Politics And AGW/GW

[jethro]

I have nothing against people coming up with well-reasoned criticism of the AGW theory and have actually had some decent discussions with sceptics who have offered some good points. Captain Bobski was a good recent example.

But if you look at the various articles posted by the likes of Noggin and Laserguy I think you'll find that a large percentage of them consists of similar arguments to what I presented in that parody.

I'm afraid Tamara is wrong about the contributors on these threads- some seem to work backwards from the premise that AGW doesn't exist and fit evidence around it, and actually support the kind of nonsense written in those articles purely because it yields that sought-after conclusion, namely "AGW doesn't exist".

And the exact same accusation can be levelled at some of the pro AGW fraternity on here. There are many who don't want to see, much less try and understand that there really are fairly large flaws in the CO2/AGW theory. It's much simpler to dismiss as "strawman" or ridicule the source, than argue their point from a scientific stance.

AGW is real I tell ya, real, true and settled and I don't care what evidence you produce to the contrary, I'll stick to my guns!!!

This sounds like an interesting book:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-c...ya.html?page=-1

Edited April 14, 2009 by jethro

[laserguy]

But if you look at the various articles posted by the likes of Noggin and Laserguy I think you'll find that a large percentage of them consists of similar arguments to what I presented in that parody.

Oh boy we're really getting to you now!!. It really is this simple: There is no AGW as currently defined - by the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to our activities. I see the warmers getting increasingly hysterical and insistent that it's real,it's happening,or it's just gone away for a while etc etc. Rubbish. It's over,whatever 'it' was,get over it. Wish it was that simple but the whole thing has sooo much baggage now,politically and other, that it has to be maintained regardless. I can see that and of course it's not just a case of everyone involved going "oh well that's that then,let's just forget it and get back to normal". Too much water under the bridge. Yes the 'likes' of me post articles and speak in a manner which touch raw nerves,but that is all that's left when we're up against a brick wall of denial. Once a derogatory term for the sceptics,it's now a fitting one for the warmers. I'm here for the laugh more than anything else now - it's fun watching the warmers tie themselves in knots trying to make a theory stand up when all the observed evidence says the polar opposite of what bad ol' CO2's supposed to do. Can't wait for the inevitable punchline 'cos it most assuredly is coming. Oh and hey aren't we having a mild April this year? Must be global warming. How's the USA doing...? Depends on who you ask,I suppose.

Some people work backwards from the premise that AGW does exist and fit 'evidence' around it.....don't they now?

[masheeuk]

i was just reading about a lower hurricaine season this year only 6 likely.

but the intresting part came when is was suggested that the tropical alantic has cooled unusualy.

(along with an unusual cooling of tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures it observed in recent months)

I have just come back from 2 weeks in Cuba and there was plenty of anecdotal evidence about fish catches being lower and also the cabin crew told us we were lucky where we went as most of Hispaniola has had constant rain for March which isn't the wet season.

[Solar Cycles]

Oh boy we're really getting to you now!!. It really is this simple: There is no AGW as currently defined - by the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to our activities. I see the warmers getting increasingly hysterical and insistent that it's real,it's happening,or it's just gone away for a while etc etc. Rubbish. It's over,whatever 'it' was,get over it. Wish it was that simple but the whole thing has sooo much baggage now,politically and other, that it has to be maintained regardless. I can see that and of course it's not just a case of everyone involved going "oh well that's that then,let's just forget it and get back to normal". Too much water under the bridge. Yes the 'likes' of me post articles and speak in a manner which touch raw nerves,but that is all that's left when we're up against a brick wall of denial. Once a derogatory term for the sceptics,it's now a fitting one for the warmers. I'm here for the laugh more than anything else now - it's fun watching the warmers tie themselves in knots trying to make a theory stand up when all the observed evidence says the polar opposite of what bad ol' CO2's supposed to do. Can't wait for the inevitable punchline 'cos it most assuredly is coming. Oh and hey aren't we having a mild April this year? Must be global warming. How's the USA doing...? Depends on who you ask,I suppose.

