[besson3c]

Buckaroo: why are you so obsessed with Al Gore? Such ravenous vitriol... Why do you allow yourself to get worked up so much? It's not like he would be the only hypocritical politician, nor the only environmentalist. Wouldn't it be easier to just obsess over Paris Hilton instead?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Buckaroo: why are you so obsessed with Al Gore? Such ravenous vitriol... Why do you allow yourself to get worked up so much? It's not like he would be the only hypocritical politician, nor the only environmentalist. Wouldn't it be easier to just obsess over Paris Hilton instead?

Which is worse?

1) Using your money to show your beaver

or

2) Using beavers to make more money

[Buckaroo]

We finally made it. We are over the 1000 mark.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

First off, you clearly brought up solar radiation as an argument casting doubt on AGW; I clearly showed that it no longer seems to have the climate correlation effect it historically did; you reply with "I'm not convinced" and then make vague references to why CO2 shouldn't be a climate change driver, rather than why solar radiation should. So, which is it? Are you not convinced that solar radiation is no longer correlated...in which case, where is your proof of this in light of the scientific studies I have provided?

Excellent question greg. From the first link you copy-pasted;
The research discussed previously studied variations of pre-industrial climate
on a huge range of timescales between 102 and 108 years. Recently, solar effects
on climate on time scales of 100 years and less have also been detected, even
extending into the era of fossil fuel burning.

Other gems such as; The third proposed mechanism is
considerably different from the other two—it has been suggested that air ions
generated by cosmic rays modulate the production of clouds (Svensmark 2007).
This mechanism (Carslaw et al. 2002) has been highly controversial and the data
series have generally been too short (and of inadequate homogeneity) to detect
solar cycle variations in cloud cover; however, recent observations of short-lived
(lasting of the order of 1 day) transient events indicate there may indeed be an
effect on clean, maritime air (Harrison & Stephenson 2006).

Know what they're referring to greg? Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). Your paper claims this is too difficult to quantify so they've excluded TSI from consideration. Interestingly, at least one NASA study disagrees;
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

Did you read the intent of your linked paper greg? In case you didn't;
It is not the purpose of this paper to investigate further the proposed
mechanisms discussed in this introduction nor, indeed, to evaluate the reported
connections between solar variability and changes in climate on millennial or
centennial timescales. Rather, the aim of the present paper is to study data from
the last 40 years in some detail in order to see if solar variations could have
played any role in observed present-day global warming.
Again, millions of years of evidence of celestial influence on climate, but we're only going to look at the last 40 years of data. The connections between solar activity and climate variation are pretty damned compelling all the way 'til 1985. IT'S BEEN 20 YEARS. BETTER CASTE IT OFF AS QUACKERY! I'm not convinced. We've gone from millenial timescales now down to centennial time scales and we'll end up at decadal timescales. This follows your general theme of argumentation so the posted link doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately, it admittedly does not regard the connection between solar activity and climate change. A connection they cite several studies to affirm. You've either not read the study you linked or you're trying to compartmentalize the debate to conveniently fit some offensive stance you're trying to assume here. You'll have to do better than that with me greg.

If you are merely ignoring my rebuttal and are now "not convinced" that CO2 is driving climate change – which, I'll point out, was nowhere to be found in my argument...you just wrote it in to avoid dealing with the solar issue – then please read further.

I have maintained that celestial events are influencing terrestrial circumstances that are causing warming via THC among a host of other related causes. I have maintained that climate change is vastly more natural than anthropogenic. To your point, I never mentioned why CO2 shouldn't be a climate change driver and in light of your statement in the next paragraph am more flummoxed than ever. I've maintained without wavering, that natural, celestial events are by far more profoundly contributory to climate variation than man. I've provided millions of years of evidence showing natural climate change and you've got 20 years of debatable models that don't account for pesky little items like... clouds. Of course, your cited paper claims that GCMs are more important than ever. Yeah, I can see that. In absence of any empirical evidence to support the claim, they'd have to become more important. You claim my evidence is incomplete while failing to acknowledge how young this science is in general. Once again, science does what it does, greg does what greg wants.

In fact, your statement here is actually an argument for anthropogenic global warming. That CO2 levels historically increase after warming events is a basic tenet of climate change science. Why? Because carbon dioxide has traditionally not been a "climate driver", but limited to an amplification effect, whereby warming temperatures (eg. from increasing solar radiation, etc.) led to more CO2 (eg. by "unlocking stored CO2") which led to further warming temperatures because of CO2's chemical properties within the atmosphere.

This is the entire point of anthropogenic climate change: that this process is no longer happening. We have no other mechanism to explain modern climate change, except the fact that humans have artificially enhanced the amount of GHG in the atmosphere. In other words, what has traditionally not been a driver of climate change, suddenly is because of human involvement.

"... suddenly is because of human involvement". I'm not convinced.

