On 8 Mar 2012 at 5:51pm bloke wrote:
FAO Southover Girl & Paul Newman
As I suggested would happen here last week the contents of Richard Lindzen's talk to a public meeting in the House of Commons, described in this forum by Southover Girl as "Hard Scientific facts about Global Warming" has been thoroughly debunked. See the link below.
Check it out here »
On 9 Mar 2012 at 3:15am Paul Newman wrote:
Well this site is probably a bit excitable but there is a sound point behind it which is this. The sea level rises, the large temperature rises and so on predicted in the 70s have not happened.
Do you think when the latest lot of apocalyptic visions fail to appear there will be any period of introspective doubt. Nope it will be included in a new model with even more dire warnings. Agreed ?
Enjoy your self loathing
Check it out here »
On 9 Mar 2012 at 3:36am Paul Newman wrote:
On your own site you will find a shrill ...'debunking of the myth' that the predictions were all wrong( Well a lot of them were and most of the Green Press was). Compare their dishonest and highly misleading graph with this more balanced view which is itself supprtive but less obviously proselytising
Hansen over estimated temperature change with his best guess but his well publicised outlier which had us all drowning and burning was fiction. I think this is also a balanced insight into how established this or that model actually is and how mundane uncertain science is misused by the lobby and its familiars
Check it out here »
On 9 Mar 2012 at 8:28am DFL wrote:
Well, give it some time Paul, patience my friend. The seas will rise, albeit way after we have departed. But make sure your offspring, and theirs to come, have relocated to atleast 70 metres above sea level, that should keep them safe for the future, and, teach them to become self sustaining, as there'll be a rush for the meagre fuel and food on supply.
On 9 Mar 2012 at 9:23am Cliffite wrote:
Am sure this is nothing to worry about
Check it out here »
On 9 Mar 2012 at 9:43am Paul Newman wrote:
I'm not actually a denier DFL. I do say that the nature of the science is mis-represented and it is not without an agenda. Also that the sort of Policy response required are not the sort of single issue fanatic stuff of the Greens. Even if one did provisionally accept there are risks, and I do on common sense grounds,it does not by any means follow that the y are the only ones or that the solutions are the sort of anti capitalist far left dream-scape recommended by the childish Green Party.
My chief worry for my off spring is the burden of debt bequeathed by Public Sector pensions, emigrate to sunny Lapland perhaps? God inows why any young person would want to stay in this failure factory.
On 9 Mar 2012 at 11:15am bloke wrote:
Regarding your first post
"Well this site is probably a bit excitable"
Yeah. Green ink style excitable.
" ... but there is a sound point behind it which is this. The sea level rises, the large temperature rises and so on predicted in the 70s have not happened."
Now this is what's called a straw man. You first have to demonstrate that there were predictions (and I mean scientific evidence-based predictions, not speculative opinion pieces in the popular press or sci-fi films like 'The Omega Man' or 'Waterworld') indicating that there would be dramatic sea-level rises within the timeframe of then ( i.e. 1970s) to now. Can you do this? I don‚??t think you will be able to do this.
What you will find are estimates of sea-level rise from a few years ago that have been revised *upwards* due to more thorough analysis!! The 2007 IPCC reports suggested a rise of about 60cm by the end of the century. Current estimates suggest that we can expect a rise of around 1 metre (error range 80cm-2metres) by 2100.
Despite what you may have read in a thoroughly discredited article by Nils-Axel M√∂rner in the Spectator, sea levels are most definitely rising and the rate of rise is accelerating. Between 1950 and 2009 sea levels rose at a rate of 1.7mm per year and between 1993-2009 they rose at a rate of 3.3mm per year (source:h++p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise).
"Do you think when the latest lot of apocalyptic visions fail to appear there will be any period of introspective doubt. Nope it will be included in a new model with even more dire warnings. Agreed ?"
Neither you nor I will be around to contemplate that Paul, we'll both be long dead.
Regarding your second post
"On your own site you will find a shrill ...'debunking of the myth' that the predictions were all wrong( Well a lot of them were and most of the Green Press was)."
You'll have to be a bit more precise here, which predictions were wrong about what?
"Hansen over estimated temperature change with his best guess"
Are you reading the same page I am? Firstly remember this is a prediction form a paper that came out in 1988 (nearly a quarter of a century ago). Hansen gave 3 scenarios and Scenario B was the mid-range 'best guess' as you put it (it's never guess!). Lets be clear on what these scenarios were forcasting Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth (this is not what has happened, so one would not expect it to meet the real world) Scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth (which is what has actually happened), and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000 (as if we were ever likely to get agreement on that).
The page you linked to says "The overestimate in B compared to the best estimate of the total forcings is more like 5%. Given the uncertainties in the observed forcings, this is about as good as can be reasonably expected. As an aside, the match without including the efficacy factors is even better"- so scenario B was out by about 5%. In other words 95% accurate. ‚?¶ The bottom line? Scenario B is pretty close and certainly well within the error estimates of the real world changes. And if you factor in the 5 to 10% overestimate of the forcings in a simple way, Scenario B would be right in the middle of the observed trends. It is certainly close enough to provide confidence that the model is capable of matching the global mean temperature rise! ‚?¶ My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model‚??s consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get". That's a pretty damn good endorsement for a 24 year old prediction.
".. his well publicised outlier which had us all drowning and burning was fiction. I think this is also a balanced insight into how established this or that model actually is and how mundane uncertain science is misused by the lobby and its familiars"
You are referring to scenario A. Actually what that shows is how much of a knife edge we are on. As stated above Scenario A assumed an exponential increase in CO2 emissions. Given the 95% accuracy Hansen's Scenario B which closely followed what has actually happened with regard to emissions since 1988, just think how bad it could have been if we had completely ignored the warnings about exponentially increasing greenhouse emissions.
The fact that you refer to "well publicised outlier which had us all drowning and burning" appears to me to show that you're listening too much (perhaps indirectly) to the shrill voices of those like James Delingole, Christopher Brooker and Melanie Phillips who claim it's all a scam or a left-wing conspiracy or the New World Order or echo-fascists or whatever making it all up, and make villains out of hard working scientists like Phil Jones and Hansen; when you should be listening what the science itself says.