Some people work backwards from the premise that AGW does exist and fit 'evidence' around it.....don't they now?

The whole AGW theory ( fable ) as worked backwards from the start. They had a theory, and have continually tried to fit ( make up ) evidence around it. The clock is ticking warmist, still no signs of the doomsday scenairo ( or any warming what so ever ) in the pipeline! Some one wake me up when we start to warm again please!

[Thundery wintry showers]

...

Some people work backwards from the premise that AGW does exist and fit 'evidence' around it.....don't they now?

I agree with that bit in the quote, but the rest of that post is exactly the kind of thing that my satirical swipe was getting at. Yes, some of it is getting at me, but it's not what you would like it to be ("AGW is a myth and you just can't accept the truth" etc etc), it's the continued use of strawmen and circular reasoning. And as some above posts rightly say, it can happen on both sides of the debate, but the fact that some pro-AGW people are guilty of it doesn't make it any less wrong for the anti-AGW side to do it. I have tended to be more critical of the "anti" side because a greater percentage of the "anti" posts, IMO, have been extreme.

And the exact same accusation can be levelled at some of the pro AGW fraternity on here. There are many who don't want to see, much less try and understand that there really are fairly large flaws in the CO2/AGW theory. It's much simpler to dismiss as "strawman" or ridicule the source, than argue their point from a scientific stance.

AGW is real I tell ya, real, true and settled and I don't care what evidence you produce to the contrary, I'll stick to my guns!!!

This sounds like an interesting book:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-c...ya.html?page=-1

To be honest, I agree with a lot of what the writer of that article says.

I don't think there are any major flaws in the CO2/AGW theory in itself, but the extent of the CO2/AGW forcing, relative to things like solar forcing, is subject (IMHO) to a lot more uncertainty than many of the mainstream scientists like to make out. In the last couple of years I've increasingly taken up the view that the current practice of assuming climate model outputs as givens is the most potentially flawed aspect of current predictions. I have little doubt that current climate models are the best we have, so in that sense their outputs are the "best guess" so far... but it doesn't mean they're right!

I also think it's reasonable to state that the current rate of warming is not dangerous. Dangerous climate change is reliant upon positive feedbacks coming into play and increasing the rate of warming from the recent 0.1C/decade to nearer 0.3 to 0.5C/decade- again, subject to the potential flaws in future climate projections.

[osmposm]

Oh boy we're really getting to you now!!......I see the warmers getting increasingly hysterical and insistent that it's real,it's happening,or it's just gone away for a while etc etc. Rubbish. It's over,whatever 'it' was, get over it. Wish it was that simple but the whole thing has sooo much baggage now, politically and other, that it has to be maintained regardless.........Yes the 'likes' of me post articles and speak in a manner which touch raw nerves,but that is all that's left when we're up against a brick wall of denial.........I'm here for the laugh more than anything else now - it's fun watching the warmers tie themselves in knots....

I have no vested interest whatsoever - public or private - in continuing to believe in AGW, please don't include me in your dismissal. Why is it so hard for you to believe that many, many uncorrupt, honest people - a lot of them considerably more clever and knowledgeable than you or me - continue to believe in it not because they can't face not believing in it, but because they believe it - rightly or wrongly - to be true?

As to the excuse for your aggressively dismissive style, come on Barrie...you've been enjoying winding your opponents up from the moment you started posting here: it's just your way, it has nothing to do with feeling frustrated at our 'denial', and well you know it. I'm sorry, though, that nowadays you feel that watching AGWers squirm is your only reason for coming on here. Once upon a time (August 2007) you had the decency to admit "These debates are great fun AND educational..." Perhaps it's now time for you to leave the arguing to those who care about these things, and want to understand more. You could run along and do a little harmless dog-fighting or badger-baiting instead.

(And no friendly smiley face to finish, either, mate. IMHO excessive enjoyment of the wind-up is the bane of this forum, and it seldom makes me smile.)

Edited April 14, 2009 by osmposm

[Methuselah]

The whole AGW theory ( fable ) as worked backwards from the start. They had a theory, and have continually tried to fit ( make up ) evidence around it. The clock is ticking warmist, still no signs of the doomsday scenairo ( or any warming what so ever ) in the pipeline! Some one wake me up when we start to warm again please!