What you're referring to is a feedback relationship. One produced by a model. Can you please show me the control diagram for that model? A stability analysis? Can you please provide for me anything at all that can't simply be pulled from ambiguity? Don't get me wrong, the science is compelling and worthy of further investigation, but extremely far from convincing no matter what you're reading on smog-blog. Otherwise, while you critique my small amount of evidence, I hope you realize that you have absolutely NO empirical evidence to support your argument. None.

Your argument has fallen right in line with this theory, because you have produced absolutely no proof of any other possible mechanism – besides the ones that I pointed out are invalid, of course. What you've produced have been opinions, even by influential people, but almost without fail opinions nonetheless. And despite all your posturing to the contrary, here it is you who fails to grasp a basic principle of how modern science works – namely, that opinions matter not a shred if no evidence can be produced to validate them. As you tirelessly state, you're producing "respected scientists" – but you're producing their opinions, not their scientific work with which to back those opinions up.

Again... and trust me for the last time; each and every one are published, peer-reviewed scientists that are not only privy to the same data as proponents of the anthropogenic model, in many cases have contributed to the science with published research of their own.

You, of course, haven't produced such evidence.

I've produced a lot of evidence. I've provided for you millions of years of evidence for natural climate change. You've given me projections figured by economists for the IPCC showing models for which no control can be established and no empirical evidence can be shown. In your words changed slightly; "Oh, it's been hinted at, and there's been the comment about "evidence here" and "evidence there" and "evidence is scattered", but the only scientific evidence you've been able to produce regarding anthropogenic warming has already been endlessly debated among climate scientists and will continue to be."

As to your "cause?" Well, let's see, from what I remember you started off declaring that global warming was untrue.

You won't find that statement from me anywhere greg. Go ahead, look for it. Then ask yourself why you felt the need to outright lie here.

Once that could no longer be argued with embarrassment, then the switch was made to "anthropogenic global warming is untrue."

Never once said it was untrue. Would you like to try again? Exactly what is it you're so zealous about, arguing with a guy who's primary interest is tempering hype? You do so not only by using the most mundane AGW suppositions, statements, and indictments, but with a degree of hype rivaled only by Gore himself.

Now that your arguments are clearly beginning to fail on that front, I soon expect you to make the complete switch to the puzzling argument Buckaroo posted (in light of his other postings flatly denying global warming): that global warming is happening, and it's caused by human actions, but there's nothing we can do about it now anyway so there's no point trying.

Seeing as you've yet to accurately assess my character in this debate greg, you'll have little credibility with this nonsense. I will say the same thing I've been saying; GHGs contribute to warming, yes. The globe is warming, yes. Solar activity has had the most profound affect on global climate change throughout history, yes. It makes sense to me that at some point we will find it to have a more profound affect on warming on a decadal scale. Hence my point; The science is young, YES. It is difficult to connect solar activity to warming within the last 20+ years, yes, but connections on either side are difficult and in most cases less than conclusive, YES. IMO, having availed myself of a wealth of data disagree with you. I believe warming today is more natural than anthropogenic. I believe the debate has been hijacked by hype, politics, and dishonesty. I'd like to continue witnessing science on the scientific endeavor while allowing zealots and politicians their important work of deceit and hype.

Sounds like a cause to me, huh?

Whatever. Wouldn't be the first time you've been wrong yeah?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I have no idea what you're trying to say about the papers I have posted. You quote one paper saying

to see if solar variations could have played any role in observed present-day global warming

and then comment on it by concluding

Unfortunately, it admittedly does not regard the connection between solar activity and climate change

Like I said, I have a hard time understanding exactly what your argument is on this point.

I've provided millions of years of evidence showing natural climate change and you've got 20 years of debatable models that don't account for pesky little items like... clouds.

Uhhhh...those debatable models also quite accurately model the millions of years of natural climate change to which you're referring. In fact, that's how those models are tested. Soooooooooo...yeahhhhhhhhhhhh. That would seem to put a dent in whatever point you're trying to make here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Otherwise, while you critique my small amount of evidence, I hope you realize that you have absolutely NO empirical evidence to support your argument. None.

No empirical evidence? Do you know what this means? Do you know how much empirical evidence is collected every year? Do you know how much empirical evidence on past climates is gleaned every year? Do you know how models are based on empirical hypotheses? I have a hard time believing your audacity in lecturing me on scientific matters when you don't seem to have a grasp of what such a basic concept means.

Again... and trust me for the last time; each and every one are published, peer-reviewed scientists that are not only privy to the same data as proponents of the anthropogenic model, in many cases have contributed to the science with published research of their own.

...and while that published research is roundly debated and considered by the rest of the community at large, and then incorporated into the discourse on anthropogenic climate change, you will keep quoting their opinions and ignore how their science has been accounted for. I get it.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I have no idea what you're trying to say about the papers I have posted. You quote one paper saying
and then comment on it by concluding
Like I said, I have a hard time understanding exactly what your argument is on this point.

