72 replies to this topic

[Frog79]

For those of you who have been crazy enough to follow these 'climate change' threads, notice how every time I ask for proof of AGW from Newf, Duq, or any of the other AGW believers all I get are "we have given you this before" (they clearly haven't, of course), or "the IPCC says it is so", or "it is a big tobacco conspiracy", or sometimes an irrelevant Google search.    If CO2 caused the earth's temperature to change you would think that they could prove it.   The fact there is a ton of evidence to the contrary (including the paper that is the topic of this thread) is telling.  However, the fact that they can't refute the evidence and prove their case is very even more telling.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 25 July 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

For those of you who have been crazy enough to follow these 'climate change' threads, notice how every time I ask for proof of AGW from Newf, Duq, or any of the other AGW believers all I get are "we have been through this before" (we haven't, BTW), or "the IPCC says it is so", or "it is a big tobacco conspiracy" or sometimes an irrelevant Google search.    If CO2 caused 'climate change' you would think that they could prove it.   The fact that they can't is very telling.

Obviously you have "proof" that the refs I gave you are incorrect somewhow?

How about giving a "few", say 460 or so, refs of your own.

[Frog79]

I just gave

NewfoundlandFrog, on 25 July 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

Obviously you have "proof" that the refs I gave you are incorrect somewhow?

How about giving a "few", say 460 or so, refs of your own.

What refs?  Like I said, you have not given us a single reference that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that AGW is real.  Not a single one.  That's all I ask.  Just one.   Can't you do that?   After all, I had no problem finding this paper which refutes the whole premise of AGW and I explained why.  Surely you can do the same if AGW has any empirical proof behind it.  Can you meet the challenge?  Give us a reference and then explain in plain English (without tobacco rants, appeals to the bogus authority of the IPCC, etc.) how it confirms AGW?

Remember the onus is on you to prove your case, not me, although I have anyway.   You are the ones who want to wreck world economies with bogus carbon taxes and give govt. control of business.   You need pretty solid proof of man-made 'climate change' if you want us to go along with the scam.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 26 July 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

I just gave


What refs?  Like I said, you have not given us a single reference that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that AGW is real.  Not a single one.  That's all I ask.  Just one.   Can't you do that?   After all, I had no problem finding this paper which refutes the whole premise of AGW and I explained why.  Surely you can do the same if AGW has any empirical proof behind it.  Can you meet the challenge?  Give us a reference and then explain in plain English (without tobacco rants, appeals to the bogus authority of the IPCC, etc.) how it confirms AGW?

Remember the onus is on you to prove your case, not me, although I have anyway.   You are the ones who want to wreck world economies with bogus carbon taxes and give govt. control of business.   You need pretty solid proof of man-made 'climate change' if you want us to go along with the scam.

Obviously you failed to read even your own refs, let alone the ones I pointed out.

Repeating the same nonsense gets, well, repetitive.

Lastly, the default position in science where no proof exists is ignorance of any position, not "my unsupported position is proven because yours is not". Just another one of your fundamental errors in argument.

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 26 July 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

Obviously you failed to read even your own refs, let alone the ones I pointed out.

Repeating the same nonsense gets, well, repetitive.

Lastly, the default position in science where no proof exists is ignorance of any position, not "my unsupported position is proven because yours is not". Just another one of your fundamental errors in argument.

There you have it folks.  I feel sorry that you have had to wade through all these dodges, butchering of simple statistics, mindless quoting of junk science blogs, mistruths (I am being charitable here), appeals to false gods (IPCC), and, most importantly, his inability after repeated challenges to provide even one credible reference that can be explained in plain English proving the AGW case to a reasonable degree.  Can't say it is a surprise though since AGW theory is junk science at its finest, without empirical proof to back it up - only pseudoreligious faith.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 26 July 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

There you have it folks.  I feel sorry that you have had to wade through all these dodges, butchering of simple statistics, mindless quoting of junk science blogs, mistruths (I am being charitable here), appeals to false gods (IPCC), and, most importantly, his inability after repeated challenges to provide even one credible reference that can be explained in plain English proving the AGW case to a reasonable degree.  Can't say it is a surprise though since AGW theory is junk science at its finest, without empirical proof to back it up - only pseudoreligious faith.

I agree that much has been clearly demonstrated.

That would include a clear demonstration that you won't pony up to your own words. Or have you sent that $460+ "few" dollars my way yet so that I can send my empirically   validated "few" back your way?!  I do highly doubt that you will.