:unsure:

Good points from TWS, above...

I have no vested interest whatsoever - public or private - in continuing to believe in AGW, please don't include me in your dismissal. Why is it so hard for you to believe that many, many uncorrupt, honest people - a lot of them considerably more clever and knowledgeable than you or me - continue to believe in it not because they can't face not believing in it, but because they believe it - rightly or wrongly - to be true?

As to the excuse for your aggressively dismissive style, come on Barrie...you've been enjoying winding your opponents up from the moment you started posting here: it's just your way, it has nothing to do with feeling frustrated at our 'denial', and well you know it. I'm sorry, though, that nowadays you feel that watching AGWers squirm is your only reason for coming on here. Once upon a time (August 2007) you had the decency to admit "These debates are great fun AND educational..." Perhaps it's now time for you to leave the arguing to those who care about these things, and want to understand more. You could run along and do a little harmless dog-fighting or badger-baiting instead.

(And no friendly smiley face to finish, either, mate. IMHO excessive enjoyment of the wind-up is the bane of this forum, and it seldom makes me smile.)

Good and balanced approach there, Os...It's the antiscientific stance taken by so many 'sceptics' that disheartens me a bit. I wonder why some folks are so proud of their ignorance...Could it be a defence mechanism? Like - if I can't have it, no-one else is going to either?

PS: The perfectly valid scientific questions re: AGW theory are welcome; the Argument from Incredulity is a tad tiresome, however.

[Solar Cycles]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good points from TWS, above...

Good and balanced approach there, Os...It's the antiscientific stance taken by so many 'sceptics' that disheartens me a bit. I wonder why some folks are so proud of their ignorance...Could it be a defence mechanism? Like - if I can't have it, no-one else is going to either?

PS: The perfectly valid scientific questions re: AGW theory are welcome; the Argument from Incredulity is a tad tiresome, however.

I'm still waiting for somebody to show some some credible evidence, as to C02 being the cause of the warming we experinced 10+ years ago. All I see is lot's off talk, pretty little graphs, ( with corrupted data ) but no hard evidence. The past warming event was down to ENSO, and high solar activity, with the added CO2 taking a back seat, and going along for the ride. I'm not denying CO2 causes warming, but it's role is insignificant as a greehhouse gas compared to water vapour!

[Methuselah]

I'm not denying CO2 causes warming, but it's role is insignificant as a greehhouse gas compared to water vapour!

And, why and when does air take up more water vapour?

[jethro]

Linking CO2 to water vapour to create a positive feedback is THE biggest unknown in all of this. That's not a strawman argument, it's fact. Fact that the IPCC freely admit.

The models have been programmed with positive feedback for this loop, it is this which enables the projections to rise to ludicrous levels when forecasting future temperature increases. The atmosphere however, is showing clear signs of a negative feedback thus far. Research is on-going, but the information garnered to date, is in direct contrast to the programmed and assumed positive feedback loop.

Which to be honest, makes perfect, logical sense; without inherent negative feedback within the climate system as a whole, we'd have boiled out of existence long, long ago.

[Methuselah]

Linking CO2 to water vapour to create a positive feedback is THE biggest unknown in all of this. That's not a strawman argument, it's fact. Fact that the IPCC freely admit.

The models have been programmed with positive feedback for this loop, it is this which enables the projections to rise to ludicrous levels when forecasting future temperature increases. The atmosphere however, is showing clear signs of a negative feedback thus far. Research is on-going, but the information garnered to date, is in direct contrast to the programmed and assumed positive feedback loop.

Which to be honest, makes perfect, logical sense; without inherent negative feedback within the climate system as a whole, we'd have boiled out of existence long, long ago.

Are you saying that (in reality) warming air causes it to lose water?

Sorry Jethro, but your last sentence is a fantasy - whatever the minutiae of the feedbacks are, we are still here; and I think we should be safe enough to work backward from that? But, the addition of CO2 as a possible initiator (and not a feedback) of climate change may well be unprecedented?