You're hacking my statements out of context.The intro of one of the papers you cited went into great detail on three suppositions that support solar influence on climate change. The paper then indicated why it would not be including these suppositions stating, among other things, that it would not be regarding solar influence on a millenial or centennial scale even though they admit that solar influence on climate change had in fact been found to exist into the era of fossil fuel use. The entire premise of the paper focuses exclusively on the last 40 years of data with disregard for how the centennial cycle applies to terrestrial events that in fact influence global climate change. It does so in failing to account for some pretty important factors like the Svensmark 2007 study it cited. I said I wasn't convinced. Period. Again, you're taking statements out of context. This is intellectually dishonest greg though I no longer believe it is beneath you. Congrats. I'll be pointing out more dishonesty as we go along. I'm tired of it.

Uhhhh...those debatable models also quite accurately model the millions of years of natural climate change to which you're referring. In fact, that's how those models are tested. Soooooooooo...yeahhhhhhhhhhhh. That would seem to put a dent in whatever point you're trying to make here.

"These models." This is laughable greg, you don't even know what models you're talking about now. From your study and what I clearly indicated in the first place;

4. Recent solar trends and their implications
All the solar parameters show significant change over the twentieth century and it
has been suggested that this is, at least, part of the cause of the global mean
temperature rise seen in figure 4e, although it has previously been noted that
recent solar and climate data reveal diverging trends (Solanki & Krivova 2003;
Stott et al. 2003; Lockwood 2004). It should be noted that the solar cycle length L
presented here does not appear as similar to the inverse of the global temperature
anomaly as has been reported elsewhere (Friis-Christensen & Lassen 1991). This is because it has not been smoothed with the long time-scale filter used in those studies. As discussed in §1, two classes of mechanisms have been proposed whereby the solar changes shown in figure 4 could have influenced the temperature of the Earth. The first is that the total (or spectral UV) solar irradiance has varied on centennial time scales; the second is that cosmic rays modulate the formation of clouds. Both of these would influence the terrestrial radiation budget. For the
cosmic ray mechanism, it has been proposed that the long-term decline in cosmic rays over much of the twentieth century (seen in figure 4d and caused by the rise in open solar flux seen in figure 4c) would cause a decline in global cover of low-altitude clouds, for which the radiative forcing caused by the albedo decrease outweighs that of the trapping effect on the outgoing thermal long-wave radiation. We here do not discuss these mechanisms in any detail. Rather, we look at the solar changes over the last three decades, in the context of the changes that took place over the most of the twentieth century.
It gets worse than this.

No empirical evidence?Do you know what this means? Do you know how much empirical evidence is collected every year? Do you know how much empirical evidence on past climates is gleaned every year?

Yes and that's precisely why I believe the evidence suggests that natural, celestial events are more influential on global climate than man. Your paper concludes;
Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
Some problems here. I could read from the wording of the conclusion that it smelled of BS. First of all, we're talking about 20 years now. Again, from millenial, to centennial, to decadal just as I mentioned earlier. Secondly, Dr. Richard Willson of Columbia University, the Principal Investigator for the series of NASA ACRIM projects, designed to provide high precision monitoring of TSI and detect variations of significance for climate change and solar physics on this study by Lockwood and Frohlich;
Frohlich chose to use the ERBS/ERBE connection for their (PMOD) composite. It agreed better with the predictions of Lean’s proxy model and demonstrated no significant long term trend, supporting the anthropogenic global warming scenario of the United Nations’ IPCC reports. The recent Lockwood/Frohlich publication’s assessment depends on the absence of a significant trend in the Lean/Frohlich (PMOD) TSI composite.

I'm going to stop here for a second because this is interesting. Frohlich presented a model supporting the solar hypothesis and published studies in 1999 to affirm it. Onward...

A more objective use of the TSI satellite observational database does not support the PMOD model or their conclusions. Just as it would be premature to claim we understand TSI variability on climate time scales with extant satellite data, it is equally premature to use the existing TSI database to relegate TSI's role in climate change to negligible levels. The selective use of data and models and the rush to judgment by Lockwood and Frohlich do not lend credibility to their investigation.

Willson recommends another study for a more accurate picture; Scafetta and West, 2006

Scafetta on Lockwood and Frohlich; Lockwood and Frolich are using the PMOD TSI composite (prepared by Frolich himself) to deduce their conclusions. By using ACRIM TSI composite (prepared by Willson) the result would be quite different. Lockwood and Frolich just "assume" that ACRIM is wrong and PMOD is right, and do not care to repeat their calculation with the ACRIM TSI composite. In our own works, we always try to repeat the calculations with both data sets to be fair to both groups.

This is my favorite part. Some mathematical problems with their conclusions;

- Lockwood and Frolich would like to compare the trend in the solar data with the global temperature trend. To do this they calculate the average during a given period, for example 11-years between 1991 and 2001, and set such a value in the center of such period, that is, in 1996 (their figure 2). Then they move the period to cover the entire available interval from 1978 to 2006. Finally, they compare these moving averages with the temperature trend and deduce their conclusions.

Pay close attention greg because there's a bit of a problem with this methodology. It assumes that the climate is partially conditioned by the "future" behavior of the sun!