[Frog79]

So for you folks out there who are at a cocktail party and someone is preaching the AGW faith-based religion to you, just do as I do and ask them for proof. Tell them that any peer-reviewed reference that can explain the case for AGW using empirical proof explained in plain English will suffice.  You will at first be met with a blank stare which will be followed by comments such as "well a 'consensus' of scientists says it is so" or "it is in the literature, go find it yourself you idiot" or "Algore says it is true" or "tobacco companies are behind the deniers", etc.  Then you calmly repeat your request for specific empirical proof.  Your conversation with the AGW boor will then abruptly end, lol.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 26 July 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

So for you folks out there who are at a cocktail party and someone is preaching the AGW faith-based religion to you, just do as I do and ask them for proof. Tell them that any peer-reviewed reference that can explain the case for AGW using empirical proof explained in plain English will suffice.  You will at first be met with a blank stare which will be followed by comments such as "well a 'consensus' of scientists says it is so" or "it is in the literature, go find it yourself you idiot" or "Algore says it is true" or "tobacco companies are behind the deniers", etc.  Then you calmly repeat your request for specific empirical proof.  Your conversation with the AGW boor will then abruptly end, lol.

I would say "If you're looking for empirical proof, read the IPCC Report WG1 among other literature most definitely including the upcoming AR5." I would say, "Take some courses--they are available for free online from, for example, MIT.  It simply cannot be done in a sound bite." I would say the same general thing if someone asked me to "empirically prove" the existence of electromagnetic radiation, tobacco causation of cancer, ozone holes,  evolution, cognitive theory, perceptual theory (you do know that purple does not "naturally" exist on the spectrum as a monocolor I'm sure--your friend Newton did but it takes a while to "empirically prove" this), dark matter/dark energy, differential equations, or any of a large number of things.

Some things just take years of skull sweat. If someone is not up to that, then yes it's talk to the experts and see what they say.

[fnfreebird]

Frog79, on 26 July 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

There you have it folks. I feel sorry that you have had to wade through all these dodges, butchering of simple statistics, mindless quoting of junk science blogs, mistruths (I am being charitable here), appeals to false gods (IPCC), and, most importantly, his inability after repeated challenges to provide even one credible reference that can be explained in plain English proving the AGW case to a reasonable degree.  Can't say it is a surprise though since AGW theory is junk science at its finest, without empirical proof to back it up - only pseudoreligious faith.

Haven't minded at all. I found it all learned, encouraging and inspiring and have forwarded much of the evidence you've provided. I just have to laugh at the repetitively boring and wretchedly weak hyperbole used in some attempt to refute such plainly obvious common sense facts.

[Frog79]

fnfreebird, on 26 July 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

Haven't minded at all. I found it all learned, encouraging and inspiring and have forwarded much of the evidence you've provided. I just have to laugh at the repetitively boring and wretchedly weak hyperbole used in some attempt to refute such plainly obvious common sense facts.

Thanks.  I'm glad I have helped you get through the smokescreen that Newf and other believers in The Cause  attempt to put up.  The science - at least the science that matters - is really not that complicated.   Any time we are being asked to pay for someone else's social justice causes I think we are entitled to some reasonable proof that they are right, put forth in plain English.  The AGW alarmists just can't provide it for AGW as is abundantly clear from reading this thread and others.

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 26 July 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

I would say "If you're looking for empirical proof, read the IPCC Report WG1 among other literature most definitely including the upcoming AR5." I would say, "Take some courses--they are available for free online from, for example, MIT.  It simply cannot be done in a sound bite." I would say the same general thing if someone asked me to "empirically prove" the existence of electromagnetic radiation, tobacco causation of cancer, ozone holes,  evolution, cognitive theory, perceptual theory (you do know that purple does not "naturally" exist on the spectrum as a monocolor I'm sure--your friend Newton did but it takes a while to "empirically prove" this), dark matter/dark energy, differential equations, or any of a large number of things.

Some things just take years of skull sweat. If someone is not up to that, then yes it's talk to the experts and see what they say.

So this would appear to be a version of the "it is in the literature, go find it yourself you idiot" attempted proof of AGW that I describe above.  Obviously cocktail parties are not the only place you will get this non-answer when you ask for proof of AGW, lol.

[fnfreebird]

Well the first clue is to always examine the nature of the people and real motives behind any significant man made blame for profit event.

That really reveals all I need to know. The facts then will have to work be developed and sifting through after their false fronts.

Just another cheap attempt to manipulate, control people and profit from them.

Another in a long list of contrived gimmick shake downs that have occurred over the last 30 years and amongst those others currently in the works soon to be foisted upon us courtesy the Fed.

[Frog79]

fnfreebird, on 26 July 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

Well the first clue is to always examine the nature of the people and real motives behind any significant man made blame for profit event.

That really reveals all I need to know. The facts then will have to work be developed and sifting through after their false fronts.

Just another cheap attempt to manipulate, control people and profit from them.

Another in a long list of contrived gimmick shake downs that have occurred over the last 30 years and amongst those others currently in the works soon to be foisted upon us courtesy the Fed.