Regarding Hansen's predictions. I'll put a link here showing how Hansen's Scenario A predictions have been completely misrepresented by the denier brigade resulting in people thinking Hansen got it all wrong.
Check it out here »
On 10 Mar 2012 at 8:39am DFL wrote:
For heaven's sake bloke, keep it simple.....and short !! I nearly fell asleep just looking at that post !
On 10 Mar 2012 at 8:46am DFL wrote:
Here's an example :-
Resources in the world are running out, please use them sparingly, and if possible, find a way to replace them, else, we die.
On 10 Mar 2012 at 8:53am Paul Newman wrote:
You can`t have it both ways. You want the propaganda produced by the climate lobby, to be both true and yet deniable when it comes to emerging evidence, either irrelevant or adjacent to a knife edge.
Its like the pro EU campaigners who deny that there was ever any lie involved in calling the nascent EU the Common Market as the name never had any real status. That was not something anyone was very clear about at the time.
Many will also remember that the sea was indeed supposed to sweep over Holland and submerge East Anglia. Now the story is that this was only an outlying worst possible nightmare projection which turns out to be about as useful as a monkey setting the table. Given that the range of possibilities covers everything from hell fire to penguin house, the uncomfortable feeling that this lacks any testable core must surely strike even so fawning a familiar as you .
The hottest year since records began you cry ,and when did records begin then, well yesterday in climate terms so you are continuing to misrepresent the weather as the climate and Hansen himself as blamed storms , storms fcs ,on climate change and is still on about the seas boiling as was Al Gore again with deniability added
Your great argument is from cultural and democratic authority ,ie that most climate scientists agree that climate science the most important thing in the world to which I take the same sanguine attitude I take to the ex cathedra announcement s of the BMA .
You want to entirely dismiss eminent scientists who do not have to paste some blog to have a sense of perspective .You say Linzen has been debunked because your blog disagrees. Super, others agree and as qualified to judge which is the better grounded as a new born babe
You say Morner is discredited . Go on then discredit him ? Have you seen his CV do you think you would dare squeak if he popped in to give you a lesson ? Do you think you have abetter grasp of science than he does ? ..Oh god I dread the answer to that
Does anyone think that had a Hansen invented his computer generated scare in the 40s it would have predicted a slight cooling and the warming later ? You appreciate that 98 % of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are there anyway , that why we don‚??t freeze to death , were you aware of this ?
I have no special point of view. I am only amused to silly googlers who think if you won`t be lead by the nose by today`s scientific scare, largely popularised by belligerent US campus Liberals, you might as well be a creationist.
On 10 Mar 2012 at 9:39am Paul Newman wrote:
This is Lindzen on the subject of scientific unanimity ( and rememeber , according to bloke a word of douibt is the same as disbeliving evolution ..)
Check it out here »
On 10 Mar 2012 at 2:17pm bloke wrote:
Thankfully keeping you awake is not something I'm particularly concerned about. Countering misinformation with accurate information is. Your suggestion about saving resources are commendable but that action will not in anyway tackle the problem of CO2 production and the climate change effects that result from it. So it's a bit of a non sequitur. If you wish you can stop reading now, or you can read below the horizontal line where I try to counter Paul's ill-informed opinions. That section is directed at Paul and no one else in particular. It's up to you whether you read it or not.
"Many will also remember that the sea was indeed supposed to sweep over Holland and submerge East Anglia. Now the story is that this was only an outlying worst possible nightmare projection which turns out to be about as useful as a monkey setting the table."
Again, with the straw man. Who predicted this and under what circumstances? Are you able to justify the statement or is it something you pulled out of your arse? Was it a scare story from the Daily Mail, or was it a scientific projection based-upon the trends of the time? Have the trends been followed, thereby falsifying the prediction or has something changed to means that the conditions under which these projections were made are no longer true. Can you for once bring some accurate factual information to this discussion rather than your scatterbrained rhetoric and prejudiced viewpoints?
"The hottest year since records began you cry ,and when did records begin then, well yesterday in climate terms"
Paul in posting a comment like this all you are demonstrating is that you do not understanding what you are talking about. You need to not just read, but read and at least try to understand. I'm not sure that you're doing the former, but you're certainly not doing the latter!
What I find particularly amazing about this comment from you is that in a previous post you referred to the Hockey Stick graph and asked whether the Hockey Stick proved man-made influence on climate was "established science". I was at pains to point out that you appeared to had misunderstood what the Hockey Stick was actually showing. I told you that it was a reconstruction of global temperatures from proxy data for the last 1000 years and from instrumental data for the last 150 or so years. The whole point of the Hockey Stick is that it shows very clearly that the last few years have been consistently hotter (and post the publication of the Hockey Stick remain hotter) than at any point not just the instrumental period of ~150 years, but over the entire 1000 year period displayed on the Hockey Stick graph. Do you understand this? This is a serious question. do you understand this? It appears that until at least now you didn't understand this because when you refer to "the hottest year since records began" you don't seem to have recognised that the last decade has been not just the hottest since records began but the hottest since at least the 1000 years covered by the Hockey Stick graph! Now before you come back and dispute the accuracy of the graph once more I'll re-inform you yet again that the there are four different data-sets and at least 10 different reviews that have verified the correctness of the graph.
So once again for the hard of thinking it's not just "the hottest year[s] since records began" that we're talking about but the hottest years for at least 1000 years. But that's not the end of it. We can probably go back even further that that! If you look at the Wikipedia article h++p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology there is a graph showing reconstructed global temperatures over the last 500 million years. We can look at a detail from this graph by going to h++p://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png showing reconstructed global temperatures going back 12,000 years. Now the accuracy of specific data-sets going back this far can legitimately be disputed but as far as a meta-analysis of the data is concerned it appears that it appears that the last few decades have been warmer than at any time during this current inter-glacial period (i.e. ~12,000 years) before this period we're back into the ice-age and we don't come out again with temperatures warmer than today for another 100,000 years.