Note that by using the above example, the moving average value set in 1996 depends on the TSI values for 5 years in the past and the TSI values for 5 years in the future! And these values are compared with the temperature record. The problem is that I am not aware of any climate model, or of any physical phenomenon, according to which the present state of a thermodynamic system is a function of the "future" values of the forcings!
Several scientists have gone on record to state that it is evident that Lockwood and Frolich are "anticipating" what eventually might be happening in the future and that this is absolutely unacceptable. Their conclusion is founded on a mistaken premise.

Worse, by using more thorough methodology the conclusion in fact supports solar influence on recent warming. Warming that I believe stopped in 1999 greg? Is that right?

...and while that published research is roundly debated and considered by the rest of the community at large, and then incorporated into the discourse on anthropogenic climate change, you will keep quoting their opinions and ignore how their science has been accounted for. I get it.

I'm not the one ignoring how their science is accounted for greg. In fact, I'm now not surprised at all that you conveniently ignored my request for the control diagram and stability analysis also. I thought I smelled a rat.

While we're at it;
- Did you ever find my quote declaring global warming was untrue as you claimed I had? No?
- Did you ever find my quote switching to the claim that anthropogenic warming was untrue as you claimed I had? No?
- Lastly, did you do as I requested and ask yourself why you'd have to lie on an internet forum?

Come to think of it, you've ignored quite a lot haven't you greg?

*snort*

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

We finally made it. We are over the 1000 mark.

Won't someone think of the environment? I shudder to think all the energy wasted in this thread.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Won't someone think of the environment? I shudder to think all the energy wasted in this thread.

Talk is cheap, just ask Al Gore about his opinion. He made a whole movie about his opinion.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Talk is cheap, just ask Al Gore about his opinion. He made a whole movie about his opinion.

I'm quite comfortable in saying that Al Gore knows a hell of a lot more about environmental issues than you do. He doesn't just say a few words and run.

[besson3c]

Al Gore raped my sister and burned my house down.

[ironknee]

al gore is on the apple board....suck it

[Shaddim]

F*** all this. Paris' beaver is more interesting, and that's saying something.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm quite comfortable in saying that Al Gore knows a hell of a lot more about environmental issues than you do. He doesn't just say a few words and run.

No Al Gore's talk is so cheap, he ignores everything he preeches. He only wants you to do what he says, but he refuses to play by the same rules. He drives huge SUV's, he flies in private jets, he consumes enough electricity like it's going out of style. He only has one goal, and that is an excuse to justify more taxes.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

eBuddy: I think it's pretty clear that your posts are being taken from somewhere else; they're at analysis level that stretches my ability to follow without further background research which I simply don't have time to do. Where or who is the original source?

greg

[ebuddy]

Doh!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

eBuddy: I think it's pretty clear that your posts are being taken from somewhere else; they're at analysis level that stretches my ability to follow without further background research which I simply don't have time to do. Where or who is the original source? greg

Unless you can provide for me your personally funded study; Mankind, dominant role in warming by Greg, et.al; I think it's patently clear we're both taking our posts from somewhere else. Whether you get your posts from "SMOG-BLOG" or I get mine from "ANTI SMOG-BLOG" really doesn't matter in the least bit then does it?

BTW, the source? Your first linked study or I guess in your words; "taken posts" from Lockwood/Frohlich.

For now it seems we've come full-circle then. You began by stating you didn't have time, then asked for sources I've already provided. You finish now by stating you don't have time, again asking for sources I've already provided. If you don't have time, you don't have time. Suffice it to say, you will cite studies that support your view. I will cite studies supporting my view. You will use the studies of others to attempt dismantling the studies I've cited and I will use studies of others to attempt dismantling the studies you've provided. See how this goes on for 21 pages with neither conceding a thing? Why? Because the science is young and there is simply no room for "you're wrong, flat-earther, holocaust-denier, stupid poopy-butt stink face, extremist!" in science. Which is of course, all I've been trying to say all along.

At this point greg, I'd be satisfied if you simply apologized for lying about me in this thread and characterizing me as some sort of extremist in another and we can happily go our separate ways.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Huh? I don't "take my posts from somewhere else." I source from a lot of different books and papers and online sites, but I also spent close to 2 years studying much of this in order to get a degree so most of it is refresher/updating. I write my own posts; that's why they probably take me about an hour on a decent-sized one, on average.

I'm asking for your source because it seems you're mostly copy-and-pasting from some sort of article. I've noticed it a few times before, plus once when you accidentally left a footnote number into the copy/paste. I'm just saying that I find your argument quite hard to follow, since it's copy/pasted paragraphs with an impressive level of detail followed by your segway comments on how it applies to the case at hand. I'd rather have the original article so I could read it in "full flow" (so to speak) and figure out exactly what it's trying to say.

Unfortunately, I'm still in school and am required to read an enormous amount of material (200+ pages a week!) for that purpose, so I can't spend the length of time around here that I'd like. Thus, I'd like to read original material, rather than trying to pick out quotes from what must be another article, or material provided to you.

