Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Jose Fly]

Again with that idiotic argument, lol.

The shoe definitely fits.

What else do you want me to say? I gave you the words from the horses mouth and you blow it off, lol.

You're not making sense. I didn't ignore anything, but instead directly addressed it by trying to explain to you that that's how science works. Your response? "Lol, so much blind faith". If you honestly think that was a valid rebuttal, I'll let that speak for itself.

And btw, the "your position is based on blind faith" is yet another argument that you share with creationists. A creationist over at the other board recently posted a dishonest creationist video that tried to make that exact same case against "evolutionists". So congratulations I guess.

 

[Debateable]

The shoe definitely fits.

I agree your argument is idiotic. Glad we agree on something.

You're not making sense. I didn't ignore anything, but instead directly addressed it by trying to explain to you that that's how science works. Your response? "Lol, so much blind faith". If you honestly think that was a valid rebuttal, I'll let that speak for itself.

And btw, the "your position is based on blind faith" is yet another argument that you share with creationists. A creationist over at the other board recently posted a dishonest creationist video that tried to make that exact same case against "evolutionists". So congratulations I guess.

Dude... creationists are morons. Have 0 proof of their idiotic position. The fact that they think the flood created the grand canyon is just as absurd that C02 is the predominant cause of the insignificant warming we've had.

With that said, science doesn't pigeonhole itself with a one direction focus. They study other things sure, but it's always thrown out as insignificant, even though if you add them all up, they could be significant. It can easily explain the majority of the warming we've had. 1. Sun's output increased during the century and stabilized at a higher than normal level to 1950 AND since roughly 1979 (if I remember correctly) cloud cover has slightly reduced (not to mention ice coverage in the Arctic) reducing the Earth's albedo. YET, we've been extremely stable temperature wise for the last ~19 years, all the while C02 is going up and up and up. Where's all this warming it's supposed to cause? I only used two factors and there are thousands.

How do they explain that we've had ice ages with ~2000ppm C02? The theory doesn't add up.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here: There is continuing discussion through published peer-reviewed scientific papers, which are assessed by scientists working in the relevant fields taking part in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientific consensus as of 2013 stated in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is that it "is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century". A 2008 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated that most scientists by then agreed that observed warming in recent decades was primarily caused by human activities increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In 2005 the Royal Society stated that while the overwhelming majority of scientists were in agreement on the main points, some individuals and organizations opposed to the consensus on urgent action needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have tried to undermine the science and work of the IPCC. National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions. -- Global warming - Wikipedia

The word "consensus" does not mean that literally everyone is on the same page but that most do agree that human activity is the greatest likely cause based on what they know. In science, we tend to use our words quite cautiously, always leaving an "out" in case we miss something.

You obviously are not very familiar with "Scientific American" when you make such a patently absurd charge.

"The scientific consensus as of 2013 stated in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is that it "is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century"

Now that's more like it metis, you have quoted from the latest IPCC AR, AR5 (AR6 is a work in progress), and the wording from previous ARs has notably changed from human influence is the dominant cause of observed warming to..."it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming.."

Now I do not have to remind you there is a distinction between the meaning of 'is' and 'extremely likely', and the reason the IPCC drew back from the brink of claiming outright it was a dominant human cause is because of a 15 year hiatus in warming that IPCC models could not account for.

It follows then logically that if the UN IPCC is not absolutely sure that humans are the predominate cause of the observed warming, climate science is not settled and skeptical scientists have a role to play. That's how science has always worked, except when the Pope and establishment would step in to dictate and persecute the deniers...oh wait! ...



Sorry metis, if you actually read my previous posts, you would already know that "Global Warming - Wikipedia" is fully corrupted, in future please use credible sources.

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia

If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists.

Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.

Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement..
------------------

 

[metis]

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia

If you don't like Wikipedia, then maybe google NASA, NOAA, National Geographic, the Smithsonian, The U.S. Department of Defense, Scientific American, the NAS, etc. websites on this?

 

[Jose Fly]

With that said, science doesn't pigeonhole itself with a one direction focus.

Then you should be satisfied with the work climatologists have done on this issue.

They study other things sure, but it's always thrown out as insignificant, even though if you add them all up, they could be significant. It can easily explain the majority of the warming we've had. 1. Sun's output increased during the century and stabilized at a higher than normal level to 1950 AND since roughly 1979 (if I remember correctly) cloud cover has slightly reduced (not to mention ice coverage in the Arctic) reducing the Earth's albedo. YET, we've been extremely stable temperature wise for the last ~19 years, all the while C02 is going up and up and up. Where's all this warming it's supposed to cause? I only used two factors and there are thousands.