Follow the white rabbit?

[jethro]

Are you saying that (in reality) warming air causes it to lose water?

Sorry Jethro, but your last sentence is a fantasy - whatever the minutiae of the feedbacks are, we are still here; and I think we should be safe enough to work backward from that? But, the addition of CO2 as a possible initiator (and not a feedback) of climate change may well be unprecedented?

Follow the white rabbit?

Sorry Pete but you are wrong. That's not me being a denying sceptic, that's the IPCC and the AGW theory and their projections, admitted missing information in their data and incomplete research.

What does water vapour make? Clouds.

The entire premise of AGW and CO2 causing warming, relies entirely upon positive water vapour feedback, CO2 alone is fairly innocuous.

The positive feedback loop assumed and modelled is (very short version, in a hurry) more water vapour due to warming, leading to more clouds, trapping heat, leading to more warming, more water vapour, more clouds.

What has been shown to be happening (not sceptic science, NASA aqua satellite) is that instead of heat trapping clouds forming, higher heat releasing (for want of a better phrase) clouds are forming, releasing heat into the upper atmosphere.

A NEGATIVE feedback.

Edited April 15, 2009 by jethro

[weather eater]

While even the sceptics admit there has been warming could they please provide evidence of cooling, not just a levelling out of global temperatures. I don’t mean predictions of cooling or so and so are back tracking from their predictions of warming etc, they are no more relevant than predictions of warming. As I say regardless of what you believe the causes to have been, nobody can deny that the planet has warmed. As a believer in both natural cycles and AGW I’m not interested in the claim and counter claim of CO2 vs. natural variations predictions for the future, I have witnessed the warming I would like to see hard evidence of genuine cooling.

[MR EXTREMES]

The whole AGW theory ( fable ) as worked backwards from the start. They had a theory, and have continually tried to fit ( make up ) evidence around it. The clock is ticking warmist, still no signs of the doomsday scenairo ( or any warming what so ever ) in the pipeline! Some one wake me up when we start to warm again please!

i wake you up in fifty years or more,

dont know what you might see when you wake up but just make sure you keep your heating on lol gotta feeling it might be rather chilly.

[Methuselah]

Sorry Pete but you are wrong. That's not me being a denying sceptic, that's the IPCC and the AGW theory and their projections, admitted missing information in their data and incomplete research.

What does water vapour make? Clouds.

The entire premise of AGW and CO2 causing warming, relies entirely upon positive water vapour feedback, CO2 alone is fairly innocuous.

The positive feedback loop assumed and modelled is (very short version, in a hurry) more water vapour due to warming, leading to more clouds, trapping heat, leading to more warming, more water vapour, more clouds.

What has been shown to be happening (not sceptic science, NASA aqua satellite) is that instead of heat trapping clouds forming, higher heat releasing (for want of a better phrase) clouds are forming, releasing heat into the upper atmosphere.

A NEGATIVE feedback.

I think we're closer to agreement here than we realize, Jethro? I agree: Water vapour does indeed make clouds - and rain and snow and fog...

But the question is: how does it get there in the first place? As a feedback caused by initial warming; that is a +ive feedback (Up to that point?)...After that, is IMO, where the problems lie: I would agree with you, in that some kind of -ive feedback(s) are more likely...But water vapour cannot initiate things - it's only a feedback?? :lol: And, I agree with you here too: CO2 cannot of itself be the cause of all of the recent warming...Natural forces are always at play, always have been and always will be.

I think that CO2's uniqueness lies not in its inherent ghg status, but in the fact that we are able to limit its buildup in ways that for H2O would prove fruitless, if not impossible?

[MR EXTREMES]

intresting i just read in another forum on here that it was rather cold and rather warm.

Aberystwyth

Max: 23.3C [2nd]

Min: -8.3C [15th]

this must mean high co2s and gw taking effect lol.

i mean it was that warm in the none tec era none of this human gw makes any sence to me twisted subject media get there pennies worth they do not help this subject,

but there are alot of people out there ie forecasters that have been around for many years and have seen the climate change in there lifetime,

and been told stories from there fathers and alot of them would agree warming has happened they also agree this is a natural event nothing more nothingless.