As for your personal complaints, quit your bitchy, hypocritically pious whining. For the majority of this debate you've repeatedly and explicitly characterized me as some sort of global warming zealot, when in fact I usually vote Conservative and can't stand environmentalist hippies. Furthermore, you still have problems with reading comprehension and context, I see; I didn't say you were an extremist, but I said you were characterizing all "climate-change believers" as extremists, when in fact that is only one extreme side of the view, albeit one that has been made popular because of its ability to sell in the media.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Huh? I don't "take my posts from somewhere else." I source from a lot of different books and papers and online sites, but I also spent close to 2 years studying much of this in order to get a degree so most of it is refresher/updating. I write my own posts; that's why they probably take me about an hour on a decent-sized one, on average.

IMO you went into a little too much detail on how you write your own posts, but whatever. I write my own posts too. When I source someone else's material, I generally bold/italicize the text, with the name of those who I am quoting.

I'm asking for your source because it seems you're mostly copy-and-pasting from some sort of article.

Let's be honest here greg. You're asking for the source because you're not happy about the critique. At the end of the day, it really wouldn't matter where I got the quote from would it? Afterall, the source is your linked study. I've given you the names. If they're connected to oil in some regard I'm sure you're favorite "sources" such as; SMOGBLOG and what was that other one again... REALCLIMATE, climate science from climate scientists. You know, the one with the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic link; will help you reveal the connection.

I've noticed it a few times before, plus once when you accidentally left a footnote number into the copy/paste.

Really? Another lie you can't stand behind huh? I went back to May in this discussion greg, couldn't find any mistaken footnotes. Now, if I've italicized a statement, (particularly at that time I recall providing links for the info directly beneath the italicized statements and there were a bunch of 'em) it is possible that I copy-pasted the footnotes in there. That's not what we're talking about here. Of course, assuming I'm also allowed to source from a lot of different books and papers and online sites as you admitted you also do above.

I'm just saying that I find your argument quite hard to follow, since it's copy/pasted paragraphs with an impressive level of detail followed by your segway comments on how it applies to the case at hand. I'd rather have the original article so I could read it in "full flow" (so to speak) and figure out exactly what it's trying to say.

A few more problems here greg;
1) My first "copy-paste" was taken directly from the first study you linked. My critique was entirely my own.
2) You claimed you didn't have time to read the material, then asked for the material. You tried this before remember? BTW; you're full of crap on how busy you are "Mr. Hour/Post".
3) I posted the name of one Professor who recommended another study I named directly after that Professor's statement.
4) That study was conducted by two others of which I also named.
5) The study was conducted by two individuals of which I named, one of them providing the reasons why the Lockwood/Frohlich study was founded on a flawed premise.
6) They challenged the figures and the fallacious handling of mathematical data in the study YOU LINKED. You have a problem with this? Defend the study YOU LINKED.
7) You want a source greg? The source is the STUDY YOU LINKED. With all that educational prowess you've repeatedly touted here, I guess I'm wondering why you can't determine how my "copy-paste" is wrong.
8) Worse, all I've said is that the science is compelling for future research. Not convincing. This is the crux of your argument. That the science is convincing. I disagree.

As for your personal complaints, quit your bitchy, hypocritically pious whining.

Hmm. I'm fed up with flame-baiters like you lying about a person's stance. You've tried since May to frame this debate as those who are "pro-climate-change" VS those who are "global warming deniers" and it's BS. You tried to claim I denied Global Warming. I didn't. You tried to claim I then denied AGW. I didn't. I asked you to back these lies up. Of course you can't defend any of it. You're called to the carpet for it repeatedly. You started off trying to chest-pound some intellectual prowess on this issue and yet another internet forum schlep has basically come and made you look like a screaming fool. You'll deny it of course and that's understandable. I'm comfortable enough for having shut you down repeatedly in here Einstein. Why? Because of what you've resorted to since at least May in this discussion.

Instead of even trying to defend your lies, your strawmen, and your bipolar partisan BS- you compound them with more. It's old. It's pathetic. It makes anyone with any real concern for AGW look like a complete ass.

For the majority of this debate you've repeatedly and explicitly characterized me as some sort of global warming zealot, when in fact I usually vote Conservative and can't stand environmentalist hippies.

Remember this from page 14?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

And this is where every single one of your "citations" fails. In my not-so-humble opinion, this is where most of you right-wingers get things ass-backwards

So... I'm guessing you're just another right-wing, conservative-voting moron getting things ass-backwards?

You're chronically full of it greg. We're done. You've obviously got nothing left.

[Face Ache]

Maybe when you guys borrow bits from articles on the web, you could put [quote] tags around them in the future, to avoid confusion.

Just an idea.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Heh heh heh. He seems a little touchy, huh? Can't simply give me the article you took your post from?

The Pol Lounge doesn't let people post-quote articles; I assume there's a reason for that, somewhere. If you pretend it's your own post I guess it's a good way around that rule, hmmm?