So Paul I'm going to ask you the same question I asked you before which you haven't answered and it would be good if you could at least make an attempt at answering it without going off on another tangential rant about the Green Party or the EU. CO2 levels are higher than they've been for 3 million years and they've been shooting up in recent decades due to humans pumping it into the atmosphere and global temperatures may well be higher now than they've been for 100,000 years and have been increasing dramatically over the last few decades.
What could possibly be causing this?
On 10 Mar 2012 at 3:28pm bloke wrote:
"Your great argument is from cultural and democratic authority ,ie that most climate scientists agree that climate science"
No. This is one of the major things that you don't seem to understand Paul. In fact it's one of the many things that you've got arse backwards! Scientific facts are not established by consensus, the consensus is established by acceptance of the scientific facts. In contrast your willingness to accept Lindzen's opinions on this is based entirely on his authority.
"You say Linzen has been debunked because your blog disagrees"
My blog? No, Paul. You see I do something remarkable with blogs like this. I read them. It's because there are a large number of instances of Lindzen stating things that do not align with reality and the validity of what he says can be compared with the actual data. If you bothered to click on the links and made an attempt to understand what they say you might agree.
You say Morner is discredited . Go on then discredit him ? Have you seen his CV do you think you would dare squeak if he popped in to give you a lesson ? Do you think you have abetter grasp of science than he does ‚?¶"
Ironic is it not that at the start of you rant you were accusing me of using an argument from authority and now you're doing exactly that brandishing Morner's CV. If you want to play the argument from authority claim lets go with it. He's a retired professor of geology so why should his opinions on sea-levels be of any use? Well he has an interest in water, we know that because he claims to possess an amazing ability to find water with dowsing rods (h++p://bit.ly/y8xjlf). The article in the Spectator was based-upon an article M√∂rner published in 2004. In this article [I am quoting Monbiot from h++p://bit.ly/yok3hP] "M√∂rner uses an apparently random series of observations ‚?? including the discovery of a skeletal "reef woman" buried in a 800-year-old coral reef ‚?? to postulate that sea level rise in the Maldives is a figment of scientists‚?? imagination.". M√∂rner's crazy ideas were debunked by two oceanographers (you know the type of people that study sea-levels among other things) Philip Woodworth and Paul Kench. Monbiot again "It was comprehensively debunked within a year in the same journal by Philip Woodworth, an oceanographer based in the UK, who wrote acidly that 'reef woman' 'is hardly definitive as a sea level marker" and that M√∂rner‚??s convoluted arguments ‚?? which also relied on anecdotal accounts by fishermen sailing over shallow rocks ‚?? were "hard to understand" and ultimately "implausible". A follow-up critical comment by the Australian oceanographer Paul Kench and colleagues notes that M√∂rner‚??s paper "contains a number of unqualified and unreferenced assertions" which fail to stand up to scrutiny, does not follow carbon-dating conventions, and that "standard information is missing".
Lastly on M√∂rner its yet again worth checking out Skeptical Science (linked below) for detail on his claims about sea-level rises.
Skeptical Science: So how does M√∂rner explain the global sea level rise record, in which both satellite altimeters and tide gauges show average global sea level rise on the order of 3 mm per year ? It's all a conspiracy, of course:
M√∂rner: "In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year...This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong"
The final part of this SkS article remarks upon one of the slides in a presentation he gave to the House of Lords.
Skeptical Science: Highlighting the degree to which his arguments are divorced from reality, in testimony to the British House of Lords, M√∂rner even presented this laughable graph (which was later reproduced by Monckton and the SPPI), simply rotating Figure 1 to produce "the evidence that sea level is not rising" (Figure 5).
Still think he's an authority worth listening to Paul?
Check it out here »
On 10 Mar 2012 at 3:49pm bloke wrote:
Paul, that Lindzen article you linked to was written in 1992. Hopelessley out of date and full of claims that are specifically addressed yet again by Skeptical Science (see link below).
Lindzen isn't just a maverick scientist. He's someone who consistently misrepresents the data that other scientists. You linked to Real Climate the other day. They have now looked in detail at another of the claims made by Lindzen at the House of Commons meeting and this is cross posted from there to SkS - h++p://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzens-junk-science.html
Check it out here »
On 10 Mar 2012 at 7:01pm Southover Queen wrote:
"and remember , according to bloke a word of douibt is the same as disbeliving evolution .."
I'm not going to add much, except to point out that Paul has a woefully uncertain grasp of scientific method. The whole point of science is to test theories, and that means advancing some ideas which are very left of field indeed. The mistake that the hard of thinking make is to seize upon the outliers, divorce them of all reference to the mass of data and results, and then claim them as the unvarnished truth. The press in particular is very guilty of this, so that you get the "Scientists Claim" headlines about cancer cures/climate change/Higgs Boson particle/eugenics/homosexuality/whatever which present one rogue result or one extreme opinion as though it has the weight of all countervailing results or opinions in the past. So a doubt is is just something which isn't certain, and that's the starting point for a scientist...
On 10 Mar 2012 at 9:38pm Paul Newman wrote:
Bloke -No idea I had got under your skin to that extent , quite the affronted autodidact aren`t you.
Ok in1988 Hansen ( kiss the hem of his garment grovelling worshipper ) predicted that ¬†West Side Highway (in New York ) would be underwater in 20 years‚?Ě.¬†Apparently 23 years later that would need about a 10ft rise whereas after 23 years, we‚??ve seen about a 2.5 inch rise.¬†In the same hear he told the US Congress in the sea would rise several feet by 2000. Consistently wrong at least ..!
. I hardly like to give you the link as I fear initiating an all night googling session and an aneurysm in the process
What next ..bloody hell it‚??s a tsunami ,don`t make a point , you swim in it daub your extremities in it gorge on it . If you weren‚??t a harmless ..errm enthusiast ,I `d be worried.( he said , worrying a bit ), its crap anyway.
So ,you were talking about temperature, so much as the controversial tree ring evidence, which shows either that the mediaeval period was warmer ..or not and questions about which were suppressed as we know from the East Anglia e mails ( the relevance of which you missed I think ?) Your story is that the gang have confirmed it 12 times, but its all the same gang, all with the same agenda, plenty of scientists have plenty of views on it . Having omitted any warmer period, like the medieval one or the Roman one , your astonishment that the closer we get to the last ice age the colder it gets is actually quite sweet. Really bloke , does it also get icier , chillier , nip in the air is there‚?¶. Tee hee hee !
