Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by humy
This is in response to my post of;

"...and yet you never give a straight answer to many of our questions, hypocrite.
Like, what evidence would convince you that there exists significant amount of man made global warming?..."

OBVIOUSLY, your response of "I'll know when I see [b]it" doesn't answer the question because it doesn't say what that "..it" is ...[text shortened]... ly what I and others said; you never give a straight answer to many of our questions, hypocrite.[/b]

There is no way to answer the question to your satisfaction. I.E you are being unreasonable.

I could give you a concise answer that is simply "show me the data", but then you would present cherry picked data including unreliable surface temps which I would reasonably reject because of the heat island effect. I could accept surface temps if the data is so far in the past it is the only data available, but if the data dropped off like a rock right when the satellite data ends it would be a red flag that deserves skepticism.

Clearly I cannot give you a specific answer since agreeing to accept data when all data is not equal would just give you a chance to say something like "you are a liar, you said you would accept the data" or something like that.
It is pretty hard to say what I would need to see since I have never seen it before. Kind of like expecting me to draw a Dodo Bird without a picture. If you insist on maintaining that I can easily answer your question then you should answer a similar question.

What would convince you that anthropogenic global warming is not the primary cause of global warming?

Originally posted by wildgrass
Questions are a type of sentence structure designed to prompt an answer. I don't see any such sentences in any of your recent posts except: "Seriously?"

My answer, to that, is yes.

In response your "false assertions" accusation, I can only work with the information you have provided. Your committed refusal to answer simple questions requires a little bit of inference if we're going to get anywhere.

If you answer my questions instead of avoiding them I will do the same in return. First you must show you can do that. Until then you cannot expect me to let you maintain a double standard that is unreasonable.

I think the Pliocene Epoch is very good evidence that CO2 warming has been greatly overestimated to the point of ridiculousness. The credibility of alarmists has greatly diminished as a result. The burden of proof belongs on the liars and supporters of the liars. Skeptics don't need to lie. The data is good enough for us as long as the data is reliable. If we say surface temps are unreliable it is because they are, we don't have to make it up.

Either you can accept facts or you cannot. I don't think you can.

Can you show me the data from a reliable source of information that shows the source of all the data entries? Can you show me a climate model that accurately (or close to accurate) predicts the future climate? Notice the question marks.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
There is no way to answer the question to your satisfaction.

Rubbish. It is a perfectly simple question and wouldn't be hard to answer if you have an answer. ANY answer that actually answers the question would satisfy me just fine. You just refuse to answer and then hypocritically accuse us of not answering your questions even though we repeatedly have until we realize we are wasting our time doing so because you lie and pretend we haven't. We have stopped being fooled.

Originally posted by humy
Rubbish. It is a perfectly simple question and wouldn't be hard to answer if you have an answer. ANY answer that actually answers the question would satisfy me just fine. You just refuse to answer and then hypocritically accuse us of not answering your questions even though we repeatedly have until we realize we are wasting our time doing so because you lie and pretend we haven't. We have stopped being fooled.

What would convince you that anthropogenic global warming is not the primary cause of global warming?

If you could answer it better you would have. FAIL!!!!!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What would convince you that anthropogenic global warming is not the primary cause of global warming?

EITHER;

1, we discover there is something wrong with the assumed laws of physics as we currently understand it i.e. something wrong with the assumed laws of physics that logically implies that CO2 SHOULD cause warming. And then we discover that the corrected understanding of the laws implies that CO2 should NOT cause significant warming after all!
For example, if we discover CO2 in the lab somehow for some reason behaves differently from outside the lab and doesn't absorb infrared, at least not by as nearly as much, outside the lab despite observations of it absorbing infrared inside the lab.

OR

2, the data of actual observed temperatures are such that all of the climate models that conform to the know laws of physics and thus predict global warming from CO2 cannot explain any of the observed warming that is such that that warming can always be fully and more easily explained by various natural causes i.e. with no need for CO2 to explain any of the warming.
That would at the very least, if not prove likely, hint at the credible possibility that there may be something wrong with our understanding of the laws of physics that logically imply CO2 SHOULD cause warming, even if we don't yet know what is wrong with that understanding.

Note that neither 1 or 2 has happened (at least not yet) and we have no rational reason (at least not yet) to think either 1 or 2 is likely to ever happen.

