Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Solar activity is the most likely. It is difficult to tell for sure though. There are many factors, so many it is foolish to place the blame solely on CO2. The Pliocene is compelling anecdotal evidence that CO2 is not the main cause. If it was the main cause there would be no glaciers and sea ice at all right now.

Who said the "blame" was solely on CO2? That's reductionist propaganda. There are literally scores of forcing variables.

Interesting hypothesis about the sun. How should we test it? Let's design an experiment, and look at the evidence. Certainly, it is difficult, but if you could validate this wouldn't it be a ground breaking, Nobel Prize winning discovery? Wow, think of the implications.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Who said the "blame" was solely on CO2? That's reductionist propaganda. There are literally scores of forcing variables.

Interesting hypothesis about the sun. How should we test it? Let's design an experiment, and look at the evidence. Certainly, it is difficult, but if you could validate this wouldn't it be a ground breaking, Nobel Prize winning discovery? Wow, think of the implications.

"Who said the "blame" was solely on CO2?"

Who is blaming anything else? Not humy or sonhouse.

"Interesting hypothesis about the sun. How should we test it?"

Time is the only test. You cannot test the past solar activity. Maybe the sun is why the ice ages are cyclical. Can you prove they are not. No, you cannot. Curb your own propaganda before whining about others.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nobody says we fully understand the sun. But you are just injecting guesses, which are not much use in figuring out climate.

Nope. It is alarmist guessing that led to ruling out the sun. It is foolish.

Originally posted by wildgrass

That is not true and you have failed to show that multiple times.

The only reason you can say this is because you didn't read the presented evidence.

You also failed to show a correlation between CO2 levels and sea level rise in the last 100 years

I thought we already went through this. The correlation doesn't exist. Eve ...[text shortened]... ng up such an extremely profitable industry?

[1] http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

"The only reason you can say this is because you didn't read the presented evidence."

You did not show any evidence. You just hope if you repeat the lie enough people will believe you.

"I thought we already went through this. The correlation doesn't exist."

Then stop the AGW propaganda. You have no evidence to point to. The ice core samples prove your cause and effect is backwards. Temps come first then CO2 levels rise because of it. Give it up. You are making a fool of yourself.

Global warming is not an outdated term. Are you in fear of global cooling?

"Very few political solutions involve any additional taxes."

You LIE!

" The largest area of political resistance on climate change surrounds the removal of subsidies to the extant fossil fuel industry, which would force them to compete with alternative energy sources"

This is more BS. There are no real subsidies. They are tax breaks that you call subsidies which is an assault on the truth. Tax breaks are to keep start up businesses from going bankrupt after taking considerable risk and oil drillers need them or they would not be able to compete with the huge oil companies that can take the loss due to a dry hole after spending a lot on drilling. In other words, big oil would love for those tax breaks to put their smaller competitors out of business.

You are the problem, not the solution. Lots of tax breaks exist that do not involve the fossil fuel industry. Nobody calls them subsidies. You need to educate yourself.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Who said the "blame" was solely on CO2?"

Who is blaming anything else? Not humy or sonhouse.

"Interesting hypothesis about the sun. How should we test it?"

Time is the only test. You cannot test the past solar activity. Maybe the sun is why the ice ages are cyclical. Can you prove they are not. No, you cannot. Curb your own propaganda before whining about others.

The point is that noboby's blaming anything. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions is a significant contributor to climate change.

As to your "test" what are you talking about? How does time test anything? That's not an experiment. What does time tell you about solar activity?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Lots of tax breaks exist that do not involve the fossil fuel industry.

So what? Why does the oil/gas industry need to be propped up by taxpayers?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You did not show any evidence. You just hope if you repeat the lie enough people will believe you.

Then stop the AGW propaganda. You have no evidence to point to. The ice core samples prove your cause and effect is backwards. Temps come first then CO2 levels rise because of it. Give it up. You are making a fool of yourself.

*sigh*

Do we really need to rehash this? These are all cut/pasted from this thread (that you did not read):

Evidence supporting AGW:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/345/6199/919.full.pdf
J. G. Cogley, Ann. Glaciol. 50 (50), 96–100 (2009)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0128.1
Dangendorf, S. et al. Detecting anthropogenic footprints in sea level rise. Nature Commun. 6, 7849 (2015).
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/336
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n5/full/nclimate2896.html
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13487
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7593/full/nature16946.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2873.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate2961.html
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep17767

There is a lot more reading for you if you would like me to provide links. We obviously discussed Marzeion et al. in detail. You dismissed the data under extremely dubious rationale that the experimental system isn't accurate. Evidence that climate models are accurate:
[1] http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
[3] http://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict

And even if it were accurate, the scientists are biased. And even if they're not biased the data is wrong. Your alternative theory provides evidence that solar effects explain recent climate change, irrespective of human activity:

Time?