For the record, I don't know where you keep getting this SMOGBLOG place you keep talking about.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Heh heh heh. He seems a little touchy, huh? Can't simply give me the article you took your post from?

You seem a little confused yeah? Who are you talking to?

The Pol Lounge doesn't let people post-quote articles; I assume there's a reason for that, somewhere. If you pretend it's your own post I guess it's a good way around that rule, hmmm?

The first "copy-paste" was from your linked study greg. If it didn't look familiar, I guess you'll have to ask why you're not reading your own links. The commentary in standard font, was my own. No borrowing, no copy-pasting, no plagiarizing, no rule-breaking, no deceit, etc...

The emboldened, italicized font was not my own. It was first the critique by Dr. Richard Willson of Columbia University, the Principal Investigator for the series of NASA ACRIM projects, designed to provide high precision monitoring of TSI and detect variations of significance for climate change and solar physics. His name and his credentials preceded the emboldened, italicized font and a semi-colon was placed after Richard Willson's name attributing the statement to no one other than the direct reference. Only someone who is desperately grasping for some argumentative straw would have a problem with this. Don't like my style? Report me.

The second italicized font (also not my own) is a copy-paste from an article of peer-review on your posted link by Lockwood and Frohlich. The peer review included another study conducted by Scafetta and West, 2006. I clearly stated Scafetta and West, 2006 with another semi-colon indicating their statements followed. Again, only one who is desperately grasping for some argumentative straw would have a problem with this. Furthermore, by simply googling Scafetta and West, 2006 , you would've easily found several links to their critique. I'll of course let you choose the one that has the least biased conclusion on the study in your opinion. The study is what it is. I don't need to edit it. I clearly changed back to standard font during my own interjections. Where I got the study from is absolutely, immaterial. You're free to form your own conclusions based either on the information I provided you, or the name of the study and its authors I've given you. Your call for the "source" is dishonest and you know it. BTW, should you be even more curious, there are several more papers on the role of solar activity in recent global climate change; Solanski 2005.

The overall collection of material is within an article of peer-review on your linked Lockwood/Frohlich study entitled; Shining More Light on the Solar Factor, A discussion of Problems with the Royal Society Paper by Lockwood and Frohlich. You appreciate peer review right? I mean, you're okay with science doing what science does. After all, we're spending billions of dollars annually on studying global climate change in the US alone. In the interest of science, it'd behoove you to ensure we continue studying global climate change. Right? I mean, unless of course you're convinced that it's an open and shut case. Otherwise, I have absolutely no clue what you're arguing here.

The second, emboldened, italicized font was also not my own and was clearly the continuation of statements by Scafetta on your Lockwood and Frohlich argument.

For the record, I don't know where you keep getting this SMOGBLOG place you keep talking about.

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1316

Confused? Really? Hmm, you linked the above here;

calling it only "this page"

BTW, I mentioned another site you like to use that has a clever little link, perfect for forums like this one on how to "talk to a climate change skeptic" as if anyone in here is skeptical of climate change.

In closing, I'd like to indicate what your two years of hard-earned money in climate change academia has done for you;

- greg gets caught lying about ebuddy's stance on global climate change.
- greg then gets caught lying about ebuddy's stance on anthropogenic climate change.
- greg gets exposed for being politically bipolar (or at least, BS-ing again) railing on "right-wingers" in one post and trying to claim he "votes conservative" in the last.
- greg gets caught lying about ebuddy mistakenly placing footnotes in his own commentary.
- greg gets caught in contrived confusion regarding his "sources" and links.

The funny thing is, I don't know why any of the above was necessary at all or how any of it would've contributed to this debate. You've tried to argue every possible angle except the data itself. We're only really at odds on the degree of AGW. I tried to give you an out brother. At some point, you should just take it. Seriously. At this point I'm not even sure your name is greg.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhhhhahahahahaha!

As I said when I posted the link, I found that "desmogblog" biography of Ian Clark by googling the name you provided. No wonder I didn't recognize the page name; that hardly constitutes "copying from" a page, now, does it? It's not like I regularly frequent there and just lied about googling it or something.

As for the footnote instance, that wasn't in this thread; I'd half-suspected that you copy/pasted from other articles based on some instances of surprisingly scientific wording/detail. You posted unsourced material which included a footnote in some other thread I happened to be perusing, and that was what tipped me off. I have no idea what that thread was, or where it is, and I'm not going to search for it, but it was in this lounge somewhere.

I'm fully aware where some of the quotes came from; what I wanted to read in detail were the ones which critiqued the papers I provided (that would seem like an obvious request, hmmm?). There's no need for you to get petty by then accusing me of not even recognizing quotes from material I provided to you. From a quick Google search, the article Shining More Light On the Solar Factor seems to be the one. I notice how you cleverly did not provide me with a link though...I'm sure the extra little bit of work I had to do to find it will make your day, however.

For the record, I would imagine it's pretty clear in the Pol Lounge that politically I'm a social, left-leaning conservative. In other words, I support (and vote for) the current Canadian gov't but wish they would implement more aggressive social and environmental policies. Plus, I love how Harper has suddenly turned into a tactical genius.