Yeah, no kidding.  You would have thought the climate alarmists would have learned their lesson after being embarrassed with their attempt at a global cooling scare in the 70's but they have no shame.

[fnfreebird]

Frog79, on 26 July 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Yeah, no kidding.  You would have thought the climate alarmists would have learned their lesson after being embarrassed with their attempt at a global cooling scare in the 70's but they have no shame.

Complete deception seems to be the order of the day of late. Not a good sign. Biblically speaking.

'the Long Telegram' - advised:
The Russians are determined to destroy the American way of life and will do everything they could to oppose America.
The way to do it is by educating the public against Communism, and by making people wealthy, happy and free.


Spotting a Communist...
The principle involved is the distinction between the person who merely dissents in the good old American tradition and the one who condemns for the purpose of abolishing that tradition.

[Frog79]

For those of you interested in climate science without the political spin this is a very good site:

http://nipccreport.org/

The summaries of important papers are a good read as are the well-researched 2011 Interim Report and the 2009 Reports.   They lay out the case for natural factors influencing climate and highlight the utter lack of solid evidence for AGW and the severe shortcomings of the various IPCC reports.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 27 July 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

For those of you interested in climate science without the political spin this is a very good site:

http://nipccreport.org/

The summaries of important papers are a good read as are the well-researched 2011 Interim Report and the 2009 Reports.   They lay out the case for natural factors influencing climate and highlight the utter lack of solid evidence for AGW and the severe shortcomings of the various IPCC reports.

1. Since it was published by by the Heartland Institute, an organization whose stated mission is: "... to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." your first claim is rather doubtful.

2. As for the rest, reading the NIPCC and IPCC reports side-by-side is quite illuminating. I commend the task to anyone.

3. As for consensus and "well-thought-outedness" here in their own words is their "consensus" of the scientific community:

In June 2009, the first full NIPCC report was published by The Heartland Institute. It is titled Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The new report, some 880 pages in length, is the most comprehensive critique of the IPCC's positions ever published. It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

4. In light of what 79 has said about too few people writing and contributing to the IPCC reports, it should be noted that the first NIPCC report was based on the work of thirty five contributors and reviewers.  I can only imagine his howls if the IPCC reports had been based on that number! But of course that's a different issue when they say what he wants them to say. The 2011 report, also published by Heartland, lists a total of 11 contributors and reviewers. The howls here should even be a bit louder, I should think.

5. Joe Bast, executive director of Heartland--of rather extreme tobacco "rants" fame in his own right link1  &  link2...note Bast's/79's ever popular "junk science" claim now commonly used against climate scientists used here re. tobacco^*--co-edited both reports. Certainly no political agenda is evident in either of these documents!

---
^*No it is not a "rant" to point out that the same methods are used in two places by the same person/group!

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 27 July 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

1. Since it was published by by the Heartland Institute, an organization whose stated mission is: "... to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." your first claim is rather doubtful.

2. As for the rest, reading the NIPCC and IPCC reports side-by-side is quite illuminating. I commend the task to anyone.

3. As for consensus and "well-thought-outedness" here in their own words is their "consensus" of the scientific community:

In June 2009, the first full NIPCC report was published by The Heartland Institute. It is titled Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The new report, some 880 pages in length, is the most comprehensive critique of the IPCC's positions ever published. It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

4. In light of what 79 has said about too few people writing and contributing to the IPCC reports, it should be noted that the first NIPCC report was based on the work of thirty five contributors and reviewers.  I can only imagine his howls if the IPCC reports had been based on that number! But of course that's a different issue when they say what he wants them to say. The 2011 report, also published by Heartland, lists a total of 11 contributors and reviewers. The howls here should even be a bit louder, I should think.

5. Joe Bast, executive director of Heartland--of rather extreme tobacco "rants" fame in his own right link1  &  link2...note Bast's/79's ever popular "junk science" claim now commonly used against climate scientists used here re. tobacco^*--co-edited both reports. Certainly no political agenda is evident in either of these documents!

---
^*No it is not a "rant" to point out that the same methods are used in two places by the same person/group!

I guess when you lose arguments because you can't argue the merits of the science you have to resort to spittle-laden, ad hominem, incoherent diatribes to make your point.  I knew there would be a tobacco rant in that nonsensical mess somewhere.  You certainly didn't disappoint, lol.

Addendum:  If by some miniscule chance you have actually read any of the NIPCC reports and have any specific issue with the science presented, please enlighten us.  ;)

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 27 July 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

I guess when you lose arguments because you can't argue the merits of the science you have to resort to spittle-laden, ad hominem, incoherent diatribes to make your point.  I knew there would be a tobacco rant in that nonsensical mess somewhere.  You certainly didn't disappoint, lol.