Now I have answered your question to the full, will you answer mine to the full?
Or are you going to prove yourself an evasive lying hypocrite yet again?

Originally posted by humy
EITHER;

1, we discover there is something wrong with the assumed laws of physics as we currently understand it i.e. something wrong with the assumed laws of physics that logically implies that CO2 SHOULD cause warming. And then we discover that the corrected understanding of the laws implies that CO2 should NOT cause significant warming after all!
For examp ...[text shortened]... swer mine to the full?
Or are you going to prove yourself an evasive lying hypocrite yet again?

That is ridiculous.

The Pliocene Epoch already proves that CO2 warming was greatly overestimated by alarmists with their climate model failures. Junk in/junk out. Climate models are only as good as the input info and clearly the idiotic overestimation continues. Nobody claims CO2 doesn't cause warming to some extent, but the Pliocene already makes you look stupid because you keep ignoring it compared to now.

FAILURE AFTER FAILURE. Get a better hobby!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If you answer my questions instead of avoiding them I will do the same in return. First you must show you can do that. Until then you cannot expect me to let you maintain a double standard that is unreasonable.

I think the Pliocene Epoch is very good evidence that CO2 warming has been greatly overestimated to the point of ridiculousness. The credibili ...[text shortened]... l that accurately (or close to accurate) predicts the future climate? Notice the question marks.

You should first realize that you have staked out a "scientific" position on the presupposition that you cannot be proven false. You have not established a theoretical or experimental framework that would allow your hypothesis to be rejected. By definition, this line of global warming skepticism is pseudoscience. The scientific method works on these general principles: form a hypothesis, make measurements and observations to test that hypothesis, make conclusions, modify hypothesis, move forward. Climate skeptics seemingly work backwards, modifying the original hypothesis based on what the results demonstrate.

Finally, you have asked questions. "Can you show me the data from a reliable source of information that shows the source of all the data entries?"

Well, we already discussed the Marzeion et al. [1] study, which I think is a very good example of the type of in-depth research that skeptics conveniently ignore. That data is well-sourced and they reference the raw data in the article. I trust these sources based on the overall rigor of the study, the journals impact, the scientists involved and their thorough description of the published data sources. Note that their data was "independently validated against both annual surface observations and observed, temporally accumulated volume changes of hundreds of glaciers [2]." Since its publication, the results have been validated by independent research groups (e.g. [3]).Also note that they do not use surface temp data at all, so that talking point is irrelevant.

We've already discussed the findings, but maybe it bears repeating. That study modeled observed rates of glacial mass lost against all known climate change "forcings". They ultimately rejected the null hypothesis that current rates of glacial loss can be explained by natural forcings alone. If they included man-made forcing variables, they could accurately model the glacial mass loss rates, and on average the human contribution was 69%. In a subsequent study, at least 45% of current sea level rise was attributed to human forcings [4]. If alternative explanations exist, to my knowledge they have not been described or validated in with the same degree of scientific rigor. In the 3 years since it's publication, I have not seen any scientific study that presents an alternative hypothesis.

I agree with you that the Pliocene Epoch data is compelling. I don't know that scientists have fully explained it. But there are significantly more unknown variables in those datasets compared to studies using our current climate. From my understanding, there are some issues in interpretation of that data (e.g. what were the rates of change in temperature and CO2, the exact temperatures matched to CO2 levels, unknown variables). Therefore, I do not think one should categorically reject studies of current climate based on the Pliocene findings. Furthermore, since all of the Pliocene climate conclusions rely on climate modeling, if you are rejecting current climate models for their inability to predict the future, you should also reject the Pliocene data.

Your second question is more difficult. How does one prove accuracy of future predictions when the future hasn't happened yet? I agree with you that predictions are tricky and often wrong. But if there is to be any honest attempt to understand and mitigate potential man-made climate change, predictions have to be made. We often cannot predict terrorist attacks either, but we can still take reasonable measures to mitigate future risk. That said, the scientific rationale for the accuracy of climate predictions is reasonable [5]. It is, therefore, very likely that reducing atmospheric CO2, modifying our land use policies, etc. will mitigate risks associated with climate change.

[1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/345/6199/919.full.pdf
[2] J. G. Cogley, Ann. Glaciol. 50 (50), 96–100 (2009)
[3] http://journals.ametsoc.org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0128.1
[4] Dangendorf, S. et al. Detecting anthropogenic footprints in sea level rise. Nature Commun. 6, 7849 (2015).
[5] http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That is ridiculous.

