…to skeptic:
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
Follow the real money.
Bart, thank you for taking the time to read my link, but I don’t think you’ve provided any backing for your criticisms: “The Dessler analysis is garbage. He does not take account of the phase relationships. You cannot diagnose feedback that way.” (how about a peer reviewed paper that says that?).
The temperature graph you link to doesn’t have the last year of data, and there’s a reason the trend lines are straight, it’s because 10 years is to short a period to judge global temperature trends (haven’t I said that already??)
As you’ve pointed out, we’re both to set in our views to make continued discussion anything but pointless.
My regards.
Gregg, your comments are nothing but ad homenim, but they’re funny and not hurtful at all, because they come from you.
Andrew W Says:
“Gregg, your comments are nothing but ad homenim…”
Translation: I have no real comeback to an actual challenge to what I’ve said, so I’ll retreat to kindergarten responses. And my response will be nothing BUT an ad hom.
You’ll make a silly statement like “ignore the source of the information”, and when called on it, you rapidly retreat to “Oh well I will only discuss the data.”
Sorry – that dog don’t hunt.
Do you know why your science and logic is wholly faith based? I’ve asked several times. You’ve refrained from answering.
Make you nervous? I’ll bet it does, cuz, like wow, if it turned out that the weapon you use as a bludgeon is the basis of your entire analysis…..
But what I’ll hear from you on it (if I hear anything) is something to the effect that it’s beneath you to consider or irrelevant or some other brush off. Gaia forbid you actually want to learn something. Kinda like your handling of this whole discussion.
You are right, though, when you say that, on this topic, you are too set in your “…views to make continued discussion anything but pointless.”
And by the way it’s “too” not “to”.
You may have the last word.
Andrew W Says:
May 20th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“…10 years is to[o] short a period to judge global temperature trends…”
A contrary view, from an interesting source. I find myself in agreement with people with whom I typically disagree.
I agree “noise” is a poor term to use to describe the year on year variation in surface temperatures, we’re measuring a thin sheet of the Earths surface that constantly interacts thermally with whats above and below it.
I said in the other thread: “I agree that measurement of the total of the tropospheric and hydro-spheric heat content is the way to go, the question remains though, if you think there’s room to doubt the measurements of tropospheric temperature trend, the trend for the total tropospheric and hydro-spheric heat content is going to be far, far harder to pin down.”
It’s exactly the point Trenberth was trying to make – and which skeptics slammed him for when he said: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
He wasn’t saying AGW was a hoax, just that we’re limited in our ability to measure the details of the whole atmospheric/ocean system, and year to year variations in solar absorption at TOA radiation.
You should read more from TSOD. 🙂
“It’s exactly the point Trenberth was trying to make…”
It’s a fine point. If he weren’t trying to wreck Western Civilization on the basis of something he so openly admits he doesn’t fully understand, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
“If he weren’t trying to wreck Western Civilization ..”
Yes, that’s right Bart, they’re all out to destroy Western Civilization, those damn commie scientist, and they’re just in it for the money ya know.
Oh, I get it. I’ve either got to be a religious yahoo or a paranoid John Bircher. Well, now that you’ve gotten me categorized, I guess you can rest easy that you won’t have acknowledge any threat to your silly little pretend catastrophe-in-the-making.
How shallow are you?
It really is bizarre how you can be so blind to your own hypocrisy, you say that Trenberth is “trying to wreck Western Civilization” which sounds a bit like you think he (and I’ll assume other climate scientists who share his views on that science) is trying to wreck Western Civilization, which is not something I personally think is a good idea. Trying to think of people who have tried to wreck Western Civilization, well, the Soviets may not have tried but they would have been happy to see it fall over, and OBL, well he definitely tried to wreck Western Civilization, so I guess those must be the people your mind likens Trenberth to, so if you’re a John Bircher (your words) it’s by your own words.
And here’s the really weird bit, immediately after whining that I think you are what your own words label you as, you suggest: “I guess you can rest easy that you won’t have [to] acknowledge any threat to your silly little pretend catastrophe-in-the-making.”
What catastrophe-in-the-making am I pretending? Have I claimed here or anywhere else that I believe catastrophic AGW is happening? Can you point to a comment of mine that you can use to defend your making that accusation?
No you cannot, the only comment of mine in this thread that mentions CAGW is in my reply to Titus where I say: “Having said that, I’m not a CAGW advocate, I’m just supporting the science of the enhanced greenhouse(gas) theory, though I don’t dismiss the possibility of increased extreme weather events being a serious problem.”
So, despite all your whining, you are wrong twice, firstly in claiming you’re not inferring something you clearly are, and secondly accusing me of having a CAGW agenda when I’ve explicitly stated that I’m not convinced CAGW is likely.
I’m starting to look forward to your next comment, psychology, especially in regard to human rationalizing, has long been an interest of mine, and you’re proving to be a fascinating case.
Gentlemen, I had Andrew W pegged as an AGW troll from his first post on the subject. These people have networks which monitor skeptical sites and attempt to feebly respond on them. Best ignored.
My comment to Bart of May 20th, 2011 at 12:24 pm was polite, and I thought would be the end of it, and again at May 20th, 2011 at 5:16 pm I tried to reach an amicable conclusion. Unfortunately Bart just had to make his obnoxious and inflammatory “If he weren’t trying to wreck Western Civilization..” comment didn’t he?
“…which sounds a bit like you think he (and I’ll assume other climate scientists who share his views on that science) is trying to wreck Western Civilization…”
I merely made the observation that they are advocating policies which would have dire effects on our current and future prosperity based on little more than a hunch.
It was you who insinuated active malevolence on their part.
I see it more as adolescent detachment from reality.
All in all, the debate is almost superfluous:
1) On abatement of CO2 production: it ain’t gonna’ happen. We see even now that, when peoples’ well-being comes into question, environmental concerns get shoved to the back burner. Environmental stewardship is a luxury item for the well-to-do. As is population control and corralling of all the other Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
2) Even if the problem were the dire threat imagined, the advocated cure is worse than the disease, and is opposed in equal proportion by #1, so it would lead nowhere, except all the energy expended in the quixotic quest would leave us poorer, and therefore the environment worse off, in the end.
3) There is no alternative energy supply which could take the place of fossil fuel combustion which has the energy density required to satisfy our demand save nuclear power – as long as Greens oppose that, they are blowing on their own sails, and that only moves you forward in Looney Tunes cartoons.