Finally, no idea if you went to college, but at most universities in Canada 2 years won't get you jack ****. I'm currently working on my 6th year of university – I dropped out of engineering after a year before doing a 4-year biology degree. As I noted, 2 years of that degree had to do with climate/environmental issues; the others had molecular biology and physiology and history in them. I've spent a lot more time in school than you think...or really, than is healthy for most people.

In any case, keeping righteously whining about my characterization of your "stance" all you want; it'll get you nowhere. We'll have to agree to disagree on that particular issue.

greg

[tonewheel]

I think ebuddy and moncton ought to get a room.....

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Been there, done that...

[Buckaroo]

I realize that most of you left wing wacko's will concentrate only on the author and not on his comments. Although, Pat is not an expert, his comments are no less viable than Al (crazy opinion) Gore.

Start Quote:

The global-warming hucksters
Patrick J Buchanan

. . . Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.

This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, from which China and India were exempt, the United States was to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels, which could not be done without inducing a new Depression and reducing the standard of living of the American people. So, we ignored Kyoto – and how have we suffered? The Europeans who signed on also largely ignored it. How have they suffered?

We are told global warming was responsible for the hurricane summer of Katrina and Rita that devastated Texas, Mississippi and New Orleans. Yet Dr. William Gray, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on hurricanes, says he and his most experienced colleagues believe humans have little impact on global warming and global warming cannot explain the frequency or ferocity of hurricanes. After all, we had more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century than in the last 50 years, as global warming was taking place.

"We're brainwashing our children," says Gray. "They're going to the Gore movie ('An Inconvenient Truth') and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. ... We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was." . . .

End Quote.


WorldNetDaily: The global-warming hucksters

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I realize that most of you left wing wacko's will concentrate only on the author and not on his comments.

No, it's that they concentrate on evidence, not on comments. Meanwhile, you're concentrating on postcounts and google rankings. snore.

Comments on the internet are like buttholes, everybody has one, and they all stink. Produce some evidence, then I'll be impressed.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I realize that most of you left wing wacko's will concentrate only on the author and not on his comments. Although, Pat is not an expert, his comments are no less viable than Al (crazy opinion) Gore.

Yup. I love how you consistently use phrases like "left wing wackos," and then go and do exactly what you are criticizing. Here you do it all in one post!

[BadKosh]

Harry Reid says that the fires in CA are also because of Global Warming. It has nothing to do with not removing the brush and dead trees that burn faster than the living ones. Gotta love them tree huggers and liberals.

[traak]

But I believe the world is burning to the ground
oh well I guess we're gonna find out
(...)
Well I, believe, it all, is coming to an end
oh well, I guess, we're gonna pretend...

[Matchbox 20]


lalalala...

Dead serious, by the way.

Torsten

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by tie 

Yup. I love how you consistently use phrases like "left wing wackos," and then go and do exactly what you are criticizing. Here you do it all in one post!

You have to admit I didn't use the word Liar or anything like it in the whole post.

Left wing wackos . . . gads, I can't give up on that one. The left wing wacko's are crazy.

[OldManMac]

As are the right wing wackos, who preach Christianity, and practice anything but.

[Buckaroo]

The fact remains, and Al Gore proved it that mankind had NO affect on global warming.

Anything else is a LIE (I said the L-word again).

If you look at the chart that Al Gore provided and proceeded to LIE about is:

Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the temperature rose. It was an after affect, NOT a cause.

Al Gore's lied about the chart he provided.

NO one here or anywhere can dispute this FACT and then you turn around a lie that Carbon Dioxide is causing global warming. THAT is the LIE.

Carbon Dioxide is NOT causing global warming, global warming is causing carbon dioxide to increase. That is a fact if you believe Al's evidence.



LiveLeak.com - Say 'Global Warming Is Man-Made' OR ELSE!!

[Buckaroo]

And the Carbon Dioxide LIE is the reason Left Wing Wackos is the correct expression. The Left Wing Wackos only preach LIE's. I don't preach Christianity, so your comment is not applicable.

The left wing preaches LIES, and does not even practice their own preaching. The right is more concerned about pollution by actually practicing what they believe in. Take Bush's home in Texas and Al Gores pollution belching monster house as an example. The right is truely concerned and doing something about it, and the left is polluting the world and polluting with their hot air.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

As are the right wing wackos, who preach Christianity, and practice anything but.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

You have to admit I didn't use the word Liar or anything like it in the whole post.

heh, remember that Chris Rock bit about people who take pride in things they're supposed to do... you know, say some crap like "I aint never been to jail." You're not supposed to go to jail, you low expectation havin mother ****er!

Of course, if you want people to talk down to you like you're some kind of mental defective, deserving of praise for every little accomplishment that able-brained people take for granted, by all means carry on. Good for you, tiger.

[Buckaroo]

Here you are again, diverting attention away from the real truth by attacking the messenger.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

heh, remember that Chris Rock bit about people who take pride in things they're supposed to do... you know, say some crap like "I aint never been to jail." You're not supposed to go to jail, you low expectation havin mother ****er!