Originally posted by wildgrass
*sigh*

Do we really need to rehash this? These are all cut/pasted from this thread (that you did not read):

Evidence supporting AGW:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/345/6199/919.full.pdf
J. G. Cogley, Ann. Glaciol. 50 (50), 96–100 (2009)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0128.1
Dangendorf, S. et al. Detecting anthr ...[text shortened]... dence that solar effects explain recent climate change, irrespective of human activity:

Time?

I haven't followed the argument so you may have discussed this at length earlier, if so sorry. Regarding Marzion et al., you complained to MetalBrain that he "dismissed the data under [the] extremely dubious rationale that the experimental system isn't accurate.". You could mean one of two things. Either that the claim that the experimental system isn't accurate is dubious, or that the claim that inaccuracy of the system is enough to dismiss the data is dubious. If the former then I'm with you, in the case of the latter I'm left wondering why the experimental system being inaccurate is not a good reason to be skeptical of their results?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I haven't followed the argument so you may have discussed this at length earlier, if so sorry. Regarding Marzion et al., you complained to MetalBrain that he "dismissed the data under [the] extremely dubious rationale that the experimental system isn't accurate.". You could mean one of two things. Either that the claim that the experimental system isn ...[text shortened]... the experimental system being inaccurate is not a good reason to be skeptical of their results?

My criticism was regarding the former. Here was Metal Brain's quote from earlier:

45% (considering the margin of error admitted) could be the possible figure which would not be a primary cause. You have not met the criteria I set in the OP of this thread because of it, but even if it did say 50% or more it would still merely be theory since it relies on climate models which have a history of being wrong more than right.

Of course, if we are not confident in reasonable accuracy of the experimental system, then there would be cause for skepticism. That is why the "climate model inaccuracy" talking point is popular among skeptics. The argument goes something like "Climate models from 30 years ago failed to predict [insert climate variable here] within a narrow range so the science must be worthless".

What they fail to appreciate is that no experimental system is perfect, and virtually nothing can be predicted with 100% accuracy. Certainly nothing as complex as climate. But the models are accurate enough for their purpose (see references above), and regarding the Marzeion et al. study we were discussing, the climate models fit with the observational data. Metal Brain dismissed the data outright for an inaccuracy he could not identify, which is why I called his rationale for doing so "dubious".

Originally posted by wildgrass
So what? Why does the oil/gas industry need to be propped up by taxpayers?

Any business that involves risk of bankruptcy (a dry hole for example) needs tax breaks to ensure they can keep trying. Otherwise the wealthy businesses will almost always survive while the poor ones fail and cannot keep trying which provides necessary competition. Government could discriminate against the bigger/wealthier businesses but not all people are for that kind of unequal policy. You could debate that is a worthwhile policy if you want, but the fact remains that lots of mining businesses get the same kind of tax breaks.

Are you in support of eliminating all tax breaks to ALL businesses that take great risks to hopefully make a profit? If so, you would see price hikes that would likely make you unhappy and not just fossil fuels either.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I haven't followed the argument so you may have discussed this at length earlier, if so sorry. Regarding Marzion et al., you complained to MetalBrain that he "dismissed the data under [the] extremely dubious rationale that the experimental system isn't accurate.". You could mean one of two things. Either that the claim that the experimental system isn ...[text shortened]... the experimental system being inaccurate is not a good reason to be skeptical of their results?

The reason wildgrass keeps referring to climate models is because it is the only thing he has to cling onto. I created a thread about climate models called "predicting the past" and wildgrass avoided it like the plague. He knows climate models fail miserably to predict the future so he doesn't want to discuss it.

Furthermore, wildgrass' assertion that climate models were only inaccurate 30 years ago is ironically inaccurate. Fred Singer discussed their failures in 1996, just 21 years ago.
If he wants to debate climate models all he has to do is participate in my "predicting the past" thread. I suspect he will keep avoiding it like the plague though. He knows he is wrong, he is just trying to save face.