[Solar Cycles]

Sorry Pete but you are wrong. That's not me being a denying sceptic, that's the IPCC and the AGW theory and their projections, admitted missing information in their data and incomplete research.

What does water vapour make? Clouds.

The entire premise of AGW and CO2 causing warming, relies entirely upon positive water vapour feedback, CO2 alone is fairly innocuous.

The positive feedback loop assumed and modelled is (very short version, in a hurry) more water vapour due to warming, leading to more clouds, trapping heat, leading to more warming, more water vapour, more clouds.

What has been shown to be happening (not sceptic science, NASA aqua satellite) is that instead of heat trapping clouds forming, higher heat releasing (for want of a better phrase) clouds are forming, releasing heat into the upper atmosphere.

A NEGATIVE feedback.

I didn't want to point that out to Pete, as he seems to know all the answers! Good explanation Jethro by the way!!

While even the sceptics admit there has been warming could they please provide evidence of cooling, not just a levelling out of global temperatures. I don't mean predictions of cooling or so and so are back tracking from their predictions of warming etc, they are no more relevant than predictions of warming. As I say regardless of what you believe the causes to have been, nobody can deny that the planet has warmed. As a believer in both natural cycles and AGW I'm not interested in the claim and counter claim of CO2 vs. natural variations predictions for the future, I have witnessed the warming I would like to see hard evidence of genuine cooling.

Takes a while for all that heat that as built up, to be dispersed back into the atmosphere. So may be another 2-3 years, before we see the actual effects off any cooling!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I have nothing against people coming up with well-reasoned criticism of the AGW theory and have actually had some decent discussions with sceptics who have offered some good points. Captain Bobski was a good recent example.

But if you look at the various articles posted by the likes of Noggin and Laserguy I think you'll find that a large percentage of them consists of similar arguments to what I presented in that parody.

I'm afraid Tamara is wrong about the contributors on these threads- some seem to work backwards from the premise that AGW doesn't exist and fit evidence around it, and actually support the kind of nonsense written in those articles purely because it yields that sought-after conclusion, namely "AGW doesn't exist".

No, she just sees things differently to you. It's called opinion, and makes you no more right, as you believe you are, than you believe I am wrong.

As for Noggin and Laserguy, they both have a good instinct that tells them that AGW is overcooked. They also know enough unclouded good old fashioned and uncluttered science that tells them the same. Old fashioned science such as studying the sun, has perished at the expense of overcomplicated theoretical methods that, as modern life shows in many aspects of our lives, aren't always the best. Their own thinking IMO is not based on any dubious blog that they may present on here (which is often to just try and lighten the grim mood that often prevails) but an attempt to see past the climate drug induced heat haze.

Has it occured to you that those who believe in AGW work from their own premise that AGW exists at the expense of all else and therefore fits evidence around it to present as fact?

Most AGW proponents believe that the science is settled, done and dusted, cut and dried, forgotting in the process that their scientific belief is still theory, and that somehow the sole onus is down to those who are seen as 'slow on the uptake' in terms of the fact that they are dragging their heels by being naively far less convinced about causes of climate variability (however that manifests itself) to 'prove' otherwise.

That is the type of stubborness and arrogance that is often referred to by 'sceptics' on here and which is a red rag to a bull when a mere mortal sceptic 'dares' to suggest so. The IPCC is the umbrella flagship of this doctrine and so it is no surprise that it is a 'protected species' to any questioning threats in the eyes of its disciples and why anyone gets roasted if they dare to criticise it.