Addendum:  If by some odd chance you have actually read any of the report and have any specific issue with the science presented, please enlighten us.  ;)

You tell me what the "science" is. That is the most basic problem: There isn't all that much and what there is has been fully dealt with. AGW is not, as the NIPCC says, natural cycles, hoaxes/conspiracies, and a hotter sun. That simply is not what the science actually says.

As for the rest:

1. What, specifically, is "spittle laden"? As opposed to completely factual or very short inference (i.e., that you would scream to the heavens about the IPCC if there were 35 total authors and reviewers, for example--hell, you scream to the heavens there were only hundreds!).

2. What specifically is ad hominem in the above? BTW, it is not ad hominem to say that a political person, with precisely zero scientific background, running a political organization with a statedpolitical agenda, with a long held, clearly demonstrated (and as  documented in his own words see links) political agenda very likely has a political agenda. What would be an ad hominem argument would be to say all of these and to say/infer other things. If you understood argument forms, that is.

3. What specifically is "incoherent". What in the above would a normal person be unable to "cohere" in their own minds?

4. Where, precisely, is the "tobacco rant"? Well besides in the Bast document alleging "junk science"? See dictionary before you reply.

Here's your chance to demonstrate that you understand "empirically proven"! I'll give you a lollipop^* for every clearly, coherently, nondiatribe empirical "proof" you are able to give!

---
^*Yes, I know this is plagiarized, but I doubt many know from where.

[Frog79]

Yet another in a long line of scientific challenges to Newf followed by an... ***EPIC FAIL*** ...on his part.

I asked you to find anything wrong (you must be specific) with the science in the NIPCC reports which appear well-documented and rock-solid to me and most other honest, knowledgeable scientists out there without an agenda.  But, of course, you trash the documents without so much as glancing them, preferring instead to attack the messengers.

You know, in a way I feel sorry for you.   My job is easy because I have science on my side, as the paper I cite in this thread subject proves.  You don't have science on your side so you must try to get us to make a non-science based huge leap of faith to support The Cause by the usual alarmist tactics such as tobacco rants, appeals to authority (e.g.  nonspecific references to non-peer reviewed IPCC activist junk science), personal attacks, etc.  

Hmmm...now that I think about it a little more in view of your diversionary tactics...I really don't feel all that sorry for you.  ;)

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 27 July 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

Yet another in a long line of scientific challenges to Newf followed by an... ***EPIC FAIL*** ...on his part.

I asked you to find anything wrong (you must be specific) with the science in the NIPCC reports which appear well-documented and rock-solid to me and most other honest, knowledgeable scientists out there without an agenda.  But, of course, you trash the documents without so much as glancing them, preferring instead to attack the messengers.

You know, in a way I feel sorry for you.   My job is easy because I have science on my side, as the paper I cite in this thread subject proves.  You don't have science on your side so you must try to get us to make a non-science based huge leap of faith to support The Cause by the usual alarmist tactics such as tobacco rants, appeals to authority (e.g.  nonspecific references to non-peer reviewed IPCC activist junk science), personal attacks, etc.  

Hmmm...now that I think about it a little more in view of your diversionary tactics...I really don't feel all that sorry for you.  ;)

I figured you'd have nothing specific to say except--how can it say it more accurately--a "rant"!

I have repeatedly posted material showing the science. I have repeatedly showed where your interpretations are not supported by the very articles you post. You, and the NIPCC--note I provided the documentation from NIPCC itself on this next point--assert that the science as communicated by the scientific community is compounded of various parts ignorance of natural cycles, hoaxes/falsifications/conspiracies, and solar cycles.  Sorry, but there simply is no evidence--"rock solid" or otherwise--that these are the causes of the observed body of evidence. That is, Heartland simply cannot show "junk science" for climate any more than they could show "junk science" for tobacco (or CFCs for that matter--it turns out that Singer is an "expert" in the "junk science"^* out there in all three areas). Heartland can only act politically to obfuscate in the political arena as they have tried in all three areas for decades.

And, as I said, I invite anyone to read the NIPCC and IPCC side-by-side and come to their own conclusions as to where the body of evidence and to where the politicization of the data truly resides.

If you have anything specific to say about your previous accusations, I await your "empirical proofs". I'm sure my lollipops are safe. As well, speaking of the lack of your skills re. "empirical proofs", I guess I cannot be expecting my 460 odd "few" dollars in the mail soon either as you appear to have forgotten all about that assertion? I have my own money in an envelope based on asking 10 people what a "few" dollars is ready to send to you as soon as I know my own "few" dollars are in the mail.

----
^*You--and anyone else--who spends any time on his page here will note three things immediately: All professionals in their own areas of expertise--climate, tobacco, CFCs etc.--are ignorant of the "real" variables they should be examining, no peer reviewer ever catches these errors, and scientific research is routinely falsified in ways that only Singer can see and not the scientific community who always acquiesces to the falsifications. Sorry, that is not science.