On authority, you were the one claiming it was tosh ,( Lindzen, remember ?) otherwise since you know only what you found out yesterday and I `m not a lot better ,its all authority mate, stop pontificating . You are the one slithering oleaginously around faux scientific authority, I `m going back to sleep given half a chance ..
I did look at your campaigning blog , skeptical science well if you think its gospel fine, I‚??m happy to let them fight it out with the numerous equally partisan opponents that seem to infest the internet and seem to have much the same supercilious tone. I shall not be much influenced by either. Read C3 and we are quits‚?¶as far as George Moonbat is concerned ,well his entire career depends on climate disaster . I do read the Guardian‚?¶the rest of it is just too keyboard warrior for me ‚?¶.
Questions eh , why did temperatures not go up after the war despite an exponential increase in CO2 belching into Gaia`s suffering lungs ? Dunno , do you ? How did the earth survive drowning in the stuff in pre history , dunno do you ? Answer that ?
On 10 Mar 2012 at 9:43pm Paul Newman wrote:
Yes SQ I do of course understand what science is and how it works , well at least as well as you do anyway , I also out of common sense understand that AGW must be happening. The question is how fast , how important is it , what sense of proportion we should have. That why people argue about to what you may seem the arcane matter of the medieval warm period, after that we have the vagaries of the past evidence and the still developing study of past sea levels, we do not , in my opinion have anything that could be called settled science on that score now . Nothing comparable with the theory of evolution say or the fact creationists are wrong. We are worlds away form that sort of certainty and there are genuine questions about the politically motivated climate scientific lobby their funding and in America their Democratic leanings and place in the US cultural war.
What I said is that when Greens want to sell their daft ideas they are always saying the science is settled ,well as we see it is kind of science that is far from settled in the ‚??evolution‚?Ě sense and miles away from the vernacular understanding of what that means , ie we could make new plastics with it .
On 11 Mar 2012 at 1:44am bloke wrote:
"in 1988 Hansen ( kiss the hem of his garment grovelling worshipper ) predicted that West Side Highway (in New York ) would be underwater in 20 years"
Where are you getting this bullsh..? You keep coming up with these easily debunked myths. You make it too easy. In climate myth bingo you've just picked myth number 457.
SkS: James Hansen made his statement in response to a question by Bob Reiss, a journalist and author, in 1988. He did not predict that the West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years.
Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:
"When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. ...I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview."
We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels). In the meantime, we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming
"In the same hear he told the US Congress in the sea would rise several feet by 2000."
Paul you're now quoting, directly or indirectly serial liar Lord Monckton. There is no record of Hansen saying this in his 1988 testimony. Here's a PDF of Hansen's written submission to that 1988 session - h++p://bit.ly/zSzrql Can you find the statement in there anywhere? No.
Monckton first came out with this about 6 years ago in an article in the Telegraph and it has been churned through the climate denial machine ever since. Monbiot picked up on it back then - see h++p://bit.ly/w2fFQq
Monbiot quoting Monckton's Telegraph article: "In 1988, for example, the world's most celebrated climatologist, James Hansen of Nasa, "told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch)".
Monbiot: Pat Michaels's misrepresentation of Hansen's claims was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear, and somehow transmuted into an "error" of 300%. Monckton gives no source for his claim about Hansen, but Crichton's novel features in his references. The howlers go on and on. There is scarcely a line in Lord Monckton's paper which is not wildly wrong.
"Your story is that the gang have confirmed it 12 times, but its all the same gang, all with the same agenda, plenty of scientists have plenty of views on it . "
Ahhh ‚?¶ right so it's a big conspiracy.. Ok... but wait, you've clearly forgotten, or simply failed to understand when I pointed it out earlier that the newest of the datasets the Berkley Earth Science Temperature Project (BEST) (h++p://berkeleyearth.org/) was specifically founded by skeptics and is NOT part of the "gang" as you put it. When it was set up Anthony Watts of 'Watts Up With That' said:
Anthony Watts: ‚??I‚??m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn‚??t the madness that we‚??ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we‚??ve seen yet."
But guess what ... when the results came through agreeing with the other datasets he changed his tune and and rejected it. See h++p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature
"your astonishment that the closer we get to the last ice age the colder it gets is actually quite sweet"
Please try to be a little less dim. The singular point that you seem to have missed here is that temperatures right now are probably higher than they have been since before the last ice age. Do you understand that?
"since you know only what you found out yesterday"
What on Earth are you talking about? I've been following this subject for about 4 years now. I became particularly interested in the denial machine as its argument echo the denial machine of creationism which I became interested in when some religious bunch came to the door spouting nonsense about evolution. Oh and I've got the Skeptical Science app on my iPhone (and have had it for a couple of years). It comes in handy when I get people like you spouting the same stupid arguments again and again and again.
"Questions eh , why did temperatures not go up after the war despite an exponential increase in CO2 belching into Gaia`s suffering lungs ? Dunno , do you ? How did the earth survive drowning in the stuff in pre history , dunno do you ? Answer that ? "
With regard to the first question: well done you've just hit number 22 in Climate myth bingo. See h++p://bit.ly/wXSytx
For the second one. Yes the Earth survived just fine, but there weren't 7 billion humans roaming around the planet mostly living in low lying areas, clamouring for fresh water, food, habitable land and other resources while multiplying their numbers exponentially and at the same time pumping still more of the stuff into the atmosphere, but you knew that didn't you. So why the heck did you ask? Perhaps you didn't also know that at least one of the mass extinctions in Earth's history the Permian extinction was caused by volcanoes belching out vast quantities of CO2 some 250 million years ago. Note that this wasn't the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs. No that event pales into insignificance next to this. The Permian extinction wiped out 70% of all life on he planet.
I'll leave you with a video about the kind of catastrophic sea level rise that could potentially occur, but isn't included in IPCC sea-level estimates. This level of change is what Hansen has talked about when he's mentioned sea-level rises over the next century. They've happened in the past : Meltwater Pulse 1A) but are impossible to predict accurately which is why they are not included in current estimates.