It is incredibly hypocritical that part of an 'act now' plan to combine the alleged deadly ravages of warming is to have human meddling with seeding the stratosphere as a last ditch attempt to put out the alleged human induced global inferno. Extraordinary when sanctimony of AGW belief is typically manifested in terms of messiac preaching and waving fingers at the 'mess we have made of our planet' in terms of human interference to cause the climatic catastrophe in the first place. It is not so much the action itself in isolation of all else, but the principle behind it that is the problem in terms of the hypocrisy. The irony is that it would turn out to be the sort of thing that brings forward the sort of opposite pronounced (and potentially harmful) cooling threat through exacerbating the natural forcings and feedbacks, that exist in the first place and very probably are at the centre of the whole climate fuss in the first place! :lol:

I am very deliberately eschewing to the science of Laserguy et al btw in terms of the whole rhetoric in this post - nutcases!

Edited April 15, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

intresting i just read in another forum on here that it was rather cold and rather warm.

Aberystwyth

Max: 23.3C [2nd]

Min: -8.3C [15th]

this must mean high co2s and gw taking effect lol.

i mean it was that warm in the none tec era none of this human gw makes any sence to me twisted subject media get there pennies worth they do not help this subject,

but there are alot of people out there ie forecasters that have been around for many years and have seen the climate change in there lifetime,

and been told stories from there fathers and alot of them would agree warming has happened they also agree this is a natural event nothing more nothingless. B)

Mardon pe?

I didn't want to point that out to Pete, as he seems to know all the answers! Good explanation Jethro by the way!!

Please see my reply to jethro?

Takes a while for all that heat that as built up, to be dispersed back into the atmosphere. So may be another 2-3 years, before we see the actual effects off any cooling!

So it's invisibe cooling? We can't measure it - we just know it's there.

No, she just sees things differently to you. It's called opinion, and makes you no more right, as you believe you are, than you believe I am wrong.

As for Noggin and Laserguy, they both have a good instinct that tells them that AGW is overcooked. They also know enough unclouded good old fashioned and uncluttered science that tells them the same. Old fashioned science such as studying the sun, has perished at the expense of overcomplicated theoretical methods that, as modern life shows in many aspects of our lives, aren't always the best. Their own thinking IMO is not based on any dubious blog that they may present on here (which is often to just try and lighten the grim mood that often prevails) but an attempt to see past the climate drug induced heat haze.

Has it occured to you that those who believe in AGW work from their own premise that AGW exists at the expense of all else and therefore fits evidence around it to present as fact?

Most AGW proponents believe that the science is settled, done and dusted, cut and dried, forgotting in the process that their scientific belief is still theory, and that somehow the sole onus is down to those who are seen as 'slow on the uptake' in terms of the fact that they are dragging their heels by being naively far less convinced about causes of climate variability (however that manifests itself) to 'prove' otherwise.

That is the type of stubborness and arrogance that is often referred to by 'sceptics' on here and which is a red rag to a bull when a mere mortal sceptic 'dares' to suggest so. The IPCC is the umbrella flagship of this doctrine and so it is no surprise that it is a 'protected species' to any questioning threats in the eyes of its disciples and why anyone gets roasted if they dare to criticise it.

It is incredibly hypocritical that part of an 'act now' plan to combine the alleged deadly ravages of warming is to have human meddling with seeding the stratosphere as a last ditch attempt to put out the alleged human induced global inferno. Extraordinary when sanctimony of AGW belief is typically manifested in terms of messiac preaching and waving fingers at the 'mess we have made of our planet' in terms of human interference to cause the climatic catastrophe in the first place. It is not so much the action itself in isolation of all else, but the principle behind it that is the problem in terms of the hypocrisy. The irony is that it would turn out to be the sort of thing that brings forward the sort of opposite pronounced (and potentially harmful) cooling threat through exacerbating the natural forcings and feedbacks, that exist in the first place and very probably are at the centre of the whole climate fuss in the first place! :lol:

I am very deliberately eschewing to the science of Laserguy et al btw in terms of the whole rhetoric in this post - nutcases!

I think we all need sit back for a bit, Tamara? Invective and instinct do not add substance. You make too many assumptions as to your detractors' motives...I do it too, and I apologize!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Re. Tamara's post, you can stifle any debate with extreme use of the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" card. Why bother having a debate, if someone can spout any old nonsense and just say, "I'm entitled to my opinion so you have to accept everything I say" and then keep repeating it over and over again, preventing any kind of debate from getting off the ground? If all opinions are equally valid, is it equally valid to work from the premise that 2+2=2358945893468934689 as it is to assume 2+2=4? While there is often more than one possible "right" answer to a question, there are usually at least some answers that can be proved to be false.

