ice core temperature reconstructions from Greenland clearly show us that weather is much more extreme when the earth is colder, not warmer. It is the temperature contrast between the poles and the equator that makes weather. The bigger the temperature difference between the poles and the equator, the more extreme the weather is. The ice core data proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. A warmer world would have less temperature contrast and therefore less extreme weather. The global warming crowd has it backwards. It’s advocacy not science.
When confronted by these facts many people have no ability to reply so they point to authority institutions such as NOAA, NCAR, NCDC, NASA, The National Science Foundation, The National Academy of Science, American Physical Society, The American Meteorological Society and many other government and academic institutions and societies. All of these organizations have issued proclamations that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. Some people believe that large institutions are exempt from making mistakes. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.
How hot was 2012? Way below average for 21st C.
The link is just a misconstrued misinformation, as usual.
See paragraph "Conditions in 2012":
"The global surface temperature ranked among the top 10 warmest years on record. Over land and ocean combined, 2012 was between 0.14° and 0.17° Celsius (0.25°and 0.31° Fahrenheit) above the 1981–2010 average, depending on the analysis. The globally averaged annual temperature over land was 0.24°–0.29°C (0.43°-0.52°F) above average. And averaged globally, the 2012 ocean temperature was 0.10°–0.14°C (0.18°-0.25°F) above average."
"Earth’s average annual surface temperature is higher today than it was when record keeping began more than a century ago. The red line shows how far above or below the 1981–2010 average (dashed line at zero) the combined land and ocean temperature has been each year since 1880."
Given the link that tobi_ger supplied (I can supply others) are you prepared to accept that a) exists?
Sure, it's been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Fortunately.
There is no direct evidence that mankind has contributed anything to this (highly desireable) warming, however. Much less that it is driving future trends.
Given the sun's remarkable recent behavior, we may shortly wish we could make it warmer.
I take that to mean that you accept that there is an a).
If I provide a model which matches the rise in the observed temperature, and does so using physics and mathematics, will you accept that there is a b)?
Not without predictive proof. Any simulation can be matched to past performance. It must predict, preferably making unique predictions, to attain verification.
But, as Tiger Williams used to say, "It's done like dinner."
The Age of Global Warming [Belief and Hysteria and Policy] Is Over
What would constitute 'predictive proof'? i.e. What is required of the model that I provide to you so that you could accept it.
Was that before or after he had a descendent of Viking warrior goddesses split his head open with a number 2 driver?
A simulation SHOULD match past performance. It must predict the observed data better than the competing theories. It's not verified though this process. It's just not invalidated yet. To assume that science can or should be able to PROVE theories is a bit high of a standard. We still keep testing Einstein's theories of relativity even at the point that it's pretty much done like dinner.
Many models and their theories match the global climate data. Acceptance in the science community of working climatologists in that field is +95% As certainty goes, it's pretty good.
Politicians have empowered an absurd science called ‘climate protection’. In it they strive to attain a certain climate by turning CO2 knobs and meeting a 2°C target within a climate system that we know is highly complex. It’s simply absurd.”
Yep, that's from the other 5%.
EICE is a privately funded climate skeptic site. It's founder, Holger Thuss is a doctor of Modern History and works in politics. He has never published a peer reviewed paper.
This paper's author Pierre L Gosselin is perhaps the same one from Quebec? If so his fields are Geography and Education.
This is why I say WORKING CLIMATOLIGISTS. And that would also be folks that write peer reviewed papers in the applicable field.
Zap approved with appropriate warnings.
Quite appropriate bump with the VW thread and the electrical power discussion :)
I'd not seen that in a while... I pure simplicity of it is genius.
In the words of a wise man, whose advise I took a while back: 'why are you wasting time on this old man?'
Brian H believes in Lucifer and hairy old chestnuts uncritically. It's AGW he has a huge issue with.
Stop engaging him. It adds to his false sense of superiority.