How do they explain that we've had ice ages with ~2000ppm C02? The theory doesn't add up.

You're all over the place here. First, you complain about them not apparently not considering various factors that might explain the current warming trend, then you say there is no warming trend.

Just like creationists when they jump back and forth between complaining about scientists' interpretations of the evidence, and saying there is no evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you don't like Wikipedia, then maybe google NASA, NOAA, National Geographic, the Smithsonian, The U.S. Department of Defense, Scientific American, the NAS, etc. websites on this?

Hold on, you have the cart before the horse, the US Department of Defense only follows directions from the government, the government has until now (Trump apparently intends to end this), followed directions from the UN-IPCC/UN-FCCC/COPs. Now in my last post, I showed you that, according to the UN IPCC, the science is not settled, so all the claims from agw true believers everywhere that it is settled, are fake, not true!

 

[Debateable]

Then you should be satisfied with the work climatologists have done on this issue.


You're all over the place here. First, you complain about them not apparently not considering various factors that might explain the current warming trend, then you say there is no warming trend.

Just like creationists when they jump back and forth between complaining about scientists' interpretations of the evidence, and saying there is no evidence.

I figured you'd be too dumb to figure it out so I'll spell it out for you. The sun and reduction of albedo can explain the vast majority of the warming we have seen during the bulk of the last century. C02 however continues to go up and up and yet over the last ~19 years, temps have been extremely stable. Did I spell that out enough for you?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

An interesting post here on agw team tampering with the temperature data....Record Daily Temperature Fraud On The Rise | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Lest we forget....

 

[metis]

Now in my last post, I showed you that, according to the UN IPCC, the science is not settled, so all the claims from agw true believers everywhere that it is settled, are fake, not true!

I clarified this in my last post whereas in science we don't feel anything is "settled". However, the "overwhelming consensus", as was repeated just yesterday by the physicist who headed the U.S. scientific team, has it that the global warming we're experiencing is being largely caused by human actions.

If you don't want to believe this, that's clearly your choice. I'll go in the direction of what the experts are telling us in regards to the research, but you can obviously go in the direction of what the right-wing politicians are telling you.

Also, if it is not human endeavors that are most likely causing this, what is then, and please post your evidence coming from the scientific community? If it's supposedly "natural causes", then which "natural causes" are they, and what's the evidence for this from real scientific reports?

 

[metis]

An interesting post here on agw team tampering with the temperature data....Record Daily Temperature Fraud On The Rise | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Lest we forget....

You use what is obviously a non-scientific blog that cherry-picks the data, and we're supposed to take this seriously? I also on a previous post covered the evolution of what the researchers have found, but you cover a sensationalized story that goes back decades prior to what has been found in more recent decades and we're supposed to swallow this?

Listen, if you want to believe in fairy tales like the above and the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, that's fine for those who really aren't serious about science or understand how we work, so go ahead with your fantasies, but I have no interest any long in trying to correct your ignorance on the subject.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I clarified this in my last post whereas in science we don't feel anything is "settled". However, the "overwhelming consensus", as was repeated just yesterday by the physicist who headed the U.S. scientific team, has it that the global warming we're experiencing is being largely caused by human actions.

If you don't want to believe this, that's clearly your choice. I'll go in the direction of what the experts are telling us in regards to the research, but you can obviously go in the direction of what the right-wing politicians are telling you.

Also, if it is not human endeavors that are most likely causing this, what is then, and please post your evidence coming from the scientific community? If it's supposedly "natural causes", then which "natural causes" are they, and what's the evidence for this from real scientific reports?

We can at least agree that the science is not settled. However in claiming "overwhelming consensus" because a physicist of team agw said so just yesterday, is a fallacious argument known as appeal to authority, and as such carries no authority in a science debate. If you instead looked at the science instead of "going in the direction" of so called ealled agw experts, then we would perhaps be even more in agreement.

Natural causes such as cloud cover/albedo changes, volcanic eruptions for starters. Any of the natural causes of climate changes for which there is no scientifically agreed quantification are possible causes, and that means all of them. where is your evidence that the temperature increase of recent times is predominately caused by humans?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You use what is obviously a non-scientific blog that cherry-picks the data, and we're supposed to take this seriously? I also on a previous post covered the evolution of what the researchers have found, but you cover a sensationalized story that goes back decades prior to what has been found in more recent decades and we're supposed to swallow this?

Listen, if you want to believe in fairy tales like the above and the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, that's fine for those who really aren't serious about science or understand how we work, so go ahead with your fantasies, but I have no interest any long in trying to correct your ignorance on the subject.

Do you know Tony Heller's back ground? Did you know Tony Heller has testified before a state Senate on climate change,? Tony Heller is a climate scientist.