The Pliocene Epoch already proves that CO2 warming was greatly overestimated by alarmists with their climate model failures. Junk in/junk out. Climate models are only as good as the input info and clearly the idiotic overestimation continues. Nobody claims CO2 doesn't cause warming to some extent, but the Pliocene already makes you ...[text shortened]... upid because you keep ignoring it compared to now.

FAILURE AFTER FAILURE. Get a better hobby!

You put a lot of faith in that analysis but newer work has shown that early stuff wrong. I don't have the link just yet.
If that falls, your whole argument goes down the drain.

Originally posted by wildgrass

since all of the Pliocene climate conclusions rely on climate modeling, if you are rejecting current climate models for their inability to predict the future, you should also reject the Pliocene data.

Exactly! He cannot have it both ways.

Even if CO2 doesn't wreck our atmosphere and hence climate, shouldn't we live cleanly and sustainbly anyway?
People pollute their environment and their bodies out of boredom and an influx of cash... and the poorer countries aspire to this type of living . Carazy Man!!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That is ridiculous.! .... alarmists...

So THAT is your completely stupid unintelligent response; -Yet again refusing to answer a perfectly simple question after you repeatedly complaining we don't ever answer yours, even though we repeatedly did and in great length.
I CLEARLY answered your question to the full and yet you STILL do not answer mine.
Just as I thought you would; you prove yourself an evasive lying hypocrite YET AGAIN. You are a complete waste of our time.
Your refusal to answer the question of what evidence will convince you tells us no evidence would; in other words, your denial of man made climate change is nothing more than a stupid religion and you are a complete moron.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That is ridiculous.

The Pliocene Epoch already proves that CO2 warming was greatly overestimated by alarmists with their climate model failures. Junk in/junk out. Climate models are only as good as the input info and clearly the idiotic overestimation continues. Nobody claims CO2 doesn't cause warming to some extent, but the Pliocene already makes you ...[text shortened]... upid because you keep ignoring it compared to now.

FAILURE AFTER FAILURE. Get a better hobby!

http://www.sciencealert.com/siberia-s-huge-doorway-to-the-underworld-is-getting-so-big-it-s-uncovering-millennia-old-forests-and-carcasses

This is the first warning shot of climate change.

Originally posted by humy
So THAT is your completely stupid unintelligent response; -Yet again refusing to answer a perfectly simple question after you repeatedly complaining we don't ever answer yours, even though we repeatedly did and in great length.
I CLEARLY answered your question to the full and yet you STILL do not answer mine.
Just as I thought you would; you prove yourself a ...[text shortened]... of man made climate change is nothing more than a stupid religion and you are a complete moron.

I answered your question. This fact obviously bothers you.

Originally posted by wildgrass
You should first realize that you have staked out a "scientific" position on the presupposition that you cannot be proven false. You have not established a theoretical or experimental framework that would allow your hypothesis to be rejected. By definition, this line of global warming skepticism is pseudoscience. The scientific method works on these genera ...[text shortened]... , 7849 (2015).
[5] http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf

"Furthermore, since all of the Pliocene climate conclusions rely on climate modeling, if you are rejecting current climate models for their inability to predict the future, you should also reject the Pliocene data. "

I never brought up climate modelling in regards to the Pliocene Epoch. I was not even aware of it. Like you said, the Pliocene is compelling. That is my only point.

" I agree with you that predictions are tricky and often wrong. But if there is to be any honest attempt to understand and mitigate potential man-made climate change, predictions have to be made."

I agree. Let the predictions be tested despite their unreliable results so far. That is fair.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I answered your question. This fact obviously bothers you.

you obviously haven't ever answered the question and you obviously don't fool anyone here. This fact obviously bothers you.

What was you answer? And when I say "answer" here don't mean you moronic response which doesn't answer the question but rather exactly what logically answers the equation.
Let me make it EVEN simpler for you;

Exactly what evidence would convince you we scientists here were completely right about global warming and you were wrong?

Are you now going to repeat the old evasive tactic of pretending to be so incredibly stupid you don't understand the question?
I have answered the converse question to the full i.e. I have explained in full exactly what evidence would convince ME we were wrong about global warming and you were right. This fact obviously bothers you.
Now it is only fair you answer mine to the full, which I presume you won't and thus showing yet again the lying hypocrite you are.