Watch the video »
On 11 Mar 2012 at 8:21am Paul Newman wrote:
Well Proffessor App I hardly expected you to admit that Hansen was wrong , it was either a joke or it was right, or just part of range of possibilities ‚?¶ any thing anything just so long as it is not wrong eh. I don`y know what you are fussing about his way out predictions , they have already been explained away as useless guesses that don‚??t count , by you.
The conspiracy is no more than that pointed out by Montbiot almost every week, in which he rails at the funding behind the numerous deniers which is all big oil man ‚?¶wooo. Whats the betting that you that is a real conspiracy in your tin foil covered head
There is money involved on both sides and institutional and cultural norms , like the BBC or the Police.
No the singular point was your delightful surprise that as we approach the last glacial period it got colder obviously tipped into new ire level eh , terrible pride problem you have , therapy recommended.
What else Professor App ?
.while multiplying their numbers exponentially and at the same time pumping still more of the stuff into the atmosphere,
Good hint , yes the population doom scenario , that was the other thing that was supposed to be producing mass starvation thirty years ago and just as publicised at the time What actually happened was as it became a problem for brown folk and not a guilt trip for the West everyone forgot about it. Telling I think .
Can`t see your links if it is to Skeptical science then don`t bother as just misleading but if it is to some authoritative and neutral source then I would like to know the answer to the problem of no post war warming .
I have seen that video and I smirked at the time because you were denying that the climate lobby had every made any wild claims that had not appeared and pointed me in the direction of films and fantasies ‚?¶now what do I see , in the future these fantasies are true or at least can be used as propaganda .
I predict some future Professor App telling some Paul that no scientist ever said anything so stupid it must have been random internet nut
On 11 Mar 2012 at 8:42am DFL wrote:
I like this thread, it'll tie up Paul for years......
On 11 Mar 2012 at 9:24am Southover Queen wrote:
So do I, DFL. And bloke's doing an absolutely brilliant job as well: I know whose arguments I accept.
The sad thing is that Paul will reject it all busily not really because he doesn't agree with the science (which as I've said before I don't think he really gets) but because he's decided that it's a political position and he's decided that bloke is A Green. Of course he's also decided that the Greens are out to destroy civilisation as we know it. If you see everything through a prism of political ideology then you do have to force everything into line with that ideology with results much as we enjoy them here. It doesn't matter terribly on the Lewes forum (and lots of us are learning loads in the meantime) but it does matter in a grander scheme of things.
(I'd still like an answer about what even the most extreme climate denier thinks is going to happen when they've consumed all the fossil fuel...)
On 11 Mar 2012 at 2:17pm Paul Newman wrote:
SQ - You are always quick to yip like the pathetic omega hyena behind any who happens to be on your side, its not an awfully attractive characteristic
Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." H.L. Mencken The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ‚?? and hence clamorous to be led to safety ‚?? by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
I am alive to the history of the state pf emergency yes. That‚??s because I know it. Your state is proverbially rather more blissful
On 11 Mar 2012 at 3:09pm bloke wrote:
"Well Proffessor App"
Ah. Right. So you've decided to give me a nickname. How very clever.
"... any thing anything just so long as it is not wrong eh. I don`y know what you are fussing about his way out predictions , they have already been explained away as useless guesses that don‚??t count , by you."
Paul you were quoting, ether directly or indirectly, Monckton demonstrably lying and now you're saying I was bound to find fault with it?! Well yes if you quote lies I am going to call you our on it. Funny huh?
You're doing a fine job of making yourself look like you're incapable of understanding this subject. Scenario A from the 1988 testimony was a prediction based on continued exponential increase in CO2 emissions. It wasn't a "useless guess" try reading what I wrote above again.
"the singular point was your delightful surprise that as we approach the last glacial period it got colder obviously tipped into new ire level"
If it were possible to explain this in words of one syllable I think you still wouldn't understand this. It's not that as you head towards an ice ages gets cooler, there is not a linear transition. It's this- it is almost certainly warmer now than at anytime during the current interglacial period which has lasted 12,000 years. Within this period the temperature has fluctuated up and down up and down, but it's never been hotter than now. Get it?
"Good hint , yes the population doom scenario ‚?¶"
Tangential... discuss another time.
"Can`t see your links if it is to Skeptical science then don`t bother as just misleading but if it is to some authoritative and neutral source then I would like to know the answer to the problem of no post war warming ."
Yet again we have a problem of you refusing to look at the evidence. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Why cant you just copy/paste them and change the "++" to "tt"? You speak of "some authoritative and neutral source" Yet again you seem to be viewing this as a political thing where there might be some neutral ground somewhere in the middle. It doesn't work like that Paul. If you want an answer to the question you have to look at what people who have studied have discovered. It's that or nothing. I have given you links to pages that summarise the information from such studies and link directly to the original source. You call this misleading. Misleading how?
"I have seen that video and I smirked at the time because you were denying that the climate lobby had every made any wild claims that had not appeared and pointed me in the direction of films and fantasies ‚?¶now what do I see , in the future these fantasies are true or at least can be used as propaganda . "
Paul I think you need to read what you said and what my responses were again. You inferred that cataclysmic effects were predicted to have happened by now, and further inferred that the conditions under which those effects were expected are the ones we are currently experiences. What I asked you to do was clarify the context of such predictions because without them the inference that that they have failed to come true is a straw man argument. Nothing has changed there.
You appear to still be conforming to the patten I identified earlier i.e:
1: The automatic dismissal of an uncomfortable idea.
2: An inability to subjectively assess the evidence
3 : An assumption that those promoting the uncomfortable idea are somehow either fools, fraudsters or fronts for an ideology opposed to their own.
The pig-headed intransigence that you consistently show in virtually every post on this forum has never been more clearly demonstrated than in our discussion of this subject. Can you point to a single thing you're said that is actually verifiable true? I can't.
Video below is about the BEST study.
Watch the video »
On 11 Mar 2012 at 3:12pm Southover Queen wrote:
Dear dear... I merely voice an opinion which is opposite to yours. And your metaphor is very muddled, if I may say so. (By the way I've no idea what "I am alive to the history of the state pf emergency yes. That‚??s because I know it. Your state is proverbially rather more blissful " actually means.)