Marzion et al is all he can point to because it uses climate models that require no data to be presented. GW alarmists love to talk about the data as if it verifies their false claims, but they avoid it like the plague because in reality it does not support their assertions unless it involves cherry picked data that is tainted by the "heat island effect".
I have repeatedly asked wildgrass to show the data of CO2 levels and sea level rise in the last 100 years to show any correlation, even a delayed one because he claims climate models were not needed because of missing data. If the data exists as he claims, there should be at least a little correlation to make his case. The fact is there is none and that is why he keeps debating in circles always going back to that bunk Marzion et al that relies on unreliable climate models. Have you noticed that he claimed there is plenty of evidence but all or almost all of the links he posted are about Marzion et al?

The fact is that the only correlation between CO2 and Temp rise is in the ice core samples and temps come before CO2 rise as shown by the Vostok ice core samples for example. This proves the cause and effect is backwards. There is no correlation in the last 100 years.

All that is needed is a graph of both CO2 levels and sea level rise in the last 100 years. Climate models are only needed to mislead. If you cannot see it on the graph the climate models are clearly wrong. If Marzion et al really proved anything they would not have ommited the data to leave people with blind faith alone.

WHERE IS THE DATA???????????

Originally posted by wildgrass
My criticism was regarding the former. Here was Metal Brain's quote from earlier:

[quote]45% (considering the margin of error admitted) could be the possible figure which would not be a primary cause. You have not met the criteria I set in the OP of this thread because of it, but even if it did say 50% or more it would still merely be theory since it re ...[text shortened]... an inaccuracy he could not identify, which is why I called his rationale for doing so "dubious".

" Metal Brain dismissed the data outright for an inaccuracy he could not identify, which is why I called his rationale for doing so "dubious"."

You are such a pathetic liar! You presented no data at all. That is the problem!
I dismiss your assertion because of the omission of data. I asked you for it several times and you refuse to present any that makes your case.

Once again, show me the data of CO2 levels and Sea level rise in the last 100 years. I will even accept a delayed cause/effect if there is a clear pattern. If you cannot do that you need to admit you were wrong.

BTW, your Guardian link is biased bunk. Their source of information that climate models are accurate is skeptical science which I proved to be bunk countless times. All of the links you claim prove your case either have no sources of info or the sources of info are ABSOLUTE BUNK!!!!!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Their source of information that climate models are accurate is skeptical science which I proved to be bunk countless times. All of the links you claim prove your case either have no sources of info or the sources of info are ABSOLUTE BUNK!!!!!

This is false. It reflects your inability to read or comprehend the scientific material. The source of information in the Guardian article was this: [1]. They also cite [2]. In the study they report a "model-observation divergence of 0.056 ± 0.015◦C over the years 2009-2013." There was a skeptical science link embedded in the article, but it had nothing to do with the data; it was merely an opinion regarding a common climate model myth. In your opinion, is that divergence reasonable?

There is data in all of the original scientific literature I have posted thus far. All of it. So "where's the data" argument does not make sense, and needs further explanation on your part. Is your data contradicting the fact that climate models are reasonably accurate still coming from a time before the internet existed? Is there recent evidence?

I don't think you've argued your point effectively. Much of science across many disciplines use model systems, and they've been effective in many important discoveries. Obviously, the data that emerges has to be interpreted within the context of the model, but I don't think any reasonable observer dismisses all data that uses models. So do you have a general problem with experimental models, or a specific one about climate models? I also don't understand why you are insisting that climate models are bunk. What metric are you using? What deviance between observed-modeled would be satisfactory?

[1] http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/grl53276.pdf
[2] http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/an-apples-to-apples-comparison-of-global-temperatures/

Originally posted by wildgrass
This is false. It reflects your inability to read or comprehend the scientific material. The source of information in the Guardian article was this: [1]. They also cite [2]. In the study they report a "model-observation divergence of 0.056 ± 0.015◦C over the years 2009-2013." There was a skeptical science link embedded in the article, but it had nothing to ...[text shortened]... 2] http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/an-apples-to-apples-comparison-of-global-temperatures/

You are deliberately digressing into a different subject to avoid posting the data. Stop your dishonesty!
You still have not provided the data to sea levels and co2 levels. Admit there is no correlation.

Originally posted by wildgrass
This is false. It reflects your inability to read or comprehend the scientific material. The source of information in the Guardian article was this: [1]. They also cite [2]. In the study they report a "model-observation divergence of 0.056 ± 0.015◦C over the years 2009-2013." There was a skeptical science link embedded in the article, but it had nothing to ...[text shortened]... 2] http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/an-apples-to-apples-comparison-of-global-temperatures/

"There was a skeptical science link embedded in the article, but it had nothing to do with the data"

You are a liar. Skeptical science is their source and I never asked for data from that link and you know it.

You are a liar!