In the old days I used to be accepting of the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" idea, but I'm increasingly of the view that tolerance is self-limiting. There is generally no harm in tolerating views, even intolerant views, if they do not pose a threat to a tolerant society. But if we tolerate the use of views in a way that is detrimental to the collective good of the population, then as a whole, tolerance suffers. In a discussion we need well-reasoned arguments, and it is entirely possible to get good discussions on here with well-reasoned debates, but some people prefer to trash the debates with all manner of circular reasoning and repeated use of the "we're all entitled to our opinions" get-out-clause. In essence, we have to respect two things, not just entitlement to views, but also the quality of the discussion itself.

From Noggin and more especially Laserguy, all I see is arguments that work backwards from the premise "AGW is a myth", latch onto anything that agrees with it, and conclude from this cherry-picked "evidence" that AGW is a myth. If that's seen to be good debate, perhaps some read-ups on internet articles on straw man fallacies and circular reasoning/begging the question might be in order.

Has it occured to you that those who believe in AGW work from their own premise that AGW exists at the expense of all else and therefore fits evidence around it to present as fact?

Nope. Some of those who believe in AGW may do so, but it's not even close to being all. On my part, I would like to believe that there is no such thing as AGW, but having studied the evidence, I have concluded- for now- that it is long odds against. Hopefully some new evidence might come to fruition in the near future that might challenge my current view, but for my view to change I need to see substantiated evidence. "AGW is a myth because AGW is a myth" just doesn't cut it. And before anyone accuses me of being closed minded, I've seen good points challenging AGW by Captain Bobski recently, and there was a decent article posted earlier by Jethro. That's the kind of scepticism we need to be seeing more of.

[osmposm]

intresting i just read in another forum on here that it was rather cold and rather warm.

Aberystwyth

Max: 23.3C [2nd]

Min: -8.3C [15th]

What on earth is this, BB? This year's stats for Aberystwyth for April? Can't be right. The all-time extremes for the month? Possibly, but what has that got to do with anything that we are discussing?? EDIT: OK, I've found it - the month's extremes for April 1892.....interesting, sure, but..um..why post them here??????

i mean it was that warm in the none tec era none of this human gw makes any sence to me twisted subject media get there pennies worth they do not help this subject,

BB, I know you find writing English tricky, you've bravely and honestly apologized for it before. But this sentence really is a corker - incredibly difficult to understand in less than three readings (and even then I'm not sure). There seem to be two or three different thoughts there - could you not divide them up in some way......commas, full stops....Capital letters after the stops and for people's/organisation's names (including 'I')?

I often wonder how long some people take to write a post. Do they preview it and think about how they could make it clearer? And if spelling is a problem, why not - as John has suggested - at least use a spell-checker? It can help a bit. One of the problem with fast and careless posting is that it leads me to suspect that the thoughts behind it are also fast and careless. I don't really have the time and energy to listen to them, I'm too busy listening to the many people whose thoughts are deep and considered.

OK, end of pompous dinosaur grumble.

Edited April 15, 2009 by osmposm

[Solar Cycles]

Re. Tamara's post, you can stifle any debate with extreme use of the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" card. Why bother having a debate, if someone can spout any old nonsense and just say, "I'm entitled to my opinion so you have to accept everything I say" and then keep repeating it over and over again, preventing any kind of debate from getting off the ground? If all opinions are equally valid, is it equally valid to work from the premise that 2+2=2358945893468934689 as it is to assume 2+2=4? While there is often more than one possible "right" answer to a question, there are usually at least some answers that can be proved to be false.