Who Is Steven Goddard?

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/c...s-in-washington-senate-environment-committee/

 

[metis]

If you instead looked at the science instead of "going in the direction" of so called ealled agw experts, then we would perhaps be even more in agreement.

I am a scientist, now retired, so I well know how we work, but it's quite obvious that you don't.

Natural causes such as cloud cover/albedo changes, volcanic eruptions for starters. Any of the natural causes of climate changes for which there is no scientifically agreed quantification are possible causes, and that means all of them.

These have been discounted, so all you are in essence saying is that these climate scientists are either ignorant, dishonest, or both, and that you know more than they.

 

[metis]

Do you know Tony Heller's back ground? Did you know Tony Heller has testified before a state Senate on climate change,? Tony Heller is a climate scientist.

No he is not a climate scientist: He has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master's degree in electrical engineering from Rice University.[3]

Also: One of Goddard's earliest writings, an article for The Register, asserted that the National Snow and Ice Data Center's (NSIDC) data underlying a chart depicting 2008 Arctic sea ice loss was incorrect and that NSIDC seemed to demonstrate "a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."[4] Ten days later, however, Goddard acknowledged that the data on which the graph was based was accurate.[5]...

The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contactedBerkeley Earth energy systems analyst and environmental economist Zeke Hausfather,[11] who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[12] -- Steven Goddard - Wikipedia

Next time try using some real sources on this, especially from some real climate scientists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am a scientist, now retired, so I well know how we work, but it's quite obvious that you don't.

These have been discounted, so all you are in essence saying is that these climate scientists are either ignorant, dishonest, or both, and that you know more than they.

So you keep telling us... ... as though that is sufficient to convince us that your integrity wrt science is beyond petty politics. You prattle on without providing any real proof of the your claims, mere leftie agw political rhetoric.

So where is the proof they have been discounted apart from rhetoric, if they truly had, then the UN IPCC AR5 would not use the words...extremely likely...but. ...humans are the cause.

 

[paarsurrey]

Economic conservatives have been saying this for years, that Global Warming is a religion promoting a theocracy with the Socialist State as God and the objective to defeat capitalism. Blind faith strikes once again.

She’ll probably have to walk that one back...somehow. Anybody catch this on CNN, or NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR/NY Times/Washington Post...etc.

Is it really a religion? How come?
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No he is not a climate scientist: He has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master's degree in electrical engineering from Rice University.[3]

Also: One of Goddard's earliest writings, an article for The Register, asserted that the National Snow and Ice Data Center's (NSIDC) data underlying a chart depicting 2008 Arctic sea ice loss was incorrect and that NSIDC seemed to demonstrate "a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."[4] Ten days later, however, Goddard acknowledged that the data on which the graph was based was accurate.[5]...

The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contactedBerkeley Earth energy systems analyst and environmental economist Zeke Hausfather,[11] who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[12] -- Steven Goddard - Wikipedia

Next time try using some real sources on this, especially from some real climate scientists.

You do not seem to understand that climate science requires understanding of geology, maths, physics, statistics, astrophysics, meteorology, computer programming, etc.. There are many reputable climate science who do not have degrees in just climatology itself. Now data analysis wrt data from temperature and other atmospheric and ocean records, satellites, etc., and the creation of climate computer models requires expertise not present in all people who contribute to climate science. If you had bother to note in the link I provided, Tony Heller has worked for the government in developing climate models. And that is his area of expertise, he understands the deviation from ethical standards in the adjustments to the raw data that agw dishonest scientists have been employing, and is world renown for his presentations and explanations.

 

[metis]

You do not seem to understand that climate science requires understanding of geology, maths, physics, statistics, astrophysics, meteorology, computer programming, etc.. There are many reputable climate science who do not have degrees in just climatology itself.

You called him a "climate scientist", which is patently false, plus you ignore what else I linked you to that indicates Heller has what we call "an agenda".

And then to imply that I somehow don't understand science well enough to know the interrelationship of the sciences is about as illogical as one could be.

fini

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You called him a "climate scientist", which is patently false, plus you ignore what else I linked you to that indicates Heller has what we call "an agenda".

And then to imply that I somehow don't understand science well enough to know the interrelationship of the sciences is about as illogical as one could be.

fini

Naturally the agw true believers hate Tony Heller because he has exposed the shameful agenda driven adjustments to the data, these same people hate Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, Lord Monckton, etc for similar reasons. Besides, you have never done any climate research, the extent of your knowledge comes from reading left wing biased Scientific American, and that does not make you a credible arbiter wrt those actually doing climate research.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is it really a religion? How come?
Regards

Anything that requires blind faith is essentially a religion, and that includes global warming as it is currently being promoted, and socialism.