Of course, if you want people to talk down to you like you're some kind of mental defective, deserving of praise for every little accomplishment that able-brained people take for granted, by all means carry on. Good for you, tiger.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Here you are again, diverting attention away from the real truth by attacking the messenger.

Produce some evidence and I will address it. Talking about Al Gore's house is attacking the messenger too you hypocrite you.

The left wing preaches LIES, and does not even practice their own preaching. The right is more concerned about pollution by actually practicing what they believe in.

Is this your way of coming out of the closet as a lefty?

[traak]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

The fact remains, and Al Gore proved it that mankind had NO affect on global warming.

Anything else is a LIE (I said the L-word again).


Carbon Dioxide is NOT causing global warming, global warming is causing carbon dioxide to increase.

Wow, that's like saying certain events between 1933 and 1945 never happened. I'm startled but such ignorance...

T.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the temperature rose. It was an after affect, NOT a cause.


Carbon Dioxide is NOT causing global warming, global warming is causing carbon dioxide to increase. That is a fact if you believe Al's evidence.

You're perfectly right. In the records we have it looks like CO2 historically followed temperature increases by about 200-1000 years.

So tell me...where was the temperature increase that caused the 30% rise in CO2 in the last 150 years?

*waits*

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

it looks like CO2 historically followed temperature increases

That's not accurate. It would be accuate to say the starts of CO2 increases followed the starts of temperature increases, and of course that depends on our arguably arbitrary decision of where to mark the "start" of each (is it the local minimum? if so how "local" does it have to be? Or is there a threashold? Or is there a rate change threashold? Does the threashold change with other factors? Does the rate of change in one region have more effect than other regions? etc etc). Most times; not even all times. That has no implications for causality for the bulk of the warming.

by about 200-1000 years.

So tell me...where was the temperature increase that caused the 30% rise in CO2 in the last 150 years?

*waits*

greg

Oh come on, you know what he's going to say

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hahahaha, yeah...well you know, you can get into explaining that again if you like.

Well I was leading into asking how such a slight, or even non-existent, temperature increase in the MWP lead to a 30% CO2 increase...since we have a pretty good idea of CO2 rates over the Holocene period, and they don't show similar types of hyper-sensitive swings in spite of temperature swings throughout the period. Some of these were probably even "bigger" than the so-called MWP. What was CO2 doing then, taking the day off?

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Or is there a threashold? Or is there a rate change threashold? Does the threashold change with other factors?

What's a threashold?

[BadKosh]

And nobody questions the data gathering to see if the temp really did rise before or after the CO2 increase?

IS the raw data available for just anybody to analyze or do we have to collect our own samples?

[BadKosh]

Harry Reid (Democratic moron) said that the fires in CA were due to Global warming.

After the arrest of one, and killing of another arsonist , seems many of the fires were set.


Proof that at least this time the Dem lied and didn't know his facts. Is there a pattern?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

If the pattern is that you consistently fail to read the answers to your questions such as

And nobody questions the data gathering to see if the temp really did rise before or after the CO2 increase?

and then proceed to keep asking the same question...then yes, there is a pattern.

Just for clarity: this has already been debated, in this thread and in another thread which Uncle "Threashold" Skeleton has linked to. You might want to check it out.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

If the pattern is that you consistently fail to read the answers to your questions such as and then proceed to keep asking the same question...then yes, there is a pattern.

Just for clarity: this has already been debated, in this thread and in another thread which Uncle "Threashold" Skeleton has linked to. You might want to check it out.

greg

Just wait, in 10 years "threashold" will be the standard, just like "nucular" is currently overtaking "nuclear" (in pronunciation, not spelling). Doesn't it look more pleasant than the moldy old "threshold?"

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hey, we don't judge here.







............


greg

[BadKosh]

"It has been debated..." is NOT the answer to the question.

"YES the data have been checked, and the methods are correct",

or

"NO, we are pulling all this out of our butts" would be two possible answers.

So far, the data has been dubious, with various scientists having different conclusions form the same collection of data. Some have questioned the validity of the data collection methods. So far it's not very good science, but more 'art' or BS. The predictions by the GW folks have been wrong, so there is a problem somewhere.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Make with some citations. Otherwise, everything you said is FUD.

[BadKosh]

Show where the Climate models are correct. Thats the basis for all the BS.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Your argument is breathtakingly illogical, and at the risk of sounding offensive, quite stupid. No one can "prove" that climate models are correct – unless you've developed some process involving a De Lorean and a parking lot you haven't told anyone about.

You obviously have no conception of the argument here. Climate models are part of the proof for further climate change and global warming. You can't say "prove the proof!" You have to disprove the proof.

So once again, for at least the second time, citations are demanded for your statements

So far, the data has been dubious

So far it's not very good science

predictions by the GW folks have been wrong

As to your comment about reaching different conclusions from the same set of data...this is a scientific field. It happens all the time, in every one of them.

greg