The media are full of threats many of which are unfounded (and generally avidly supported by politicians who wish to scare the populace). Indeed, this is a truism considered by filmmakers like Adam Curtis (whom of course you would normally dismiss as a member of the BBC Marxist conspiracy) in such series as The Power of Nightmares.
The trick is to make your mind up based on the evidence taken as a whole, and it's not something you're terribly good at. All I've been saying is that it's not a good idea to fix your idea and then seek opinions to support it which is your modus operandi.
On 11 Mar 2012 at 5:44pm bloke wrote:
Wow Paul you're now quote-mining. From the relevant Wikipedia article.
Fallacy of quoting out of context
"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position
Check it out here »
On 11 Mar 2012 at 6:34pm Paul Newman wrote:
So the Professor App thing bothers does it Proff , sorry about that ,would you prefer Appy , I rather like the irony of that ?
.No it is you who are determined to defend every blade of grass no matter how overwrought your webby gabble becomes. I was referring to the article in which Hansen claimed the water level was going to drown New York . I introduced it because you said that outside fiction there were no such claims. I produce one, as requested , and you seem to be saying he was only joking . Oh.. Ok then ha ha ha ?
The wild over estimate of maxi-warming in his original estimates you say are not wrong just other possibilities ‚?¶eeerm that were wrong ( it was extensively used at the time ) it was wrong because the assumptions were wrong , yup but that‚??s not the same thing as right is it Dopey, or was it Appy ? You ought to recap on my point about using outlying rubbish for propaganda and then denying it was what was meant later. If you understood it because I begun to doubt that anything off app gets in head .
You say there is no linear progression but I am talking about glacial periods not true ice ages glacial period punctuate the notionally warm periods between ice ages and in this country the shifts in temperature have been especially large . Here is a chart in another context I remembered form the BBC which illustrates the waves of temperature going up and down in Britain. Looks pretty wobbly to me and the swings are huge . Gives you some idea what a problem you have establishing the importance of man in global warming , especially if we cannot take any region as representative of the whole
It is not true that the Mediaeval warm period has been eradicated as the pro warming lobby want Even your appy place has a weak answer to the high temperatures which involves all sorts of just so stuff , the sort that they usually say cannot be responsible for warming and the claim that any region that does not fit ( Like the Northern Hemisphere) is outside a general trend for which the evidence is clearly going to be even weaker than it is usually . My new best friend‚??s C3 seem to spend much of their time gleefully reporting new evidence of yet more places that will not f it but there will of course be a new model at incorporates it all
Do you really think even the app team would call that settled science ? Like evolution ? Like‚?¶the error of Creationism , you set yourself some high standards there which you have not begun to reach and your failure , typically enough is because you cannot resist overstating you case for the purposes of chucking around insults.
Yes I `d like to see something form the BBC say , the House of Lords , that sort of thing , not a campaigning web site of which there are just as many saying the opposite ( and I have severe doubts about the BBC).I distrust their selected sources and presentation of data. I don`t think that`s unreasonable , if it were me I `d be embarrassed to rely on that sort of thing .
From you the accusation of intransigence is ..well ‚?¶ not unexpected. It amuses me no end . You have done nothing but refer each point I make to the argument of your app
.Well thanks for engaging so thoughtfully Appy
Check it out here »
On 11 Mar 2012 at 7:08pm bloke wrote:
"So the Professor App thing bothers does it Proff , sorry about that ,would you prefer Appy "
LOL - Carry on it just makes you look more desperate.
"I introduced it because you said that outside fiction there were no such claims. I produce one, as requested , and you seem to be saying he was only joking . Oh.. Ok then ha ha ha ? "
In my mind I see you with you're head going purple and steam is coming out of your ears. Reread what I wrote it's doesn't say he was joking. If you constantly misunderstand what you read like this no wonder you come out with consistent rubbish. He was asked a question by a journalist about what would likely happen if in 40 years if CO2 doubled. Your quote said 20 years and gave no further context. It was wrong on a number of levels. If by the year 2028 the level of C02 has reach 540ppm then we might look and see if the prediction has come true. Geddit?
Once again you're misrepresenting Hansen from 1988. He gave 3 scenarios A, B and C and you're trying to use A to say he overestimated the warming. Funny how you don't pick on C and say he underestimated the warming isn't it. Seriously you're increasingly pathetic misrepresentation of this scenario makes you look more and more dishonest.
"glacial periods not true ice ages glacial period punctuate the notionally warm periods between ice ages "
LOL FACEPALM - you've got it arse backwards as usual. We are actually in an ice age right now.it's called the Quaternary. We are currently in the Holocene which is an inter-glacial period within the current an ice age. The periods of glaciation within a ice-ace are called glacial periods. Colloquially the glacial periods are often called ice ages though.
"Yes I `d like to see something form the BBC say , the House of Lords "
House of Lords?!!? You think the House of Lords is some kind of authority on Science? What century and/or parallel universe are you living in?
If you want to find out what the Science says about something you go to the peer-reviewed literature where the data is actually published first-hand not the freaking House of Lords, are you nuts?! The links I gave you all went ultimately to what the peer-reviewed literature says.
"You have done nothing but refer each point I make to the argument of your app"
Well it's a great resource for debunking the same arguments which come up time and time and time again and the problem is that you've been using these same old dishonest arguments that the denial brigade endlessly recycle. But that's not all I've done certainly not. Not by a long chalk.
On 11 Mar 2012 at 7:26pm bloke wrote:
I just looked at the graph you linked to. There's no scale on the Y axis on it. That means it's pretty bloody useless. But more than that the bit we were talking about the current inter-glacial period is the last 12,000 years or so and the graph has 700,000 years on the X axis. So the bit we're interested in is 1.7% of the span of graph. LOL it's beyond useless for this discussion.