In the old days I used to be accepting of the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" idea, but I'm increasingly of the view that tolerance is self-limiting. There is generally no harm in tolerating views, even intolerant views, if they do not pose a threat to a tolerant society. But if we tolerate the use of views in a way that is detrimental to the collective good of the population, then as a whole, tolerance suffers. In a discussion we need well-reasoned arguments, and it is entirely possible to get good discussions on here with well-reasoned debates, but some people prefer to trash the debates with all manner of circular reasoning and repeated use of the "we're all entitled to our opinions" get-out-clause. In essence, we have to respect two things, not just entitlement to views, but also the quality of the discussion itself.

From Noggin and more especially Laserguy, all I see is arguments that work backwards from the premise "AGW is a myth", latch onto anything that agrees with it, and conclude from this cherry-picked "evidence" that AGW is a myth. If that's seen to be good debate, perhaps some read-ups on internet articles on straw man fallacies and circular reasoning/begging the question might be in order.

Nope. Some of those who believe in AGW may do so, but it's not even close to being all. On my part, I would like to believe that there is no such thing as AGW, but having studied the evidence, I have concluded- for now- that it is long odds against. Hopefully some new evidence might come to fruition in the near future that might challenge my current view, but for my view to change I need to see substantiated evidence. "AGW is a myth because AGW is a myth" just doesn't cut it. And before anyone accuses me of being closed minded, I've seen good points challenging AGW by Captain Bobski recently, and there was a decent article posted earlier by Jethro. That's the kind of scepticism we need to be seeing more of.

TWS, the evidence for CO2 being responsible for the past warming, is sketchy to say the least. How come your viewpoint is so easily swayed on the little evidence there is to support AGW? And yet you dismiss any other factor out off hand, when there is more than enough evidence to suggest that natural forcings, are way more dominant than any climate scientist cares to admit!

[pottyprof]

If all opinions are equally valid, is it equally valid to work from the premise that 2+2=2358945893468934689 as it is to assume 2+2=4? While there is often more than one possible "right" answer to a question, there are usually at least some answers that can be proved to be false.

Or 2+2=5..... which, while the answer is right in some realms of mathematics, It gives huge errors in calculating actual detail in others.

[Thundery wintry showers]

TWS, the evidence for CO2 being responsible for the past warming, is sketchy to say the least. How come your viewpoint is so easily swayed on the little evidence there is to support AGW? And yet you dismiss any other factor out off hand, when there is more than enough evidence to suggest that natural forcings, are way more dominant than any climate scientist cares to admit!

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas- check out various textbooks on the issue explaining the science on how CO2 is part of the feedback process that helps keep the earth warm. The theory is, if we increase the CO2 concentration the balance will be tipped in favour of a warmer climate (to what extent, however, remains unclear).

2. Climate models support the AGW theory. Yes, they aren't foolproof, and yes there are potentially flawed assumptions going into them, but they are a line of evidence.

3. Humans are changing the Earth in numerous ways other than belching out CO2. For example contributing to methane production, cutting down the rainforests and changing planetary albedo. Most of these extra forcings point towards warming.

4. The planet has warmed over the last 30 years and, as yet, there is no convincing evidence that natural forcing can account for all of the warming (there's certainly strong evidence for it accounting for some of the warming, but not all of it).

Nothing 100% conclusive, but to my mind most of the evidence points towards AGW being a factor, albeit of unclear extent.

[Methuselah]

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas- check out various textbooks on the issue explaining the science on how CO2 is part of the feedback process that helps keep the earth warm. The theory is, if we increase the CO2 concentration the balance will be tipped in favour of a warmer climate (to what extent, however, remains unclear).

2. Climate models support the AGW theory. Yes, they aren't foolproof, and yes there are potentially flawed assumptions going into them, but they are a line of evidence.

3. Humans are changing the Earth in numerous ways other than belching out CO2. For example contributing to methane production, cutting down the rainforests and changing planetary albedo. Most of these extra forcings point towards warming.

4. The planet has warmed over the last 30 years and, as yet, there is no convincing evidence that natural forcing can account for all of the warming (there's certainly strong evidence for it accounting for some of the warming, but not all of it).

Nothing 100% conclusive, but to my mind most of the evidence points towards AGW being a factor, albeit of unclear extent.

You clearly miss the point TWS. Solar Cycles is the world's foremost extant climate-scientist!