On 11 Mar 2012 at 8:54pm Paul Newman wrote:
I have three children a demanding wife and cooki to do Appy , I have been totally entirely out of purple steam for years .On the Hansen drowned New York story ,the bone of contention here is Hansens claim that his wild , for publication prediction was dependent on wildly exaggerated CO2 levels. To be honest I cannot work out if he did or did not make this stipulation. If he did then what he said was irrelevant if he did not then it was fabulously wrong , either way, it got used in the popular campaign .This sort of claim was used by the Green lobby and the plausible deniability of the science is ,as I said , typical of a lobbying group
No I agree he underestimates , grossly overestimated and got one somewhere near ‚?¶terrific.I wonder of a monkey would do better or worse with a crayon and a sheet of paper ?
Oh alright then punctuates ice ages , bang one out , you sound like you need it (badly‚?¶) .As you will not accept the BBC link the temperature admittedly in the UK area , goes up and down in a wave . Unsurprising at we would see a bit more ice as we go back 10,000 years ? No if you look at the way the temperature has gone up and down for these ‚??Interglacial periods‚?Ě , the that fact that, ignoring the last 2000 years in which there are two alleged warm periods, we are ever so hot on a 12,000 year basis is not as surprising as you suggest .The ubiquitously terrifying ten hottest years ever claim is usually without any such context of large natural temperature changes over quite short periods .
The House of Lords acts as a court and that is rather important to my point .The problem with expert witnesses in this context is that all of them wish their own profession to be accorded huge respect and rewards .It is not , therefore , a good idea to ask them much their ideas should be weighted in policy or verdict . In fact as the Greeks noticed early , it is not even a good idea to do what the best arguer recommends necessarily, not once it reaches a level when ordinary people cannot judge.
This insight lay behind ¬†Pyrrhonism an important figure in Conservative scepticism as applied to experts. Now if scientist wanted to talk to each other about the seas boiling they could get on with it forever as far as I care .Sadly they actually want to have real world influence and if that is the case it becomes politics and propaganda. Ones estimations of which one we should listen to must come from outside the world itself .
LH Menken , who you say I quote mined ( I shall try not to be infected with this ]awful web-ese), disagreed . He was a follower of Niteche and basically he thought some people were much more clever and they should run things .I could never accept that
Check it out here »
On 11 Mar 2012 at 11:07pm bloke wrote:
"On the Hansen drowned New York story ,the bone of contention here is Hansens claim that his wild , for publication prediction was dependent on wildly exaggerated CO2 levels."
But Paul, I've shown you already that it was the journalist Bob Reiss who asked Hansen about what would happen if CO2 doubled in 40 years. I quoted him above. You can't blame Hansen for exaggerating CO2 in here. He answered a straight question. But maybe you're mixing it up with his testimony to Congress and Scenario A.
It looks like because of your reluctance to click though to the links I give I'm going to have to explain this to you in depth. Scenario A was labelled "business as usual" (i.e. exponential increase in greenhouse gas emissions); Scenario B was based upon some lower level increase in emissions and Scenario C was based-upon a a projected international agreement to significant reduce emissions.
Of the 3 scenarios, A was always going to be the worst case. You're moaning that his business as usual , worst case projection was " wildly exaggerated". It wasn't exaggeration, it was a projection of the trend as it existed at the time. But guess what ... business as usual didn't happen. The Soviet Union collapses and the Montreal agreement got rid of CFCs.
Look at this - h++p://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios.dat - this is the ACTUAL model data used by Hansen. Yes the ACTUAL data. Stick it in spreadsheet you'll see columns labelled CO2_A N2O_A CH4_A CFC11_A CFC12_A CO2_B N2O_B CH4_B CFC11_B CFC12_B CO2_C N2O_C CH4_C CFC11_C CFC12_C showing known and projected concentrations for various greenhouse gasses from 1958 to 2050 (the _A, _B, _C show which scenario it relates to). Now compare the numbers in A, B, and C for CO2 for ... oh I dunno lets say this year- 2012. Look at the numbers. Oh heck I know you're not going to bother doing this so I'll do it for you. The numbers are in parts per million(PPM).
So scenario A ppm CO2 was projected as ~396. for Scenario B the projection was ~393 and for Scenario C it was 368. If you go to h++p://co2now.org/ you can get the actual CO2 level as it is right now. As I write this it stands at 393.65ppm. Hey wow! that's like really close to Scenario B isn't it! And guess what Scenario B's resultant temperatures is 95% accurate. amazing isn't it!. But look at Scenario A's CO2 again. It's at ~396. That's 3ppm or (or 0.075%) higher than Scenario B. You're calling this 0.0075% wildly exaggeration. Your problem Paul is that you haven't got a the faintest idea about this subject. You don't know what the hell you are talking about and can't be bothered to listen.
I'll look at your other nonsense in another post
On 11 Mar 2012 at 11:44pm bloke wrote:
"the that fact that, ignoring the last 2000 years in which there are two alleged warm periods, we are ever so hot on a 12,000 year basis is not as surprising as you suggest .The ubiquitously terrifying ten hottest years ever claim is usually without any such context of large natural temperature changes over quite short periods ."
Paul you've now got number 52 in climate denial bingo. I asked you a question earlier which remains unanswered I asked what do you think could be causing the current warming?
The thing is Paul that global temperature doesn't just go up an down randomly, or cyclically for no reason. They go up and down due to the presence or absence of a forcing factor . I.e. the tilt of the Earth and its precession (Milankovitch cycles), sun activity, concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and albedo. When you rule out all of the other potential forcings that could account for the current warming you're left with only one thing that could make a difference and that's CO2 concentrations. I've told you this before.
"The House of Lords acts as a court"
Er.. you're losing touch with reality Paul. The House of Lords lost it's role as 'court of last resort' a few years ago. That's now the job of the Supreme Court. But here's the thing anyway Paul - Science isn't decided by lawyers and judges arguing the toss over it in court. It's not called the law of gravity because a judge ruled on it you know. Scientific truth isn't decided based upon who has the better debating skills. It's decided by objective assessment of the accuracy and thoroughness of the measurements and experimental methodology and reproducibility. How your mind works... !?
Suddenly you're talking about Neitzche. Why? Stick to the bloody subject.
On 12 Mar 2012 at 8:58am Earl of Lewes wrote:
All I can say is thank God Brian Beck (of Sussex Express readers' letters fame) hasn't discovered the Lewes Forum yet.
On 12 Mar 2012 at 11:02am Paul Newman wrote:
Neyeeesssssss. The real claim is that whatever incorrect assumptions were, the CO2 content used in the subsequently most popular scenario (business not as usual ?) matches the atmospheric content since then and has remained fairly close to observed temps....thus the model is accurate since it was able to predict the temperature based on CO2 content. If that's true( and as far as I can tell it is debatable ), that's a point in favour of that particular model as a robust correlation . But says very little about Hansen's ability to predict what effect our emissions have on atmospheric CO2 and therefore has nothing to add to any Policy issues far less the sort of certainly you claim for it which is akin to the fact that if I drop an apple it will not go up. You are pointing at the fall of the USSR a I think to save any predictive usefulness well that is an interesting just so story but a much more complex argument than you have addressed.
The place of expert witness seems to be beyond your conceptual range and I am afraid that like the human race, allegedly I am out of time I simply have to do some productive work .
On 12 Mar 2012 at 12:48pm bloke wrote:
" ... But says very little about Hansen's ability to predict what effect our emissions have on atmospheric CO2 and therefore has nothing to add to any "
Whatever you were trying to say here (and before it) is completely incoherent to me. I think you're mixing up the scenarios. "Business as usual" (Scenario A) was the worst case, this is the one used by people like you to claim Hansen got it wrong. Current CO2 level match Scenario B which was Hansen's middle road "best guess".
"You are pointing at the fall of the USSR a I think to save any predictive usefulness well that is an interesting just so story but a much more complex argument than you have addressed. "
Check out this chart - h++p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png look at the collapse in CO2 emissions on the yellow line (Eastern Europe and Former Soviet States). It's not a "just so story" that GHG emissions from this region did not continue on an upward trend as it had before, but fell dramatically and didn't recover until the later part of the last decade; it's a fact.
"The place of expert witness seems to be beyond your conceptual range"
Actually its isn't, but how science works appears to be beyond yours. "Expert opinions" may sway a jury in court, but an expert opinion is nothing but an argument from authority if the data doesn't back up that opinion. Science by verified the scientific method, not nodding heads.
On 12 Mar 2012 at 2:33pm Paul Newman wrote:
It is confusing isn`t it
.A-" Business as usual" turns out to be crap right whereas B 'Business not as usual ‚??turns out, subsequently, to be the one that was always intended to be taken seriously. Hope that helps although I understand you being puzzled its almost as if he changed his mind when A went wrong ‚?¶.funny thing that.
There are lots of facts bloke .You are saying ,now , that the USSR saves the predictive power of the model by reducing global emissions to the levels used for B . If, by any chance, then , real CO2 emissions, actually, were somewhere between Scenario A and B which is a large range and not as required originally for B at all and notwithstanding the USSR just so story , then my point would hold .True ?
I think my point holds then.
I think we also require aerosols and solar something or other to save it during the middle part of the century when CO2 was going up and temperature going down and we need some other special factors to get rid of the medieval warm period which undermines the whole claim for singularity in the fluctuating environment
Ok then but I am kind of nervous about the inexhaustible supply of special pleading required to show that what we have here is more than an interesting and suggestive short term correlation.
On experts well yes but that assumes the science is established which is what we are talking about .
On 12 Mar 2012 at 3:20pm bloke wrote:
.A-" Business as usual" turns out to be crap right whereas B 'Business not as usual ‚??turns out, subsequently, to be the one that was always intended to be taken seriously. Hope that helps although I understand you being puzzled its almost as if he changed his mind when A went wrong ‚?¶.funny thing that.
Why is this so hard for you? He was there testifying to Congress trying to warn them about the consequences of not taking action about greenhouse gases. Scenario A was "business as usual" i.e. ignoring the problem. Scenario B, a cut back on the rate of increasing emissions. Scenario C. A drastic cut-back of emissions. Geddit?
"real CO2 emissions, actually, were somewhere between Scenario A and B which is a large range and not as required originally for B at all and notwithstanding the USSR just so story , then my point would hold .True ?"
No because you're ignoring the Montreal protocol which saw the elimination of the production of greenhouse CFCs.
The rest of your comment goes in to creationist style denial again. i.e. "assumes the science is established" - the greenhouse effect was established 200 years ago.
What was not clear and what people argue the toss about is precision in measurements of radiative forcing aka climate sensitivity. This is where Lindzen's out on a limb. This figure is expressed as the temperature increase for a doubling of concentration of CO2. By examining ice-cored etc it was estimated to be ~3.0 degC (error +-1.5 degC) (or somewhere between 1.5 degC to 4.5 degC), now it's estimated to be somewhere between 2.6 degG to 4.1 degC) Lindzen, bless him, reckons it's less than 1 degC but his evidence for this does not stand up to scrutiny, and this estimate does not fit when plugged into models run over historical data. This doesn't shut him up though.
On 13 Mar 2012 at 7:22am Paul Newman wrote:
smells like wiggle room to me ...
Headline - New bore hole evidence incontrovertibly support global medieval warming , tree ring evidence requires to be recalibrated admits George Montbiot , Skeptical science demand source data for trashing , but many scientists privately agree that the models will need to be adjusted and previous statements revisited. Republican sources applaud end of scam. Montbiot deplores unscientific conclusionand ‚?¶ etc.
Headline - New Gravity results show things can fall up ?
Headline - New finding show earth 4000 years old ‚?¶?
You see ?
On 13 Mar 2012 at 3:55pm bloke wrote:
Headline from 1859: Newton proven wrong on Gravity h++p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbain_Le_Verrier#Precession_of_Mercury
You're presenting what you think are plausible occurrences that would disprove AGW. But they're only plausible to you because you don't know what you're talking about. To a creationist finding Noah's Ark on a mountain top somewhere is plausible, and you can probably find homoeopaths somewhere talking about the plausibility of finding water memory that would support their crazy ideas.
On 13 Mar 2012 at 6:21pm Southover Queen wrote:
" but many scientists (privately) agree that the models will need to be adjusted and previous statements revisited."
Yup. That's an excellent description of scientific method. It really should not be adduced as an example of why this is all a conspiracy.